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

is it fair to have family of Simon Mcginley housed by the HSE or social welfare

5oaksdrogheda

Just wondered what thoughts or opinions people may have on this one. maybe i am way off the mark?
Further to the recent headline news highlighting the sentence of Rapist Simon Mcginley it has come to light that his Wife and family are currently living in what was once considered to be one of the best private residential estates in south drogheda obviously being paid for and funded by the HSE / social welfare and taxpayers where the so called mother of this rapist comes and goes seemingly without a care in the world & the apparent belief that her rapist son has done no harm, and so does the wife they have come such a long way in the last 12 years when he comitted his first rape when they were apparently living on the side of the road in a caravan now here they are living in with people who have paid huge amounts of money to buy houses to live in peace, safey and comfort.
My questions are:
1) should we all have to pay to house the families of people who openly defend an animal such as Simon Mcginley as well as condone his vile crimes and ridicule his victims. My understanding of antisocial behaviour in corporation and council estates is that it is unacceptable and no longer tolerated by the corporation and council and the families of offenders of antisocial behaviour arent housed or are evicted? am i incorrect? is this whole thing not taking Antisocial behaviour to a whole other level?
2) should the mother of Simon Mcginleys children be allowed to bring up children when she apparently believes it is ok for her husband to rape anyone who takes his fancy and their grandmother is apparently of the same belief, what message is this giving these young impressionable boys and girls?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Oh The Humanity

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

What exactly do you think the travelling community adds to our society which is beneficial?

They once kindly took my old fridge away for €20 saving me from the odious task of chucking it on the motorway verge myself.

BennyLava

If families of criminals can be shown to actively support the state in the arrest and punishment of the criminals, then there is no reason to remove their benefits
On the other hand, if they don't then why should the state support them.

If you introduce collective responsibility to a family or even an area, it encourages more social order

By the way I firmly believe in one rule for all, irrespective of who or where they are from

TwoShedsJackson

Personally I think that the traveling community adds much to our society

What exactly do you think the travelling community adds to our society which is beneficial?

My name is URL

enry wrote: »

could not agree more.

also in my opinion the children should be taken from the mother no questions asked

I'm sure social services will be looking into the situation.

I don't agree that families with criminals in them should have the kids removed as a rule though, thats a bit draconian

and stopping their state benefits is hardly going to stop the committing crime

enry

BennyLava wrote: »

criminality will breed criminality,

should the families of criminals be supported/ housed by the state, in one word no

social entitlements should come with social responsibilities

could not agree more.

also in my opinion the children should be taken from the mother no questions asked

BennyLava

criminality will breed criminality,

should the families of criminals be supported/ housed by the state, in one word no

social entitlements should come with social responsibilities

Chinafoot

BennyLava wrote: »

If she still stands by a man with multiple convictions for rape, and is convinced he is innocent, you really need to question her mental abilities.

Serious questions need to be asked about her abilities to raise kids, what sort of example, values is she setting for them

He's a violent criminal, it's morally wrong to leave children in a situation where they are exposed to people like him

Oh I agree. Thankfully he's gone away for quite a while now so those kids won't be exposed to him for now. The point of this thread is whether or not the rapist's family should be allowed live where they are at the moment. The OP is assuming it's paid for by the state, nobody knows that, and the OP is also claiming that because the family have said "he's a good man" they must then condone it and think that rape is ok. I'm simply saying I believe it's a lot more complicated than that.

As for leaving kids in situations like this...take a walk down by Tara Street train station at any time of the day or not and take a look at the amount of people off their heads on drink and drugs who have babies in buggies with them. There are a lot of kids in situations like this and I agree that social welfare need to do a lot more for them.

BennyLava

If she still stands by a man with multiple convictions for rape, and is convinced he is innocent, you really need to question her mental abilities.

Serious questions need to be asked about her abilities to raise kids, what sort of example, values is she setting for them

He's a violent criminal, it's morally wrong to leave children in a situation where they are exposed to people like him

jayteecork

Is the estate Bryanstown by any chance?

When I was a kid my family lived in the estate there.

