Single Mothers and Housing

gurramok

walrusgumble wrote: »

if you feel so strongly about it and/or feel that a crime/fraud is being committed do the following
1. report to the police
2. report to social welfare
3. campaign to local TD


you have made an extremely serious allegation without little or no hard facts. you don't even know these people. - kevin myers is that you?

respectively, put up or shut up

You're wrong there. I do know some of those people as i live near them. You didnt spot that brave boy.

And if you read one of my posts before on this subject a few months ago, I did report one. The answer I got back "its difficult to prove that the father is living with them" so case closed.

Reduce the amount that they can get through welfare so the incentive is gone to milk the system.

Kevin Myers? LOL.

I'm working class and don't like these people who earn more through welfare than the low wage person behind the Spar through the choice of having state supported kids from which YOUR taxes pay for.

walrusgumble

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i think @gurramok mentioned before that hes a Guard...

well, let him/his superiors do their jobs then, there is plenty of social welfare legislation to deal with welfare fraud

walrusgumble

gurramok wrote: »

You're wrong there. I do know some of those people as i live near them. You didnt spot that brave boy.

And if you read one of my posts before on this subject a few months ago, I did report one. The answer I got back "its difficult to prove that the father is living with them" so case closed.

Reduce the amount that they can get through welfare so the incentive is gone to milk the system.

Kevin Myers? LOL.

I'm working class and don't like these people who earn more through welfare than the low wage person behind the Spar through the choice of having state supported kids from which YOUR taxes pay for.

What's is it to be "working class" now a days? Badge of honour/outdated label? I didn't realise we are British subjects. what has your background got to do with justifying your view? "brave boy"? do i detect a threat? wonder how brave you would be in confronting them when you take a trip down to Pearse St office. granted what you are saying, can't be ignored and denied and your right, its not fair that the few who do make "career choices" getting more than someone in spar, but since you are waving the "i am working class i would know" craic i would imagine you would be in a better position to understand the realities of life a little bit better than say someone from better off areas.

Sure since your so concerned and seem to know them very well and seem to have very little to do, surely as an upstanding citizen you could assit them in providing the proofs.

my point is, unless you have hard facts to support what you say you saw, don't make allegations where you are faceless and annoyonus.

dsmythy

ei.sdraob wrote: »

why?

That would take us off topic altogether. I'm a believer that family is the founding block of a healthy society presumably you are of a different mind. Should a thread pop up on the subject I'll be there.

Lab_Mouse

SLUSK wrote: »

I care about my money, not about other people.

Says alot about you really.

Was it you who got a ban for saying the lower class should get sterilised(sorry if I have got you mixed up with some other poster)?

ei.sdraob

dsmythy wrote: »

That would take us off topic altogether. I'm a believer that family is the founding block of a healthy society presumably you are of a different mind. Should a thread pop up on the subject I'll be there.

the family is the building block of society, and thats in our constitution, no denying that

now the question which i originally posed, now elaborated so theres no misunderstanding is:

why do we need more people/families?

following from above:
* whats wrong with the population remaining more or less static?
* why encourage an increasing population? especially if that means less to go around for everyone down the road and hence more misery?


my problem is not with the family, my problem is with policies that encourage "breeding" (for lack of better word, i realize it sounds bad to some) and which will result in misery in a world with dwindling resources and mounting debts of current generations, once again why encourage population growth? having a large population resulted in alot of misery in this country before (Famine, emigration)

/

gurramok

walrusgumble wrote: »

What's is it to be "working class" now a days? Badge of honour/outdated label? I didn't realise we are British subjects. what has your background got to do with justifying your view? "brave boy"? do i detect a threat? wonder how brave you would be in confronting them when you take a trip down to Pearse St office. granted what you are saying, can't be ignored and denied and your right, its not fair that the few who do make "career choices" getting more than someone in spar, but since you are waving the "i am working class i would know" craic i would imagine you would be in a better position to understand the realities of life a little bit better than say someone from better off areas.

Sure since your so concerned and seem to know them very well and seem to have very little to do, surely as an upstanding citizen you could assit them in providing the proofs.

