**MOD NOTE UPDATED**Limerick woman complains about living in 3 bed house with 4 kids

Cee-Jay-Cee

suicide_circus wrote: »

This woman is a hero.
The gf and I have been so inspired by her story that we are quitting our jobs, stop paying tax, rent etc and starting a large family we cant afford so we will be entitled to dole, housing and a load of financial allowances.

Claim your a traveller too and you'll get even more handouts and free reign to do what you please!

mikom

El Weirdo wrote: »

Can I just take this?

If her income is €600 p/w, then her rent, depending if the husband is a joint tenent or just an additional occupant could be anything up to €120 p/w.

..........

thebigbiffo

ScumLord wrote: »

I was going to say someone would accuse the children who've done nothing of being low lifes but I thought I'd let someone say it instead.

monkey see monkey do...

I'm not accusing the children of anything - I'm accusing the mother of raising them to think if they pop a few sprogs out and never work they'll be 'entitled' to let taxpayers pay for their (very reasonable) lifestyle.

what's wrong with that?

mikom

Dubit10 wrote: »

Lol you pay the TV licence

Shush you.......

El Weirdo

thebigbiffo wrote: »

if you choose to rent without being 'entitled' to local authority housing - you'll be evicted if you dont pay. she wont, or at the very least it'll take years...

Private landlords have to go through the same legal procedures as local authorities when it comes to evicting tenant, be it for no-payment of rent or any other break of the lease agreement.

The only difference possibly might be that LAs may take a little longer to begin proceedings as eviction is normally a last-resort due to the cost involved (to the tax-payer at the end of the day).

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

I wouldn't see it that way, she's contributed a handful of children to Irelands future.

With a childhood spent with two parents forever in receipt of SW. While many kids do escape that with good parenting regardless, many more do not, so hardly ideal by any measure.

People are still much more important than taxes in every conceivable way.

Not when there aren't enough of one type of the former paying enough of the latter to support the lives and too often lifestyles of another group of the former. Somethings gotta give.

D1stant wrote:

The SW system bloating that happened over the last 15 years. If you make SW tat attractive its going to have long and deep repercussions

QFT. To replace their combined income from social welfare, plus the other allowances that being on SW brings with it minimum wage jobs would not cut it, or very barely. The incentive is lost. When people(and not just her) are going on about holidays and the like it's beyond stupid. I really don't think people(and not just in Ireland) have a real sense of the potential economic and social bomb that is damn close to going off in Europe. While stuff like this didn't light the fuse, it's certainly fanning the fuse to burn down faster.

golden lane

ireland , like some other countries in the eu....are in an awful fincial mess....

it is obvious from some posts on here.....that mess will continue for a long time into the future...

micropig

jennythomas764 wrote: »

i m also sharing my room with my sister.....

Peasant, take your hands out of your pocket and hold them out for the monies from the social:p

Logical Fallacy

Good post out of Wibbs there, lots of sense as per usual.

Too much extremism on either side of the line in this thread for me. In my view there is no way that woman should have been increasing the size of her family in the situation she was in. That said, I still don't feel the need to lord it over her and have a "who has it hardest" contest.

mikom

jennythomas764 wrote: »

i m also sharing my room with my sister.....

Any pyjama party pillow fights?

thebigbiffo

El Weirdo wrote: »

Private landlords have to go through the same legal procedures as local authorities when it comes to evicting tenant, be it for no-payment of rent or any other break of the lease agreement.

The only difference possibly might be that LAs may take a little longer to begin proceedings as eviction is normally a last-resort due to the cost involved (to the tax-payer at the end of the day).

not disputing that - but a private landlord will start proceedings very very quickly...a local authority is loath to evict and it's the very very very last option. and indeed sometimes that's not even enough. apples and oranges there dude.

up for anything wrote: »

Have you 100% proof that the poster on the Limerick Leader thread is the real Serinna Corbett or could it be someone taking the piss?

i'm only assuming that the leader - plus people commenting from the start - would not be duped into someone of such a high profile being imitated.

token101

Dubit10 wrote: »

You know her personally do you?

