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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gravelly

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No kids.

Thankfully.

[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.

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Gravelly

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

They live abroad.

I wouldn't blame them.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Deebles McBeebles

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

All Travleler culture = bad

All settled culture = good

Who said that?

Paulzx

cloudy90210 wrote: »

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

I'm sorry but that's complete nonsense. Children don't have to be in a creche on order to interact and develop. None of my kids have ever set foot in a creche yet they are well rounded and developed kids. They are no different to kids that have attended creches.

Some peoples lives are suited to the the use of creches etc. Others don't need them due to their lifestyle and/or work choices. Neither is right or wrong.

gormdubhgorm

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Channel 4 News or Game of Thrones?

GOT

Would the travellers like this? You mean not working?

No I mean being part-time parents.

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.

Because that is the reality if both parents are working by extension they are part-time parents - Granny/Granddad/Paid Childminder steps in and takes over.

As I said it has become the social norm for non-travellers.
The government encourage childminding schemes:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/budget-2017-who-will-benefit-from-childcare-package-1.2827400

SusieBlue

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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

No one defines themselves into little boxes the way you are claiming.
People don't solely define their entire lives & purpose by what they work as.

It isn't as simple as being a "worker" OR being a mother.
You can be neither or both or a plethora of other things, depending on what you hold importance.
Working mother does not = job is more important/doesn't give a sh*t about her kids.

I have never heard someone say they were a full time accountant and a mother in the evenings and weekends.
Working people, even the ones without kids, do not describe themselves as "workers" above all other aspects of their lives.

As I said before, pretty much everyone would rather spend the 40+ hours a week they spend working at their own discretion, doing things they enjoy. But instead they must work because they have to.

You keep portraying it as if these people don't even want or love their children, that they all love their jobs so much they hate leaving at half 5 and are counting down the hours to get back in the morning.
You know this isn't true.
People value their free time. Very few people would work unless they had to for financial reasons.

gormdubhgorm

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Who said that?

That is the implication on this thread on many occasions.