Significant increase' in babies born into homelessness

Richard571

The homeless charity industry really winds me up sometimes.

See latest news story on RTÉ on increasing amount of babies born into homelessness...,“The charity's founder (Focus) Sr Stan said it was "shocking and appalling" and "fundamentally wrong", adding that the situation was "worse than ever”.

What is wrong is the complete lack of personal accountability- WTF are people having children for if they are in temporary accommodation. The state should not be there to support everyone in every situation if they recklessly add to their own woes.

I’m sure they do good work and I know there are genuine cases but this undermines their position in my mind.

End of rant.

Salary Negotiator

Heard a Focus Ireland ad on the radio earlier fund raising for kids born into homeless. Cant help but think it’d be cheaper to offer free contraception.

DebDynamite

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Heard a Focus Ireland ad on the radio earlier fund raising for kids born into homeless. Cant help but think it’d be cheaper to offer free contraception.

I’d imagine the vast majority of people in emergency accommodation would have a medical card, therefore contraception would be free (bar condoms probably)

suicide_circus

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Heard a Focus Ireland ad on the radio earlier fund raising for kids born into homeless. Cant help but think it’d be cheaper to offer free contraception.

its not a lack of contraception thats making people who cant afford it have kids. kids are the key to more free stuff.

Gatling

I'm a single homeless women every time someone knocks on me hotel door i get pregnant

Gods Gift

Getting pregnant while homeless shows a blatant disregard for the child safety and their future. And shows the mentality of the parents.

Roger_007

Gatling wrote: »

I'm a single homeless women every time someone knocks on me hotel door i get pregnant

I thought you had to 'fall' to get pregnant?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

That’s how the current Government would like you to look at it alright. But the situation was created because of a failed policy with regards to social housing, and this is the result.

Eric Cartman

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

That’s how the current Government would like you to look at it alright. But the situation was created because of a failed policy with regards to social housing, and this is the result.

The failed policy is that having more kids can get you bumped up the list at a time when demand massively outstrips supply. It was always going to happen.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The failed policy is that having more kids can get you bumped up the list at a time when demand massively outstrips supply. It was always going to happen.

Doesn’t change the fact that the lack of supply is a Government issue.

Eric Cartman

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

Doesn’t change the fact that the lack of supply is a Government issue.

Ill agree with you, but when this crisis emerged the 'kids for priority' leauge table of need should have been suspended and the public made acutely aware of this.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

If there was adequate supply of social housing, and I mean going back as far as the selling off council houses to tenants. That should never have happened. Social housing should be based on need, and allocated on a rented/tenancy basis. When your kids grow up and move out, you lose the 3 bed, and move into a bungalow. Anyone that could afford/wanted to own property enters the private market.

Doing this would have removed the incentive to have more children simply in order to get a house.

Instead, politicians placed the social housing responsibility into the hands of private developers, and we’re now seeing the results.

Eric Cartman

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

If there was adequate supply of social housing, and I mean going back as far as the selling off council houses to tenants. That should never have happened. Social housing should be based on need, and allocated on a rented/tenancy basis. When your kids grow up and move out, you lose the 3 bed, and move into a bungalow. Anyone that could afford/wanted to own property enters the private market.

Doing this would have removed the incentive to have more children simply in order to get a house.

Absolutely would agree with this and have been advocating for it. Would free up a lot of housing stock and create great communities of retirees in 1 bedroom apartments where services could be concentrated and alone elderly people monitored closely.

However I think this has to be tackled holistically and any incentive to even have children to get a social house or more money just removed, those who are not in employment or have no prospects of working enough to meet the current contributory pension rules should not be allowed even apply to live inside our cities, and those who fall in to severe long term unemployment (>3 years) should be made to move out of cities to make space in the housing for those who work.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Then you need to lobby your local TD to change the criteria for allocating social houses. Currently you must have a connection to an area in order to get on the list, so you can’t tell someone from Sheriff Street to apply for a house in Sligo for example.

Spanish Eyes

Many people who are working having provided their own property via a hefty mortgage are unable to afford to have children for a long time.

At this stage those people and many others like them with children or not need some advocates.

But it ain't sexy to speak up for those who actually work, pay their way and pay for others whilst they are at it via taxation, making sacrifices along the way to be non dependent on the State by and large. Nope not happening and never will.

lawred2

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

Doesn’t change the fact that the lack of supply is a Government issue.

