Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Gatling

Punish the worker

Reward the lazy

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't feel punished for having kids unless you mean having to work to pay for them which of course I should do.

Everyone, whether they have children or not, should work. It's important that everyone contributes to society, that's beyond doubt.

I'm talking about the particulars of work. Why should schools close at 3pm or 4pm, but most workplaces stay open for a couple of hours later? Who decides this? Well, a group of people decided this about 100-odd years ago.

Who decided that the working week should be five days, and not four? Again, the Victorians.

These are relatively new concepts, we should be open to revising them as our needs evolve.

Modern society has evolved a lot in the past century, but the working week hasn't changed much at all, and we've now added this notion that only the rich should procreate. I'm not sure we have our priorities right, and maybe we need to revise some of our assumptions about work.

BBFAN

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Everyone, whether they have children or not, should work. It's important that everyone contributes to society, that's beyond doubt.

Raising children is in of itself work.

BBFAN

BBFAN wrote: »

Raising children is in of itself work.

I probably should have mentioned that, but I'm already pushing my luck with the notion that workplaces should mirror the school-opening hours.

Plenty of people seem to think that raising kids is a profitable enterprise for shirkers. There's really no point in even trying to respond to that notion.

eviltwin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I probably should have mentioned that, but I'm already pushing my luck with the notion that workplaces should mirror the school-opening hours.

Plenty of people seem to think that raising kids is a profitable enterprise for shirkers. There's really no point in even trying to respond to that notion.

That would be great but life doesn't stop when the schools close and some jobs, like my own, are in services that are 24/7. Attractive as it is to be home when the kids are I'd rather be earning.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

That would be great but life doesn't stop when the schools close and some jobs, like my own, are in services that are 24/7. Attractive as it is to be home when the kids are I'd rather be earning.

how many jobs actually need to be 24/7 though?

Obviously, if you consider the likes of health care and police work, they need to be operating 24 hours a day. But why does the average office need to be staffed until 5 or 6pm? Why does your local convenience store need to open until 11pm?

And what exactly is so dangerous about the idea of families having six, or seven, or even eight children? How many children did our grandparents have, or their parents? And I'm sure none of us were (or would admit to) being ne'erdowells for those reasons.

We as human beings have choices, and as a society we have priorities. Nobody's home lads, its just us. We can make the rules.

Emme

tretorn wrote: »

To be fair too she is an advertisement for early motherhood, she has loads of energy and not a bad figure either.

She has loads of energy because she doesn't have to get up at an unearthly hour, get children into a creche, face into a commute, work all day in a job, collect children from the creche and start the second shift at 7pm then do it all again 4 or 5 more days in the week.

tretorn wrote: »

So many women have to wait till late thirties to have a family now and they look haggard, their haggardness isnt helped by having to work ten hours a day at the paid job and then start on the unpaid job at & 7pm when the creche closes and the children come home.

Do you think they choose to do this? The main reason they wait so long is economics and the difficulty in finding a partner who will commit is a big factor too. Not all men are fans of early motherhood.

tretorn wrote: »

The rise in autism too is definitely down to the age of women and the age for child bearing is rising every year.

What is the evidence for this? There are also claims that older fathers contribute to autism and indeed schizophrenia.

tretorn wrote: »

The numbers of babies born to mothers in their forties is increasing year on year and so is the number of babies born with defects which arent visible.

Surely the ages of both parents is a contributing factor? Women don't choose to have children in their forties, most would rather have them in their late 20s/early 30s or even early 20s but cannot afford it or find a partner willing to commit.

tretorn wrote: »

Margaret will stop having children long before shes forty but there is another dozen childbearing years left before that, she could have twenty children before shes finished.

By the sound of it you might be willing to help her have some of them! I don't think her husband would be too happy about that.

Emme

Emme wrote: »

She has loads of energy because she doesn't have to get up at an unearthly hour, get children into a creche, face into a commute, work all day in a job, collect children from the creche and start the second shift at 7pm then do it all again 4 or 5 more days in the week.

Would you say it's harder to look after 7 kids for eight hours a day, or to do an office job where you only have to mind a computer?

freshpopcorn

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Would you say it's harder to look after 7 kids for eight hours a day, or to do an office job where you only have to mind a computer?

