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

cloud493

Someone thats been on welfare that long, it would be a safe assumption that she doesn't have any plans to come off it. In fairness, she has 5 kids. But at the same time, thats no reason to say why she can't earn for herself, or why the dad can't chip in for his family.

Kalel

cloud493 wrote: »

Someone thats been on welfare that long, it would be a safe assumption that she doesn't have any plans to come off it. In fairness, she has 5 kids. But at the same time, thats no reason to say why she can't earn for herself, or why the dad can't chip in for his family.

You presume the singular..more than likely not and I would also guess that there's no fathers name on any of the birth certs ..easier to claim that way as there is no father to track down for payments

banie01

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/lo...kids-1-3764536
I see that after making an absolute balls of their attempts to moderate the comments on the article, that the Leader seems to have decided to cut its losses and remove the article!

Dudess

Daisy M wrote: »

I have noticed a bit of a trend here in ah, when people voice an opinion on a certain situation, they are shot down by posters who dont agree and told they are assuming/presuming and been judgemental. What a load of rubbish!!

But it's not merely for expressing an opinion disagreed with - I've noticed a trend of that being constantly churned out here and it's also absolute rubbish a lot of the time too. What Thrill is referring to, I'm guessing, is the kind of extreme, thought-free stuff that, for example, lumps all those on the dole into the scroungers category; all public servants into the state-pampered category; all single mothers into the same category this woman occupies; that people on benefits have the life of reilly and lots of expensive stuff (not mathematically possible on benefits alone) etc. You know yourself.

Amalgam

Dudess wrote: »

But it's not merely for expressing an opinion disagreed with - I've noticed a trend of that being constantly churned out here and it's also absolute rubbish a lot of the time too. What Thrill is referring to, I'm guessing, is the kind of extreme, thought-free stuff that, for example, lumps all those on the dole into the scroungers category; all public servants into the state-pampered category; all single mothers into the same category this woman occupies, etc. You know yourself.

You're making assumptions too, with your post!

For a good few members of boards.ie, sadly, having a slag as a family relative, isn't an exotic article, on peoples lives, somewhere else..

I have a relative that has produced 'more' children than the people featured in this thread. I believe, having known her from way back, that she wanted some sort of, 'respect'.. and assumed that motherhood would bring that about.

Education is the key, that includes widening someone's horizons, their expectations for their life. That education and input has to start early though.

Dudess

Sorry if it looks that way - I'm not making assumptions about people across the board, I'm referring to a specific type of post. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

Amalgam wrote: »

Education is the key, that includes widening someone's horizons, their expectations for their life. That education and input has to start early though.

For sure. The problem is how to implement it, how to change attitudes to it - especially in a culture of no education and of poverty. In my school there was an over-riding sense of lack of ambition, lack of respect for education - it's easy to get sucked in. I was grand ultimately but people from poorer backgrounds in my school didn't stand a chance.

Thrill

Daisy M wrote: »

Calling people judgmental, assuming and presuming is a lazy way of debating.

You have that backwards. Its far easier to assume,presume and make judgements about things than to do research and find out the true facts about a subject.

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

Not remotely defending the above waster piss-taing but I'm just saying there are things this woman has done which lots of naysayers are guilty of but they suddenly become purer than the virgin Mary on threads like this.

Nobody's council house is their own either in fairness - unless they buy it.

I think that the difference is that there are certainly posters here who had kids due to lack of contraception or education but few I imagine most learnt their lesson pretty quickly. The woman in question is one who cannot afford the kids she has and is reliant upon the government to keep them in food, clothing, trips abroad, etc is now about to pop out another kid. Sad as it is to say but this kid will most likely be another drain on the economy and get in on the family business. I hope I'm wrong and her kids do in the future contribute to society but alas I see this as another generation who will see working the system as a career.

Daisy M

Dudess wrote: »

But it's not merely for expressing an opinion disagreed with - I've noticed a trend of that being constantly churned out here and it's also absolute rubbish a lot of the time too. What Thrill is referring to, I'm guessing, is the kind of extreme, thought-free stuff that, for example, lumps all those on the dole into the scroungers category; all public servants into the state-pampered category; all single mothers into the same category this woman occupies, etc. You know yourself.

Ya I get you some people will just assume the absolute worst but in fairness not everybody does and even then they get called judgmental or told they are making assumptions. Thrill wasnt entertaining any assumptions even the most obvious ones because they were assumptions.

