Margaret Cash steals €300 worth of clothes from Penneys and aftermath/etc!

givyjoe

Omackeral wrote: »

Omack has your back. I actually love re-posting this as it is utterly ridiculous and the poster Joeytheparrot never had the balls to respond to it once.

Ah, the perpetually persecuted one.

gormdubhgorm

Gravelly wrote: »

Hilarious to accuse me of convoluting your posts - they are an absolute meandering mess.

My solution is simple - impose the law.

They won't send their kids to school - jail them.

(If they move around from area to area this would be difficult to prove)

They are driving new cars and living in new caravans with no means of income - send in CAB

CAB already seize criminal travellers assets like anyone else.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cab-seizes-100000-from-jailed-traveller-26321347.html

Fighting at a wedding/christening/funeral/assorted family gathering - send in the riot squad. Long jail terms for persistent offending.

Pavee Point does not disagree with you for long jail terms for travellers who commit serious crimes

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/devoid-of-all-humanity-pavee-point-appalled-at-irish-traveller-family-who-ran-modern-slavery-ring-36125073.html

In a court of law persistant offenders are treated the same for a string of offences regardless of whether they are travellers or not.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/small-town-has-drug-epidemic-says-judge-29772632.html

Drawing the dole for years - haul them in - check what jobs they've applied for, are they who they say they are, does their lifestyle match their income.

Why don't you report them then?
Get the ball rolling.

https://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/secure/ReportFraud.aspx

Make them obey the law like the rest of us have to, and in 5 years, you'd do more to help traveller children than any money buring education programme.

gormdubhgorm

looksee wrote: »

Have some laws about animal care and road safety (we probably already have them) and act on them. 'Settled people' mistreating animals can be prevented from owning animals, so should people who allow horses to starve on inadequate grass or race them on main roads.

This is one that there should be more focus on because if there are travellers who are mistreating animals they are likely to be breaking the law elsewhere.
It would at least give law enforcement some pretext to investigate them.

Ruraldweller56

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Your deliberately convoluting my posts I made it simple for you to understand.
Now you are just playing to the gallery.

What would your solution be to do with the travellers.
Let's call you Taoiseach for the year what would your strategy be?
Since you do not like any current efforts, have you any ideas?

I think that's something we should be asking travellers. Do they want to go back to the halting site and roaming around the country way of life? Can we work with say the councils and the government to try and get this up and running and if we can what happens next? Can we look at maybe treating them as a properly separate group like the Amish in the USA?

And crucially, will the travelling community be able to afford to maintain this themselves without encroaching on the rest of our space? Do they waive their traveller status when they realise it's not a viable lifestyle anymore? If they apply for a council house say, despite wanting to be separate from the rest of us. How do they propose that works? Or sulky racing on roads that they have contributed nothing towards the cost of building?

These are questions they need to find answers to. Not the rest of us.

It wasnt me123

Squatter wrote: »

The nationwide availability of free abortion on demand in a few weeks' time will solve that problem for good! Once it's in, the State can then throw the kitchen sink at women who can't afford to support the kid(s) that they're carrying yet who refused to have a free termination. Looks as though happy days are just around the corner - but for whom?

(was the foregoing written tongue in cheek? I confess that I'm not sure.)

Free terminations won't solve the problems caused by the Ms Cashs' of this world. She didn't get pregnant by accident, rape, etc. That 28 year old chose to have 7 children when she had no visible means to support them.

She's a disgrace as a parent, as is their father, whoever they may be.

jmayo

looksee wrote: »

Make social payments and children's allowance dependent on children being in school? Not just travellers, that could apply to anyone - people wanting to home school have to establish that they are capable and are doing it so that would not be a let out.

'Police' - or at least raid on occasions - car-boot sales to make disposing of stolen tools etc harder.

Introduce a proper identity card system - we are already over half way there so why not do it properly. Again this would not single out travellers but it might help reduce or stop social security fraud by everyone. And bring everyone into the tax net.

Have some laws about animal care and road safety (we probably already have them) and act on them. 'Settled people' mistreating animals can be prevented from owning animals, so should people who allow horses to starve on inadequate grass or race them on main roads.

Have the CAB/fraud squad/revenue investigate the people that have more vehicles etc than their (social) income might suggest possible.

These are just off the top of my head, I am sure there are lots more. Yes it would require more police but there would surely be an income from it.

You do know with attitudes like that there is no way in hell you will ever be a mod around here or over in Politics.

Or even in the forum for Wicklow, where I think the settled people have a habit of dumping rubbish in halting sites.
I guess it beats them dropping it in the Wicklow mountains.

Paddy Cow

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Your deliberately convoluting my posts I made it simple for you to understand.
Now you are just playing to the gallery.

What would your solution be to do with the travellers.
Let's call you Taoiseach for the year what would your strategy be?
Since you do not like any current efforts, have you any ideas?

I already answered this

Paddy Cow wrote: »

What can we do with the problem of Travellers? Stop treating them like they are different. They are just as capable as any Irish person. One law for all. Accountability for everyone. Get rid of Traveller boxes on forms. Be like the CAO where it doesn't matter what background you come from, it's your hard work and merit that matters.

What do you think we should do with travellers? Seriously. You've put a lot of effort into posts trying to convince us all that we just have some group think mentality against them but you're not offering up a lot any solutions yourself.

Car expert

Expensive times for Margerat coming with communions and confirmations.

end of the road

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Don't have children then until you have your own education, career and housing sorted. It is very irresponsible to be bringing children into the world when you don't have the basic things like a roof over their heads, food and education. And then they have more children to try and push themselves up the housing list. They don't care where their children sleep, why should I. If you can't afford them/look after them/provide for them, don't have them. It isn't compulsory to be a parent.

all well good in typing that, and it would have merrit in an ideal world and it would be the case in an ideal world. it doesn't deal with actual reality in the real world however. no amount of typing or saying "don't have children if you can't afford them" will change the reality that people do have children, when in a situation where they are receiving supports from the state. whether you like it or not, providing supports for the parents and their children is the only realistic option on the table.

Mad_maxx wrote: »

+1
.we've had nothing but carrot for decades and it's been an abject failure, relations are worse than ever, we need stick for the next few decades.

The liberals have been wrong all the way

the liberals haven't been wrong all the way. the liberals have been realistic and have been willing to take the flack for being realistic and for not implementing things that genuinely don't work. liberals understand that sometimes their solutions don't and won't work for everyone and in every situation, but the options are better then the alternatives which likely work for nobody. we already have stick as well as carrot. what we don't have is the resources to do anything, because people continue to vote for the big 2 political parties, who continue to underfund and mismanage everything.

Ruraldweller56

end of the road wrote: »

all well good in typing that, and it would have merrit in an ideal world and it would be the case in an ideal world. it doesn't deal with actual reality in the real world however. no amount of typing or saying "don't have children if you can't afford them" will change the reality that people do have children, when in a situation where they are receiving supports from the state. whether you like it or not, providing supports for the parents and their children is the only realistic option on the table.



the liberals haven't been wrong all the way. the liberals have been realistic and have been willing to take the flack for being realistic and for not implementing things that genuinely don't work. liberals understand that sometimes their solutions don't and won't work for everyone and in every situation, but the options are better then the alternatives which likely work for nobody. we already have stick as well as carrot. what we don't have is the resources to do anything, because people continue to vote for the big 2 political parties, who continue to underfund and mismanage everything.

And it's those of us who try to do the responsible thing that wind up picking up the tab. Sure to hell with the rest of us.

It's no one else's business how many children people like Margaret Cash choose to have. I don't see why I should be paying for it. I've my own problems.

maxwell smart

Car expert wrote: »

Expensive times for Margerat coming with communions and confirmations.

Not at all, she can go to the Social Welfare officer and he can grant a special payment for such expenses. With her profile and the fact she is a traveller nobody in the social will refuse it.

It's Win Win for her!

So glad my tax is supporting such a worthy cause......

Jerichoholic

Why not give her her own television show?

givyjoe

end of the road wrote: »

all well good in typing that, and it would have merrit in an ideal world and it would be the case in an ideal world. it doesn't deal with actual reality in the real world however. no amount of typing or saying "don't have children if you can't afford them" will change the reality that people do have children, when in a situation where they are receiving supports from the state. whether you like it or not, providing supports for the parents and their children is the only realistic option on the table.



the liberals haven't been wrong all the way. the liberals have been realistic and have been willing to take the flack for being realistic and for not implementing things that genuinely don't work. liberals understand that sometimes their solutions don't and won't work for everyone and in every situation, but the options are better then the alternatives which likely work for nobody. we already have stick as well as carrot. what we don't have is the resources to do anything, because people continue to vote for the big 2 political parties, who continue to underfund and mismanage everything.

Stop providing the supports and remove the incentive for many of these idiots to get themselves into this mess in the first place.

Keeping this endless cycle going is far, far from the only option.

ohnonotgmail

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Why not give her her own television show?

