Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

A long time ago on the 20th June 1968 Austin Currie began a sit in protest because Dungannon Rural District Council had allocated a council house to Emily Beattie a 19 year old woman who was the secretary of a local unionist politician. Miss Beattie was given the house ahead of others in greater need.

Today a High Court judgement found that St. Matthew’s Housing Association acted unlawfully over the allocation of housing in Short Strand. Mr Justice Horner said: “I conclude that the allocation of the two-bedroomed units was unlawful. It was not fair and equitable.” The judge also criticised one of the Housing Association Board members, Joe O’Donnell, a former Sinn Fein councillor, for failing to declare an interest in that one of the people allocated a house was his neice. The judge said: “It is contended… J O’Donnell was not in a conflict of interest, actual or apparent, because one of the units was allocated to his niece. I do not agree. It must be remembered that ‘nepotism’ is derived from the Latin word for nephew.”

, , ,

  • Barnshee

    The outrageous fornication of themmuns breeding like rabbits has caused all the problems.

    Look how they have destroyed our wee country filling the place up with Cliftonville fans.

    Look how they have destroyed the census figures.

    Look how they have destroyed the Irish League table where the top spot is supposed to be reserved for Linfield who we all sponsor with our taxpayers money.

    I would complain to my local politician, but he is one of themmuns as well…”

    Try facts and figures rather than invective– I leave others to judge your description of a section of the community

    “Who says it should, or did ?”

    well they do

    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/gudgin99.htm

    “how did Dublin Corporation manage to accomplish it ?”

    They didn`t

    http://www.homelessagency.ie/Uploaded-Files/Sustainable-Solutions-to-Homelessness–The-Irish-C.aspx

  • carl marks

    Don’t quite know how to tell you this, but the whole basis of your argument is sectarian, you see housing (indeed access to all services supplied by government health ,education ,or any infrastructure)in a civilised country is based on need not which religion you belong too.
    So if there is a need for bigger houses you build bigger houses, if there is a need for accommodation for the elderly you build smaller single storey type dwellings.
    I am reminded of our Gregory and a submission he sent to an educational subcommittee claiming that the reason less money was spent per child on Catholics than Protestants was that Catholics had more children (the oul they breed like rabbits argument that you are using) he was surprised when the British MPs on the Committee were shocked!

  • Barnshee

    “Don’t quite know how to tell you this, but the whole basis of your argument is sectarian, you see housing (indeed access to all services supplied by government health ,education ,or any infrastructure)in a civilised country is based on need not which religion you belong too.
    So if there is a need for bigger houses you build bigger houses, if there is a need for accommodation for the elderly you build smaller single storey type dwellings.”

    The item addressed to the larger famility unit -a situation by no means exclusive to the Roman Catholic populationt (tho more prevalent there)

    Says it all “you build bigger houses,”
    No I don`– build them yourselves

    t”hat the reason less money was spent per child on Catholics than Protestants ”

    If the Idiot Gregory had done his research he would have found out that The state took over the church based system

    The prods handed over the ownership of the schools to the state. The Roman catholic schools declined and remained in the ownership of the Roman catholic church..

    Any differencesin funding were down to the issue of ownership of the property. You don`t maintain what you don`t own

    The choice on damily size is a free one sort out your accomadation yourself

  • tacapall

    “Says it all “you build bigger houses,”
    No I don`– build them yourselves, The choice on family size is a free one sort out your accomadation yourself”

    Its a pity you dont apply the same rules to the royal family then Barnshee or is that once again in the crazy upside down world of unionism somehow different. Your putting the message across that catholics were somehow parasites, yet you have nothing to say about the biggest parasite family in the world here’s how much the parasite cares about her flock

    “Wonga shock: The Queen owns loan firm’s multi-million pound headquarters
    18 Aug 2013 00:00

    Her Majesty takes thousands of pounds a year in rent from company that charges up to 5,853% interest on loans”

  • iluvni

    How were those new houses built near Bawnmore in Newtownabbey allocated?
    Did all that ‘outsiders will be burnt out’ graffiti on the wall of Toys R Us have any bearing on the allocation of what has immediately become another little Republican ghetto.

