Family forced to squat in house....

cursai

dickangel wrote: »

Must have a very low ceiling.

or thong jeans/Levis

na1

Blueshoe wrote: »

What do I need to do to get a council house for free? Thanks

I'd suppose you need to start wandering in the streets, annoying your neighbors, and probably running riots.

LirW wrote: »

But honestly I do not want these people on the streets kicking up a stink and running riot. I want them to be housed so they keep quiet and have some sort of stability in their lives that hopefully keeps them away from crime.

dermo888

Wildsurfer wrote: »

I'm going to follow this story closely so find out what they name the next child...

'Gin'
'Hot Bath'
"Knitting Needles'

Should have worked the first time

Tokyo

dermo888 wrote: »

'Gin'
'Hot Bath'
"Knitting Needles'

Should have worked the first time

Mod:

You're being a dick. Don't post in the thread again.

marieholmfan

I appreciate that most Irish prefer to sit but squatting is healthier.

Thespoofer

This type of behaviour needs to be stamped out.

myshirt

Blueshoe wrote: »

I'm currently living at home while saving for a deposit. Iv kind of become disillusioned with the whole thing.

What do I need to do to get a council house for free? Thanks

What you need to start doing is paying f*cking tax on the benefit you are getting from staying at home to save. That's one of the most significant issues driving wealth inequality in this country between age groups. Direct government intervention through fiscal policy benefits baby boomers and early genxers, the rest of the youth pay it, and get our taxation policy doesn't target it. It perpetuates the issue by allowing you to live at home tax free to save a deposit.

I'd tax the bollix out of your cohort if I was Minister for Finance, no matter how politically unpalatable it was.

You talk about decency. This young couple haven't as much as a washer in their pocket, and at the same time you have a load of others on this thread patting themselves on the back as though their life position is through their own effort alone. You're in for a shock lads. It's not. You've zero understanding of economics. In your world a man in the back arse of Timbuktu, every man, can make it by just pulling up his socks. That's the only difference between you and him, that he just isn't working hard enough and making the sacrifices.

Not the fact that he probably doesn't even have any socks.

Grab All Association

downtheroad wrote: »

So she got herself added to the council house list 3 years ago at the age of 18 and now has a 20 month old child, yet you don't think she'd trying to pull a fast one? At best she got pregnant within 6 months of being added to the council house list. Therefore she declared herself homeless and then goes on to have 2 children and now pregnant with a third. Sure, she's not trying to pull a fast one.

I believe you have to apply for social housing in order to get rent allowance. This wouldn’t be unusual.

As for having children, obviously an attempt to jump the housing queue and each child is to maximise benefit income.

Having grown up in a very small village with a large council estate up the road full of these types of people, I can tell you it’s the “fathers” of these children who encouraged the woman to have them in the first place. Young girls I went to primary school with were groomed by these men into controlling relationship with them and bearing children before finishing secondary school or seeking work.

Benefit caps and reverting back to the way social housing was previously allocated, length on list priority, are needed.

Nikki Sixx

Getting tired of these photo ops. Suppose the girl was living in her mom’s council house till now. It has been taking too long to get a free house, so she’s jumping on the homeless bandwagon. There are plenty of girls and fellas in their twenties, who can’t afford to leave home, but they are working. These working 20 somethings are saving for a mortgage, as they live an extra few years at home.

Nikki Sixx

na1 wrote: »

Do you think leaving these children with their parents will do any good? Will they grow up educated and hard working citizens?

My crystal ball tells me that dad won’t be long Fcuking off and leaving mother and baby.

Nikki Sixx

Must be nice never having to worry about a mortgage/renting your council house for €20 per week.

Roger Hassenforder

myshirt wrote: »

What you need to start doing is paying f*cking tax on the benefit you are getting from staying at home to save.

I'd tax the bollix out of your cohort if I was Minister for Finance, no matter how politically unpalatable it was.

And there we have it. Someone just said it.
Someone trying to save for a mortgage, to provide a home for themselves, by living at home needs to pay more tax to provide for the , and i'm being kind here, less vocationally inclined.

