Mum of 4 jailed for stealing €100k from the social

exaisle

exaisle wrote: »

Regardless of the morality of it, what vulture funds do is legal.

Unlike social welfare fraud.

Proves my point in a way. Vulture funds are causing alot of the homelessness we have today but because its big corporations and big wigs the government are turning a blind eye to this unfairness. Children are meant to be protected by the state but instead their lives are turned upside down moving pillar to post and nothing being done to put an end to this practice.

The government are very willing and able to hit the little guy though.

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Proves my point in a way. Vulture funds are causing alot of the homelessness we have today but because its big corporations and big wigs the government are turning a blind eye to this unfairness. Children are meant to be protected by the state but instead their lives are turned upside down moving pillar to post and nothing being done to put an end to this practice.

The government are very willing and able to hit the little guy though.

Children are meant to be protected by their parents. I wonder why you don’t look to them to take responsibility for the welfare of their children before loading it onto us?

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

Children are meant to be protected by their parents. I wonder why you don’t look to them to take responsibility for the welfare of their children before loading it onto us?

Of course, but it makes it a bit harder when they are being evicted from their homes by Vulture fund corporations. Financial struggle doesnt make someone a bad parent.

Farmer Bob

splinter65 wrote: »

Children are meant to be protected by their parents

Go read Article 42A of the Constitution - the bit where the State claims to protect and vindicate the rights of children.

I thought you were at the “coal face”...

Smh :rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Of course, but it makes it a bit harder when they are being evicted from their homes by Vulture fund corporations. Financial struggle doesnt make someone a bad parent.

There are laws surrounding eviction notices which must be strictly adhered to and are on the most part.
Vulture funds are not exempt form the law even though you’d like to pretend that they are.
Most landlords are not vulture funds.
The shortest notice period is 28 days.
If nothing else then a parent should have been able to make an arrangement in that period with a family member or loved one.
If you can’t provide for your children’s most basic needs then you need to get help and advice.

splinter65

Farmer Bob wrote: »

Go read Article 42A of the Constitution - the bit where the State claims to protect and vindicate the rights of children.

I thought you were at the “coal face”...

Smh :rolleyes:

So parents get to sit back and enjoy the ride while everyone else takes care of their kids. Since when?
No honestly . You are speaking for a whole section of our society. You truly believe that parents have no responsibilty for the children they decided to have?

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No one is suggesting they live free. There is surely a better solution in a so called democracy than just throwing people out on the street.

Going back on topic, my point is that certain sectors of society are held to account for their actions while some of the upper echelons are not. Id have no issue in jailing this woman for fraud if i thought that politicians would be put through the same process instead of these farcical tribunals that insult everyone's intelligence and waste tax payers money. Thats not the case though

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

There are laws surrounding eviction notices which must be strictly adhered to and are on the most part.
Vulture funds are not exempt form the law even though you’d like to pretend that they are.
Most landlords are not vulture funds.
The shortest notice period is 28 days.
If nothing else then a parent should have been able to make an arrangement in that period with a family member or loved one.
If you can’t provide for your children’s most basic needs then you need to get help and advice.

How exactly do you do this in a city like Dublin for example where there is a huge housing shortage?

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No one is suggesting they live free. There is surely a better solution in a so called democracy than just throwing people out on the street.

Going back on topic, my point is that certain sectors of society are held to account for their actions while some of the upper echelons are not. Id have no issue in jailing this woman for fraud if i thought that politicians would be put through the same process instead of these farcical tribunals that insult everyone's intelligence and waste tax payers money. Thats not the case though

But which politicians do you think there is enough evidence to charge with which crimes ? Can you be more specific?
Or are you just trotting out the same old boring rhetoric?
You can see enough clear evidence for the DPP to instruct the Gardai to arrest and charge which politicians and with what?

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How exactly do you do this in a city like Dublin for example where there is a huge housing shortage?