I don't need to. She's looking for a bigger house because she can't stop having children. And she's off on holidays, after she promotes her 'cause' on the radio and in the papers. If she wants to pay for all this herself, fine. But she doesn't, taxpayers have to continously fork out in order to fund her life. She's a financial parasite and it's a disgrace that she's able to afford holidays on welfare when people earning minimum wage can't afford bills half the time, let alone holidays. Sound fair to you?

Logical Fallacy

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i'm only assuming that the leader - plus people commenting from the start - would not be duped into someone of such a high profile being imitated.

Ah come on Biffo, i could set up an account in her name right now and start posting and plenty of people would instantly assume it was me.

T'is the internet after all, best to take things with a pinch of salt.

Morlar

It's hard to reconcile this womans choices with the choices made by people who are working in low paid & stressful jobs on short term contracts, breaking their backs to pay their bills with no thoughts of being able to afford starting a family or of going on holiday.

thebigbiffo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Ah come on Biffo, i could set up an account in her name right now and start posting and plenty of people would instantly assume it was me.

T'is the internet after all, best to take things with a pinch of salt.

it looks like she’s been commenting from the start on that article and I read somewhere she’s been airing her view on the radio etc. maybe it’s not her, but I assumed the Leader would be moderating the story comments to ensure such a (libellous, maybe) thing wouldn’t happen.

Bock the Robber

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Exhaust vent for the gas boiler.

Does it say that in the article? I can't find it.

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

With a childhood spent with two parents forever in receipt of SW. While many kids do escape that with good parenting regardless, many more do not, so hardly ideal by any measure.

A child still has 200 times more potential than just about any amount of money. There a wasted resource not wasters.

Not when there aren't enough of one type of the former paying enough of the latter to support the lives and too often lifestyles of another group of the former. Somethings gotta give.

Flawed system, I wouldn't kick my dog for eating my cake if I leave it on the ground next to their feeding bowl.

The people on welfare aren't really the problem here. People adapt and find the easiest way of living it's what humans do, so I don't see why every ones so surprised or angry. I would also say 99% of the people complaining would do exactly the same thing in her position.

Morlar

ScumLord wrote: »

The people on welfare aren't really the problem here. People adapt and find the easiest way of living it's what humans do,...............

I am so sick of this bullshít 'ah sure we'd all do that' umm, 'no we fcuking would not' actually. Speak for yourself if you want but you do not speak for me.

Also the bullshít of - 'don't blame the player blame the game' sorry but the concept of personal responsibility may be on it's last legs but it's not completely killed off yet.

ScumLord

Morlar wrote: »

I am so sick of this bullshít 'ah sure we'd all do that' umm, 'no we fcuking would not' actually. Speak for yourself if you want but you do not speak for me.

Also the bullshít of - 'don't blame the player blame the game' sorry but the concept of personal responsibility may be on it's last legs but it's not completely killed off yet.

It's all well and good saying that but it doesn't seem to work out that way in real life. People will take whatever they can get that's the way it's always been and I don't see human nature changing just because others think it logically should. As long as the system is set up the way it is people will take advantage, it's just a fact of life and no amount of shouting and roaring will change that.

thebigbiffo

ScumLord wrote: »

It's all well and good saying that but it doesn't seem to work out that way in real life. People will take whatever they can get that's the way it's always been and I don't see human nature changing just because others think it logically should. As long as the system is set up the way it is people will take advantage, it's just a fact of life and no amount of shouting and roaring will change that.

You’re just plain wrong here. Most people do not think like that. There is a culture here that breed people who take, and know how to do it well. My parents didn’t raise me to be a sponger like this woman and I didn’t grow up surrounded by it, thereby making it normal. There’s plenty of people out there today who could simply give up and live of benefits but don’t because they see themselves as better than that, and believe they can make more of themselves than that.

