nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

"Very good mother", avoids jail

Sultan of Bling

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/very-good-mother-shoplifted-toys-for-her-children-in-difficult-circumstances-court-hears-36781955.html

Caught shoplifting and fighting outside a pub, but she's a very good mother.

Oh yeah and only the 138 previous convictions.

Can the govt not sell the prime real estate land that prisons in Dublin and other towns and cities are built on and build more and bigger prisons elsewhere on unused land so we can clear vermin like this off the street.

The gardai must be tearing their hair out.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Graces7

Kivaro wrote: »

Why do we have to believe anything from someone who has 138 previous convictions? Had the solicitor proof that she was a very good mother, or was this something the criminal told the solicitor.

Either way, people are becoming immune to large numbers of convictions. What is really the difference between 138 previous convictions or 238 previous convictions, or even 38 previous convictions. All of these numbers are too high. Imagine the amount of effort required to rack up 138 convictions; and these are the ones where she was caught. This woman has wreaked havoc on society and she should be locked up for it. Her children should be removed and provided with the services required to reverse the previous experiences of living with a habitual criminal.

Then we read this from her apologists:
n
I think we have a fair idea how this criminal behaves at home. This is not a Charles Dickens story of the mother going out to provide for her children. This is criminal recidivism at its worse, while highlighting the failures of the Irish criminal justice system.

Explain please? There will have been home assessments before court from experts far more qualified than you are

Interesting you mention Dickens as you write like the workhouse inspectors talked and acted in that era

Nermal

corner of hells wrote: »

Sorta like what Hitler wanted ?

Hitler liked painting and opera, should we ban them? We don't have to jump straight to euthanasia, sterilisation of habitual crims can be the starting point. It doesn't have to be compulsory, it could be offered as an alternative to community service.

wexie

Graces7 wrote: »

There will have been home assessments before court from experts far more qualified than you are

Really?

Based on what? Do you really think that social services have the resources to check up on the parenting of every shoplifter?

There may have been if there have been reports from a school or something claiming concern for the welfare of the children. But none of us here have the information to come to that conclusion.

Graces7

wexie wrote: »

Really?

Based on what? Do you really think that social services have the resources to check up on the parenting of every shoplifter?

There may have been if there have been reports from a school or something claiming concern for the welfare of the children. But none of us here have the information to come to that conclusion.

You are way off here

http://www.probation.ie/EN/PB/0/5CE45CF7C900AB48802581A9002E00CF/$File/INDIVIDUALISING%20JUSTICE%20Pre-Sentence%20Reports%20in%20the%20Irish%20Criminal%20Justice%20System%20Online%20Edition.pdf

Standard procedure. And do you not think the court etc checked re the safety of the children with her? Again standard procedure before sentencing

L.Jenkins

I love it, this thread is textbook Godwin's Law in a nutshell. Instead of forced sterilisation, how about a contraceptive implant for all, which will be removed once you can prove you're fit to be a parent.

Now don't look at this from a eugenics point of view, as it doesn't have to single out ethnic minorities in society, as everyone should get a fair crack at proving their ability to parent and care for a child. If you can't prove your abilities, then no kids for you.

wexie

Graces7 wrote: »

You are way off here

http://www.probation.ie/EN/PB/0/5CE45CF7C900AB48802581A9002E00CF/$File/INDIVIDUALISING%20JUSTICE%20Pre-Sentence%20Reports%20in%20the%20Irish%20Criminal%20Justice%20System%20Online%20Edition.pdf

Standard procedure. And do you not think the court etc checked re the safety of the children with her? Again standard procedure before sentencing

Yes, and like I've already told you the standard for these checks is :

is this child in immediate danger.....that's it, no : will this child grow up to be a habitual criminal like their parents, will this child grow up to know right from wrong and ever contribute anything positive to society?

Clothes - check
Food - check
School* - check (ethnic minority exemption where appropriate)

and that is it...Go ask a social worker. Ask them for what they DO check for, not what they would LIKE to check for as they are miles apart.

Now...if you think that's an appropriate standard for what constitutes a 'good' parent...well then in that case I think you are indeed right.

But if you want to somehow make the argument that it's unreasonable to assume someone with 138 convictions isn't a good parent then I'd politely suggest you're talking out of your hoop.

Oh, and as an afterthought, if you think kids 'only' need safety....well then it's clear we have entirely different standards

EDIT : just to disclose as already mentioned in the thread, I'm married to a social worker. One who used to deal with parents like these on a regular basis and got so sick of not being able to do anything about cases like these she ended up changing the field she worked in.

Oh and another afterthought, all good and well pointing at procedures but if you have absolutely no idea about how or even if these procedures are followed and implemented I would recommend you try to find out first before you assume that the existence of a procedure or policy prevents or even effects whatever the policy or procedure is there for.

[Deleted User]

Omackeral wrote: »

Nah not just like me. Has 138 convictions, that's the rap sheet of a scumbag. It seems calling someone scum or a scumbag is more of an offense to some than the actual crimes these tramps commit. I remember luvvies getting their knickers in a twist when the LIDL robbing scumbags were branded scum. They are scum. End of.

Are you sure that just wasn't the use of vermin again?

badtoro

Graces7 wrote: »

Back at you vice versa on that.

Wasn't at you in the first instance.

Grab All Association

CeilingFly wrote: »

138 convictions!!!!

All with FREE legal aid - paid for courtesy of the tax payer.

Add in garda time, prosecution costs, witness costs, the cost of the crimea themselves and the obvious countless crimes she wasn't caught for.

Prison is best value by a mile.

No prison isn’t the answer. It’s time to treat people like this I.e Jimmy the scumbag types, with over 100 convictions with lobotomies and psychiatric drugs. Prison just doesn’t deter them. It’s time for neurological/chemical altering. It saves money and permanently puts a stop to these people.

Dravokivich

Lydia Millions Varnish wrote: »

What's a better solution? Putting her in prison would leave five kids without their primary carer. Going to say there's a good chance the fathers are not involved either.

Legal abortion and free contraception is my best idea. But that has no bearing on this specific incident.

You think she's involved in crime because a father(s) may be absent or not active with the children?

I'd find that very hard to believe because single women with children just need to go to the community welfare officer with cap in hand.

corner of hells

wexie wrote: »

Yes, and like I've already told you the standard for these checks is :

is this child in immediate danger.....that's it, no : will this child grow up to be a habitual criminal like their parents, will this child grow up to know right from wrong and ever contribute anything positive to society?

Clothes - check
Food - check
School* - check (ethnic minority exemption where appropriate)

and that is it...Go ask a social worker. Ask them for what they DO check for, not what they would LIKE to check for as they are miles apart.

Now...if you think that's an appropriate standard for what constitutes a 'good' parent...well then in that case I think you are indeed right.

But if you want to somehow make the argument that it's unreasonable to assume someone with 138 convictions isn't a good parent then I'd politely suggest you're talking out of your hoop.

Oh, and as an afterthought, if you think kids 'only' need safety....well then it's clear we have entirely different standards

EDIT : just to disclose as already mentioned in the thread, I'm married to a social worker. One who used to deal with parents like these on a regular basis and got so sick of not being able to do anything about cases like these she ended up changing the field she worked in.

Oh and another afterthought, all good and well pointing at procedures but if you have absolutely no idea about how or even if these procedures are followed and implemented I would recommend you try to find out first before you assume that the existence of a procedure or policy prevents or even effects whatever the policy or procedure is there for.

Through work ,I'd have occasional contact with social workers , my own impression is that they are so completely underesourced they become almost ineffective and not from the lack of effort.

What has surprised me has been the weight of responsibility left on their shoulders particularly at such a young age.
There's also astonishing burn out particularly of those involved with children.

Blazer

corner of hells wrote: »

Through work ,I'd have occasional contact with social workers , my own impression is that they are so completely underesourced they become almost ineffective and not from the lack of effort.

What has surprised me has been the weight of responsibility left on their shoulders particularly at such a young age.
There's also astonishing burn out particularly of those involved with children.

Its basically anything related that involves the public sector
My young fella is autistic and is supported to get 2 hours of speech therapy a month. However the speech therapist in our area has over 400 kids under her so its impossible and we go the private route instead. Its tough on her as it means she's absolutely no use to any of the kids and basically just acts as a checkup on their progress.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/child-speech-therapy-services-a-lottery-1.1936985

super_furry

Realistically what are the chances of rehabilitation in someone with 138 convictions?

wexie

super_furry wrote: »

Realistically what are the chances of rehabilitation in someone with 138 convictions?

None,

Part of that, admittedly, is because there is very little, if any, rehabilitation done in the prison system apparently. If you don't try you won't get great results.

I believe there's a regular poster here who's a prison officer who can maybe expand.

corner of hells

super_furry wrote: »

Realistically what are the chances of rehabilitation in someone with 138 convictions?

I don't know, but I have work colleagues with multiple convictions who've served significant sentences , addressed thier addiction and returned to education and now contribute to society appropriately .

corner of hells

wexie wrote: »

None,

Part of that, admittedly, is because there is very little, if any, rehabilitation done in the prison system apparently. If you don't try you won't get great results.

I believe there's a regular poster here who's a prison officer who can maybe expand.

There is rehabilitation , all mainstream prisons have addiction nurse and counsellors in them.
Prisoners in addiction are on methadone and others are allowed avail of education services both in and out prison.

[Deleted User]

wexie wrote: »

None,

Part of that, admittedly, is because there is very little, if any, rehabilitation done in the prison system apparently. If you don't try you won't get great results.

I believe there's a regular poster here who's a prison officer who can maybe expand.

Sadly, in my experience, it’s pretty true that prison doesn’t seem to ‘work’. I think something like 1/3 prisoners end up coming back or reoffending. It mostly boils down to a lack of spaces within the prison for education and workshops. A handful of chaps do use their time inside to better themselves but if everyone wanted to, it wouldn’t be feasible. What you’re left with is people being idle and left to walk around exercise yards aimlessly. This inevitably leads to discussing jobs and strokes they’ve pulled over the years. Some of it is simply braggadocio but the younger fellas will think this is great and what you end up with, ironically, is a school for criminality.

Tbh,jail could be made a lot tougher on inmates because they’re essentially locked up with loads of their mates just hanging out. It would be a nightmare for you and me but they don’t really care. The risk is worth the reward for a lot of them.

wexie

corner of hells wrote: »

There is rehabilitation , all mainstream prisons have addiction nurse and counsellors in them.
Prisoners in addiction are on methadone and others are allowed avail of education services both in and out prison.

But....rehabilitation isn't 'just' addiction treatment and counseling is it?

From what I've understood what rehabilitation is available is entirely voluntary (Omackeral (I think I'm going to start thinking of you as Officer Omackeral) might confirm this).

But if it's the case it means that if people don't want to then they don't need to engage...so... means the best will hopefully come out a bit better and the worst will come out the same or worse.

That's a less than ideal starting point is it?

Now don't get me wrong I don't know what the solution is to deal with people like these either. I think perhaps a mixture of more and harsher sentencing and proper rehabilitation would be a good start. Don't engage with rehabilitation, well that's okay we're activating the suspended part of your sentence if you decide not to play ball.

As it is it seems there's very few consequences for the likes of the woman referenced in the first post. Suspended sentence might be a consequences for the likes of you or me but for people like these it isn't. Especially not if they are safe in the knowledge that it won't be activated because 'but who will take care of my babies your honour?'....