Perhaps they could give her a top floor apartment and call it Cash in the Attic?

maxwell smart

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Perhaps they could give her a top floor apartment and call it Cash in the Attic?

Well played, well played indeed.

gormdubhgorm

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I already answered this



What do you think we should do with travellers? Seriously. You've put a lot of effort into posts trying to convince us all that we just have some group think mentality against them but you're not offering up a lot any solutions yourself.

My solution would be to encourage more positive interaction with travellers and non-travellers
If people get to know each other they would be less inclined to have preconceived notions of each other and would be less inclined to treat each other with suspicion.
Similar to cross community initiatives in NI, they used to fire bullets at each other, and bomb each other not so long ago.

The travellers are culturally into. Men into boxing, traditional music, and horses.
A lot of the women are extremely religious.
Events could be created so common values could be shared etc etc
If people got to know each other things could look a bit brighter in the future.

corks finest

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I already answered this



What do you think we should do with travellers? Seriously. You've put a lot of effort into posts trying to convince us all that we just have some group think mentality against them but you're not offering up a lot any solutions yourself.

My solution would be to encourage more positive interaction with travellers and non-travellers
If people get to know each other they would be less inclined to have preconceived notions of each other and would be less inclined to treat each other with suspicion.
Similar to cross community initiatives in NI, they used to fire bullets at each other, and bomb each other not so long ago.

The travellers are culturally into. Men into boxing, traditional music, and horses.
A lot of the women are extremely religious.
Events could be created so common values could be shared etc etc
If people got to know each other things could look a bit brighter in the future.

Send them all to craggy island

strandroad

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The travellers are culturally into. Men into boxing, traditional music, and horses.
A lot of the women are extremely religious.
Events could be created so common values could be shared etc etc
If people got to know each other things could look a bit brighter in the future.

The problem is that you won't find many extremely religious folks who treat their horses like travellers do anymore. The world has (thankfully) moved on.

corks finest

gmisk wrote: »

Probation...zzz
She only has 38 previous convictions....

Might make the 200 yet before 2019

end of the road

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

And it's those of us who try to do the responsible thing that wind up picking up the tab. Sure to hell with the rest of us.

It's no one else's business how many children people like Margaret Cash choose to have. I don't see why I should be paying for it. I've my own problems.

because the children are entitled to be supported. it's as simple as that. we all have our own problems.

givyjoe wrote: »

Stop providing the supports and remove the incentive for many of these idiots to get themselves into this mess in the first place.

Keeping this endless cycle going is far, far from the only option.

the supports are for the children, not the parents. it so happens the supports will be given to the parents. removing those supports are unlikely to do anything more then make those children suffer, which is not an option. if such supports really do incentivise people to have children and end up in whatever situation, it's likely a very very small minority, and there really is no guarantee that removing the supports would change that issue, for which such an attempt would be at the expence of the children. so yes, it's likely that keeping the supports is really the only option. i really do think that if there was another option, another idea would have been tried.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

With all due respect why should we give a fück about other people’s children when their own parents can’t even be bothered to worry if they’ll have a roof over their head?

If I have the responsibility of kids I’d have my own

Jerichoholic

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Why not give her her own television show?

She’d have to come off the dole and look after herself and her kids. Can’t have that.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Sadly, a lot of the people on this thread seem to be suffering from out-group homogeneity bias.

Many thanks for the link to the dictionary so we can figure out what is wrong with us.

Which is why I tried to make the point that settled people are not grouped into one group, yet they have committed the majority of serious crimes (murders etc) in this country.

Travellers commit far more crime proportional to their share of the population. Travellers make up just 0.6 percent of the Irish population, and yet they comprise 10 percent of the male prison population and 22 percent of the female prison population.

If you were to take the majority of this thread as gospel, travellers assault everyone, steal, constantly fight, none want to go to education beyond Junior Cert.

Whether you like it or not, Travellers are frequently featured in the news for stealing and fighting, to a far greater degree than any other minority group. There are more Lithuanians in Ireland than there are Travellers -- and yet we don't see Lithuanians constantly featured on the front page of the papers for wrecking hotels, carrying out burglaries, and feuding.

It's an undeniable reality as well that just 8 percent of Traveller children complete the Leaving Cert, as compared to 86 percent of settled children. Saying that they "don't want" to go to school is possibly incorrect -- but they are taken out of school regardless by parents who don't value education.