Or a funding issue

You think money grows on trees! Those paying the taxes to fund such largesse are making the decision to forego children every single day of the week.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

lawred2 wrote: »

Or a funding issue

You think money grows on trees! Those paying such taxes are making the decision to forego children every single day of the week.

There’s always going to be poor(er) people. They need social/affordable housing. Should children be a luxury of the rich now?

Eric Cartman

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

There’s always going to be poor(er) people. They need social/affordable housing. Should children be a luxury of the rich now?

No, but it should be a luxury of those who work and are productive members of society, a tax credit structure should be put in place instead of payouts like child benefit. We need to encourage those who work full time (from working class all the way up) to have children, while actively discouraging those who do not work from having kids or those who have kids to live a lifestyle at the states expense.

We're about to fall off a pensions cliff. We do not need to pay for another young woman to take herself out of the labour market and add to the states expense for her whole life.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Low income members of society having more children in order to move up the priority list happened because Govt housing policy incentivised that behaviour. Sure, it’s irresponsible, but that’s how the system works.

eviltwin

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No, but it should be a luxury of those who work and are productive members of society, a tax credit structure should be put in place instead of payouts like child benefit. We need to encourage those who work full time (from working class all the way up) to have children, while actively discouraging those who do not work from having kids or those who have kids to live a lifestyle at the states expense.

We're about to fall off a pensions cliff. We do not need to pay for another young woman to take herself out of the labour market and add to the states expense for her whole life.

The problem is those who work can't afford to have children. Childcare is expensive so even those on welfare who want to get back to education or work can't afford to.

Field east

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

Low income members of society having more children in order to move up the priority list happened because Govt housing policy incentivised that behaviour. Sure, it’s irresponsible, but that’s how the system works.

Richard571 wrote: »

The homeless charity industry really winds me up sometimes.

See latest news story on RTÉ on increasing amount of babies born into homelessness...,“The charity's founder (Focus) Sr Stan said it was "shocking and appalling" and "fundamentally wrong", adding that the situation was "worse than ever”.

What is wrong is the complete lack of personal accountability- WTF are people having children for if they are in temporary accommodation. The state should not be there to support everyone in every situation if they recklessly add to their own woes.

I’m sure they do good work and I know there are genuine cases but this undermines their position in my mind.

End of rant.

The newborn will not know the difference between a crib in a stable and an infants cot in a well built and highly insulated 5 bedroom residence in
Ballsbridge as long as it is kept warm and fed. As far as the infant is concerned they are both homes. It is the mother or/ and father that are in charge/ control of creating the environment around which the infant is brought up in. It would be of interest to know the typical situation around the homeless mothers with newborns - what kind of accommodation are they currently in; what is their situation reavailability relatives/friends, etc

Richard571

Field east wrote: »

The newborn will not know the difference between a crib in a stable and an infants cot in a well built and highly insulated 5 bedroom residence in
Ballsbridge as long as it is kept warm and fed. As far as the infant is concerned they are both homes. It is the mother or/ and father that are in charge/ control of creating the environment around which the infant is brought up in. It would be of interest to know the typical situation around the homeless mothers with newborns - what kind of accommodation are they currently in; what is their situation reavailability relatives/friends, etc

I agree but don’t expect the state to prioritize your homelessness as you made a decision to have a child. People have children for all reasons - this is not about saying poor people shouldn’t have kids or raise kids every bit as well as wealthy people - rather people need to take personal accountability when choosing to have children.

It’s the children who ultimately stand to suffer and by prioritising those who choose to you are creating a powerful incentive to perpetuate this behaviour.

One eyed Jack

Richard571 wrote: »

The homeless charity industry really winds me up sometimes.

I’m glad you referred to it as an industry, that’s what it’s always been since people discovered that the State would throw money at them for keeping the underclass out of sight of civilised society.

Richard571 wrote: »

See latest news story on RTÉ on increasing amount of babies born into homelessness...,“The charity's founder (Focus) Sr Stan said it was "shocking and appalling" and "fundamentally wrong", adding that the situation was "worse than ever”.

She has a point - ever since the criteria defining homelessness have been jigged to mean anyone who doesn’t have a permanent roof over their heads, the amount of children “born into homelessness” has skyrocketed. It’s basically a PR stunt by the charity industry to lobby the State to provide more funding so they can keep more people hidden from civilised society.

