Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 13-08-2018 01:43AM

deco nate wrote: »

Please don't start this lying bs.it was her in Tallaght police station.
No need for trolling /demeaning other real posters on this thread

It was mentioned earlier in the thread, hence I mentioned it, too many comments to go digging it out though.

I don’t troll around here, never have never will. If you want to see trolls watch the movie.

Sleeper12 · 13-08-2018 01:45AM

blackwhite wrote:

Iâ€™ve documented with links each of the lies you have posted though....... a little bit of honesty wouldnâ€™t go astray once in a while

I have not lied. I know that you have read my posts & are only linking selective posts to suit your narrative.

It is a fact that I clearly said that I wasn't part of the legal profession and I wasn't sure on my thinking on the probation act and I was happy to be corrected. I then posted what I believed to be fact. How you consider that to be lies is beyond me.

You've been calling me a liar all night when I clearly said that I wasn't 100 percent certain & was happy to be corrected

blackwhite wrote:

Iâ€™m sure you can link to where Iâ€™ve made any of those claims listed above?

Have we established then that the woman only has ONE criminal conviction & she got the probation act for this. The offence being possession of stolen goods (I believe) and that the Garda said in court that she didn't steal the items?

Have we established that there is no link pointing that she was ever a member of a traveller gang

Have we established that there is no link to the claim that she was drink driving?

Have we established that there is no link pointing to over 30 criminal convictions or even 30 criminal charges?

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 13-08-2018 01:47AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have not lied. I know that you have read my posts & are only linking selective posts to suit your narrative.

It is a fact that I clearly said that I wasn't part of the legal profession and I wasn't sure on my thinking on the probation act and I was happy to be corrected. I then posted what I believed to be fact. How you consider that to be lies is beyond me.

You've been calling me a liar all night when I clearly said that I wasn't 100 percent certain & was happy to be corrected

Have we established then that the woman only has ONE criminal conviction & she got the probation act for this. The offence being possession of stolen goods (I believe) and that the Garda said in court that she didn't steal the items?

Have we established that there is no link pointing that she was ever a member of a traveller gang

Have we established that there is no link to the claim that she was drink driving?

Have we established that there is no link pointing to over 30 criminal convictions or even 30 criminal charges?

Tomorrow is another day sleeper. She’ll be back in the headlines then as her temporary accommodation expires. There may be new or additional information by that stage.

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-08-2018 01:50AM

Prisoner 6753 wrote: »

Tomorrow is another day sleeper. She’ll be back in the headlines then as her temporary accommodation expires. There may be new or additional information by that stage.

Inner City Helping Homeless have said that they will continue providing the family with shelter until they are housed.

deco nate · 13-08-2018 01:50AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How the hell is it a strawman? It’s comparing like with like in at least what are similar circumstances in terms of the number of children both persons would have that they would be entitled to claim child benefit for!

You want to compare circumstances that aren’t alike, to such a degree that you’re willing to try and draw a comparison between what you imagine the woman in this case is entitled to claim from the State, and what someone who is self-employed may be entitled to claim from the State, or what they may already be earning, or what they are paying in tax to the State. They would be paying the same amount of tax regardless of what anyone else is claiming from the State as all revenue received by the State goes to the Exchequer, and it’s the Government decides how that revenue will be spent.

You have a beef with how much you think any one individual is claiming or is entitled to claim from the State, it may serve your interests better to take it up with your local elected representatives than bitching on social media about it, or, I dunno, talk to Joe, for all the cathartic good that’ll do.

You say comparing like with like? One person working, the other never worked a day in there life?

And yet the working person is taxed to the hilt.
Non working person pays no tax.....
Hard working person..... Strawman.

Yes you are taking ****e

Sleeper12 · 13-08-2018 01:51AM

Prisoner 6753 wrote:

Tomorrow is another day sleeper. Sheâ€™ll be back in the headlines then as her temporary accommodation expires. There may be new or additional information by that stage.

