Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

TallGlass · 18-08-2018 11:53PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s no limit on the number of children a person can apply to claim child benefit for, whether it’s one child, seven children, or seventeen children. Naturally the amount of child benefit a person qualifies for is dependent upon the number of children they have.

I did make the point earlier that I wasn’t a bleeding heart, so rather than merely acknowledging that it may well be heartbreaking for the parents in question, I would be more interested in offering practical support depending upon what the parents in question actually wanted, whether that was to be able to afford appropriate childcare, negotiatiate more flexible working arrangements with their employer, or support them in seeking employment that would allow them to spend more time with their children. I might even be able to suggest ways in which they could pay less tax and therefore be in a better position to be able to provide the lifestyle they wish to provide for themselves and their children.

I absolutely wouldn’t be interested in comparing their circumstances with anyone else’s, or comparing anyone else’s circumstances with theirs, as one has no bearing on the other, and vice versa.

10,000 + posts, and that's the biggest load of ****e I have ever read. Firstly, you put employed and support in the same sentence, even your Alexa would have a nervous break down if you asked her that question.

zeebre12 · 18-08-2018 11:55PM

The only solution is for the government to give everyone a house. Id like one overlooking St. Stephens Green. Problem sorted. We're all 'entitled' anyway. If your not in you can't win.

TallGlass · 18-08-2018 11:56PM

TallGlass wrote: »

10,000 + posts, and that's the biggest load of ****e I have ever read. Firstly, you put employed and support in the same sentence, even your Alexa would have a nervous break down if you asked her that question.

Sorry, that was a bit harsh. Anyway, gonna check myself out of this topic, it's a ripe one for a ban with a few beers on board.

Best of luck folks.

Seth Brundle · 18-08-2018 11:59PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

No, the scandal is that the state is paying private landlords the current exorbitant rates dictated by the market, rather than building houses itself - which would have the added benefit of driving those prices down, which would be good for everyone.

Where should the money to build more "free houses" be diverted from (Given the already huge sums spent on the "homeless")?

Yer Da sells Avon · 18-08-2018 11:59PM

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

No it doesn't bother me who is receiving it. Landlords don't even want HAP.

The government had to bring in a law that landlords are unable to refuse to take it.

Allow landlords to refuse HAP tenants, job done, no more state money for them. Simples.

Landlords are perfectly free to refuse HAP tenants; they just aren't allowed to give that as a reason for refusing them.

Melendez · 18-08-2018 11:59PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 19-08-2018 12:01AM

Anthracite wrote: »

It was a stunt. Same as the Kitty Holland/sleeping in car story. This isn't even debatable. Look at the staged photo where you can't actually see any of the children's faces. Look at the impossible positions they are 'sleeping' in. This was 100% staged, and, fair play, the convicted criminal got exactly what she wanted.

this was 100% staged in your opinion. it was a stunt and isn't debatible in your opinion.
in reality though, the fact she was in a garda station most certainly wasn't staged or a stunt. the photo, sure, probably, but the circumstance that she was in by where she was in a garda station as she had nowhere to go most certainly wasn't a stunt or staged.

Anthracite · 19-08-2018 12:01AM

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And who doesn't get life-saving medicine or surgery because the money is squandered on criminals who can't be arsed even trying to pay their own way or contribute anything to society?

Seth Brundle · 19-08-2018 12:02AM

TallGlass wrote: »

Humm, words to me that are seemingly weightless in this current society. Seems if you are the opposite your rewarded for it, rather than told otherwise.

I agree but there is a lot to be said for having the ability to be proud of oneself and to be able to hold your head high.
Myself and my OH have so far raised our kids to know the value of money and the satisfaction gained by earning through hard work. Pity Ms. Cash's parents didn't seem to do the same!

Anthracite · 19-08-2018 12:03AM

end of the road wrote: »

this was 100% staged in your opinion. it was a stunt and isn't debatible in your opinion.
in reality though, the fact she was in a garda station most certainly wasn't staged or a stunt. the photo, sure, probably, but the circumstance that she was in by where she was in a garda station as she had nowhere to go most certainly wasn't a stunt or staged.

She probably has a dozen siblings, her criminal partner probably has another dozen, and she likely has over a hundred cousins. NONE of them would put her up?

What does that say about her and her family?

But f*ck it, the taxpayer can pay for it. Sure what do they need their own money for anyway?

Atlantic Dawn · 19-08-2018 12:04AM

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So someone taking in almost €1000 a week can't find accommodation in Dublin? Do they have access to the internet?

Seth Brundle · 19-08-2018 12:05AM

end of the road wrote: »

in reality though, the fact she was in a garda station most certainly wasn't staged or a stunt. the photo, sure, probably, but the circumstance that she was in by where she was in a garda station as she had nowhere to go most certainly wasn't a stunt or staged.

Is there no support mechanism there to ensure that she and her kids didn't need to be in a garda station? She chose to be there.

Anthracite · 19-08-2018 12:05AM

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

So someone taking in almost €1000 a week can't find accommodation in Dublin? Do they have access to the internet?

She also admitted she has loads of cash (from somewhere) so money wasn't the problem. But why pay for accomodation like a sap when you can get the taxpayer to pay for it?

Yer Da sells Avon · 19-08-2018 12:05AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Where should the money to build more "free houses" be diverted from (Given the already huge sums spent on the "homeless")?

They wouldn't be 'free houses'. All tenants would have to pay a percentage of their monthly income, deducted at source if necessary. In the long-term, it would save money. It would also drive rental prices down, which I'm sure we can all agree would be a good thing.

Melendez · 19-08-2018 12:07AM

This post has been deleted.

Needles73 · 19-08-2018 12:09AM

“but the circumstance that she was in by where she was in a garda station as she had nowhere to go most certainly wasn't a stunt or staged.”

