Broodmother wants more children

ohnonotgmail

Syphonax wrote: »

in the context of this thread (and country), thats hardly is going to happen now is it? More children = more free money and a free roof over your head.

well its certainly a better idea than forcing people to undergo a medical procedure.

eviltwin

Syphonax wrote: »

in the context of this thread, it hardly is going to work if its done by choice now is it?

And forced sterilization is never going to happen in this country.

super_furry

Syphonax wrote: »

limit the amount of children per family to say 4. sterilise the woman after she has had that amount. If its the law then yes by force as you put it.

Why four?

Who makes and implements this law?

How is it enforced? Do the Gardai forcibly remove women from their homes in order to be sterilised?

How do you find medical professionals willing to perform this procedure?

Syphonax

I know of a male colleague who quit to look after his children with his partner, they had 5 last I heard and he does nixers whenever it suits him. They get more money because of their kids and do almost zero 'work' compared to similar a working couple. The insentive here is to do fook all and jump on the back of people who both work and raise a family. I a bloody disgrace and shambles of a system we live in.

Syphonax

super_furry wrote: »

Why four?

Who makes and implements this law?

How is it enforced? Do the Gardai forcibly remove women from their homes in order to be sterilised?

How do you find medical professionals willing to perform this procedure?

4? cus I said so. Hospitals would enforce it. You would hire medical professionals to do it, cant hardly be as bad as performing an abortion now would it?

LirW

Ahhh love me the people that get their fantasies when they read articles of extreme examples like this.
Death penalty, forced sterilisation and the like. Yeah dream on, have your pint and a nice **** and go to sleep, the world is brighter tomorrow.

eviltwin

Syphonax wrote: »

4? cus I said so. Hospitals would enforce it. You would hire medical professionals to do it, cant hardly be as bad as performing an abortion now would it?

We don't force women to have abortions unless you suggest we do that to just in case the operation doesn't work. Generally speaking medical professionals are not in the habit of carrying out unnecessary surgery against the will of the patient just because it suits the State.

super_furry

Syphonax wrote: »

4? cus I said so. Hospitals would enforce it. You would hire medical professionals to do it, cant hardly be as bad as performing an abortion now would it?

Ahh I see, so you're talking through your arse.

Good to know.

Danjamin1

Do people realise they're advocating the use of Eugenics?

Look it up there, see what it says before we take this forced sterilization concept any further.

end of the road

Synthol wrote: »

So this is where 40% of my wage go to, to support breeders on social welfare. I am working my ass off 60 hours per week and this is where all my finances are going. I basically have nothing left at the end of the week due to massive taxation.

nope. it's not where 40%, or even all your finances are going as you claim. a proportion of your wage will go on taxes, which cover everything, and a tiny proportion of that goes to wellfare.
nice rant though.

for what it's worth, i would agree that people like this mother need to stop having children but the reality is they aren't going to, and regardless of my opinion on her, those children need to be supported. they are the only ones we should be concerned about.
i don't think she will win the case but i'm no legal expert.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

But is falling birth rates down to people like this? We live in a country that encourages people not to work. This family are receiving so much in social welfare that they're over the treshold for social housing. They're receiving so much of the taxpayers money they're actually better off financially than families who work. People are free to have as many children as they like but should have no reasonable expectation that it's societies responsibility to fund her clown car vagina.

Children's allowance benefit should be capped at 2 children. Have more children by all means but pay for them yourself. Let's call a spade a spade, this woman and her husband will never work, and her litter of kids will be the exact same.

People are getting up and working paying taxes to fund the likes off her and are putting off having their own families because they can't afford to. Women are going back to work after having children and are paying childminders and crèches to care for their kids while they make money and pay into the pot that keeps these people at home breeding.

The likes of them contribute nothing positive to society and it's wrong that they can reap the benefits of a pot they contribute nothing to. They're over the income threshold so they're not eligible for social housing, if they bend the rules for this family and not for a young working family who are over the threshold too then that's very very wrong

we do not live in a country that encourages people not to work. Children's allowance benefit being capped at 2 children won't work, it's a nice idea in theory but unworkable in practice. the rules won't be bended for this couple but if they were it would be on the basis of whatever circumstance that a working family in the same situation may not meet.

Syphonax

lol at the above, yes lets do nothing and pay for others to sit by why we do all the work. No balls, no ideas, nothing between the ears but fluff.

