I’m going to start a similar campaign for cars. Don’t have a car? We’ll help you just take one.
MoyestWithExcitement
Sure yeah, that’s definitely the same thing.
realPolithicks
Idiot.
Rob_G
I can understand the impulse behind this, but it is all fun and games until someone trips on an unfinished floor or gets electrocuted from an exposed wire, and then they are figuring out who to sue…
Bookworm
They will sue all of us Rob
I know you care passionately
MoyestWithExcitement
Yeah, it’s much safer to sleep on the streets or hostels frequented by emotionally distubed heroin addicts.
Rob_G
Nice characterisation of homeless people there, Moyest.
While the heart of the people who are doing this is very much in the right place, I don’t think that they are fully thinking through all of the possible outcomes of their actions.
See also: Home Sweet Home giving a convicted sex offender unfettered access to a load of vulnerable people; nice idea, not really thought through.
A snowflake's chance in hell
Moyest likes to think in big picture terms Rob, he can’t be bothering with the exact details
MoyestWithExcitement
I didn’t characterise homeless people. That’s your own prejudice peeping through there. Well done. They have a heart and they have come up with a solution. You are just some busy-body whining online.
‘Gosh, there are lots of homeless people these days. We need to do something about this.’
Rob; ‘Sure we’ve always had homeless people.’
‘Maybe we can take over a vacant building owned by the taxpayers and put in some beds for the homeless folks who’ll be freezing otherwise.’
Rob; ‘You’re just virtue signalling celebrities so the real action you have actually done doesn’t matter’
‘Ok then. There’s lots of empty houses. Maybe a non celebrity could organise a few people to sleep in some of them’
Rob ‘Yeah but they could fall. Not safe. And those celebrities had a Bad Person in their ranks. I mean, nothing happened to anybody but he did something terrible some years back so helping all those homeless people was actually a Bad Thing.’
There are people who do things to help and there are people like Rob.
Rob_G
The fact that you used Apollo House as your example kind of proves my point – how many people are housed there currently? What, in the end, did it achieve?
While the government has been very slow in getting its finger out to solve the housing crisis, I don’t think spending people’s goodwill and resources on what, by their very nature, are stop-gap solutions to the problem is a good way to go about it.
MoyestWithExcitement
“What, in the end, did it achieve?”
It gave people warm beds and a safe environment for a few nights during a cold winter. You’d have preferred them to be out on the streets? Do you ever think through what you say?
Rob_G
I seem to remember an earlier exchange where you were appalled at the idea of people living in a repurposed industrial building, but people living in an unrepurposed office building, that would not be considered fit for human habitation under current building regulation, is a great idea?
Mattress Mick, who is a very nice and humane man, donated a couple of hundred mattresses to Apollo House. These mattresses are now lying in a landfill somewhere; wouldn’t it be much better if these resources were dedicated to a solution that permanently housed people? Rather than to a big publicity stunt that made people feel good about doing something, but that was housing precisely zero homeless people a couple of weeks later.
A snowflake's chance in hell
Moyest’s point is well made all the same rob
You’re up here every day having a snarky little poke at anyone you perceive as trying to do something positive for other people. Fair enough I accept you’re probably a libertarian but perhaps consider there are those in this world who are not as fortunate to be so bright and well educated as yourself, and who don’t have the luxury of displaying well-honed insight and analytical skills on the internet for several hours/day. It would be a bit more classy to shut the fupp up and enjoy your status rather than urinating on those who try to make some difference in the world.
Cian
MoyestWithExcitement: September 7, 2017 at 10:35 am
“Yeah, it’s much safer to sleep on the streets or hostels frequented by emotionally distubed heroin addicts.”
MoyestWithExcitement: September 7, 2017 at 10:55 am:
“I didn’t characterise homeless people. ”
You *literally* characterised homeless people as “emotionally distubed heroin addicts” twenty minutes before denying this.
MoyestWithExcitement
“I seem to remember an earlier exchange where you were appalled at the idea of people living in a repurposed industrial building,”
Yeah, that was Dublin City Council doing the providing. Apollo House was a bunch of volunteers and it was never going to be long term. You seemed to be all for putting people in industrial buildings then but not when it’s volunteers doing it. Why?
“wouldn’t it be much better if these resources were dedicated to a solution that permanently housed people?”
Sure. Where is it?
“Rather than to a big publicity stunt”
Homeless people get a warm bed in a cold winter and this is your take on it. Shameful.
