€850 dole a week+free legal aid

galwayrush

Einhard wrote: »

What? Point out where I misrepresented you in any way?

You've claimed several times in response to posters who disagree with executing the man in question, that their viewpoint essentially boils down to "being nice to scumbags". That is, by any rationale, quite a stupid response, and it's not at all unreasonable to question the cognitive abilities of anyone who responds in such a stupid manner.

Hahahaha, i only pointed out that you said i was misrepresenting people's posts for my own apparent agenda, i never said you misrepresented me.
I never resorted to describing any of your posts as a stupid response either, perhaps you are just reading too much into my posts.
Back on topic, i wonder how long before the man in question is before a judge again? Costing the state more in free legal aid? It's well past time going soft on scumbags like him.

Monty Burnz

galwayrush wrote: »

How much money we could save by using a few bullets.:mad:

56 convictions?? so much for the great 3 strikes and you're out.....

Remember when Fianna Failure and John O'Donoghue promised to introduce Zero Tolerance in their election manifesto? Then they got elected and nobody ever heard anything about it ever again.

Einhard

sligopark wrote: »

No but do gooders have done exactly that - removed my rights and given them and my hard earned cash to lazy child farmer criminal thieves because they are travellers (going nowhere except into your grannies to rob her)..

Do gooders make me sick - these low life criminal don't deserve the holiday break jail provides nor do they warrant execution - they need to be held in stocks in the middle of town, their dole reduced (not child benefit or fuel allowances etc) and forced into community work schemes.

If do gooders have anything to say why don't they invite dirt bags like this to move in with them?

Children have rubbish portacabin schools because of low lifes like these, health care is non existent because of dirt bags like this and we still have do gooders cry out - rights for non traveller travellers - its their culture to rob you - its not their fault

dirt bags and do gooders - one of a kind - a detriment to society.

Ah right, do-gooders, the great and mortal enemy of mankind eh? Do-gooders who fought for women's right to vote, for equality in the workplace, for the legalising of contraception, for the decriminalisation of homosexuality; do-gooders who go out every night and help the homeless, sacrifice their time to man the Samaritan lines, who work to make our society a more fair and equitable one. Such monstrous beings, all. String them up by their ankles.

I really hate the way that anyone who objects to calls for the execution of a man in a state that abolished such punishments, are cast as some uniform band with identical outlooks on life. Nobody here thinks that we "should be nice to scumbags" or that this man should not be punished for his crimes. Few people here think the Social Welfare doesn't need reform. It just suits your purposes to brand anyone who has a problem with your atavistic solutions as a "do-gooder".

What's ironic about all the blather about stocks and summary executions is that we have rarely lived in a safer time. Any sociey throughout history, and even contemporarily, which has used the methods you prescribe, has found that the rate of crime didn't drop, and indeed that society became more violent. So, you're basically advocating that we dump all the evidence to the contrary, and trust in methods of punishment which have never effected an adequate outcome in terms of societal peace and safety.

DavidBowie

sligopark wrote: »

No but do gooders have done exactly that - removed my rights and given them and my hard earned cash to lazy child farmer criminal thieves because they are travellers (going nowhere except into your grannies to rob her)..

Do gooders make me sick - these low life criminal don't deserve the holiday break jail provides nor do they warrant execution - they need to be held in stocks in the middle of town, their dole reduced (not child benefit or fuel allowances etc) and forced into community work schemes.

If do gooders have anything to say why don't they invite dirt bags like this to move in with them?

Children have rubbish portacabin schools because of low lifes like these, health care is non existent because of dirt bags like this and we still have do gooders cry out - rights for non traveller travellers - its their culture to rob you - its not their fault

dirt bags and do gooders - one of a kind - a detriment to society.

