Man gets €840 a week on welfare

Guy:Incognito

catallus wrote: »

But he pays taxes on the stuff he buys presumably?

I'd argue the state is paying tax on the stuff he buys. And also paying the non tax portion of the stuff he buys......

Dan_Solo

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It shouldn't be possible to receive €870 a week on social welfare.

He receives it on behalf of 10 people: his wife and 8 kids.
I don't like travellers TBH, but how many of them would you let starve yourself with your SW cap?

Dan_Solo

Smidge wrote: »

To a certain extent, I agree with this. Except for the fact that the signing on office in my area is a 25 mile round trip :eek:

Edit. I dont sign on there just know where it is in case I get accused of being a scrounger ;-)

I wouldn't accept this TBH. You get Jobseeker's because you are available for work. If you refuse to travel to the nearest town you have decided you are not available. If a travel allowance need be made so you can sign every day I'd prefer that to letting people not sign.

AlekSmart

Uncle Ben wrote: »

I'd guess a lot of those decrying McDonogh of his entitlement will turn the other cheek when Varadkar is handing out the medical cards for their sprogs.

I'm not so sure that decrying this gentleman his entitlement is what posters are about at all.

Other posters have described the Irish Examiner article as "Sensationalist" and of respondents callin "Bloody Murder" over the allegations.

It may be worth noting that the Irish Examiner article is a dry,unbiased and factual Court Report on proceedings in Tallaght Court.

Given that our Courts are Public and that our Judicial system remains largely open and transparent,the reportage of this case cannot by any stretch be deemed unusual or undesireable.

The Judge appears to have been simply unwilling to accept Mr McDonaghs evidence of means at face value.

Luckily,it appears Mr McDonaghs decision to retain counsel,might just have prevented him from a far more significant sentence than mere fines totalling €850.

The Court Report does not reveal the nature of the interval between the Judge's advice to Mr McDonaghs barrister and Mr McDonaghs subsequent upward revision of his admitted income.

Also of note is Judge Reilly's comment regarding Mr McDonaghs unsuitability for driving,particularly as the "significance" of his previous convictions were not revealed in the article.

It would appear that the Judge may also have noted the mention of the defendant being a "Jobless Boxer",given the ongoing popularity of that pastime for both sporting and gambling reasons in the wider community.

A jobless boxer and ‘engineer’ gets €840 social welfare a week and also has a medical card, Tallaght Court has heard.

Charlie McDonagh, a father of eight, had originally told Judge Bridget Reilly, he was in receipt of €470 social welfare per week.

McDonagh, aged 35, with an address at Stocking Hill, Rathfarnham, pleaded guilty to public drunkenness at Stocking Hill on January 23, 2015. He also pleaded guilty to not displaying a disc in Tallaght on June 24, 2014.

Sergeant Bernard Jones told the court gardaí were called to McDonagh’s address at 9.30am that day. He said McDonagh was outside his home and was being aggressive and abusive to a number of women and children. Sgt Jones said McDonagh seemed to be under the influence of an intoxicant and was arrested for his own safety.

He said McDonagh had 12 previous convictions, including one for drunk driving and two for dangerous driving.

McDonagh told Judge Reilly he was not working but he was “an engineer”.

Judge Reilly asked him what qualifications he had.

McDonagh replied: “I have no schooling.”

Judge Reilly told McDonagh he should not be driving as he had “significant” previous convictions. He then said he was in receipt of €470 social welfare per week.

Judge Reilly told McDonagh’s counsel, Gabby Deane BL, she did not believe a man with eight children could be in receipt of such an amount and that it should be higher.

She threatened to keep McDonagh in custody and asked him if he was still under the influence.

When McDonagh returned to the stand, Judge Reilly noted he was in receipt of €840 social welfare a week. This was in excess of €40,000 and he also had a medical card. She fined him €450 for the public intoxication and €400 for the disc offence.

© Irish Examiner Ltd. All rights reserved

So from any reasonable persons perspective,this particular case raises largely simple issues surrounding a defendant attempting to fool a Judge,who was having none of it.

It can only be assumed that the presence of a Barrister acting for the defendant,allowed for saner counsel to prevail,as well as possibly a pointer towards further issues surrounding this case ?

The case most assuredly has little to do with Religious Beliefs,Cultural Traditions or Standards of Education amongst ANY group.

Little CuChulainn

Smidge wrote: »

Really?
They really think that?
Yeah cos €29.80 is enough to entice anyone :rolleyes:
Give over

You are ignoring economy of scale.

Smidge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I wouldn't accept this TBH. You get Jobseeker's because you are available for work. If you refuse to travel to the nearest town you have decided you are not available. If a travel allowance need be made so you can sign every day I'd prefer that to letting people not sign.

As I said I agree in principle. Instead of a travel allowance though surely there could be an better solution than a 25 mile round trip and limited bus services. Not to mention if a person had to do this in my area everyday is would cost €13 return. Per day. Thats €65 per week. Totally unfeasible.