“that was housing precisely zero homeless people a couple of weeks later”
It housed them for a couple of weeks during a cold winter. The alternative was them out on the streets. Forget your ideology and think realistically for a moment. You have a situation where 20 or 30 homeless people have a bed for 2 weeks or you have a situation where those 20 or 30 people have to sleep on the streets for those 2 weeks. Which is the best thing to do? You seem to be arguing that because you can’t solve a problem permanently, you shouldn’t even alleviate the problem temporarily. That is the argument of a child.
A snowflake's chance in hell
@ Cian
Is there anything more annoying than a dull pedant and anorak trawling around on bulletin boards trying to catch people out when they make small mistakes?
MoyestWithExcitement
“You *literally* characterised homeless people as “emotionally distubed heroin addicts” twenty minutes before denying this.”
No, I literally didn’t. Saying homeless people have to sleep in hostels frequented by heroin addicts doesn’t mean all homeless people are heroin addicts. That is some really terrible reading comprehension on your part.
MoyestWithExcitement
“that was housing precisely zero homeless people a couple of weeks later”
I remember John Oliver on the Daily Show, interviewing some American gun nut. He was opposed to gun laws because they wouldn’t stop all gun deaths. As John put it to him ‘So unless we can stop ALL gun deaths, we shouldn’t try to stop any.’ Same thinking from you.
Rob_G
“Sure. Where is it?”
– the Malahide Road, but you had problems with it.
“It housed them for a couple of weeks during a cold winter. The alternative was them out on the streets.”
– this is objectively untrue; DCC stated at the time that there were beds available for everyone staying in Apollo House.
It was a publicity stunt, that took no-one off the streets long-term. Even some of the people organising it feel the same way:
My bad. You were just categorising all *hostels* as filled with emotionally distubed heroin addicts.
MoyestWithExcitement
“– the Malahide Road, but you had problems with it.”
That prefab they wanted to shove 40 families into on a permanent basis? There’s more than 40 homeless people in Dublin, fella.
“this is objectively untrue”
No, it is objectively true. People slept there for 2 weeks.
“DCC stated at the time that there were beds available for everyone staying in Apollo House.”
And why do you think people choose not sleep in them? To help Glen Hansard sell a few albums? Do you have any grasp on reality at all?
“It was a publicity stunt”
For who? You keep trotting out that slogan. Let’s see you back it up.
“that took no-one off the streets long-term”
So if you’ve got a homeless person standing in front of you, you’re going to tell him to sleep on the streets because the only beds available will be gone after 2 weeks? You have no idea how anything actually works, do you.
Rob_G
If there were empty beds, then Apollo House wasn’t their only option instead of sleeping on the street, now was it?
Vincent O’Hanlon, of ‘Hands Off the Homeless’, one of the groups involved with HSH:
‘Spokesman Vincent O’Hanlon said Apollo House had been chosen as a “publicity stunt” when the Merrion Square building could have been used to house the homeless without fear of eviction.’
“If there were empty beds, then Apollo House wasn’t their only option instead of sleeping on the street, now was it?”
Did you miss the bit where I asked you to speculate as to why people weren’t taking them up? If your options for sleeping are a safe place and an unsafe place, you only have one option.
“Vincent O’Hanlon, of ‘Hands Off the Homeless’, one of the groups involved with HSH:
‘Spokesman Vincent O’Hanlon said Apollo House had been chosen as a “publicity stunt”
So it was a publicity stunt to highlight the problem of homelessness. And you have a problem with that?!? Why do you have a problem with people highlighting the problem of homelessness?
Rob_G
I am glad that you have accepted that it was in fact a publicity stunt.
I’m saying that all of the resources that went into making an empty office block temporarily habitable (plus the €190k that is still ‘resting in the account’) would have been better off donated to the Peter McVerry Trust, where they might have put a more comprehensive plan in place, instead of singing a few songs and everyone turfed out on the street again after New Years’.
MoyestWithExcitement
I’m not at all surprised by your desperation in pretending you meant publicity stunt in the same way Vincent O’Hanlon did. You never answered my question. Why are you so offended by those volunteers highlighting the problem of homelessness?
rotide
This is classic moyest
-It’ was a publicity stunt
-It’s not a publicity stunt. It’s not a publicity stunt. It’s not a publicity stunt. OK, it was a publicity stunt, but you didn’t understand what you actually meant when you said publicty stunt and Why didnt you answer my question?
