Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

when 95% of the posts are people agreeing with you, i guess it's necessary to distort the remainder for the sake of some imaginary counterargument.

ELM327 wrote: »

So I've arrived late to this thread, not going to read back the more than 2,000 posts.


A couple of comments:

• Why does this woman not have the 7 (!) children taken from her as she cannot provide for them?
• Why is the taxpayer funding the procreation of children that the parents cannot afford?
• Why is she allowed to jump the queue because she slept in a garda station?
• Where is the personal responsibility? Why is it no longer "can I afford a child/ren", in its stead is "sure we need a bit more from de social lets have another pay cheque I mean child"
• Why is there social outcry over this? The outcry should be over us funding the lifestyle of selfish people like this, not about us housing her!
• PS: Take the children into care and castrate the parent(S) 7 kids with no means to fund them is beyond reprehensible.

1) Prob far more hassle to get the kids into foster care, as media would bang on about "de evil Gardaí ripping children from de poor mothers hands". Plus some bleeding hearts will fund her to sue the state, so thats more money down the drain. Most would only look at the surface (kids being taken from mother) than dig deeper to get the full story (she cant keep them housed/fed), speed of news media nowadays pushes more for the quick "scoop" then detailed journalism, especially with items such as this that will tug at heart strings!
2) I thought there was a cutoff for child benefit (4 kids or such)...apparently not! If the Gov didnt pay up, would probably see the usual tripe of "ugh de Gubberment is forcing people to not have kids by not paying for them..its eugenics/ de Gubberment are Nazis!!!" Its BS logic, it should work that the Gov says "you can have kids after your 3rd or 4th but we wont pay you benefit" and not get ripped apart for claiming some kids are worth more than others!
3) Media & Optics! If the Gov doesn't act on her case the news will lap it up and slap a face onto the problem with "Why no action for her yet?". We have thousands homeless each day here (including kids) but no pictures of them every morning...once they become part of a statistic the volume of the stat matters more and not the individuals. Plus its great headlines "Mother and 6 kids sleep in Garda Station" looks more heartbreaking than "Scruffy drug addict in tent in Phoenix Park"
4) Responsibility is for people who earn something (apparently). If you work and can't afford to give your family everything, its because you didn't work hard enough/long enough/you need to get a better job! If you live on handouts and cant make ends meet, its because you weren't given enough! Plus see 2): if your not paid for having a kid its the Gov trying to do eugenics and stop you having kids!
5) Its so damn convoluted: the media is trying to use her as a face to argue the housing crisis/homeless crisis because she couldn't find a place for her kids....she is being used as a blank, a stand-in, for any person not being able to find a bed for the night (with or without kids). They are ignoring the reasons for this (her old rental was repossessed last Sept...so emergency accom for 11 months? With rumoured €1000 a week?) to run with only the narrative of her and de kids sleeping in the Garda station as an event. Same as the homeless man who died on the street months ago: "aww twas terrible he didnt have anywhere to sleep...what....sex predator...ah we will just run with him being homeless and a tragedy he was on the street with nowhere to go!"

22michael44 wrote: »

when 95% of the posts are people agreeing with you, i guess it's necessary to distort the remainder for the sake of some imaginary

Well if 95% of people agree with you..Then maybe just maybe she may be
saying something right.

stratowide wrote: »

22michael44 wrote: »

when 95% of the posts are people agreeing with you, i guess it's necessary to distort the remainder for the sake of some imaginary

Well if 95% of people agree with you..Then maybe just maybe she may be
saying something right.

yeah, maybe. but then what's the need for the spoofing?

Kaylami wrote: »

There are a lot of similarities between me and Margaret Cash.

I am the same age as Margaret Cash.
I have 5 children from 9 to 10 weeks.
I was 19 having my eldest and clueless and was encouraged to go on the dole and the housing list and take whatever I could get by my in laws who are people that the dole is a way of life for. I did claim benefits because I didn't know what else to do.

Here is where the differences between us become apparent.

When my oldest was 6 months old I did a 9 month work placement through FAS. I got an extra 50e a week for a 40 hour week. I paid for childcare out of my weekly payment. My partner was also doing a FAS course at the time to help him get some qualifications having left school at 14.

With the 9 months experience I got a full time job after that. I did that job for 3 years then I moved halfway across the country with my family away from all our relatives for a better job.

I do still claim family income supplement. The amount we get is half of what we both pay in tax in each week.

If I was to follow in her footsteps I could easily sit around on my arse and get a nice sum handed to me each week. About 600 odd quid. Sure I might get a nice house off the council.

But as it is I work days and he works nights in the hotel industry (which is not an easy job) and we manage. We are saving hard for a mortgage and hopefully we can get one in the next few years. I choose to have 5 kids and I will damn well pay for them.

My kids will grow up knowing that you work for what you need and nothing is handed to you.

I guess my point is it's very easy to play the victim and not do anything to improve your circumstances which is exactly what she has done for the past 11 years. She can use the traveller card and say she hasn't had the opportunities etc. But at the end of the day it's bull****. The resources are there if you choose to engage.

