Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Family of seven sleep in Garda station Mod note post one

1…200201203205206…301

Comments

  • #6062
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    Nothing new here. Same as those who work and pay PRSI and are then 'encouraged through penalties' to take out private health insurance also.

    Don't bother working or contributing like the subject of this thread and you're granted a medical card however.
    That's equality and fairness for you.

    Great ain't it ??!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad:


  • #6063
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,197 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    The state pension may well be reduced down the line - cant see it being removed altogether . There would be uproar . Imagine the political party that does that . They wouldnt get into office again .

    Thats why they are afraid to touch social welfare - the fear of losing votes


  • #6064
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Sweet.Science wrote: »
    The state pension may well be reduced down the line - cant see it being removed altogether . There would be uproar . Imagine the political party that does that . They wouldnt get into office again .

    Thats why they are afraid to touch social welfare - the fear of losing votes

    If they touch SW for those who have never worked, they'd get in by a landslide.


  • #6065
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    Sweet.Science wrote: »
    Thats why they are afraid to touch social welfare - the fear of losing votes

    That's it in a nutshell. Fianna Fail increased welfare dramatically in the years 1997-2008 to buy votes and remain in power. FG has been afraid to reduce welfare, except for the under-25s, for fear of being labeled Thatcherites and losing support. Despite all the moaning during the recession years about cuts, the value of many welfare payments actually increased during that period, due to deflation.

    Varadkar has made some comments that echo the Tories' "make work pay" campaign in the UK, but it hasn't been followed up by action.

    All this means that the likes of Ms. Cash, who never went further than primary school and started popping out babies at 17, probably has more disposable income than many people who went to college but now have dim hopes of ever having a home or a family of their own.


  • #6066
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,867 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Sweet.Science wrote: »
    The state pension may well be reduced down the line - cant see it being removed altogether . There would be uproar . Imagine the political party that does that . They wouldnt get into office again .

    Thats why they are afraid to touch social welfare - the fear of losing votes

    The only way that State pensions will continue is if they keep extending the retirement date. At the moment for me it is 68 but I'm fully expecting it to be extended to about 75 or 80 by the time I am 68.

    At the moment we have enough workers to pay the State pension but that is changing as we are getting older and living longer. Therefore there will be less workers and more pensioners. Where will the Government get the money?


  • Advertisement
  • #6067
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    The only way that State pensions will continue is if they keep extending the retirement date. At the moment for me it is 68 but I'm fully expecting it to be extended to about 75 or 80 by the time I am 68.

    At the moment we have enough workers to pay the State pension but that is changing as we are getting older and living longer. Therefore there will be less workers and more pensioners. Where will the Government get the money?

    It was 60 when I started work at 18, it's now 68 - I agree, I'm not getting a state pension in 20 years, just not going to happen.

    I see 70 minimum.


  • #6068
    The_Kew_Tour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,070 ✭✭✭✭The_Kew_Tour


    It will be 75 by 2030

    EVENFLOW



  • #6069
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,147 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    farmerwifelet wrote: »
    Financial incentives. Pay young travellers to stay in school boys and girls and go to further education. Give girls a payment for getting the patch or coil or implant. Then they can break the cycle of being baby factories. If school earns more money for the family than dole then school is where they will go. I would include disadvantaged areas and places with low secondary school attendances in the scheme as well.

    School attendances, there's another debating point

    If I keep my kids out of school for half the year, I'll get the authorities on me like a ton of bricks.

    Yet travellers can do the same, ruining their kids futures, and what is done about it?


  • #6070
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    The_Kew_Tour wrote: »
    It will be 75 by 2030

    The year I turn 60. Happy birthday to me!


  • #6071
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,197 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    The_Kew_Tour wrote: »
    It will be 75 by 2030


    Rough for those who work on building sites etc


  • Advertisement
  • #6072
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Judson Calm Remote wrote: »
    It's all very well to go on about education, but the traveller population from which Ms Cash hails routinely thumbs its nose at it,....
    ...
    Your first 3 paragraphs are spot on, and then your fourth one breaks into logical inconsistency. Travellers are apparently so uneducated that they're clever enough to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and scam us all out of money.

    It's a cycle. Travellers teach their children that education has no value, that society is a big fat bag of blood to be leeched off as much as possible, and just pray to the holy virgin mary and all will be forgiven.

