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

Gwen Cooper

Gravelly wrote: »

Funny you should say that - one of my wife's best friends is a Polish lady, and she often says that she finds it easier to make friends, and to connect with people here than it was back in Poland.

Yep! Whenever I run into someone from my part of the world here in Ireland and we talk about our life here, 99% of them would tell me how amazing the people here are. It's something Ireland should be proud of.

ohnonotgmail

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'm not offended as I said I find it bizarre someone would immigrate to another country and then be appalled by the practices of that country. Having said that Gwen has already qualified her comment.

appalled by some of the practices of that country. some of which were already in the past when they arrived.

gormdubhgorm

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Could that be because they are all at home? Whether they like it or not?

Its like saying no one ever praises me for being bound by the laws of gravity.

Not true they could chose not too.
But when society at large invented the term 'stay at home mother' it's use has almost become a pejorative/damning with faint praise. As working parents seem to be the norm now.

I still think travellers have the better family set up, it is just the education aspect and marrying so young that needs to be resolved.

SusieBlue

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Also I nearly forgot the working parents educate thier children which is great.
Travellers should also educate thier children by the way.
But it also cannot be ignored that many working parents treat thier educators as handy childminders while they are at work.
Once the there are holidays for the kids there are the usual gripes about teachers etc.
Yet the working parents want either state education / childminding to do the majority of thier parenting for them.
As that is what the parents have become accustomed too.
This is in contrast to the travellers who are there for thier own kids.
A 'stay a home mother' in general society is a phrase well used now.
But I have never heard the phrase stay at home traveller mother:D
Because, That might actually be giving travellers some praise!?

Would you ever get it into your head:
People work because the HAVE to.
Nobody enjoys having to drop their kids off and commute every day, nobody sits at their desk all day for the fun of it, they do it because they have responsibilities such as mortgages to pay, cars to run, food to put on the table and clothes to put on their childrens backs.

Pretty much everyone on earth would rather spend the 40+ hours a week they spend working at their own discretion, be it relaxing, on their hobbies, with their children, socialising, travelling, and so on.
That's why we PAY people to WORK, because no one would do it for FREE.

People complain about lack of childcare not because they desperately want to avoid their kids and spend as much time as humanly possible chained to their desk, but because the crippling costs make it even harder for those NOT entitled to social welfare to pay their bills.
Remember there is no FIS, HAP or medical cards for the "manufactured" families.

I can only assume you are someone who has never had a job before.

givyjoe

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Not true they could chose not too.
But when society at large invented the term 'stay at home mother' it's use has almost become a pejorative/damning with faint praise. As working parents seem to be the norm now.

I still think travellers have the better family set up, it is just the education aspect and marrying so young that needs to be resolved.

... and the stealing
... and the violence
... and the animal cruelty
... and the homophobia etc etc

Plenty of poorly educated folks don't have problems avoiding the above.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

There is one thing you cannot accuse this wagon (Margaret Cash) of is being a part-time parent.

First of all, she has seven children, whose father seems to be almost completely absent from their lives.

She seems to spend quite a bit of time at protests, on Facebook, and otherwise rabble rousing in pursuit of her foreva home.

How much individual attention and nurturing does each child receive in the course of a day? I'd warrant far less than a child with a good childminder and two working parents.

Gwen Cooper

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Not true they could chose not too.
But when society at large invented the term 'stay at home mother' it's use has almost become a pejorative/damning with faint praise. As working parents seem to be the norm now.

I still think travellers have the better family set up, it is just the education aspect and marrying so young that needs to be resolved.

With all due respect, I don't think you get it. Their family set up is a direct result of the education and marrying young issue. If you manage to resolve the education and marrying young, their family set up will come much closer to what you're seeing in the settled community.

gormdubhgorm

SusieBlue wrote: »

Would you ever get it into your head:
People work because the HAVE to.
Nobody enjoys having to drop their kids off and commute every day, nobody sits at their desk all day for the fun of it, they do it because they have responsibilities such as mortgages to pay, cars to run, food to put on the table and clothes to put on their childrens backs.

My argument is simply if you cannot afford the kids and you have to put that much effort in (it makes you unhappy) why chose to have them?

The childminder - commute the slog -repeat.
Then hearing about your childs life from second hand reports.

gormdubhgorm

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

With all due respect, I don't think you get it. Their family set up is a direct result of the education and marrying young issue. If you manage to resolve the education and marrying young, their family set up will come much closer to what you're seeing in the settled community.

I am not so sure that is viewing the traveller community through a settled persons lens.
Family is number one for them.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

My argument is simply if you cannot afford the kids and you have to put that much effort in (it makes you unhappy) why chose to have them?

The childminder - commute the slog -repeat.
Then hearing about your childs life from second hand reports.

or simply choose to have them and let the state pay for everything. that seems to be your preferred approach.

