Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

spookwoman · 20-08-2018 03:09PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I am sure a blind person in a wheelchair who is on disability benefits would be well capable of giving birth ? Disability means just that , not bed bound and incapable

Read my post again I said on disability with long term illnesses. Examples would be fibromyalgia, CFS, ME.
"Fibromyalgia is a disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain accompanied by fatigue, sleep, memory and mood issues. Researchers believe that fibromyalgia amplifies painful sensations by affecting the way your brain processes pain signals"

end of the road · 20-08-2018 03:17PM

NIMAN wrote: »

Full employment is not 100% employment though.

People will always be unable to work for various reasons, but physically abled men and women who have no illnesses should be able to do something, thats my point.

When you talk about unemployment figures you think of people who can't get a job. But can't is often easily substituted for don't want for a certain section of society.

i would disagree that can't is easily substituted for don't want. i believe they are both equal in this situation.
if someone is the type that don't want a job, then ultimately they are a person who the employers would not wish to give a job to, because they would likely be difficult to handle and cause issues for everyone else in the work place, which i believe would be unfair to those who want to work. not to forget that the jobs market would be less for those who do wish to work, who i firmly believe are ultimately in the vast vast majority.

Omackeral wrote: »

Two vastly different groups.
Plenty who are able to work and won't/don't.

i believe the amount able to work but who don't wish to are in very small numbers over all. and i don't believe other workers would want them in the work place.

na1 · 20-08-2018 03:18PM

Turnipman wrote: »

Was a two year old link the most up-to-date one that you could find to support your argument?

I'ts one year old link unless your'e writing from the Summer 2019.

Do you really believe that the councils are fully staffed now?

stratowide · 20-08-2018 03:25PM

end of the road wrote: »

i would disagree that can't is easily substituted for don't want. i believe they are both equal in this situation.
if someone is the type that don't want a job, then ultimately they are a person who the employers would not wish to give a job to, because they would likely be difficult to handle and cause issues for everyone else in the work place, which i believe would be unfair to those who want to work. not to forget that the jobs market would be less for those who do wish to work, who i firmly believe are ultimately in the vast vast majority.
disability comes in many forms. plenty of people with disabilities have children and manage fine bringing up those children, yet their disability doesn't allow them to work. on the other hand there are people with disabilities in the work place. disability is not going to be a 1 size fits all.

i believe the amount able to work but who don't wish to are in very small numbers over all. and i don't believe other workers would want them in the work place.

Well I believe you should get an award.

For the most "enabling entitling bo**oxology I've read on this thread".

tom1ie · 20-08-2018 03:31PM

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe we are rewarding people for being long term unemployed. i believe we are recognising that there is a section of society who are unfortunately unemployable no matter what, and we are insuring they have the supports they need to pay the basic cost of living.

i believe that those who want to work, or who are able to work, are working and will work. there isn't going to be work for every single person though, and as i said there will be a minority who are just unemployable. i believe the wellfare authorities are tough enough, but recognise the realities as well. there is never going to be 100% employment in ireland.

i believe there are already staff to do those jobs. also, it's likely that it's wishful thinking rather then reality, that it would get the chancers off their holes. and realistically, would the staff already working these jobs want to have to work with the chancers anyway?

Define unemployable though. Ok they don’t want to work, but if you take away a portion of the money that they need, then they will work to get that portion back, no?

jjmcclure · 20-08-2018 03:33PM

OMG her facebook page and some of the links on there!!

There is a link to an eviction down the country, while the security guy did act a little inappropriately I never understand why the protestors don't ask the simple question - "Why are you being evicted?". Generally the answer will be one of the following.

