Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Gunmonkey · 13-08-2018 04:34PM

john4321 wrote: »

Get your credit cards at the ready.

"We got to do something hun what on Earth is going on in this world shall I make a go fund me ? Let’s raise some money for you to be housed privately? I can’t sit here while this is happening x"

Sweet jesus.......did she not stop and think of renting privately in the past 11 months? If she really has cleared €54k a year thats more than enough to rent a house and leave thousands a month to feed the kids....far better for them than sitting on nite-2-nite and all the while waiting for a council handout of a free gaff!

Because she will need a 4 or 5 bed house...are there even that many 4 or 5 beds in the council supply? Has she been offered 2 or 3 bed houses as thats all the council has but turned them down as they werent big enough?

Melendez · 13-08-2018 04:34PM

This post has been deleted.

Gatling · 13-08-2018 04:38PM

She probably holding out for a 7 bed house so each child gets their own rooms

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 13-08-2018 04:39PM

Gatling wrote: »

She probably holding out for a 7 bed house so each child gets their own rooms

8 Bed then?

We can't leave the poor girl without a room to herself and Johnny when he gets out.

PlaneSpeeking · 13-08-2018 04:41PM

Prisoner 6753 wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

She probably holding out for a 7 bed house so each child gets their own rooms

8 Bed then?

We can't leave the poor girl without a room to herself and Johnny when he gets out.

We're back to the Aras then aren't we !!!!

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 13-08-2018 04:43PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

We're back to the Aras then aren't we !!!!

I'm beginning to wonder will the Aras be big enough at this stage

Gatling · 13-08-2018 04:45PM

Prisoner 6753 wrote: »

8 Bed then?

We can't leave the poor girl without a room to herself and Johnny when he gets out.

Sure doesn't she own a caravan

22michael44 · 13-08-2018 04:46PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I go 60-40 enabling cnuts myself.

does that mean you'd like it if the enablers were wiped out of society as well? maybe everyone who has a different social ideology could just be moved to an island somewhere. ireland would be a utopia!

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 13-08-2018 04:46PM

Gatling wrote: »

Sure doesn't she own a caravan

That's for making babies 8.9.10.11...……………………..

Can't have the childer watching or listening to Mammy and Daddy baking cakes.

Amirani · 13-08-2018 04:49PM

Surely there's a council house somewhere in the country (doesn't have to be her county council) that can be offered to her for about 1k or so per month, significantly below her "guaranteed" monthly income? Many people paying 50% these days in private rental accommodation.

Just needs to be offered. If she chooses to refuse then fine, but it might at least change the media narrative a bit.

One eyed Jack · 13-08-2018 04:50PM

jmayo wrote: »

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.

Who’s sending you out to work? I take it you’re an adult? Then you’re perfectly capable of making decisions for yourself with a full understanding of the consequences of your actions. You’re certainly not being sent out to pay for the decisions of others.

As I said earlier you’d likely be paying the same amount of tax as you’re paying now regardless of what anyone else chooses to do with their lives. They aren’t being directly funded by you, and yes, if you were in their circumstances, you would be entitled to claim for exactly the same benefits they are claiming for.

The only comparable benefit that isn’t means tested but is predicated on the number of children a person has regardless of their means, is child benefit, so if you had seven children, which appears to make up the bulk of the financial assistance the woman in question is receiving from the State, you too would be entitled to claim exactly the same amount in child benefit provided you meet the qualifying criteria.

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?

And no i am not forgetting the free GP visits for young children.

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

I don’t know where you got the impression that I said any such thing as a working couple being entitled to the same benefits as a single person who is unemployed with seven children? I would never even attempt to make that comparison because their circumstances simply aren’t comparable.

I also don’t know where you got the impression that I could be categorised in either group you mentioned there, I’m just stating facts, and the fact is that if you were in the same circumstances as the woman in question, then we could have a conversation about what you’re entitled to claim for. It would be entirely dependent upon each individuals circumstances, so there wouldn’t be any point in your talking about what anyone else is getting and you’re not, or vice versa for them either.

tom1ie · 13-08-2018 04:51PM

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Grand. So we’ve established that she should have shown more personal responsibility. So, to help her show more responsibility what should we do,
1) keep the status quo and keep giving her all the benefits etc so we’d be wasting tax payers money.
2) if she wants to keep the benefits she must contribute to society, much the same way as community service. This will teach her a work ethic.
3) reduce, or stop her benefits so that she has to get a job.