Syphonax

super_furry wrote: »

Ahh I see, so you're talking through your arse.

Good to know.

At least I have an arse

LirW

There is a lot in between doing nothing and force medical procedures on people, you know.

Syphonax

LirW wrote: »

Ahhh love me the people that get their fantasies when they read articles of extreme examples like this.
Death penalty, forced sterilisation and the like. Yeah dream on, have your pint and a nice **** and go to sleep, the world is brighter tomorrow.

Ah the do nothing approach. Hows that working out for you?

Syphonax

LirW wrote: »

There is a lot in between doing nothing and force medical procedures on people, you know.

Thats why we dont allow abortion in this country, forcing it on the child in the womb, its just wrong.

ohnonotgmail

Syphonax wrote: »

Thats why we dont allow abortion in this country, forcing it on the child in the womb, its just wrong.

but you are quite happy to force a medical procedure on a woman. why is that not also wrong?

Syphonax

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but you are quite happy to force a medical procedure on a woman. why is that not also wrong?

Because she has already had enough children, and cant take care of any more properly on her own income, she is a liability to the State and her own children. Bigger picture and all that.

jmayo

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

No, it doesn't, you're not paying 40% of your wages in tax for starters, only a portion of that goes to the DSP, and the pension is the largest expenditure by the DSP, not the dole.

Go tell the HSE to stop keeping people alive so long, the health service and OAP's are the ones feasting on your tax.

Honestly, I wish dole bashing threads were just banned on here. They're ridiculously overdone, if you've read one you've read them all, nothing new will ever come out of them.

Personally I wish people who condone this type of funded overbreeding were banned like the overbreeders.

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

You don't get any say in where your taxes go. Never have, never will. Get over it. It's not your money once they take it. In fact it is never your money, you just get to rent it for a while after it's printed. If you think people who don't work have it so much better, go and do that then.

But you do get to study hard for years, get up early in the morning, probably spend a fair amount of your day traveling to and from your place of work, probably get to spend most of your life working with and for people who you would consider assh*les.

What do these people who freeload on the state get to do ?
Oh yeah they get to sit around all day, fook all night and spend the money you got to rent for a while. :rolleyes:

The thing is families and women who have to work don't get to have many kids because they have to pay for these other fookers kids.
They pay for their own healthcare, they pay for the healthcare of their children, they pay for childcare, they pay for housing.
Yet the entitled ones, and even worse their fooking apologists, think that the current situation is ok.
And to top it off this family think they are not being treated fairly enough. :mad:

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

The government wastes huge amounts of money in a myriad of ways and will continue to do so as long as we have FF/FG establishment gravy train incompetents in office. We should be doing something to get rid of them if we are unhappy with the status quo.

You can probably add the amounts wasted on some peoples education to that list.

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

This woman's fanny can only stretch so far, she's hardly going to sink the country with it.

Problem is when you add all the other stretched fannies you get a chasm that swallows the taxes and hard earned money of others. :mad:

eviltwin

Syphonax wrote: »

Because she has already had enough children, and cant take care of any more properly on her own income, she is a liability to the State and her own children. Bigger picture and all that.

Would it not be a lot easier and less risky to force her husband to have the snip?

team_actimel

eviltwin wrote: »

Would it not be a lot easier and less risky to force her husband to have the snip?

You couldn't force anyone to have the snip.

Maybe some incentive to get sterilised/snipped. There'd be no other way around it.

end of the road

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

In a proper country both of these wasters would be sent job opportunities from the SW office. Refuse them, allowance cut.
Why doesn't this happen in Ireland?

because in truth it would be a waste of time. nobody is going to employ them for a start.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

It's all well and good saying sure leave them to it it's none of our business etc etc.

But when money is been spunked away on people like this other vital services suffer like health etc.

People who worked all their lives left waiting on trollies while this one complains about her 50 grand a year income.

It's not right.

Furthermore it just encourages more people to do the same.

We will come to a point where the welfare system will effectively bankrupt the country.

As it stands it's 20 billion a year. 1 out of every 2 people are on some sort of welfare payment. Yes I am aware pensions and child support are part of this . I'm including them too.