  • PaddyReilly

    Nepotism strikes me as a not unreasonable practice, provided it is kept within boundaries. Quentin Crisp had two jobs in his adult life, one working for the husband of his mother’s friend, the other working for the husband of his mother’s other friend. If ‘Equal Opportunities Employers’ had been universal at that time, he would not have been employed at all. Another advantage is that for low status positions, there is no need to waste money on advertising, human resources workers, interviews, etc. You just appoint the cook’s mum’s auntie’s boy.

    Thus, in a hypothetical nepotistic world where you have the misfortune not to have Bob or Joe as your uncle, you merely proceed to an area where you are avuncularly provided for (or wait for the mayoral post to rotate in your family’s direction). This works very well for the native born, though not for Rumanians and the like, but even they manage to benefit in the end by intermarriage.

    The trouble with NI in the 60s was that the spoils of nepotism were unevenly distributed, Catholics being provided for only in the Newry region. The biggest objection to the set-up was that Unionists had a particular reason for denying Catholics employment, Council Houses etc, over and above the fact that they were not their nephews, in that the maintenance of the Unionist majority and thus the state depended on it.

    The delicate balance that enabled Catholic majority counties like Tyrone to return Unionist representatives had to be underpinned by a parsimonious distribution of jobs and Council Houses. The assignment of a Council House to a 19 year old single (Protestant) woman when whole (Catholic) families remained unhoused was, as Cockneys would say, taking the piss, and Austen Currie managed with a 3 hour occupation to make the news in the London newspapers, that is all. St Matthew’s Housing Assoc has not proved so egregiously wicked that anyone in London is interested, I am afraid.

  • carl marks

    Barnshee
    So you believe there should be no social housing, you also seem to Have issues with the tax being paid by Catholics being used to fund catholic education, this is interesting when i was a young man i was unemployed for a time a loyalist i knew (also unemployed) got very self righteous (in the same vein as yourself) and tried to tell me off for taking the queens unemployment benefit, i pointed out that i paid much more into the system as Tax and National insurance than i got out and if the dear old English exchequer stopped taking it off me I would happily stop taking the brou of them, he got very angry.
    Some people don’t like to have the myths that support their bigotry challenged!

  • Barnshee

    “So you believe there should be no social housing, you also seem to Have issues with the tax being paid by Catholics being used to fund catholic education”

    Read my posts

    I have no problem with taxpayer support for social housing or education

    Do you think all taxpayers (the state) should maintain assets it does not own ie schools?

    Do you believe that your freely chosen family size should require the state to make extra provision for you?

  • Kevsterino

    Barnshee, should Northern Ireland have a ‘1 child policy’ like Red China?

  • Barnshee

    Barnshee, should Northern Ireland have a ’1 child policy’ like Red China?

    Family size is a matter of free choice for the individuals concerned( see above ad nauseum)

    Do try to answer the questions

  • Kevsterino

    What sense does it make to build social housing that is too small for those who need it? I mean, you either build what you need or don’t build anything.

    Education serves society as a whole. Maintaining the ability of schools to educate the young is good social policy.

  • carl marks

    I don’t mean to patronise you but You see it’s called social housing because its meant to meet a social need, the clues in the name,
    As has been pointed out if the need is for hoses for bigger family only a fool would build houses that are too small for purpose that would just be a waste of money, does that answer your question.
    And if you think that,
    “I have no problem with taxpayer support for social housing or education”
    And just before that you said this,
    But the prods handed over the ownership of the schools to the state. The Roman catholic schools declined and remained in the ownership of the Roman catholic church..
    Any differences in funding were down to the issue of ownership of the property. You don`t maintain what you don`t own
    So they seem to contradict each other, which is it?

  • Valenciano

    “Do you believe that your freely chosen family size should require the state to make extra provision for you?”

    Not extra provision but suitable provision the same as for anyone else. However you could very well make a case for extra provision. Given the serious demographic situation in many European countries, encouraging people to have more kids and making provision for those that do seems a logical enough step, so that in the future there will more people to contribute to the tax base and pay the state pensions of you and me. The alternative is us all paying higher taxes and working until 75. Don’t fancy that myself.