Mo60

Smidge wrote: »

And you of me

I just dont jump on the "everyone on SW is a a scrounger and aren't they all having a whale of a time with their 52 inch tv and 6 foreign hols a year" bandwagon.
My folks worked(3 jobs between them). What gives me the irits is people with the sweeping generalisations and the usual AH "dole" crap.
Think its so great?
Jack your job in and go for it and quit your moaning(not directed at you btw, just in general ).
Me?
No thanks.

As I posted previously, I have no problem with someone claiming benefit through no fault of their own. But I think the ones who think they have the right to claim, even though they are able to work and there is work available, should be 'encouraged' to go out and get a job - just as both of our parents had to.

Guy:Incognito

Dan_Solo wrote: »

He receives it on behalf of 10 people: his wife and 8 kids.
I don't like travellers TBH, but how many of them would you let starve yourself with your SW cap?

None of them have to starve. He should have the option to sign them in to state care if he cant provide for them. Giving him more and more money for everytime he manages to impregnate a woman isn't an answer.

Is chucking money at them and having them living in a halting site with a persistent criminal offender who on this occasion was using threatening behaviour towards a group of women and children really the best the state can offer them ?

MRnotlob606

I'm here with fellow commentator Joe Buck for the opening Ceremony of the 2015 annual Dole Bashing games held in Moyross

Smidge

Mo60 wrote: »

As I posted previously, I have no problem with someone claiming benefit through no fault of their own. But I think the ones who think they have the right to claim, even though they are able to work and there is work available, should be 'encouraged' to go out and get a job - just as both of our parents had to.

And again, this is the crux of the issue.
AH rabble and bandwagon jumping.
Because this guy is a traveller. Simple as. Everyone uses this case as the yardstick for the commencement of yet another dole thread.

bjork

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I'm here with fellow commentator Joe Buck for the opening Ceremony of the 2015 annual Dole Bashing games held in Moyross

Starts at 9.30am
Don't turn up sober or you will be refused admission




oops sorry, wrong meeting :pac:

Roquentin

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I'm here with fellow commentator Joe Buck for the opening Ceremony of the 2015 annual Dole Bashing games held in Moyross

"Charlie mcdonagh. claims 840 euro a week to pay for his 8 kids..........
It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em."

Mo60

Smidge wrote: »

And again, this is the crux of the issue.
AH rabble and bandwagon jumping.
Because this guy is a traveller. Simple as. Everyone uses this case as the yardstick for the commencement of yet another dole thread.

Whether this person is a traveller or not has nothing to do with my opinion. In fact the person I had in mind is certainly not a traveller, just a a lazy so and so in his forties who has hardly done a days work in his life and does not intend to do so in future.

If you are happy going out to work to support his chosen lifestyle then so be it, but not all of us agree with you.

AlekSmart

Smidge wrote: »

He ISN'T getting handouts galore. Where are people getting this from? Talk about sensationalism :rolleyes:
He is getting the basic rate of SW.
That's it.

If you feel you would be better off, give up work and have 7 more kids

Well in all fairness,the gentleman in question is in receipt of something a tad more than basic rate SW.....

He is being treated significantly differently to an "ordinary" DSP customer by virtue of his culture alone.

Whether pointing this out amounts to "Sensationalism" is open to debate.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/councils-forking-out-500000-on-halting-bays-for-travellers-26594933.html

In South Dublin, the council went even further -- shelling out over €500,000 per bay in a 10-bay site in Rathfarnham. At current market prices, €500,000 would buy a comfortable four bed semi-detached house in the Rathfarnam area.

The total cost of building the homes at Stocking Hill was €5,075,879.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.2734739,-6.3089419,226m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Little CuChulainn

Uncle Ben wrote: »

Yep, I totally disagree with these universality payments. I work with a lassie, married to a barrister on a 6 figure sum who qualifies for children allowance and when the under 6 medical card comes in she'll qualify for 3 for her kids.

I'd guess a lot of those decrying McDonogh of his entitlement will turn the other cheek when Varadkar is handing out the medical cards for their sprogs.

Yeah, **** them for thinking medical care for children should be prioritised over a wasters drinking money. Bloody fascists.

Letree

We need a cap like the conservatives have brought in in the UK.

AlekSmart

Smidge wrote: »

And again, this is the crux of the issue.
AH rabble and bandwagon jumping.
Because this guy is a traveller. Simple as. Everyone uses this case as the yardstick for the commencement of yet another dole thread.

Is there not quite some generalising and bandwagon jumping in this post also ?

The gentleman covered in the Court Report,which,it is worth recalling,involved a Conviction is a member of the Travelling Community.

That is as far as it goes.

The Newspaper Report gives a factual account of the proceedings in court on that day,with nothing other than the exchanges between the Judge,The Defendant and his Barrister reported upon,in addition to previous convictions,all a matter of public record.

Whether an individual's reading of the report and their perspectives can automatically be assumed to be the same for "Everybody" is hugely open to question and robust challenge.

