nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

jjmcclure

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/homeless-mumofseven-margaret-cash-appears-in-court-over-stealing-300-worth-of-clothes-from-penneys-37434491.html

Where are RTE now?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Deebles McBeebles

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

All Travleler culture = bad

All settled culture = good

Who said that?

Deebles McBeebles

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I don't watch that Jon Snow programme found it boring (gave up 7 episodes in)

Channel 4 News or Game of Thrones?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They can interact with kids and play in playschool. If they had a parent at home.
That would mean no childminding fees.
The kids are almost a hindrance as I said earlier so they are packed away by the part-time parents.
The real panic shows (as I said earlier) when the kids are off school, the kids get in the way of work.

Would the travellers like this?

Would the travellers like this? You mean not working?

Your overuse of the phrase "part-time parents" is beginning to remind me of someone who says things like "the failing New York Times" or "Crooked Hillary" over and over.

Sweet.Science

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I do not commend travellers who never work. I commend the travellers for thier family ethos that is a different thing entirely.

I am not trolling by the way.

It just bugs me that because of a few unsavory people.

Then the logic is:

All Travleler culture = bad

All settled culture = good

That is far from true as far as I see it.

You really think non traveller working folk wouldnt choose to spend all day with their kids if they could afford to.

People have to work. Mortgages have to be paid. We cant all rely on the state to get by.

gormdubhgorm

alias no.9 wrote: »

Seriously? If you knew anything about larger families you'd know it's the older kids who end up rearing their younger siblings maybe with the exception of whoever is the baby at any given time who'll likely be with the mother if she's not taken to the bed with the next pregnancy.

No harm in that either my father was part of a large family that type of thing was done. Strong family unit etc.

As I said things are more manufactured these days with outside help brought in.

gormdubhgorm

Sweet.Science wrote: »

You say dont have kids if you can't afford to give up work.

On to other hand you commend travellers who cant afford them, who never work, who dont have an income without the taxpayer or a roof over their head without the taxpayer

I do not commend travellers who never work. I commend the travellers for thier family ethos that is a different thing entirely.

I am not trolling by the way.

It just bugs me that because of a few unsavory people.

Then the logic is:

All Travleler culture = bad

All settled culture = good

That is far from true as far as I see it.

Gwen Cooper

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

At least there is one parent keeping an eye on them rather then a paid for childminding stranger which seems to be the fashion.

I'd much rather have parents who both work normal hours and get to spend the late/afternoon evening with me for the price of spending 3 hours after school with a childminder than having just one of them working mad hours to provide for the family while I spend all day with the other one.

What is in it for the working parent if they only have a look at their kids when they're leaving for work in the morning while the kids are still sleeping and kids are once again sleeping when the parents comes home late?

Childminder culture all the way

alias no.9

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

You try telling a traveller that someone else is going to rare your kids and both (for the most part) because that is the way we do it in society...
Just because it is the way we do things now in modern Ireland?

Seriously? If you knew anything about larger families you'd know it's the older kids who end up rearing their younger siblings maybe with the exception of whoever is the baby at any given time who'll likely be with the mother if she's not taken to the bed with the next pregnancy.

gormdubhgorm

SusieBlue wrote: »

Ask any parent, and you will find none who hold more importance in their title at work than in their role as a parent.

There are most definitely people like this from the other extreme of the Margaret Cash's of this world.

blanch152

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Gormdubhgorm, if one parent gives up their job to be with the kids, what happens to the other parent? They would probably have to work longer hours since they're the only breadwinner in the family. How about their quality time with the kids?

Isn't it unfair that one parent gets to raise the kids and sees them grow up?

That's a bit like Margaret Cash's family where one of them does the jailtime.

Sweet.Science

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Work from home - I understand at least someone is there.
But the whole of it feels as if it is trying to cover everything and missing out.
I still don't think it is right.
If you are going to ask me did I say it to my sister-in-law - no she would lynch me.
My brother would probably just laugh.

I still think that is the one thing the travellers have over the settled community they are there for thier kids all the time in thier formative years.
Again there are the negative aspects - early school leaving etc.
But I think the parents only being workers first and parents second is a bit sad.
Regardless of standard of living.

You say dont have kids if you can't afford to give up work.

On to other hand you commend travellers who cant afford them, who never work, who dont have an income without the taxpayer or a roof over their head without the taxpayer

I admire your trolling efforts

Gravelly

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They live abroad.