  • ArdoyneUnionist

    I thought social housing was to give low or affordable housing to those on low incomes. Not pander to those that want to have more children than they or their need can accommodate.

  • carl marks

    ArdoyneUnionist (profile) says: 20 August 2013 at 6:00 pm
    I thought social housing was to give low or affordable housing to those on low incomes. Not pander to those that want to have more children than they or their need can accommodate.
    Seems like you just can’t help showing of your hatred of Catholics even when you try to dress it up as something else,
    But I shall explain, you see Social housing is not aimed at those with a low income for instance most in the rest of Europe most housing is “social” very few (even those on high incomes own their own property) in the political entity that is Britain Maggie thatcher sold of the housing estates to the tenant’s in the theory that if you owned your own home you would vote Tory, not only was the policy disastrous for society as a whole, it didn’t bring in the votes(thankfully) she thought it would.
    A good and varied stock of social housing means that the population has a greater degree of mobility (having no house if they must sell to move to a different area say to change jobs or to retire and be nearer the grandchildren) we can see the problems faced by young people trying to get accommodation nowadays with the lack of social housing.
    Now back to a even more important point families with large also pay taxes and contribute to society in many ways and while in bigot world this translates as themmuns are breeding like rabbits and decent people shouldn’t have to pay for It,
    Look on the bright side when all those kids go to school then Uni, and get jobs as engineers, doctors, Policemen or in my Daughters case a Lawyer on even head clerk in a council think of all the tax they will be paying!

  • ArdoyneUnionist

    CM, you take your MOPE’rey to new levels. Who mentioned religion I certainly didn’t. Are there and where there not large Protestant families or was it only good devout Roman Catholics who had large families???

    As for the pandering to those that can’t keep it in their pants. It is not society purpose to provide and subsidize 5 or 6 or 7 bed room houses for those that ether can’t or wont show restraint. That is what personal choice is about.

    As for social housing here is what shelter say’s about it and it doesn’t mention those who don’t know what birth control is or show restraint, it is about affordability.

    http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/Improving_social_housing/what_is_social_housing#social_housing_provides_affordable_housing

  • tacapall

    Remind us AU, how many are in the Windsor family, what size of property do they really need but unlike other scroungers they have access to lots of properties with dozens of bedrooms, all belonging to the state and who pays their bills.

  • carl marks

    ArdoyneUnionist
    “CM, you take your MOPE’rey to new levels. Who mentioned religion I certainly didnt”
    Oh I’m so sorry, you see when someone who has the word unionist in their handle complaining about others having large families they are normally using code for Catholics, Barnshee certainly is at least honest about it,
    Regardless if the opinion you express about large families is not sectarian in nature then it is so right wing to be next to fascist, more or less the Same thing!
    And as for mopery your the one gurning about large families and how unfair they are to those nice people like you who can “Keep it in thier pants”

  • Barnshee

    “I have no problem with taxpayer support for social housing or education”
    And just before that you said this,
    But the prods handed over the ownership of the schools to the state. The Roman catholic schools declined and remained in the ownership of the Roman catholic church..
    Any differences in funding were down to the issue of ownership of the property. You don`t maintain what you don`t own
    So they seem to contradict each other, which is it?

    Let me spell it out

    State fund education

    1 Prod Church hands over school property to state ie Church no longer own it State fully fund school

    2 Roman Catholic church says no thanks we will keep ownership of the property (still do as far as I know) State says fine – please maintain it yourself State pays other non capital costs (Salaries etc)

    3 Catholics schools get less taxpayer support—by choice

    Social Housing

    1 State builds houses -rents them out
    2 State retains ownership and maintains state owned property Property is recycled to new tenants as people die/move out.
    3 Taxpayer thus supports social housing

    (State offers to sell houses to tenants for buttons- “greedy “? tenants snap them up–council house sales big issue. A transfer of a taxpayers capital to a privileged section of the public?)

