Teen Mum Sisters Get £30k

Eoghan-psych

tinkerbell wrote:

I ain't working yet, but I will be in the next few months - nearly finished uni now. I have slaved through uni, and to think that the money I pay on tax will be going to the likes of those stupid idiotic girls is just maddening! The likes of us work hard to earn a living whereas the likes of them - ah sure we'll just drop out of school, spread the aul legs, have fifty babies by the time we're 18, and we'll get loads of free stuff from tax payer's money - that is the attitude that those three and their mother have given off.

Yes, those evil little babies - how dare they go and get born. Oh wait, they had no say in the matter.

At the end of the day, the welfare payments are for the *child*, not the "mother" [using the term loosely - like her knickers]. It's all well and good saying that sex ed was deficient, or the parents were morons or whateve, but what it boils down to is there is now a kid. Our society can either say "right so, sod *why* this kid is here let's just try and do right by it" or we can go down the "sod the kid, his ma's a slapper" route.

Frankly I'm proud that our society chooses Door A.

By all means step up to the challenge of trying to reduce the numbers of such births - but accept the reality that the resultant children need society's protection.

Eoghan-psych

ionapaul wrote:

IMHO opinion cases like this show the direct consequences of the breakdown of 'traditional society' and the rise of 'me-me-me', 'because I'm worth it' and 'no-one can tell me or my child what to do', lack of personal responsibility and the popular rejection of absolute morality in favour of relative morality. I think the pendulum has swung too far from the stiff morality and 'illiberal' traits of times gone by. We need to find a happy medium where people can again be criticised for their actions, where people (and in this country politicians) will actually feel shame for doing something wrong. I'll stop now as I feel a mega-rant coming on

Yes, because there were no teenage mothers before the Late Late show.

All those girls really *were* going to visit their Aunt Mary in Liverpool.

Sleepy

I think in these type of situations that it's society's responsibility to take the child away from it's birth mother and give it a chance. While the image of orphanages is generally perceived in a poor light I genuinely believe those children would have a better chance at life away from such unfit parents.

county

correct me if i am wrong but the legal age for consent in rep of ireland is 17

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

I think in these type of situations that it's society's responsibility to take the child away from it's birth mother and give it a chance. While the image of orphanages is generally perceived in a poor light I genuinely believe those children would have a better chance at life away from such unfit parents.

I think the system of orphanages in this country has largely been replaced by the system of foster homes, which provide a much better environment for a child than an orphanage

Zombrex

ionapaul wrote:

IMHO opinion cases like this show the direct consequences of the breakdown of 'traditional society' and the rise of 'me-me-me'

The direct consequence being that the teenage birth rate has been dropping in this country since the 50s... :rolleyes:

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story.asp?j=140167828&p=y4xy68534

It is an Gerry Ryan urban myth that we have a much higher level of teenage parents than we ever had .. they were simply shipped off to England or the baby put up for adoption in "old" Ireland so people didn't notice and shame was not brought on the family ... good to see we have moved on since those days :rolleyes:

ionapaul

Where did I mention anything at all about the teenage birth rate?!!!!!! I thought the clear message in my post was about the lack of personal responsibility seen in this particular case, no?

BTW nothing wrong with adoption at all, I'm adopted myself.

Zombrex

Eoghan-psych wrote:

By all means step up to the challenge of trying to reduce the numbers of such births - but accept the reality that the resultant children need society's protection.

Well said.

It should also be recongised that the social welfare payments a single mother gets is not enough to live on, let allow live on comfortably ... speaking as a child raised for a period by a single mother I can tell you it is very very hard to survive on social welfare.

Any girl who thinks that a baby means they get supported by the state is incorrect and and idiot and in for a big big shock if they do get pregnent ... and any person who is jealous or angry believing that these single parents are living it up off the state are totally incorrect and mis-informed idiots.

Zombrex

ionapaul wrote:

Where did I mention anything at all about the teenage birth rate?!!!!!! I thought the clear message in my post was about the lack of personal responsibility seen in this particular case, no?

BTW nothing wrong with adoption at all, I'm adopted myself.

And I am saying what are you basing that on?... how is this any different than a kid getting pregnent in 1955?

You are blaming modern society where in fact it appears modern society is preventing teenage births

Sleepy

Ehm, Wicknight, it's SUPPOSED to be hard to survive on social welfare. It's a safety net for society, not a long-term means of supporting oneself and one's family. If someone's not prepared to go out and find a means of supporting themselves, I've no sympathy for them if they eke out a crap living on the welfare. We're not living in the 80's any more. Immigrants to this country are finding work despite some not even having a firm grasp of English, anyone reared here has no excuse for being out of work.