Personally I’d go for 2. What would you choose?

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 13-08-2018 04:51PM

Amirani wrote: »

Surely there's a council house somewhere in the country (doesn't have to be her county council) that can be offered to her for about 1k or so per month, significantly below her "guaranteed" monthly income? Many people paying 50% these days in private rental accommodation.

Just needs to be offered. If she chooses to refuse then fine, but it might at least change the media narrative a bit.

She's 'entitled' to a house in an area of her choice. Probably Cowper Downs or somewhere as upmarket as it, maybe even Foxrock.

DublinHun72 · 13-08-2018 04:52PM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Probably closer to 80k

I know on 70k the total tax deductions per month are €1913. Take home per year is €46k.
That’s €24k per annum deductions.

Mike Hoch · 13-08-2018 04:53PM

Blazer wrote: »

Exactly, SF are no friends of the working class as they see through the bull**** SF promise. The only people who support them are the welfare and low income class who all want their slice of the pie promised by SF. And someone has to pay for that.

Ironically SF voters seldom have a clue what the party stands for.

SF stand for relatively open borders. Surveys have shown SF voters are heavily against refugee relocation. I don't know if their local door knockers tell people that it's a front and that this isn't actually their position,or f people simply don't know about it, but that's the way it is.

They dithered on a position to take on repeal despite overwhelming support from their young voter base, presumably as they worried about offending their older cohort (given SF polled something like 3 percent in the early 90's, outside of parts of the border counties I'm not sure SF has an older voter base.)

They must be the only left wing party on the planet that don't have a clear cut free the weed view on cannabis legalisation, despite it being favoured by their young voters. Again, probably for fear of upsetting older activists who view cannabis in the same bracket as heroin.

I always find the idea that the IRA baggage holds SF back to be amusing. I think there's a cohort of full time mad bastard types who think Adams is the coolest leader around because they reckon he probably killed a few people.

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 13-08-2018 04:53PM

tom1ie wrote: »

Grand. So we’ve established that she should have shown more personal responsibility. So, to help her show more responsibility what should we do,
1) keep the status quo and keep giving her all the benefits etc so we’d be wasting tax payers money.
2) if she wants to keep the benefits she must contribute to society, much the same way as community service. This will teach her a work ethic.
3) reduce, or stop her benefits so that she has to get a job.

Personally I’d go for 2. What would you choose?

Will somebody please think of the children :P

Sure who'd mind them while she's at 'work' ?

Johnny is banged up doing porridge

tom1ie · 13-08-2018 04:54PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who’s sending you out to work? I take it you’re an adult? Then you’re perfectly capable of making decisions for yourself with a full understanding of the consequences of your actions. You’re certainly not being sent out to pay for the decisions of others.

As I said earlier you’d likely be paying the same amount of tax as you’re paying now regardless of what anyone else chooses to do with their lives. They aren’t being directly funded by you, and yes, if you were in their circumstances, you would be entitled to claim for exactly the same benefits they are claiming for.

The only comparable benefit that isn’t means tested but is predicated on the number of children a person has regardless of their means, is child benefit, so if you had seven children, which appears to make up the bulk of the financial assistance the woman in question is receiving from the State, you too would be entitled to claim exactly the same amount in child benefit provided you meet the qualifying criteria.

I don’t know where you got the impression that I said any such thing as a working couple being entitled to the same benefits as a single person who is unemployed with seven children? I would never even attempt to make that comparison because their circumstances simply aren’t comparable.

I also don’t know where you got the impression that I could be categorised in either group you mentioned there, I’m just stating facts, and the fact is that if you were in the same circumstances as the woman in question, then we could have a conversation about what you’re entitled to claim for. It would be entirely dependent upon each individuals circumstances, so there wouldn’t be any point in your talking about what anyone else is getting and you’re not, or vice versa for them either.