It would depend on the office and the children to be honest with you!
If you had a large family and your were struggling to look after them why would you continue to add to it.
Margaret has being struggling with accommodation for years for her family but she continued to let her family grow.
Similarly if an office worker was struggling with their work load and they took on loads of extra work people would question them when they start grumbling about their work load.

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

It would depend on the office and the children to be honest with you!
If you had a large family and your were struggling to look after them why would you continue to add to it.

Well, because of pay, according to some people.

There are evidently people in this forum who have somehow reached the conclusion -- one can only assume its due to inexperience -- that people make a profit from earning 140 euro per child per month in Child Benefit.

It makes even less financial sense to do so when unemployed, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming the contrary.

What's even more puzzling to me, is that you appear to agree with these people. But if you read your post, it's clear than the answer lies therein, and what you seem to be implying makes no sense at all.

freshpopcorn

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well, because of pay, according to some people.

There are evidently people in this forum who have somehow reached the conclusion -- one can only assume its due to inexperience -- that people make a profit from earning 140 euro per child per month in Child Benefit.

It makes even less financial sense to do so when unemployed, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming the contrary.

What's even more puzzling to me, is that you appear to agree with these people. But if you read your post, it's clear than the answer lies therein, and what you seem to be implying makes no sense at all.

We simply have different views on the matter. Even looking back on how you describe her speech outside the Dail on the matter just shows how we differ.

Alrigghtythen

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I probably should have mentioned that, but I'm already pushing my luck with the notion that workplaces should mirror the school-opening hours.

Plenty of people seem to think that raising kids is a profitable enterprise for shirkers. There's really no point in even trying to respond to that notion.

She could start her own business. That would give her the flexibility to work hours that suit. But why would she? She takes in more by not.

McMurphy

Gatling wrote: »

Punish the worker

Reward the lazy

Jesus Saves.

Moses took the penalty.

PlaneSpeeking

Dannyriver wrote: »

Not sure where you got the 'majority' stats from but either way her delivery and conviction were very impressive.

Not the first time she's been congratulated on her convictions by you lot and definitely won't be the last.

DavidLyons_

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Not the first time she's been congratulated on her convictions by you lot and definitely won't be the last.

Absolutely. This needs highlighting more. To excuse that particular part of the story is disgusting- but then that’s what her defenders are, disgusting, I’ll-informed morons.

I just hope none of their elderly family members (or indeed they themselves and their children) never fall victim to any of these traveling gangs.

Wile E. Coyote

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

And what exactly is so dangerous about the idea of families having six, or seven, or even eight children? How many children did our grandparents have, or their parents? And I'm sure none of us were (or would admit to) being ne'erdowells for those reasons.

There's nothing wrong with having a big family if you can support them yourself. Both my grandparents did it, 9 children in each family, but they did it by working their ass off 7 days a week, saving every penny and making do with what you had. Not by making a spectacle of themselves, shouting in the street that they wanted everyone else to provide for them while wearing a €150 pair of runners and showing off their f***ing Waterford Crystal collection on Facebook!

PlaneSpeeking

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with having a big family if you can support them yourself. Both my grandparents did it, 9 children in each family, but they did it by working their ass off 7 days a week, saving every penny and making do with what you had. Not by making a spectacle of themselves, shouting in the street that they wanted everyone else to provide for them while wearing a €150 pair of runners and showing off their f***ing Waterford Crystal collection on Facebook!

Assume I'm metaphorically standing and applauding!

Deebles McBeebles

tretorn wrote: »

To be fair too she is an advertisement for early motherhood, she has loads of energy and not a bad figure either.

So many women have to wait till late thirties to have a family now and they look haggard, their haggardness isnt helped by having to work ten hours a day at the paid job and then start on the unpaid job at & 7pm when the creche closes and the children come home. The rise in autism too is definitely down to the age of women and the age for child bearing is rising every year. The numbers of babies born to mothers in their forties is increasing year on year and so is the number of babies born with defects which arent visible.

Margaret will stop having children long before shes forty but there is another dozen childbearing years left before that, she could have twenty children before shes finished.

I f*ckin love you man.

Dannyriver wrote: »

Would you now...? If i were you I'd settle for just 'learn'...it's not nice when someone calls you out on your use of English whether be written or spoken, now is it?