I have no doubt. I have no problem with anyone posting things about her. I'd just prefer them to be truthful and not made up. There is enough negative things about her without having to make more up

tuxy · 13-08-2018 01:54AM

Prisoner 6753 wrote: »

Tomorrow is another day sleeper. She’ll be back in the headlines then as her temporary accommodation expires. There may be new or additional information by that stage.

She has been offered a house, let's see if she accepts this one.

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 13-08-2018 01:55AM

tuxy wrote: »

She has been offered a house, let's see if she accepts this one.

A council house?

blackwhite · 13-08-2018 01:56AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have not lied. I know that you have read my posts & are only linking selective posts to suit your narrative.

It is a fact that I clearly said that I wasn't part of the legal profession and I wasn't sure on my thinking on the probation act and I was happy to be corrected. I then posted what I believed to be fact. How you consider that to be lies is beyond me.

You've been calling me a liar all night when I clearly said that I wasn't 100 percent certain & was happy to be corrected

Have we established then that the woman only has ONE criminal conviction & she got the probation act for this. The offence being possession of stolen goods (I believe) and that the Garda said in court that she didn't steal the items?

Have we established that there is no link pointing that she was ever a member of a traveller gang

Have we established that there is no link to the claim that she was drink driving?

Have we established that there is no link pointing to over 30 criminal convictions or even 30 criminal charges?

We’ve established she has at least one criminal conviction - whereas you were stating as fact that she had none a short while ago.
You still seem to be trying to misrepresent the Probation Act. She benefited from Section 1.2, which means she avoided any custodial sentence due to her personal circumstances. It doesn’t mean that a conviction wasn’t recorded, it doesn’t mean she has no criminal record, and it doesn’t mean anything to diminish the seriousness of her offence.

The evidence (that was not disputed by her defence team) at her trial establishes that she was in a vehicle with a number of others that fled from scouting for robberies, was chased by Gardai, and when some of her accomplices fled the scene she and one other remained. There’s your “gang” involved in rural robberies - all presented in evidence that wasn’t denied. Whether or not she was involved in the robbery itself, it takes a peculiar type of twisting of facts to claim she had no involvement in the gang that was committing the robberies.

One eyed Jack · 13-08-2018 01:57AM

deco nate wrote: »

You say comparing like with like? One person working, the other never worked a day in there life?

And yet the working person is taxed to the hilt.
Non working person pays no tax.....
Hard working person..... Strawman.

Yes you are taking ****e

That’s exactly my point - the two scenarios simply aren’t comparable. When I tried to equate them by specifying that each person has the same number of children, you went and lost your shìt.

I ain’t taking the blame for your mess!

deco nate · 13-08-2018 01:59AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have not lied. I know that you have read my posts & are only linking selective posts to suit your narrative.

It is a fact that I clearly said that I wasn't part of the legal profession and I wasn't sure on my thinking on the probation act and I was happy to be corrected. I then posted what I believed to be fact. How you consider that to be lies is beyond me.

You've been calling me a liar all night when I clearly said that I wasn't 100 percent certain & was happy to be corrected

Have we established then that the woman only has ONE criminal conviction & she got the probation act for this. The offence being possession of stolen goods (I believe) and that the Garda said in court that she didn't steal the items?

Have we established that there is no link pointing that she was ever a member of a traveller gang

Have we established that there is no link to the claim that she was drink driving?

Have we established that there is no link pointing to over 30 criminal convictions or even 30 criminal charges?

You are very Selective of your quotes, it has been pointed out to you many times to read the links of her enniscorthy case.
Yet you, for some reason have not read it. Or you have chosen to ignore posters on the matter.
I find this shocking, how can you ask for links to her criminal record. And when people post said links, you brush over and keep asking for it?!

It's in the fookin enniscorthy case link.

deco nate · 13-08-2018 02:01AM

Prisoner 6753 wrote: »

It was mentioned earlier in the thread, hence I mentioned it, too many comments to go digging it out though.

I don’t troll around here, never have never will. If you want to see trolls watch the movie.