This woman makes at least 32k cash in hand – the average industrial wage before tax is barely that – yet you think the majority of people would take it if they could…here’s news: THEY COULD…but don’t, because that’s not how people think. They strive for better, even if that means breaking your back to essentially provide this woman’s lifestyle – a lifestyle that most of us don’t want, and are prepared to pay the price to achieve.

I find your post narrow minded at best, very cynical at least.

Morlar

ScumLord wrote: »

It's all well and good saying .......

Wrong.

We are all eligible to do what this bint did. Not all of us choose to do it.

It is the fault of the person who does this and any attempts to make out 'sure we'd all do that' are simply incorrect. Attempts to absolve this bint of her personal responsibility also don't wash.

poldebruin

ScumLord wrote: »

A child still has 200 times more potential than just about any amount of money. There a wasted resource not wasters.

This makes no sense whatsoever. "..any amount of money" "...200 times the potential" - what are you on about? I'm all for leaving the children (and their likely futures) out of the argument, but to advocate that poor, socially disadvantaged and lifetime SW-receiving people should have large families that the rest of us support is ridiculous.

ScumLord wrote: »

The people on welfare aren't really the problem here. People adapt and find the easiest way of living it's what humans do, so I don't see why every ones so surprised or angry. I would also say 99% of the people complaining would do exactly the same thing in her position.

This is plainly untrue, the vast majority actively don't do this. We don't find the easiest way, in a functioning society we do what we feel is right, just, morally acceptable and beneficial to society and to ur family as a whole. If we all just "adapted" and found the "easiest way of living" there's be no one to support this chosen lifestyle. It does not say much for your way of thinking if you think 99% of people would act in a similar manner to this woman.

allibastor

she is a leech, plain and simple. i am currently looking into taking up a job with possible 60 hours a week out of home to be able to afford the kind of stuff she can do. i have not been on holidays in years and cant afford much. look at the nice decor of her house for god sake.

why should we have to pay for this crap. if she want a better life, go and grab it like the rest of us have to do.

muppetkiller

ScumLord wrote: »

Flawed system, I wouldn't kick my dog for eating my cake if I leave it on the ground next to their feeding bowl.

Love that quote and it's so true...but as much as this woman's cause makes my blood boil she is in this position because it's easy for her to be.

Time to Take away the Cake

mikom

ScumLord wrote: »

Flawed system, I wouldn't kick my dog for eating my cake if I leave it on the ground next to their feeding bowl.

Better get some more cake, as the dog has 4 pups, with another on the way.

shopaholic01

When I was younger I had to share a room with a sibling, my parents worked and we didn't have holidays - same as most families in the 70's and 80's. We would have been laughed at if we looked for a bigger house.

Now I am stuck woth a celtic tiger mortgage, so again no holidays. I am lucky to get through the month. Do I feel sorry for myself? Sometimes yes.
Do I expect other people to feel sorry for me and pay for my lifestyle choices? No.


Why should she? Because she has been on sw for 20 years? She couldn't manage to get a job in the boom years? Oh, and she couldn't work because she has kids is not an excuse.

Can't afford kids? Don't have them. If you do regardless don't expect the rest of us to pay for them, your bigger house and your holiday.

Thwip!

hairyprincess wrote: »

I didn't quote you. But it's quite obvious what camp you are in

Post number 388 in this thread. you clearly did quote him

ScumLord

poldebruin wrote: »

This makes no sense whatsoever. "..any amount of money" "...200 times the potential" - what are you on about?

People have unlimited potential. I work in production I've seen people go from sweeping floors to being highly paid over something as simple as a days course. They're still essentially the same machine so in a sense we're wasting high value machines at menial jobs like sweeping floors when they could be doing the job that we pay maybe millions for. The only major difference is programming.

I'm not going to argue the rest of it, I've made my point and if you want to continue to bicker in the hopes something will change best of luck.

dj jarvis

up for anything wrote: »

You live in a council estate? Does that mean you are renting from the council or bought your house from the council? If you, this also means you are getting something for nothing (according to some people) and eventually the people who have to rent privately or had to buy their house at a then 'realistic' price will turn on you too.



