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

boardsuser1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And you let her?

She was caught when I was adding the child to my own rent book.

The welfare caught her in 2014 when I briefly signed on and was asked to declare any maintenance I am paying, so I produced the court order.

There are no PPS numbers needed for the family law court so tracing people isn’t as straightforward as it probably should be.

She demanded i clear her arrears with both the council and dole as it was ‘all your fault’

And as an added bonus demanded extra maintenance into the hand but refused to bring me back to court.

Same girl never worked.


Edit:

She has other children but never took the fathers to court for maintenance.
She either gets cash in hand or nothing at all.

She says she learned her lesson with me.

GritBiscuit

I agree in principal re the welfare state issues but I'm not sure what the solution is...

kildare lad wrote: »

Its a joke, dont have kids if u cant pay for them.

It's a great soundbite but how would you go about enforcing that in practice? Short of legalising forced contraception or making "surplus" kids wards of state and up for adoption or fostering...which create their own extremely expensive (both in practical terms and legal) headaches.

kildare lad wrote: »

There should be a law brought in if your on welfare, that the state will only pay for two,

The problem is the constant balancing act between being a responsible, compassionate society and being the kind of society which ostracises the poorest and most vulnerable as way of some kind of morality pushing punishment which sees single mothers and babies hungry and homeless because the state has washed their hands of them. Poverty doesn't stop people having children, a quick look at any third world country will show you that - and then there's the hypocrisy issue; a country can't claim to care so much about babies that you have laws preventing abortion and then effectively have state abandonment of the same babies as soon as they are born...

kildare lad wrote: »

Why are working people who are taxed enough, pay for layabouts to have multiple kids and their accommodation. Its a disgrace.

Because that's how society works. Because the Irish constitution gives special protections to the family. Because Ireland historically disapproves of contraception and chooses to make abortion illegal thus encouraging traditionally large families. Because 1 in 6 here have significant literacy issues which affects education and thus unemployment. Because childcare is horrifically expensive, there is little to no regular public transport outwith big cities, there is a kind of quasi-private education and health service which are both expensive and that makes low paying jobs which require little training/education less appealing than staying on benefits - and that's before you get to the huge social issues around generational unemployment, drug and substance abuse and mental health issues.

All in all it's a hugely complex issue...plus, I have to say I always find it sad and more than a little confusing that there is such vitriolic resentment over who gets the lion's share of the scraps at the table, all the while watching those feasting at the top helping themselves to another eye-watering portion.

boardsuser1

neonsofa wrote: »

If it was court ordered then surely all you had to do was inform social welfare, provide the evidence and let them deal with it.

That's more or less what happened in the end.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

She was caught when I was adding the child to my own rent book.

The welfare caught her in 2014 when I briefly signed on and was asked to declare any maintenance I am paying, so I produced the court order.

There are no PPS numbers needed for the family law court so tracing people isn’t as straightforward as it probably should be.

She demanded i clear her arrears with both the council and dole as it was ‘all your fault’

And as an added bonus demanded extra maintenance into the hand but refused to bring me back to court.

Same girl never worked.


Edit:

She has other children but never took the fathers to court for maintenance.
She either gets cash in hand or nothing at all.

She says she learned her lesson with me.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, she's the mother of the child you willingly partook in conceiving

boardsuser1

Melvin Immense Sandblaster wrote: »

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, she's the mother of the child you willingly partook in conceiving

I did and pay my way.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I did and pay my way.

Yes and you chose to have a child with her but you've just ran her into the ground at every opportunity, it's very disrespectful

boardsuser1

Melvin Immense Sandblaster wrote: »

Yes and you chose to have a child with her but you've just ran her into the ground at every opportunity, it's very disrespectful

I didn't run her into the ground.

I was asked for evidence of maintenance payments by the DSP when i signed on and provided them, as for adding the child to my rent book,i wasn't aware what she had declared to them in relation to income.

So i think your comment is a bit unfair.

If you wish to continue to direct ire at me then please feel free to PM and not on thread.