Explain this to me now will ya.
How is the tax that I pay, that funds the welfare system, not directly funding, someone who gets a living directly from the welfare.
I think you are confused or in denial there.

Melendez · 13-08-2018 04:55PM

This post has been deleted.

22michael44 · 13-08-2018 04:57PM

Prisoner 6753 wrote: »

Will somebody please think of the children :P

Sure who'd mind them while she's at 'work' ?

Johnny is banged up doing porridge

let's get her mowing people's lawns while they're at work, people in here would change their tune pretty fast on the need to employ her.

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 13-08-2018 04:59PM

22michael44 wrote: »

let's get her mowing people's lawns while they're at work, people in here would change their tune pretty fast on the need to employ her.

She might burgle the houses then

Trigger Happy · 13-08-2018 05:01PM

Prisoner 6753 wrote: »

She might burgle the houses then

Only if she is sober enough.

22michael44 · 13-08-2018 05:03PM

Prisoner 6753 wrote: »

She might burgle the houses then

that was the point, yes.

One eyed Jack · 13-08-2018 05:03PM

stratowide wrote: »

What a load of shyte..Did ya not see the part where his sister and brother in law have good jobs and a mortgage ergo a house.This being conducive to rearing a family.

Whereas just having child after child with no plan other than the government financing it is the same thing.Responsibility me hole.

I saw it, but I consider it particularly relevant as what one couple decides for themselves as the circumstances in which make decisions about their lifestyle has absolutely no bearing on the decisions other people make about their lifestyle in their circumstances. What may be relevant factors for one person may not be relevant factors for someone else. It’s really that simple, and if the couple with the mortgage and the good jobs chose to have the number of children that suits them, that still would have no bearing on anyone else’s decisions for their families, in just the same way as it wouldn’t matter the number of children anyone else has, both the couple with the mortgage and so on, would still only get the same amount of child benefit as the number of children they have, no different to anyone else who qualifies for the payment and is entitled to it.

Fr_Dougal · 13-08-2018 05:04PM

john4321 wrote: »

Get your credit cards at the ready.

"We got to do something hun what on Earth is going on in this world shall I make a go fund me ? Let’s raise some money for you to be housed privately? I can’t sit here while this is happening x"

By the same lady who wrote this:

Lets just get one thing straight .... all you so called STOKE & GOSFORD boys that WERE ants pals are wrong uns ---- anthony has been in jail 10 nearly 11 years and not one of his so called pals have done a thing for him !!!! Use have all left him to ****ing rot !!! LITRALLY all yous have done is try make ur selfs something yous ****ing aint someone use will never be .... half of u would cry like a baby when the prisons walls hit ur eyes !!!!! Your all gunna get a ****ing shock !!!!!***** !!!!!! He will never be ur friends me and him have spoken for the whole jail sentance and its been a long long one for the poor boy im now taking it to the papers of how bad he has been treated how long his done over such a short sentance what the jail system has done to him and how he feels he is like a ghost in the system no release no hope no nothing and all his so called mates have added to that **** so as far as im concerned you can all take a run and ****ing jump !!!! I dare one of the boys to come back to me witg there **** comments 😡😡😤

Birds of a feather...

13-08-2018 05:04PM

KrustyUCC wrote: »

“You don’t plan to have so many kids, it just happens.”

Yes, if you're a rabbit.

PlaneSpeeking · 13-08-2018 05:13PM

Omackeral wrote: »

KrustyUCC wrote: »

“You don’t plan to have so many kids, it just happens.”

Yes, if you're a rabbit.

Nemo's ma is looking at her and going Jaysus love how many ????

KrustyUCC · 13-08-2018 05:20PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Yes, if you're a rabbit.

It was an interesting explanation from Ms Cash alright

One eyed Jack · 13-08-2018 05:24PM

tom1ie wrote: »

Explain this to me now will ya.
How is the tax that I pay, that funds the welfare system, not directly funding, someone who gets a living directly from the welfare.
I think you are confused or in denial there.

