Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

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.

Not a master criminal but knows how to get almost €52 grand a year handed over for sitting on her hole and opening her legs a few times. She's been well schooled in that regard.

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are also many in receipt of social welfare who have paid PRSI, who’s parents and grandparents have paid, and who will take opportunities to not be in receipt of welfare as they arise.

I don’t begrudge them a penny. They’re not a burden on anybody.

The fact is accountability or lack of it these days. Make a fcuk up of your life and blame the Government and get the media circus on your side.

The very fact that this stunt is back firing due the lack of empathy on the public's part is proof that people are sick to death of theses chancers.

ELM327 wrote: »

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!

The same working Joe and Josephine who would be eligible to claim an equal amount in child benefit as the woman in question, if they had the same number of children. Child benefit, as the name curiously suggests, is a benefit provided by the State, for children. Because people are entirely responsible for their lifestyle choices, Joe and Josephine have no legitimate reason to be cribbing about anyone who makes different lifestyle choices to them, as though that person is responsible for Joe and Josephine choosing not to have more children. She isn’t.

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.

It’s a stupid idea. Not even going to entertain that thought.

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.

There’s a mental image :pac:

Here's an anecdote from someone down my way who chose this "lifestyle".
A friend of an in-law left school with a good leaving cert,next step college and a good job. If you think that, you'd be wrong. All she wanted for her life plan was to get knocked up and a free house.Within months of finishing school that was exactly what she did. She's now living with some feckless layabout who's idea of hard work is clearing a level on a PS4 game. Meanwhile her stupid friends went onto further education or employment and are forking out rent, mortgage,tax,fees etc.

KrustyUCC wrote: »

The only way that she can choose to have more children is because Joe and Josephine have had to make sensible decisions

My sister and brother in law have 2 great kids, good jobs and a mortgage

They would have to serious look at having no3 and is it feasible money wise

Ms Cash is not responsible for her lifestyle choices

She has not had to face the consequences of her actions

The only way she can keep her lifestyle and choices going is through €54k of Joe and Josephines tax money

Her decision to have children in the first place has nothing to do with Joe and Josephine or the decisions that they made for themselves. Why would she even care? Do you go in and ask your next door neighbours if you have their permission to start a family? I don’t think your sister and brother in law did that either.

The woman in question is absolutely and ultimately responsible of her lifestyle choices, as she is the person making those choices, same as the way your sister and brother in law have to make choices for themselves. Different people in different circumstances making different choices for themselves should come as a shock to absolutely nobody.

Of course she is living with the consequences of her actions, hasn’t she got several children to take care of? By all accounts she appears to be happy with at least that aspect of her life, more power to her. Joe and Josephine aren’t prohibited from making the same choices as she has done, and claiming the same imaginary figures in benefits and entitlements from the State as long as they qualify for the payments. The State isn’t going to provide financial support for children that don’t exist. If Joe and Josephine have seven children, then they too can have the lifestyle they appear to aspire to.

Beats the hell out of me why they would want to though.

22michael44 wrote: »

quick question, mate, were you pro-life or pro-choice in the ref?

That has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

She can’t look after her kids. She should focus on the ones that she has, and not be making more “poor choices “ by having more.

I see her cronies on FB have told her not to engage with TULSA, I wonder why...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Her decision to have children in the first place has nothing to do with Joe and Josephine or the decisions that they made for themselves. Why would she even care? Do you go in and ask your next door neighbours if you have their permission to start a family? I don’t think your sister and brother in law did that either.

The woman in question is absolutely and ultimately responsible of her lifestyle choices, as she is the person making those choices, same as the way your sister and brother in law have to make choices for themselves. Different people in different circumstances making different choices for themselves should come as a shock to absolutely nobody.

Of course she is living with the consequences of her actions, hasn’t she got several children to take care of? By all accounts she appears to be happy with at least that aspect of her life, more power to her. Joe and Josephine aren’t prohibited from making the same choices as she has done, and claiming the same imaginary figures in benefits and entitlements from the State as long as they qualify for the payments. The State isn’t going to provide financial support for children that don’t exist. If Joe and Josephine have seven children, then they too can have the lifestyle they appear to aspire to.

Beats the hell out of me why they would want to though.

And this folks is why the likes of ms/mrs cash and her ilk can continue to leech off the system.

As long as muppets like One eyed jacks and mendeloze have their way, we the taxpayers will be sent out to work to pay for the decisions of others.
And on top of that we will never get the state handouts that they will.

You talk some absolute shyte that a working couple will get the same "entitlements" as the leech in Tallaght.
Will they get medical cards, free GP visits ?
And no I am not forgetting the free GP visits fro young children, but children grow up and adults too need to visit GP as well.

Will they get a bonus at christmas thanks to the taxpayer or will it be just more tax to fund the leeches thanks to the latest budget?

I don't know what is worse, the leeching classes or their fooking enabling cnuts who condone and support them.

Melendez wrote: »

There is nothing comic about it, although it is somewhat perverse. A person with an income in seven figures and a few hundred million in the bank gets the exact same children's allowance whether they need it or not.

But they wouldn't get 54,000 if they became unemployed .

They wouldn't get anything