It's not sustainiable in the long run and everyone needs to contribute something to the pot.

there is no evidence it encourages more people to do the same. if you want everyone to be able to contribute to the pot then the cost of living is going to have to come down. we will also have to except there will be a minority who never will contribute for whatever reason as they are unemployable.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

1. Yes.

2. Then they have another baby but we dont pay for it

3. Then they have triplets. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

4. Their problem, not ours.

1. can't be done, tried and failed and destroyed some in the process (i'm aware it worked out well for others) . the facility to put children up for adoption is all ready there but it is on the parents to make that decisian.
2. the children have to be supported whether we like the parents or not, it's about the children and nobody else.
4. it is your problem whether you want it to be or not.

mfceiling wrote: »

Who the fcuk said this is a dole bashing thread?

This is a woman who has 8 kids, wants more, can't afford to put a roof over their heads so expects the state to house them and fund them.

How about no. How about you go and buy your own 8 bed house for your family?

Dole bashing me arse....this is a family of spongers who want the tab for their lifestyle choice to be picked up by the rest of us.

why should she go and buy a house? why should a bank take the risk giving her a mortgage she will never pay.
so she can instead be one of those few mortgage holders who turn up from time to time who got an overpriced mortgage they were never going to be able to sustain long term and who play the victim and hard done by? no thanks.

eviltwin

team_actimel wrote: »

You couldn't force anyone to have the snip.

Maybe some incentive to get sterilised/snipped. There'd be no other way around it.

I don't believe anyone should be forced into either but I'm curious why the OP feels it should be the woman who has to forcibly undergo an expensive and invasive procedure when we could force her husband instead. There is a pair of them in it after all.

LirW

Isn't it usually the same people that cry out loud when there are forced procedures of any kind somewhere in the Middle east or Asia but then have no problem with suggesting forced invasive procedures on people?

I'm not up for leaving these people be and open a children zoo but forcing procedures on people is certainly against human rights. What it needs is a rigorous enforcement of social welfare caps, where it's a take it or leave it situation. People get to choose from 2 council houses otherwise they get thrown off the list; after a certain amount of kids without having an employment record promoting permanent procedures heavily and cap child benefit. There are many things unfortunately that need to go hand in hand. When strong boundaries are laid, something like this can't happen again and there is the problem: nobody enforces them.

user2011

She has 7 daughters...

That is some hook they got the DSP on. Even if its one or two daughters that follow the shining light that is Winnie the bestest mammy in the world the others will probably have 3/4 kids each.

Bambi985

Call me an idiot, but how exactly can she be receiving dole to the value of 50k? How many benefit payments is she getting that it all adds up to that amount? Is there no limit with state funding like this, like could I just quit my job and start popping out sprogs like no-one's business and get more and more payments?

Gerinspain

I'd say that if there was already a limit on the amount of money given to a family this woman wouldn't see the benefit of having any more kids.

Gatling

Child benefit is 1,120 pm nice little monthly bonus on top of the 500+ pw for literally doing nothing

Winterlong

Gatling wrote: »

Child benefit is 1,120 pm nice little monthly bonus on top of the 500+ pw for literally doing nothing

Well them babies dont make themselves so not quite 'nothing'. :pac:

LirW

Child benefit, dole includes also some extra for dependants, maybe Fuel allowance and Back to school.

Winterlong

On a more serious note though - social welfare should be there as an emergency net to help people when they are out of work, down on their luck.
But it is a way of life for some people and they are more than happy to exploit the system for every last penny.
The first party to seriously tackle the problem gets my vote.

Wheeliebin30

end of the road wrote: »

nope. it's not where 40%, or even all your finances are going as you claim. a proportion of your wage will go on taxes, which cover everything, and a tiny proportion of that goes to wellfare.
nice rant though.

for what it's worth, i would agree that people like this mother need to stop having children but the reality is they aren't going to, and regardless of my opinion on her, those children need to be supported. they are the only ones we should be concerned about.
i don't think she will win the case but i'm no legal expert.



we do not live in a country that encourages people not to work. Children's allowance benefit being capped at 2 children won't work, it's a nice idea in theory but unworkable in practice. the rules won't be bended for this couple but if they were it would be on the basis of whatever circumstance that a working family in the same situation may not meet.

Yeah. Come back to us when you actually contribute to the pot.

It's a lot easier to stick up for these when you don't

crossmolinalad

Same as in Holland
First two full child benefits , third one gets only half of the benefits and from the fourth, fifth, sixth and so on got nothing
They will stop after a third one

Billy86

screamer wrote: »

I'm sure those of you who don't mind paying taxes so others can sit on their arse and make more mouths to feed won't mind ponying up to pay even more tax as the wasters increase and the drain strengthens.