1. I didn't pay the rent.
2. I didn't pay the mortgage.
3. My behavior was antisocial.

If you can't pay for commitments you have made there are consequences. In the examples of non payment of mortgage and rent YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT!!! I also believe it is an absolute last resort when the banks repossess a house. Landlords don't repossess rental accommodation because the tenants are model citizens and pay their rent on time!!

tom1ie · 20-08-2018 03:34PM

end of the road wrote: »

i would disagree that can't is easily substituted for don't want. i believe they are both equal in this situation.
if someone is the type that don't want a job, then ultimately they are a person who the employers would not wish to give a job to, because they would likely be difficult to handle and cause issues for everyone else in the work place, which i believe would be unfair to those who want to work. not to forget that the jobs market would be less for those who do wish to work, who i firmly believe are ultimately in the vast vast majority.

i believe the amount able to work but who don't wish to are in very small numbers over all. and i don't believe other workers would want them in the work place.

Your not thinking of the bigger picture though. They are unemployable and therefore would be hard to manage.
Fine.
Take away some of there benefits until they realize they now don’t have enough benefit money to have the lifestyle they had before.
They will then actively pursue looking for work.
When this happens, and they get a job or partake in community works, they can then be seen as a productive member of society, relatively speaking, and can get there benefits back.
You’ve saved money and installed a sense of achievement in the ex sponger.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2018 03:35PM

spookwoman wrote: »

Read my post again I said on disability with long term illnesses. Examples would be fibromyalgia, CFS, ME.
"Fibromyalgia is a disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain accompanied by fatigue, sleep, memory and mood issues. Researchers believe that fibromyalgia amplifies painful sensations by affecting the way your brain processes pain signals"

I gave you the benefit of the doubt in your initial post when you made the point about people claiming disability allowance and you said you didn’t know but if someone is able to give birth they can’t be that sick -

spookwoman wrote: »

Then there are the ones on disability with long term illnesses who have kids. I don't know but if you are able to give birth and have more kids you cant be that sick.

But the criteria to qualify for disability allowance don’t include whether a person is or isn’t able to give birth. It relates to the degree to which a persons disability would restrict them in undertaking work that would be suitable for a person of their age, experience and qualifications -

To qualify for Disability Allowance (DA) you must:

Have an injury, disease or physical or mental disability that has continued, or may be expected to continue, for at least one year

As a result of this disability be substantially restricted in undertaking work that would otherwise be suitable for a person of your age, experience and qualifications

Be aged between 16 and 66. When you reach 66 years of age you no longer qualify for DA, but you are assessed for a State pension.

Satisfy a means test

Satisfy the habitual residence condition.

That’s what I thought you meant when you said you didn’t know, that you weren’t aware of the criteria for qualifying for disability allowance. Having children while claiming disability allowance doesn’t disqualify a person from claiming disability allowance.

tom1ie · 20-08-2018 03:37PM

Anyone giving out about people on disability allowance has their priorities wrong. It’s the long term unemployed that are taking the piss, not the most vulnerable in society.

20-08-2018 03:44PM

end of the road wrote: »

i believe the amount able to work but who don't wish to are in very small numbers over all

I'd love to bring you in to my job in prison to see it for real. There are no empty seats during the week at visiting times (10am-4pm). Saturdays aside, The vast vast majority of people are up during said visits on a Monday to Friday on the regular, ya know when most people work. I think it's a pretty clear indicator that jobs are of no concern to most of them. It's actually somewhat of a shock when you offer them a slot on a Wednesday afternoon and they say ''oh sorry, I'll be working that day'' That's what you're dealing with. It's very much a lifestyle choice among a big section of society. That's without getting into the number of kids being dragged out of school to attend the visits...

Gatling · 20-08-2018 03:53PM

spookwoman wrote: »

"Fibromyalgia is a disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain accompanied by fatigue, sleep, memory and mood issues. Researchers believe that fibromyalgia amplifies painful sensations by affecting the way your brain processes pain signals"

While others Doctors and researchers say doesn't exist ,
More akin to stress and depression.

But that's a whole different thread and discussion

Jim Bob Scratcher · 20-08-2018 03:55PM

tom1ie wrote: »

Anyone giving out about people on disability allowance has their priorities wrong. It’s the long term unemployed that are taking the piss, not the most vulnerable in society.

There is plenty of chancers on that too.