If I’m served with 28 days notice then I immediately start looking for something else . If there’s nothing else in my price range in my area then I look in an area where there might be something in my price range.
In the meantime there isn’t a granny or grandad or auntie in this country who will see a grandchild with no bed to lie in.
If you want to stick it out in a hotel in order to coerce the LA to put in in the house of your choosing on the street of your choosing then personally I would allow it for 2 weeks before cutting you off.
If that involves uprooting my life and my children’s lives to move then so be it.
Millions of people do this all over the world every day . People have done it for hundreds of years.
As long as you have a roof over your children’s heads, we have an excellent SW system to support families while they get started again.
If you are not in a position to house your family yourself, and are asking the state to do that for you, then how can you expect to dictate where you will and won’t live?

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

But which politicians do you think there is enough evidence to charge with which crimes ? Can you be more specific?
Or are you just trotting out the same old boring rhetoric?
You can see enough clear evidence for the DPP to instruct the Gardai to arrest and charge which politicians and with what?

Moriarty Tribunal for example. Many findings of improper conduct. We all know against who and im not going to mention any names. What exactly was the point of it all? Absolutely f-all has come of it. Surely enough evidence was found to escalate it to trial?

Chrongen

For Forks Sake wrote: »

She'll still have it repaid before Mick Wallace does.

:pac:

Chrongen

splinter65 wrote: »

Glad to see the judge ignoring her sob story.
Wait now for the lefties to come along with the “what about the bankers” nonsense.
€20 billion+ a year on SW. If cretins like this didn’t steal double what their entitled too maybe there’d be more for carers and disabled people.
Nothing to do with bankers.

She belongs in jail and so do the bankers who embezzled billions.

Do you have a problem with that or is it just "lefties" who think so whereas "righties" think they should be given a pass because "sure without them the country would be fukked"


"There'd be more disabled people" ? What the fcuk is that supposed to mean?

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Moriarty Tribunal for example. Many findings of improper conduct. We all know against who and im not going to mention any names. What exactly was the point of it all? Absolutely f-all has come of it. Surely enough evidence was found to escalate it to trial?

If I were you and I thought that enough evidence was found to prosecute then I would be asking my TD to explain why (based on the evidence you have collated) no prosecutions have taken place.

JP Liz V1

Yes can she not sell her house?

pemay

Having met so many lying cheating bast**ds that get away shyt on a daily basis in this country (and others), I say fair play to her.

Gifted a house cos you played the social welfare system? Go for it.
Inherited a lovely house without lifting a finger? Well done you.

Got a cosy number of a job cos of who you know? Well done.
Don't see the point of working cos you can claim a million benefits? Why not?

Only the fools caught in the middle will pay, the top part of society and lower part of society are having a whale of a time in general.

Farmer Bob

Deleted User wrote: »

Moriarty Tribunal for example. Many findings of improper conduct. We all know against who and im not going to mention any names. What exactly was the point of it all? Absolutely f-all has come of it. Surely enough evidence was found to escalate it to trial?

Findings of tribunals can't be used as evidence in criminals trials.

Once finished, the tribunal makes its report to the Oireachtas.

So if you want to use the Moriarty Tribunal as an example, the Oireachtas is hardly going to take action against corrupt politicians is it?

Don't hate the player, hate the game. :pac:

Chrongen

pemay wrote: »

Having met so many lying cheating bast**ds that get away shyt on a daily basis in this country (and others), I say fair play to her.

Gifted a house cos you played the social welfare system? Go for it.
Inherited a lovely house without lifting a finger? Well done you.

Got a cosy number of a job cos of who you know? Well done.
Don't see the point of working cos you can claim a million benefits? Why not?

Only the fools caught in the middle will pay, the top part of society and lower part of society are having a whale of a time in general.

You're not wrong. And the funny thing is that the clowns in the middle sneer at the ones at the bottom who fleece them yet lick the arse of the ones at the top who fleece them.

It's comical.

pemay

Chrongen wrote: »

You're not wrong. And the funny thing is that the clowns in the middle sneer at the ones at the bottom who fleece them yet lick the arse of the ones at the top who fleece them.

It's comical.

Its gas stuff!

