Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

1…121122124126127…301

Comments

  • #3692
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    dominatinMC wrote: »
    Well said. What I can't understand is where all this sentiment is coming from? Why are people so quick to defend her? Do they not realise that Ms. Cash is effectively putting her hand into their wallet and taking their money! Similarly to you, I've no problem whatsoever paying exorbitant taxes if they are going to benefit the state infrastructure (i.e. roads, hospitals, etc.). I also do not mind funding a few unfortunate cases, however, it really pisses me off knowing that a percentage of my money is financing scumbags to live their lives in the manner Cash does. I cannot understand how anybody would be happy to do so.

    I'd say they voted Murphy/Boyd Barrett/Collins/Coppinger etc etc etc


  • #3693
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    I'd say they voted Murphy/Boyd Barrett/Collins/Coppinger etc etc etc
    Probably. Those pricks know what side their bread is buttered on anyway!


  • #3694
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    dominatinMC wrote: »
    Probably. Those pricks know what side their bread is buttered on anyway!

    Oh yeah - bunch of wasters!


  • #3695
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Turnipman wrote: »

    Let's look at the situation again:

    How can the State stop consenting adults from shagging? It can't.

    How can the State stop consenting shagging adults from refusing to use contraception? It can't.

    How can the State stop any fertile woman, irrespective of her mental, physical, financial or intellectual capacity, from getting pregnant from time to time? It can't.

    How can the State prevent a woman who wants to drop a sprog every year from doing so? It can't.

    So we are faced with the inevitability that sprogs are going to arrive at regular intervals, and some of those sprogs are going to be produced by useless, parasitic wasters like Cash and whoever screwed her.

    The question then arises of what should be done with the sprog.

    Remember that the infant didn't choose its feckless mother and scumbag father - what a truly rotten start to life those deeply flawed, carnal, self-indulgent parents have inflicted on the poor kid from the very start. :(

    Bear in mind the fact that the child has done absolutely nothing wrong and it has the same right to be cared for like every other Irish child - fed, clothed, housed, educated and given any medical treatment necessary.

    We're left with only two possible solutions - either we leave the child with its feckless mother (meaning that we must house the mother and provide her with the funding required to provide for the child) or we deem her unfit to raise her own child, so it will be placed with a foster family (which costs a lot more and may end up leaving the child with problems when it grows up.)

    (Of course if you take her kids off her, she'll just have more because she misses them!)

    So which will it be, folks?

    The Tusla weekly rates for fostering a child are = under 12: €325 / over 12: €352. So for Cash's 7 kids, that's about €120,000 a year.

    We disincetivise people who are unable to provide for their children from having more
    (Pick a date in the future. From that date child support wont be paid in respect of the third+ child).

    Crisis pregnancies happen all the time. Not 7 times to the one person. 15yr olds see bearing more brats as a legitimate future, a way to get a house. The more you breed, the more favourable the outcome.

    The people paying for this bu115hit meanwhile can only afford 1 or 2 kids.


  • #3696
    Turnipman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Turnipman


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

    We disincetivise people who are unable to provide for their children from having more (Pick a date in the future. From that date child support wont be paid in respect of the third+ child).

    Can't be done - unconstitutional. (and the constitution won't be changed)
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

    Crisis pregnancies happen all the time. Not 7 times to the one person. 15yr olds see bearing more brats as a legitimate future, a way to get a house. The more you breed, the more favourable the outcome. The people paying for this bu115hit meanwhile can only afford 1 or 2 kids.

    The seven unfortunate kids are already here and need to be housed.

    The kids have done absolutely nothing wrong so should not be victimised or punished in any way by the State just because their parents are a couple of worthless parasites.


  • Advertisement
  • #3697
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,141 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Turnipman wrote: »
    Can't be done - unconstitutional.
    I very much doubt it is unconstitutional. And in the unlikely event that it is, we can change it in one of the myriad of referenda anyway. NEXT.


    Turnipman wrote: »
    The seven unfortunate kids are already here and need to be housed.

    The kids have done absolutely nothing wrong so should not be victimised or punished in any way by the State just because their parents are a couple of worthless parasites.


    No one is talking about punishing the kids. Stop derailing/distractiing.


    The options mooted so far are
    • take kids into care (better for them anyway)
    • alter the system so that for future claims no children will be supported by the dole/CB except for 2 or less in the same family. As this is for new claims only, it will not affect the kids anyway
    The only one that has victimised / punished the children is the mother by having so many mealtickets children that she cannot afford, and the father by abandoning the children and being a scumbag and being incarcerated, and both of the parents for enforcing a poor standard of living on the children by refusing offers of housing, by living in a caravan and by forcing them to sleep in a police station for a posed photo


  • #3698
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Turnipman wrote: »
    Can't be done - unconstitutional. (and the constitution won't be changed)



    The seven unfortunate kids are already here and need to be housed.