Can't spell the noise I made reading this.

BBFAN wrote: »

People ranting at a 10k offer for a car based off a FB post that actually has 10 million on it is making me laugh.

Ranting or wondering where the 10k came from? I don't know many people who could offer 10k for a car.

LollipopJimmy

:cool:;)

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Not sure if that's serious or not but it made me laugh, which is why I thanked the post. I've done the same for other jokes that made me laugh. It is AH after all.

Dannyriver

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well, because of pay, according to some people.

There are evidently people in this forum who have somehow reached the conclusion -- one can only assume its due to inexperience -- that people make a profit from earning 140 euro per child per month in Child Benefit.

It makes even less financial sense to do so when unemployed, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming the contrary.

What's even more puzzling to me, is that you appear to agree with these people. But if you read your post, it's clear than the answer lies therein, and what you seem to be implying makes no sense at all.

Man I genuinely take my hat off to you. How do you keep coming back to this thread in such a measured way when it's been obvious weeks ago that you re basically arguing with a wanna be lynch mob whose arguments for the most part look like the guilty by association propaganda that you d find on the front pages of a British tabloid. Fair play to you.

PlaneSpeeking

Dear God there's two of them.

DChancer

The reason Cash and others like her keep having kids is simple, once the youngest reaches 7 years old the lose one parent family allowance and have to sign on the dole, be available for work, education, or training or else lose their tax funded lifestyle, so they need to keep having kids in order to drink from the "free everything trough"!

PlaneSpeeking

DChancer wrote: »

The reason Cash and others like her keep having kids is simple, once the youngest reaches 7 years old the lose one parent family allowance and have to sign on the dole, be available for work, education, or training or else lose their tax funded lifestyle, so they need to keep having kids in order to drink from the "free everything trough"!

Jaysus that's depressing.

So when young Keyydan or Dollie-Maii is 6, she'll be knocked up again ???

What am I saying ? Likely sooner!

tretorn

And once the traveller reaches sixteen and isnt in education the Child benefit stops too.

A hunt for an available cousin is then undertaken and girl is married off so another generation of child benefit can be put in motion. Girl has no education to speak of apart from being able to sign her name on benefit forms, she is a brood mare basically and has her annual child starting nine months after the wedding.

PlaneSpeeking

tretorn wrote: »

And once the traveller reaches sixteen and isnt in education the Child benefit stops too.

A hunt for an available cousin is then undertaken and girl is married off so another generation of child benefit can be put in motion. Girl has no education to speak of apart from being able to sign her name on benefit forms, she is a brood mare basically and has her annual child starting nine months after the wedding.

And people defend these. FFS.

Sweet.Science

DChancer wrote: »

The reason Cash and others like her keep having kids is simple, once the youngest reaches 7 years old the lose one parent family allowance and have to sign on the dole, be available for work, education, or training or else lose their tax funded lifestyle, so they need to keep having kids in order to drink from the "free everything trough"!

I didnt actually know that . Makes me feel sorry for genuine people who are stuck in the welfare trap so .

DChancer

DChancer wrote: »

The reason Cash and others like her keep having kids is simple, once the youngest reaches 7 years old the lose one parent family allowance

I thought she doesn't qualify for the OPFP if she's unemployed with seven children? Her income would be above the means test limit.

And wasn't she married, anyway, when she had those children?

You're making this up, aren't you though.

eviltwin

Time to drag travellers into the 21st century and make them accountable for their own lives. It's a scandal that generations of travellers are allowed slip through the cracks and repeat the mistakes of their parents. If I don't send my child to school I have to answer for that, if my child fails to reach educational milestones, ditto. Why are travellers exempt from the attendance requirements? Why aren't social workers on the case when traveller children reach secondary age barely able to read or write?

Of course to question that is deemed interfering, patronising or racist and all it does is doom another generation to follow their parents example.

eviltwin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I thought she doesn't qualify for the OPFP if she's unemployed with seven children? Her income would be above the means test limit.

And wasn't she married, anyway, when she had those children?

You're making this up, aren't you though.

If you have a spouse in prison you qualify

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

If you have a spouse in prison you qualify

Doesn't the income limit apply to social welfare benefits though?


And its kinda hard to imagine that any of those kids were conceived when the husband was in prison, obviously....