Are the Department of Housing understating the homeless figures ?

Travis Bickle

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
1,294
No-one has a problem with people going through a rough patch, whats irritating is the refusal of the left in this country to even acknowledge that many people have no interest in working, are content to game the system & moan endlessly.
Do you genuinely believe we have enough welfare Ninja's that can elude the checks and balances put in place for their entire adult life, to skew any stats in any great measure?
Everyone games the system. From politicians, to employers, to councils to the sick and poor. That's why we put yahoos like Varadkar in charge. Did he lose interest in his welfare fraud campaign when something more shiny caught his eye?

There was a time when being homeless meant sleeping on a park bench or the like.
We are now getting to the point where you must be counted as homeless unless
you have and own a modern mortgage-free 4 bed detached in your first choice location. Anything short of that and “the state” ie your neighbours are letting you down and you are
entitled to compensation.
The 'I'm alright Jack, go f**k yourself' Tories have you brain washed.
Rather than have thousands of men, women and children sleeping rough, the state and councils instituted 'emergency accommodation'. This is Hotels, B&B's and private rentals paid for by the tax payer to keep these homeless people off the street. Generally you'll find most, not all, rough sleepers are single men, because they are lower down the list. The state recently broke the all time record for homeless children. So even if you were to buy Minister Murphy's lies, having more homeless children than we did in the slum days of the 1930's is some achievement.
The big, main, number one point, you need to remember, for the love of jebus remember, the housing crisis and emergency accommodation costs INCLUDE WORKING TAXPAYERS, (the sick, elderly and poor) who cannot make ends meet and need a tax payer dig out.
All of these people are vetted by the department. If you've issue with this, talk to the department.

We need to start looking out for the tax payer. Murphy's lies are costing you and I money. If he takes homeless people put up in private rentals off the homeless books, they might be there for months and months rather than being made a priority. Whatever your feelings towards them, the tax payer is paying a fortune for these hotels, B&B's and private rentals. To sweep one or more under the carpet is hiding the cost from the tax payer and making Murphy look good, not solving anything or saving us money.
It's about optics and point scoring with these FG jack asses. If the homeless figures are lower, even if it's just looks and we aren't saving any money, grand job. The wasters.
 
Last edited:


JoanBRUTAL

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2016
Messages
530
Charity demands probe into wrong Homeless figures , Minister reveals hundreds falsely included in total , A charity chief warned the Government a review must be launched after false Homeless figures were released . Although the total has reduced by 1% , Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy revealed as many as 600 people where previously incorrectly counted as being in shelters . Figures released for March said there are 9,681 without a PERMANENT roof over their heads . Inner city helping homeless chief Anthony Flynn has questioned the nationwide statistics . He said " I have no confidence in the departments calculations . The Minister has admitted the previous months figures are calculated incorrectly. This is not a win for homelessness , its an indictment to say the least . Figures are not being calculated factually and the system is further in turmoil "If reclassification of of figures hadnt occurred then the figure would have indeed been above 10,000 people . "Any reduction in homelessness is to be welcomed , however we are basing reductions on inaccurately calculated figures . A full review of services is warranted and we must pinpoint how mistakes were made
 

bokuden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
11,250

bokuden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
11,250
And if they're considered homeless according to the department's definition, then yes: They're homeless. Agree, the dept can't capriciously change the definitions.

If they're homeless according to Louth's opinion or local procedure: They're not homeless.
Utter mendacious boll1x. No wonder no one trusts official figures.
 

venusian

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
6,834
Interesting story from the journal.ie today claiming that the Department of Housing
are getting Co.Councils to understate the homeless figures, probably in a desperate
bid to keep the figure below 10,000

Council told by Housing Department not to include people it says are homeless in monthly figures

Louth Co. Council are saying that they received a memo telling them not to
include families they have placed in emergency accommodation in the rental
sector.

So is the new solution to solve the homeless emergency to manipulate the numbers ?
Eoghan Murphy exposed as a two faced lying twat :)..no different from the rest of FG then!
 

fifilawe

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
1,580
If Eoghan Murphy were a footbal manager he would be "Unfit for purpose" and sacked b4 Xmas during the football season."Unfit for purpose,out of his depth, he is over qualified "allegedly" but he lacks nuance and is "lost like a child in a tornado", everything is a crisis about him but he cannot see the full picture from up above overhead.Dreadful at interviews put him in with parrots and budgies , cockatoos, and especially galahs.
The "galah" is the Aussie term for a dimwit.
 

Spurius P Albus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
421
Do you genuinely believe we have enough welfare Ninja's that can elude the checks and balances put in place for their entire adult life, to skew any stats in any great measure?
Everyone games the system. From politicians, to employers, to councils to the sick and poor. That's why we put yahoos like Varadkar in charge. Did he lose interest in his welfare fraud campaign when something more shiny caught his eye?



The 'I'm alright Jack, go f**k yourself' Tories have you brain washed.
Rather than have thousands of men, women and children sleeping rough, the state and councils instituted 'emergency accommodation'. This is Hotels, B&B's and private rentals paid for by the tax payer to keep these homeless people off the street. Generally you'll find most, not all, rough sleepers are single men, because they are lower down the list. The state recently broke the all time record for homeless children. So even if you were to buy Minister Murphy's lies, having more homeless children than we did in the slum days of the 1930's is some achievement.
The big, main, number one point, you need to remember, for the love of jebus remember, the housing crisis and emergency accommodation costs INCLUDE WORKING TAXPAYERS, (the sick, elderly and poor) who cannot make ends meet and need a tax payer dig out.
All of these people are vetted by the department. If you've issue with this, talk to the department.