Daisy M

Thrill wrote: »

You have that backwards. Its far easier to assume,presume and make judgements about things than to do research and find out the true facts about a subject.

You have not given one fact and you have called some of the posters who have stalkers. Plenty of people have given actual facts and you have shot them down with the assuming/presuming line, now thats lazy.

Emzyxoxo

how do i find the article? D link isnt working for me and cant find it on the leader site! was it removed?

downey2003

[QUOTE= not complaining that the free house you got isn't big enough for your ever increasing family.[/QUOTE]

What free house? Is it a pub? No. It's a Council house. She pays rent for it I presume.

ejmaztec

Deleted User wrote: »

The sad fact is that decent hard working people will be continuously screwed over by the system while scroungers will bleed the system for every last scent they can get their hands on. Far too many people see the dole as a career, they pop out their first kid at 16 and ten years later, having never worked a day in their lives they have 4 or 5 more kids and a bigger disposable income than many couples who have to scrimp and save to afford to pay the bills.

I hope they haven't heard of Chanel No. 5, or we're even more screwed.:mad:

El Weirdo

Emzyxoxo wrote: »

how do i find the article? D link isnt working for me and cant find it on the leader site! was it removed?

It was removed from the site. Here's a cached version:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KqsxUpHx790J:www.limerickleader.ie/news/local/limerick-s-serinna-in-despair-over-home-for-kids-1-3764536+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

downey2003

[QUOTEthe house that you were given for free by the rest of us,
[/QUOTE]

Where do you ALL get the idea that council houses are for FREE??

token101

Dudess wrote: »

Hard to have sympathy for her, but what's the "free house" stuff about? Local authority tenants are charged rent. And the property doesn't have to be luxurious of course but it shouldn't be in an unsafe state of repair either, especially when there are children.

No guarantees the kid doesn't have ADHD either - "The kid is just a sh1t"/"It's just due to shyte parenting" always gets trotted out but can anyone prove there's no ADHD?

Well it is free really. She pays rent, but where does she get the rent? Welfare. So in her case at least, whatever way you're looking at it, it is free. She doesn't contribute anything towards it from earnings, so how could it not be free? It's just smoke and mirrors! It isn't remotely like a mortgage where you can be evicted and face financial ruin. You can't/won't pay the rent, what happens? Nothing. How do I know that? Well I don't, but I don't see anyone with kids living under a bridge in this country either. So they get provided for one way or another regardless.

On the ADHD, no guarantees and no one knows for sure, it is speculation on all sides. But it's strange the way ADHD is prevalent in these cases and not in more stable environments. Also strange how the entire thing is a very new phenomenon that even a lot of leading psychiatrists are skeptical about. She said on the Limerick radio show that she fears that the older child will 'bate the baby off the ground and kill him'. Now if she's not bullsh*tting to make people take more notice, and if she's telling the truth, that's actually horrific. Is there any other case of someone with ADHD ever doing that? I'm not a professional, but that sounds like something far worse like a psychosis of some sort. He shouldn't be even in the house if that's the case. He's clearly an ever present danger and should be in residential care away from other children.

Also very difficult to feel sorry for her when she keeps saying she's being victimised purely for being from Moyross and from a 'lower class'. She knows it's bollocks and she has to know that everyone else knows that as well. She also kept asking in the interview would people prefer if she was out drinking, as if she should be commended for not making even more problems for herself and her children. She's taking the f***ing piss and she's so deluded by the system created by this state that she's thinking of herself as a victim. It's daft that people on here think the state should pander that sort of nonsense.

Dudess

I agree with a lot of that - not saying she's a victim at all, but there is always a bigger picture. She didn't emerge from a vacuum. The ADHD thing - isn't it new because it's only recently recognised?

banie01

token101 wrote: »

She said on the Limerick radio show that she fears that the older child will 'bate the baby off the ground and kill him'. Now if she's not bullsh*tting to make people take more notice, and if she's telling the truth, that's actually horrific. Is there any other case of someone with ADHD ever doing that? I'm not a professional, but that sounds like something far worse like a psychosis of some sort. He shouldn't be even in the house if that's the case. He's clearly an ever present danger and should be in residential care away from other children.