Jesus Sligopark i'm not gonna defend this guy but don't label every traveller as you have this guy!
This debate is getting low as people are on one hand giving out about criminality and on the other hand saying "Shoot him"

Too much time on ones hands methinks

Monty Burnz

skelliser wrote: »

afaik he is a member of the travelling community

I'm led to believe that members of the travelling community have novel ways of 'earning' the dole in more than one location. You should take a trip to Rathkeale sometime when it's busy - you'll never see so many €100k cars in one location outside Monaco.

By the way, did you know that they are of a different ethnicity to the rest of us? :rolleyes:

sligopark

DavidBowie wrote: »

Too much time on ones hands methinks

exactly he needs forced onto a community work scheme instead of being rewarded for being a scumbag

sligopark

Monty Burnz wrote: »

By the way, did you know that they are of a different ethnicity to the rest of us? :rolleyes:

classic

DavidBowie

sligopark wrote: »

exactly he needs forced onto a community work scheme instead of being rewarded for being a scumbag

Well said Sligopark,i agree..

galwayrush

sligopark wrote: »

exactly he needs forced onto a community work scheme instead of being rewarded for being a scumbag

Apparently that's not allowed because it would go against his scumbag 'civil liberties '.

dermot_sheehan

Amhran Nua wrote: »

That's one of the more tangled social questions really. If someone has no job and gets pregnant, is it the child's fault? Maybe the best society can do is try to give that child every chance to climb out of the poverty trap.

Besides, the alternatives are either mandatory abortions for people below a certain income level (monstrous), letting children go hungry and form street gangs like in Brazil (even more monstrous), or turning children from poor families into state wards, which can get really nasty and is a lot more expensive.

Its not an ideal solution, but as time goes on it will probably be fine tuned to minimise the problems. If every one of his eight children turn into productive members of society, will it have been worth it?

I think at current benefit and welfare rates the kids are far off being street children. It is not unreasonable to expect persons dependent on the state make some sort of contribution to the upbringing of their kids?. The current rates are substantially more then the economic cost of each additional child.

A society that penalises its productive members from reproducing while inducing its less productive (who presumably bring up their offspring with a less then healthy work ethic) is creating long term problems for itself where each generation has greater and greater numbers dependent on state handouts.

It maybe a tangled question of how much society should subsidise it's less productive members in having progeny, but the solution seams simple enough.

Child benefit in 1995 was £27 per month. In Euro this is €34. I'm not sure of the change in consumer prices since then but at €140 now (excluding the fact that you get more then that rate for 2+ kids) its quite a significant increase.

Surely decreasing this a small bit and perhaps capping the total amount of state benefits a person can receive at less then the amount someone paying tax on the minimum wage would earn would not be too revolutionary?

Furthermore there is no current control on whether the child actually benefits from the payment at all. I've seen child custody battles in the District Court where it was not over whether the parent wanted custody to have greater access to their child, but simply because the parent with custody received the child benefit payment. Having some of the benefit paid as a form of direct provision (school lunches and dinners/free text books) would alleviate that.

Cavehill Red

mickydoomsux wrote: »

He probably can't read anyway so i'd say boards.ie will be fine.

Also, the bankers etc. haven't got 50+ convictions.

Maybe they should. Who stole more?
Perhaps you didn't read so well either. I asked what might happen if this thread was brought to his attention. Given the bile spewed in this thread about murdering the man, I'm tempted to do exactly that.

mfceiling

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Not neccessarily. Plenty of people have taken widely different paths through life from their parents, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. One thing is for sure, condemning them before they get out the starting gate isn't going to help their chances any.

I think really the main problem here isn't so much with his social welfare allowances as with his choice of lifestyle and that he isn't making any apparent effort to better himself. What we ideally want is to change his behaviour and make him a productive member of society.

This comes back to problems with the judicial rehabilitation and punishment system in this country. It has been fairly conclusively shown that harsher punishments and nastier prisons don't reduce recidivism, and it's fairly clear likewise that Irish prisons aren't having the desired effect.