It is my firm belief that most long-term beneficiaries of social welfare shouldn't be seeing a cent of taxpayers money. Some people seem to believe that flipping burgers in McDonalds is more of an affront to their dignity than holding their hand out and expecting society to support them. This kind of thinking has to change.

People may not be "living it up" off the state, but they are still living off it in a parasitic fashion.

ionapaul

My point...yes, there was one...is the leeching off the state is not taking personal responsibility. The mother of the three girls living off the taxpayers via her three children is not taking personal responsibility.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

I've no sympathy for them if they eke out a crap living on the welfare.

And who raises the children if the mothers are forced to go off and work 10 hour shifts in McDonalds to survive?

Zombrex

ionapaul wrote:

My point...yes, there was one...is the leeching off the state is not taking personal responsibility. The mother of the three girls living off the taxpayers via her three children is not taking personal responsibility.

the mother is living off the children's welfare benefits? I find that very hard to believe ... they get just over 10K a year each, which is barely enough for a person to survive on let alone a person with a child .. I find it impossible to believe there is very much money left over for the mother after all food and nappies have been bought

ionapaul

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13354131,00.html

"All four mothers live rent free in their three-bedroom Derby house and receive a combination of income support, tax credits and child benefit.

Double divorcee Mrs Atkins, 38, remains unrepentant about the family's situation. She told the Sunday Mercury: "I don't care what people say about me."

That's according to Sky, of course. The fact that she and her children (the three mothers!) are living off the taxpayers is wrong, IMHO, the quality of their lives immaterial to the morality of the situation. Obviously, on the other hand, the poor children themselves should not be punished because of this - they might be better off in foster homes, or in adoption. Another issue entirely, I suppose.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

And who raises the children if the mothers are forced to go off and work 10 hour shifts in McDonalds to survive?

If you can't afford children, you shouldn't have them in the first place. If you're unable to support children you already have, it isn't society's place to pay you to raise them.

Eoghan-psych

Sleepy wrote:

Ehm, Wicknight, it's SUPPOSED to be hard to survive on social welfare. It's a safety net for society, not a long-term means of supporting oneself and one's family. If someone's not prepared to go out and find a means of supporting themselves, I've no sympathy for them if they eke out a crap living on the welfare. We're not living in the 80's any more. Immigrants to this country are finding work despite some not even having a firm grasp of English, anyone reared here has no excuse for being out of work.

Anyone? Really?

So the single mother who can't afford to go out to work has no excuse? Are *you* going to feed her kids and change nappies so she doesn't have to pay a childminder?

For a *huge* portion of welfare recipients there simply is no option - going out to work would mean both a net loss in income and an increase in costs.

Without doubt there are people out there on welfare because they see it as an easy option - second and third generation welfare recipients who have *never* had a legitimate wage coming into their homes. Certainly, this is unacceptable - but tarrring *all* welfare recipients with that brush is not a good way to solve the problem. It's akin to the "they're stealing our jobs" line used against non-national workers.

Eoghan-psych

Sleepy wrote:

If you can't afford children, you shouldn't have them in the first place. If you're unable to support children you already have, it isn't society's place to pay you to raise them.

The fertility of sperm is not means tested.

Who *wilI* pay for the children if the parents can't? What should we do, let them grow up in filth, or take them into care? Far better for us to try and do our best by them and preserve some semblance of a normal family unit.

It *is* society's place to look after the members of that society.

Sleepy

No it's the exact opposite: they can't be bothered getting jobs

The single mother who "can't afford to go out and work" is an unfit mother. She is unable to rear her child just as surely as if she was a raging alcoholic. The child's father also has a financial responsibility (and far more than that) to ensuring that there is sufficient money coming into the family unit to raise that child.

I'd like to hear your explanation as to why a dual income family (or separated parents) wouldn't be able to afford a childminder. It may not leave them a lot of disposable money, in fact in may leave them less money than they'd take in by ripping off the taxpayers of this country and staying at home watching Ricki Lake all day but supporting their child is a parents responsibility, not society at large's.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

If you can't afford children, you shouldn't have them in the first place. If you're unable to support children you already have, it isn't society's place to pay you to raise them.

You didn't answer the question ... who raises and looks after the child if the mother is forced to work a full (often much more) shift?

Sleepy

Eoghan-psych wrote:

The fertility of sperm is not means tested.

Neither is the possession of adequate intellect to use contraception.

Who *wilI* pay for the children if the parents can't? What should we do, let them grow up in filth, or take them into care? Far better for us to try and do our best by them and preserve some semblance of a normal family unit.