Who are the five people living in your two-bed apartment? Are they your children? Your fiance's children? How come you are in council accommodation when you can afford to go to college? Why haven't you applied for a job in MacDonalds? Why did you have children that you can only afford to raise in accommodation subsidised by those working? Why should you have a chance at having a house of your own when there are couples who have been working all their working life who can't afford to buy a house of their own?

None of these are nice questions. They are demeaning and intrusive, but when the social welfare problem has been sorted out to the satisfaction of the majority of the posters on this thread, then they will start looking at the amount of money being spent on council housing and you could find yourself defending your lifestyle.

wrong on all counts with your assumption,
i bought in a council estate becasue it was the cheapest in the area , i was offered mad money by the bank but did not take it , i needed a home not a millstone ,
the house was purchaed from a private seller so i did not buy at a " cheap " rate of the council neither have i rented it

you see im doing the right thing , im working , paying my way , did not over extend my self during the " boom " , i have a brain in my head , i dont live with my hand out whinging about how little i have

unlike this lady in question , and the majority of my neighbors#
i live in ground zero when it comes to SW shams and scams , and trust me if i told you the half of it i would be accused of making it up ( as i have been before )

one of my neighbors has 7 kids ,m never worked , is a nightmare to everyone else , gets every benefit going atbh is a total waste of skin and dna

so when you question why i get so worked up about these type of leeches , this is why , they have it handy compared to me and i work full time as does my wife

for me to get after tax as the low life down the road from me , i would have to earn 110,000 pre tax , now let that figure settle in your head , some wage if you can get it

and the real crime is the estate is full of these people and the county , and the country , so you can fool yourself about it , but trust me

the working of this country are being robbed by a certain sub class and they are laughing their ass off at us - and we should just sit back and say nothing????

not on my watch - leeching scum

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

A child still has 200 times more potential than just about any amount of money.

A lovely idea and one I'd love to subscribe to, but reality would likely disagree for the vast majority of people.

There a wasted resource not wasters.

Aye, but they(in the general sense) will end up on the negative side of the scale if we're not careful. Making a lifestyle choice of SW payments without "paying back" to the world at large is one sure way of doing that. In this case her being a force in the community offers some hope.

Flawed system, I wouldn't kick my dog for eating my cake if I leave it on the ground next to their feeding bowl.

Yes but thats comparing people with the instinctive(if untrained) nature of a dog.

The people on welfare aren't really the problem here. People adapt and find the easiest way of living it's what humans do, so I don't see why every ones so surprised or angry. I would also say 99% of the people complaining would do exactly the same thing in her position.

Like others I would stridently disagree with this notion, however common it's currency may be among the left/liberal side. Again it abdicates responsibility in a most lazy manner. The simple fact is a majority do not do exactly the same thing, yet have the opportunity to do so. At various times in my life when things were financially tough through circumstance or indeed my own stupidity I could have gone down that road. I didn't. It would take a helluva shift in my life map, before I would.

Why? Personal responsibility and a strong conviction that I should be as little of a burden on my fellow men and women as is within my power to be. If God forbid I was struck down with a disability tomorrow, I would of course avail of any help that I felt I deserved from my fellows. That's not in question.

What is in question for me are the many out there who are not diminished in vitality who take more than give. Oh and yes the mechanism that allows them to do that. I mean look at that other recent case of a guy who had gained entry to a house is some ghost estate. IIRC he was on SW for a physical disability, yet said disability didn't hinder him from rebuilding the house in question.