In your opinion.

Gatling · 19-08-2018 12:09AM

Melendez wrote: »

This is emergency accommodation that became available. There is no list that she is to be bumped up, i

Yes there is your housed on time on the list and need , she's 9 years on the housing list in SDCC there's several thousand Infront of her ,

If she gets a council house tomorrow she was bumped it's really that simple.

Viscosity1 · 19-08-2018 12:10AM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Where should the money to build more "free houses" be diverted from (Given the already huge sums spent on the "homeless")?

Building houses isn't as straightforward as it used to be. The building regs are much tougher now than when public housing was built in the past. I also think that maintaining large amounts of public housing would be significant. It's makes perfect sense for people to think that the government should build more houses. It's more difficult to grasp how much effort building a house is.

Are we willing to provide modern living with all the associated services, in reasonably desirable area (aka its not a massive commute) for free or at least well below cost?

Anthracite · 19-08-2018 12:10AM

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's great logic. "We wasted some taxpayers' money on X, therefore blow all the money."

Especially blow all the money on supporting a lifestyle that means you have to blow 2 or 3 more times as much money on the next generation on welfare, housing, prison cells, victim support etc. etc.

You seem to have missed my direct question as to whether you think it is sustainable that the people who pay for everything only have 2 kids each on average, but the people who take everything and pay for nothing have 7+. How do you see that working out in a couple of generations?

19-08-2018 12:10AM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Landlords are perfectly free to refuse HAP tenants; they just aren't allowed to give that as a reason for refusing them.

Then lets be honest and allow them

Anthracite · 19-08-2018 12:13AM

Viscosity1 wrote: »

Are we willing to provide modern living with all the associated services, in reasonably desirable area (aka its not a massive commute) for free or at least well below cost?

This woman should be put wherever is cheapest. Where the hell does she need to commute to?

end of the road · 19-08-2018 12:14AM

Anthracite wrote: »

And who doesn't get life-saving medicine or surgery because the money is squandered on criminals who can't be arsed even trying to pay their own way or contribute anything to society?

and who doesn't get life-saving medicine or surgery because the money is spent on clearing up after a flood, or something else? your question is effectively a what if rather then a what will happen.

Anthracite wrote: »

She probably has a dozen siblings, her criminal partner probably has another dozen, and she likely has over a hundred cousins. NONE of them would put her up?

What does that say about her and her family?

But f*ck it, the taxpayer can pay for it. Sure what do they need their own money for anyway?

the fact that her relatives or her partner's relatives didn't put her and the children up doesn't necessarily say anything about her and her family. they may not have been in a position to put her and the children up.

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is there no support mechanism there to ensure that she and her kids didn't need to be in a garda station? She chose to be there.

apparently she was advised to go there. she may have ultimately chose to take that advice and go there, but by the looks of it she certainly didn't choose to be in the position that caused her to end up there.

10000maniacs · 19-08-2018 12:14AM

Sorry to paraphrase Trump but I see the liberal left entering this discussion to force the already squeezed middle earners to buy free houses for the "pay for nothing brigade". They did it with water and the next item on the agenda, free houses.

Melendez · 19-08-2018 12:14AM

This post has been deleted.

Atlantic Dawn · 19-08-2018 12:14AM

Gatling wrote: »

Yes there is your housed on time on the list and need , she's 9 years on the housing list in SDCC there's several thousand Infront of her ,

If she gets a council house tomorrow she was bumped it's really that simple.

Council employees/higher uppers who make these decisions would assume going by the crooked to the core media in this country that 99.98% of the population of Ireland would favour her getting a 5 bedroom bog standard house in Dalkey with a view of Howth Head.

Ha Long Bay · 19-08-2018 12:15AM

Anthracite wrote: »

This woman should be put wherever is cheapest. Where the hell does she need to commute to?

The poor woman has to commute to Tallaght.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/homeless-dublin-ireland-15045382

"After moving in yesterday, she told The Sun that she's dreading the schools re-opening as she'll have to make two round trips to Tallaght a day.

She said: “One of the kids will be starting school in September and when that happens I’ll have to get the Luas with all of them in the morning.

“What’ll there be to do over there so I’ll have to come back home and go back over to get him at half-12.

“Then I’ll have to come home again and go back over to pick the other ones up at three. That’s a lot of travelling to be doing, so it’s still not ideal. I can’t be complaining really, because it’s definitely better than nothing, but it’s still not a home forever."

Anthracite · 19-08-2018 12:16AM

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Also a convicted criminal. I presume they keep statistics on that stuff too.

end of the road · 19-08-2018 12:17AM

Anthracite wrote: »

This woman should be put wherever is cheapest. Where the hell does she need to commute to?

wherever she needs to commute to.

Gatling · 19-08-2018 12:17AM

Melendez wrote: »

No it isn't. That is once again untrue. .

Here you go again .

Do you actually read posts or just type

Because it looks like your playing dumb for the fun of it

Anthracite · 19-08-2018 12:18AM

john4321 wrote: »

The poor woman has to commute to Tallaght.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/homeless-dublin-ireland-15045382

"After moving in yesterday, she told The Sun that she's dreading the schools re-opening as she'll have to make two round trips to Tallaght a day.

She said: “One of the kids will be starting school in September and when that happens I’ll have to get the Luas with all of them in the morning.

“What’ll there be to do over there so I’ll have to come back home and go back over to get him at half-12.

“Then I’ll have to come home again and go back over to pick the other ones up at three. That’s a lot of travelling to be doing, so it’s still not ideal. I can’t be complaining really, because it’s definitely better than nothing, but it’s still not a home forever."

Where is the vomit emoji?

Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Comments