I actually think the fact she applied this label to her son is horrorific!
Whatever the lads issue's are being labelled as possibly violent, by your own mother in a story that has gained national exposure....
That kid is going to have a rough time of it from now on aside from any health issues.
His peer group aren't gonna let that slide whenever they get a chance to rib him over it.
And when he reacts, is it his mothers fault for giving them the ammo?
Or is it due to his ADHD?
She has damned him to a lifetime of baby basher comments....

ejmaztec

token101 wrote: »

Well it is free really. She pays rent, but where does she get the rent? Welfare. So in her case at least, whatever way you're looking at it, it is free. She doesn't contribute anything towards it from earnings, so how could it not be free? It's just smoke and mirrors! It isn't remotely like a mortgage where you can be evicted and face financial ruin. You can't/won't pay the rent, what happens? Nothing. How do I know that? Well I don't, but I don't see anyone with kids living under a bridge in this country either. So they get provided for one way or another regardless.

On the ADHD, no guarantees and no one knows for sure, it is speculation on all sides. But it's strange the way ADHD is prevalent in these cases and not in more stable environments. Also strange how the entire thing is a very new phenomenon that even a lot of leading psychiatrists are skeptical about. She said on the Limerick radio show that she fears that the older child will 'bate the baby off the ground and kill him'. Now if she's not bullsh*tting to make people take more notice, and if she's telling the truth, that's actually horrific. Is there any other case of someone with ADHD ever doing that? I'm not a professional, but that sounds like something far worse like a psychosis of some sort. He shouldn't be even in the house if that's the case. He's clearly an ever present danger and should be in residential care away from other children.

Also very difficult to feel sorry for her when she keeps saying she's being victimised purely for being from Moyross and from a 'lower class'. She knows it's bollocks and she has to know that everyone else knows that as well. She also kept asking in the interview would people prefer if she was out drinking, as if she should be commended for not making even more problems for herself and her children. She's taking the f***ing piss and she's so deluded by the system created by this state that she's thinking of herself as a victim. It's daft that people on here think the state should pander that sort of nonsense.

You aren't actually going to hear about it where normal family situations exist, because it wouldn't get reported. I know one normal family that's never lived on benefits, whose son has ADHD. He has meds prescribed for the condition, and the family gets Domiciliary Care Allowance, the same as the Limerick woman. I'm fairly certain the government wouldn't go out of its way to cough up money for a bogus disease, and I'm ever more certain that a GP wouldn't be prescribing expensive drugs for a bogus disease either.

dj jarvis

downey2003 wrote: »

[QUOTEthe house that you were given for free by the rest of us,

Where do you ALL get the idea that council houses are for FREE??[/QUOTE]


did she have to come up with 32,000 euro towards the deposit WHILE renting during the boom as i did ???
i did not go out , buy clothes nothing for nearly 2 years to scrape the cash for a deposit ( offered 110% mortgage but not daft enough to take it )

does she have to pay a small fortune each month to service the mortgage ?
does she have to pay house hold tax , water rates or in fact ANY ****ING TAX AT ALL ??

big no to all of the above - Christ even the council have to maintain the place free of charge for her
so in comparison she gets it for " free " , she pays a nominal charge
on top of the nearly 40k plus after tax she gets in benefits

she pays nothing and gains everything - said it once and say it again

a fu2king leech - stop defending the indefensible

people really need to sit down and realize how much pond scum are fllecing us by each year , our children , our parents all law abiding tax payers are being robbed and gobsh1ts are trying to defend this ??

now wonder we have a reputation of being thick , because we must be if we allow this carry on

open your ****1ng eyes

ejmaztec

ejmaztec wrote: »

I hope they haven't heard of Chanel No. 5, or we're even more screwed.:mad:

One of the drawbacks of typing on a phone.

tbh some Chanel No. 5 wouldnt go a miss for some of them, just back from the shop where there was a 30somethign woman in her pyjamas buying a bottle of buckfast and the smell of BO was hard to ignore.

Thrill

Daisy M wrote: »

You have not given one fact

How can I give you facts about her when I don't have any other than whats in the story?

and you have called some of the posters who have stalkers.

Do you mean I called certain posters stalkers?

Plenty of people have given actual facts and you have shot them down with the assuming/presuming line, now thats lazy.

No I haven't. The poster I was addressing said he/she was going to make an assumption, then called the woman irresponsible based on it as though it was a fact.

I wasn't having a go at you Daisy M, if that's what you think.

ejmaztec

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the drawbacks of typing on a phone.

tbh some Chanel No. 5 wouldnt go a miss for some of them, just back from the shop where there was a 30somethign woman in her pyjamas buying a bottle of buckfast and the smell of BO was hard to ignore.