And the taxpayers are funding this complete and total lack of motivation to better herself or her children's future which is just disheartening to a terrible degree.

My question for you Kaylami is,Would you ever see yourself in a situation whereby,you were drunk enough to be incapicated,yet travelling around Co Wexford with stolen property,whilst your own infant children remained in Tallaght (presumably in the care of a responsible person) ?

Others,including most of the mainstream Irish media,appear to find little wrong with this scenario,but I would now wonder if Ms Cash is stable enough for the State to both offer her independent housing,and continue to fund her chosen lifestyle,particularly in the light of her responsibility for 7 (8?) small children.

The mainstream Irish media are doing a significant disservice to their own profession,in addition to the overarching requirement for truthful and factual reporting of the issues they cover.

Somehow,I feel this particular case will develop further,before it slips off the radar.

Mike Hoch wrote: »

Something I was wondering an all. In general, do travellers actually like living the caravan lifestyle?

I don't know to be honest. In my local town in the early 2000's they were two halting sites in my local town. One at either end.(I'm not sure if they were official)
In the mid 2000's the council bought four houses for them.
They renovated them at the time.
A few years later they built extensions onto two of them.
One house had to be renovated again due to it being in disrepair and it's after falling into disrepair again. All these house have caravans parked outside them.
Then theirs houses in town in private and council estates. We've people housed in the town with no connection to the area. One of these rented properties have a caravan outside if it in a private esate.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Because it’s not in the best interests of the children to do so in this particular case.





The taxpayer isn’t directly funding anything or anyone . The taxpayer pays their taxes that are due anyway. You don’t get to decide where and upon whom the money that Revenue receive will be spent. It’s the same reason the State would be providing for education and welfare regardless of whether you think you’re paying for someone else’s children’s education or welfare or not.





What if I told you there is no queue? :pac:





She’s still as far as I’m aware personally responsible for her own children, y’know, those same children you think should be taken from her because in your mind she can’t be personally responsible for them.

If you imagine people’s motivations for having children revolve solely around money, I’d respectfully suggest you ought to get out a bit more.





Because people generally have more important things to get worked up about. This case for example comes pretty low down on my list of things I give a shìt about. As for there being any sort of outcry over anyone funding anyone else’s lifestyle, you go right ahead and start a public campaign. You’ve got plenty of support behind you in just this thread alone. Don’t mind if I can’t be arsed joining you.





She apparently has the means to fund them, the State certainly doesn’t. Or perhaps you aren’t familiar with State care? As for castrating the parents - bit like closing the gate after the horse has already bolted, isn’t it? I’ll take it you were being facetious though as you’re well aware of the violation of human rights that would involve, and would likely cost the State even more in compensation.

Is your last name cash?
She gets a lot of it, and it is funded by the working people - ie me and less than 1 million others.
Like it or not, that funding comes from the working joe. The same working joe who has to decide with working josephine whether they can afford to have ONE child, not 7!


Castration would be a good investment - because any cost involved is cheaper than paying 18 years of child benefit, education, grants etc for the future children she will produce and not pay for.


And you can take your "get out more" comment and, well, shove it somewhere where the partner of ms cash should have shoved it more often tbh.

Helloooo?????

Will anyone batt an eyelid that she allready refused social housing 3 weeks prior sleeping in garda station?
2 weeks prior she baught crystal vases and dishes?
1 week prior baught box ( yes box ) full of beer???

Melendez wrote: »

You are failing to read the thread or understand arguments contrary to your own opinion. Nobody is portraying her as an angel, or a victim. What she did 5 years ago, she did, and it has been reported. It was not good. She has never been shown to be the master criminal many on her are claiming in order to exaggerate her level of evilness.

It has absolutely no bearing on the fact, nor does any facet of her character or lifestyle, that the provision of emergency shelter for the homeless is not working. Vile minded people on here, however, feel it is a good reason to rip her to shreds in public so that they feel better about what wonderful, faultless people they themselves are.

Id rather be seen to be a vile minded person as you put it than seen to be an opportunistic thieving parasite like Margaret Cash who assisted in stealing other individuals hard earned, that they probably saved long and hard to get, without any help from the government, property. Like it or not, even if it says only a minor role, she was involved. And thats the only one she was caught for. What about the other times? If that was your elderly relative that was targeted by that gang youd be bulling and in a less forgiving mood. Where theres smoke theres fire. Bad enough she was doing that in the first place but worse than having people to apologise for her behaviour wnd turn a blind eye.

up for anything wrote: »

Laundry apologists live amongst us

That one takes over on 96fm when PJ Coogan is on holidays

The podcats from Friday morning was all about this story

Sure no fault at all to Ms Cash who at 28 has 7 children, never worked a day in her life and can't afford to look after them. No worry sure the tax payer will sort all her problems out. No bother. We have to make good on her decisions

Bad decisions are part of messy, complex life apparently

Only thing is that everybody in the country made bad decisions there woud be nobody working, paying taxes etc so the likes of Ms Cash can get €54k in benefits despite not working