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

Sweet.Science · 27-02-2019 03:47PM

Nothing wrong with her spending her money for holidays.

'You cant take it with you' 'no point being the richest person in the graveyard'

etc

27-02-2019 04:44PM

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Can we still blame settled people for the dumping if they have paid to have it collected and it just....ends up near a halting site?

Yes. We can. It’s up to customers to make sure that they are dealing with legitimate companies.

Deebles McBeebles · 27-02-2019 04:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. We can. It’s up to customers to make sure that they are dealing with legitimate companies.

Fair point. The state allow this to happen though. Weeding these lads out would be like a needle in a haystack to be fair to them. If privatisation of refuse services hadn't happened I don't think it would be such an issue.

Thoie · 27-02-2019 05:28PM

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Can we still blame settled people for the dumping if they have paid to have it collected and it just....ends up near a halting site?

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. We can. It’s up to customers to make sure that they are dealing with legitimate companies.

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Fair point. The state allow this to happen though. Weeding these lads out would be like a needle in a haystack to be fair to them. If privatisation of refuse services hadn't happened I don't think it would be such an issue.

It's really not that hard to ensure that the company you're paying to collect your waste are legit. There's an easily found list of operators with licenses here: http://www.nwcpo.ie/permitsearch.aspx There's no need for a consumer to try to "weed out" anyone. If the people collecting your bins aren't on the list for the area you're in, they're not legit, and may be dumping illegally.

gerrybbadd · 27-02-2019 06:01PM

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Nothing wrong with her spending her money for holidays.

'You cant take it with you' 'no point being the richest person in the graveyard'

etc

Everything wrong with it when she's cribbing with the poor mouth about the Gubberment robbing her blind and not giving her her 4eva home. That's taxpayers money she's using to go off on her jollies

DEFTLEFTHAND · 27-02-2019 06:20PM

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Everything wrong with it when she's cribbing with the poor mouth about the Gubberment robbing her blind and not giving her her 4eva home. That's taxpayers money she's using to go off on her jollies

In fairness she's probably being put up by Uncle Patsy and Scaldy at the local halting site.

I doubt she's out spending the State's money on swanky hotels and restaurants. It probably just paid for the flights and miscellaneous expenses.

BBFAN · 27-02-2019 07:35PM

This "settled people dumping rubbish in traveller camps" joke is getting so old.

There are tons of "settled people" fly tipping all over the country and they've been caught and fined for it so lets not pretend that it's not happening.

Also, I know tons of people that are paying any old joe to take away their rubbish for 5 euro a bag and they don't give a **** where it goes after there.

Both of these type of people are just as bad as travellers but that's okay cause they're settled and they all work hard for their money, none of them at all are on social welfare.

27-02-2019 07:37PM

BBFAN wrote: »

This "settled people dumping rubbish in traveller camps" joke is getting so old.

It is often Traveller people making old jokes.

Kivaro · 27-02-2019 07:44PM

BBFAN wrote: »

This "settled people dumping rubbish in traveller camps" joke is getting so old.

But the thing about it .......... it is not a joke.
It was claimed as a real occurrence by a poster on here.
And it is probably one of the most incredulous posts ever seen on boards.

BBFAN wrote: »

Also, I know tons of people that are paying any old joe to take away their rubbish for 5 euro a bag and they don't give a **** where it goes after there.

I am sure that as a good citizen you are reporting to the relevant authorities the 'tons' of people you know who are doing this.

BBFAN · 27-02-2019 07:45PM

Omackeral wrote: »

It is often Traveller people making old jokes.

What?

BBFAN · 27-02-2019 07:47PM

Kivaro wrote: »

But the thing about it .......... it is not a joke.
It was claimed as a real occurrence by a poster on here.
And it is probably one of the most incredulous posts ever seen on boards.

I am sure that as a good citizen you are reporting to the relevant authorities the 'tons' of people you know who are doing this.

No need, these idiots are leaving their post in the bags and getting caught, that's how I know about it. :rolleyes:

James Brown · 27-02-2019 07:54PM

Kivaro wrote: »

But the thing about it .......... it is not a joke.
It was claimed as a real occurrence by a poster on here.
And it is probably one of the most incredulous posts ever seen on boards.

I am sure that as a good citizen you are reporting to the relevant authorities the 'tons' of people you know who are doing this.

There was a halting site near me and the occupants had to be relocated because of the mess they made. Roof tiles were missing, most of them, for example. Also it was completely filthy.
That said, they do offer to get rid of rubbish too, but that's more fly tipping IMO.