    Resources are not infinite. Education and Housing compete for resources against a range of other demands eg Health and Social security. Large family size will exacerbate these additional demands –as well as the Education /Housing demand.

    “Regardless if the opinion you express about large families is not sectarian in nature then it is so right wing to be next to fascist, more or less the Same thing!”

    Is it facist to point out the obvious facts– Is it right wing to identify and demands and subsequent constraints in expenditure?

    The facts may be uncomfortable for some but they remain facts

  • ArdoyneUnionist

    Now we are getting to the core of the MOPE’ry issue, don’t challenge or contradict my post on social hosing (which came with a handy link), to debunk my assertion that social housing is for those on low income who can’t afford to buy their own home.

    What social housing was and is definitely not there to do is pander to those who have large families. That is just plain nonsense? Housing stock is a mixture of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses. Social housing is not for multiple occupancy housing, that is called a hotel or student accommodation.

    Here is the case in a nut shell. If a Unionist criticizes those who have large families’ the MOPE’s default position is to claim that they are bigots and sectarian, notwithstanding the fact that there were large families on the Protestant Unionist Loyalist side of the community.

    (As I type this and I can almost imagine the scratching of heads, from all the republican MOPE’s out there in Slugger land, who did not know that large families were not just the preserve of the Roman Catholic. Yes Protestants had large families too).

    This is because republicans have been spoon fed a diet of; we are the Most Oppressed People Ever by the shinners/provos and they are now addicted to their daily dose of MOPE’ry. And they can’t, nay they refuse to accept that a section of the population has a different point of view and traditions.

    When they meet that alternative point they label everyone who doesn’t agree with their version of a la la socialist over the rainbow, deet da dee, Irish republic, as a fascist. Is this the Ireland of equals I keep hearing about? I think it’s more like the unicorn inhabiting place just south of Utopia were Irish republican MOPE’s live.

    All this because I believe in personal responsibility, nothing to do with sectarianism, race or creed or any other spoon fed fallacy of an Irish republicans MOPE;ed mind.

    It’s all based on the simple fact that if you can’t afford it you should not expect the state and by that I mean the tax payer and by extent me, to pick up the tab. For their indiscretions.

    All this because some bloke could not keep his todger in your trousers and his auld lady could or wouldn’t say NO.

    I must say that when it comes to housing the link put up by Barnshee, was most telling and debunked years of republican lies, about housing.
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/gudgin99.htm

  • Neil

    If you’re going to put up some kind of defence AU try picking a ‘historian’ who isn’t a Unionist politician. Among the factors glossed over are a) employment discrimination having an effect on need, b) the proportion of Unionists who owned their property (because they hadn’t been expelled from their jobs presumably), and c) the off the cuff remark that discrimination happened in some Unionist councils near the border mostly – in the expectation that this throwaway remark is enough examination of discrimination which this Unionist politican admits existed ‘in some places’.

    It’s also worth noting the admitted policy in ‘some cases’ to place Nationalists within the one ward to ensure they could only win that seat in any election, to support Unionist domination. Again this from a Unionist politician doing his best to deny discrimination, by providing evidence of gerrymandering.

    No doubt while you were seeking a report from a good Unionist politician to support your argument you’ll have noticed this, on the same site, in the same section and on the same subject:

    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/gibson3.htm

    Discrimination cannot be shown to have existed in a persistent and systematic fashion, but there are sufficient examples of building decisions being based on electoral calculation and of individuals receiving preferential treatment because of their politico-religious affiliations for the discriminatory element in policy to be undeniable. And this discriminatory element carried over into the period of expanded housing activity arising from the new conversion to economic and regional planning in the 1960s. (Birrell and Murie 1980)

  • carl marks

    ArdoyneUnionist (profile)
    21 August 2013 at 4:32 pm

    Now we are getting to the core of the MOPE’ry issue, don’t challenge or contradict my post on social hosing (which came with a handy link), to debunk my assertion that social housing is for those on low income who can’t afford to buy their own home.

    What social housing was and is definitely not there to do is pander to those who have large families. That is just plain nonsense? Housing stock is a mixture of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses. Social housing is not for multiple occupancy housing, that is called a hotel or student accommodation.