Fair enough, but because one posts it does not make it true. I apologise to you. (it's not true)

rom · 13-08-2018 02:02AM

Aska wrote: »

I remember seeing 'Johnny' tattooed on here arm, well 'HERE's Johnny' (same dude in a couple of here FB photos, after all the kids never saw the need for a trip up the aisle?)

http://www.echo.ie/tallaght/article/no-solution-in-sight-with-ongoing-homeless-crisis

They talk about no end in sight for the housing and 6 kids .... so what do you do? yea you guessed it, have another one.

by any chance is this the same lady? age would ,match up fairly well.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0119/58946-missing/

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news-in-brief-25977910.html
Was a busy year for her.

"GARDAI were last night seeking assistance in tracing 15-year-old Margaret Cash.

Margaret was described as being approximately 5ft 6ins tall, of medium build, with blue eyes and blonde hair. She was last seen on Wednesday, July 20 at 5pm in the Clondalkin area of Dublin. Since then, there have been a number of unconfirmed sightings of Margaret in the Tallaght and South West Dublin areas. Clondalkin Garda Station can be contacted at 01 6667600."

c.p.w.g.w · 13-08-2018 02:10AM

Jaysus homeless again back in 2015...

Justin Credible Darts · 13-08-2018 02:12AM

I know a woman on the housing list for over a decade and forced to rent at a vast cost.

She does not have any illegitimate children, let alone over half a dozen with multiple fathers.
Because she had the common sense to not get pregnant and spawn multiple children and see them having to endure a bad start in life she is punished, as others who spawn children with absent fathers take priority and jump her consistently in the queue.

Where is her rights.
Its at the stage now where a girl can get pregnant, the useless father can move on, the state will pay for the child, and the unmarried mother can then demand a house next to her mams while I and the rest of the tax payers pay for it.

wonski · 13-08-2018 02:13AM

What does her going missing have to do with the topic. She was 15 years old at the time...

If anything it could point that her life wasn't to rosy back then, or maybe she was difficult teen.

Google investigators

deco nate · 13-08-2018 02:14AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s exactly my point - the two scenarios simply aren’t comparable. When I tried to equate them by specifying that each person has the same number of children, you went and lost your shìt.

I ain’t taking the blame for your mess!

I never lost my ****, you are constantly trying to say that a working person is capable of the same .
That is bs, a working person has to pay tax, so a person that works an has 7 kids earns just as much as someone that has never worked a day in their life? Bs
So by your logic, working man will have the same amount as someone that has never, NEVER worked a day In their life(but we pay taxes) .
Tell me, how many people that have less kids (or the same number) than her are enjoying the lifestyle. A person that works pays into the pot, keep up.

You are trying to tell me that a working class person can equal the money she is taking in?

Bull****

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-08-2018 02:15AM

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

She does not have any illegitimate children, let alone over half a dozen with multiple fathers.

Catholic Ireland of the 1950s just called. They want their nasty terms of abuse back.

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/836951599360716801

Justin Credible Darts · 13-08-2018 02:22AM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Catholic Ireland of the 1950s just called. They want their nasty terms of abuse back.

https://twitter.com/newsworthy_ie/status/836951599360716801

Sorry but when the tax payer pays for her house which she will get, her kids etc because there is no father around, there has to come a point when she should take stock and think about using a bloody condom, or improve her choice in partners.
I am from a huge family myself, typical Irish, but my grand parent, and parent, and I have worked for what we had.

I am all for helping people, but there comes a point when she herself should think this is not the proper environment for adding more kids.
But no...the tax payer will pay.

freshpopcorn · 13-08-2018 02:28AM

There was a few reported posts their.
Just remember that you can't overly speculate about this.
However I don't see any issue about talking about people who you know in different situations.
Also,there is no need to post in the thread that you've reported a post.

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-08-2018 02:29AM

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

Sorry but when the tax payer pays for her house which she will get, her kids etc because there is no father around, there has to come a point when she should take stock and think about using a bloody condom, or improve her choice in partners.
I am from a huge family myself, typical Irish, but my grand parent, and parent, and I have worked for what we had.

I am all for helping people, but there comes a point when she herself should think this is not the proper environment for adding more kids.
But no...the tax payer will pay.