That was probably Canal No. 5 :P

Daisy M

Daisy M wrote: »

You have not given one fact and you have called some of the posters who have stalkers. Plenty of people have given actual facts and you have shot them down with the assuming/presuming line, now thats lazy.

Thrill wrote: »

How can I give you facts about her when I don't have any other than whats in the story?



Do you mean I called certain posters stalkers?



No I haven't. The poster I was addressing said he/she was going to make an assumption, then called the woman irresponsible based on it as though it was a fact.

I wasn't having a go at you Daisy M, if that's what you think.

That was all one line I missed a comma, but the way you quoted it confused even me, you had me thinking that I thought some of the posters had stalkers!!!

No I didnt think you were having a go at me, but more making the call that we are all in the wrong to make any assumptions/judgements on the way this woman chooses to live her life. I dont think any of us would get very far in everyday life if we werent able to do this and I do believe that on here its a line that gets trotted out way to much.

I understand your point that this woman is not doing anything legally wrong but if everone in our society had the same attitude as her, we would be well up sh1tcreek. Something in our system is wrong when someone who doesnt work and is better off financially than many employees thinks she should have more.

micropig

MOYROSS MUM DEFENDS CALLS FOR A BIGGER HOUSE
25 April 2012
A Moyross mother is defending her call for a four-bedroom house from Limerick City Council.
Serinna Corbett has been subjected to a torrent of online criticism since her story appeared in the Limerick Leader on Monday.
The mother-of four-is expecting her fifth child and she says her 18 month old son is unsafe sharing a bedroom with her 13-year-old who suffers from violent fits.
Speaking on Live95fm's Limerick Today, Serinna said she's been shocked and hurt by the online comments and people should realise it has nothing to with her wanting to leave her current home...


Listen Limericks 95FM http://www.live95fm.ie/news/news-item/moyross-mum-defends-calls-for-a-bigger-house/0d359b88-1092-4e7a-9d52-1bc67483b3b0


Apparently on 'health problems' health board told her she needs new house because of childs fits in the middle of night & may do harm to the rest of the kids

howamidifferent

*shudder*
Jesus, Did you hear the accent ?

Thrill

http://www.live95fm.ie/news/news-item/moyross-mum-defends-calls-for-a-bigger-house/0d359b88-1092-4e7a-9d52-1bc67483b3b0

Shes happy with the home she lives in.
The health board has told her that she should have a separate room for her son Jordan, who gets violent fits which may cause harm to any other child in the room.
Shes not begging for a four bedroom house. She loves her home.

This woman is being told by the health department she needs an extra room. Her only demand seems to be that the house be in mayross, a place she would rather stay in, it would seem.

micropig

Thrill wrote: »

http://www.live95fm.ie/news/news-item/moyross-mum-defends-calls-for-a-bigger-house/0d359b88-1092-4e7a-9d52-1bc67483b3b0

Shes happy with the home she lives in.
The health board has told her that she should have a separate room for her son Jordan, who gets violent fits which may cause harm to any other child in the room.
Shes not begging for a four bedroom house. She loves her home.

This woman is being told by the health department she needs an extra room. Her only demand seems to be that the house be in mayross, a place she would rather stay in, it would seem.

I thought there was carbon monoxide?

dj jarvis

micropig wrote: »

MOYROSS MUM DEFENDS CALLS FOR A BIGGER HOUSE
25 April 2012
A Moyross mother is defending her call for a four-bedroom house from Limerick City Council.
Serinna Corbett has been subjected to a torrent of online criticism since her story appeared in the Limerick Leader on Monday.
The mother-of four-is expecting her fifth child and she says her 18 month old son is unsafe sharing a bedroom with her 13-year-old who suffers from violent fits.
Speaking on Live95fm's Limerick Today, Serinna said she's been shocked and hurt by the online comments and people should realise it has nothing to with her wanting to leave her current home...


