Ireland needs a taoiseach with this guys attitude

Dangerous Man

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Fitzpatricks on Grafton Street is good for those kind of shoes - You'll get a decent pair of Barkers for circa €220.

But I don't live in Ireland... is no fair. Anyway, I'm going to a local bar shortly. A group of lads are being downsized in favour of cheaper, shittier outsourced IBM types. I'll go over and comiserate with them as they're all top blokes. After that I'm going home I think - although I might venture out a little later to see if I can spot anything. Some stores near where I live stay open until 8 at night so who knows? I could be reporting back here tomorrow with good news. Everybody keep your fingers crossed.

Ave Sodalis

up for anything wrote: »

Jesus H Christ - patronising much! How about paid vasectomies?

*face palm*
Have a look at the rest of my posts and see which side I'm on... I was being sarcastic...

up for anything

sup_dude wrote: »

*face palm*
Have a look at the rest of my posts and see which side I'm on... I was being sarcastic...

Apologies and stop face palming - it will give you spots.

gerryo777

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I'd report her on the rent allowance thing but she'd be hanging around my house more often. This is the type of person we should be tackling.

So report her then and don't be coming on here whinging about it.
You said that you want to do something about it, grow a pair and do it.

Or are you not exactly sure about her finances/situation and just come on here to let off steam??

gerryo777

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Lot of eye rolling going on there...

So your family and friends milk / milked the system?

And because David Cameron's family are wealthy and he has a good education, he has no right to an opinion on how to deal with scroungers?

What about all the potential criminals your family / friends spawned over the years? Who's gonna pick up the tab for their lifestyle? Ordinary decent working people - That's who. Do people honestly think that these illegitimate children end up going to Trinity? Nope - They're the scumbags trying to rob your smartphone.

People need to get a grip - Those who scrounge should have no rights - Pay their benefits on vouchers - That'll keep them out of the pubs and off the planes to the Canaries.

Tell you what Sean, if you talked about any other section of the community, foreigners / blacks / gays etc like you do the unemployed, I would be reporting you and your IP address to the Garda.

Some of the crap you come out with is disgusting, you should take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror, you've obliviously got problems.

Helix

gerryo777 wrote: »

Tell you what Sean, if you talked about any other section of the community, foreigners / blacks / gays etc like you do the unemployed, I would be reporting you and your IP address to the Garda.

he's not talking about the unemployed, he's talking about scroungers - a much smaller group who also happen to fall under the umbrella term, but since you seem to want to be offended so desperately, you're taking it to mean every single person outside employment. which is fair enough, but it doesnt mean youre right

meoklmrk91

Sean Bateman wrote: »

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Calling children potential criminals because of their backround...

Oh and btw I was an "illegitimate child" although I don't know what that has to do with anything.

My point is that in circumstances where the aim is to milk the system, the illegitimate child of a working class mother is more likely to create further problems for society...that's not a slur against you...it's just a logical statement. You seem to be doing well for yourself despite the obstacles that you've faced...fair play to you.

The largest obsticle I faced was the fact that people refused to believe that I would do anything with myself because of my backround, I really don't care if 99% of these children grow up to do nothing with themselves, there is still a 1% who want to make better lives for themselves.

While my parents did marry after I was born the economic gap between me and my school mates was evident, (they weren't on welfare btw), the lowering of these payments is only going to widen the already too wide line between the working class and the middle, making it even harder to for children to go on to have brighter futures than there parents before them, education is currently available to all, let's keep it that way.

ArtSmart

Dravokivich wrote: »

He's not talking about people who've fallen on hard times. He's talking about people who just drifted straight into welfare.

One doesn't 'drift'.

One glides.

Ave Sodalis

Helix wrote: »

he's not talking about the unemployed, he's talking about scroungers - a much smaller group who also happen to fall under the umbrella term, but since you seem to want to be offended so desperately, you're taking it to mean every single person outside employment. which is fair enough, but it doesnt mean youre right

I think he's offended about the fact that he's being assumptious about one poster despite the fact he knows nothing about this poster, except they're upbringing.