JohnMc1

Western Europe is going to be in trouble soon. The Welfare state will run out eventually as people paying into the system become less and less while the takers grows more and more [and no doubt the "refugees" coming in will also be on the dole as well]

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

CTD, you're the highest contributer to the thread with 316 posts and the next highest is 124. You've made yourself the centre of the thread, criticising others waiting on houses but telling us all yourself you're currently in one council house waiting on a bigger one because you've decided to increase the size of your family without having means to put a roof over their new heads.
You're posting personal information in regards to your child's mother, stating how she's never worked a day in her life and how she's scammed the state and council. This is a woman that was good enough to throw your leg across, and breed with. If you've no respect for the mother of your child at least show a little for your child. You're not coming across any better than she is

boardsuser1

Melvin Immense Sandblaster wrote: »

CTD, you're the highest contributer to the thread with 316 posts and the next highest is 124. You've made yourself the centre of the thread, criticising others waiting on houses but telling us all yourself you're currently in one council house waiting on a bigger one because you've decided to increase the size of your family without having means to put a roof over their new heads.
You're posting personal information in regards to your child's mother, stating how she's never worked a day in her life and how she's scammed the state and council. This is a woman that was good enough to throw your leg across, and breed with. If you've no respect for the mother of your child at least show a little for your child. You're not coming across any better than she is

I work,my partner works.

As for how many posts i've had, i didn't know that so thank you for that bit of information, i thought the motorsport forum was the one i had the most posts in.

I never said i didn't have any respect for the mother, we don't get on but i do try to remain civil with her.

As for the child, i do my absolute best for her.

In relation to having more kids, if i work and pay for them where is the issue?

The council house issue was already covered before, i am sick of going around in circles on that one, i got mortgage approval but we have decided to put that on hold and revisit it in 2018 in the hope of getting an increased mortgage, where we are at present wouldn't be financially viable to buy.

In relation to 'breeding' with my ex, i was young and stupid and learned valuable lessons in life from it.

May we please move away from discussing me as i tried to do in the previous post?

Thank you

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I work,my partner works.

As for how many posts i've had, i didn't know that so thank you for that bit of information, i thought the motorsport forum was the one i had the most posts in.

I never said i didn't have any respect for the mother, we don't get on but i do try to remain civil with her.

As for the child, i do my absolute best for her.

In relation to having more kids, if i work and pay for them where is the issue?

The council house issue was already covered before, i am sick of going around in circles on that one, i got mortgage approval but we have decided to put that on hold and revisit it in 2018 in the hope of getting an increased mortgage, where we are at present wouldn't be financially viable to buy.

In relation to 'breeding' with my ex, i was young and stupid and learned valuable lessons in life from it.

May we please move away from discussing me as i tried to do in the previous post?

Thank you

You're missing the point. You're the one volunteering all this personal information. You've made this thread the Cork Truck Driver show, nobody else. I personally don't care about your personal background, it's irrelevant but it boils my pi55 seeing people running down their child's other parent like they had no hand act nor part in the child actually being created with the person they're running down.

You're approved for a mortgage to buy a council house heavily subsidised by the government i.e. The taxpayers. You're relying on state assistance. You're in the same boat as the people you're belittling.

boardsuser1

Melvin Immense Sandblaster wrote: »

You're missing the point. You're the one volunteering all this personal information. You've made this thread the Cork Truck Driver show, nobody else. I personally don't care about your personal background, it's irrelevant but it boils my pi55 seeing people running down their child's other parent like they had no hand act nor part in the child actually being created with the person they're running down.

You're approved for a mortgage to buy a council house heavily subsidised by the government i.e. The taxpayers. You're relying on state assistance. You're in the same boat as the people you're belittling.

I already told you to PM me if you wish to direct your ire at me.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I already told you to PM me if you wish to direct your ire at me.

Sorry I missed the mod instruction.

suicide_circus

CTD do you think it's reasonable to continue procreating while the state is housing one of your kids?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

suicide_circus wrote: »

CTD do you think it's reasonable to continue procreating while the state is housing one of your kids?