Chinafoot

enry wrote: »

You feel sorry for a women who married a man who had previously been convicted of raping someone.

I'm sorry but where did I say I feel sorry for her? I don't see those words written anywhere. I am saying however that it's unfair to say she condones what he did or thinks rape is ok.

As for marrying someone previously convicted of rape. He could have convinced her he was innocent. Why is that so hard to believe?

Chinafoot

BennyLava wrote: »

It's not really relevant at all

but what is relevant is that you have 2 women looking after small children who think a multiple rapist is "a good man"

seriously Social Services should take the kids into care, surely ist abuse to raise kids to think rape is ok

I really really doubt that they think rape is ok. Seriously. Since we're all just making assumptions I'll make one that seems far more plausible than yours...I personally reckon these two women are saying he's innocent. Maybe he's convinced them he is or maybe they're trying to convince themselves. It's not all that rare for families of convicted rapists/murderers to proclaim their innocence despite what the jury says.

enry

Chinafoot wrote: »

Hang on a second now. Where did they condone it? He's their family, they probably think it's their duty to put up a united front. The mother is obviously mentally unwell and the wife is most likely distraught. Perhaps they don't know what to do? Maybe he's convinced them it's not true. You can't really take the simplistic view of "she called him a good man so she obviously thinks what he did is fine."

His family didn't rape anyone and I find it disgusting that you want them essentially punished for what he did.

You feel sorry for a women who married a man who had previously been convicted of raping someone.

And the reason I asked about whether or not he is a member of the traveling community is simple down to the fact that the deep and sometimes misunderstood culture of such people is very family orientated and therefore it may explain the reason why his mother was adamant that her son was innocent.

Personally I think that the traveling community adds much to our society

anyway way did you ask?

cosmic

I'm glad I don't live in 5 Oaks Drogheda. I'd hate to see one of my neighbours slagging me off every time I logged on to Boards.

BennyLava

It's not really relevant at all

but what is relevant is that you have 2 women looking after small children who think a multiple rapist is "a good man"

seriously Social Services should take the kids into care, surely ist abuse to raise kids to think rape is ok

IvyTheTerrible

5oaksdrogheda wrote: »

I just dont think that there should be any families that condone that behaviour housed by the state who clearly say the behaviour is wrong ( he's been put away ) and the wife and mother say his behaviour is all ok, its crazy to think anyone can condone it

But you have made a fair point so Ill leave it at that.

Ok but you're making the assumption that the state is housing them. All conjecture.

And even if they are, so all families of criminals have no entitlement to housing? How is that going to solve anything?

Chinafoot

enry wrote: »

Just wondering is Mcginley a member of the travelling community.

Thats relevant how exactly?

enry

I dont know where his children should live but after seeing his mother on T.V the other night. I would suggest that the best place for her to live would be somewhere in the middle of the Irish sea.

Just wondering is Mcginley a member of the travelling community.

Chinafoot

5oaksdrogheda wrote: »

obviously the family cannot be held responsible for the sins of the father, however i am dumbfounded that the family apparently condone it and think it is fine to have comitted such a crime and ruined other peoples lives. somebody brought this rapist up to believe that this is acceptable behaviour and as his mother and his wife have stated in the news "he is a good man" What kind of an example is that to set for anyone let alone children.

Hang on a second now. Where did they condone it? He's their family, they probably think it's their duty to put up a united front. The mother is obviously mentally unwell and the wife is most likely distraught. Perhaps they don't know what to do? Maybe he's convinced them it's not true. You can't really take the simplistic view of "she called him a good man so she obviously thinks what he did is fine."

His family didn't rape anyone and I find it disgusting that you want them essentially punished for what he did.

5oaksdrogheda

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

You're missing my point. Where are these families supposed to live? There are no places where there aren't other families. And in any case, his family have not been convicted of a crime and so can live where they want.