Listen Limericks 95FM http://www.live95fm.ie/news/news-item/moyross-mum-defends-calls-for-a-bigger-house/0d359b88-1092-4e7a-9d52-1bc67483b3b0


Apparently on 'health problems' health board told her she needs new house because of childs fits in the middle of night & may do harm to the rest of the kids

so share a room with someone else - problem sorted - glad to been of help

9 of us grew up in a small 3 bed house - no probs , no issues
hand out and gimme gimme gimme , makes me sick

howamidifferent

Thrill wrote: »

http://www.live95fm.ie/news/news-item/moyross-mum-defends-calls-for-a-bigger-house/0d359b88-1092-4e7a-9d52-1bc67483b3b0

Shes happy with the home she lives in.
The health board has told her that she should have a separate room for her son Jordan, who gets violent fits which may cause harm to any other child in the room.
Shes not begging for a four bedroom house. She loves her home.

This woman is being told by the health department she needs an extra room. Her only demand seems to be that the house be in mayross, a place she would rather stay in, it would seem.

Why doesnt the Health Department tell all the people with huge mortgages in shoeboxes that they need bigger homes? Is it only people on the dole that are entitled to bigger homes?

golden lane

the point is being missed here.....the government should only spend what it can afford....

it has no moral right to take from people who may be deprived themselves.....to give to someone else.....whose only vexcuse seem to be....i have rights.....

if the government made these promises when it could afford them......

then it should change these promises, now that they cannot afford them.....

the government is wrong to pick one section of the people for special protection....on the feeble excuse..that they are poor......

the government should act with all haste to right these wrongs.......

Thrill

micropig wrote: »

I thought there was carbon monoxide?

The operative word being "was".

dark crystal

dj jarvis wrote: »

did she have to come up with 32,000 euro towards the deposit WHILE renting during the boom as i did ???
i did not go out , buy clothes nothing for nearly 2 years to scrape the cash for a deposit ( offered 110% mortgage but not daft enough to take it )

does she have to pay a small fortune each month to service the mortgage ?

No, but you chose to buy a house. If it was such a hardship, why not rent instead.

does she have to pay house hold tax , water rates or in fact ANY ****ING TAX AT ALL ?

big no to all of the above - Christ even the council have to maintain the place free of charge for her

No, she doesn't pay the household tax. However, neither do private tenants or homeowners in certain ghost estates or those in receipt of mortgage interest supplement. The government decided who was eligible for the charge, not her.
There's been no announcements about any waiver schemes for water charges as of yet, afaik, so how do you know whether she will or won't be liable.
As for maintenance, private landlords are also responsible for such services for their tenants.

so in comparison she gets it for " free " , she pays a nominal charge
on top of the nearly 40k plus after tax she gets in benefits

she pays nothing and gains everything - said it once and say it again

a fu2king leech - stop defending the indefensible

people really need to sit down and realize how much pond scum are fllecing us by each year , our children , our parents all law abiding tax payers are being robbed and gobsh1ts are trying to defend this ??

now wonder we have a reputation of being thick , because we must be if we allow this carry on

open your ****1ng eyes

You really seem to have a major downer on people who rent LA housing. I'm a LA tenant and pay a lot more than just a nominal fee. I'm also a tax payer and am grateful that when I was down on my luck, I was offered housing when there was no way I would have been able to afford a private mortgage.

I'm not fleecing anyone and I pay my way. I don't get why you are so incredibly angry at this woman, who is, after all, not doing anything illegal. Perhaps your anger would be better directed towards the government who, in many ways, discourage people from working for a living.

Thrill

howamidifferent wrote: »

Why doesnt the Health Department tell all the people with huge mortgages in shoeboxes that they need bigger homes? Is it only people on the dole that are entitled to bigger homes?

I suppose that if the health department forced them to get a mortgage in that particular house, then maybe they would.

howamidifferent

Thrill wrote: »

I suppose that if the health department forced them to get a mortgage in that particular house, then maybe they would.

Your avoiding the obvious intent behind my question which is "why do people in houses with mortgages have to make do regardless of house size while its imperative that people in LA housing MUST get a bigger house to avoid room sharing"

Dudess

ejmaztec wrote: »

You aren't actually going to hear about it where normal family situations exist, because it wouldn't get reported. I know one normal family that's never lived on benefits, whose son has ADHD. He has meds prescribed for the condition, and the family gets Domiciliary Care Allowance, the same as the Limerick woman. I'm fairly certain the government wouldn't go out of its way to cough up money for a bogus disease, and I'm ever more certain that a GP wouldn't be prescribing expensive drugs for a bogus disease either.

Yeah I'm not ruling out the possibility that some people could use it as an excuse for bad behaviour/parenting, but all the time - I doubt it.