I wouldn't blame them.

gormdubhgorm

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Gormdubhgorm, if one parent gives up their job to be with the kids, what happens to the other parent? They would probably have to work longer hours since they're the only breadwinner in the family. How about their quality time with the kids?

Isn't it unfair that one parent gets to raise the kids and sees them grow up?

At least there is one parent keeping an eye on them rather then a paid for childminding stranger which seems to be the fashion.

SusieBlue

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Work from home - I understand at least someone is there.
But the whole of it feels as if it is trying to cover everything and missing out.
I still don't think it is right.
If you are going to ask me did I say it to my sister-in-law - no she would lynch me.
My brother would probably just laugh.

I still think that is the one thing the travellers have over the settled community they are there for thier kids all the time in thier formative years.
Again there are the negative aspects - early school leaving etc.
But I think the parents only being workers first and parents second is a bit sad.
Regardless of standard of living.

Ask any parent, and you will find none who hold more importance in their title at work than in their role as a parent.
None consider themselves employees first and parents second.
They work to provide for their family, because they love their family, and their family is important to them.

I don't even have kids and I don't define myself by my job. There is so much more to people than what they do for a living.

Ask any parent and they will tell you the most important thing to them on earth is their children, not their role as an accountant or engineer.

Never once have I been introduced to someone and been had them "Hi I'm Mary, I'm a full time accountant, and I'm a mother in the evenings and at weekends".
It doesn't happen. Because people don't think like that. You are trying to force a narrative that doesn't exist outside your head.

You are oversimplifying the whole thing and being extremely disingenuous.

gormdubhgorm

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Would you not look after your nieces and nephews then? Strong family units is what you’re advocating in this thread.

They live abroad.

vonlars

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Work from home - I understand at least someone is there.
But the whole of it feels as if it is trying to cover everything and missing out.
I still don't think it is right.
If you are going to ask me did I say it to my sister-in-law - no she would lynch me.
My brother would probably just laugh.

I still think that is the one thing the travellers have over the settled community they are there for thier kids all the time in thier formative years.
Again there are the negative aspects - early school leaving etc.
But I think the parents only being workers first and parents second is a bit sad.
Regardless of standard of living.

That's not so positive though when the parents are a sh1te influence on their own sprogs.

Gwen Cooper

Gormdubhgorm, if one parent gives up their job to be with the kids, what happens to the other parent? They would probably have to work longer hours since they're the only breadwinner in the family. How about their quality time with the kids?

Isn't it unfair that one parent gets to raise the kids and sees them grow up?

gormdubhgorm

cloudy90210 wrote: »

You do realise that as part of a child's development it's important for them to be in crèche where they interact with other kids and learn skills and play?

Your point of view is complete nonsense. You have no kids anyways so you know nothin Jon Snow

I don't watch that Jon Snow programme found it boring (gave up 7 episodes in)

They can interact with kids and play in playschool. If they had a parent at home.
That would mean no childminding fees.
The kids are almost a hindrance as I said earlier so they are packed away by the part-time parents.
The real panic shows (as I said earlier) when the kids are off school, the kids get in the way of work.

Would the travellers like this?

lawred2

kids and their fecken play dates eh!?

in my day - a play date was watching as our auld lad leathered our ma

kids are gone soft these days

gormdubhgorm

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And evenings and weekends.

And days off. And part time working options, flexible hours, work from home - every last one better than being a scrounging disgusting excuse for a human being who on the "good mother" scale is right down near Karen Matthews.

Work from home - I understand at least someone is there.
But the whole of it feels as if it is trying to cover everything and missing out.
I still don't think it is right.
If you are going to ask me did I say it to my sister-in-law - no she would lynch me.
My brother would probably just laugh.

I still think that is the one thing the travellers have over the settled community they are there for thier kids all the time in thier formative years.
Again there are the negative aspects - early school leaving etc.
But I think the parents only being workers first and parents second is a bit sad.
Regardless of standard of living.

cloudy90210

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No kids.
I did work.

I do see my brother and sister-in law slogging away half killing themselves (both work).
The childminders basically bring up the kids most of the time - excluding paternity/maternity leave and holidays.

You do realise that as part of a child's development it's important for them to be in crèche where they interact with other kids and learn skills and play?

Your point of view is complete nonsense. You have no kids anyways so you know nothin Jon Snow

[Deleted User]

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No kids.
I did work.

