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

27-02-2019 06:37PM

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 06:44PM

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 06:45PM

Omackeral wrote: »

It is often Traveller people making old jokes.

What?

BBFAN · 27-02-2019 06:47PM

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 06:54PM

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 06:57PM

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 07:30PM

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Nothing wrong with her spending her our money for holidays.

FYP.

27-02-2019 07:43PM

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 09:44PM

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 09:46PM

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 10:16PM

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 10:17PM

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 10:21PM

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 10:52PM

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 10:58PM

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 12:11AM

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 12:21AM

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 12:24AM

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 12:48AM

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 12:54AM

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 01:00AM

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 01:08AM

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 02:59AM

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.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 28-02-2019 08:56AM

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.

That's an extremely simplistic argument. Real wages in Ireland are substantially higher today than they were in the 1960s, and yet family size has fallen significantly since that time. If family size were a simple linear function of wages paid by private corporations, we would expect to see the reverse effect: family size should have increased as wage levels increased. In reality, as Ireland became more affluent, family size decreased.

It's more realistic to say that family size is inversely correlated with the educational and economic opportunities available to women. In Ireland at present, around 55 percent of women aged 25 to 34 have third-level qualifications. Many of these women are pursuing careers and have ambitions besides just being mothers. Although many young Irish women do want children, most in this age group today would say that their ideal family size is 1, 2, or 3 kids. Relatively few women have 7, 8, or 9 children, as was common in the past -- not because the wages paid to them are too low, but because they want to balance motherhood with numerous other things they want to do in their lives.

BattleCorp · 28-02-2019 08:58AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

I'm not trying to be harsh here but I think you are wrong. People shouldn't have children if they can't afford them. I'm not equating children to horses but do you think it's ok to get a horse if you don't have the resources to look after it? Why not get two horses if you have no way of looking after them. Or three, or four, or five, or six, or seven, or eight..............

I think it's very irresponsible to have heaps of kids when you can't look after them.

Plumbthedepths · 28-02-2019 09:03AM

Ruraldweller56 wrote:

It's absolutely possible to have a certain amount of kids, .......

especially if the fools that work are picking up the tab to feed/clothe and house the children of the likes of Cash.

suicide_circus · 28-02-2019 09:05AM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think it's very irresponsible to have heaps of kids when you can't look after them.

it isn't irresponsible because they can afford the kids. now obviously this is via other people's money through the welfare state but as this is an entirely legitimate lifestyle choice and source of income for some, from their point of view, it's A-OK.

Sweet.Science · 28-02-2019 09:06AM

I love the way people think they are paying for her lifestyle and her house etc

The government are providing her with it. People should really stay out of it what she gets is none of their business

NIMAN · 28-02-2019 09:09AM

Sweet.Science wrote: »

I love the way people think they are paying for her lifestyle and her house etc

The government are providing her with it. People should really stay out of it what she gets is none of their business

... and the Gov get their money from ......?

xi5yvm0owc1s2b · 28-02-2019 09:09AM

Sweet.Science wrote: »

I love the way people think they are paying for her lifestyle and her house etc

The government are providing her with it.

Where does the government get the money that it uses to house and support Margaret Cash?

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

Comments