You mentioned Kevin Myers who is well known as an upper class type right wing ranter and you compared me to him, you slipped up there.

"wonder how brave you would be in confronting them when you take a trip down to Pearse St office"
Is this you saying that through the level of the threat be imposed upon me if i did do the above, that they are scum?

my point is, unless you have hard facts to support what you say you saw, don't make allegations where you are faceless and annoyonus.

Funny post here. You need hard facts, i'm not an investigator. Why are there so many single mothers collecting in the first place?

Is this section of society so bad that they ALL do not have fathers still in their relationships?

I tell you something. Why does a single mother with 4 kids get priority for housing over a single mother with one kid?

Why do single mothers not marry their partner? (Hint: it ain't financially viable)

I'll ask you this direct question as stated earlier:

me wrote:

Tell me, why should a single mother who is milking the system for that free house and all the welfare entitlements stop having kids?

You know the answer.

AlekSmart

Rohatch said:

They need education 1st. A 50 hour course on the reality of parenting to run along lemasss classes. In depth sex ed in school from 5 years of age.

Fixed that....

dsmythy

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the family is the building block of society, and thats in our constitution, no denying that

now the question which i originally posed, now elaborated so theres no misunderstanding is:

why do we need more people/families?

following from above:
* whats wrong with the population remaining more or less static?
* why encourage an increasing population? especially if that means less to go around for everyone down the road and hence more misery?


my problem is not with the family, my problem is with policies that encourage "breeding" (for lack of better word, i realize it sounds bad to some) and which will result in misery in a world with dwindling resources and mounting debts of current generations, once again why encourage population growth? having a large population resulted in alot of misery in this country before (Famine, emigration)

/

Sorry about that.

As we all know Europe's population is falling because of low birth rates. Ireland has managed to avoid this thus far but it's only a matter of time really that we start to drop into the trend too. Generally this is not a good thing with regards to the aging of the Nation and the social issues that will cause. Europe hasn't got a problem with overpopulation. Other parts of the world on the otherhand seem to and I'll agree with you there, for them, less people might be a good thing in the long run.

I'm not saying let's go back to having 10 kids each, but to support families with less taxes not with added taxes as one poster brought up rather crudely earlier. Enough children to prevent the problems of a shrinking aging population.

AlekSmart

Dsmythy said :

Europe hasn't got a problem with overpopulation. Other parts of the world on the otherhand seem to and I'll agree with you there, for them, less people might be a good thing in the long run.

I'm not saying let's go back to having 10 kids each, but to support families with less taxes not with added taxes as one poster brought up rather crudely earlier. Enough children to prevent the problems of a shrinking aging population.

Poor oul Kevin Myers is to be found lurking around the borders of this thread,usually in the form of the "upper-class" twat who gets up the noses of the plain-people.

However Kevo has many times in the past pointed towards the time-bomb that unmanaged human reproduction represents,particularly when that over reproduction has been facilitated and encouaged in far off Africa.

So ei.Sdraob`s points.....
following from above:

* whats wrong with the population remaining more or less static?
* why encourage an increasing population? especially if that means less to go around for everyone down the road and hence more misery?

.....do deserve a hearing.

If in reality our sick little economy cannot support the current level of indigenous population growth,then who or what will provide for all those mouths that require feeding ?

If,as Rohatch describes,the emerging template for an Irish "Family" reads as below....

My next door neighbour has 9 kids under 18, is 47 obese, diabetic and preggers again. Other half living with her.
Her dole 800 a month,
his dole 800 a month,
kids allowance 1400 per month,
rent paid by dole 800 per month (tallaght),
free fuel phone, medical card and transport passes.

The parents are uneducated twats, the kids have been involved in drugs and crime since they could, this is what is being bred in this country, kids rearing kids with no skills whatsoever.

.....then,Heuston....WE have a problem.

LookingFor

walrusgumble wrote: »

very arrogant comment. Behaving irresponsible? mistakes? what? although you may not be saying so, but it sounds as if you share the old times idea of children born out of wedlock should be shunned. very very very few babies are planned.

I don't think this has anything to do with whether a child is born in or out of wedlock.