One possible ray of light and a good example is the CONNECT programme, which may or may not have been continued:

While this is a very noble idea it seems that it won't work on certain members of our community.
Repeat offenders don't give a shiny shíte about me or you or our basic human rights...they just want to steal, scam, harass, abuse, and basically rape the system that is in place..safe in the knowledge that the most they can expect is a slap on the wrist

flutered

Dempo1 wrote: »

Cuckoo land a bag of coal anything up to €10 per bag, lets get real.

I am not defending this scumbag but has predicted the same old mantra about the joys and perks of being on the dole were inevitable because of this article.

when was the last time you bought a bag of coal, how many bags can you provide at a tenner a bag, i will buy them.

Cavehill Red

sligopark wrote: »

Children have rubbish portacabin schools because of low lifes like these, health care is non existent because of dirt bags like this and we still have do gooders cry out - rights for non traveller travellers - its their culture to rob you - its not their fault

dirt bags and do gooders - one of a kind - a detriment to society.

Because of course it wasn't the government or bankers who cost the state over €100 billion.
It was travellers, apparently. :rolleyes:
G'wan. Threaten to kill him again. You know you want to, you big internet warrior, ya.

sligopark

Cavehill Red wrote: »

G'wan. Threaten to kill him again. You know you want to, you big internet warrior, ya.

G'wan read my posts again I never threatened to kill anyone and indeed said scumbags like him didn't deserve killing but the stocks in the middle of town.

G'wan read my posts again I dare ya you big internet warrior LOL

Amhran Nua

gabhain7 wrote: »

A society that penalises its productive members from reproducing while inducing its less productive (who presumably bring up their offspring with a less then healthy work ethic) is creating long term problems for itself where each generation has greater and greater numbers dependent on state handouts.

Everyone is entitled to the child benefit payment however, from the very rich to the very poor. The slippery slope argument isn't realistic - during the boom years the numbers in receipt of long term social welfare hovered around the 1% to 2% mark, and that includes those on disability. After a couple of decades of child welfare benefits you'd expect a lot more than that if the generational dependency theory was accurate.

gabhain7 wrote: »

Child benefit in 1995 was £27 per week. In Euro this is €34. I'm not sure of the change in consumer prices since then but at €140 now (excluding the fact that you get more then that rate for 2+ kids) its quite a significant increase.

I think that's €140 a month.

gabhain7 wrote: »

Surely decreasing this a small bit and perhaps capping the total amount of state benefits a person can receive at less then the amount someone paying tax on the minimum wage would earn would not be too revolutionary?

I'm not sure I understand, cap welfare assistance at ~€300 a week in total per household?

gabhain7 wrote: »

Having some of the benefit paid as a form of direct provision (school lunches and dinners/free text books) would alleviate that.

I'd agree with this alright.

dermot_sheehan

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I think that's €140 a month.

Sorry typo on my part, have gone back and edited original post. I meant in 1995 it was €34 per month, not per week. It's now the same rate per week.

dermot_sheehan

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to the child benefit payment however, from the very rich to the very poor. The slippery slope argument isn't realistic - during the boom years the numbers in receipt of long term social welfare hovered around the 1% to 2% mark, and that includes those on disability. After a couple of decades of child welfare benefits you'd expect a lot more than that if the generational dependency theory was accurate.

Child benefit has increased four fold since 1995, less than one generation.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand, cap welfare assistance at ~€300 a week in total per household?

Have a maximum cap per month of how much one can receive in assistance via different programs. I think the conservative have proposed this across the water as part of the mantra making work pay.

A person should never be dis-incentivised from taking up employment, several cumulative welfare payments that result in a person taking home more then on a minimum wage job dis-incentivises work.

Dudess

These threads should definitely have title tags on them like on the Development forum, saying "Idiot filter".

Amhran Nua

gabhain7 wrote: »

Child benefit has increased four fold since 1995, less than one generation.