The tax that you pay doesn’t just fund the welfare system. It goes into funding all sorts of things that allow for the functioning of society as a whole, according to how the Government of the day chooses to spend it’s revenue. You’re not directly funding anyone, and even child benefit isn’t directly funding the parents lifestyle, as it’s intended for children. If you have children, you’re likely to qualify for the payment. You would fulfil at least one of the criteria which is that you have children. If you don’t have children, and I shouldn’t need to state the obvious but, well you don’t qualify at all for the payment and therefore aren’t entitled to claim for it.

People who don’t have children still pay tax as it goes towards providing for services for children who obviously aren’t theirs. I’d only love if I didn’t have to pay as much in tax as I do to fund other people’s lifestyle choices and services I will absolutely never have any use of, but I’m ok with paying as much tax as I do because even though I personally may never benefit from it, I know that it goes towards helping many more people who are less fortunate than I am that I don’t need assistance from the State.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the Welfare State by any means, and I have often argued on here that child benefit should be scrapped entirely, but when I argue for that, it’s based upon the belief that it’s just bad policy, nothing to do with curbing anyone’s lifestyle choices or any of the rest of it. I believe that the Welfare State just keeps poor people poor, it doesn’t do anything to encourage independence, but rather it fosters dependency on the State, really not the kind of thing I’d encourage anyone to imagine is an effective long term strategy.

Mike Hoch · 13-08-2018 05:27PM

Mike Hoch wrote: »

Something I was wondering an all. In general, do travellers actually like living the caravan lifestyle? Maybe I'm wrong but it's only in the last decade or so I've seen this thing of travellers commonly occupying standard council housing and private rentals sourced via HAP and similar schemes. When I was growing up they all seemed to live in fields by the roadsides, they'd occupy a car park for a few weeks, school grounds during the summer when they'd be left alone, and the rest of them lived in purpose built halting site housing and caravans on the site.

The roadside living seems to be all but gone now, but you commonly see caravans parked adjacent to their bungalows on the sites, or parked in the garden of standard housing they live in. I'm loathe to giving out freebies to any of them but being a state that doesn't let anyone starve to death or have children living on the streets we are spending god knows how much on hotels and rip off deals with private landlords. Are they now in standard housing because the state hasn't provided enough halting sites in this century and the roadside living is a dead art, or do they prefer living in it?

If they're open to the idea, surely buying them a cut price caravan and a space on a site is a better idea? Along with some clause that if they take the caravan, sell it, and turn up the next day begging for more housing assistance their children be taken into care?

https://www.donedeal.ie/caravans

I mean, there's caravans for sale here that are the same price as a fortnight in some of these hotels. Each and every one is much cheaper long term than these scams the state engages in with private landlords.

Of course, the lefties who previously claimed that the state was trying to assimilate and destroy traveller culture by forcing them off the roadsides is probably today saying that living in a caravan is no way to live and that they all deserve a bricks and mortar house.

They're the same mob that 20 years ago would have complained that putting social housing applicants in standard council estates creates ghettoisation, address discrimination when it comes to jobs, and leaves residents more exposed to drug culture. 20 years later they're demanding the state build entirely social estates rather than mixed income developments. They're absolute spoofers who can't make up their own mind.

Something a bit related to what I asked about earlier:

https://www.thesun.ie/news/2972064/homeless-mum-margaret-cash-arrested-caravan/

While you'd be a bit wary of any and all she comes out with, are we so ridiculously wrapped up in red tape that we are chasing after travellers who are sourcing their own caravans and telling them they have to go back to a private rental that the state will pay over a grand a month for, or even more expensively, a hotel?

I'd take her definition of the abandoned warehouse with a pinch of salt, but are local authorities really doing caravan counts on official halting sites and throwing out anyone who isn't officially living there/ exceeds the amount of caravans allowed?

If they are, and think spending thousands on hotels and private rentals is a better solution, that is an utter disgrace no matter what side of the fence you are on, and whoever is behind this nonsense needs to get the boot. I'm not a fan of giving them the steam off my piss, but jesus christ if we have to make the choice between a 2500 euro caravan or paying that amount every two months, give them the caravan, give them a space and be rid of the problem.

tom1ie · 13-08-2018 05:27PM

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok. Well at least we are looking for soloutions now. I think both sides of the argument have been well established and everyone knows what side they’re on. But one things for sure, things can’t stay as they are now, I’m pretty sure you agree with that?

Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Comments