    I thought i did challenge your post,

    Perhaps you could supply some facts,
    1/ how many families in Northern Ireland have more than four children (under 18)
    2/ how many of these families are in social housing?
    3/ how many houses built by the housing executive or one of it housing associations have 5,6or 7 bedrooms?
    Some real facts instead of the usual mope ridden, my god their dropping babies like litter crap would help.
    I am afraid that this is going the same way as your classic mope ridden “isolated loyalist enclave of Hesketh crap” that you were posting when you first appeared on slugger and i had to point out how much nonsense that was, must we go through this whole process again.

  • ArdoyneUnionist

    You see there you have it in the two posts above its all about MOPE’ry. Guys get over yourselves.

  • FDM

    Cooking the books on the housing shortage in North Belfast.

    http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/255/ppr-report-equality-cant-wait/how-reliable-a-picture-are-we-getting-on-housing-equality

    Good article defining the dire state of housing stress in North Belfast.

    Nelson McCausland of the Democratic Unionist Party is the minister responsible. The same minister who is responsible for the sectarian decisions relating to the Girdwood debacle. The same minister who used Housing Executive funds for a sectarian leaflet campaign in North Belfast targeted at Protestant homes, with the aim of repopulating the lower Oldpark with the “right” kind of people. The word we developed for that is “Gerrymandering”.

    Unionism never changes. Same old tricks, different year.

  • Reader

    FDM: The same minister who is responsible for the sectarian decisions relating to the Girdwood debacle.
    That’s the “Girdwood deal” actually. It’s surprising you think SF would go along with sectarian decisions, but I suppose I wouldn’t put anything past the OFMDFM incumbent parties.

  • FDM

    Reader (profile)

    22 August 2013 at 12:50 pm

    FDM: The same minister who is responsible for the sectarian decisions relating to the Girdwood debacle.
    That’s the “Girdwood deal” actually. It’s surprising you think SF would go along with sectarian decisions, but I suppose I wouldn’t put anything past the OFMDFM incumbent parties.
    ———————–

    What deal is that? A’int you read the papers?

    All bets are off.

  • Morpheus
  • FDM

    Morpheus 22 August 2013 at 12:55 pm

    And so it begins FDM
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/catholics-frozen-out-by-plans-that-focus-on-mixed-housing-report-29518537.html
    ——————————-

    Back to the sixties we go in the DUP time machine.

    Do these eejits ever learn?

    Just as well that discrimination in housing wasn’t one of the forming events of the troubles.

    Doh.

  • Morpheus

    I wonder how they are going to pump up the pressure to the extent that the minister actually builds the houses in north Belfast. It will literally be the turkey voting for Christmas.

  • FDM

    Morpheus 22 August 2013 at 1:11 pm

    I wonder how they are going to pump up the pressure to the extent that the minister actually builds the houses in north Belfast. It will literally be the turkey voting for Christmas.
    —————————–

    Enough of the rope-a-dope from MMcG and co.

    Perfect opportunity to punch the DUP between the eyes.

    Redsky McCausland already shaky at the knees.

  • Reader

    FDM: What deal is that? A’int you read the papers? All bets are off.
    It looks like several posters with republican tendencies here on Slugger believe that there was a Girdwood/Maze deal between SF/DUP, and that this deal may now be off.
    Should I keep an eye on the SF website to see whether SF will actually tell the people of North Belfast that they sold them down the river in the first place?

  • Morpheus

    Reader: you’ll have to define the difference between republican tendencies and nationalist tendencies before sticking anyone in that particular box.

    But no, I don’t think you will see it on the SF website any more than you will see on the DUP website that they struck a deal with SF regarding The Peace Centre to protect seats/salaries/pensions in north Belfast.

    Those who were at the top of the housing list are still at the top of the housing list for north Belfast so it was inevitable that this would happen eventually so had PR not did but he did last week SF would have had The Peace Centre AND social housing in North Belfast eventually.