Plumbthedepths · 27-02-2019 07:57PM

BBFAN wrote:

There are tons of "settled people" fly tipping all over the country and they've been caught and fined for it so lets not pretend that it's not happening.

Tons of people? Is that a recognised number like 10, 20 ?

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 27-02-2019 08:30PM

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Nothing wrong with her spending her our money for holidays.

FYP.

27-02-2019 08:43PM

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Everything wrong with it when she's cribbing with the poor mouth about the Gubberment robbing her blind and not giving her her 4eva home. That's taxpayers money she's using to go off on her jollies

Wasn’t mid term last week?

Pronto63 · 27-02-2019 10:44PM

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Will she be docked any money as she is absent from the state and clearly unavailable for work?

As far as I know she's single now and therefore would be on OFP (One-parent Family Payment). There is no requirement to be available for work on this payment.

Even if she was on Jobseekers Allowance she would be allowed to take 12 days holidays!

punisher5112 · 27-02-2019 10:46PM

Pronto63 wrote: »

As far as I know she's single now and therefore would be on OFP (One-parent Family Payment). There is no requirement to be available for work on this payment.

Even if she was on Jobseekers Allowance she would be allowed to take 12 days holidays!

She needs a break from the angles you know.....

Dante7 · 27-02-2019 11:16PM

Pronto63 wrote: »

As far as I know she's single now and therefore would be on OFP (One-parent Family Payment). There is no requirement to be available for work on this payment.

Even if she was on Jobseekers Allowance she would be allowed to take 12 days holidays!

Correct. She will be on One Parent Family payment until the youngest is over 7, and then she will move to Job Seekers Transition payment. Not much difference except she will have to go to the post office to collect the weekly payment. That's not likely to happen though, as before JST kicks in a lot of people suddenly find themselves as Carers for an ill family member and they then revert back to One Parent Family category.

Credit Checker Moose · 27-02-2019 11:17PM

Dante7 wrote: »

Correct. She will be on One Parent Family payment until the youngest is over 7, and then she will move to Job Seekers Transition payment. Not much difference except she will have to go to the post office to collect the weekly payment. That's not likely to happen though, as before JST kicks in a lot of people suddenly find themselves as Carers for an ill family member and they then revert back to One Parent Family category.

Does that allow absences from the state?

Dante7 · 27-02-2019 11:21PM

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Does that allow absences from the state?

Of course. Why wouldn't it? All welfare payments allow leaving the state for holidays. Two weeks a year usually. You just have to notify welfare to get your payment at the post post office. But for OFP, the parent gets paid into the bank, so you don't even need to inform welfare.

Ruraldweller56 · 27-02-2019 11:52PM

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

Odd fake article to create, must admit that.

Please tell me someone got a screen grab ðŸ˜…ðŸ˜…ðŸ˜…

Ruraldweller56 · 27-02-2019 11:58PM

BBFAN wrote: »

What?

Knock it off. I posted an article on a few pages back about a traveller who tried to get into education and to better himself and how his efforts were thwarted by his own family and how he's more or less been destitute since.

If you and the other apologists one here gave one tuppeny f**k about the people you claim to care about, as opposed to virtue signalling rhetoric and nonsense you'd address the points made.

Instead you carry on with the same waffle. And the likes of you make sure the cycle never ends.

28-02-2019 01:11AM

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

The vast majority of poor, uneducated settled people I know break their holes in low paying jobs just to stay above board.

They know better than to be popping out 6 and 7 and 8 children

It might be helpful if we began to get back to some more fundamental questions such as why the wages paid by private companies should determine family size, 300 years after the age of Enlightenment.

I voted Yes in last year's referendum on women's choice, but one of the arguments that I thought was worthy of further discussion was why women (or, parents) should feel like they need to limit their families because they are too poor to have a child.

Ask any parent - each one has no greater priority than a child. Why can't we try to modify our social and economic life so that wages are secondary to one's family life?

Are humans not capable of prioritising family life over the immediate economic needs of employers within an economy?

That wasn't a rhetorical question, it's possible that we are not capable of doing this.

mattser · 28-02-2019 01:21AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

The vast majority of poor, uneducated settled people I know break their holes in low paying jobs just to stay above board.

They know better than to be popping out 6 and 7 and 8 children

It might be helpful if we began to get back to some more fundamental questions such as why the wages paid by private companies should determine family size, 300 years after the age of Enlightenment.

I voted Yes in last year's referendum on women's choice, but one of the arguments that I thought was worthy of further discussion was why women (or, parents) should feel like they need to limit their families because they are too poor to have a child.

Ask any parent - each one has no greater priority than a child. Why can't we try to modify our social and economic life so that wages are secondary to one's family life?