Don't get me wrong, I know quite a number of people in receipt of SW who do a lot of work in their communities, who give back, who pay our society back in kind. I have no issue with those folks. I only have issue with those who take the piss and IMHO they make up the greater number.

dj jarvis

Dubit10 wrote: »

80%. Did you take a head count.

well seeing i actually live in the estate for the last 6 years,and my area has the highest unemployment rate in the county ,

i would imagine i would have more of a idea than you and your pointless comment

i live next door to these people, you dont , so its fair to assume i would know more about them that you really

really , the argument coming from the pro camp is just getting so random, its getting funny , because you cant defend the indefensible

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

People have unlimited potential.

Some people have unlimited* potential. Most either don't or never exploit it.











*Well when I say unlimited, I'd say more less limited than they think.

mummymoo

when i was young there was 8 people in a 2 bedroom house and we didnt even have a bath or shower just a toilet... and no heating. no one complained! people just expect too much these days, 'tiz a recession ya know' -_-

mikom

ScumLord wrote: »

People have unlimited potential. I work in production I've seen people go from sweeping floors to being highly paid over something as simple as a days course. They're still essentially the same machine so in a sense we're wasting high value machines at menial jobs like sweeping floors when they could be doing the job that we pay maybe millions for. The only major difference is programming.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-rN3owOqBk

Shallow hal wants a gal bigger gaff.

poldebruin

ScumLord wrote: »

People have unlimited potential. I work in production I've seen people go from sweeping floors to being highly paid over something as simple as a days course. They're still essentially the same machine so in a sense we're wasting high value machines at menial jobs like sweeping floors when they could be doing the job that we pay maybe millions for. The only major difference is programming.

I'm not going to argue the rest of it, I've made my point and if you want to continue to bicker in the hopes something will change best of luck.

Of course you can say people have unlimited potential - saying this adds nothing to what is being discussed. The problem is that very few people will ever meet this unlimited potential, least of all people from disadvantaged area (statistically)

We will continue to "bicker". You made your point and everyone has rubbished it, so you're signing off. Best of luck.

Daisy M

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Questioning something is not naievity, it's questioning something.

Until you lose the instant need to mildly discredit anyone you don't perceive as instantly agreeing with you you shall be speaking to the converted, which is a small audience in any AH thread tbh.

But I am questioning things, others are willing to just accept that because this woman says she needs a bigger house that she does, they believe her when she says the house was uninhabitable when she moved in, they believe she has and nor should she have control on if she gets pregnant or not.

I am questioning why some people are so quick to believe everything she has to say when the facts are: this woman lives in a 3 bedroom house and chooses to allow her young child sleep in a room with a sibling who doctors say may hurt him rather than in her own room. She believes her house is too small and that she does not have any promises of receiving a bigger house from the council but she continues to have more children. How can someone on social welfare afford to go on holidays each year? What kind of mother publically outs her teenage son as been adhd and possibly violent in a local newspaper where his peers will be able to read the story. What type of parent allows their children to live in a house where they believe carbon monoxide is present?

I am not trying to discredit anyone I suppose I am more perplexed by their willingness to accept a story with such glaring discrepancies. Possibly many of this womans ardent defenders have the same attitude when it comes to welfare?

Also for the record I dont agree with people calling her a slut and other deragoratory names but I do believe she is an out and out scrounger and is not acting in the best interests of her children.

LimGal

Dubit10 wrote: »

You know her personally do you?

So do you think she deserves a holiday like she obviously thinks does?

micropig

Daisy M wrote: »

she says the house was uninhabitable when she moved in, they believe she has and nor should she have control on if she gets pregnant or not.

I don't buy this either: She would have been in the local paper at the time crying about the dump the council wanted her to move in to and she being homeless and all..:rolleyes:

Daisy M wrote: »

chooses to allow her young child sleep in a room with a sibling who doctors say may hurt him rather than in her own room. What kind of mother publically outs her teenage son as been adhd and possibly violent in a local newspaper where his peers will be able to read the story. What type of parent allows their children to live in a house where they believe carbon monoxide is present?

I don't buy this either: young child shares her room
Good point about the publicity & affect this will have on the child

CO present? Again she would have move to her mothers for a week and got the papers down before this


Even if all the above are true....why have another baby?

micropig

LimGal wrote: »

So do you think she deserves a holiday like she obviously thinks does?