Someone just went full MaryLou

myshirt wrote: »

That's the only difference between you and him, that he just isn't working hard enough and making the sacrifices.

Nail on the head, although i'm quoting you out of context, and suspect this wastrel never worked an honest days work in his life.

myshirt

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

And there we have it. Someone just said it.
Someone trying to save for a mortgage, to provide a home for themselves, by living at home needs to pay more tax to provide for the , and i'm being kind here, less vocationally inclined.

Someone just went full MaryLou



Nail on the head, although i'm quoting you out of context, and suspect this wastrel never worked an honest days work in his life.

Why can't they be given a hand up? (Not a hand out)
What's the issue?

creeper1

LirW wrote: »

Okay I really don't agree with them trying to pull a fast one. They're young and irresponsible and probably have never seen any better.



My point is that it is unfair, yes. But honestly I do not want these people on the streets kicking up a stink and running riot. I want them to be housed so they keep quiet and have some sort of stability in their lives that hopefully keeps them away from crime.
It's sh*t but I see it as a ransom society pays in order to keep the full-time leeches satisfied and quiet. Not a life I desire to live to be honest.

.

I think there is some merit in what you are saying in the short term but in the long term this is going to be beyond disasterous.


If people that work are reproducing at below replacement levels (which they are) and people that don't work are reproducing (well she has three already and it wouldn't be out of the question that she has 6 before she is 40) then the whole system is going to collapse.


If the whole system collapses (which is predicated on people being decent and actually wanting to work) we are going to be left in anarchy.

Roger Hassenforder

myshirt wrote: »

Why can't they be given a hand up? (Not a hand out)
What's the issue?

We should help those who cant help themselves.
Not those who fcuking wont , never will, and are gaming the system?




But tell me more of this tax policy of yours anyway.
Im thinking of saving for something. Working hard, and trying to put some aside where I can.
Making sacrifices. I now need to pay even more tax on this?

Tell me how we encourage people to work, save, sacrifice? To strive for something?

Would you ever cop yourself on.

Nikki Sixx

Working people are supporting this crazy welfare system. It’s going to get even more ridiculous now with a family on welfare getting a brand new house worth €500,000 in the middle of a new estate. The family on welfare will smirk when they see their neighbours working their nuts off to fund their mortgages, as they sit back and relax.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I haven't seen any suggestion that this one was in need of renovation when the previous tenants left, nor that it was in the middle of being renovated when these folks broke in?

Every house has to be renovated before being given to someone else. Stripped back to bare walls. Painted. New kitchen and bathroom. These have to be ordered.

Deebles McBeebles

Fingers crossed for Italian marble. Can't be raising Levi, Chlamydia and presumably Rihanna on anything less.

whampiri

Watch out for the marble though cos the nibblers might fall and brain themselves and sher then she'd have to go and sue the council.

Roger Hassenforder

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Every house has to be renovated before being given to someone else. Stripped back to bare walls.

If not already done so by the vacating tenant

LirW

downtheroad wrote: »

So she got herself added to the council house list 3 years ago at the age of 18 and now has a 20 month old child, yet you don't think she'd trying to pull a fast one? At best she got pregnant within 6 months of being added to the council house list. Therefore she declared herself homeless and then goes on to have 2 children and now pregnant with a third. Sure, she's not trying to pull a fast one.

No that wasn't what I was trying to say! Reading over my post I didn't manage to express myself properly (maybe it's the language barrier), anyway, I'll try again:
I think their behaviour is shameful and pretty damn undignified for a couple that has a third kid on the way with no game plan on supporting them. I get everyone who's being upset there and it annoys me too.

But I can see why they're this way in the first place. Both have long family backgrounds on social welfare and they have never seen any better. Education is not valued in their surroundings and they most likely don't know any examples of people that successfully made themselves a better life through education and hard work.

And I see a big issue in the fact that long term unemployed are housed to the exact same standard as people that are working and paying their way. But there is no basic housing for people that are on benefits for a long time. For as long as this isn't changing people will chance their arm.