The cost of living would have a little over doubled in that period, but then again its worth considering what your baseline is there - was the initial amount too low?

gabhain7 wrote: »

Have a maximum cap per month of how much one can receive in assistance via different programs. I think the conservative have proposed this across the water as part of the mantra making work pay.

A person should never be dis-incentivised from taking up employment, several cumulative welfare payments that result in a person taking home more then on a minimum wage job dis-incentivises work.

You just run into the same problem again though, children unprovided for, this gets especially messy when you consider that hundreds of thousands of people in receipt of assistance these days almost all had gainful employment only a few years ago. The overwhelming majority are not spongers, sometimes the jobs just aren't there. Stateside welfare is a particularly poor example, since the state ends up subsidising businesses that don't pay their employees a living wage by providing food stamps, which is a lot worse than what we have here.

suicide_circus

The guy has 56 previous convictions.
He still has and is entitled to his basic human rights.
But he has utterly forfeited any rights he had to claim "social" welfare moneys. These social welfare payments were collected from the labours of the society which he has continuously and deliberately sought to harm and undermine.
If wishes to continue to receive this vast amount of social assistance, he must EARN it through honest toil and the sweat of his brow.
Personally I would advocate manual community service. No work, no money.

RMD

suicide_circus wrote: »

The guy has 56 previous convictions.
He still has and is entitled to his basic human rights.
But he has utterly forfeited any rights he had to claim "social" welfare moneys. These social welfare payments were collected from the labours of the society which he has continuously and deliberately sought to harm and undermine.
If wishes to continue to receive this vast amount of social assistance, he must EARN it through honest toil and the sweat of his brow.
Personally I would advocate manual community service. No work, no money.

Yup, for people like himself who obviously aren't seeking employment community orientated labour needs to be mandatory, I wonder how happy he'd be to sign on if he's out as a street cleaner 8 hours a day to receive his dole. Same goes for anyone who can't prove they've sought employment in the last 4 months without good reason.

Amhran Nua

suicide_circus wrote: »

he must EARN it through honest toil and the sweat of his brow.

Thing is though, if he went up in a puff of smoke tomorrow, his family would still be getting most of that money anyway.

the_monkey

Bullseye1 wrote: »

And self employed people out of work are entitled to nothing. WOW. We really do reward to leeches in this country.

yeah whats up with that ? self employed people paid their taxes, why aren't they entitled to any dole ?

Capt'n Midnight

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its not an ideal solution, but as time goes on it will probably be fine tuned to minimise the problems. If every one of his eight children turn into productive members of society, will it have been worth it?

jeepers101 wrote: »

It takes the tax of seven people on the average industrial wage to pay the social welfare costs of this man

If even one of his kids turns out to be like him then from a financial point of view it would not be worth it as it's unlikely the other seven will all be continuously working at the average industrial wage, (eg. half the kids are probably female and so if working would receive less than average )

Capt'n Midnight

If he is a member of the travelling community then he's likely to have a much shorter life expectancy than the rest of us.

Does that change things in anyones view ?

galwayrush

the_monkey wrote: »

yeah whats up with that ? self employed people paid their taxes, why aren't they entitled to any dole ?

We are not, don't know why.

Galway K9

Snakeblood wrote: »

Let's not read what people are saying and instead respond to what we imagine they are saying, then stick in some rolleyes so we can feel like we've made a point of some nature.

People are missing something, the "Surname". Its safe to conclude that its a knacker sponging of the country. and if the Judge goes against him, shes racist or traveller movement be complaining.
I hate this double standards!:mad:

Capt'n Midnight

Amhran Nua wrote: »

True, but you can minimise the problem as much as possible. Like the Dutch, who just closed eight prisons for a lack of inmates.

Some five-hundred Belgian prisoners could be transferred to the Tilburg prison by 2010.

The Netherlands would get 30 million euros in the deal, and it will allow the closing of the prisons in Rotterdam and Veenhuizen to be postponed until 2012.

500 prisoners , (it it two years?) €30m

that would be only €30,000 per prisoner per year, I can see a solution to our prison over crowding !

