Dublin mother shares footage of offered council house

Nothing surprises me

At least that’s a far more realistic and accurate representation of the situation than claiming that accommodation is provided to people who need it as a courtesy of working men and women (not to mention the number of working men and women who are also in receipt of welfare payments and their landlords who are in receipt of payments from the councils up and down the country).

I know it’s the luck of the draw where and how people are accommodated, and that would indicate that where they are accommodated is not their responsibility, nor are the repairs, maintenance and upkeep of the property and the facilities their responsibility. That’s entirely the responsibility of the council or the housing body or organisation who are receiving money to provide suitable accommodation for those people who need it.

I also know that what’s presented in the video in the opening post is not the standard, I’ve seen worse, and I’ve seen better, and I don’t blame anyone for refusing to be accommodated in accommodation which I would regard as wholly unsuitable and unacceptable. It’s simply unreasonable to suggest anyone should be accommodated in such conditions, let alone a family with children where they could easily injure themselves or suffer any number of ill health conditions, and then it would be the council who would still be responsible for having provided the family with sub-standard accommodation in the first place.

I think it’s only right to highlight sub-standard accommodation and refuse to be accommodated there. It holds the council responsible for their incompetence.

Why not? She is irresponsible and popping kids she has no home for.

I haven’t seen the pictures on Google tbh, I’m only going from what was presented in the video in the opening post. I certainly wouldn’t suggest it was suitable or acceptable for anyone else to live in those conditions either, but so far the only person who has highlighted the issues and brought it to the attention of the national media in spite of the fact that they knew what would happen if they did, means they shouldn’t be on the receiving end of having their circumstances forensically examined by a mob on social media determined to make them regret bringing the issues to public attention, especially not when they’re the same people are cribbing about how their taxes are being spent. They’re aiming their ire at the wrong target. The person they’re attacking has no control whatsoever over social housing policies.

I remember being very young (late 80s, early 90s) and my mother & Father were offered a flat in Dolphins Barn. I remember getting off a bus to have a look and we got up to the complex and my mother, nope and just turned around and we went home. We were living with my granny and grandad then but my grandad died not too long after, so we stayed living there.

I often think how different my life would have been if they decided to give the area a chance. Undoubtedly it would have went downhill quick.

Bit late in the day Niner to be asking those sorts of questions really, it’s not as though children come with a receipt, whatever we may or may not think of any individuals decisions. I’m not particularly interested in zoning in on individuals who aren’t responsible for providing suitable standards of accommodation in a first world society.

I’d sooner focus on the organisations or bodies who are actually responsible and must be held accountable for THEIR decisions which have led to circumstances where individuals choose to take it upon themselves to highlight incompetence and wastage of public funds. Are you satisfied that’s what your taxes are paying for? I’m not.

I’m not suggesting a garden is a human right either, let’s not lose the run of ourselves. I think we’re all aware of what is meant by basic standards of accommodation and living standards, and what’s presented in the opening post falls far short of it.

My rough understanding is that while someone is on a housing list like that they can get rent supplement and live wherever they choose.

When they are offered council places to live, they can only turn down a certain amount of options before they lose their rent supplement, and/or maybe go to the back of the queue as well.

Someone else might correct me or clarify details. That is my very rough understanding.

Speak for yourself there horse, I’d never refer to another human being as a parasite, and I don’t know too many other people who would either, regardless of their circumstances.

For starters, none of us has seen the actual property, only the surrounding area, so we don't know the suitability.

It's worth noting that these individuals are exactly the problem in that the government shouldn't really have to be providing hundreds of millions in accomodation for people who decide to continually churn out kids while on a waiting list.