Richard571 wrote: »

What is wrong is the complete lack of personal accountability- WTF are people having children for if they are in temporary accommodation. The state should not be there to support everyone in every situation if they recklessly add to their own woes.

They’re not in their current position due to their keen foresight, which explains why they don’t see things the same way you do for example. The State is falling well short of supporting anyone, let alone everyone, even though it actually is the duty of the State to provide for it’s citizens, particularly children, as opposed to ensuring they are kept out of sight of civilised society by funding the charities industry instead.

Richard571 wrote: »

I’m sure they do good work and I know there are genuine cases but this undermines their position in my mind.

End of rant.

I’d be happier to see the fundraising managers of these charities speaking up about how the vast amounts of money being thrown at them by the State is being spent already tbh, because the State doesn’t appear to be getting value for money.

Kermit.de.frog

Stop child benefit after the 2nd child for everyone regardless.

Problem solved.

They should never have introduced these benefits in the first place. It creates dependency culture.

If they had never introduced these things people would have gotten by and we would be far better off now.

But once they introduce them the damage is done.

end of the road

Eric Cartman wrote: »

those who are not in employment or have no prospects of working enough to meet the current contributory pension rules should not be allowed even apply to live inside our cities, and those who fall in to severe long term unemployment (>3 years) should be made to move out of cities to make space in the housing for those who work.

this would no doubt end up being a repeat of the already tried and failed ghettoisation/dumping grounds, out of sight, out of mind which hasn't worked, and will not work.
so no, this absolutely should not happen.

dartboardio

Seen a woman recently on the Facebook end homelessness group. She was actually saying she wanted to have a new baby asap, despite being in hotels the last three years with her other kids.

Complete selfishness.

Eric Cartman

dartboardio wrote: »

Seen a woman recently on the Facebook end homelessness group. She was actually saying she wanted to have a new baby asap, despite being in hotels the last three years with her other kids.

Complete selfishness.

there was one story on rte before where a woman and one child had moved in to a hotel room , she had become pregnant and had another child and become pregnant again, standing there 6 months pregnant with another kid under 1 , a 4-5 year old saying how the room was getting overcrowded and the government were a disgrace etc... "how is this room suitable for a woman and 3 children"

Lillyfae

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

Low income members of society having more children in order to move up the priority list happened because Govt housing policy incentivised that behaviour. Sure, it’s irresponsible, but that’s how the system works.

I really can't imagine anything more disgusting than purposely having a baby when you know that you're going to have a newborn in such fragile circumstances. You have no capacity for love for a baby if that is your sole purpose for having them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

civilised society.



civilised society.



civilised society

You know the only difference between what you called "civilised society" and these people? Not seeing procreation as a career.

Macdarack

If they have kids while homeless, the newborn should be put up for adoption. Each one of these kids born could go on in life and end up costing the state over 600,000 over their lifespans if they end up likd their parents. I know a lot of professional couples who can't have kids and could give these home less kids a great life.

Macdarack

If they have kids while homeless, the newborn should be put up for adoption. Each one of these kids born could go on in life and end up costing the state over 600,000 over their lifespans if they end up likd their parents. I know a lot of professional couples who can't have kids and could give these home less kids a great life.

Wanderer78

Pmacv1 wrote: »

There's no excuse for having children you can't afford. Abortions are free.

Macdarack wrote: »

If they have kids while homeless, the newborn should be put up for adoption. Each one of these kids born could go on in life and end up costing the state over 600,000 over their lifespans if they end up likd their parents. I know a lot of professional couples who can't have kids and could give these home less kids a great life.

forced sterilization, its the only way!

dvdman1

Pmacv1 wrote: »

There's no excuse for having children you can't afford. Abortions are free.

Everyone doesnt agree with abortions also rich people dont get the monopoly on our future generation.

NIMAN

"My lot in life is terrible. I'm living in emergency accommodation, no permanent home in sight, it's ruining my mental health and that of my kids, who have nowhere to play, do their homework or bring friends round".

"I know what'll help the situation, I'll bring another kid into all this".

Allowing for total lack of personal responsibility is unforgivable. What is wrong with people?

Wanderer78

NIMAN wrote: »

"My lot in life is terrible. I'm living in emergency accommodation, no permanent home in sight, it's ruining my mental health and that of my kids, who have nowhere to play, do their homework or bring friends round".