And can you blame them? Lately I've been feeling more and more of a fool for being honest, seriously.

sbsquarepants

Doctors room ghost wrote: »

To get by you say.manys the honest hardworking man or woman who struggles to get by but doesn’t resort to theft and fraud.she should be in a chain gang and knock some good out of her in community service instead of housing her fat arse in a warm prison.shes too fat and useless looking to do any good though I’d say even if you did put her working

I'm sure you're a beacon of honesty in a world mired in corruption. Never a downloaded song, nor a streamed movie, a true prince among men.
I'm also sure you'd manage to bite your tongue if face to face with an actual criminal as opposed to raining hell fire and brimstone down on a old woman from behind your keyboard.
No point visiting an actual doctors room eh!

splinter65 wrote: »

Your one of those people who just doesn’t understand that “fiddled the scratcher” doesn’t mean that she stole from some greasy TD.
She stole from you and me.
Have you any idea how the country is run at all?

Of course I know how it works - the money should be taken back, from her estate if necessary. There is no need to whip her, or to hang her!
This is a (now) old lady barely getting by, no yachts or lamborghinis, there are real criminals out there - both the good old fashioned, shooting people, selling drugs types and the more insidious mortgage cartel types. Remember them, they stole a billion from "us" quite recently, even though "we" own them and after "we'd" given them 60odd other billion when their previous scam came crashing down around their ears. It's these fúckers that have this country ruined, not some auld one working part time cleaning a hospital ffs! This is where our anger should be directed.
I have a good idea how the country is run, I also have a good idea who the real criminals are - do you? Does doctors room gobshíte?

Doctor Jimbob

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm sure you're a beacon of honesty in a world mired in corruption. Never a downloaded song, nor a streamed movie, a true prince among men.
I'm also sure you'd manage to bite your tongue if face to face with an actual criminal as opposed to raining hell fire and brimstone down on a old woman from behind your keyboard.
No point visiting an actual doctors room eh!



Of course I know how it works - the money should be taken back, from her estate if necessary. There is no need to whip her, or to hang her!
This is a (now) old lady barely getting by, no yachts or lamborghinis, there are real criminals out there - both the good old fashioned, shooting people, selling drugs types and the more insidious mortgage cartel types. Remember them, they stole a billion from "us" quite recently, even though "we" own them and after "we'd" given them 60odd other billion when their previous scam came crashing down around their ears. It's these fúckers that have this country ruined, not some auld one working part time cleaning a hospital ffs! This is where our anger should be directed.
I have a good idea how the country is run, I also have a good idea who the real criminals are - do you? Does doctors room gobshíte?

No point even mentioning that, it'll just be the usual "yeah but that's different" responses, or you'll get called a rabid leftie. Never mind that they're both costing the taxpayer money and the only difference is of scale. Some people just want to blame everything on those they percieve to be beneath them.

marienbad

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm sure you're a beacon of honesty in a world mired in corruption. Never a downloaded song, nor a streamed movie, a true prince among men.
I'm also sure you'd manage to bite your tongue if face to face with an actual criminal as opposed to raining hell fire and brimstone down on a old woman from behind your keyboard.
No point visiting an actual doctors room eh!



Of course I know how it works - the money should be taken back, from her estate if necessary. There is no need to whip her, or to hang her!
This is a (now) old lady barely getting by, no yachts or lamborghinis, there are real criminals out there - both the good old fashioned, shooting people, selling drugs types and the more insidious mortgage cartel types. Remember them, they stole a billion from "us" quite recently, even though "we" own them and after "we'd" given them 60odd other billion when their previous scam came crashing down around their ears. It's these fúckers that have this country ruined, not some auld one working part time cleaning a hospital ffs! This is where our anger should be directed.
I have a good idea how the country is run, I also have a good idea who the real criminals are - do you? Does doctors room gobshíte?

She is a 'real criminal ' ,the rest of your post is just an irrelevant rant .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sbsquarepants

marienbad wrote: »

She is a 'real criminal ' ,the rest of your post is just an irrelevant rant .

