Margaret Cash steals €300 worth of clothes from Penneys and aftermath/etc!

punisher5112 wrote: »

Eh did you read my post¿¿¿

She would be forced to look for work if it was in her interest to especially if she had extra kids that the welfare was not paying for. Something like the American system. Under the system I propose she could just stay with 2 kids and get her benefits and this would mean great savings for the tax payer over the current situation. If she did have an accident she could avail of a free abortion which the tax payer would gladly pay for.

mikeym

She gets more money a week than most of us through benefits.

And she has to resort to thieving.

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

Why would she ever even think of working when she knows from her earliest days that this countriy rewards uncontrolled breeding by the welfare class.

Eh did you read my post¿¿¿

punisher5112 wrote: »

She has never looked for work so no point saying anyone wouldn't or would take her on. People would have to be looking for work.

Why would she ever even think of working when she knows from her earliest days that this countriy rewards uncontrolled breeding by the welfare class.

end of the road wrote: »

well no she couldn't as not a chance would any employer take her on. nor would i blame them for not doing so given she shows no remorse for her actions.

i'd imagine it's not one bit of an incentive, given large families exist in countries where child benefit isn't even a thing. there will be no savings, large families are quite likely to remain an occurrence, all be it small as currently.

Negative thinking on your part. If she wasn’t getting paid extra for each kid there is no way she would now have 7 kids especially in the Ireland of today that isn’t controlled by the Catholic Church. I’m sure most of the countries you are referring don’t have free abortions.

She has never looked for work so no point saying anyone wouldn't or would take her on. People would have to be looking for work.

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

She doesn’t have to have an abortion but she won’t be getting anymore money. She could take an innovative approach and get a job to pay for the kids just like a lot of other people.

well no she couldn't as not a chance would any employer take her on. nor would i blame them for not doing so given she shows no remorse for her actions.

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

Still an incentive for Cash and her Ilk not to have loads of kids that we have to pay for. Maybe free abortion is not such a bad thing after all. It might save the tax payer a few quid.

i'd imagine it's not one bit of an incentive, given large families exist in countries where child benefit isn't even a thing. there will be no savings, large families are quite likely to remain an occurrence, all be it small as currently.

spookwoman

RaichuMGS wrote: »

Easy for you to say when I’m going to guess you’re neither disabled nor a Carer.

I am on disability due to long term illness, I chose not to have children because I cannot afford to have them.

end of the road wrote: »

removing the child benefit after a certain amount of children is unlikely to achieve your goal. children will still be had and those children would suffer undue hardship i'd imagine.

Still an incentive for Cash and her Ilk not to have loads of kids that we have to pay for. Maybe free abortion is not such a bad thing after all. It might save the tax payer a few quid.

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

Should be brought in as law if your on benefits. After 2 or 3 kids you get no more money and you can have a free abortion if you want.

removing the child benefit after a certain amount of children is unlikely to achieve your goal. children will still be had and those children would suffer undue hardship i'd imagine.

RaichuMGS wrote: »

yeah I don’t think that’s going to happen. As well as the fact that’s an abhorrent view. Just because two people aren’t sensible enough to use protection doesn’t warrant an abortion.

She doesn’t have to have an abortion but she won’t be getting anymore money. She could take an innovative approach and get a job to pay for the kids just like a lot of other people.

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

Should be brought in as law if your on benefits. After 2 or 3 kids you get no more money so you can have a free abortion.

yeah I don’t think that’s going to happen. As well as the fact that’s an abhorrent view. Just because two people aren’t sensible enough to use protection doesn’t warrant an abortion.

RaichuMGS wrote: »

I don’t think there’s a traveller alive who’d have an abortion

Should be brought in as law if your on benefits. After 2 or 3 kids you get no more money and you can have a free abortion if you want.

AlekSmart wrote: »

I wonder if your benign gaze would continue had Ms Cash crashed into your vehicle,whilst "getting her kids to school" ?

Of course it wouldn’t have. When the consequence falls on the ignorant they soon change their tune.

AlekSmart

Effects wrote: »

37 of those are traffic convictions. And all received while getting the kids to school. So not really crimes as such.

Sure you can hear her on 98fm on Friday, where she didn't mention these as she thinks they don't count as crimes.

I wonder if your benign gaze would continue had Ms Cash crashed into your vehicle,whilst "getting her kids to school" ?

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

Cash will have no excuses in future when the free abortions are brought in.

I don’t think there’s a traveller alive who’d have an abortion

Cash will have no excuses in future when the free abortions are brought in. Could be one of the unintentional benefits of the abortion referendum.

spookwoman wrote: »

Should be across the board, too many people in the world and just because someone is a carer, disabled or cannot work shouldn't mean different rules.
If somene cannot afford to have children they shouldn't have them. If they cannot afford to have children and then complain they cannot afford to feed and clothe them the only person to blame is themselves.

Easy for you to say when I’m going to guess you’re neither disabled nor a Carer.

spookwoman

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Sounds very fair to working people actually.