I certainly don't care.

The question is if they're born into a financially stable context.

It is irresponsible to bring a child into the world if you cannot independently care for it. At least financially. You are then dependent on and an expense to others who had no say in whether you would have a child or not.

There are many who accidentally find themselves in this situation, or through no fault of their own or whatever. However it's being suggested there are those who wilfully put themselves in this situation - a quite deliberate situation of financial dependence on others and on the state. That is irresponsible.

That's why I think a scheme whereby the mother's family are the first fallback in these instances (i.e. financially insecure motherhood under 25 or even under 30 perhaps) would enforce greater personal responsibility and disincentivise abuse of the system.

walrusgumble

gurramok wrote: »

You mentioned Kevin Myers who is well known as an upper class type right wing ranter and you compared me to him, you slipped up there.

"wonder how brave you would be in confronting them when you take a trip down to Pearse St office"
Is this you saying that through the level of the threat be imposed upon me if i did do the above, that they are scum?



Funny post here. You need hard facts, i'm not an investigator. Why are there so many single mothers collecting in the first place?

Is this section of society so bad that they ALL do not have fathers still in their relationships?

I tell you something. Why does a single mother with 4 kids get priority for housing over a single mother with one kid?

Why do single mothers not marry their partner? (Hint: it ain't financially viable)

I'll ask you this direct question as stated earlier:


You know the answer.

with regard to the kevin myers reference, that was completely and utterly tongue in cheeck and no more. There was no intention to insult the poster by comparing him/her with Mr Myers. The comments reminded me of his article regarding single mothers and ba&tard children which caused up roar a while back. It was no more than a cheap laugh on my part. The flippancy of my comment might have showed people that it was only a throw away remark which was not suppose to be taken seriously, except for your good self:rolleyes:

I would disagree about slipping up there in the sense that some of the comments made by you and others, many being groundless and populist, would not feel like strangers in Mr Myers artilces. It has nothing to do with anyone being "working class" or "upper class". By the way, Myers is certainly not "upper class" and i don't think he tries to come across that way. alas you miss the point.

With regard to the second matter, scum issue. No people in Pearse St are not scum, like yourself, i know a couple of single mothers and single fathers from that particular part of dublin, granted my views and attitudes in life may greatly differ to some of them, but who am i to judge, they are ok.

Again, it would not matter about someone's background, be it farmers, law abiding citizens,business people etc, if someone, who may be perceived to be a bit jumped up went to them and said the things that you or others said and do so in an arrogant fashion which you have done here, it is likely you might get a bollo&xing or at worse a slap. your comments have being very disrespectful. to put it another way, let's say if you had a number of houses and were down in the galway races tent with a few fianna failers and people from the construction industry, and things were really bad, and a mob surrounded the tent, one or two got in and shouted abuse at ye, maybe making serious false allegations at ye, what it the chance that some of ye will go for them?

To make it very clear, reacting violently no matter have terrible the treatment towards you is, is not ok nor is it right to react in such ways. however, the best of people will at some point disappoint themselves by reacting in such a way. It would be wrong, no matter how pomous someone might be, to get slapped. i am simple responding to your comment of "brave boy", which i haven't yet got a respond to what you meant by that.

Thirdly,It is you that is making the claims, it is you and others who are claiming that many are careerist and scammers. This is a debating website, you and others have made serious allegations that you may not have made if you did not have the luxury of being behind a computer. You don't need me to tell you, you have a right to express your views reardless of what others think, but simply back up what you are preceived to be as facts. stories of what you see in the labour exchange down in Pearse St is hardly sufficent, is it?