Are humans not capable of prioritising family life over the immediate economic needs of employers within an economy?

That wasn't a rhetorical question, it's possible that we are not capable of doing this.

I lost you there after " It might be helpful " ATNM. I guess I just didn't study hard enough to be a philosopher.

28-02-2019 01:24AM

mattser wrote: »

I lost you there after " It might be helpful " ATNM. I guess I just didn't study hard enough to be a philosopher.

I don't get it, sorry.

Anyway just saying that society should be organised in a way that values the majority's basic human desires over creating private wealth, which of course is also important.

Shelter, community, family, these are things we should all be prioritising; whether travellers or not. It saddens me that people all over the world use their votes to serve the interests of private wealth and large corporations - mainly out of fear of the consequences.

Ruraldweller56 · 28-02-2019 01:48AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It might be helpful if we began to get back to some more fundamental questions such as why the wages paid by private companies should determine family size, 300 years after the age of Enlightenment.

I voted Yes in last year's referendum on women's choice, but one of the arguments that I thought was worthy of further discussion was why women (or, parents) should feel like they need to limit their families because they are too poor to have a child.

Ask any parent - each one has no greater priority than a child. Why can't we try to modify our social and economic life so that wages are secondary to one's family life?

Are humans not capable of prioritising family life over the immediate economic needs of employers within an economy?

That wasn't a rhetorical question, it's possible that we are not capable of doing this.

We live in a capitalist system that is far, far from perfect. Many good decent, hard working folk can't afford to have kids, so don't.

Let me spin it to you this way. If there was no "system" and no subsidy for people like Cash pumping out kids who would pick up the tab?

I'm delighted you think butchering defenseless kids in their mothers wombs is cool too. Go you.

Ruraldweller56 · 28-02-2019 01:54AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't get it, sorry.

Anyway just saying that society should be organised in a way that values the majority's basic human desires over creating private wealth, which of course is also important.

Shelter, community, family, these are things we should all be prioritising; whether travellers or not. It saddens me that people all over the world use their votes to serve the interests of private wealth and large corporations - mainly out of fear of the consequences.

Chances are we've a bit in common.

However, say there was no 'society' or 'establishment' as such.

How do you see the likes of Cash and the 7 'angels' surviving? They contribute nothing, to anything?

Even in Red dead redemption 2 people pull their weight around camp. Do you think they'd just exist away regardless? Even you don't believe that

28-02-2019 02:00AM

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

We live in a capitalist system that is far, far from perfect. Many good decent, hard working folk can't afford to have kids, so don't.

Let me spin it to you this way. If there was no "system" and no subsidy for people like Cash pumping out kids who would pick up the tab?

You speak about women "pumping out" kids and also women "butchering" their kids in the womb. Is there any aspect of female reproduction that doesn't horrify you? Abstinence, I suppose?

Regarding the economics of it, we don't have a clear model of how it would work. It might not work at all. I just think there should be greater equity as between corporation profits and the living standards of families who want to plan their families in line with their personal (not economic) ability.

I come from a large family, and always thought I wanted a large family. But that's just not economically possible, because the massively profitable corporation for which I work doesnt accommodate that even for people earning decent incomes.

We've reached a stage where family size is essentially dictated by the private sector's economic interests. And I'm just saying we may need to re-evaluate that.

Ruraldweller56 · 28-02-2019 02:08AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You speak about women "pumping out" kids and also women "butchering" their kids in the womb. Is there any aspect of female reproduction that doesn't horrify you? Abstinence, I suppose?

Regarding the economics of it, we don't have a clear model of how it would work. It might not work at all. I just think there should be greater equity as between corporation profits and the living standards of families who want to plan their families in line with their personal (not economic) ability.

I come from a large family, and always thought I wanted a large family. But that's just not economically possible, because the massively profitable corporation for which I work doesnt accommodate that even for people earning decent incomes.

We've reached a stage where family size is essentially dictated by the private sector's economic interests. And I'm just saying we may need to re-evaluate that.

Butchering a defenceless baby horrifies me. How a million plus people think it's a good thing will never reconcile with me.

As for the 'pumping out' bit. That's specifically in relation to a woman (or women) who have literally more kids than they care about.

It's absolutely possible to have a certain amount of kids, not butcher any, and not practise abstinence.

Im delighted you find life so cheap

tuxy · 28-02-2019 03:59AM

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

It's absolutely possible to have a certain amount of kids, not butcher any, and not practise abstinence.

Yes but because contraception is intrinsically evil it requires a reasonable level of willpower and education, not something travellers are known for or show any interest in.

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

Comments