General

Random entry RSS

  • Posted in:

    It’s just Daft

    Village has previously expressed concerns about how property websites compile their quarterly market surveys and the uncritical frenzy they provoke in the media. (See Village Magazine, March 2022 Issue or   https://villagemagazine.ie/donkeys-led-by-lyons/ ). Despite the latest reports again clogging the headlines and editorial, what is being passed off as analysis amounts to little more than reproducing the executive summaries of the press releases accompanying the reports.   There is undoubtedly a housing crisis in Ireland. Undoubtedly a major feature of the crisis is the dire shortage of availability of rental accommodation. The different market surveys all confirm this. What can be questioned is which of the different methodologies used best measures the actual magnitude, scope and characteristics of the crisis.   The nagging suspicion is that, while the findings of the property website reports capture broad trends, the flaws in their methodology at a research design level amplify differences and distort their findings.   The lingering doubt is that while these reports have high levels of accuracy, (the findings do not contain errors), their findings have lower levels of content validity (the methodology is unable to capture all aspects or the full extent of the phenomenon to be studied). Such suspicions are based on the reliance by these reports on convenience sampling / flawed sample frames.   The data generated is correct as far as they go, but they only go so far. Consequently, there is an obligation to be conscious of the inherent limitations of the research and to qualify commentary in light of these limitations.   The property websites obliquely acknowledge this but, it is almost never a consideration in media reporting – even when authors of the reports are being interviewed.   In reaction to the latest Daft rental property report, Focus Ireland reports that an increasing number of letting agencies maintain client lists of prospective tenants who they approach privately with new property listings instead of advertising them more widely on MyHome or Daft.   Moreover, there is mounting anecdotal evidence that single people in need of new rental accommodation are relying on their social networks to secure accommodation in house shares.   If these practices become widespread then part of the measured fall in the number of listings on property websites could be accounted for by a reverse networking effect. If landlords can secure new tenants without having to pay to advertise on the websites, then the number of listings will decrease. With fewer properties listed online, prospective renters will search elsewhere. Having fewer users then reinforces the decision by property owners not to list online and so on – establishing a pattern of steady decline with ever fewer online listings.   What is being observed in the shortage of rental properties adverts is in part, (probably in very large part), a shortage of available rental properties and, on top of that, there could be an additional element of changes in the structure of the property-market-advertising industry. Incidentally, it is a sign of the industry’s amour propre that they define “off market” transactions as transactions that are not advertised – even though these transactions occur within the actual property market.   So far this is just speculation (in an academic journal I would have to call the same speculation a hypothesis). Any methodologically robust attempt to test this hypothesis would begin with a scoping exercise to see if there is a prima facie basis on which to continue further research.   With a humility not present in other members of popular media, Village is inaugurating its own property survey – really it just a simple multiple-choice question. From the outset, it is very important that any findings cannot be deemed to be a representative picture of current real-world conditions; the value in the Village “survey” lies entirely as a suggestion if further research is worthwhile.   With that in mind, there is a link question survey on Twitter, ( https://twitter.com/VillageMagIRE ), if you or someone you know has recently begun a new rental accommodation.   Although the results will suffer even more from the same content validity problems, at least Village will make sure to highlight the substantial qualifications any findings demand. This is all that we expect from other media reports.    

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Alex Jones: Ambassador of the barking mad