Yes, she has to get away from the depravity for a week:p

The King of Moo

Daisy M wrote: »

But I am questioning things, others are willing to just accept that because this woman says she needs a bigger house that she does, they believe her when she says the house was uninhabitable when she moved in, they believe she has and nor should she have control on if she gets pregnant or not.

I am questioning why some people are so quick to believe everything she has to say when the facts are: this woman lives in a 3 bedroom house and chooses to allow her young child sleep in a room with a sibling who doctors say may hurt him rather than in her own room. She believes her house is too small and that she does not have any promises of receiving a bigger house from the council but she continues to have more children. How can someone on social welfare afford to go on holidays each year? What kind of mother publically outs her teenage son as been adhd and possibly violent in a local newspaper where his peers will be able to read the story. What type of parent allows their children to live in a house where they believe carbon monoxide is present?

I am not trying to discredit anyone I suppose I am more perplexed by their willingness to accept a story with such glaring discrepancies. Possibly many of this womans ardent defenders have the same attitude when it comes to welfare?

Also for the record I dont agree with people calling her a slut and other deragoratory names but I do believe she is an out and out scrounger and is not acting in the best interests of her children.

There have been few posters, if any, who've stated that they unquestioningly believe her story.

I have noticed a few people stating that they were refusing to jump to conclusions about her without the requisite information.

There's a crucial difference between the two.

And I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that anyone praising her (again, not many people unquestioningly doing that in this thread) shares her attitude towards welfare (which I assume you're assuming is one of entitlement).

LimGal

ScumLord wrote: »

A child still has 200 times more potential than just about any amount of money. There a wasted resource not wasters.


Flawed system, I wouldn't kick my dog for eating my cake if I leave it on the ground next to their feeding bowl.

The people on welfare aren't really the problem here. People adapt and find the easiest way of living it's what humans do, so I don't see why every ones so surprised or angry. I would also say 99% of the people complaining would do exactly the same thing in her position.

I thinks its gas that people on here are saying that if she can get away with it and the government allows it then fairplay to her and we should all just be p!ssed off with the government and not her.

If we were allowed by our government to stone women like they do in Iran then should no one get upset,angry or be disgusted at the neanderthals throwing the rocks because its all the fault of the clowns in power for permitting it.

Normal functioning members of society have to have personal responibility for their actions and the situations they get themselves into.

ejmaztec

We should also extend our thanks to Irish governments over the decades for building concentration-kips for marginalised people to be dumped in. The governments were obviously quite happy to have them festering away with nothing to do, providing that they kept out of everybody else's way. The problems created by these governments has now come back to bite us all on the arse, because all the governments have done is create a full-time benefits class.

alphanine

forfuxsake wrote: »

American system of Employment. (during growth stage of economic cycle)

1. Get a job doing something you like and you are good at.
2. Not being able to get the job you want, then man-up and get the job you need to support yourself and your family.
3. Don't want to get a job at all? then good luck with the destitution

American system of employment(during recession stage of economic cycle)

1. Get a job doing something you like and you are good at.
2. Can't get any job due to the economic reality that there are more people unemployed than there are jobs? Then fúck off and live under a bridge you lazy cúnt.

The first stage is fair enough and should have been activated under the celtic tiger. Blame the Fianna Fail government for not doing so and for buying elections with high welfare. Blaming the unemployed is futile and a distraction from what actually happened.

There is a welfare safety net in the US but cretins like the lady in question would not be able to rape the tax payer as she does in the US. Unemployment benefits in the US are actually quite high but taper off in normal times which is common sense. However, Obama is kicking on benefits during this prolonged recession.

Section 8 housing ("da ghetto") would make you want to go and do something/anything to get out of there and get a job. A request seeking better accommodation would not be entertained, let alone getting to meet an elected official.

