'I just want a home for my children' - mum on housing list for 12 years

Gatling

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

We were offered out current house for 80k.

It would need more than 40k worth of work all in to turn it around but it is an option to look deeper into if all else doesn't go to plan.

So 80 k for the current house which would need 40 put into it ,
You were offered 120k mortgage going by your earlier post .
So you could have actually done it ,but your hoping to be rehoused in a larger house but buy that instead ,but would bigger mortgage not be required for a bigger property

PuppyMcPupFace

seamus wrote: »

Then what?

What do you mean, then what ?

That's it - no D'Arcy whining, no coverage in the tabloids just over, done.

PuppyMcPupFace

osarusan wrote: »

Is that really the solution you'd be happy with in that situation?

I can see the appeal in the idea that they should get nothing, but it doesn't solve anything really.

Certainly there are some people who would be shocked into getting off their arse and getting a job, but for those that don't, do we really want to see their kids taken off them and them sleeping on the street?

Or is it a bluff? And the problem is that a certain number of people will always call the state's bluff.

I wouldn't bat an eyelid.

osarusan

PuppyMcPupFace wrote: »

What do you mean, then what ?

If they get seriously ill...we just let them die?

Ri_Nollaig

take everything wrote: »

Might be an unpopular thing to say but two things struck me about that article.

Why on earth would someone have a second child if she can't afford to provide for them properly.

And where is the dad (s). Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anything about it in the story.

Why have the first?
Probably to move her up the list.

Squatter

take everything wrote: »

Might be an unpopular thing to say but two things struck me about that article.

Why on earth would someone have a second child if she can't afford to provide for them properly.

And where is the dad (s). Maybe I missed it but I didn't see anything about it in the story.

Two possibilities:

either the Indo "journalist" (Elaine Keogh) who wrote the story didn't want to ask any difficult questions. As she sees it, her job is to scribble up a "human interest" story that her editor will publish. It's "misery porn" journalism at its finest.

OR

The journo and her editor knew exactly what sort of a response such a one-sided piece of soft reportage would provoke, and went for it!

Foxhound38

Squatter wrote: »

The journo and her editor knew exactly what sort of a response such a one-sided piece of soft reportage would provoke, and went for it!

I would imagine this is the case. Also mission accomplished because I'm fuming. :mad:

osarusan

Squatter wrote: »

The journo and her editor knew exactly what sort of a response such a one-sided piece of soft reportage would provoke, and went for it!

This I'm sure.

The Indo works hard to make as many people as angry as possible.

Stone Deaf 4evr

It cracks me up how little understanding people have of how the world works.

take her kids off her - ok, have you any idea how much it costs the state to keep a child in care? to pay foster parents, social workers etc? - Social workers will always try and keep families together unless theres a danger to the kids as its ultimately better for them, and less expensive to the state.

let her go homeless - grand, just say she dies on the street - quantify the cost of the emergency services, an inquest, a state paid for funeral?


If society in general can't look after their own, then it has failed at a fundamental level.
Its very easy to buy into the mentality that its all one way traffic with people on the dole or whatever, but these people spend money in shops, use utilities and services etc etc, and pay for that out of their meager allowance. A portion of this money spent goes back to the state as VAT, not to mind the fact that they help provide jobs by virtue of simply visiting shops etc in the first place.

ChikiChiki

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

It cracks me up how little understanding people have of how the world works.

take her kids off her - ok, have you any idea how much it costs the state to keep a child in care? to pay foster parents, social workers etc? - Social workers will always try and keep families together unless theres a danger to the kids as its ultimately better for them, and less expensive to the state.

let her go homeless - grand, just say she dies on the street - quantify the cost of the emergency services, an inquest, a state paid for funeral?


If society in general can't look after their own, then it has failed at a fundamental level.
Its very easy to buy into the mentality that its all one way traffic with people on the dole or whatever, but these people spend money in shops, use utilities and services etc etc, and pay for that out of their meager allowance. A portion of this money spent goes back to the state as VAT, not to mind the fact that they help provide jobs by virtue of simply visiting shops etc in the first place.