I watched 3 billboards outside ebbing Missouri, and the Disaster Artist at the weekend. (I'd recommend both by the way)
Streamed them both on Kodi. So I'm "real" criminal too.

Am I the same as cleaner lady? Should I be thrown in jail? Stuck on a chain gang? Beheaded?

Or is scale actually important in these things as I suggest? Is it actually worse to steal a billion than a hundred grand, is a hundred grand worse than a movie?

Or is a crime, just a crime in your one size fits all world?

marienbad

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I watched 3 billboards outside ebbing Missouri, and the Disaster Artist at the weekend. (I'd recommend both by the way)
Streamed them both on Kodi. So I'm "real" criminal too.

Am I the same as cleaner lady? Should I be thrown in jail? Stuck on a chain gang? Beheaded?

Or is scale actually important in these things as I suggest? Is it actually worse to steal a billion than a hundred grand, is a hundred grand worse than a movie?

Or is a crime, just a crime in your one size fits all world?

you are responsible for what you do , she is for what she does and Wilbur Ross for what he does , is that so hard to understand without going into a relativist rant ?

sbsquarepants

marienbad wrote: »

you are responsible for what you do , she is for what she does and Wilbur Ross for what he does , is that so hard to understand without going into a relativist rant ?

I agree with you regarding responsibility.

My question is one of punishment. There are people here calling for this woman to be put on a chain gang ffs!

Do you think that would be a fitting punishment?

I think it's a tad harsh myself. I feel as if this lady is being unfairly vilified, like she's some criminal overlord. I don't believe that a crime is a crime is a crime. Do you?

BillyBobBS

pemay wrote: »

Its gas stuff!

And can you blame them? Lately I've been feeling more and more of a fool for being honest, seriously.

Keep voting the same showers into power and nothing will change.

Grayson

Chrongen wrote: »

She belongs in jail and so do the bankers who embezzled billions.

You're equating her crime with the crime of stealing billions. They're not. Stealing isn't all the same. In this case we can see that 100,000 isn't the same as 1,000,000,000

She should be tried and found guilty but the sentence doesn't have to be overly harsh.

We do have a justice system that takes motivations into account. And the level of crime committed too. Plus the system is designed to ask what good would society get from locking up the woman.

suicide_circus

Grayson wrote: »

You're equating her crime with the crime of stealing billions. They're not. Stealing isn't all the same. In this case we can see that 100,000 isn't the same as 1,000,000,000

She should be tried and found guilty but the sentence doesn't have to be overly harsh.

We do have a justice system that takes motivations into account. And the level of crime committed too. Plus the system is designed to ask what good would society get from locking up the woman.

Motivation? Her motivation was to get free money she didn't earn and had no entitlement to.

noinc

She stole the money from the dole to pay for her house and keep a house over their head; is that not the same as having something for personal use a scam loophole that druggies hide behind every day? At least that SF politician stole toner for the parties use. Legal types and politicians have a different truth as the rest of us are expected to keep to.

Grayson

suicide_circus wrote: »

Motivation? Her motivation was to get free money she didn't earn and had no entitlement to.

That's her actions you're listing, not her motivations.

suicide_circus

Grayson wrote: »

That's her actions you're listing, not her motivations.

I'll leave the pointless mental gymnastics to you

Grayson

suicide_circus wrote: »

I'll leave the pointless mental gymnastics to you

It's not mental gymnastics, it's the actual definition of words. You're saying that she took money because she wanted to take money. Not because of what she would do with the money but because she simply wanted to steal money that she wasn't entitled to.

boardsuser1

Grayson wrote: »

entitled

How that one little word can cause so much damage in our society.

BattleCorp

Grayson wrote: »

You're equating her crime with the crime of stealing billions. They're not. Stealing isn't all the same. In this case we can see that 100,000 isn't the same as 1,000,000,000

I agree with you that not all crime is equal. But she didn't get caught nicking a couple of sweets out of the pick and mix in her local cinema. She stole over €130,000. It isn't an insignificant sum. It's a serious crime.

She should be tried and found guilty but the sentence doesn't have to be overly harsh.