Excluding those who are carers or are disabled obv. and cannot work.

But it will never get beyond anything really. There will be too much angst from the poverty brigade, you cannot leave children starving and so on, but there are no incentives to sort that at the moment are there? Good suggestion though.

Should be across the board, too many people in the world and just because someone is a carer, disabled or cannot work shouldn't mean different rules.
If somene cannot afford to have children they shouldn't have them. If they cannot afford to have children and then complain they cannot afford to feed and clothe them the only person to blame is themselves.

byhookorbycrook

Effects wrote: »

37 of those are traffic convictions. And all received while getting the kids to school. So not really crimes as such.

Sure you can hear her on 98fm on Friday, where she didn't mention these as she thinks they don't count as crimes.

I think you'd find it is a crime. And what about the one in Wexford with the stolen goods? This woman is doing nothing to further the cause of the travellers, she's a public manifestation of why many travellers are, at best, distrusted and often feared.

fritzelly

Bowlardo wrote: »

-first three kids full child allowance in cash
-4th should be 50% child allowance in cash and the remaining claimed via tax back(you only get if your are actually working)
-5th child 25% cash child allowance and 75% reclaimed in tax
-6th child nada nothing.

We have to implement this very soon. Anyone born after 2020 this rule should apply to. There is probably some human rights bollocks prevents this but i’m Not sure how human rights.

No reason why it can't be instituted. Child benefit here is something like double in the UK, in Germany I believe its related to tax benefit.
Hey if you wanna spawn a football team then pay for it yourself

I would love to have a politician that will actually call a spade a spade but I honestly don't think we will ever have one.

I heard the green parties rating is on the up.

How they still exist is beyond me.

Cash and her humongous family will cost us tax payers and absolute fortune.

mynamejeff

end of the road wrote: »

whatever about human rights preventing it, i'd imagine it's possible non-viability would definitely prevent it?

no it wouldnt

Spanish Eyes

Bowlardo wrote: »

-first three kids full child allowance in cash
-4th should be 50% child allowance in cash and the remaining claimed via tax back(you only get if your are actually working)
-5th child 25% cash child allowance and 75% reclaimed in tax
-6th child nada nothing.

We have to implement this very soon. Anyone born after 2020 this rule should apply to. There is probably some human rights bollocks prevents this but i’m Not sure how human rights.

Sounds very fair to working people actually.

Excluding those who are carers or are disabled obv. and cannot work.

But it will never get beyond anything really. There will be too much angst from the poverty brigade, you cannot leave children starving and so on, but there are no incentives to sort that at the moment are there? Good suggestion though.

Bowlardo wrote: »

-first three kids full child allowance in cash
-4th should be 50% child allowance in cash and the remaining claimed via tax back(you only get if your are actually working)
-5th child 25% cash child allowance and 75% reclaimed in tax
-6th child nada nothing.

We have to implement this very soon. Anyone born after 2020 this rule should apply to. There is probably some human rights bollocks prevents this but i’m Not sure how human rights.

whatever about human rights preventing it, i'd imagine it's possible non-viability would definitely prevent it?

Bowlardo

-first three kids full child allowance in cash
-4th should be 50% child allowance in cash and the remaining claimed via tax back(you only get if your are actually working)
-5th child 25% cash child allowance and 75% reclaimed in tax
-6th child nada nothing.

We have to implement this very soon. Anyone born after 2020 this rule should apply to. There is probably some human rights bollocks prevents this but i’m Not sure how human rights.

ThebitterLemon

punisher5112 wrote: »

Will you ever cop onto yourself....

All getting kids to school you are having a laugh.

She was living in tallaght at the time.

If I have no insurance or nct I don't drive it's a simple as that.

Spot on, and where do you stop...?

“Sure your honor I’ve no tax or insurance and coz life’s so hard I’d a few drinks before getting in the car and driving the kids to school”!!

It’s always someone else’s fault, no personal responsibility, what are we becoming?

TbL

ParkRunner wrote: »

Maybe 3 strikes should lead to a 10% reduction in all social welfare support for 2-3 years. At least then criminality would lead to some penalty for those those depending on social support & would make them reconsider getting involved in criminality, while attaching some sense of value to what they receive

it's unlikely that this would make them reconsider getting involved in criminality, or attach some sense of value to what they receive, unfortunately.

NIMAN wrote: »

The bleeding hearts won't accept that though.

They'll be shouting about how its putting people in poverty, affecting the kids of the criminals etc.

ultimately the mythical bleeding hearts would be right.

ParkRunner wrote: »

At least the criminal would be going in with their eyes wide open, two strikes and you better stop or else your kids will suffer too

and that's all that would happen, the kids would suffer. nobody else. i wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be a breach of human rights and international law, as i'd imagine it would technically constitute collective punishment.

gmisk wrote: »

Great, fair play, how is he planning on fixing this issue as president ?

well first of all he's going to.

ah no wait.