    Make the skin on the big bag of blood thicker and they'll just find new ways to puncture it.

    You're implying that if social welfare dried up, some council of Traveller elders will all declare, "Ah right sham, that's it, the jig is up, start sending your kids to school, they're onto us". Clearly this is not what will happen. We will still pay (us, not you, you don't even live in this country), just not directly.

    The only way out of this is to break the cycle, find ways to get them into education, and keep them there.

    As much hate as Ms Cash is getting, she has at least attempted to take the first step by ditching the traveller lifestyle and send her kids to school.

    And in return she's being told she's a scumbag and a leech - and as a result all of the stories she was told about how much society hates her and how she should exploit it, are true.

    Should her behaviour be excused? Of course not. Should she be given ongoing assistance to help climb out of her hole? Of course. Just like you should or I should, or anyone else should.


  • #6073
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NIMAN wrote: »
    School attendances, there's another debating point

    If I keep my kids out of school for half the year, I'll get the authorities on me like a ton of bricks.

    Yet travellers can do the same, ruining their kids futures, and what is done about it?

    You're not a 'disadvantaged' minority. Different rules.

    It's one of the things that bothers me so much about Ireland. We're all supposedly being pushed towards equality. Gender equality, racial equality, etc. But we take an ethnic group and place them actually higher than everyone else.

    Travellers have access to every possible benefit that I (or any other Irish person) can apply for. To do otherwise would be discrimination, and therefore illegal. However, they also receive support in other ways above what other Irish people have available. So, it's not really about equality. And it's not improving the lives of Travellers... instead it simply encourages them to retain their existing circumstances because, not only that they can afford to do so, but they're being rewarded for doing so.

    Boggles the mind, TBH.


  • #6074
    Sardine
    Site Banned Posts: 210 ✭✭Sardine


    farmerwifelet wrote: »
    Financial incentives. Pay young travellers to stay in school boys and girls and go to further education. Give girls a payment for getting the patch or coil or implant. Then they can break the cycle of being baby factories. If school earns more money for the family than dole then school is where they will go. I would include disadvantaged areas and places with low secondary school attendances in the scheme as well.

    They'd never sign up for that. That could ultimately end their way of life within a generation or two and there'd be no more living off the pig's back funded by the tax payer. I doubt the traveller elders would want the kids to be getting good education as it'd present them with a way out and could break up the mafia for good.
    Still though, would be no harm putting it out there as an option for them, and let's see what happens. If someone was paying me not to have sex I'd be a millionaire.


  • #6075
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    You're implying that if social welfare dried up, some council of Traveller elders will all declare, "Ah right sham, that's it, the jig is up, start sending your kids to school, they're onto us". Clearly this is not what will happen. We will still pay (us, not you, you don't even live in this country), just not directly.

    Clearly? What do you have to base that on? When was the last time that Travellers didn't receive funding to maintain their cycle of behavior?
    The only way out of this is to break the cycle, find ways to get them into education, and keep them there.

    Agreed. Supporting them financially is not the way to break the cycle.
    As much hate as Ms Cash is getting, she has at least attempted to take the first step by ditching the traveller lifestyle and send her kids to school.

    Her kids are still within the threshold for many travellers who attend education before dropping out. It's not as if they're paragons of the traveller community.
    And in return she's being told she's a scumbag and a leech - and as a result all of the stories she was told about how much society hates her and how she should exploit it, are true.

    She's being called these things for taking advantage of the system, and having no respect for what she's received. The fact is that she wants more given to her. That's why she's receiving such abuse. Nice try linking the abuse to her kids and education though... :rolleyes:
    Should her behaviour be excused? Of course not. Should she be given ongoing assistance to help climb out of her hole? Of course. Just like you should or I should, or anyone else should.

    Have you any evidence to support the idea that providing financial support to travellers contributes to them leave behind past circumstances (no/low education, no jobs, possible criminal activities)?

    Fact is that the rates of travellers completing formal education have not improved in any major way within the last two/three decades of being supported by the state. Nor have we seen any major increase of Travellers gaining full time employment and paying taxes to the state.

    After 2 decades of receiving support, they are still a disadvantaged ethnic group. No remarkable change in their circumstances, and each new generation of Traveller continues the experience of the previous one.

    So, show me how providing financial support (that maintains their lifestyle) is encouraging them to become self-sufficient and 'normal' members of society.