Do you not think it's pretty unpleasant, calling innocent children 'illegitimate'?

deco nate · 13-08-2018 02:37AM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Do you not think it's pretty unpleasant, calling innocent children 'illegitimate'?

What? Were did that poster claim that?

We all know her kids are from the one man.
Can we just stop all the bs claims.
It's getting monotonous

Justin Credible Darts · 13-08-2018 02:48AM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Do you not think it's pretty unpleasant, calling innocent children 'illegitimate'?

Technically children not born within marriage fall into that group rightly or wrongly.
For the record, I find it absolutely sad for the kids who are the innocent ones in this.

One eyed Jack · 13-08-2018 02:55AM

deco nate wrote: »

I never lost my ****, you are constantly trying to say that a working person is capable of the same .
That is bs, a working person has to pay tax, so a person that works an has 7 kids earns just as much as someone that has never worked a day in their life? Bs

Solely on the basis of them having an equal number of children, they are both equally entitled to apply to claim child benefit for each child, and as long as they both meet the criteria to be eligible to claim for child benefit, and if they qualify for child benefit for each child, they will receive the same amount in child benefit from the State.

A person in employment with seven children will of course earn more than someone who has never worked a day in their life, but that has nothing to do with the amount of financial assistance in the form of child benefit that they are both entitled to claim from the State.

So by your logic, working man will have the same amount as someone that has never, NEVER worked a day In their life(but we pay taxes).

That’s not MY logic, I don’t know where you’re getting that from tbh.

I’m saying that your own ‘logic’ is simply arseways (there’s no polite way to put that), as not only are you not comparing like for like, you’re comparing two completely different circumstances. You’re trying to compare a hypothetical single person in employment where you are able to make up whatever circumstances suit your argument, with what you imagine are a persons circumstances which none of us here are privy to. I’m pointing out to you that it simply can’t be done!

Tell me, how many people that have less kids (or the same number) than her are enjoying the lifestyle. A person that works pays into the pot, keep up.

I’m trying to keep up, but you’re sure as hell not making it easy! I can’t tell you how many people that have less (or the same number) of children as her have her lifestyle because quite frankly I know fcukall about her lifestyle, or anyone else’s lifestyle for that matter. If anyone tries to tell you any different, then, you could safely assume that person is indeed, full of shìt, because they simply have no way of knowing, let alone drawing any comparisons between individuals circumstances or lifestyles.

You are trying to tell me that a working class person can equal the money she is taking in?

Bull****

I’m telling you that anyone, regardless of whether they are in employment or not, will receive the same amount of financial assistance from the State in the form of child benefit, if they have an equal number of children, and they qualify for the payment. That’s not bullishìt, it’s a fact. Something that’s pretty fcuking scarce in this thread :pac:

AllForIt · 13-08-2018 04:33AM

Family of seven sheep in Garda station

I really must go to bed.

freshpopcorn · 13-08-2018 04:37AM

AllForIt wrote: »

Family of seven sheep in Garda station

I really must go to bed.

Happened to me another time.

Cookie_Monster · 13-08-2018 05:00AM

even made the NZ news...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12106040

Homeless mum abused after her children had to sleep in police station

Blazer · 13-08-2018 06:49AM

****in ridiculous.
Does any media outlet do any research anymore?
Yes homelessness is a serious issue in Ireland. Yes the Government needs to to prioritize the building of cheaper housing to allow people to get a foot into the market.
But giving people like her the bones of 55k a year and she has the cheek to look for a free house is spitting into the eye of every single hard working PAYE tax payer in this country.

PlaneSpeeking · 13-08-2018 07:04AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

even made the NZ news...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12106040

Homeless mum abused after her children had to sleep in police station

Way to spin that ****e into gold there NZ paper!

PlaneSpeeking · 13-08-2018 07:06AM

Quick question to her acolytes - why do you not consider multiple driving convictions to form part of her criminal side career?

Oh and when posters are referring to the handouts to gougers like her please don't use the word "earn". It is very very inaccurate.

Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Comments