Her sentence wasn't overly harsh. Like I mentioned above, she stole a pretty significant amount of money.

We do have a justice system that takes motivations into account. And the level of crime committed too. Plus the system is designed to ask what good would society get from locking up the woman.

Locking the woman up for committing this type of crime will help discourage others from doing similarly. Giving her a non-custodial sentence would send out the wrong message and encourage others to try and fiddle the system.

marienbad

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I agree with you regarding responsibility.

My question is one of punishment. There are people here calling for this woman to be put on a chain gang ffs!

Do you think that would be a fitting punishment?

I think it's a tad harsh myself. I feel as if this lady is being unfairly vilified, like she's some criminal overlord. I don't believe that a crime is a crime is a crime. Do you?

I don't believe she should be put on a chain gang or beheaded or any of that silly hyperbole .

And I don't know what you mean by 'a crime is a crime is a crime '

She stole 130k from the state , she did it over a long number of years , she actively assumed a second identity to steal even more and she would still be doing it now and into the future if she could .

How is that not a serious offence ?

Grayson

BattleCorp wrote: »

I agree with you that not all crime is equal. But she didn't get caught nicking a couple of sweets out of the pick and mix in her local cinema. She stole over €130,000. It isn't an insignificant sum. It's a serious crime.

Her sentence wasn't overly harsh. Like I mentioned above, she stole a pretty significant amount of money.


Locking the woman up for committing this type of crime will help discourage others from doing similarly. Giving her a non-custodial sentence would send out the wrong message and encourage others to try and fiddle the system.

I don't think the sentence was overly harsh. Throwing in some community service wouldn't have been inappropriate too. But I don't know if jail time would be worth it.

I don't think a custodial sentence would act as a deterrent. If you have any proof that it would, then post it. If I remember correctly there have been prison terms for this in the past. If they didn't deter then why would this?

splinter65

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I agree with you regarding responsibility.

My question is one of punishment. There are people here calling for this woman to be put on a chain gang ffs!

Do you think that would be a fitting punishment?

I think it's a tad harsh myself. I feel as if this lady is being unfairly vilified, like she's some criminal overlord. I don't believe that a crime is a crime is a crime. Do you?

There is a set amount of cash set aside for those who need state help.
It’s €21 billion.
If someone takes a lot more then they are entitled to, like this lady did, then someone else in the group, like carers or disabled, has to go without.
We have to deter people from doing this so that it’s fair for everyone in the group.
Do you agree with this?

BattleCorp

Grayson wrote: »

I don't think the sentence was overly harsh. Throwing in some community service wouldn't have been inappropriate too. But I don't know if jail time would be worth it.

I don't think a custodial sentence would act as a deterrent. If you have any proof that it would, then post it. If I remember correctly there have been prison terms for this in the past. If they didn't deter then why would this?

I would have no problem with her being forced to do community service along with some jail time. If she fiddled €1000, then I'd be happy with just community service, but seeing as the amount was €139,000, I believe jail time was needed.

Custodial sentences don't deter everybody, but they do deter some people. I'd have a massive weed farm in my shed only for the fact that I don't fancy going to Mountjoy for a holiday.

If you don't get jail for stealing €139,000, then what kind of signal does that send out?

Realistically, how long will she do in jail, maybe three or four months?

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

I would have no problem with her being forced to do community service along with some jail time. If she fiddled €1000, then I'd be happy with just community service, but seeing as the amount was €139,000, I believe jail time was needed.

Custodial sentences don't deter everybody, but they do deter some people. I'd have a massive weed farm in my shed only for the fact that I don't fancy going to Mountjoy for a holiday.

If you don't get jail for stealing €139,000, then what kind of signal does that send out?

Realistically, how long will she do in jail, maybe three or four months?

More than the amount involved i think the real problem is the length of time she was defrauding the social. How did she get away with it for so long?

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

More than the amount involved i think the real problem is the length of time she was defrauding the social. How did she get away with it for so long?