  • #6076
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    seamus wrote: »
    ...
    Your first 3 paragraphs are spot on, and then your fourth one breaks into logical inconsistency. Travellers are apparently so uneducated that they're clever enough to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and scam us all out of money.

    It's a cycle. Travellers teach their children that education has no value, that society is a big fat bag of blood to be leeched off as much as possible, and just pray to the holy virgin mary and all will be forgiven.

    Make the skin on the big bag of blood thicker and they'll just find new ways to puncture it.

    You're implying that if social welfare dried up, some council of Traveller elders will all declare, "Ah right sham, that's it, the jig is up, start sending your kids to school, they're onto us". Clearly this is not what will happen. We will still pay (us, not you, you don't even live in this country), just not directly.

    The only way out of this is to break the cycle, find ways to get them into education, and keep them there.

    As much hate as Ms Cash is getting, she has at least attempted to take the first step by ditching the traveller lifestyle and send her kids to school.

    And in return she's being told she's a scumbag and a leech - and as a result all of the stories she was told about how much society hates her and how she should exploit it, are true.

    Should her behaviour be excused? Of course not. Should she be given ongoing assistance to help climb out of her hole? Of course. Just like you should or I should, or anyone else should.

    Yeah, till 11 because after that "they're on drink and drugs".

    Wake up eh ?


  • #6077
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Clearly? What do you have to base that on? When was the last time that Travellers didn't receive funding to maintain their cycle of behavior?
    You only really have to go back 40-odd years. This cycle has been going on well before social welfare existed
    Agreed. Supporting them financially is not the way to break the cycle.
    On its own, absolutely it's not.
    Her kids are still within the threshold for many travellers who attend education before dropping out. It's not as if they're paragons of the traveller community.
    I never said they were. Simply pointing out that we're talking about breaking the cycle within travellers, and yet she has at least made an attempt at it, but is being completely attacked like she hasn't.
    She's being called these things for taking advantage of the system, and having no respect for what she's received. The fact is that she wants more given to her. That's why she's receiving such abuse. Nice try linking the abuse to her kids and education though... :rolleyes:
    Didn't link any of the abuse to her kids and education. Simply pointing out the hypocrisy that people are talking about breaking the cycle, while still talking about removing any semblance of assistance from those who are trying to.
    Have you any evidence to support the idea that providing financial support to travellers contributes to them leave behind past circumstances (no/low education, no jobs, possible criminal activities)?
    Have you any evidence that taking it away will?
    Fact is that the rates of travellers completing formal education have not improved in any major way within the last two/three decades of being supported by the state. Nor have we seen any major increase of Travellers gaining full time employment and paying taxes to the state.
    Right. Because for the most part it's not a financial issue. Throwing more money at someone doesn't inspire them to improve themselves.

    But neither does taking it away. And we know this because we've reduced social welfare in the past and lo and behold, nothing happens.

    So how do I know that criminality will go up if we reduce social supports to zero? Because people still have to live. And countries with little or not social welfare have much higher crime rates than those that do.
    So, show me how providing financial support (that maintains their lifestyle) is encouraging them to become self-sufficient and 'normal' members of society.
    It provides the means. Which in itself is not enough, but it's part of it.

    If someone is in a hole, you can give them a ladder. But if they don't know how to climb it, they can't get out. You have to teach them how to use it. Don't give them a ladder and they're never getting out, no matter what you teach them.


  • #6078
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,925 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The_Kew_Tour wrote: »
    It will be 75 by 2030

    Quite likely. Many folk will get disability payments or JSA long before they are 75 though :)


  • #6079
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    seamus wrote: »
    Your first 3 paragraphs are spot on, and then your fourth one breaks into logical inconsistency. Travellers are apparently so uneducated that they're clever enough to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and scam us all out of money.

    There's no logical inconsistency here because "educated" is not synonymous with "clever." Some people are highly educated but not especially clever. Some others may not have gone past primary school, but they could buy and sell you.

    Many travellers are more than capable of running rings around the state and the taxpayer to get what they want. They shouldn't be underestimated.
    The only way out of this is to break the cycle, find ways to get them into education, and keep them there.