In true Pavee Point fashion, you are trying to claim that Travellers are being stereotyped as violent, uneducated criminals -- without acknowledging the prevalence of these traits in the Traveller community. Does this mean that every Traveller is a violent uneducated criminal? Of course not. But the statistics tell their own story, and it is a very stark and undeniable one.

It wasnt me123

end of the road wrote: »

all well good in typing that, and it would have merit in an ideal world and it would be the case in an ideal world. it doesn't deal with actual reality in the real world however. no amount of typing or saying "don't have children if you can't afford them" will change the reality that people do have children, when in a situation where they are receiving supports from the state. whether you like it or not, providing supports for the parents and their children is the only realistic option on the table..

Then the state shouldn't make it so advantageous to any family to increase the numbers of their children when they can't support them.

Cap child benefit
Book scheme
etc

People have to take responsibility for the circumstances of their life that they have control of. Like having children, getting an education as an adult, etc - I appreciate the children have little or no control over their circumstances.

tuxy

Traveller women are very religous in many ways. They won't use contraception. It won't reduce the number of cilder they have unfortunately.

Ruraldweller56

end of the road wrote: »

because the children are entitled to be supported. it's as simple as that. we all have our own problems.



the supports are for the children, not the parents. it so happens the supports will be given to the parents. removing those supports are unlikely to do anything more then make those children suffer, which is not an option. if such supports really do incentivise people to have children and end up in whatever situation, it's likely a very very small minority, and there really is no guarantee that removing the supports would change that issue, for which such an attempt would be at the expence of the children. so yes, it's likely that keeping the supports is really the only option. i really do think that if there was another option, another idea would have been tried.

Why? Why are they entitled to it? Why do people like me and my wife wait until we have steady jobs a mortgage for a house we must pay for with our own money before we start having kids? Neither of the pair of us are Einstein we just use a small bit of cop on and common sense.

I know people who have had accidental children. 1,2 max. Not 7.

And I'm sorry, but whatever lefty Liberal BS spin you want to put on it those are our taxes paying for other people's irresponsibility. Seriously sick of it at this stage.

Going out to work to pay these taxes and constantly wondering if my house is going to be broken into by the same people who's lifestyle I have to sponsor. It's ridiculous.

As I've said already if travellers want a life that's separate to us and involves no PAYE type stuff, no education beyond a JC, travelling around from site to site I'd actually be all for it. Just keep it to themselves and don't expect the rest of us to fund it.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

end of the road wrote: »

if such supports really do incentivise people to have children and end up in whatever situation, it's likely a very very small minority...

Over 80 percent of Travellers are unemployed. But according to CSO fertility statistics on women aged 40 to 49, half of Traveller women have five or more children, and 13.5 percent have 8+ children. Just one in 20 settled women in that age group has five or more children.

You really think that if Travellers did not have the security of lifelong unemployment benefits and the added incentive of child benefit (€1,120 per month for eight children), they would be popping out so many kids?

Margaret Cash was married at 15, pregnant at 16, and a mother of seven by 28. Is this the kind of "culture" the taxpayer should be funding -- a culture of uneducated child brides whose only way to increase their household income is to have more and more kids?

Deebles McBeebles

Rex Tasteless Gutter wrote: »

Over 80 percent of Travellers are unemployed. But according to CSO fertility statistics on women aged 40 to 49, half of Traveller women have five or more children, and 13.5 percent have 8+ children. Just one in 20 settled women have five or more children.

You really think that if Travellers did not have the security of lifelong unemployment benefits and the added incentive of child benefit (€1,120 per month for eight children), they would be popping out so many kids?

Margaret Cash was married at 15, pregnant at 16, and a mother of seven by 28. Is this the kind of "culture" the taxpayer should be funding -- a culture of uneducated child brides whose only way to increase their household income is to have more and more kids?

Even if you have no issue with people of any culture or ethnicity doing this, bigger picture, its really not helping the long term future of the planet. No person in this day and age should have 7 or 8 kids. Its irresponsible. When you can't pay for them yourself, its negligent.

Humphrey BoaGart

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Why not give her her own television show?

I'm sure Penneys have a good few episodes of her on their CCTV :pac:

PlaneSpeeking

Had the "pleasure" of witnessing a run in with one of our special people this morning on the LUAS Redline.

Loads of us trying to get on the tram in the p**sing down rain, there's this one (no idea she was a traveller at the time obviously) stood by the door effectively stopping folk getting on.

Random bloke remonstrates with her and was met with "I'll call the f**king Guards on you, that's racist".

He'd said "move your arse ffs" - we all twigged at that point she was one of our entitled ethic minority.

Clearly off to work at KPMG no doubt....