The state is housing all his kids

suicide_circus

Melvin Immense Sandblaster wrote: »

The state is housing all his kids

Oh

corner of hells

suicide_circus wrote: »

CTD do you think it's reasonable to continue procreating while the state is housing one of your kids?

I don't we should be personalizing the topic , CTD has been probably too honest around the subject but he has given an honest insight to his own experiences .

neonsofa

corner of hells wrote: »

I don't we should be personalizing the topic , CTD has been probably too honest around the subject but he has given an honest insight to his own experiences .

While he posts link after link to people (even in other countries) who dare to hope for council housing when he is living in council housing himself. Well and truly pulled the ladder up behind him. One rule for him and another for the rest. His own extenuating circumstances should apparently be considered but not those of other people seeking state support- its purely black and white in those cases.

However i do agree with you, it shouldnt be personalised. CTD is the one constantly making it about his own situation and his ex though tbf.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mod note: Bring this back on topic please, folks, or it will be wound up. You've made your points to and about the poster, now move it along.

Thanks in advance,

Buford T. Justice.

corner of hells

neonsofa wrote: »

corner of hells wrote: »

I don't we should be personalizing the topic , CTD has been probably too honest around the subject but he has given an honest insight to his own experiences .

While he posts link after link to people (even in other countries) who dare to hope for council housing when he is living in council housing himself. Well and truly pulled the ladder up behind him. One rule for him and another for the rest. His own extenuating circumstances should apparently be considered but not those of other people seeking state support- its purely black and white in those cases.

However i do agree with you, it shouldnt be personalised. CTD is the one constantly making it about his own situation and his ex though tbf.

And to be very honest with you I haven't been following his posts much so I'm really only commenting on what I've seen today and yesterday.
From my own experiences working in homeless services accessing a council property now is almost impossible.

neonsofa

corner of hells wrote: »

And to be very honest with you I haven't been following his posts much so I'm really only commenting on what I've seen today and yesterday.
From my own experiences working in homeless services accessing a council property now is almost impossible.

Yep its near impossible for most people. But there has been some high profile cases in the media who were given council housing after kicking up a fuss so its not surprising that people go to the media in the hope of the same happening for them. Unfortunately it is rarely the genuine cases that do so. The genuine cases who truly deserve and require assistance rarely have their voices heard in my experience.

Mrs OBumble

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Since when do immigrant people, who don't like the house they get, get the opportunity to move, while other families are stuck in B&B's with NO house???

They don't.

There must have been something very wrong with the house where they were for the council to be allowing a transfer. Hopefully the council can find someoneelse who's desperate enough to take it.

The woman in the BnB who killed herself had been offered a house

corner of hells

neonsofa wrote: »

corner of hells wrote: »

And to be very honest with you I haven't been following his posts much so I'm really only commenting on what I've seen today and yesterday.
From my own experiences working in homeless services accessing a council property now is almost impossible.

Yep its near impossible for most people. But there has been some high profile cases in the media who were given council housing after kicking up a fuss so its not surprising that people go to the media in the hope of the same happening for them. Unfortunately it is rarely the genuine cases that do so. The genuine cases who truly deserve and require assistance rarely have their voices heard in my experience.

I think the ones in media were given housing association properties, I'm pretty certain one the recent ones was housed through focus or novas.

It's really unusual for someone to get directly into a council property unless your years waiting.
Again I have to be honest I deal directly with homeless .

neonsofa

corner of hells wrote: »

I think the ones in media were given housing association properties, I'm pretty certain one the recent ones was housed through focus or novas.

It's really unusual for someone to get directly into a council property unless your years waiting.
Again I have to be honest I deal directly with homeless .

The people going to the media have been waiting years. This woman in op was 12 years on it. Erica Flemming for example, and another woman who was on the same show.

Now you could argue that they would have been close to receiving it regardless of the media attention but people dont view it that way, they see that the media attention led to the person getting their house so they try the same.