There is no real way without drastic change in this country to make lessen our €20bn welfare bill. But hey, in the interim, we can look forward to a multiplier effect of welfare dependants as their values mirror those of their parents.

Daisy M

The King of Moo wrote: »

There have been few posters, if any, who've stated that they unquestioningly believe her story.

I have noticed a few people stating that they were refusing to jump to conclusions about her without the requisite information.

There's a crucial difference between the two.

And I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that anyone praising her (again, not many people unquestioningly doing that in this thread) shares her attitude towards welfare (which I assume you're assuming is one of entitlement).

Maybe it is unfair, maybe these people have a softer attitude than I and I am sorry but I do think that makes them a little naieve, even if they are the nicest people on earth.

There has been a lot of finger pointing that people are presuming a lot of things about this woman and do not know the whole story. This is an way of trying to gain the upper hand. Calling posters judgemental and presuming in order to undermine their point of view is plain silly. While I dont see myself to be particularly judgemental I am able to tell the difference between right and wrong and this womans demands are wrong. While I wouldnt like to presume things about other people I like to believe I have an ok judge of caracter.

Earlier in my post I said if her house was in bad repair she would have pictures up, well I am correct her house is extremely modern and well furnished. I said that if all the children had one father then he would have been mentioned, again I was correct her husband is not the father of her two oldest children. I am not clairvoyant, experience has taught me to read between the lines and I believe this lady is one of the "he who shouts loudest wins" brigade, unfortunatly it has backfired for her somewhat!!

LimGal

Daisy M wrote: »

Maybe it is unfair, maybe these people have a softer attitude than I and I am sorry but I do think that makes them a little naieve, even if they are the nicest people on earth.

There has been a lot of finger pointing that people are presuming a lot of things about this woman and do not know the whole story. This is an way of trying to gain the upper hand. Calling posters judgemental and presuming in order to undermine their point of view is plain silly. While I dont see myself to be particularly judgemental I am able to tell the difference between right and wrong and this womans demands are wrong. While I wouldnt like to presume things about other people I like to believe I have an ok judge of caracter.

Earlier in my post I said if her house was in bad repair she would have pictures up, well I am correct her house is extremely modern and well furnished. I said that if all the children had one father then he would have been mentioned, again I was correct her husband is not the father of her two oldest children. I am not clairvoyant, experience has taught me to read between the lines and I believe this lady is one of the "he who shouts loudest wins" brigade, unfortunatly it has backfired for her somewhat!!

Well said Daisy M.

kinsy4

Am sick of this regeneration idea from some muppet politicians. The idea is to spread these wasters into areas where people own there own houses and then for me and my kids to influence their kids to be decent citizens. Thats not whats happening. These wasters are getting free houses, free wheelie bins, no household charge and in the future no water charges. And they expect me to accept them. Hows about giving free abortions. Problem solved.

El Weirdo

kinsy4 wrote: »

Am sick of this regeneration idea from some muppet politicians. The idea is to spread these wasters into areas where people own there own houses and then for me and my kids to influence their kids to be decent citizens. Thats not whats happening. These wasters are getting free houses, free wheelie bins, no household charge and in the future no water charges. And they expect me to accept them. Hows about giving free abortions. Problem solved.

From Boards' new translate feature:

kinsy4 wrote: »

I don't want poor people living near me.

Eric Cartman

El Weirdo wrote: »

From Boards' new translate feature:

nothign wrong with that, its why houses cost more in certain areas, a type of economic redlining if you will.

CB19Kevo

Its the fact that we have a system in this country that rewards bad family planning and allows kids to be brought up by unfit parents.

What does she expect from the state ?
I know plenty of people who shared rooms with there brothers/sisters and many of these had parents who were high earners yet they did not feel as though it was something of concern.

Not suprised by all this:rolleyes:... and that is the scary part.

Robdude

Hopefully we can find more taxes to add so that poor Irish women can continue to have children and upgrade to bigger houses.

I'm worried this new water tax won't be enough. Perhaps an air tax?