So what your saying is WE should just give her a house and be done with it?

amcalester

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

It cracks me up how little understanding people have of how the world works.

take her kids off her - ok, have you any idea how much it costs the state to keep a child in care? to pay foster parents, social workers etc? - Social workers will always try and keep families together unless theres a danger to the kids as its ultimately better for them, and less expensive to the state.

let her go homeless - grand, just say she dies on the street - quantify the cost of the emergency services, an inquest, a state paid for funeral?


If society in general can't look after their own, then it has failed at a fundamental level.
Its very easy to buy into the mentality that its all one way traffic with people on the dole or whatever, but these people spend money in shops, use utilities and services etc etc, and pay for that out of their meager allowance. A portion of this money spent goes back to the state as VAT, not to mind the fact that they help provide jobs by virtue of simply visiting shops etc in the first place.

She is being looked after, just not to the standard she expects.

Winterlong

ChikiChiki wrote: »

So what your saying is WE should just give her a house and be done with it?

We should give her a house and encourage anyone who does not want to work to apply for one. And give them a house too. Pronto.
And people who are working today should stop working and apply for a house too if they want one, or want a bigger nicer one.
Free houses for all.
And all the vat we pay in the shops will pay for the lot. And the magic money tree.

BillyBobBS

Foxhound38 wrote: »

If you feel so bad about it then maybe you should voluntarily agree to take on an extra shift to finance the house of the next 18 year old with no dependents who waltz's into the council looking for a free house.

You won't get a council house as an 18 year old with no dependents. Also iv'e asked the question several times on this thread but what free houses?

howamidifferent

PuppyMcPupFace wrote: »

I wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Likewise, situation is of her own making...

seamus

PuppyMcPupFace wrote: »

What do you mean, then what ?

It's a leading question.

You give her a cardboard box, so she goes to live on the streets, gets involved in crime, perhaps turns to substance abuse. Her children have to live with a mess of mother who's in and out of their lives due to varying degrees of sobriety and criminality.

After 3 or four stints in mountjoy, years of frequenting the clinics in Dublin 1 and consuming the resources of Gardai, social workers, health professionals, civil servants, she dies on the street and her children and family are left grieving and angry at a society that refused to help her.

Will all that be cheaper for society than having her on the housing list? No.

If you were given a cardboard box and told to cop onto yourself, you probably would. You mistakenly assume that the same logic applies to everyone else.

If this woman was capable of "copping on" and providing an unassisted life for herself, she would. But she doesn't. Whether it's down to a simple lack of education, or something more permanent like a disability, she's not on the housing list just because she couldn't be arsed.

What you're talking about is the equivalent of kicking someone out of their lifeboat into the water and telling them that they should just go get their own boat. While you pull their lifeboat up onto your yacht.

LirW

To all the people that are saying "take the kids away": Have you ever heard of the Norwegian Barnevernet? They basically do this, they take hundreds of kids off their parents for sometimes ridiculous reasons. You've been in Foster care? You're not fit for parenting therefore you can't have kids and we'll take them off you. You're from a different cultural background and your kid might be behind in school? Better take them off you.
These people sometimes never get to see their kids again.
They also get their kids taken off them for this very reason: They are poor and struggle housing them. Siblings get placed with different fosters and this results in hundreds of broken families.
Now THIS really causes mental health issues and treating this is a million times more difficult than being unlucky and being born as some sponger's kid.
I'm not saying it should stay the way it is but a system that's taking place in Norway certainly isn't the solution.

BillyBobBS

Hilarious to read some of the opinions from people on here about this issue. Thank god it's not a wildly held view in our society as there is a real bang of the the master race about it.