Grab All Association · 20-08-2018 04:17PM

Two fine house here empty in Borrisoleigh Co Tipperary (empty 2 years since complete renovation) owned by Tipperary Co Council. Ms Cash and husband would feel right at home here as it was all a former Garda barracks until the 1980s lol.

Blazer · 20-08-2018 04:23PM

Grab All Association wrote: »

Two fine house here empty in Borrisoleigh Co Tipperary (empty 2 years since complete renovation) owned by Tipperary Co Council. Ms Cash and husband would feel right at home here as it was all a former Garda barracks until the 1980s lol.

Ah here now. I know I’ve slated her on here but there’s no way she deserves to live in Tipperary.

mynamejeff · 20-08-2018 04:37PM

tom1ie wrote: »

Anyone giving out about people on disability allowance has their priorities wrong. It’s the long term unemployed that are taking the piss, not the most vulnerable in society.

there are plenty of crooks and bluffers on disability too, genuine cases too

i know of one lad who was in a car crash when was 18 and received 40000 from MIBI then wen on full time disability for a back injury His uninsured cousin was driving the car btw

he is now playing club football and partaking in MMA shows as a armature fighter .

there is a lack of action from doctors and welfare staff to question some people,

lots of genuine case too mind but there would be more for them if we cracked down of the people abusing the system

ayux4rj6zql2ph · 20-08-2018 04:44PM

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

There is plenty of chancers on that too.

There was a guy on with Niall Boylan last year, never worked a day in his life and openly admitted it, he was asked how was he getting away with it for so long, when he said the welfare were chasing him he went and applied for disability and the rest is history.

spookwoman · 20-08-2018 04:44PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I gave you the benefit of the doubt in your initial post when you made the point about people claiming disability allowance and you said you didn’t know but if someone is able to give birth they can’t be that sick -

But the criteria to qualify for disability allowance don’t include whether a person is or isn’t able to give birth. It relates to the degree to which a persons disability would restrict them in undertaking work that would be suitable for a person of their age, experience and qualifications -

To qualify for Disability Allowance (DA) you must:

Have an injury, disease or physical or mental disability that has continued, or may be expected to continue, for at least one year

As a result of this disability be substantially restricted in undertaking work that would otherwise be suitable for a person of your age, experience and qualifications

Be aged between 16 and 66. When you reach 66 years of age you no longer qualify for DA, but you are assessed for a State pension.

Satisfy a means test

Satisfy the habitual residence condition.

That’s what I thought you meant when you said you didn’t know, that you weren’t aware of the criteria for qualifying for disability allowance. Having children while claiming disability allowance doesn’t disqualify a person from claiming disability allowance.

I know what the requirements are I'm just saying its another one that is taken advantage of like having 7 kids when you haven't worked a day in your life and expect a house etc.

The system is broken

iamwhoiam · 20-08-2018 04:52PM

spookwoman wrote: »

Read my post again I said on disability with long term illnesses. Examples would be fibromyalgia, CFS, ME.
"Fibromyalgia is a disorder characterized by widespread musculoskeletal pain accompanied by fatigue, sleep, memory and mood issues. Researchers believe that fibromyalgia amplifies painful sensations by affecting the way your brain processes pain signals"

I know what CF and ME and Fibromyalgia is . Each one of those illness differ very much in severity and it is not up to you or I to judge if the sufferer should recieve long term benefits . Nor is it up to us to judge if their illness should mean they are not capable of giving birth
Of all groups to criticise they would be one of the last on my list

spookwoman · 20-08-2018 05:13PM

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I know what CF and ME and Fibromyalgia is . Each one of those illness differ very much in severity and it is not up to you or I to judge if the sufferer should recieve long term benefits . Nor is it up to us to judge if their illness should mean they are not capable of giving birth
Of all groups to criticise they would be one of the last on my list

I suffer from CFS along with a number of other illnesses and I can't work because of them. I worked for years but it got to the point where I did not have a life and my health was getting worse. I worked and I slept, nothing else. Because I cannot work I don't have money, I also don't have a house so I am in no position to have children. If I did have them I would be putting even more pressure on a system strapped for cash, I also know I would be unable to care for them. To me it just seems morally wrong to say you are unable to work due to your health yet at the same time your ok enough start a family while claiming. I don't have kids but from what I gather it's hard going.