-*answers question*
-Yes but why didnt you answer my question? God you alt-right people are like so uncool
MoyestWithExcitement
I didn’t say it wasn’t a publicity stunt. Classic rotide, completely misunderstanding what he’s confidently responding to. You make me feel happy to be me, fella. Thank you.
rotide
You scoffed at Rob 3 times for calling it a publicity stunt.
The implication is clear to people that can read.
Daisy Chainsaw
Sounds like Marino Institute student accommodation!
dav
Vacant property should be seized and it’s ownership transferred to the state to be used for the common good.
MoyestWithExcitement
+infinity
A snowflake's chance in hell
It’s funny how the latte swilling left never have any solutions other than those involving the corrupt use of state power to seize private property
edalicious
Ha, dav’s never swilled a latte in his life! Far too hipster for him.
A snowflake's chance in hell
He sounds like a fellow permanently swilling from a vat of the stuff, while simultaneously pleasuring himself on a red hot poker intruding into his rectum
dav
Please don’t bring me into your fetishes, though it does seem to confirm my theory on why the right wish to inflict so much suffering and pain onto the poor and sick of society – they get some sort of twisted kick out of, that they also seek when it comes to antics in the bedroom.
A snowflake's chance in hell
The latté swilling left perfectly exemplified by former housing minister Alan Kelly for whom power is a drug – there is literally no end to their predictable dullness and recourse to the formal use of oppressive state power to penalise the hard working
jumped up little trots the whole lot of them
Spaghetti Hoop
And if you had a rural cottage that you were working and saving for to fix up for your retirement, you would be okay with such a seizure?
dav
Any seizure, can of course be brought to be an arbiter. If you are planning to keep the property derelict until your retirement in 20 to 30 years, then it’s not in the common interest for that to happen to the state gets to use it, perhaps to return it when you’ve decided to retire.
Spaghetti Hoop
You said vacant, not derelict.
rotide
Suppose the common interest dictates that the house you live in is too large for your needs and would be better suited housing some homeless families. That cool then yeah?
A snowflake's chance in hell
The uninformed howling at the moon and demanding corporate totalitarian powers for the sovereign – yes that will fix the homeless crisis
Just Sayin
derelict property can be seized after 11 years
Rob_G
A functioning property tax could raise revenue for the government/incentivise people holding vacant proerty in areas of housing need, without resort to constitutionally-questionable land appropriation,
Harry Molloy
+1
Harry Molloy
that’s a valid point of view, we’ll need a constitutional referendum due to the explicit right to own property. maybe you can start a campaign to influence you TDs?
I’m going to start a similar campaign for cars. Don’t have a car? We’ll help you just take one.
Sure yeah, that’s definitely the same thing.
Idiot.
I can understand the impulse behind this, but it is all fun and games until someone trips on an unfinished floor or gets electrocuted from an exposed wire, and then they are figuring out who to sue…
They will sue all of us Rob
I know you care passionately
Yeah, it’s much safer to sleep on the streets or hostels frequented by emotionally distubed heroin addicts.
Nice characterisation of homeless people there, Moyest.
While the heart of the people who are doing this is very much in the right place, I don’t think that they are fully thinking through all of the possible outcomes of their actions.
See also: Home Sweet Home giving a convicted sex offender unfettered access to a load of vulnerable people; nice idea, not really thought through.
Moyest likes to think in big picture terms Rob, he can’t be bothering with the exact details
I didn’t characterise homeless people. That’s your own prejudice peeping through there. Well done. They have a heart and they have come up with a solution. You are just some busy-body whining online.
‘Gosh, there are lots of homeless people these days. We need to do something about this.’
Rob; ‘Sure we’ve always had homeless people.’
‘Maybe we can take over a vacant building owned by the taxpayers and put in some beds for the homeless folks who’ll be freezing otherwise.’
Rob; ‘You’re just virtue signalling celebrities so the real action you have actually done doesn’t matter’
‘Ok then. There’s lots of empty houses. Maybe a non celebrity could organise a few people to sleep in some of them’
Rob ‘Yeah but they could fall. Not safe. And those celebrities had a Bad Person in their ranks. I mean, nothing happened to anybody but he did something terrible some years back so helping all those homeless people was actually a Bad Thing.’
There are people who do things to help and there are people like Rob.
The fact that you used Apollo House as your example kind of proves my point – how many people are housed there currently? What, in the end, did it achieve?