The answer is and always has been the building of proper social and affordable housing for those less fortunate in our society and indeed for those who are in average paying employment. Until that happens everything that comes out of government is just PR and bluster.

howamidifferent

BillyBobBS wrote: »

The answer is and always has been the building of proper social and affordable housing for those less fortunate in our society and indeed for those who are in average paying employment. Until that happens everything that comes out of government is just PR and bluster.

Agreed but until that happens, we should prioritize help for those who are making some attempt themselves, not put the free-loaders to the front of the queue. Make people like the woman in that article understand that her lifestyle choices are not my problem.

Foxhound38

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

If society in general can't look after their own, then it has failed at a fundamental level.

No, if people in general can't look after themselves, and society does nothing to compel them to, then society has failed on a fundamental level.

SEPT 23 1989

Even in the boom when tens of thousands of houses were being built it was still a ten year plus wait for a house

DrumSteve

Some seriously angry people on here.

rawn

BillyBobBS wrote:

The answer is and always has been the building of proper social and affordable housing for those less fortunate in our society and indeed for those who are in average paying employment. Until that happens everything that comes out of government is just PR and bluster.

How is she less fortunate?

Iseedeadpixels

DrumSteve wrote: »

Some seriously angry people on here.

Rawwwwr

Foxhound38

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Hilarious to read some of the opinions from people on here about this issue. Thank god it's not a wildly held view in our society as there is a real bang of the the master race about it.

Yep, it's all everyone else's fault she put herself on the housing list at age 18 (definitely the actions of someone planning to work at some point), spent 10 years waiting around for a house with no dependents while the rest of us worked our b0llocks off and and now low and behold she still doesn't have one having done exactly nothing to earn one.

Silly us, maybe we should all take an extra few shifts to see if we can finance this house of hers that little bit faster. Because where else do you think this money is coming from? Do you honestly not see why people who are working and struggling and being responsible are annoyed at the attitude of someone who has never worked, who is content to "wait for a house" for 12 years and moan in the papers that is isn't coming fast enough, all the while with 2 kids she can't provide for because she can't keep a roof over their heads? Do you honestly not see the problem here?

Jesus wept :rolleyes:

suicide_circus

This girl is the same age as me.

At 18 (when she went on the housing list) it was 2003/2004....I seem to remember there being a few jobs around. In fact I seem to remember walking into any number of decently paid part time jobs during my virtually free first year in college. Times were good. In fact I'd been able to obtain a multitude part time jobs since I was 14. It never occurred to me to put my name down on a housing list.

boardsuser1

Gatling wrote: »

So 80 k for the current house which would need 40 put into it ,
You were offered 120k mortgage going by your earlier post .
So you could have actually done it ,but your hoping to be rehoused in a larger house but buy that instead ,but would bigger mortgage not be required for a bigger property

No, I said MORE than 40k.

40k would barely put a dent in it.

pickarooney

Pinch Flat wrote: »

There's people who've lived like this for several generations. They expect the State to cater for all their needs - roof over their heads, clothes for the children, bit of cash in their pocket. Seem to make a comfortable living out of it once they know all their entitlements. No intention of saving / getting a mortgage / personal responsibility - just expect the the state to house them.

I imagine Americans feel similarly about Europeans expecting the government to provide education and healthcare.

The Backwards Man

If the energy generated by the rabble and their usual ranting could be harnessed for building houses there'd be a free house for everyone and no one would pay any tax either.

What could does raving about some youngwan cadging off the system do ye? She doesn't give a fcuk about ye, and why should she?

Foxhound38

The Backwards Man wrote: »

What could does raving about some youngwan cadging off the system do ye?

Keeps the blood pressure in check. We'll need it if we're to have the energy to work until we're in our 70's to keep the "no way, we won't pay" types with the lifestyle they have grown accustomed to.

Gringo180

howamidifferent wrote: »

I believe low paid workers should be helped where possible, those unwilling to work like the person in the article should be pointed towards the ports.

Why should the tax payer have to foot the bill for big corporations paying there workers minimum wage?