Alrigghtythen · 20-08-2018 05:22PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

OMG her facebook page and some of the links on there!!

There is a link to an eviction down the country, while the security guy did act a little inappropriately I never understand why the protestors don't ask the simple question - "Why are you being evicted?". Generally the answer will be one of the following.

1. I didn't pay the rent.
2. I didn't pay the mortgage.
3. My behavior was antisocial.

If you can't pay for commitments you have made there are consequences. In the examples of non payment of mortgage and rent YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT!!! I also believe it is an absolute last resort when the banks repossess a house. Landlords don't repossess rental accommodation because the tenants are model citizens and pay their rent on time!!

That eviction was 2 years ago!

Well done to the council, they're right not to let her get too comfortable in 'her' apartment. It might be a solution to move these 'homeless' people every month or so to make them see that paying for themselves is the better option.

iamwhoiam · 20-08-2018 05:23PM

spookwoman wrote: »

I suffer from CFS along with a number of other illnesses and I can't work because of them. I worked for years but it got to the point where I did not have a life and my health was getting worse. I worked and I slept, nothing else. Because I cannot work I don't have money, I also don't have a house so I am in no position to have children. If I did have them I would be putting even more pressure on a system strapped for cash, I also know I would be unable to care for them. To me it just seems morally wrong to say you are unable to work due to your health yet at the same time your ok enough start a family while claiming. I don't have kids but from what I gather it's hard going.

Fair enough but neither of us are in a position to criticise others decisions regarding children my opinion . There are people on long term disability who had a house before they became ill .
I just reserve my criticism for other groups first

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2018 05:24PM

spookwoman wrote: »

I know what the requirements are I'm just saying its another one that is taken advantage of like having 7 kids when you haven't worked a day in your life and expect a house etc.

The system is broken

Ok, I understand what you’re saying, and the system is certainly flawed in a lot of respects and there will be people who will take advantage of the flaws in any system no matter how it is designed.

But, in saying that, payments like unemployment assistance, child benefit and housing assistance payments aren’t based upon employment history, and just because someone expects a house, or expects to be provided with a house, or expects to be accommodated, is clearly no indication that they will actually be accommodated.

That goes for anyone on the housing list, as there is no distinction made between those people who are more “deserving” of accommodation based upon whether they are deemed to be morally “genuine” cases or not. Decisions are based primarily upon an assessment of need, not an assessment of an individuals morality.

massy086 · 20-08-2018 05:39PM

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

Well at least she won't have to dread the free luas trips now.

Alrigghtythen · 20-08-2018 05:42PM

massy086 wrote: »

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

Well at least she won't have to dread the free luas trips now.

Nor the telly that they couldn't work :pac:

Icsics · 20-08-2018 06:15PM

According to her FB page the council 'lied' to her & she'll be homeless again in Sept

end of the road · 20-08-2018 06:20PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

OMG her facebook page and some of the links on there!!

There is a link to an eviction down the country, while the security guy did act a little inappropriately I never understand why the protestors don't ask the simple question - "Why are you being evicted?". Generally the answer will be one of the following.

1. I didn't pay the rent.
2. I didn't pay the mortgage.
3. My behavior was antisocial.

If you can't pay for commitments you have made there are consequences. In the examples of non payment of mortgage and rent YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT!!! I also believe it is an absolute last resort when the banks repossess a house. Landlords don't repossess rental accommodation because the tenants are model citizens and pay their rent on time!!

i don't believe in some cases it is a last resort when the odd bank repossesses a house.
also, the landlord selling the house is another reason why someone will face eviction, unless the new owner is also a landlord and agrees to take on the tenants living there.
it's not up to the eviction protesters to ask questions, they are there to insure the private security company doing the eviction stay in line and inform everyone if they misbehave.