  • FDM

    Reader 22 August 2013 at 1:38 pm

    “It looks like several posters with republican tendencies here on Slugger believe that there was a Girdwood/Maze deal between SF/DUP, and that this deal may now be off.”
    ———————-

    Not what I said at all. I was merely pointing out that there is clearly a very sectarian agenda being followed in housing allocation practices in North Belfast. SF should get off their backside and start asking the difficult questions of Redsky McCausland to explain himself. I would start at the gates of Girdwood and very publically withdraw all support for it. Followed by insisting that an immediate start is made, by building or otherwise, to improve the chronic housing situation for all the people of North Belfast based on NEED and not religion.

    Surely between SF, SDLP, APNI and NI21 they should surely be able to muster enough weight to make moves here to get a FAIR and EQUITABLE allocation of housing in this chronically underserved area of Belfast?

    Not asking for anything ridiculous like free icecream for ex-prisoners. Just that ALL those in North Belfast with social needs are helped on a needs basis.

    My quip about “all bets being off” means that the DUPers can’t expect anything from SF/SDLP/APNI/NI21, post the letter from America, except HEAT and lots of it.

  • carl marks

    ArdoyneUnionist
    I said this asking you for facts to back up your outrage (believing rightly it was more based on loyalist myth than reality)
    1/ how many families in Northern Ireland have more than four children (under 18)
    2/ how many of these families are in social housing?
    3/ how many houses built by the housing executive or one of it housing associations have 5,6or 7 bedrooms?
    Some real facts instead of the usual mope ridden, my god their dropping babies like litter crap would help.
    I am afraid that this is going the same way as your classic mope ridden “isolated loyalist enclave of Hesketh crap” that you were posting when you first appeared on slugger and i had to point out how much nonsense that was, must we go through this whole process again.
    You replied (not being able to come up with any facts)
    ArdoyneUnionist (profile) says: 22 August 2013 at 10:19 am You see there you have it in the two posts above its all about MOPE’ry. Guys get over yourselves

    So seem I was right more sectarian BS dressed up as righteous indignation, after all if it wasn’t you could have produced some facts to support your argument but it’s hard to produce facts when the only place it exists is in your head!

  • Neil

    Unionist politician ‘historian’ excuses Unionist discrimination, and anyone who argues will get called MOPE (8 times in two posts, get a thesaurus will ye). Remind me again who’s whingeing about parades, culture being chipped away at, discriminated against by the PSNIRA, prods don’t get houses, prods don’t get jobs in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Typical Unionist behaviour, projecting your failures onto others. You should hit camp Twaddell and have a good moan about how the world’s against you and it’s everyone else’s fault, get it off your chest.

  • Barnshee

    CM

    I suggest you
    (a) beef up your arithmetic skills
    and(b) read the whole blog.

    Unless they arriving by space ship the (much trumpeted) growth in the Roman Catholic population would appear to exceed that the prods

    The increasing demands on (inter alia ) social housing, education and health systems are thus a function of an increasing population. Where these demands are created disproportionally, by a sector of the community, it is wholly reasonable to identify such imbalance. Trumpeting population increase on the one hand and at the same denying its social costs is a refusal to recognise reality.

    “I said this asking you for facts to back up your outrage (believing rightly it was more based on loyalist myth than reality)
    1/ how many families in Northern Ireland have more than four children (under 18)
    2/ how many of these families are in social housing?
    3/ how many houses built by the housing executive or one of it housing associations have ”

    I Recommend

    Shuttleworth, Ian. (1992). ‘Population Change in Northern Ireland, 1981-1991: Preliminary Results of the 1991 Census of Population’. Irish Geography, 25, (1): 83-8. … [170 which show a gradual decline from 1960 figure of a 6.6 to 2.2 ratio for catholic to protestant births with the prod birthrate static and the catholic in decline

    We await the results of the LAST census which will inform us on the details set out above If you want historic figures I can only (again) recommend http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ which ,in spite of glossing over some uncomfortable facts –is an outstanding resource.

    “Surely between SF, SDLP, APNI and NI21 they should surely be able to muster enough weight to make moves here to get a FAIR and EQUITABLE allocation of housing in this chronically underserved area of Belfast?”