While the government has been very slow in getting its finger out to solve the housing crisis, I don’t think spending people’s goodwill and resources on what, by their very nature, are stop-gap solutions to the problem is a good way to go about it.
“What, in the end, did it achieve?”
It gave people warm beds and a safe environment for a few nights during a cold winter. You’d have preferred them to be out on the streets? Do you ever think through what you say?
I seem to remember an earlier exchange where you were appalled at the idea of people living in a repurposed industrial building, but people living in an unrepurposed office building, that would not be considered fit for human habitation under current building regulation, is a great idea?
Mattress Mick, who is a very nice and humane man, donated a couple of hundred mattresses to Apollo House. These mattresses are now lying in a landfill somewhere; wouldn’t it be much better if these resources were dedicated to a solution that permanently housed people? Rather than to a big publicity stunt that made people feel good about doing something, but that was housing precisely zero homeless people a couple of weeks later.
Moyest’s point is well made all the same rob
You’re up here every day having a snarky little poke at anyone you perceive as trying to do something positive for other people. Fair enough I accept you’re probably a libertarian but perhaps consider there are those in this world who are not as fortunate to be so bright and well educated as yourself, and who don’t have the luxury of displaying well-honed insight and analytical skills on the internet for several hours/day. It would be a bit more classy to shut the fupp up and enjoy your status rather than urinating on those who try to make some difference in the world.
MoyestWithExcitement: September 7, 2017 at 10:35 am
“Yeah, it’s much safer to sleep on the streets or hostels frequented by emotionally distubed heroin addicts.”
MoyestWithExcitement: September 7, 2017 at 10:55 am:
“I didn’t characterise homeless people. ”
You *literally* characterised homeless people as “emotionally distubed heroin addicts” twenty minutes before denying this.
“I seem to remember an earlier exchange where you were appalled at the idea of people living in a repurposed industrial building,”
Yeah, that was Dublin City Council doing the providing. Apollo House was a bunch of volunteers and it was never going to be long term. You seemed to be all for putting people in industrial buildings then but not when it’s volunteers doing it. Why?
“wouldn’t it be much better if these resources were dedicated to a solution that permanently housed people?”
Sure. Where is it?
“Rather than to a big publicity stunt”
Homeless people get a warm bed in a cold winter and this is your take on it. Shameful.
“that was housing precisely zero homeless people a couple of weeks later”
It housed them for a couple of weeks during a cold winter. The alternative was them out on the streets. Forget your ideology and think realistically for a moment. You have a situation where 20 or 30 homeless people have a bed for 2 weeks or you have a situation where those 20 or 30 people have to sleep on the streets for those 2 weeks. Which is the best thing to do? You seem to be arguing that because you can’t solve a problem permanently, you shouldn’t even alleviate the problem temporarily. That is the argument of a child.
@ Cian
Is there anything more annoying than a dull pedant and anorak trawling around on bulletin boards trying to catch people out when they make small mistakes?
“You *literally* characterised homeless people as “emotionally distubed heroin addicts” twenty minutes before denying this.”
No, I literally didn’t. Saying homeless people have to sleep in hostels frequented by heroin addicts doesn’t mean all homeless people are heroin addicts. That is some really terrible reading comprehension on your part.
“that was housing precisely zero homeless people a couple of weeks later”
I remember John Oliver on the Daily Show, interviewing some American gun nut. He was opposed to gun laws because they wouldn’t stop all gun deaths. As John put it to him ‘So unless we can stop ALL gun deaths, we shouldn’t try to stop any.’ Same thinking from you.
“Sure. Where is it?”
– the Malahide Road, but you had problems with it.
“It housed them for a couple of weeks during a cold winter. The alternative was them out on the streets.”
– this is objectively untrue; DCC stated at the time that there were beds available for everyone staying in Apollo House.
It was a publicity stunt, that took no-one off the streets long-term. Even some of the people organising it feel the same way:
“I thought in this idealistic way, we could go in there, we could put in some mattresses, it all seemed so logical and simple, and of course, it isn’t.”
My bad. You were just categorising all *hostels* as filled with emotionally distubed heroin addicts.
“– the Malahide Road, but you had problems with it.”
That prefab they wanted to shove 40 families into on a permanent basis? There’s more than 40 homeless people in Dublin, fella.
“this is objectively untrue”
No, it is objectively true. People slept there for 2 weeks.
“DCC stated at the time that there were beds available for everyone staying in Apollo House.”