Omackeral wrote: »

I'd love to bring you in to my job in prison to see it for real. There are no empty seats during the week at visiting times (10am-4pm). Saturdays aside, The vast vast majority of people are up during said visits on a Monday to Friday on the regular, ya know when most people work. I think it's a pretty clear indicator that jobs are of no concern to most of them. It's actually somewhat of a shock when you offer them a slot on a Wednesday afternoon and they say ''oh sorry, I'll be working that day'' That's what you're dealing with. It's very much a lifestyle choice among a big section of society. That's without getting into the number of kids being dragged out of school to attend the visits...

the thing is, people being able to attend during prison visiting hours isn't enough in itself to prove that someone isn't working, given that 9 to 5 isn't the only or main working hour now. i have no doubt some of them attending the prison won't be working, but others will be working different shifts, either earlier or later.

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

That eviction was 2 years ago!

Well done to the council, they're right not to let her get too comfortable in 'her' apartment. It might be a solution to move these 'homeless' people every month or so to make them see that paying for themselves is the better option.

moving homeless people around every month or so wouldn't be a solution to anything. it would simply be moving people around just to move them around.
it certainly won't make them see that paying for themselves is the better option, because given their situation they can't afford to pay for themselves fully, otherwise they wouldn't be receiving assistence from the state.

end of the road · 20-08-2018 06:22PM

tom1ie wrote: »

Define unemployable though. Ok they don’t want to work, but if you take away a portion of the money that they need, then they will work to get that portion back, no?

i don't believe they would. if they wanted to work they would work.

tom1ie wrote: »

Your not thinking of the bigger picture though. They are unemployable and therefore would be hard to manage.
Fine.
Take away some of there benefits until they realize they now don’t have enough benefit money to have the lifestyle they had before.
They will then actively pursue looking for work.
When this happens, and they get a job or partake in community works, they can then be seen as a productive member of society, relatively speaking, and can get there benefits back.
You’ve saved money and installed a sense of achievement in the ex sponger.

they are unlikely to actively persue looking for work, because they don't want to work full stop, and it's unlikely that anything will get them to do so.
they also won't get work, because if they are unemployable and employers don't want them before part of their benefits are removed, they are unemployable and employers still won't want them after part of their benefits are removed.
i really believe that the vast vast majority of people want to work, do work, and if they aren't working now, they will work.

Gatling · 20-08-2018 06:29PM

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe they would. if they wanted to work they would work.

So cut their benefits off completely and supply them with a store card that can be used across multiple stores for the bare minimum of to survive .
Move them out of their social housing to temporary housing and free up housing for those willing to pay .

Alrigghtythen · 20-08-2018 06:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe in some cases it is a last resort when the odd bank repossesses a house.
also, the landlord selling the house is another reason why someone will face eviction, unless the new owner is also a landlord and agrees to take on the tenants living there.
it's not up to the eviction protesters to ask questions, they are there to insure the private security company doing the eviction stay in line and inform everyone if they misbehave.

the thing is, people being able to attend during prison visiting hours isn't enough in itself to prove that someone isn't working, given that 9 to 5 isn't the only or main working hour now. i have no doubt some of them attending the prison won't be working, but others will be working different shifts, either earlier or later.

moving homeless people around every month or so wouldn't be a solution to anything. it would simply be moving people around just to move them around.
it certainly won't make them see that paying for themselves is the better option, because given their situation they can't afford to pay for themselves fully, otherwise they wouldn't be receiving assistence from the state.

There's a difference between homeless and being poor as the good lady herself informed us. She's not claiming she's poor.

"Being homeless and being poor are two different things," she told the RTE show Today With Miriam. "There's no one saying there's anyone poor here.

end of the road · 20-08-2018 06:46PM

Gatling wrote: »

So cut their benefits off completely and supply them with a store card that can be used across multiple stores for the bare minimum of to survive .

i'd imagine that would cost quite a bit to not only set up, but enforce and pay the stores.

Gatling wrote: »

Move them out of their social housing to temporary housing and free up housing for those willing to pay .

that would still require a house building program, some on here don't seem to support that though. it's also not up to councils to move people out of social housing who need social housing, to free up housing for people willing to pay, as in pay full market rent or buy a mortgage.

Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

Comments