With regard to marriage, a difference in relationships. Despite the Constitutional definition and protection of family life, the laws accept de facto families . People don't have to be married anymore, some may say its an outdated arrangement. some families simply consist of mother and child or father and child. me and you are neither qualified or capable of making comments on the issues of why fathers and mothers do this that and the other, and why there is more single mothers. neither of us are qualified or capable of making comment on each family as we may not know anything about why the father is not present. you would also be well aware that marriage provides better tax advantageous (eg joint assessent) for working family.

no genuine single mother is or should be answerable to the actions or inactions of the father / fathers of the children. what goes on in the bedroom, niteclub, pup, back ally is not for you and me to comment on or judge. would you be for abortion (that was not intended to cause any emotional argument etc - i personally believe the issue needs to be discussed again with more women making contribution to debate)

even if the mother does bring maintenance proceedings to the court, there is no guarantee that the father will be able to financially support the child, even for 50 poxy euro per week. many times, the father may not have the same respect for court and law & order as say you or me, and may breach the court orders by failing to pay. One thing i would agree with you thou, social welfare officers should make more efforts when assessing applications to see if they can make it manadotory for applicants to first seek assistance from fathers.

Where is the sources show that a mother with 4 children gets a house quicker than a mother with 1 child? only guessing, but does possibilities that a mother of 4 is in more need of a house, waiting a long time on the list, or had a good td/councillor petition for her come into consideration?worth making contact with the department on that

irish_bob

rohatch wrote: »

You can use the crime and education statistics to back this up.

The percentage of young 18-35 men from inner city dublin areas that have criminal records is equal to the same age group from foxrock with degrees.



My next door neighbour has 9 kids under 18, is 47 obese, diabetic and preggers again. Other half living with her.
Her dole 800 a month,
his dole 800 a month,
kids allowance 1400 per month,
rent paid by dole 800 per month (tallaght),
free fuel phone, medical card and transport passes.

The parents are uneducated twats, the kids have been involved in drugs and crime since they could, this is what is being bred in this country, kids rearing kids with no skills whatsoever.


they have a 42 plasma screen, blu ray, dvd, state of the art stereos, 2 cars, no shortage of fags, she is down to 40 a day now and he is a stoner. they both smoke in the gaff so thats 9 kids lungs destroyed for the health system in a few years. The food they feed the kids is also the worst kind and even during last week their 4 year old was out playing at 1am on a school night.



They need education 1st. A 50 hour course on parenting to run along lemasss classes. In depth sex ed in school from 5 years of age.

not entirely relevant but stay with me

this is why i keep saying that almost everyone in ireland can afford health insurance , even those on the benefits , im single and pay 750 or around 15 euro a week for health insurance , for a couple with four kids , its around 2500 per year or 50 quid per week , by the sounds of things , the folks in your story spend more than this each year on beer , burger and bookies

Kit1976

rohatch wrote: »

You can use the crime and education statistics to back this up.


My next door neighbour has 9 kids under 18, is 47 obese, diabetic and preggers again. Other half living with her.
Her dole 800 a month,
his dole 800 a month,
kids allowance 1400 per month,
rent paid by dole 800 per month (tallaght),
free fuel phone, medical card and transport passes.

The parents are uneducated twats, the kids have been involved in drugs and crime since they could, this is what is being bred in this country, kids rearing kids with no skills whatsoever.


they have a 42 plasma screen, blu ray, dvd, state of the art stereos, 2 cars, no shortage of fags, she is down to 40 a day now and he is a stoner. they both smoke in the gaff so thats 9 kids lungs destroyed for the health system in a few years. The food they feed the kids is also the worst kind and even during last week their 4 year old was out playing at 1am on a school night.

I'm interested in how you know so much about your neighbours. How do you have enough time to spend spying on them and assessing them while continuing to be a paragon of productivity yourself?

Watching your surveillance videos must interfere terribly with your sleep.

Or there's a chance your made the story up.

Either way, it's fair to say that anecdotes are not actually data. In other words, your story proves nothing.

AARRRGH

aurelius79 wrote: »

Suggesting that people who live in social housing commit more crime than people who don't is ridiculous.

How naive.

It has been a known fact for centuries that the people who are less off in society are the ones who commit most of the crime.

All you have to do is read any Irish crime book to learn that practically every major criminal in Ireland is from social housing.

...

Back on topic:

It does bother me that being a **** up is rewarded in Ireland - you know, free house, large dole payment, etc.

In Spain you get nothing, and as a result they don't have a young single mother problem.

So perhaps making it so rewarding is causing the problem.

dsmythy

AARRRGH wrote: »

It does bother me that being a **** up is rewarded in Ireland - you know, free house, large dole payment, etc.