Dudess

dj jarvis wrote: »

did she have to come up with 32,000 euro towards the deposit WHILE renting during the boom as i did ???
...
open your ****1ng eyes

But a person in private rented accommodation wouldn't either...

Thrill

howamidifferent wrote: »

Your avoiding the obvious intent behind my question which is "why do people in houses with mortgages have to make do regardless of house size while its imperative that people in LA housing MUST get a bigger house to avoid room sharing"

She was told she needs a separate room for her son. Its up to her to get one.

If a mortgage holder was told they need an extra room for a sick child, it would be up to them(the mortgage holder) to get one.

micropig

Thrill wrote: »

She was told she needs a separate room for her son. Its up to her to get one.

If a mortgage holder was told they need an extra room for a sick child, it would be up to them(the mortgage holder) to get one.

Give the ADHD son the box room

bunk bed & single (might as well get another set of bunk beds cos she's filling them) in other room

She still has room to herself for fornication


What am I missing?

howamidifferent

Thrill wrote: »

She was told she needs a separate room for her son. Its up to her to get one.

If a mortgage holder was told they need an extra room for a sick child, it would be up to them(the mortgage holder) to get one.

And if they cant afford a bigger mortgage or to extend? Will the HSE then give them a LA house cos its bigger?

micropig

howamidifferent wrote: »

And if they cant afford a bigger mortgage or to extend? Will the HSE then give them a LA house cos its bigger?

Housing Adaptation Grant for People with a Disability
A housing adaptation grant is available where changes need to be made to a home to make it suitable for a person with a physical, sensory or intellectual disability or mental health difficulty to live in.

The grant can help you to make changes and adaptations to your home, for example, making it wheelchair-accessible, extending it to create more space, adding a ground-floor bathroom or toilet or a stair-lift. In some cases, the provision of heating can be included, but only under certain conditions. Contact your local authority for more details.


From what I've heard they're hard to get

howamidifferent

micropig wrote: »

Housing Adaptation Grant for People with a Disability
A housing adaptation grant is available where changes need to be made to a home to make it suitable for a person with a physical, sensory or intellectual disability or mental health difficulty to live in.

The grant can help you to make changes and adaptations to your home, for example, making it wheelchair-accessible, extending it to create more space, adding a ground-floor bathroom or toilet or a stair-lift. In some cases, the provision of heating can be included, but only under certain conditions. Contact your local authority for more details.


From what I've heard they're hard to get

Ok, thanks. I wasn't aware of that so that at least shows some sort of uniformity of thinking or attempt at equal treatment...

Thrill

howamidifferent wrote: »

And if they cant afford a bigger mortgage or to extend? Will the HSE then give them a LA house cos its bigger?

Then give up the mortgage and rent a bigger place. Apply for LA housing if you think you meet the criteria.

Typewriter

I wouldn't say no to an LA House myself.

micropig

howamidifferent wrote: »

Ok, thanks. I wasn't aware of that so that at least shows some sort of uniformity of thinking or attempt at equal treatment...

A lot of community organisations (underfunded) which fill in the gaps the state misses, although they're more for old people or those living alone, they will consider anyone with a genuine* need


Genuine being the word, they're is a long list of people living in sub-standard conditions and your need is assessed thoroughly as they have limited budgets and their aim is to help the most vulnerable

So some one sharing a bedroom would not be top priority

An older person with mobility difficulties, unable to climb the stairs to use the toilet / bedroom in very old houses unsuitable for their needs would be higher up

micropig

Thrill wrote: »

Then give up the mortgage and rent a bigger place. Apply for LA housing if you think you meet the criteria.

yes, we should all do this:rolleyes:

Thrill

micropig wrote: »

yes, we should all do this:rolleyes:

If you loved your child then I believe that most , maybe even all, would.

micropig

Thrill wrote: »

If you loved your child then I believe that most , maybe even all, would.

:pac::pac:

Jesus wept:D

Thrill

micropig wrote: »

:pac::pac:

Jesus wept:D

Yeah, its pretty stupid of me isn't it, thinking that parents would do anything to ensure the health and welfare of their children. We all know that a mortgage is worth so much more, right?

micropig

Thrill wrote: »

Yeah, its pretty stupid of me isn't it, thinking that parents would do anything to ensure the health and welfare of their children. We all know that a mortgage is worth so much more, right?

What your suggesting is if you love your children you will give up your mortgage and applying for LA housing...seriously:D:D:D


At point did she realise her children would have to share bedrooms?