I'm another person who's an illegitimate child and considered part of the working class. My (then teenage) parents did not have me to ''milk'' the system and my mother is now single, but not for the benefits.

gerryo777

Helix wrote: »

he's not talking about the unemployed, he's talking about scroungers - a much smaller group who also happen to fall under the umbrella term, but since you seem to want to be offended so desperately, you're taking it to mean every single person outside employment. which is fair enough, but it doesnt mean youre right

Have you read all his posts here?

He goes from paying some people to have a hysterectomy? WTF?, to

being happy enough with tax avoidance though,because it's legal.

Something wrong with his morals there I think.

gerryo777

sup_dude wrote: »

I think he's offended about the fact that he's being assumptious about one poster despite the fact he knows nothing about this poster, except they're upbringing.

I'm another person who's an illegitimate child and considered part of the working class. My (then teenage) parents did not have me to ''milk'' the system and my mother is now single, but not for the benefits.

Every child is 'legitimate', that tag (illegitimate) should be banned from civil society.
Sean probably loves it though.

ArtSmart

Dangerous Man wrote: »

But I don't live in Ireland... is no fair. Anyway, I'm going to a local bar shortly. A group of lads are being downsized in favour of cheaper, shittier outsourced IBM types. I'll go over and comiserate with them as they're all top blokes. After that I'm going home I think - although I might venture out a little later to see if I can spot anything. Some stores near where I live stay open until 8 at night so who knows? I could be reporting back here tomorrow with good news. Everybody keep your fingers crossed.

Might be an idea to check out the lads shoe size - yer never know, might get a newish pair for next to nothing off one of them - esp now they're gonna be on the scratch.

shoes for food, that's what i preach, (preacher man, de na de na, de na de nuh, nuh, nuh, preacher man, you know ye got me goin'....etc)

Sean Bateman

gerryo777 wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Lot of eye rolling going on there...

So your family and friends milk / milked the system?

And because David Cameron's family are wealthy and he has a good education, he has no right to an opinion on how to deal with scroungers?

What about all the potential criminals your family / friends spawned over the years? Who's gonna pick up the tab for their lifestyle? Ordinary decent working people - That's who. Do people honestly think that these illegitimate children end up going to Trinity? Nope - They're the scumbags trying to rob your smartphone.

People need to get a grip - Those who scrounge should have no rights - Pay their benefits on vouchers - That'll keep them out of the pubs and off the planes to the Canaries.

Tell you what Sean, if you talked about any other section of the community, foreigners / blacks / gays etc like you do the unemployed, I would be reporting you and your IP address to the Garda.

Some of the crap you come out with is disgusting, you should take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror, you've obliviously got problems.

You should read people's posts more carefully.

My issue is with:

- People who choose to sponge off the State rather than work

- People who deliberately have children or hide their partners so they can scam the social welfare system

If you've a problem with someone targeting those people, or if you think that the Gardai would be interested in rational discussion about social policy, you're the one with the problems.

How many times have I said that we as a society have a duty to look after people who have GENUINELY fallen on hard times?

ArtSmart

Sean Bateman wrote: »

You should read people's posts more carefully.

My issue is with:

- People who choose to sponge off the State rather than work

- People who deliberately have children or hide their partners so they can scam the social welfare system

If you've a problem with someone targeting those people, or if you think that the Gardai would be interested in rational discussion about social policy, you're the one with the problems.

How many times have I said that we as a society have a duty to look after people who have GENUINELY fallen on hard times?

fair nuff SB.

But the reality is this - now think about what i'm about to write.


who is 'the scrounger'? the 'dole abuser'?

Is it the young adult you was cared for, encouraged by their parents to enter into the world of work/ do well in school?

is it the college grad with a degree?

nope. it aint these


then who?


and more importantly - why?