Amhran Nua

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If even one of his kids turns out to be like him then from a financial point of view it would not be worth it as it's unlikely the other seven will all be continuously working at the average industrial wage, (eg. half the kids are probably female and so if working would receive less than average )

There's more to an economy than taxes. If you produced seven people on the average industrial wage out of that family, each of them will spend a lot more money over their lives than they pay in taxes and create what's known as the multiplier effect.

Plus, they won't be getting the full amount forever, the kids become ineligible at age 16 or 18. Their rental allowance and other allowances drop when that happens.

galwayrush wrote: »

We are not, don't know why.

The self employed don't pay class A PRSI contributions, that's the employer's contribution. There's a lot more to it but basically if you want social welfare entitlements you need to pay 10% to 15% more taxes than you are. Most people don't pay that out of their own wages by the way, their employer pays it.

Kernel

gabhain7 wrote: »

A society that penalises its productive members from reproducing while inducing its less productive (who presumably bring up their offspring with a less then healthy work ethic) is creating long term problems for itself where each generation has greater and greater numbers dependent on state handouts.

This is the most sensible thing posted in this thread imo. I would consider myself a social darwinist, and a pragmatist. Hard working, decent people in this country, who pay taxes and mortgages are decreasing the number of children they have due to the fact that they are usually conscientious parents who are apprehensive to have a child they cannot provide for (either financially or tin terms of time and attention). On the contrary, the underclasses are spawning out of control, rewarded for their lethargic nature by our society.

The numbers don't add up, and long-term would suggest that the decent people of Ireland will end up outnumbered by mongrels. What kind of future is that for the race? An unnatural one created by a skewed system whereby we reward the undesirable element and penalise the decent element.

galwayrush

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The self employed don't pay class A PRSI contributions, that's the employer's contribution. There's a lot more to it but basically if you want social welfare entitlements you need to pay 10% to 15% more taxes than you are. Most people don't pay that out of their own wages by the way, their employer pays it.

That's the reason i laid off 5 people last year, busy enough to employ them, but couldn't afford the contributions.

sligopark

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If he is a member of the travelling community then he's likely to have a much shorter life expectancy than the rest of us.

Does that change things in anyones view ?

don't mean to be rude but so what - elderly folk all over the west and north west had their life expectancies unexpectedly shortened by travellers.

Nally shot up the frog ward and the tying up, robbing and killing of isolated elderly folk dropped to almost nothing.

Does that change anything in your view?

Dubba

galwayrush wrote: »

We are not, don't know why.

I could be wrong here but I thought self employed people are exempt from JSB but not from JSA, i.e. means test.
See link below from citizensinformation.ie:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/self_employed_and_unemployment.html

Amhran Nua

Kernel wrote: »

I would consider myself a social darwinist

Ah, one of the pillars of Nazi ideology.

At least you're upfront about it.

Monty Burnz

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If even one of his kids turns out to be like him then from a financial point of view it would not be worth it as it's unlikely the other seven will all be continuously working at the average industrial wage, (eg. half the kids are probably female and so if working would receive less than average )

If they are traveller women, then for cultural reasons they won't work outside the home, as I understand it, so they'll pay no tax at all.

Kernel

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ah, one of the pillars of Nazi ideology.

At least you're upfront about it.

Ah Godwins.

Social darwinism is survival of the fittest in our society. I'm not a believer in eugenics or racial superiority. I should also clarify that I am in favour of society protecting the elderly and disabled. So I wouldn't be a jackboot type in regard to all our problems - but several of them could be alleviated if the pendulum of political correctness and liberalism swung back slightly towards the reality of our current dire situation.

sligopark

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If they are traveller women, then for cultural reasons they won't work outside the home

laziness

Capt'n Midnight

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

It's ridiculous that someone should be able to run up 56 convictions.