"I know what'll help the situation, I'll bring another kid into all this".

Allowing for total lack of personal responsibility is unforgivable. What is wrong with people?

some people seem to think we all have equal opportunities in life, we all have the ability to get access to our most critical of needs, such as housing

Lillyfae

Pmacv1 wrote: »

There's no excuse for having children you can't afford. Abortions are free.

So is contraception, no need to have an abortion.

dvdman1 wrote: »

Everyone doesnt agree with abortions also rich people dont get the monopoly on our future generation.

See above, abortion is not the alternative to having a child.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

forced sterilization, its the only way!

Hey, contraception is not sterilization.

Macdarack wrote: »

If they have kids while homeless, the newborn should be put up for adoption. Each one of these kids born could go on in life and end up costing the state over 600,000 over their lifespans if they end up likd their parents. I know a lot of professional couples who can't have kids and could give these home less kids a great life.

They are completely unfit parents if they will recklessly endanger a child by having it, so I think there's a definite argument to be had for fostering of children born into homelessness, but Ireland can't seem to actually give any care to children in care so not exactly a great solution. I can't bring myself to reduce the life of a child to a monetary figure (being a parent myself this might be a bit shocking/ depressing anyway :pac:) but I firmly believe that the current system is incentivising as many children as possible with no accountability for the poor things post natal. Even ante natal, with many poor little things born with the effects of drug and/ or alcohol abuse. That, imo, should be instant forced adoption.

Wanderer78

go full retard, its the only way to solve this age old boards conundrum! should we be looking at bringing back laundries?

Lillyfae

Wanderer78 wrote: »

some people seem to think we all have equal opportunities in life, we all have the ability to get access to our most critical of needs, such as housing

What about access to medical care? The medical card allows them better access, their contraception is free so AGAIN better access.

I managed to not have a child until my 30s by which time I owned my own home having rented in houseshares for years. These people will never have to share, they have made sure of that by guaranteeing the taxpayer that it wasn't just them that needed to be housed. Not to mention what has stopped them from accessing the same education that we are all offered? What's stopping them from getting jobs before they have 3+ children and can't access the workforce using "childcare costs" as an excuse??

marieholmfan

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Absolutely would agree with this and have been advocating for it. Would free up a lot of housing stock and create great communities of retirees in 1 bedroom apartments where services could be concentrated and alone elderly people monitored closely.

However I think this has to be tackled holistically and any incentive to even have children to get a social house or more money just removed, those who are not in employment or have no prospects of working enough to meet the current contributory pension rules should not be allowed even apply to live inside our cities, and those who fall in to severe long term unemployment (>3 years) should be made to move out of cities to make space in the housing for those who work.

The most important role of any Irish government is to encourage Irish people to have children. The alternative is the extermination of the Irish race!

Your policies are sensible and likely to achieve this!

Wanderer78

Lillyfae wrote: »

What about access to medical care? The medical card allows them better access, their contraception is free so AGAIN better access.

I managed to not have a child until my 30s by which time I owned my own home having rented in houseshares for years. These people will never have to share, they have made sure of that by guaranteeing the taxpayer that it wasn't just them that needed to be housed. Not to mention what has stopped them from accessing the same education that we are all offered? What's stopping them from getting jobs before they have 3+ children and can't access the workforce using "childcare costs" as an excuse??

what if our educational and training systems dont actually fulfill all of our citizens needs, and ultimately fails to educate and train them for the job market? what if you dont have access to the thousands that is required to achieve a reasonable level of education? free education, now that is not exactly true!

marieholmfan

Lillyfae wrote: »

What about access to medical care? The medical card allows them better access, their contraception is free so AGAIN better access.

I managed to not have a child until my 30s by which time I owned my own home having rented in houseshares for years. These people will never have to share, they have made sure of that by guaranteeing the taxpayer that it wasn't just them that needed to be housed. Not to mention what has stopped them from accessing the same education that we are all offered? What's stopping them from getting jobs before they have 3+ children and can't access the workforce using "childcare costs" as an excuse??

Sorry to hear that.

Lillyfae

marieholmfan wrote: »

Sorry to hear that.

It was shocking difficult, I don't know how it happened. Margaret Cash is about 5 years younger than me with 8 times as many children

Lillyfae

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what if our educational and training systems dont actually fulfill all of our citizens needs, and ultimately fails to educate and train them for the job market? what if you dont have access to the thousands that is required to achieve a reasonable level of education? free education, now that is not exactly true!