Not advocating a '3 strikes you're out' system either like, but I wouldn't mind a '50 strikes and you're out either'....there has to come a point where it's okay to say ' right that's enough you've had plenty chances'

Ahhhh for forks sake!

Joyce. :rolleyes:

Realt Dearg Sec

Maurice Riordan wrote: »

Joyce. :rolleyes:

Yeah i mean the "The Dead" was the greatest short story in the the history of the language but I didn't understand Finnegans Wake. He should have been sterilized and his garden salted.

More Binchys, less Joyces. Vermin or whatever.

Noveight

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Yeah i mean the "The Dead" was the greatest short story in the the history of the language but I didn't understand Finnegans Wake. He should have been sterilized and his garden salted.

More Binchys, less Joyces. Vermin or whatever.

Good ol' James died over 75 years ago. Great and all as the old stock were, many of today's headline-making Joyces are more along the lines of Brian and John here, or the lady mentioned in the OP.

17-YEAR-OLD Ennis youth sustained slash wounds requiring 100 stitches to his face after being viciously assaulted at his home by two men armed with a carpet knife and blades.

During the daytime assault sparked by Facebook taunts, Ennis brothers, Brian Joyce (23) and John Joyce (21) also assaulted Danny Harty’s pregnant sister at the Harty home with one of the men repeatedly kneeing Harty into the stomach.

Realt Dearg Sec

Noveight wrote: »

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Yeah i mean the "The Dead" was the greatest short story in the the history of the language but I didn't understand Finnegans Wake. He should have been sterilized and his garden salted.

More Binchys, less Joyces. Vermin or whatever.

Good ol' James died over 75 years ago. Great and all as the old stock were, many of today's headline-making Joyces are more along the lines of Brian and John here, or the lady mentioned in the OP.

17-YEAR-OLD Ennis youth sustained slash wounds requiring 100 stitches to his face after being viciously assaulted at his home by two men armed with a carpet knife and blades.

During the daytime assault sparked by Facebook taunts, Ennis brothers, Brian Joyce (23) and John Joyce (21) also assaulted Danny Harty’s pregnant sister at the Harty home with one of the men repeatedly kneeing Harty into the stomach.

James was a disappointment to his father as well. Big landowners a generation before, he was quite the itinerant, his father used to run a scam where they'd be kicked out of a place but his mate would pretend to be his previous landlord and give him a reference. There's a reason there's so many plaques up all over Dublin, it was because the family could not be trusted. Joyce left the country and started his own family in Trieste, where he had an absolute multitude of addresses, skipping out on rent for the lot of them, and spending any penny he had on drink and high end restaurants. Multiple mistresses and whatever you're having. Also the world's most written about author with the exception of Shakespeare.

I think he should have been sterilized and possibly shot. Protect all the taxpayers from the scrounger.

(I know what you're getting at, and I'm being obtuse, but this thing about her last name is ****ing ridiculous nonsense that needs to be identified for what it is)

B.A._Baracus

The world is mad and you'd be even madder if you try to make rhyme or reason of why it is.

L.Jenkins

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

The world is mad and you'd be even madder if you try to make rhyme or reason of why it is.

You'd think after a few 100,000 years of evolution, we'd chill out and become more civilised, but no. Managing the basics of day to day life (Education, Job, Personal Hygiene, Behaviour, etc.) seems to be a little too difficult for some people.

whisky_galore

The 'ah shur God luv dem' Irish velvet glove mindset in action.

Just like lads from 'well respected families'.

Hector Savage

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It was her own solicitor who described her as "a very good mother, doing her best in difficult circumstances". She probably isn't "a very good mother", but she isn't "vermin" either. People aren't vermin.

Ah some people are now, let's be honest !!!

beefburrito

As the old school prisoner's used to say to the officer's in the 80's wait until you see what's coming up after us.....

Hector Savage

5 kids - yeah, how much money has the taxpayer paid for her and her little scumbag in the making kids ??