Especially ones involving violence and risk to life. I must say this is the third driver that would scare me into not cycling again. ( Limerick guy killing Guard, the L driver killing the cyclist )

55 previous sentences didn't work. The public weren't protected after all that. The prisoner wasn't reformed. Something new needs to be tried. Maybe sending to The Netherlands , restorative justice, tagging upon release, curfews, all with a carrot and stick approach.


Suggestions -
parole boards to have some incentive in prisoners behaviour after release. eg: bonus paid after time depending on % that haven't reoffended yet.

no concurrent sentences for any crimes committed on bail ( if you can't behave yourself on bail ... )

three strikes is crazy, but for those who don't try to reform there should be some pressure to conform. People need to realise they can't keep on behaving anti socially and profit from it.

CAT scans to check for psychopaths - the big problem is that they can pass parole - I'd also recommend this for executives and those in power BTW

Amhran Nua

Kernel wrote: »

Ah Godwins.

Social darwinism is survival of the fittest in our society. I'm not a believer in eugenics or racial superiority. I should also clarify that I am in favour of society protecting the elderly and disabled. So I wouldn't be a jackboot type in regard to all our problems - but several of them could be alleviated if the pendulum of political correctness and liberalism swung back slightly towards the reality of our current dire situation.

Hey, you're the one talking about race, underclasses, and spawning mongrels. And so many thanks as well? Interesting. Although I see some people have already removed theirs.

Kernel

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

55 previous sentences didn't work. The public weren't protected after all that. The prisoner wasn't reformed. Something new needs to be tried. Maybe sending to The Netherlands , restorative justice, tagging upon release, curfews, all with a carrot and stick approach.

I think a part of the problem may have been that the chap probably didn't serve 55 sentences. Some of those convictions were likely fines (which he most likely didn't pay - and which crucially - cannot be deducted from his social welfare payments). Some other convictions may have accrued and all been lumped into a concurrent sentence (eg. 5 different charges racked up over a 6 month bail spree which result in 5 convictions with one sentence of x months).

We don't have enough prison space. Another thing we need urgently is the legislation provided to allow fines to be deducted from social welfare payments.

ArtSmart

Bullseye1 wrote: »

And self employed people out of work are entitled to nothing. WOW. We really do reward to leeches in this country.

the term is 'transitionally employed.'

amazing, all it takes is one post of an exceptional individual (and McDonagh is pretty exceptional, in many ways) and our country is doomed to the sucking power of minions of 'leeches'.

whiteonion

As I said before, shooting him would be cheaper and more benificial for society as a whole. I don't believe in human rights for criminals just like rabid dogs don't have any rights.

Kernel

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Hey, you're the one talking about race, underclasses, and spawning mongrels. And so many thanks as well? Interesting. Although I see some people have already removed theirs.

So you think I'm a nazi? As in National Socialist? Fascist? Wow, real oversimplified political classing system you have there, based on my opinion on one issue.

sligopark

ArtSmart wrote: »

the term is 'transitionally employed.'

travellers .... transitionally employed .... something is not computing here....

ArtSmart

whiteonion wrote: »

As I said before, shooting him would be cheaper and more benificial for society as a whole. I don't believe in human rights for criminals just like rabid dogs don't have any rights.

problem is once the gun is loaded....


kinda hard to stop.


Edit: hmmmm, i better explain that. i mean society decends into chaos with that approach. or the States, as we call it.

ArtSmart

sligopark wrote: »

travellers .... transitionally employed .... something is not computing here....

he he.
that's what happens when one's circuits are too hard wired.

hinault

Terminate all social welfare payments to this individual immediately.

Amhran Nua

Kernel wrote: »

So you think I'm a nazi? As in National Socialist? Fascist? Wow, real oversimplified political classing system you have there, based on my opinion on one issue.

Your words, not mine.

Kernel

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Your words, not mine.

Well, I'm simply following on from your insinuations. Nevermind, I know it's difficult to get a straight answer from a politician - even an aspiring one.