Gatling

Winterlong wrote: »

On a more serious note though - social welfare should be there as an emergency net ,

The first party to seriously tackle the problem gets my vote.

No party ever will ,
That's one of the problems we have to many generations with the idea SW is a lifestyle choice ,
People will come along and say nobody chooses to live their entire lives on welfare but as we all know it's exactly what happens

Wheeliebin30

What grinds my gears the most is sinn fein and the left screaming about inequality and poverty and how the government is leaving people to starve or something.

It is an unequal society alright. Just not the way they like to spout it.

ohnonotgmail

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Yeah. Come back to us when you actually contribute to the pot.

It's a lot easier to stick up for these when you don't

how do you know they dont????

Wheeliebin30

Gatling wrote: »

No party ever will ,
That's one of the problems we have to many generations with the idea SW is a lifestyle choice ,
People will come along and say nobody chooses to live their entire lives on welfare but as we all know it's exactly what happens

And as soon as leo tried suggesting a clampdown on fraud people lost their minds and start coming out with da bankers rabble rabble.

Wheeliebin30

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how do you know they dont????

Who?

jimgoose

Anyone else initially misread the thread title as "Broadmoor wants more children"? :pac:

ohnonotgmail

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Who?

you addressed that at EOTR.

Gatling

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

And as soon as leo tried suggesting a clampdown on fraud people lost their minds and start coming out with da bankers rabble rabble.

That's exactly what happened ,

ohnonotgmail

jimgoose wrote: »

Anyone else initially misread the thread title as "Broadmoor wants more children"? :pac:

Glad to know i wasnt alone.

jimgoose

What's this about anyway - ah yes, the usual. Does this 48-odd grand these folk are getting include the €13,000 or so in children's allowance due, assuming all the kids are under 18 and in school, similarly for another €12,000-odd for eight qualifying dependents under Jobseeker's Benefit, for example? All of which is there for - you guessed it, kids! - anyone who needs it, such as someone who finds themselves without means and still having several small but hungry mouths to feed.

team_actimel

Winterlong wrote: »

On a more serious note though - social welfare should be there as an emergency net to help people when they are out of work, down on their luck.
But it is a way of life for some people and they are more than happy to exploit the system for every last penny.
The first party to seriously tackle the problem gets my vote.

I completely agree with you.

But, inevitably there'd be a rise in crime and homelessness and the government must think it's the easiest option to dole out benefits to anyone, rather than just having it as an emergency net.

Gatling

jimgoose wrote: »

What's this about anyway - ah yes, the usual. Does this 48-odd grand these folk are getting include the €13,000 or so in children's allowance due, assuming all the kids are under 18 and in school, similarly for another €12,000-odd for eight qualifying dependents under Jobseeker's Benefit, for example? All of which is there for - you guessed it, kids! - anyone who needs it, such as someone who finds themselves without means and still having several small but hungry mouths to feed.

Don't forget about the up to 12 grand for the rent ,and then the ability to get exceptional needs payments and help from st Vincents who give vouchers to buy shopping ,

Someone with no means still deciding to keep adding to the number of little mouths that need Feeding

jimgoose

Gatling wrote: »

Don't forget about the up to 12 grand for the rent ,and then the ability to get exceptional needs payments and help from st Vincents who give vouchers to buy shopping ,

Someone with no means still deciding to keep adding to the number of little mouths that need Feeding

Sure who else would have time to rear that many children?? :pac:

kylith

How about: she gets the house, but barely a penny more. Food and clothing gets delivered to the house along with €50pw spending money for anyone over the age of 18.

jimgoose

kylith wrote: »

How about: she gets the house, but barely a penny more. Food and clothing gets delivered to the house along with €50pw spending money for anyone over the age of 18.

Why is it necessarily assumed that they have to get a six-bedroomed place based on the number of children they have? I say give 'em a comfy little three-bed mid-terrace like everyone else in that situation, and rack 'em up in bunk-beds if it be playsin' 'em.

Romantic Rose

If you can't feed them, don't breed them.

Definitely applies here.

jimgoose

Romantic Rose wrote: »

If you can't feed them, don't breed them.

Definitely applies here.

She can feed them. This rather civilised jurisdiction arranges matters such that she can.