WHY would someone want to live on an amt of money which will only offer subsistence? with no prospect of holidays, owning their own home? to want to live in a dangerous ugly estate?

unless, of course they are also criminals.

and who are they? who are the criminals? can you see them? are they well educated, well adjusted, well cared for individuals from stable loving families?

nope, they're not.


anyone who 'chooses' to live on the dole IS NOT CHOOSING.

Choice is only available to those with options. not to those with none.


let me make is clear.

no SANE, WELL ADJUSTED REASONABLY EDUCATED/ SKILLED person wants ot be on the dole permanently.

the life of a criminal is not a 'life choice'. it is a hugely risky business to be in - with the highest mortality rate. would a sane person 'choose' such a life?


But no. it's easier to reduce things down to catch-phrases - to give the 'I know a guy/ girl' nonsense. to give the exception to the rule and ignore the reality - that being on the dole, being a 'scrounger' is NOT A FUKING CHOICE!!!

Sean Bateman

ArtSmart wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

You should read people's posts more carefully.

My issue is with:

- People who choose to sponge off the State rather than work

- People who deliberately have children or hide their partners so they can scam the social welfare system

If you've a problem with someone targeting those people, or if you think that the Gardai would be interested in rational discussion about social policy, you're the one with the problems.

How many times have I said that we as a society have a duty to look after people who have GENUINELY fallen on hard times?

fair nuff SB.

But the reality is this - now think about what i'm about to write.


who is 'the scrounger'? the 'dole abuser'?

Is it the young adult you was cared for, encouraged by their parents to enter into the world of work/ do well in school?

is it the college grad with a degree?

nope. it aint these


then who?


and more importantly - why?


WHY would someone want to live on an amt of money which will only offer subsistence? with no prospect of holidays, owning their own home? to want to live in a dangerous ugly estate?

unless, of course they are also criminals.

and who are they? who are the criminals? can you see them? are they well educated, well adjusted, well cared for individuals from stable loving families?

nope, they're not.


anyone who 'chooses' to live on the dole IS NOT CHOOSING.

Choice is only available to those with options. not to those with none.


let me make is clear.

no SANE, WELL ADJUSTED REASONABLY EDUCATED/ SKILLED person wants ot be on the dole permanently.

the life of a criminal is not a 'life choice'. it is a hugely risky business to be in - with the highest mortality rate. would a sane person 'choose' such a life?


But no. it's easier to reduce things down to catch-phrases - to give the 'I know a guy/ girl' nonsense. to give the exception to the rule and ignore the reality - that being on the dole, being a 'scrounger' is NOT A FUKING CHOICE!!!

Nonsense.

Look at that earlier poster from the wrong side of the tracks who's going to college.

There are people who choose to be scroungers...that cannot be denied.

What's the solution - Sterilisation?

What do you think the solution is?

gerryo777

ArtSmart wrote: »

fair nuff SB.

But the reality is this - now think about what i'm about to write.


who is 'the scrounger'? the 'dole abuser'?

Is it the young adult you was cared for, encouraged by their parents to enter into the world of work/ do well in school?

is it the college grad with a degree?

nope. it aint these


then who?


and more importantly - why?


WHY would someone want to live on an amt of money which will only offer subsistence? with no prospect of holidays, owning their own home? to want to live in a dangerous ugly estate?

unless, of course they are also criminals.

and who are they? who are the criminals? can you see them? are they well educated, well adjusted, well cared for individuals from stable loving families?

nope, they're not.


anyone who 'chooses' to live on the dole IS NOT CHOOSING.

Choice is only available to those with options. not to those with none.


let me make is clear.

no SANE, WELL ADJUSTED REASONABLY EDUCATED/ SKILLED person wants ot be on the dole permanently.

the life of a criminal is not a 'life choice'. it is a hugely risky business to be in - with the highest mortality rate. would a sane person 'choose' such a life?