Gravelly

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

My argument is simply if you cannot afford the kids and you have to put that much effort in (it makes you unhappy) why chose to have them?

The childminder - commute the slog -repeat.
Then hearing about your childs life from second hand reports.

I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience of the world of work. Most people aren't leaving the house at 5am and not getting back until midnight. Plus most people nowadays get the weekends off.

thegetawaycar

Brilliant WUMMING from gormdubhgorm here.
All families with 2 parents working or single working parents are part-time, classic.

On the off chance it's not a wind up. Watch any of the videos of travellers fighting with their kids in tow watching and learning from these "role-models" if you think that's parenting that's moronic. Being in the same place as your children is not automatically parenting.

I have relatives working in childcare and they would never claim to be parenting or raising the kids nor are they expected to be a parent to these children.

Parenting involves promoting and supporting the physical, emotional, social, and intellectual development of your child, being a role model and teaching your children right from wrong I certainly wouldn't be putting Margaret Cash forward as parent of the year.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not so sure that is viewing the traveller community through a settled persons lens.
Family is number one for them.

well education and raising your children to be productive members of society is certainly nowhere near the top.

ohnonotgmail

thegetawaycar wrote: »

Brilliant WUMMING from gormdubhgorm here.
All families with 2 parents working or single working parents are part-time, classic.

On the off chance it's not a wind up. Watch any of the videos of travellers fighting with their kids in tow watching and learning from these "role-models" if you think that's parenting that's moronic. Being in the same place as your children is not automatically parenting.

I have relatives working in childcare and they would never claim to be parenting or raising the kids nor are they expected to be a parent to these children.

Parenting involves promoting and supporting the physical, emotional, social, and intellectual development of your child, being a role model and teaching your children right from wrong I certainly wouldn't be putting Margaret Cash forward as parent of the year.

all of which she fails spectacularly at.

Igotadose

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not so sure that is viewing the traveller community through a settled persons lens.
Family is number one for them.

Hence the violence at weddings and funerals?

You're having us on.

SusieBlue

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

My argument is simply if you cannot afford the kids and you have to put that much effort in (it makes you unhappy) why chose to have them?

The childminder - commute the slog -repeat.
Then hearing about your childs life from second hand reports.

Working to provide for your family doesn't mean you can't afford to have kids.
It means you take your responsibilities seriously and have a good work ethic and thus can financially support your children.

Margaret couldn't afford to have her kids either, so why choose to have them? Does she get a pass cause its her "culture"?

Why is it acceptable to you to have 7/8/9+ kids with no stable home & no income, but unacceptable to have 2.5 kids with two working parents?

gormdubhgorm

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm guessing you don't have a lot of experience of the world of work. Most people aren't leaving the house at 5am and not getting back until midnight. Plus most people nowadays get the weekends off.

That is a broad generalisation - not true for a lot of posts.
But if two parents are working like that it proves my point that it is the major flaw in the predominately settled community others bring up the kids.
That is not natural.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

1) She may be misguided/uneducated etc but she will see/has seen her children growing up in their formative years.

2) She not be one of those who looks at the pictures and cards the child has created while in the childminders.

3)Where the parent only has second-hand news of how thier child has got on.

1) hanging out of car windows cheering on the sulky racers?

2) The local Garda station will make mugshot mementos of their mother instead.

3) where the Cash clan (and the rest of us) get this news via the courts section in the papers?

lawred2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

praise for what, exactly? having kids they cant afford? Not sending them to school? Marrying their daughters off at a young age? Raising their kids to sponge off the state? what exactly do you think we should be praising them for?

not letting their wimmin get above their station obviously

that's pretty much it

when he speaks of part time parents - he's not for a second considering part time or non existent fadders - it's just all about working mothers

He'd prefer an uneducated layabout with kids from six different biological origins to a working mother...

PlaneSpeeking

Have I really just read someone posting that a lazy, workshy criminal scrounger who uses her feral brood of future teenage parents and shoplifters - is a better parent than any one of the hundreds of working parents I share a lengthy commute with each morning and evening ??

If the poster had any common human decency that accusation would be removed and retracted.

ohnonotgmail

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is a broad generalisation - not true for a lot of posts.
But if two parents are working like that it proves my point that it is the major flaw in the predominately settled community others bring up the kids.
That is not natural.

and yet those kids brought up by working parents tend to be better educated and less involved in criminality. Perhaps your "natural" way is not better?

lawred2

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is a broad generalisation - not true for a lot of posts.
But if two parents are working like that it proves my point that it is the major flaw in the predominately settled community others bring up the kids.
That is not natural.

proves nothing other than you're a wrong one

lawred2

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Have I really just read someone posting that a lazy, workshy criminal scrounger who uses her feral brood of future teenage parents and shoplifters - is a better parent than any one of the hundreds of working parents I share a lengthy commute with each morning and evening ??