We need to start looking out for the tax payer. Murphy's lies are costing you and I money. If he takes homeless people put up in private rentals off the homeless books, they might be there for months and months rather than being made a priority. Whatever your feelings towards them, the tax payer is paying a fortune for these hotels, B&B's and private rentals. To sweep one or more under the carpet is hiding the cost from the tax payer and making Murphy look good, not solving anything or saving us money.
It's about optics and point scoring with these FG jack asses. If the homeless figures are lower, even if it's just looks and we aren't saving any money, grand job. The wasters.
Well if I’m in a rented property with a lease that has one year left , am I homeless ?
 

Spurius P Albus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
421
This country is going ‘nuts’ as far as this issue is concerned.

Apart from those who insist on sleeping rough, there is nobody in this country
without shelter, warmth, a bed to sleep in , food to eat , a place to educate their
children and indeed employment . It is time to stop describing as homeless
those for whom the state will provide the essentials of reasonably comfortable
living , mostly free of charge. By comparison with the circumstances many
grew up in thro the 50s, 60s and 70s these are very comfortable indeed.

By all means let’s talk about the cost to the taxpayer of providing these and
the supply of housing/accomodation and solutions to that.

But let’s stop talking as if we had 10,000 people rough sleeping on park benches.

There are plenty other real problems to be getting excited about.







but homeless.
 

storybud1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
6,531
This country is going ‘nuts’ as far as this issue is concerned.

Apart from those who insist on sleeping rough, there is nobody in this country
without shelter, warmth, a bed to sleep in , food to eat , a place to educate their
children and indeed employment . It is time to stop describing as homeless
those for whom the state will provide the essentials of reasonably comfortable
living , mostly free of charge. By comparison with the circumstances many
grew up in thro the 50s, 60s and 70s these are very comfortable indeed.

By all means let’s talk about the cost to the taxpayer of providing these and
the supply of housing/accomodation and solutions to that.

But let’s stop talking as if we had 10,000 people rough sleeping on park benches.

There are plenty other real problems to be getting excited about.







but homeless.
it's anything but building Council estates and how to manage them while dealing with the tiny % of scum and ensuring the virtue signalers do not live anywhere near them.

The free for life stuff is a disaster, the free for life with responsibility is better, politicians and civil servants really don't give a flying fook about social housing as long as it is not beside them, but ensuring social housing is on a contract (must be kept reasonably clean and no more than 2 visits a year by the Guards etc) is a start,

Who on earth would buy a new house these days unless you knew what was next door ? you pay €300K , the neighbour pays €0 ? and wrecks the place ? big changes have to happen and the clowns in the Dail are not the ones to speak out,
 

FunkyBoogaloo

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
2,869
it's anything but building Council estates and how to manage them while dealing with the tiny % of scum and ensuring the virtue signalers do not live anywhere near them.

The free for life stuff is a disaster, the free for life with responsibility is better, politicians and civil servants really don't give a flying fook about social housing as long as it is not beside them, but ensuring social housing is on a contract (must be kept reasonably clean and no more than 2 visits a year by the Guards etc) is a start,

Who on earth would buy a new house these days unless you knew what was next door ? you pay €300K , the neighbour pays €0 ? and wrecks the place ? big changes have to happen and the clowns in the Dail are not the ones to speak out,
I'm almost positive (without actually knowing) that someone somewhere has called you an ignorant fool before.


If not, consider this reply the first time.


And the answer is no. I won't breakdown, bit by bit, the factual inaccuracies in your ridiculous post. Or any other ignorant stupidities you happen to have bothered to type in your above rant for that matter.

But you made me laugh, just a bit. A touch of schadenfreude on my part methinks. So... em... soz, I guess?
 

bonkers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
24,148
This country is going ‘nuts’ as far as this issue is concerned.

Apart from those who insist on sleeping rough, there is nobody in this country
without shelter, warmth, a bed to sleep in , food to eat , a place to educate their
children and indeed employment . It is time to stop describing as homeless
those for whom the state will provide the essentials of reasonably comfortable
living , mostly free of charge. By comparison with the circumstances many
grew up in thro the 50s, 60s and 70s these are very comfortable indeed.

By all means let’s talk about the cost to the taxpayer of providing these and
the supply of housing/accomodation and solutions to that.

But let’s stop talking as if we had 10,000 people rough sleeping on park benches.

There are plenty other real problems to be getting excited about.







but homeless.
Hopefully a silly little boy like you will get to experience homelessness. You deserve it.
 

bonkers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
24,148
I'm almost positive (without actually knowing) that someone somewhere has called you an ignorant fool before.


If not, consider this reply the first time.


And the answer is no. I won't breakdown, bit by bit, the factual inaccuracies in your ridiculous post. Or any other ignorant stupidities you happen to have bothered to type in your above rant for that matter.

But you made me laugh, just a bit. A touch of schadenfreude on my part methinks. So... em... soz, I guess?
It’s one of the most racist posters on this site.
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
14,585
Has organized crime infiltrated homelessness “charities”?

Sure looks like it.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top