    Underserved ? I suggest you visit

    Hailwood /Liverpool
    Walthamstow

    You would find out exactly what “Underserved ” means

  • carl marks

    Barnshee
    I asked some questions I noticed you didn’t answer them here they are again
    “I said this asking you for facts to back up your outrage (believing rightly it was more based on loyalist myth than reality)
    1/ how many families in Northern Ireland have more than four children (under 18)
    2/ how many of these families are in social housing?
    3/ how many houses built by the housing executive or one of it housing associations have. ”
    I believe we were talking about your objection to social housing for large (i think what you actually mean is catholic) families and although your bigotry is showing you’re not answering the questions!

  • Barnshee

    “I asked some questions I noticed you didn’t answer them here they are again”

    Check my previous posts
    I have given a reference for the 6.6 to 2.2 Ratio for Mick: Prod stats. Simple arithmetic provides that as I say unless people are arriving from space Increasing Roman Catholic populations show that Roman Catholic family size is (in general) larger than the Prod.

    I have provided you with a reference to “cain” (again see above)

    It is inundated with analysis of historic census data all recording larger family sizes (in general) in the Roman catholic community

    The detail for your questions will be answered I hope shortly when the final results from the last census are produced
    (emerging findings are that family size is declining over time)

    In the mean time try
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/popul.htm for a plethora of stats for a more historic view suggesting a figure 15% for 4 or more children

    Repeats

    The increasing demands on (inter alia ) social housing, education and health systems are thus a function of an increasing population. Where these demands are created disproportionally, by a sector of the community, it is wholly reasonable to identify such imbalance. Trumpeting population increase on the one hand and at the same denying its social costs is a refusal to recognise reality.

  • carl marks

    Barnshee
    I hate to do this (sad that i must really) but perhaps you could show me were you actally answered the following questions,
    1/ how many families in Northern Ireland have more than four children (under 18)
    2/ how many of these families are in social housing?
    3/ how many houses built by the housing executive or one of it housing associations have. ”

    Again since you are bitching about housing could we have some facts about housing?
    Also i just love the way you want resource, s allocated as per community and not as a non-bigoted person would expect for them to be allocated to individuals in need instead, tell me if the state goes down your line and allocates less resources to the individual catholic because there are more of them than prods will we be entitled to pay less tax because we are getting less back?

  • Barnshee

    I hate to do this (sad that i must really) but perhaps you could show me were you actally answered the following questions,
    1/ how many families in Northern Ireland have more than four children (under 18)
    2/ how many of these families are in social housing?
    3/ how many houses built by the housing executive or one of it housing associations have.”

    I suggest you reread the blog

    Repeats

    We await the results of the LAST census which will inform us on the details set out above If you want historic figures I can only (again) recommend http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ which ,in spite of glossing over some uncomfortable facts –is an outstanding resource.

    It shows approx 15% of families with 4 or more children
    approximately 35% of families in social housing

    “Also i just love the way you want resource, s allocated as per community and not as a non-bigoted person would expect for them to be allocated to individuals in need instead”

    It is my understanding that this exactly the level of analysis available from the census -see above. This level of analysis to ensure that allegations of discrimination are confirmed our countered.

    Two further points

    1 Family size is a wish or an aspiration it is not a “need”

    2 Housing is a resource which has to be paid for- we have a segment of society expecting to be housed via social housing. In NI this segment is ( sadly largely) subdivided into two groups- prod v mick.
    Where their is social housing provision the allocation should (in fairness?) reflect the subdivision –with houses allocated in proportion to the relative demands of the subgroups. This means that at any one time there will be more demand unsatisfied in the larger group than in the smaller group.
    This arithmetic proportion not discrimination (incidentally the same analysis applies to the job market)

    Repeats

    It is pointless to trumpet growing population size without recognising the social and economic effects of such increase.

    it is further perfectly fair to point out that the pressures are disproportionally arising from a segment of the community..

    PS I am informed that Stormont is “sitting” on the analysis which provides detailed breakdown of the last census data which shows all the who what where.