What needs are unfulfilled exactly?? Are there not extra supports for those with learning difficulties? Are there not grants based on their means or lack thereof? I knew quite a few when I went to school who received and fully availed of these.

I also remember in school I needed to get a form signed by the school every year after I turned 15/ 16 to prove the I was still in full time education. This in order for my parents to continue to receive child benefit. Do some children who leave school before this somehow still qualify their parents receipt of some benefit or not?

Wanderer78

Lillyfae wrote: »

What needs are unfulfilled exactly?? Are there not extra supports for those with learning difficulties? Are there not grants based on their means or lack thereof? I knew quite a few when I went to school who received and fully availed of these.

I also remember in school I needed to get a form signed by the school every year after I turned 15/ 16 to prove the I was still in full time education. This in order for my parents to continue to receive child benefit. Do some children who leave school before this somehow still qualify their parents receipt of some benefit or not?

our educational system is designed for certain types of minds, it ultimately fails those that do not have these types of minds, its ultimately a giant memory test, and if you have memory related issues, you re gonna struggle, but it also fails in many other ways.

yes and no to supports, supports are poor at best, none existing in some schools, if you have not been diagnosed, you re screwed.

grants alone are simply not enough, it can easily cost multiples of times a grant amount, to support a single person at third level, and if you dont have access to those funds, its simply isnt gonna happen for you.

if you cannot prove your child is still in school, and you are on welfare, you will be deducted, strangely enough, increasing the likelihood of further poverty, and increasingly likelihood, of a lifetime on welfare

AlanG

Do these numbers include people on HAP - if so they are not homeless in the way most people think, usually they are working families who have to register as homeless to get the higher HAP payments needed to rent in Dublin. Lots of people on HAP are in secure rented accommodation and have jobs with average pay. People renting without HAP are often in a far more precarious position as they spend a higher proportion of their wages on rent.

BDI

Why can’t they work as cleaners in the hotels they live in?

Why can’t the government buy or build some of these hotels.

Why can’t they keep the men and women in different hotels until they can afford to house themselves?

Why does the system encourage people to have more babies and work less before they can have a house?

Why do our taxes pay for tradesmen to come and fix these houses everytime they break something in them? That’s right if they need a plumber, joe public pays.

Why is the government propping up the hotel industry by providing them with booked up rooms at the full rate?

Why can’t we buy up all the closed down hotels around the dead ex tourist towns and use the old reception as a school and send them down there for 2 years before they get a free house? Cal it a free holiday entitlement and they will be all over it.

Wanderer78

Keep it coming folks, we re almost at full retard status now, go boards!

Lillyfae

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Keep it coming folks, we re almost at full retard status now, go boards!

Alright dude, not biting anymore

Wanderer78

Lillyfae wrote:

Alright dude, not biting anymore

Awww that's a pity, happy Monday

ampleforth

Richard571 wrote: »

The homeless charity industry really winds me up sometimes.

See latest news story on RTÉ on increasing amount of babies born into homelessness...,“The charity's founder (Focus) Sr Stan said it was "shocking and appalling" and "fundamentally wrong", adding that the situation was "worse than ever”.

What is wrong is the complete lack of personal accountability- WTF are people having children for if they are in temporary accommodation. The state should not be there to support everyone in every situation if they recklessly add to their own woes.

I’m sure they do good work and I know there are genuine cases but this undermines their position in my mind.

End of rant.

Could it be that homelessness has the psychological effect of wanting more stability and having more children as a 'false' solution to the issue? I saw that returning ISIS fighters are coming back with newborns ... I am quite puzzled by this ...

Lillyfae

ampleforth wrote: »

Could it be that homelessness has the psychological effect of wanting more stability and having more children as a 'false' solution to the issue? I saw that returning ISIS fighters are coming back with newborns ... I am quite puzzled by this ...

No contraception in the caliphate, obvs, coupled with many marriages between people living like it's their last day on Earth constantly. I don't find it that surprising.

ampleforth

Lillyfae wrote: »

No contraception in the caliphate, obvs, coupled with many marriages between people living like it's their last day on Earth constantly. I don't find it that surprising.

The movie Idiocracy summed it up well... who are the 'idiots' and who are the smart ones really?