I do see my brother and sister-in law slogging away half killing themselves (both work).
The childminders basically bring up the kids most of the time - excluding paternity/maternity leave and holidays.

Would you not look after your nieces and nephews then? Strong family units is what you’re advocating in this thread.

Gravelly

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No kids.

Thankfully.

gormdubhgorm

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Wouldn't it be great if working families could afford for one of them to give up work and stay at home. Maybe if we paid less in tax. Now how oh how would you go about that.

Don't have kids if it takes you that much effort - both work away

Again if it causes people that much stress why have them - childminders see the kid for the majority of the time.

Alternatively accept a lower standard of living with one working - and you would be nearly better off when child-minding fees are factored in.

James Brown

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious what exactly allows Miss Cash afford all the children she has given birth to? You yourself have acknowledged she does not work .

I think the Catholic Church should look after all the states childrens allowance fees. It was them backed by the state who told everyone to have kids, no contraception, it's how childless Jesus, from a one child family wanted it.

PlaneSpeeking

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No kids.
I did work.

I do see my brother and sister-in law slogging away half killing themselves (both work).
The childminders basically bring up the kids most of the time - excluding paternity/maternity leave and holidays.

And evenings and weekends.

And days off. And part time working options, flexible hours, work from home - every last one better than being a scrounging disgusting excuse for a human being who on the "good mother" scale is right down near Karen Matthews.

gormdubhgorm

lawred2 wrote: »

how many kids did/do you have?

did/do you work?

how often did/do you see them?

No kids.
I did work.

I do see my brother and sister-in law slogging away half killing themselves (both work).
The childminders basically bring up the kids most of the time - excluding paternity/maternity leave and holidays.

Deebles McBeebles

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

That is a broad generalisation - not true for a lot of posts.
But if two parents are working like that it proves my point that it is the major flaw in the predominately settled community others bring up the kids.
That is not natural.

Wouldn't it be great if working families could afford for one of them to give up work and stay at home. Maybe if we paid less in tax. Now how oh how would you go about that.

PlaneSpeeking

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I think both have bad aspects for the settled community and the traveller community.
My main point is that at least thier mother / some parent is there.
Obviously if they had less children they would be better off.
But in the traveller community large families are thier security/help as they depend on each other because they are not integrated to mainstream society.

They probably won't be integrated in my lifetime and the traveller culture may even die away, who knows?

Put for settled people to say to travellers be like us look at our lifestyle when you have the likes of working parents stressed etc, rarely seeing thier kids.
You can hardly say come on join us its great!
Be one of us!

Yeah, the having to work, contribute and abide by the law are dealbreakers for them.

Gwen Cooper

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not so sure that is viewing the traveller community through a settled persons lens.
Family is number one for them.

I think that family is number one for any parent (apart from a few psychopaths).

Settled parents go to work so they can provide for their family. They sacrifice time with their children so their kids can have it easy in life.

In traveller communities the education is a massive issue. Right now they can barely read. About a 100 pages ago on this very thread we had a Facebook post from a woman who was complaining that they took her kids away because none of them could read and all her buddies were commenting under the post saying how awful this is, we are travellers, we can't read anyway.

If they got a better access to education, they would learn about influential women. They would see that women can go out and make something out of themselves, often while handling a career and a family.

They would gain more general knowledge and maybe from that they would see that there is a field that interests them and it becomes their hobby and they decide that they want to have a job in this field. They would read about other successful people who work in the field and would aspire to be like them and work towards that goal.

Right now the girls are being taught from the very young age that boys like this and that, that boys don't like it if you do that. It's like a Stepford Wives factory.

With education they would see that there are other options for them, and I think it's very important. If anyone chooses freely that they want to be a stay at home mother, that's great.

The important thing is that there is a choice. A 15 year old girl who saw nothing but 15 year old girls getting married around them is also going to aim for getting married.

I'm not sure if I'm articulating this correctly. What I'm trying to say is that education gives people options to see beyond what they were always told and everyone should be able to discover their potential.

At the same time I'm in no way saying that once there's access to education for these kids that all the problems would go away, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

gormdubhgorm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and yet those kids brought up by working parents tend to be better educated and less involved in criminality. Perhaps your "natural" way is not better?

Maybe so. They are much more sheltered these days with 'play dates' and so on.
Childhood has been micromanaged and sanistised from conception to adulthood.

That's the modern way?