If the poster had any common human decency that accusation would be removed and retracted.

got nothing to with any of that

it's all to do with uppity women - they have their place in that poster's eyes

all the part time parent guff is a smokescreen

in that lad's eyes what's 'positive' about travellers is that they've got a dacent level of control over their women

gormdubhgorm

SusieBlue wrote: »

Working to provide for your family doesn't mean you can't afford to have kids.
It means you take your responsibilities seriously and have a good work ethic and thus can financially support your children.

Margaret couldn't afford to have her kids either, so why choose to have them? Does she get a pass cause its her "culture"?

Why is it acceptable to you to have 7/8/9+ kids with no stable home & no income, but unacceptable to have 2.5 kids with two working parents?

I think both have bad aspects for the settled community and the traveller community.
My main point is that at least thier mother / some parent is there.
Obviously if they had less children they would be better off.
But in the traveller community large families are thier security/help as they depend on each other because they are not integrated to mainstream society.

They probably won't be integrated in my lifetime and the traveller culture may even die away, who knows?

Put for settled people to say to travellers be like us look at our lifestyle when you have the likes of working parents stressed etc, rarely seeing thier kids.
You can hardly say come on join us its great!
Be one of us!

PlaneSpeeking

lawred2 wrote: »

got nothing to with any of that

it's all to do with uppity women - they have their place in that poster's eyes

all the part time parent guff is a smokescreen

in that lad's eyes what's 'positive' about travellers is that they've got a dacent level of control over their women

Looking a lot like that for sure. Hideous.

lawred2

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I think both have bad aspects for the settled community and the traveller community.
My main point is that at least thier mother / some parent is there.
Obviously if they had less children they would be better off.
But in the traveller community large families are thier security/help as they depend on each other because they are not integrated to mainstream society.

They probably won't be integrated in my lifetime and the traveller culture may even die away, who knows?

Put for settled people to say to travellers be like us look at our lifestyle when you have the likes of working parents stressed etc, rarely seeing thier kids.
You can hardly say come on join us its great!
Be one of us!

how many kids did/do you have?

did/do you work?

how often did/do you see them?

gormdubhgorm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and yet those kids brought up by working parents tend to be better educated and less involved in criminality. Perhaps your "natural" way is not better?

Maybe so. They are much more sheltered these days with 'play dates' and so on.
Childhood has been micromanaged and sanistised from conception to adulthood.

That's the modern way?

Gwen Cooper

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not so sure that is viewing the traveller community through a settled persons lens.
Family is number one for them.

I think that family is number one for any parent (apart from a few psychopaths).

Settled parents go to work so they can provide for their family. They sacrifice time with their children so their kids can have it easy in life.

In traveller communities the education is a massive issue. Right now they can barely read. About a 100 pages ago on this very thread we had a Facebook post from a woman who was complaining that they took her kids away because none of them could read and all her buddies were commenting under the post saying how awful this is, we are travellers, we can't read anyway.

If they got a better access to education, they would learn about influential women. They would see that women can go out and make something out of themselves, often while handling a career and a family.

They would gain more general knowledge and maybe from that they would see that there is a field that interests them and it becomes their hobby and they decide that they want to have a job in this field. They would read about other successful people who work in the field and would aspire to be like them and work towards that goal.

Right now the girls are being taught from the very young age that boys like this and that, that boys don't like it if you do that. It's like a Stepford Wives factory.

With education they would see that there are other options for them, and I think it's very important. If anyone chooses freely that they want to be a stay at home mother, that's great.

The important thing is that there is a choice. A 15 year old girl who saw nothing but 15 year old girls getting married around them is also going to aim for getting married.

I'm not sure if I'm articulating this correctly. What I'm trying to say is that education gives people options to see beyond what they were always told and everyone should be able to discover their potential.

At the same time I'm in no way saying that once there's access to education for these kids that all the problems would go away, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

PlaneSpeeking

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I think both have bad aspects for the settled community and the traveller community.
My main point is that at least thier mother / some parent is there.
Obviously if they had less children they would be better off.
But in the traveller community large families are thier security/help as they depend on each other because they are not integrated to mainstream society.

They probably won't be integrated in my lifetime and the traveller culture may even die away, who knows?

Put for settled people to say to travellers be like us look at our lifestyle when you have the likes of working parents stressed etc, rarely seeing thier kids.
You can hardly say come on join us its great!
Be one of us!

Yeah, the having to work, contribute and abide by the law are dealbreakers for them.

Deebles McBeebles

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is a broad generalisation - not true for a lot of posts.
But if two parents are working like that it proves my point that it is the major flaw in the predominately settled community others bring up the kids.
That is not natural.

Wouldn't it be great if working families could afford for one of them to give up work and stay at home. Maybe if we paid less in tax. Now how oh how would you go about that.