I would have a lot of dealings with homeless agencies and county councils in the course of my own work too. And its frustrating to say the least, i wouldnt be able to do that work day in day out. I am not saying those who go to the media get what they are asking for, more that it looks like others have, so we see more and more people doing the same in the hope that they will too. But its never the genuine cases,it is those chancing their arm, in questionable circunstances, which perpetuates the stereotypes and takes away from those genuinely in need.

corner of hells

neonsofa wrote: »

corner of hells wrote: »

I think the ones in media were given housing association properties, I'm pretty certain one the recent ones was housed through focus or novas.

It's really unusual for someone to get directly into a council property unless your years waiting.
Again I have to be honest I deal directly with homeless .

The people going to the media have been waiting years. This woman in op was 12 years on it. Erica Flemming for example, and another woman who was on the same show.

Now you could argue that they would have been close to receiving it regardless of the media attention but people dont view it that way, they see that the media attention led to the person getting their house so they try the same.

I would have a lot of dealings with homeless agencies and county councils in the course of my own work too. And its frustrating to say the least, i wouldnt be able to do that work day in day out. I am not saying those who go to the media get what they are asking for, more that it looks like others have, so we see more and more people doing the same in the hope that they will too. But its never the genuine cases,it is those chancing their arm, in questionable circunstances, which perpetuates the stereotypes and takes away from those genuinely in need.

Yeah I get what you're saying.
I tend to switch off when I see someone going to the media.

PeterParker957

The one in the UK a week or so back saying how great the kids' dad was "coming round 3-4 times a week."

Yeah can come round to get his oats but can't house the kids he made ???

PeterParker957

PeterParker957 wrote: »

The one in the UK a week or so back saying how great the kids' dad was "coming round 3-4 times a week."

Yeah can come round to get his oats but can't house the kids he made ???

I would have thought that his one bedroom apartment would be better than living in one bedroom at her mums.

PeterParker957

Deleted User wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

The one in the UK a week or so back saying how great the kids' dad was "coming round 3-4 times a week."

Yeah can come round to get his oats but can't house the kids he made ???

I would have thought that his one bedroom apartment would be better than living in one bedroom at her mums.

I suspect there's a reason why they're not living there.....!

kildare lad

GritBiscuit wrote: »

I agree in principal re the welfare state issues but I'm not sure what the solution is...



It's a great soundbite but how would you go about enforcing that in practice? Short of legalising forced contraception or making "surplus" kids wards of state and up for adoption or fostering...which create their own extremely expensive (both in practical terms and legal) headaches.



The problem is the constant balancing act between being a responsible, compassionate society and being the kind of society which ostracises the poorest and most vulnerable as way of some kind of morality pushing punishment which sees single mothers and babies hungry and homeless because the state has washed their hands of them. Poverty doesn't stop people having children, a quick look at any third world country will show you that - and then there's the hypocrisy issue; a country can't claim to care so much about babies that you have laws preventing abortion and then effectively have state abandonment of the same babies as soon as they are born...



Because that's how society works. Because the Irish constitution gives special protections to the family. Because Ireland historically disapproves of contraception and chooses to make abortion illegal thus encouraging traditionally large families. Because 1 in 6 here have significant literacy issues which affects education and thus unemployment. Because childcare is horrifically expensive, there is little to no regular public transport outwith big cities, there is a kind of quasi-private education and health service which are both expensive and that makes low paying jobs which require little training/education less appealing than staying on benefits - and that's before you get to the huge social issues around generational unemployment, drug and substance abuse and mental health issues. .

We have a culture here of people leeching off the state. Its an absolute piss take. Im not talking about people who work and lose there job. Im talking about people who have no interest in working or contributing to society getting a free pass. Say theres a couple with two kids, both are on the dole and getting rent allowance, medical cards etc. If they decide on having another child they should pay for the child, themselves by working. What sort of ethics is that to pass on to the next generation, neither parent working, living off the state, when theres plenty of work there at the minute, but some people have the mentality of, ah just have a few kids, get a gaf off the social, you'll be grand.

suicide_circus

^^^^a higher rate of job seekers for those who have made prsi contributions (as suggested at the FG Ard fheis yesterday) would at least go some way to incentivising work vs not working. The current situation where person A having never contributed a cent in prsi or usc receives the same dole as person B who has been working for 20 years is deeply immoral.