I just dont think that there should be any families that condone that behaviour housed by the state who clearly say the behaviour is wrong ( he's been put away ) and the wife and mother say his behaviour is all ok, its crazy to think anyone can condone it

But you have made a fair point so Ill leave it at that.

ejmaztec

Where does it actually say that the rapist's family condones rape? All I can make out is a bunch of deluded individuals who think that he's innocent, despite all of the evidence and convictions stacked up against him.

This delusion is par for the course with some families.

IvyTheTerrible

5oaksdrogheda wrote: »

sorry i missed the key word in that
people who consider rape & violence apparently fueled by drugs or alcohol or anything ACCEPTABLE living anywhere that children & families are playing or living,

It just shouldnt be acceptable or condoned, but im starting to think based on feedback here im backwards in may thinking.

You're missing my point. Where are these families supposed to live? There are no places where there aren't other families. And in any case, his family have not been convicted of a crime and so can live where they want.

5oaksdrogheda

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

And where exactly don't children and families play and live?

sorry i missed the key word in that

people who consider rape & violence apparently fueled by drugs or alcohol or anything ACCEPTABLE living anywhere that children & families are playing or living,

It just shouldnt be acceptable or condoned, but im starting to think based on feedback here im backwards in may thinking.

[Deleted User]

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

And where exactly don't children and families play and live?

M50 roundabout? Oh, snap.

Oh The Humanity

Hate to tell ya but there are pedos/rapists living in every 5th house. Thats what a detective once told my Mam.

All this outrage over the ones ye know about, its nonsense. The place is crawling with the feckers.

Its not the ones you know about you need to worry about its the 'respectable' be-suited pillar of the residents committee that everyone automatically trusts you wanna watch out for.

People dont like to believe it, but rapists and pedo's dont look like monsters. They look like your next door neighbour.

IvyTheTerrible

5oaksdrogheda wrote: »

http://archives.tcm.ie/westernpeople/2004/12/15/story22826.asp
considering the news i sort of think i may have been right to be worried when this family came along in the first place http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0717/breaking35.htm
obviously the family cannot be held responsible for the sins of the father, however i am dumbfounded that the family apparently condone it and think it is fine to have comitted such a crime and ruined other peoples lives. somebody brought this rapist up to believe that this is acceptable behaviour and as his mother and his wife have stated in the news "he is a good man" What kind of an example is that to set for anyone let alone children.

I happily would say that i would prefer not to have any people who consider rape & violence apparently fueled by drugs or alcohol or anything living anywhere that children & families are playing or living and i feel its unfortunate thats not in our constitution.

And where exactly don't children and families play and live?

5oaksdrogheda

http://archives.tcm.ie/westernpeople/2004/12/15/story22826.asp
considering the news i sort of think i may have been right to be worried when this family came along in the first place http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0717/breaking35.htm
obviously the family cannot be held responsible for the sins of the father, however i am dumbfounded that the family apparently condone it and think it is fine to have comitted such a crime and ruined other peoples lives. somebody brought this rapist up to believe that this is acceptable behaviour and as his mother and his wife have stated in the news "he is a good man" What kind of an example is that to set for anyone let alone children.

I happily would say that i would prefer not to have any people who consider rape & violence apparently fueled by drugs or alcohol or anything living anywhere that children & families are playing or living and i feel its unfortunate thats not in our constitution.

Irish Halo

pink fluffy bunny wrote: »

and to be frank 5 oaks never had that great of a name in the first place, it is just another boring estate in drogheda

Also Drogheda? Seriously people want to live in Drogheda? I can understand not wanting to live in a city but it's either live in a real proper urban centre or so rural that even mobile signal would be a problem.

John Mason

so have you managed to run that settled family out yet, 5oaks?

or are you adding this family to your list of people who arent good enough for you and your estate.

and to be frank 5 oaks never had that great of a name in the first place, it is just another boring estate in drogheda

Irish Halo

Do we convict/punish people based on the sins of the father now? I missed that addition to the Irish constitution ...

genericguy

adrieanne__x wrote: »

Do you expect them to live on the street? The kids need somewhere to live, their dad may be a monster but that's not their fault.

+1. The children of this scumbag didn't rape his victims, you can't visit the sins of the father upon his children.