In Spain you get nothing, and as a result they don't have a young single mother problem.

So perhaps making it so rewarding is causing the problem.

I'm not sure the stats would work out. The US and Uk i presume have less benefits than us but both match and surpass teenage pregnancy rates for example. I'm not sure what sort of welfare systems they have in Eastern Europe but they seem to have very high rates as well.

AARRRGH

dsmythy wrote: »

I'm not sure the stats would work out. The US and Uk i presume have less benefits than us but both match and surpass teenage pregnancy rates for example. I'm not sure what sort of welfare systems they have in Eastern Europe but they seem to have very high rates as well.

Perhaps Spain has good sex education?

I know a girl from Ballyfermot (poor part of Dublin) and she and her friends have the system worked out to a tee. You know, pregnant as a teenager, free house, all sorts of social welfare benefits. It is definitely seen as a way of life in Ballyfermot -- why work when you can just scounge off the state?

I don't really know what the solution is, but I know our current system is broken. Perhaps we could make the pill/condoms free of charge. We could also introduce a policy where you have to work for the dole. This way people would have (in general) no excuse for getting pregnant, and would remove the sit on your arse welfare state we have in Ireland.

97i9y3941

AARRRGH wrote: »

How naive.

It has been a known fact for centuries that the people who are less off in society are the ones who commit most of the crime.

All you have to do is read any Irish crime book to learn that practically every major criminal in Ireland is from social housing.

i kinda have to disagree in one way,as we see through our court system,alot of the kids of the toffs commit some terrible crime too,we had see people who where well off getting convicted for manslaughter/assault/drugs etc...

AARRRGH

Fred83 wrote: »

i kinda have to disagree in one way,as we see through our court system,alot of the kids of the toffs commit some terrible crime too,we had see people who where well off getting convicted for manslaughter/assault/drugs etc...

They are by far the minority though.

Seriously, if you know any Gardai, just ask them.

Poverty and crime are related. We really shouldn't need to debate this.

Rossibaby

The ones who commit the worst crimes in society generally wear suits, and their abodes are a little fancier then a council house.

Nonsense thread, utter nonsense. Yes,we should turf single mothers and their kids onto the streets because that'll learn'em.

dsmythy

AARRRGH wrote: »

Perhaps Spain has good sex education?

I know a girl from Ballyfermot (poor part of Dublin) and she and her friends have the system worked out to a tee. You know, pregnant as a teenager, free house, all sorts of social welfare benefits. It is definitely seen as a way of life in Ballyfermot -- why work when you can just scounge off the state?

I don't really know what the solution is, but I know our current system is broken. Perhaps we could make the pill/condoms free of charge. We could also introduce a policy where you have to work for the dole. This way people would have (in general) no excuse for getting pregnant, and would remove the sit on your arse welfare state we have in Ireland.

Well socio-economic standing and underage pregnancy tend to be linked. The poorer the background the more chance of it occuring. Diverting sex education funds from the more well-heeled schools to the less so ones can only help. Ditto either free or greatly reduced contraception prices. Actually means-test payments so as to offer food, shelter, heat and a small living expense to go alongside them. If there is anyone affording huge TV's and monster boozing sessions then clearly they are either getting too much or are unfit parents.

Rossibaby

AARRRGH wrote: »

They are by far the minority though.

Seriously, if you know any Gardai, just ask them.

Poverty and crime are related. We really shouldn't need to debate this.

While I generally would agree, it certainly depends on what type of crime we are talking.

AARRRGH

Rossibaby wrote: »

While I generally would agree, it certainly depends on what type of crime we are talking.

I'm talking about the average convict. They tend to be from disadvantaged backgrounds.

dvpower

Rossibaby wrote: »

The ones who commit the worst crimes in society generally wear suits, and their abodes are a little fancier then a council house.

Nonsense thread, utter nonsense. Yes,we should turf single mothers and their kids onto the streets because that'll learn'em.

I dunno. Anytime I hear John Lonergan on the radio, he insists that the vast majority of prisoners come from a select few districts in the city. He is as close to the coal face as you can get and he sees a direct correlation between crime and poverty / social depravation.