But no. it's easier to reduce things down to catch-phrases - to give the 'I know a guy/ girl' nonsense. to give the exception to the rule and ignore the reality - that being on the dole, being a 'scrounger' is NOT A FUKING CHOICE!!!

The real criminals in this country are the ones who brought it to it's knees, the bankers, the developers, the regulators and the politicians.

Because of their greed / incompetence over 450,000 people are now unemployed, that's why the welfare bill is so high and that's why bull**** threads like these get legs....

It gives people who are lucky enough to be 'middle class' and employed a forum to rant about the 'underclass' in our society.

For shame!

Sean Bateman

Wrong - Those guys are also criminals but that doesn't excuse people from educating their kids and providing them with a moral compass.

But then it's easier for bleeding heart liberals to rant and rave about Seanie Fitz than to admit that there is an underclass who'd cut your eye out for €20 a week.

Ave Sodalis

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Look at that earlier poster from the wrong side of the tracks who's going to college.

Who said they were on the wrong side of the tracks? They said they were working class...

Sean Bateman

sup_dude wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Look at that earlier poster from the wrong side of the tracks who's going to college.

Who said they were on the wrong side of the tracks? They said they were working class...

You're splitting hairs...

The poster in question referred to council houses, teenage pregnancies left right and centre, people not completing their education and children being born out of wedlock.

It's hardly off the wall to refer to that as "the wrong side of the tracks"...

Ave Sodalis

Sean Bateman wrote: »

You're splitting hairs...

The poster in question referred to council houses, teenage pregnancies left right and centre, people not completing their education and children being born out of wedlock.

It's hardly off the wall to refer to that as "the wrong side of the tracks"...

Council houses... around these parts anyway, there's an awful lot of them. Councils are fairly generous about council housing, especially during the boom times.
Teen pregnancies... it was said these were the norm and it was considered acceptable. I don't see how that would be ''the wrong side of the track'' if they were doing it because it's what they're used to.
People not completing education... fair enough
Children being bored out of wedlock... well that's definitely not the wrong side of the track. Anyone who still thinks people should be married before having children is a bit outdated as many children are born out of marriage...

Sean Bateman

sup_dude wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

You're splitting hairs...

The poster in question referred to council houses, teenage pregnancies left right and centre, people not completing their education and children being born out of wedlock.

It's hardly off the wall to refer to that as "the wrong side of the tracks"...

Council houses... around these parts anyway, there's an awful lot of them. Councils are fairly generous about council housing, especially during the boom times.
Teen pregnancies... it was said these were the norm and it was considered acceptable. I don't see how that would be ''the wrong side of the track'' if they were doing it because it's what they're used to.
People not completing education... fair enough
Children being bored out of wedlock... well that's definitely not the wrong side of the track. Anyone who still thinks people should be married before having children is a bit outdated as many children are born out of marriage...

Again, that's hair splitting.

In isolation, these things don't necessarily constitute "the wrong side of the tracks".

But combined, I don't think that it's unreasonable to call it "the wrong side of the tracks".

cursai

Fair play to cameron. stop nancying around peddling to lazy people. e200 (BASIC!!!!!!) is more than enough to live on when you have nothing to do all day. whiney liberal or ashamed overprotective scroungers will whinge only. even at that the wannabe super understanding( i emphatise) mouthpeices will secretly agree with camerons sentiment.

Ave Sodalis

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Again, that's hair splitting.

In isolation, these things don't necessarily constitute "the wrong side of the tracks".

But combined, I don't think that it's unreasonable to call it "the wrong side of the tracks".

Or they're just a victim of their own circumstances. Just because they're doing it, doesn't mean they have a choice, not really.
Take for example; a girl is pressurized to conform to social norms of her area of teen motherhood, this means she can't finish her education and she can't afford anything other than a council. I would imagine is what happens more often than not.

Ave Sodalis

cursai wrote: »

Fair play to cameron. stop nancying around peddling to lazy people. e200 (BASIC!!!!!!) is more than enough to live on when you have nothing to do all day. whiney liberal or ashamed overprotective scroungers will whinge only. even at that the wannabe super understanding( i emphatise) mouthpeices will secretly agree with camerons sentiment.

I hope, for your own sake, you don't loose your job and become one of those ''lazy people'' who ''have nothing to do all day''.

Sean Bateman

sup_dude wrote: »

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Again, that's hair splitting.

In isolation, these things don't necessarily constitute "the wrong side of the tracks".

But combined, I don't think that it's unreasonable to call it "the wrong side of the tracks".

Or they're just a victim of their own circumstances. Just because they're doing it, doesn't mean they have a choice, not really.
Take for example; a girl is pressurized to conform to social norms of her area of teen motherhood, this means she can't finish her education and she can't afford anything other than a council. I would imagine is what happens more often than not.

Sorry but that's utter nonsense.

Pressurised into being a teen mother?

Come on.

The knowledge that the State will foot the bill and the "tricks of the trade" when it comes to milking the system (passed down from mother to daughter and from sister to sister) has to be a strong motivation for these girls. Ergo, the system must be adjusted to block such abuse.

Smurph90

just dreaming but, replace dole with "debit cards" from the state. Let people spend money wherever they want but have people checking bills to see if they are spending too much on non essentials. I dont think anyone begrudges actual families/people who spend their welfare on the essentials (food,clothing) etc. It is the arseholes who collect their dole, walk next door into the bookies and then off for a pint. I see it all the time. The dole "laser card" should have a % that is allowed on personal spending. ( booze, phones, etc, socialising )

The system is too easily abused. I know someone who ****ed off to spain for the summer and he was posting all over his facebook about still being able to claim while away. hes only 20.

Ave Sodalis

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Sorry but that's utter nonsense.

Pressurised into being a teen mother?

Come on.

The knowledge that the State will foot the bill and the "tricks of the trade" when it comes to milking the system (passed down from mother to daughter and from sister to sister) has to be a strong motivation for these girls. Ergo, the system must be adjusted to block such abuse.

Yes. Pressurised. Same way as members of the Travelling Community marry at such a young age. There aren't many out to milk the system, especially when it comes to children. I have said this before and I will repeat it now... any mother in that circumstance (relying on welfare to raise a child) will know exactly how difficult it is and would only wish it on their own daughters if they didn't care about them in any way

Sean Bateman

Smurph90, that is a BRILLIANT idea.

Let's see what imaginary holes the bleeding heart liberals can find in it.

Ave Sodalis

Smurph90 wrote: »

just dreaming but, replace dole with "debit cards" from the state. Let people spend money wherever they want but have people checking bills to see if they are spending too much on non essentials. I dont think anyone begrudges actual families/people who spend their welfare on the essentials (food,clothing) etc. It is the arseholes who collect their dole, walk next door into the bookies and then off for a pint. I see it all the time. The dole "laser card" should have a % that is allowed on personal spending. ( booze, phones, etc, socialising )

The system is too easily abused. I know someone who ****ed off to spain for the summer and he was posting all over his facebook about still being able to claim while away. hes only 20.

That would be a good idea for those who had access to a bank machine and didn't get their dole money out of a post office (which can be found in most local shops)
Your friend would be wrong though. He needs to be there in person to claim.

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Let's see what imaginary holes the bleeding heart liberals can find in it.

These ''bleeding heart liberals'' are the people who actually know what the effects of many of the things proposed would do. It's called having a bit of common sense and decency.
The holes that are being poked aren't imaginary m'dear. They're genuine issues in your flawed views

sock puppet

Sean Bateman wrote: »

Smurph90, that is a BRILLIANT idea.

Let's see what imaginary holes the bleeding heart liberals can find in it.

Eh the cost? You don't know how much money it'll cost and how much it'll save.

Also for future reference liberals generally believe in free trade, low tax and low government spending.