The core issue in this case,is not Dole Bashing or Travellers Rights,it is an attempt by an individual to mislead a Court,and the leeway given by a Judge to that individual,to reconsider his statements to the Court...Simple As

Dan_Solo

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

None of them have to starve. He should have the option to sign them in to state care if he cant provide for them.

We've been through this multiple times already.
State care would cost 10 times more and be 10 times worse that even the crappy family life this man was providing.

Dan_Solo

AlekSmart wrote: »

Well in all fairness,the gentleman in question is in receipt of something a tad more than basic rate SW.....

He is being treated significantly differently to an "ordinary" DSP customer by virtue of his culture alone.

Could you show me where travellers get different rates of SW please?

Guy:Incognito

Dan_Solo wrote: »

State care would cost 10 times more and be 10 times worse that even the crappy family life this man was providing.

Is the issue ensuring the kids are properly looked after or that they survive for the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer?

What about the future costs to the state if they follow his lifestyle?

Smidge

AlekSmart wrote: »

Well in all fairness,the gentleman in question is in receipt of something a tad more than basic rate SW.....

He is being treated significantly differently to an "ordinary" DSP customer by virtue of his culture alone.

Whether pointing this out amounts to "Sensationalism" is open to debate.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/councils-forking-out-500000-on-halting-bays-for-travellers-26594933.html

How is the halting site being built (I assume it wasnt only for him? )make him a scammer and in receipt of more than the basic SW rate?

He gets the basic SW rate for his family. Thats it. End of.

I've been here long enough to know not to bother with these bloody circle jerk fecking threads. Plays havoc with the aul blood pressure

Smidge

Mo60 wrote: »

Whether this person is a traveller or not has nothing to do with my opinion. In fact the person I had in mind is certainly not a traveller, just a a lazy so and so in his forties who has hardly done a days work in his life and does not intend to do so in future.

If you are happy going out to work to support his chosen lifestyle then so be it, but not all of us agree with you.

You see, that just negates anything else you have posted.
I never said I'm happy with it. I dont agree with a lot of what goes on in this country.
But I CHOOSE not to tar everyone with my tar brush of bigotry.
And, more importantly, I cannot stand the ridiculousness of some of the crapola that people spout. That bugs me more than anything else.
They KNOW that everyone, working or not, gets the same rate of SB.
They KNOW that the SW rate is across the board.
Does this matter when a soapbox and a high horse is involved?
Does it fuk.

Guy:Incognito

Smidge wrote: »

You see, that just negates anything else you have posted.
I never said I'm happy with it. I dont agree with a lot of what goes on in this country.
But I CHOOSE not to tar everyone with my tar brush of bigotry.
And, more importantly, I cannot stand the ridiculousness of some of the crapola that people spout. That bugs me more than anything else.
They KNOW that everyone, working or not, gets the same rate of SB.
They KNOW that the SW rate is across the board.
Does this matter when a soapbox and a high horse is involved?
Does it fuk.

Who do I see about my free purpose built house, surrounded by the type of people I want to live beside and away from the type of people I don't want to?

Little CuChulainn

AlekSmart wrote: »

Well in all fairness,the gentleman in question is in receipt of something a tad more than basic rate SW.....

He is being treated significantly differently to an "ordinary" DSP customer by virtue of his culture alone.

Whether pointing this out amounts to "Sensationalism" is open to debate.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/councils-forking-out-500000-on-halting-bays-for-travellers-26594933.html

That's nothing. They are investing 10 million in the kip of a site on the Kylemore Road.

bjork

Dan_Solo wrote: »

We've been through this multiple times already.
State care would cost 10 times more and be 10 times worse that even the crappy family life this man was providing.

Yes it's like the waltons. 10 people living in a caravan with daddy drunk and fighting with the Gardai called at 9.30am, sounds divine

Smidge

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Who do I see about my free purpose built house, surrounded by the type of people I want to live beside and away from the type of people I don't want to?

DCC.

evo2000

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'd have people sign on every day for a start. If they have something else to be doing then they don't need the dole.

This right here just dismisses everything else you say, and you call other people dumb... lmao :rolleyes:

Dan_Solo

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Is the issue ensuring the kids are properly looked after or that they survive for the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer?

What about the future costs to the state if they follow his lifestyle?

Why is this an "or" question? Like I said, the state costs ten times more and the people who come out of the state system are often as poorly adjusted to being the taxpaying member of society you so crave as any traveller is.

Dan_Solo

evo2000 wrote: »

This right here just dismisses everything else you say, and you call other people dumb... lmao :rolleyes:

The fact that you can't even cobble together a half assed argument against what I said does pretty much the same for you.

end of the road

Amazingfun wrote: »

not that I believe facts mean anything to you or will halt your use of ridiculous statements like the one above.....but for the benefit of those reading: the cop in Ferguson was cleared of any wrongdoing. So the "homie" Mike Brown was the problem from step one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2920817/FBI-completes-federal-probe-Ferguson-shooting.html

he was never going to be convicted. cops don't really get convicted in america, especially when it comes to acts of violence against minorities. thats the sad reality.