Dante7 wrote: » In fairness, that case is a bit of an exception and SVP generally do very good. They are the last port of call for a lot of genuine people in real need. You will always have chancers abusing any system.
Jasiah Hot Talker wrote: » I wouldn’t give a cent to svp after the local one helped a local scumbag pay a court fine. And covered a deposit for a family having to rent because they were evicted from their home for defaulting on the mortgage. It was a council house they took out a mortgage on, bought a new car too with mortgage they were given. They lost the house, and went into rented accommodation heavily subsidized and then placed back in their old house which the council bought back as tenants
BilboBagOfCans wrote: » Why do you think this is a bad idea?
punisher5112 wrote: » Wonder did cash and the gang head to at Vincent de Paul for their Christmas pack/box. Really should bring back vouchers which can only be spent on essential foods etc.
Dante7 wrote: » If you are suggesting that we move our total welfare system to a voucher scheme, I think that is a very bad idea.
AllForIt wrote: » I wonder where she shops now. I get the irony in that last sentence. I mean if I was a Penny's employee I wouldn't let her thought the front door. No doubt she'd scream discrimination or is it racisms now, should that happen.
Alrigghtythen wrote: » If you get free food, it frees up your own money for drink & cigs
punisher5112 wrote: » No more so on hand outs from social inclusion of Christmas bonus.,..
Dante7 wrote: » Why? Are the Christmas packs full of drink and cigs? Or are you objecting to pots of jam in the packs which arent essential foods?
mynamejeff wrote: » lol good luck getting a hold of any one in tusla or hse till about 7th January social workers dont do un social hours
Grab All Association wrote: » Both the parent(s) and the creepy men should be reported for this.
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » stopped for diesel near rathkeale today, the homecoming has begun...cars you or I can only dream of
end of the road wrote: » my experiences with travelers or anyone is ultimately not the business of some stranger on the internet, and me not making it so does not weaken my argument because it can't be weakened because it's the same argument that would be applied to any other group in society. having bad experiences with people and condemning those people, condemning issues within a group of people and wanting them solved, and condemning denigration and discrimination against a group of people, many of who won't have done anything wrong, is the exact argument applied to all other groups in society and quite rightly, i and many others apply it to the traveling community also.
Señor Santa Pants wrote: » Interesting. Which one is correct? 1. You or your extended family are travellers or settled travellers. 2. You have had negative experiences with travellers but wont admit it here as it weakens your argument. 3. You have had no negative experiences with travellers.
randd1 wrote: » I don't know if it has been said in this thread yet, but does anyone else see the irony in a woman called Cash not using cash?