    More than four decades ago, Chris the Kid Schroeder and I tried desperately to avoid wetting ourselves in a cinema whilst watching a 1950s promotional film about Dallas. The absurd shots of big buildings, huge hats, and sparkling Lincoln Continentals were accompanied by a repetitive ditty: They make ‘em bigger and better in Dallas! It really was not that catchy, and yet it tickled us so that not even the walk to the Savoy (admittedly after several hours in a very convivial McDaid’s) could restrain us from belting out the chorus. Ever since, I have been set off by any mention of Texas. But when it comes to online lunatics, they make ‘em even bigger and better in the state capital, Austin. This is the nucleus from which Alex Jones of ‘InfoWars’ spews his poison. Those who have never experienced Jones’ output can simply envisage Goebbels’ 1943 ‘Total War’ speech delivered by a quite convincing Jabba the Hutt impersonator. Mr Jones is currently of interest because in recent days he has been successfully sued by the parents of a six-year-old child murdered in the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. 20 of the 26 children killed that day were aged 6 to 7. In the intervening ten years, Jones has denigrated this variously as ‘a fake’, ‘a false flag’ and even accused bereaved parents of ‘acting’ – pretending to weep as they cradled the bodies of their dead children. A defamation case taken by the parents of Jesse Lewis (who have in the past received death threats from Jones) concluded last week in the Texas Supreme Court. In all, Jones has been ordered to pay a total of almost €50 million to the couple, though the plaintiffs had sought $150 million. Does Jones have such money? Some forensic accounting shows that in the not-too-distant past, InfoWars was pulling in $800,000 a day from the products (nutritional supplements, survival gear, and of course the ever-popular penis pills) his show promotes. This, however, did not prevent Jones from having the brass neck to file for bankruptcy in the middle of the trial. The plaintiffs’ lawyers were able to point to an income of $165 million over a three-year period, while Jones was claiming a net worth of minus $20 million. His bank statements also show that in 2021, he withdrew $60 million for his personal benefit. Jones faces quite a few similar lawsuits, which are starting to make Daddy InfoWars look like the gift that may just keep on giving. In his sworn pre-trial deposition, Mr Jones said he had ever issued any texts from his phone on the subject of Sandy Hook. On the last day of the trial, however, the lawyer for the family of Jesse Lewis revealed in open court that Jones’ own lawyer had emailed his opponent extensive files, including two full years of Jones’ phone records. Not only had he unaccountably done so, but when informed of what he had done, he did not take the appropriate steps to rectify the matter and simply allowed the statutory period in which he could invoke privilege over this data, to expire. This allowed the plaintiffs’ lawyer – almost at the very end of the trial – to walk up to a visibly shocked Jones and tell him he had now seen Jones’ texts regarding Sand Hook, proving he had lied in making his deposition. The presiding judge did not bat an eyelid but the prospect of a charge of perjury is in clear view. This would be quite enough for anyone on one day – but wait, there’s more! The large number of texts provided to the family’s lawyer apparently include some between Jones and one Roger Stone. Now swirling round mainstream news outlets are all sorts of comments about ‘intimate’ texts between the twice-married, homophobic father of four Jones and the twice-married father of two Roger Stone. Here I must pause for breath dear reader, as Mark Bankston who did such a bang-up job for Jesse Lewis’ family, now confirms that among the items sent by Mr Jones from his phone to Mr Stone, was a naked photograph of his Mr Jones’ wife. Monsieur Jones, now you are really spoiling us! Trump-pardonné Stone has been around Washington politics a long time, including as a stripling in Nixon’s last campaign. His lowest political point (so far) was getting kicked off the ‘96 Bob Dole campaign. It seems the ‘personal ads’ he and his then-wife had placed in the magazine ‘Local Swing Fever’ may have been a contributory factor: “Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular single men”. To avoid any confusion, the sporty pair included photographs of themselves. But don’t take my word for it – ask Jeffrey Toobin (CNN’s long-time senior legal analyst) to whom Stone disclosed this ‘indiscretion’. But I digress (and can you really blame me?). However, the coming weeks and months are likely to inflate Mr Stone’s CV. When he appeared before the January 6th Congressional Committee last December, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment to every question put to him. He will be back. Inevitably the complete record of Alex Jones’ texts provided to Mr Bankston caught the notice of the Congressional Committee. On 8 August 2022, it requested and promptly received those phone records. Given Stone’s position within the Trump camp throughout the whole sorry mess of the 2020 US Presidential election, contemporaneous messaging between Stone and Mighty-Mouth Jones must be of interest. We are quite good at joining up the dots in this country. Just look at sharp-eyed Bono, rocking up to the Hyatt Hotel, Orlando in February 1992 and looking all the way up to the 17th floor to see a face from home. “Ah, Jaysus, Ben Dunne! How’s it going, man?” Whoever thought something so simple could lead us into the private lives of such luminaries as Charlie Haughey, Michael Lowry and so many others? Let’s

    Loading

    Read more