I'm completely against a dog eats dog system like the US has it. I don't see they have a right to housing, but I don't want to see them on the streets. Not because I care about them having a forever home but because I don't want to see people without perspective rioting and terrorising people that really try having their life in order because they don't know any better than turning to a life of crime or anti-social behaviour.
It's absolutely unfair but it's a case of having the tax payer paying for them to keep quiet or having to deal with scrotes causing havoc because they have never learned to successfully integrate into society.

(I'm aware that they can still cause problems either way but the inability to deal with that is a topic for another day.)

SirGerryAdams

I'd really like to see some politicians get on TV and call people out for this.

RBB and Murphy and the likes will defend these people all day long and if any mainstream politician said anything bad about them the twitter mob would be out in force demanding they are burned at the stake. Peter McVerry etc. would be the same.

This is akin to fraud.

whampiri

Politicians, for the he most part, won't say anything as these people are still voters. Criticising people who engage in this type of behavior is sure to lose votes from them. Tackling it won't necessarily gain votes.

whampiri

whampiri wrote: »

Politicians, for the he most part, won't say anything as these people are still voters. Criticising people who engage in this type of behavior is sure to lose votes from them. Tackling it won't necessarily gain votes.

Are you kidding? People like these don’t bother with voting! As AAA/PBP found to their cost in the local elections! In some of their strongholds 60% of their constituents couldn’t be a**ed voting!

whampiri

I disagree. While many won't bother to vote "normally", removing what they see as an entitlement will get them mobilized.

Just look at the water charges protests. This only gained traction when a cohort of people saw how it would affect their beer money. I will say however that, that protest was not made up exclusively of this cohort.

downtheroad

Grab All Association wrote: »

I believe you have to apply for social housing in order to get rent allowance. This wouldn’t be unusual.

As for having children, obviously an attempt to jump the housing queue and each child is to maximise benefit income.

Having grown up in a very small village with a large council estate up the road full of these types of people, I can tell you it’s the “fathers” of these children who encouraged the woman to have them in the first place. Young girls I went to primary school with were groomed by these men into controlling relationship with them and bearing children before finishing secondary school or seeking work.

Benefit caps and reverting back to the way social housing was previously allocated, length on list priority, are needed.

When I was 18 I didn't run straight down to the local welfare office to apply for rent allowance, housing list etc, and I'm sure most posters on this thread were the same. The system is drastically broken if people can be put on this list having never contributed and continuing to do nothing but take in the future. Then again at 18 I wasn't aware of rent allowance, housing list etc but it's likely this couple have been told exactly how to extort the system. Its a pity they can't apply the same level of effort to working and contributing to society.

Eric Cartman

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Fingers crossed for Italian marble. Can't be raising Levi, Chlamydia and presumably Rihanna on anything less.

Im actually kind of glad that they name their kids like that, your kid can come home from school and just say “dad i made a new friend at school named rihanna” and I can respond “son absolutely stay the f*ck away from that inbred dumpster fire for the rest of your life” with absolute certainty that im making the right call.

splinter65

myshirt wrote: »

Why can't they be given a hand up? (Not a hand out)
What's the issue?

So take money off the already struggling to give it to the “I can’t be bothered struggling I’ll just sit here till someone gives me free stuff” brigade.
So that everyone can be equally poor?!

Roger Hassenforder

LirW wrote: »

But I can see why they're this way in the first place. Both have long family backgrounds on social welfare and they have never seen any better. Education is not valued in their surroundings and they most likely don't know any examples of people that successfully made themselves a better life through education and hard work.

Not to have a go at you, but this is exactly the problem. Why should they get an education, work etc. when the PAYE mugs will bail them out?

Ok, so they wont be living in Dalkey or Shanakiel but they'll have their beer money, fag money, kid gets a cough and off to the GP, never put their hands in their pocket for a shekel they earned.



Its getting like a pyramid scheme

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im actually kind of glad that they name their kids like that, your kid can come home from school and just say “dad i made a new friend at school named rihanna” and I can respond “son absolutely stay the f*ck away from that inbred dumpster fire for the rest of your life” with absolute certainty that im making the right call.

A very dear friend called her daughter Rhiannon after the Fleetwood Mac song. She’s a midwife now so don’t tar all Rhiannon’s with the same brush!