    The state has been trying to break that cycle for decades -- and still only 8 percent of traveller children sit the Leaving, and fewer than 1 percent have third-level qualifications. As a poster above noted, even traveller children who love school face pressure from their families to drop out and enter into early marriages. So how do we break the cycle when travellers themselves are determined to perpetuate the cycle?
    Should her behaviour be excused? Of course not. Should she be given ongoing assistance to help climb out of her hole? Of course. Just like you should or I should, or anyone else should.

    Is she climbing out of her hole, or just creating the conditions for her children to wind up in the same hole? She is sending her kids to school now, yes, but odds are that most of them will have left school by 15, will marry other travellers before the age of 20, and will wind up as unemployed welfare dependents with large families of their own.

    She's not creating the conditions for change. She's just modeling a lifestyle of not taking responsibility and demanding everything for free. Her children will likely follow in her footsteps.


  • #6080
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,397 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Judson Calm Remote wrote: »
    There's no logical inconsistency here because "educated" is not synonymous with "clever." Some people are highly educated but not especially clever. Some others may not have gone past primary school, but they could buy and sell you.

    Many travellers are more than capable of running rings around the state and the taxpayer to get what they want. They shouldn't be underestimated.
    .
    You can deem "intelligence" as ability to defraud, as your second paragraph seems to. But if I wanted someone to represent me in court or to bypass my heart I'd prefer that person to be conventionally educated. And hygienic for the latter.


  • #6081
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    ELM327 wrote: »
    You can deem "intelligence" as ability to defraud, as your second paragraph seems to. But if I wanted someone to represent me in court or to bypass my heart I'd prefer that person to be conventionally educated. And hygienic for the latter.

    I'm making a distinction between being formally educated and being what is often called "street smart." Just because travellers aren't educated doesn't mean they aren't street smart, or well versed in manipulating the system to their advantage.


  • Advertisement
  • #6082
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 16,208 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    You only really have to go back 40-odd years. This cycle has been going on well before social welfare existed

    So.... society or Ireland has not changed in 40 years?
    I never said they were. Simply pointing out that we're talking about breaking the cycle within travellers, and yet she has at least made an attempt at it.

    How? Her kids going to primary/secondary school is still something that many Traveller families do. So, where is she breaking the cycle?
    Didn't link any of the abuse to her kids and education. Simply pointing out the hypocrisy that people are talking about breaking the cycle, while still talking about removing any semblance of assistance from those who are trying to.

    Except you have not shown how she's breaking the cycle, or that providing the degree of financial support she's receiving, will actually break the cycle.
    Have you any evidence that taking it away will?

    I asked first.

    And it should be easier for you to show that supporting them does work.. since that's what's been done for 20-30 years.
    Right. Because for the most part it's not a financial issue. Throwing more money at someone doesn't inspire them to improve themselves.

    But neither does taking it away. And we know this because we've reduced social welfare in the past and lo and behold, nothing happens.

    We know nothing of the sort. Social welfare hasn't been removed or dropped in any substantial manner on Travellers, nor with any declarations of intent.
    So how do I know that criminality will go up if we reduce social supports to zero? Because people still have to live. And countries with little or not social welfare have much higher crime rates than those that do.

    Linking to crime? So we bribe our Traveller criminals to maintain the current rate of crime? You really want to go down this route?
    It provides the means. Which in itself is not enough, but it's part of it.

    If someone is in a hole, you can give them a ladder. But if they don't know how to climb it, they can't get out. You have to teach them how to use it. Don't give them a ladder and they're never getting out, no matter what you teach them.

    Except in my lifetime (40 years) we have not seen any large numbers of Travellers becoming self-sufficient and leaving behind the negatives associated with Traveller culture. Providing the means to improve doesn't mean that they will improve or even attempt to do so. The past 3 decades have shown that supporting them has not encouraged them to do so. If anything, it shows that we've simply encouraged them to continue as before.


  • #6083
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Judson Calm Remote wrote: »
    I'm making a distinction between being formally educated and being what is often called "street smart." Just because travellers aren't educated doesn't mean they aren't street smart, or well versed in manipulating the system to their advantage.

    I see ELMs point definitely but I know what you mean - for certain roles I demand a certain level of formal education but they are definitely not behind the door when it comes to knowing their "entitlements".


  • #6084
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,337 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Judson Calm Remote wrote: »
    I'm making a distinction between being formally educated and being what is often called "street smart." Just because travellers aren't educated doesn't mean they aren't street smart, or well versed in manipulating the system to their advantage.