Rossibaby wrote: »

Yes,we should turf single mothers and their kids onto the streets because that'll learn'em.

Well, obviously we should shoot them:rolleyes:

Rossibaby

AARRRGH wrote: »

I'm talking about the average convict. They tend to be from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Oh so it's only the working class who get done for small time crime and make up the general prison population that count?

Ah grand we'll just ignore the white collar crime then because the perpetraters never get convicted as it is a 'respectable' form of crime so its not exactly crime at all.:rolleyes: Crime is not endemic to a certain class, but certain types of crime are endemic to certain classes.

Rossibaby

dvpower wrote: »

I dunno. Anytime I hear John Lonergan on the radio, he insists that the vast majority of prisoners come from a select few districts in the city. He is as close to the coal face as you can get and he sees a direct correlation between crime and poverty / social depravation.

Certain types of crime yes, the crime that usually sees convictions. Deprived areas are riddled with certain types of crime and I agree that this is usually without exception as people generally are motivated by their material and social condition, but rich people commit crimes too, its just the conviction rate on white collar crime is much lower wouldn't you agree?

Well, obviously we should shoot them:rolleyes:

What are you on about?

AARRRGH

Rossibaby wrote: »

Oh so it's only the working class who get done for small time crime and make up the general prison population that count?

Ah grand we'll just ignore the white collar crime then because the perpetraters never get convicted as it is a 'respectable' form of crime so its not exactly crime at all.:rolleyes: Crime is not endemic to a certain class, but certain types of crime are endemic to certain classes.

I agree with you that certain types of crime are endemic to certain classes, but I would be highly confident that there are a far greater number of criminals in poor areas than in wealthy areas.

For example, a council estate in Finglas is going to have more criminals than a fancy estate in Blackrock.

Also, and feel free to disagree with me on this, give me white collar crime any day over any sort of violent crime.

Rossibaby

AARRRGH wrote: »

I agree with you that certain types of crime are endemic to certain classes, but I would be highly confident that there are a far greater number of criminals in poor areas than in wealthy areas.

For example, a council estate in Finglas is going to have more criminals than a fancy estate in Blackrock.

Also, and feel free to disagree with me on this, give me white collar crime any day over any sort of violent crime.

Yes, I would agree that poorer areas would tend to have a greater number of criminals, the crimes would be on a smaller scale of course.

And yeah on the point I highlighted, of course I disagree with you. Surely you would acknowledge that white collar crime leads to increased poverty and thus often leads to the 'violent crime' you are talking about. Whether the violence occurs through war, or whether this be through creating inequality, drug abuse and dealing etc it's clear it is not two seperate phenomenon we are talking about here, but a intertwined system of cause and effect.

dvpower

Rossibaby wrote: »

Certain types of crime yes, the crime that usually sees convictions. Deprived areas are riddled with certain types of crime and I agree that this is usually without exception as people generally are motivated by their material and social condition, but rich people commit crimes too, its just the conviction rate on white collar crime is much lower wouldn't you agree?

Of course the conviction rate for white collar crime is lower. White collar crime tends to be more complicated, so more difficult to detect, investigate and prosecute.

And as a society we, quite rightly, tend to focus our prison spaces more on crimes that have the most direct impact on people, like violent crime and crime against individual's property.

Rossibaby

dvpower wrote: »

Of course the conviction rate for white collar crime is lower. White collar crime tends to be more complicated, so more difficult to detect, investigate and prosecute.

And as a society we, quite rightly, tend to focus our prison spaces more on crimes that have the most direct impact on people, like violent crime and crime against individual's property.

Ah now come on. Violent crime is often linked to inequality, and white collar crime can and does play a huge roll in the creation of such inequality.

I agree that violent crime prevention is the most immediate task of a protection force, but this is a root and branch thing here. You cannot just keep on attacking the symptom and ignore the cause. The reality is the system is set up to let white collar crime off the hook, and its much more fashionable to see gangsters with guns in the papers rather than the bigger gangsters in suits that make the social context of a nation fertile for the street thugs dealers to run riot.