My argument is that there is no excuse for parents not to be able to pay for the children. Failure to earn enough to feed and clothe your children is failing them in the exact same way as failure to potty train them. If you can't earn enough to pay your child's way, you are an unfit parent.

It *is* society's place to look after the members of that society.

in your opinion.

Eoghan-psych

Sleepy wrote:

Neither is the possession of adequate intellect to use contraception.

Ah yes, sure we all know that contraception is infallible and people never make mistakes.

Add to that the country's ridiculously backward attitudes to sex ed, and your argument collapses.

Sleepy wrote:

My argument is that there is no excuse for parents not to be able to pay for the children. Failure to earn enough to feed and clothe your children is failing them in the exact same way as failure to potty train them. If you can't earn enough to pay your child's way, you are an unfit parent.

So, what? The kids should be taken away so the state can spend *even more* taxpayer's money so *someone else* can look after them? That *actually* makes sense to you?

Sleepy wrote:

in your opinion.

And the opinion of the majority of Irish taxpayers - they keep on electing socially minded governments with open and blatant commitments to provide comprehensive social welfare systems. Why do that unless they are of the opinion that society bears a collective responsibility?

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

My argument is that there is no excuse for parents not to be able to pay for the children. Failure to earn enough to feed and clothe your children is failing them in the exact same way as failure to potty train them. If you can't earn enough to pay your child's way, you are an unfit parent.

Sigh ...

As I have asked before, who minds and raises the child while the single parent is proving how "fit" a parent they are by leaving their child alone for 10 hours a day to go out and earn a wage?

Sleepy

Eoghan-psych wrote:

Ah yes, sure we all know that contraception is infallible and people never make mistakes.

Add to that the country's ridiculously backward attitudes to sex ed, and your argument collapses.

Not at all. I'm arguing for personal responsibility and part of that is taking responsibility for your mistakes as well as credit for your accomplishments. I'd also seriously question the notion that sex education has all that much to do with the levels of contraception usage. I'd be surprised if you could find anyone in this country over the age of 15 who wasn't reasonably versed in the different forms of contraception available.

So, what? The kids should be taken away so the state can spend *even more* taxpayer's money so *someone else* can look after them? That *actually* makes sense to you?

I'd question that it would cost very much more given that society would no longer have to support the parent(s) of that child however that's not the main motivation to this. I genuinely believe that a child would get a better start in life if taken away from parent(s) that can't live up to their responsibilities in life.

And the opinion of the majority of Irish taxpayers - they keep on electing socially minded governments with open and blatant commitments to provide comprehensive social welfare systems. Why do that unless they are of the opinion that society bears a collective responsibility?

Being in the majority doesn't make your opinion any more valid than that of the minority. Besides, the majority of the electorate votes out of self-interest rather than in the interests of society as a whole.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

Sigh ...

As I have asked before, who minds and raises the child while the single parent is proving how "fit" a parent they are by leaving their child alone for 10 hours a day to go out and earn a wage?

Who works 10 hour days in this country? Many of my colleagues have children. A number of them are single parents. They're able to afford child-minders and, believe me, the pay in my company isn't any great shakes. Any child, by definition has two parents.

Even assuming both parents are only earning minimum wage, 38 hours work each a week would result bring in a total of €30232.80 which, while it won't exactly let you live the high-life is enough to support yourself and your offspring if you're sensible with it. And let's face it, that's a worst case scenario, the average industrial wage in Ireland is nearer 28k a year.

If you want a car, you must pay for it. If you want a dog, you must pay to feed it. If you want children, you must be prepared to pay for them. Even if your child was unplanned it's still your responsibility to raise it.

Social security should be just that: security, a safety net to help you get back on your feet when necessary, not something to live on long-term.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

If you want a car, you must pay for it. If you want a dog, you must pay to feed it. If you want children, you must be prepared to pay for them. Even if your child was unplanned it's still your responsibility to raise it.

As you pointed out, the minium wage for a worker in their first year of employment is just under 18,000 a year before tax (not that you would be paying much tax on that low a wage), which is barely enough for a single person to live on let alone a person expected to raise a child while paying for child care. And the average wage is 8 hours, but if you include travel to work, and over time need to actuall make enough money you are talking 10+ hours

Child minding in this country is very expensive. A married couple both with good education and good jobs struggle to get child minders, let alone a young girl who may not even have a Leaving Cert to fall back on. The average cost of child care in Dublin is €4.53 an hour. How exactly is a person making €6.20 an hour min-wage supposed to pay €4.53 for someone else to mind their child while they are at work??

http://www.ino.ie/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?TabID=525&ItemID=3960&mid=7747

The idea of leaving a new born to be completely raised by a child minder is also ridiculous. Most children should not be left with child minders before the age of 3 or 4 anyway.