And why do you think people choose not sleep in them? To help Glen Hansard sell a few albums? Do you have any grasp on reality at all?
“It was a publicity stunt”
For who? You keep trotting out that slogan. Let’s see you back it up.
“that took no-one off the streets long-term”
So if you’ve got a homeless person standing in front of you, you’re going to tell him to sleep on the streets because the only beds available will be gone after 2 weeks? You have no idea how anything actually works, do you.
If there were empty beds, then Apollo House wasn’t their only option instead of sleeping on the street, now was it?
Vincent O’Hanlon, of ‘Hands Off the Homeless’, one of the groups involved with HSH:
‘Spokesman Vincent O’Hanlon said Apollo House had been chosen as a “publicity stunt” when the Merrion Square building could have been used to house the homeless without fear of eviction.’
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0116/845263-merrion-square-development/
“If there were empty beds, then Apollo House wasn’t their only option instead of sleeping on the street, now was it?”
Did you miss the bit where I asked you to speculate as to why people weren’t taking them up? If your options for sleeping are a safe place and an unsafe place, you only have one option.
“Vincent O’Hanlon, of ‘Hands Off the Homeless’, one of the groups involved with HSH:
‘Spokesman Vincent O’Hanlon said Apollo House had been chosen as a “publicity stunt”
So it was a publicity stunt to highlight the problem of homelessness. And you have a problem with that?!? Why do you have a problem with people highlighting the problem of homelessness?
I am glad that you have accepted that it was in fact a publicity stunt.
I’m saying that all of the resources that went into making an empty office block temporarily habitable (plus the €190k that is still ‘resting in the account’) would have been better off donated to the Peter McVerry Trust, where they might have put a more comprehensive plan in place, instead of singing a few songs and everyone turfed out on the street again after New Years’.
I’m not at all surprised by your desperation in pretending you meant publicity stunt in the same way Vincent O’Hanlon did. You never answered my question. Why are you so offended by those volunteers highlighting the problem of homelessness?
This is classic moyest
-It’ was a publicity stunt
-It’s not a publicity stunt. It’s not a publicity stunt. It’s not a publicity stunt. OK, it was a publicity stunt, but you didn’t understand what you actually meant when you said publicty stunt and Why didnt you answer my question?
-*answers question*
-Yes but why didnt you answer my question? God you alt-right people are like so uncool
I didn’t say it wasn’t a publicity stunt. Classic rotide, completely misunderstanding what he’s confidently responding to. You make me feel happy to be me, fella. Thank you.
You scoffed at Rob 3 times for calling it a publicity stunt.
The implication is clear to people that can read.
Sounds like Marino Institute student accommodation!
Vacant property should be seized and it’s ownership transferred to the state to be used for the common good.
+infinity
It’s funny how the latte swilling left never have any solutions other than those involving the corrupt use of state power to seize private property
Ha, dav’s never swilled a latte in his life! Far too hipster for him.
He sounds like a fellow permanently swilling from a vat of the stuff, while simultaneously pleasuring himself on a red hot poker intruding into his rectum
Please don’t bring me into your fetishes, though it does seem to confirm my theory on why the right wish to inflict so much suffering and pain onto the poor and sick of society – they get some sort of twisted kick out of, that they also seek when it comes to antics in the bedroom.
The latté swilling left perfectly exemplified by former housing minister Alan Kelly for whom power is a drug – there is literally no end to their predictable dullness and recourse to the formal use of oppressive state power to penalise the hard working
jumped up little trots the whole lot of them
And if you had a rural cottage that you were working and saving for to fix up for your retirement, you would be okay with such a seizure?
Any seizure, can of course be brought to be an arbiter. If you are planning to keep the property derelict until your retirement in 20 to 30 years, then it’s not in the common interest for that to happen to the state gets to use it, perhaps to return it when you’ve decided to retire.
You said vacant, not derelict.
Suppose the common interest dictates that the house you live in is too large for your needs and would be better suited housing some homeless families. That cool then yeah?
The uninformed howling at the moon and demanding corporate totalitarian powers for the sovereign – yes that will fix the homeless crisis
derelict property can be seized after 11 years
A functioning property tax could raise revenue for the government/incentivise people holding vacant proerty in areas of housing need, without resort to constitutionally-questionable land appropriation,
+1
that’s a valid point of view, we’ll need a constitutional referendum due to the explicit right to own property. maybe you can start a campaign to influence you TDs?