    The kids have done absolutely nothing wrong so should not be victimised or punished in any way by the State just because their parents are a couple of worthless parasites.

    Spherical squishy objects.

    Of course it bloody well can and it should be done.

    Existing benefit claimants are capped at the kids they have on a certain date - 1 Jan 2021 e.g. and any after that capped at 2 or 3/4 depending on a multiple birth second (natural) pregnancy.

    There is zero stopping this from happening save the fear of upsetting entitled wasters and their cheerleaders.


  • #3699
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    Turnipman wrote: »
    Problem is that rants like that don't address the issue of how we can stop it happening on an ongoing basis.

    Because the thing to remember is that there are loads of Cashes going around, this one just popped her head too far above the parapet so came to the attention of the public.

    I know, although I doubt most of them are quite on this scammer's scale.

    With any luck, the conversation and general agreement by a large percentage of society that it is NOT an acceptable way of living might help change some things.


  • #3700
    Turnipman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Turnipman


    ELM327 wrote: »

    I very much doubt it is unconstitutional. And in the unlikely event that it is, we can change it in one of the myriad of referenda anyway.

    Why not have a look at Article 40.1 and tell us how you propose to change it so as to exclude third and subsequent children from the rights enjoyed by their older siblings.


  • #3701
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Turnipman wrote: »
    Why not have a look at Article 40.1 and tell us how you propose to change it so as to exclude third and subsequent children from the rights enjoyed by their older siblings.

    You wouldn't have to change it - you're well over reaching what the clause covers.


  • Advertisement
  • #3702
    Turnipman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Turnipman


    Lollipops23 wrote: »
    I know, although I doubt most of them are quite on this scammer's scale.

    With any luck, the conversation and general agreement by a large percentage of society that it is NOT an acceptable way of living might help change some things.

    I think that's partly why this shabby saga is so very annoying.

    In a democracy which (rightly) places great emphasis on the rights of the individual there simply isn't any easy way to address the situation that people like Cash (and there are many others like her) have managed to get themselves into.

    It's all very well to rant about forced sterilisation or abortion or indeed about punishing younger children by legislating to block their entitlement to child allowance and other support payments, but unless we go back to incarcerating people like Cash in a 21st century version of a Magdalene Laundry, we're completely bunched!


  • #3703
    Turnipman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Turnipman


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    You wouldn't have to change it - you're well over reaching what the clause covers.

    Happy to defer to your expertise as a Constitutional lawyer.


  • #3704
    Littlehorny
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭Littlehorny


    I think the state should start looking at contributory dole payments and non- contributory dole payments. At least it would show these leeches who sign on at 18 and never bother looking for a job that if you don't contribute then you get less.
    And have the difference big enough so that it shows a working person that there taxes were appreciated.
    Also as I said before on another thread, the dole should go down by 10% every year your on it so if your 5 years on the dole you only get 50% payments and thats all you'll get.


  • #3705
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Turnipman wrote: »
    Happy to defer to your expertise as a Constitutional lawyer.

    Sarcasm, sure that'll help.


  • #3706
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    Turnipman wrote: »

    It's all very well to rant about forced sterilisation or abortion or indeed about punishing younger children by legislating to block their entitlement to child allowance and other support payments, but unless we go back to incarcerating people like Cash in a 21st century version of a Magdalene Laundry, we're completely bunched!

    I genuinely think they should be take off her and fostered; yes, it's awfully sad, but then this woman had them all knowing she wasn't able to feed them on her own.

    She's an unfit parent. End of.


  • #3707
    cursai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,915 ✭✭✭cursai


    ffs is this thread still. Ye are all arguing about a story that was mostly lies. I think they gave the correct names,


  • #3708
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,141 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Turnipman wrote: »
    Why not have a look at Article 40.1 and tell us how you propose to change it so as to exclude third and subsequent children from the rights enjoyed by their older siblings.
    'All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law'

    Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.


    NEXT


  • #3709
    Riskymove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,900 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Turnipman wrote: »
    Why not have a look at Article 40.1 and tell us how you propose to change it so as to exclude third and subsequent children from the rights enjoyed by their older siblings.

    40.1 does not mean that everyone is entitled to the same benefits

    There are a number of benefits that have terms and conditions and not everyone would receive


  • #3710
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Prisoner 6753 wrote: »
    Many internet trolls demanded information about the children's father, but according to Ms Cash: "He's not relevant."
    Speaking to the Sunday World, she said: "He's not on the scene. I separated from him last year."
    The 28-year-old's former long-term partner, John McCarthy, was remanded in the custody of Cloverhill Prison on July 25.