Probably a combination of luck and the lack of resources/skills/technology/initiative etc. etc. etc. at the Dept. of Social Welfare.

suicide_circus

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0129/936788-music-teacher-welfare-fraud/

Delighted to see this cheeky bollix get time too

Grayson

suicide_circus wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2018/0129/936788-music-teacher-welfare-fraud/

Delighted to see this cheeky bollix get time too

I agree. He stole so he could live in luxury.

sbsquarepants

marienbad wrote: »

She stole 130k from the state , she did it over a long number of years , she actively assumed a second identity to steal even more and she would still be doing it now and into the future if she could .

How is that not a serious offence ?

I never said it wasn't. The money should be recovered, but you can't make an old woman homeless even if she committed fraud. Let her pay back whatever amount she can from now on and put a lien on the house and get the money back from her estate when the time comes, stick interest on it to cover inflation and whatnot.

She's a fraudster, no question about that but my point was that it doesn't make her akin to Christy Kinahan - and I stand by that, it just doesn't!

That's what I mean by a crime is a crime is a crime. All crimes are not created equal, this lady is very much toward the lower end of the criminal scale if you ask me.

Ash.J.Williams

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I never said it wasn't. The money should be recovered, but you can't make an old woman homeless even if she committed fraud. Let her pay back whatever amount she can from now on and put a lien on the house and get the money back from her estate when the time comes, stick interest on it to cover inflation and whatnot.

She's a fraudster, no question about that but my point was that it doesn't make her akin to Christy Kinahan - and I stand by that, it just doesn't!

That's what I mean by a crime is a crime is a crime. All crimes are not created equal, this lady is very much toward the lower end of the criminal scale if you ask me.

Any self employed people might agree, you don't f** with the state.. It's more serious than murder, i suppose you could compare it to treason of the old days.

sbsquarepants

splinter65 wrote: »

There is a set amount of cash set aside for those who need state help.
It’s €21 billion.
If someone takes a lot more then they are entitled to, like this lady did, then someone else in the group, like carers or disabled, has to go without.
We have to deter people from doing this so that it’s fair for everyone in the group.
Do you agree with this?

I think it sounds great in theory, I certainly couldn't dispute your logic. But I also think it falls flat in practice.

For example we currently have a situation here where the EU is trying to force 13 extra billion into that pile of cash set aside for these people who need state help and the government are fighting tooth and nail not to have to accept it.
That equates to roughly one hundred thousand of these little old ladies on the fiddle!

It's a patently unfair system, very much rigged in the favour of the big corporations. Maybe it would serve us all better to focus on the billions rather than the thousands?

Does that mean she's not a crook? Absolutely not, she's a guilty as sin.

But.... is she the type of crook we should be worried about and focusing our attention on? Absolutely not, she's barely a drop in the ocean! After everyone involved gets their fat little fingers in the pie, it will very probably cost more to prosecute her than she stole in the first place.

Spending a tenner to recover a fiver is nothing short of stupidity!

turbbo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But.... is she the type of crook we should be worried about and focusing our attention on? Absolutely not, she's barely a drop in the ocean! After everyone involved gets their fat little fingers in the pie, it will very probably cost more to prosecute her than she stole in the first place.

What are you raving about?? Who's this mythical "everyone involved"? She was involved she robbed the money - end of. Get a grip.

sbsquarepants

turbbo wrote: »

What are you raving about?? Who's this mythical "everyone involved"? She was involved she robbed the money - end of. Get a grip.

Everyone involved being the legal system, the investigation team and so on. All the people involved in bringing the case from suspicion to conviction - they aren't volunteers.

turbbo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Everyone involved being the legal system, the investigation team and so on. All the people involved in bringing the case from suspicion to conviction - they aren't volunteers.

So they have jobs, and they do them to get paid, and in fact pay income tax - what is your point? Those jobs weren't invented specially for one case, fraud detection is part and parcel of delivering a fair welfare system. Claiming that it would be cheaper to allow the fraud to continue is nonsense, what happens all the fraudulent claims that are made everyday of the year in every corner of the country? Just ignore them too? Don't think our pockets as taxpayers would be deep enough to fund your plan.