The purpose of the state beneifit for single parents is not to reward the parent for having a child, but to provide the parent with the means to properly raise that child because that is what is deamed as being best for the child and for society. As programs such as "Welfare-to-Work" in the States have show, forcing people like single parents to work min-wage jobs instead of raising their children is detrimental to the child, the parent and society as a whole

Sleepy

The point you keep ignoring is that a child has two parents, not just a mother. IMHO, the focus here should be on providing the Child Support Agency with the necessary manpower and powers to track down deadbeat parents who run out on their children, not on forcing the rest of society to pay for them.

I should also point out that minimum wage is 7.65, not 6.20.

8 hours * 5 days * 7.65 = 15912 for a 40 hour week, and below the tax threshold. In reality, few full-time jobs pay minimum wage, I know from personal experience that both Dunnes Stores & Penneys pay more than that. Multiply even the worst case scenario of €15912 by two seeing as (excluding death) every child has two parents and you're just under 32,000 with no tax, medical cards, childrens allowance etc. on top of that. It's not a lot of money to feed, clothe and house two adults and a child but as many families in this country could tell you, it can be done. As most parents that reared children in the 80's could tell you, raising children on very little money involves a lot of personal sacrifice and is extremely hard to do. However, most people accept that becoming a parent is a life-changing event that means a lot of additional responsibilities. One of which, is to support that child until they're of age and can support themselves.

I know plenty of good parents that I'd love to see you tell they're being ridiculous by leaving their children that are under the age of 3 with a childminder. Maybe in an ideal world this would be the case but in an ideal world, people that are incapable of raising a child wouldn't be having them anyway. Unfortunately, we live in the real world.

The "Welfare-to-Work" program is notoriously badly run, however mistakes in the execution of an idea do not invalidate the concept itself. With a bit (a lot) of tweaking it could actually be a practical (if far from ideal) middleground between our positions on this issue.

Until I become a parent (or spouse of someone incapable of providing for themselves) myself, I will never accept that it is my responsibility to pay another citizen of this country's way in life.

spudington16

Quantum wrote:

I believe that a parent who shows a pattern of indifference to the sexual behaviour of her underage children should be charged with facilitating the rape and abuse of that child.

I am in full agreement with Quantum. How exactly was it that the 12-year-old girl's mother (or even one of her older sisters, for that matter) didn't know she was sexually active in her relationship with a teenage boyfriend? It was their responsibility to look after that girl, and they are now shirking that responsibility.

Furthermore, I personally believe that in cases such as this, where the girl could have died during childbirth, and has now ruined her life by leaving her with a child she is surely not capable of properly caring for, Social Services should have had the power to step in to arrange an abortion.

While it is not the most suitable solution, neither was allowing the girl the have that baby and now to have to care for it. Her mother seems no better suited to the task; she let not one, not two but three of her daughters get pregnant and keep their babies. She should be held accountable, as she is the most ludicrous character in the macabre fairytale.

vibe666

this might be considered a troll, but it's really not. things are getting out of hand and something has to change.

kids will do what they want because they ignore the consequences and don't or won't take responsibility for their actions, much like the rest of society.

so, how about this? anyone who gets pregnant in school should be forced to have the child in an assembly in front of the whole school.

see how many people take the chance then, when they can see the results. it's one thing seeing someone you go to school with pushing a pushchair down the road, but another thing entirely seeing and/or hearing the pain they go through during birth.

might teach them to keep their knees together for a while longer if they see the results first hand.

Sleepy

I have to say Vibe, I like it.

vibe666

thanks sleepy.

rant time again:
i'm really getting fed up with all these people saying that you can't do this and that to kids discipline wise, but nobody seems to have noticed that with the falling levels of discipline comes a rise in youth violence, teen pregnancy and substance abuse at younger and younger ages.

things that a few 16-18 year olds were doing 15 years ago are now being done by a large percentage of kids barely into puberty and in some cases as young as 6 or 7.

drinking, drugs, sex crime and anything else they shouldn't be doing. and it's happening ebcause they don't have any fear of potential consequences because they will either be light or non-existent.

these 3 girls are more than old enough to know whats right and wrong, but they had no fear of the consequences or just weren't bothered.

a three year old child knows the difference between right and wrong, but society in general seems to be so pre-occupied with finding someone else to blame that things are getting out of hand.