    "I never done this to get famous," she said.

    2 of the biggest lies you'll ever hear.

    I wonder if I checked my database in work as part of my normal duties and happened to click on to a John McCarthy and brought up his profile with visits and the dates and visitors would that claim ring true. Not saying I'm gonna do it or anything, just wondering to myself is all...


  • #3711
    Turnipman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Turnipman


    Littlehorny wrote: »
    I think the state should start looking at contributory dole payments and non- contributory dole payments. At least it would show these leeches who sign on at 18 and never bother looking for a job that if you don't contribute then you get less.
    And have the difference big enough so that it shows a working person that there taxes were appreciated.
    Also as I said before on another thread, the dole should go down by 10% every year your on it so if your 5 years on the dole you only get 50% payments and thats all you'll get.

    Between 18 and 24 males and females only get €108 a week in jobseekers allowance.

    But if a 17 year female has a kid and isn't married, she'll get €198 a week, plus €32 for the kid.

    It can be argued that it's incentivising a category of females with low self-esteem and life expectations to start having kids as soon as they reach the age of consent.


  • Advertisement
  • #3712
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Riskymove wrote: »
    40.1 does not mean that everyone is entitled to the same benefits

    There are a number of benefits that have terms and conditions and not everyone would receive

    Precisely!


  • #3713
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Turnipman wrote: »
    Between 18 and 24 males and females only get €108 a week in jobseekers allowance.

    But if a 17 year female has a kid and isn't married, she'll get €198 a week, plus €32 for the kid.

    It can be argued that it's incentivising a category of females with low self-esteem and life expectations to start having kids as soon as they reach the age of consent.

    And not always then - this wagon's allegedly been married at 15!


  • #3714
    Silent Running
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,830 ✭✭✭Silent Running


    Turnipman wrote: »
    The kids have done absolutely nothing wrong so should not be victimised or punished in any way by the State just because their parents are a couple of worthless parasites.

    You know this for a fact, do you? The 11 year old is well into his training and would fit nicely through an open bathroom window. :D


  • #3715
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    SirChenjin wrote: »
    +1 to every word of this post. It has become an industry, and the word 'homeless' has become almost meaningless in the process.

    I hear the word homeless now and it barely even registers with me. That's thanks to a multitude of absolute tools, including the gullible/opportunistic media.


  • #3716
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    Omackeral wrote: »
    I wonder if I checked my database in work as part of my normal duties and happened to click on to a John McCarthy and brought up his profile with visits and the dates and visitors would that claim ring true. Not saying I'm gonna do it or anything, just wondering to myself is all...

    It's all a scam you can be sure. Once she gets the fully furnished mansion and he's released, the baby factory will be spitting them out quicker than before.


  • #3717
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Why an issue relating to the housing crisis turns into a discussion on an individual and her merits as a victim of the crisis might be part of the problem?
    Children's allowance should be capped at one child. After that you can have as many as you like.


  • #3718
    Victor Meldrew
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 768 ✭✭✭Victor Meldrew


    Riskymove wrote: »
    40.1 does not mean that everyone is entitled to the same benefits

    There are a number of benefits that have terms and conditions and not everyone would receive

    Yep. Equal before the law, not the SW office. Taken to its extreme, such a nonsense would mean that every recipient of support should get the same support. Which is nonsense. Not all schools are equal. Not all council houses are of equal value or utility.


  • #3719
    ayux4rj6zql2ph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭ayux4rj6zql2ph


    Omackeral wrote: »
    I hear the word homeless now and it barely even registers with me. That's thanks to a multitude of absolute tools, including the gullible/opportunistic media.

    Homelessness 20 years ago was real, today it is used by the likes of yer wan for a free gaff with her sob story like the other 2 in Fermoy and Youghal.


  • #3720
    Turnipman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Turnipman


    ELM327 wrote: »

    'All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law'

    Completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

    Once again, I'm more than happy to defer to your Open University degree in paper clips and constitutional law.


  • Advertisement
  • #3721
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Prisoner 6753 wrote: »
    Homelessness 20 years ago was real, today it is used by the likes of yer wan for a free gaff with her sob story like the other 2 in Fermoy and Youghal.

    Homeless to me is the lad who used to be in the Defence Forces (I'm told) and now sleeps outside the souvenir shop on O'Connell St.

    He has nothing - and is definitely NOT getting 50k a year tax free.

    THAT'S where the priorities should be in my opinion.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement