Limerick mum and five children told ‘go to hostel’

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

catallus wrote: »

Why should a man pay for a woman conceiving? Has she no mind of her own? Is a man supposed to be fleeced for the rest of his life if some woman decides she wants his progeny against his will? Are you mad?!

Staying child free is a responsibility of both people

To Elland Back

catallus wrote: »

Why should a man pay for a woman conceiving? Has she no mind of her own? Is a man supposed to be fleeced for the rest of his life if some woman decides she wants his progeny against his will? Are you mad?!

If the man does not want children, he should take care of his own business. Very irresponsible not to ensure you can't get a woman pregnant, if that's what you want

To Elland Back

To Elland Back wrote: »

Are you saying it was male rape?

If not, the males that impregnate these women need to take financial responsibility for the children they conceive. If Revenue can deduct the property tax at source, they can deduct child maintenance.

But "these women" don't have to take any responsibility?

catallus

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Staying child free is a responsibility of both people

It patently is not.

wendell borton

catallus wrote: »

Whoa there!

Who said those men even wanted her to have those kids?!

Victim-blaming if ever there was such.

Who's the victim? Only the taxpayer and the kids. Regardless of wanting them or not they are the inevitable results of having sex, they should have to take responsibility for their actions.

Electric Sheep

catallus wrote: »

Whoa there!

Who said those men even wanted her to have those kids?!

Victim-blaming if ever there was such.

Yes, what if she raped those men?

To Elland Back

Deleted User wrote: »

But "these women" don't have to take any responsibility?

Of course they do. I was responding to a specific post raised by someone

Electric Sheep

catallus wrote: »

Why should a man pay for a woman conceiving? Has she no mind of her own? Is a man supposed to be fleeced for the rest of his life if some woman decides she wants his progeny against his will? Are you mad?!

The mind is not the part that conceives, the parts for conception need to come from both a man and a woman.

I'm surprised you did not learn this in Biology.

Iwasfrozen

catallus wrote: »

Why not for married women?!

Mothers of children born in wedlock have more rights of financial support so are less reliant on the state.

Iwasfrozen

catallus wrote: »

Why should a man pay for a woman conceiving? Has she no mind of her own? Is a man supposed to be fleeced for the rest of his life if some woman decides she wants his progeny against his will? Are you mad?!

Last time I checked it took two parties to make babies.

masculinist

To Elland Back wrote: »

Are you saying it was male rape?

If not, the males that impregnate these women need to take financial responsibility for the children they conceive. If Revenue can deduct the property tax at source, they can deduct child maintenance.

Women can choose to abort, adopt, give away the baby etc. They can choose to have a baby or not have a baby but a man has zero choice. It's not fair could be the point being made. Why cant a man give up his rights and responsibilities towards a child if a woman wants to have that child on her own ? I couldn't do it but I can see the logic of it. Why can women choose to put the child up for adoption but not the man ? many men are lied to by women who got pregnant on purpose and against agreement. I can link to hundreds of articles about it. Some women have poked holes in condoms. And even worse stories abound about used condoms being retrieved and emptied... but in each case the man cannot give up his rights and legal responsibilities ... even under age boys who got raped by older women are forced into paying child support in some places...

Electric Sheep

masculinist wrote: »

Women can choose to abort, adopt, give away the baby etc. They can choose to have a baby or not have a baby but a man has zero choice. It's not fair could be the point being made. Why cant a man give up his rights and responsibilities towards a child if a woman wants to have that child on her own ? I couldn't do it but I can see the logic of it. Why can women choose to put the child up for adoption but not the man ? many men are lied to by women who got pregnant on purpose and against agreement. I can link to hundreds of articles about it. Some women have poked holes in condoms. And even worse stories abound about used condoms being retrieved and emptied...

Men have the choice to zip it up.

Chucken

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Mothers of children born in wedlock have more rights of financial support so are less reliant on the state.

Tell that to the children of thousands of divorced women who have never received anything.
You obviously have no idea of the realities of the situation.

catallus

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Yes, what if she raped those men?

That's so funny, rape jokes. Nice.

Electric Sheep wrote: »

The mind is not the part that conceives, the parts for conception need to come from both a man and a woman.

The decision to continue a pregnancy is wholly the responsibility of the woman.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Mothers of children born in wedlock have more rights of financial support so are less reliant on the state.

I really don't think this is factually correct.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Last time I checked it took two parties to make babies.

You see, this type of pat deflection from the point is what makes this so infuriating.

It isn't rocket science.

masculinist

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Men have the choice to zip it up.

Women have the choice to keep their word that they use contraception. [I can provide news links to these stories]


Women have the choice not to retrieve used condoms or poke holes in condoms. [I can provide news links to these stories]

Older women have the choice not to rape underage boys, get pregnant and then sue them for child support when they are adults. [I can provide news links to these stories]


Rights and responsibilities go both ways

Gatling

Ifs safe to say somebody who suffer the same accident repeatedly .
isn't having accidents at all.

To Elland Back

masculinist wrote: »

Women can choose to abort, adopt, give away the baby etc. They can choose to have a baby or not have a baby but a man has zero choice. It's not fair could be the point being made. Why cant a man give up his rights and responsibilities towards a child if a woman wants to have that child on her own ? I couldn't do it but I can see the logic of it. Why can women choose to put the child up for adoption but not the man ? many men are lied to by women who got pregnant on purpose and against agreement. I can link to hundreds of articles about it. Some women have poked holes in condoms. And even worse stories abound about used condoms being retrieved and emptied... but in each case the man cannot give up his rights and legal responsibilities ... even under age boys who got raped by older women are forced into paying child support in some places...

You've raised many valid points there, but the fact remains that men can control their own contraception arrangements

masculinist

To Elland Back wrote: »

You've raised many valid points there, but the fact remains that men can control their own contraception arrangements

but where is the male pill ?

catallus

To Elland Back wrote: »

You've raised many valid points there, but the fact remains that men can control their own contraception arrangements

Contraception has always been the responsibility of the woman. The hint's in the word.

Tokyo

catallus wrote: »

Contraception has always been the responsibility of the woman. The hint's in the word.

Wut???!!! Where'd you pull that from?


also: contra- + conception.... where's the hint you mention?

cerastes

catallus wrote: »

Contraception has always been the responsibility of the woman. The hint's in the word.

it is??

Iwasfrozen

catallus wrote: »

You see, this type of pat deflection from the point is what makes this so infuriating.

It isn't rocket science.

It isn't rocket science that a man has to either keep it in his pants or take responsibility for his actions.

Teyla Emmagan

catallus wrote: »

Contraception has always been the responsibility of the woman. The hint's in the word.

All this time, and I never realised you were mental.

Anyway, despite her awful hair (and I know I shouldn't be focusing on that), I wouldn't want to take my kids to a hostel either. But I guess it's the fastest way to get her on the housing list? So suck it up for a month or two and Limerick CC will step up. Otherwise it will be 'homeless babies at Christmas' stories, and none of us can stomach reading that rubbish.

To Elland Back

catallus wrote: »

Contraception has always been the responsibility of the woman. The hint's in the word.

So a condom is not a contraceptive?

Gatling

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It isn't rocket science that a man has to either keep it in his pants or take responsibility for his actions.

Both have to take responsibility first and foremost .
But if say your a single mother struggling to survive would it make sense they would take the extra precautions to make sure they don't keep getting caught for a better word

washman3

Caliden wrote: »

She's getting more p.a. than I do after tax and I still have to pay 7.5k/year on rent.

Where did I go wrong in life?!?

Where you went wrong is you probably voted for this s###e so the bottom line is you (and me) are directly or indirectly responsible for this scenario.
And if you don't agree with my opinion ask your 2 questions to the politicans when they come to your door looking for votes again. Very interesting to hear what their answer will be.

Cuddlesworth

Everybody with children gets child benefit(9k at 5 kids?) so in comparison to a similar married couple with 1 working and 1 stay at home, she is paid roughly the equivalent of the PAYE worker earning 25 grand a year. Its still ridiculous but its not as good as your all making it out to be. I don't think I could raise 5 kids on 25 grand a year.

The problem is never what they make. The problem is the abuse of the system. If she works cash in hand or the fellow "stays over", then the amount she gets becomes sickening.

masculinist

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It isn't rocket science that a man has to either keep it in his pants or take responsibility for his actions.

It isn't rocket science that a woman has to either keep her knickers on or take responsibility for her actions.

6781

Responsibility for your actions is something this country doesn't do.

Summer wind

In my sons class at school about 75% of the parents are unmarried cohabiting and on benefits. They all have rent allowance and most have two cars and three or four children. It's a joke.

Rightwing

She's right about 1 thing:

Currently unemployed, Grace is furious at the local authority, especially after she identified a council house to live in Fairview Crescent, Garryowen, near her mother, which has now been boarded up.
“I don’t think the housing office should be there. If they can’t help people, I don’t know why it is open at all.”

Why are the council boarding up houses and moving undesirables out to other areas? Is this what we are paying tax for ?

KERSPLAT!

MOD

A warning to the trolls, keep it up and you won't be posting here much longer

Ave Sodalis

Is there any chance of a blanket ban on these threads?

Majority of people here haven't a clue what they're talking about, and have no idea what the real world is like for single parents with multiple children but yet like to pull uneducated, ignorant, offensive opinions out off their arses anyways. It's the same in every thread that pops up like this and to be honest, I'm sick to my back teeth looking at them.
People like to feel they have the right to be outraged. Ye don't, not when that outrage is based on bullcrap. I could get into how ye are wrong if you think it's cushy or scroungey but it'll just fall on deaf ears and I'll just end up getting angry at some stupid comment.

KERSPLAT!

Rightwing wrote: »

She's right about 1 thing:

Currently unemployed, Grace is furious at the local authority, especially after she identified a council house to live in Fairview Crescent, Garryowen, near her mother, which has now been boarded up.
“I don’t think the housing office should be there. If they can’t help people, I don’t know why it is open at all.”

Why are the council boarding up houses and moving undesirables out to other areas? Is this what we are paying tax for ?

I don't know about this specific case but council houses have to be at a certain standard. If work is to be carried out they'll need, electricians, plumbers, chippys, painters, etc. The work usually takes weeks at the very least and normally a few months by the time they're ready, from my experience of working on council houses anyway.

KERSPLAT!

sup_dude wrote: »

Is there any chance of a blanket ban on these threads?

Majority of people here haven't a clue what they're talking about, and have no idea what the real world is like for single parents with multiple children but yet like to pull uneducated, ignorant, offensive opinions out off their arses anyways. It's the same in every thread that pops up like this and to be honest, I'm sick to my back teeth looking at them.
People like to feel they have the right to be outraged. Ye don't, not when that outrage is based on bullcrap. I could get into how ye are wrong if you think it's cushy or scroungey but it'll just fall on deaf ears and I'll just end up getting angry at some stupid comment.

The point of the board is discussion. If you think someone is wrong, discuss and tell them why they are wrong.

Tokyo

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I don't know about this specific case but council houses have to be at a certain standard. If work is to be carried out they'll need, electricians, plumbers, chippys, painters, etc. The work usually takes weeks at the very least and normally a few months by the time they're ready, from my experience of working on council houses anyway.

^^ This pretty much. Most of these houses are boarded up at the moment to stop the local scrotes from getting into them and stealing the copper pipes and pulling the wiring from the walls - they're being renovated as funding becomes available AFAIK. I've seen a few big projects in various towns so far where rows of houses are being unboarded, with teams of tradesmen going from house to house carrying out work.

Gatling

Let's not talk about people sitting on there holes getting €30+k pa tax free for having a few babies and claiming lone parents know known as one parent family .
It's a hard life having everything handed to you while you sit there playing a I'm a victim card

ardle1

Rightwing wrote: »

She's right about 1 thing:

Currently unemployed, Grace is furious at the local authority, especially after she identified a council house to live in Fairview Crescent, Garryowen, near her mother, which has now been boarded up.
“I don’t think the housing office should be there. If they can’t help people, I don’t know why it is open at all.”

Why are the council boarding up houses and moving undesirables out to other areas? Is this what we are paying tax for ?

The council should be happy to house her near her Mum! Instead of being awkward... God love her is no one on her side?

To Elland Back

sup_dude wrote: »

Is there any chance of a blanket ban on these threads?

Majority of people here haven't a clue what they're talking about, and have no idea what the real world is like for single parents with multiple children but yet like to pull uneducated, ignorant, offensive opinions out off their arses anyways. It's the same in every thread that pops up like this and to be honest, I'm sick to my back teeth looking at them.
People like to feel they have the right to be outraged. Ye don't, not when that outrage is based on bullcrap. I could get into how ye are wrong if you think it's cushy or scroungey but it'll just fall on deaf ears and I'll just end up getting angry at some stupid comment.

I'm afraid you don't get to decide what others wish to discuss here and many of us have vast 1st hand experience of the topic

Stheno

TallGlass wrote: »

I am just on 16,000-17,000, yet have paid nearly 1,500 in tax

If you are single, then there is something wrong with your tax credits.

A single person on 17,000 pays just €608 per year between PAYE, PRSI and USC

you might want to contact the revenue.

positron

Caliden wrote: »

She's getting more p.a. than I do after tax and I still have to pay 7.5k/year on rent.

Where did I go wrong in life?!?

I have a degree and has been working 15+ years now, and reading the benefit money figures in this thread, it sounds like my wife and two daughters would be financially better off if I just leave now and never come back!! Mind boggles!!

Rightwing

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

I don't know about this specific case but council houses have to be at a certain standard. If work is to be carried out they'll need, electricians, plumbers, chippys, painters, etc. The work usually takes weeks at the very least and normally a few months by the time they're ready, from my experience of working on council houses anyway.

But surely that's better than paying private landlords? Seems like an outrageous waste of taxpayers' cash.

waffleman

337 per week for single parent family??

That seems crazy

How is that payment broken down? Per child per week?

Ave Sodalis

KERSPLAT! wrote: »

The point of the board is discussion. If you think someone is wrong, discuss and tell them why they are wrong.

I have, over and over and over. But it just falls on deaf ears.

G2ECE

For me the most galling aspect of the story is that she expects not only to have a house handed to her but she is trying to dictate where the house should be.

Beggars belief!

6781

G2ECE wrote: »

For me the most galling aspect of the story is that she expects not only to have a house handed to her but she is trying to dictate where the house should be.

Beggars belief!

This.

To Elland Back

sup_dude wrote: »

I have, over and over and over. But it just falls on deaf ears.

Which means that people do wish to discuss the topic

mrsbyrne

waffleman wrote: »

337 per week for single parent family??

That seems crazy

How is that payment broken down? Per child per week?

€188 for her €29.80 per child. €20 per week Fuel Allowance October to April. €130 per child per month Child Benefit going up to €135 next January. Her contribution to her weekly rent is €30. We pay the rest. Medical ,Cards for all.

Gatling

waffleman wrote: »

337 per week for single parent family??

That seems crazy

How is that payment broken down? Per child per week?

188 mammy

And 29.80 per child x5

Ave Sodalis

To Elland Back wrote: »

Which means that people do wish to discuss the topic

Not sure how it does when it falls on deaf ears. It's more like people just want to have a go at spreading crap that the media created in the first place, and don't want to let reality get in the way of that