For Paws wrote: » It is a matter of some comfort that the parents of the family mentioned in the OP did not take the action that caused the deaths of six children in Nottingham. The parents, and their friend, apparently set the fire in an effort to cause sufficient damage that would force the local council to re house the family in a larger home. For once, words fail me.
Chucken wrote: » 10 euro a week? I call bs. (a) Rent will consist of: i) The MINIMUM RENT as calculated will be €24.00 PLUS (ii) 20% of the tenants(s) (see ‘b’ below) assessable income in excess €188.00 PLUS (iii) 20% of each subsidiary earner’s (see ‘c’ below) assessable income in excess of €30 per week, subject to a maximum of an amount equal to the MINIMUM RENT for each subsidiary earner; LESS (iv) A deduction of €5 per child will be allowed in respect of each dependant child of the household. A ‘dependent child’ for the purposes of rent assessment means a person aged 18 years or under or persons over 18 years of age and in full time education and not in receipt of income (b) Where spouses and/or partners are in receipt of separate payments their incomes are combined for the purpose of determining the principal earner. (c) A Subsidiary Earner is a member of the household, other than the tenant who has an incomehttp://www.wicklow.ie/apps/wicklowbeta/Housing/DifferentialRent2011.aspx
wicklowstevo wrote: » it was in south Wicklow in a place called barndearg and it was in 2012 ,
Chucken wrote: » Where was that? 1980?
Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: » With the HSE track record looking after kids??? Are you for real. I would not trust them to look after a cat never mind a child.
Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: » But it is the HSE track record in getting children to the right families is the issue and they do not seem to do a good job to go by the amount of screw ups with kids running away and ending up taking their own life.
end of the road wrote: » ah yes, no better way to invalidate a point then to put "screaming" before the likes of racism, and in your case human rights, human rights are human rights whether we like it or not, if something is against ones human rights its set down in law in the first place.
Gatling wrote: » screaming human rights
Chemical Burn wrote: » There should be two islands purchased off the coast of Ireland. One, with a road connecting to the mainland, onto which people can move freely in and out, for social housing. The other, onto which there is no access, (or very restricted) is for criminals, waters surrounding it will be patrolled 24/7 and shark infested to stop escaping, for criminals.
Airitech wrote: » And yet they'd still be a better option than the parents in these cases. I think it was wexie that pointed out that there are plenty of families in Ireland capable and willing to care for these children.
tails_naf wrote: » This post is not targeting any particular group of people, but instead is about a behaviour of some people. A recent case in my local town - a family that were given a free house a few years ago reported on the conditions in the house now, and how it is unsuitable for living in. Broken windows all over, internal doors hanging off or missing entirely, holes in walls, and filth everywhere. The thing is, when the house was given to them a few years ago, it was just fine - so any damage has been self inflicted. They are now looking for a new, nicer place. This same group are locally known to be petty thieves and not people to cross, etc. So the questions really have to be asked: Who supports the system we have where they will in all likelihood be given a new house, with zero effort or cost to them? What political motivation do we have to spend money in this way, which is actually encouraging the behaviour, and means the next generation will likely be worse and feel more entitled than the last? Especially given the crime element too - surely at the very least, being involved in crime should see a reduction or modification of hand-outs? Granted this is an extreme case, but surely if this cannot be tackled properly then the example it is giving is a poor one. So any ideas why this is allowed?
Fr_Dougal wrote: » People like that should be left to their own devices, let them live in their own filth.
Gatling wrote: » Doesn't matter who's in charge its the same status quo
3ndahalfof6 wrote: » So the less well off are on a winner, FF your back in next time for sure.
Gatling wrote: » This country doesn't do consequences , Crime Anti social behavior Welfare cheats Social housing (property wreckers) The is little or no consequences for thrashing a free house ,please don't do it again and here's the keys to your new house
Shelflife wrote: » In the instance that i refered to , it was a council house and was in good repair when they got it, on leaving all the furnishings had to be gutted and replaced, carpets destroyed walls repainted and a couple of skips of crap removed from the garden. im not talking about poor landlords, im talking about people who get something for nothing, make ****e of it and are then rewarded with a better place to live in, and we pay for it all. ive no problem at all with giving people a hand when they are down, but when they bite that hand then as far as im concerned they forfei that right to any further help. Yes gatling thats the problem, and if they kick up enough stink the cwo will give them money just to get rid of them.
3ndahalfof6 wrote: » So they were given a house a few years ago and the OP was there to see the condition of the house at the time, not only that but you have been back to see what condition it is in now, exactly how long in your book is a few years and is that the reality of the time they have spent there, are they paying rent (I would be guessing they are) so has the landlord kept the house in good condition if they were reporting problems as they were happening, or have they had to wait and wait and wait, till it got so bad they felt their rent was paying for a lesser abode than the one they originally moved into, or should they upkeep the property in all ways regardless of any responsibility to the land lord, two sides to every coin.
Gatling wrote: » They would only have to pay 2-3 e week even at that they would be down to the cwo looking for the extra cash
woodoo wrote: » Take money out of their dole to pay for the repairs and don't give them a new house.
Fromthetrees wrote: » The kids in that house are still innocent and are not guilty of their parents crimes. The state has an obligation to house them. If you start taking children off people more regularly then we create more problems. What we have now is an Irish solution to an Irish problem.
WileyCoyote wrote: » If they are not fit to raise kids then the kids need to be removed from the situation.
wexie wrote: » Don't get me wrong, I'd be all for giving these kids a proper chance, even if it meant taking them from their parents. However I think there'll be lots of people screaming all kinds of nastiness demanding more resources be aligned with 'giving the parents the 'proper support' to create a nurturing environment....' and such nonsense... As far as I'm concerned a decent parent will sacrifice pretty much anything in their own lives to make sure their kids get as good a start in their lives as they can be given. If your alcohol/drugs/cigarettes/gambling/comfort/whatever are more important to you than feeding/clothing/educating your kids then you don't deserve them. <queue lots of bleedin heart treehugging liberals bemoaning the fact that the parents didn't have enough playgrounds, fleece blankies and fluffly marshmallows and we need to be more lenient and understanding, they'll come around eventually>