    Ah in fairness, if sitting on your hole all day and visiting social welfare people to get advice on how to scrounge the system was your main "job" I don't think it would be too taxing to figure out optimal ways of scrounging the most possible.


    And it's probably not as if she doesn't move in circles of similar people whose full time occupation is scrounging.



    Doesn't necessarily prove any level of intelligence - street smart or otherwise


  • #6085
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,397 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Judson Calm Remote wrote: »
    I'm making a distinction between being formally educated and being what is often called "street smart." Just because travellers aren't educated doesn't mean they aren't street smart, or well versed in manipulating the system to their advantage.
    Yes, if I needed a burglary or pickpocket or scam perpetrated, their intelligence would be top of my list.


  • #6086
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Yes, if I needed a burglary or pickpocket or scam perpetrated, their intelligence would be top of my list.

    Dodging the CAB seems to be something done at Masters degree level too.


  • #6087
    xi5yvm0owc1s2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭xi5yvm0owc1s2b


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Doesn't necessarily prove any level of intelligence - street smart or otherwise

    I'd agree.

    Seamus has trouble believing that uneducated travellers could be "clever enough to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and scam us all out of money."

    But you don't need a PhD in maths to work out that, for welfare-dependent families, more babies = more money + better chance at social housing.

    Despite her primary education, Ms Cash is also fairly astute at using social media and the press to advance her case. She knows exactly what she's doing.


  • #6088
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Judson Calm Remote wrote: »
    I'd agree.

    Seamus has trouble believing that uneducated travellers could be "clever enough to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and scam us all out of money."

    But you don't need a PhD in maths to work out that more babies = more money + better chance at social housing.

    Despite her primary education, Ms Cash is also fairly astute at using social media and the press to advance her case. She knows exactly what she's doing.

    Excellent points.

    She may think Pythagoras is some sort of Piebald cross but by God do they know how to manipulate!


  • #6089
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,355 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    I have just come across a huge anomaly and discrimination on the social welfare system that angers me


    Job seekers benefit is for those who have worked and paid credits and tax ,But they now take the history of pay for that person from 2016 .So lets say a person age 30 earned less in 2016 for any reason ie maternity benefit , looking after a sick child etc .His benefit is reduced in 2018 because of that .He is now reduced to €155 a week


    Weekly Jobseeker's Benefit payment from 22 March 2018

    Average weekly earnings Personal rate

    €150 - €219.99 €127.80
    €220 - €299.99 €155.10
    €300 or more €198.00




    Now take Job seekers Allowance .Given to those with not enough credits , never worked a day , never paid tax .Age 30

    Jobseeker's Allowance rates from 21 March 2018
    Age Maximum personal rate I
    Aged 26 and over €198.00
    Aged 25 €152.80
    Aged 18-24 €107.70

    So the one who worked for 10 years and earned a bit less in 2016 gets less money than the one who never worked a day in their life .
    This is an absolute disgrace , its discrimination towards the one who worked and now finds themselves without a job due to circumstances .


  • #6090
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    I have just come across a huge anomaly and discrimination on the social welfare system that angers me


    Job seekers benefit is for those who have worked and paid credits and tax ,But they now take the history of pay for that person from 2016 .So lets say a person age 30 earned less in 2016 for any reason ie maternity benefit , looking after a sick child etc .His benefit is reduced in 2018 because of that .He is now reduced to €155 a week


    Weekly Jobseeker's Benefit payment from 22 March 2018

    Average weekly earnings Personal rate

    €150 - €219.99 €127.80
    €220 - €299.99 €155.10
    €300 or more €198.00




    Now take Job seekers Allowance .Given to those with not enough credits , never worked a day , never paid tax .Age 30

    Jobseeker's Allowance rates from 21 March 2018
    Age Maximum personal rate I
    Aged 26 and over €198.00
    Aged 25 €152.80
    Aged 18-24 €107.70

    So the one who worked for 10 years and earned a bit less in 2016 gets less money than the one who never worked a day in their life .
    This is an absolute disgrace , its discrimination towards the one who worked and now finds themselves without a job due to circumstances .

    Horrific isn't it ?


  • Advertisement
  • #6091
    iamwhoiam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,355 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    Horrific isn't it ?

    I am furious , where could I highlight this and make it known ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement