Significant increase' in babies born into homelessness

Richard571

The homeless charity industry really winds me up sometimes.

See latest news story on RTÉ on increasing amount of babies born into homelessness...,“The charity's founder (Focus) Sr Stan said it was "shocking and appalling" and "fundamentally wrong", adding that the situation was "worse than ever”.

What is wrong is the complete lack of personal accountability- WTF are people having children for if they are in temporary accommodation. The state should not be there to support everyone in every situation if they recklessly add to their own woes.

I’m sure they do good work and I know there are genuine cases but this undermines their position in my mind.

End of rant.

Salary Negotiator

Heard a Focus Ireland ad on the radio earlier fund raising for kids born into homeless. Cant help but think it’d be cheaper to offer free contraception.

DebDynamite

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Heard a Focus Ireland ad on the radio earlier fund raising for kids born into homeless. Cant help but think it’d be cheaper to offer free contraception.

I’d imagine the vast majority of people in emergency accommodation would have a medical card, therefore contraception would be free (bar condoms probably)

suicide_circus

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Heard a Focus Ireland ad on the radio earlier fund raising for kids born into homeless. Cant help but think it’d be cheaper to offer free contraception.

its not a lack of contraception thats making people who cant afford it have kids. kids are the key to more free stuff.

Gatling

I'm a single homeless women every time someone knocks on me hotel door i get pregnant

Gods Gift

Getting pregnant while homeless shows a blatant disregard for the child safety and their future. And shows the mentality of the parents.

Roger_007

Gatling wrote: »

I'm a single homeless women every time someone knocks on me hotel door i get pregnant

I thought you had to 'fall' to get pregnant?

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

That’s how the current Government would like you to look at it alright. But the situation was created because of a failed policy with regards to social housing, and this is the result.

Eric Cartman

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

That’s how the current Government would like you to look at it alright. But the situation was created because of a failed policy with regards to social housing, and this is the result.

The failed policy is that having more kids can get you bumped up the list at a time when demand massively outstrips supply. It was always going to happen.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The failed policy is that having more kids can get you bumped up the list at a time when demand massively outstrips supply. It was always going to happen.

Doesn’t change the fact that the lack of supply is a Government issue.

Eric Cartman

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

Doesn’t change the fact that the lack of supply is a Government issue.

Ill agree with you, but when this crisis emerged the 'kids for priority' leauge table of need should have been suspended and the public made acutely aware of this.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

If there was adequate supply of social housing, and I mean going back as far as the selling off council houses to tenants. That should never have happened. Social housing should be based on need, and allocated on a rented/tenancy basis. When your kids grow up and move out, you lose the 3 bed, and move into a bungalow. Anyone that could afford/wanted to own property enters the private market.

Doing this would have removed the incentive to have more children simply in order to get a house.

Instead, politicians placed the social housing responsibility into the hands of private developers, and we’re now seeing the results.

Eric Cartman

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

If there was adequate supply of social housing, and I mean going back as far as the selling off council houses to tenants. That should never have happened. Social housing should be based on need, and allocated on a rented/tenancy basis. When your kids grow up and move out, you lose the 3 bed, and move into a bungalow. Anyone that could afford/wanted to own property enters the private market.

Doing this would have removed the incentive to have more children simply in order to get a house.

Absolutely would agree with this and have been advocating for it. Would free up a lot of housing stock and create great communities of retirees in 1 bedroom apartments where services could be concentrated and alone elderly people monitored closely.

However I think this has to be tackled holistically and any incentive to even have children to get a social house or more money just removed, those who are not in employment or have no prospects of working enough to meet the current contributory pension rules should not be allowed even apply to live inside our cities, and those who fall in to severe long term unemployment (>3 years) should be made to move out of cities to make space in the housing for those who work.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Then you need to lobby your local TD to change the criteria for allocating social houses. Currently you must have a connection to an area in order to get on the list, so you can’t tell someone from Sheriff Street to apply for a house in Sligo for example.

Spanish Eyes

Many people who are working having provided their own property via a hefty mortgage are unable to afford to have children for a long time.

At this stage those people and many others like them with children or not need some advocates.

But it ain't sexy to speak up for those who actually work, pay their way and pay for others whilst they are at it via taxation, making sacrifices along the way to be non dependent on the State by and large. Nope not happening and never will.

lawred2

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

Doesn’t change the fact that the lack of supply is a Government issue.

Or a funding issue

You think money grows on trees! Those paying the taxes to fund such largesse are making the decision to forego children every single day of the week.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

lawred2 wrote: »

Or a funding issue

You think money grows on trees! Those paying such taxes are making the decision to forego children every single day of the week.

There’s always going to be poor(er) people. They need social/affordable housing. Should children be a luxury of the rich now?

Eric Cartman

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

There’s always going to be poor(er) people. They need social/affordable housing. Should children be a luxury of the rich now?

No, but it should be a luxury of those who work and are productive members of society, a tax credit structure should be put in place instead of payouts like child benefit. We need to encourage those who work full time (from working class all the way up) to have children, while actively discouraging those who do not work from having kids or those who have kids to live a lifestyle at the states expense.

We're about to fall off a pensions cliff. We do not need to pay for another young woman to take herself out of the labour market and add to the states expense for her whole life.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Low income members of society having more children in order to move up the priority list happened because Govt housing policy incentivised that behaviour. Sure, it’s irresponsible, but that’s how the system works.

eviltwin

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No, but it should be a luxury of those who work and are productive members of society, a tax credit structure should be put in place instead of payouts like child benefit. We need to encourage those who work full time (from working class all the way up) to have children, while actively discouraging those who do not work from having kids or those who have kids to live a lifestyle at the states expense.

We're about to fall off a pensions cliff. We do not need to pay for another young woman to take herself out of the labour market and add to the states expense for her whole life.

The problem is those who work can't afford to have children. Childcare is expensive so even those on welfare who want to get back to education or work can't afford to.

Field east

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

Low income members of society having more children in order to move up the priority list happened because Govt housing policy incentivised that behaviour. Sure, it’s irresponsible, but that’s how the system works.

Richard571 wrote: »

The homeless charity industry really winds me up sometimes.

See latest news story on RTÉ on increasing amount of babies born into homelessness...,“The charity's founder (Focus) Sr Stan said it was "shocking and appalling" and "fundamentally wrong", adding that the situation was "worse than ever”.

What is wrong is the complete lack of personal accountability- WTF are people having children for if they are in temporary accommodation. The state should not be there to support everyone in every situation if they recklessly add to their own woes.

I’m sure they do good work and I know there are genuine cases but this undermines their position in my mind.

End of rant.

The newborn will not know the difference between a crib in a stable and an infants cot in a well built and highly insulated 5 bedroom residence in
Ballsbridge as long as it is kept warm and fed. As far as the infant is concerned they are both homes. It is the mother or/ and father that are in charge/ control of creating the environment around which the infant is brought up in. It would be of interest to know the typical situation around the homeless mothers with newborns - what kind of accommodation are they currently in; what is their situation reavailability relatives/friends, etc

Richard571

Field east wrote: »

The newborn will not know the difference between a crib in a stable and an infants cot in a well built and highly insulated 5 bedroom residence in
Ballsbridge as long as it is kept warm and fed. As far as the infant is concerned they are both homes. It is the mother or/ and father that are in charge/ control of creating the environment around which the infant is brought up in. It would be of interest to know the typical situation around the homeless mothers with newborns - what kind of accommodation are they currently in; what is their situation reavailability relatives/friends, etc

I agree but don’t expect the state to prioritize your homelessness as you made a decision to have a child. People have children for all reasons - this is not about saying poor people shouldn’t have kids or raise kids every bit as well as wealthy people - rather people need to take personal accountability when choosing to have children.

It’s the children who ultimately stand to suffer and by prioritising those who choose to you are creating a powerful incentive to perpetuate this behaviour.

One eyed Jack

Richard571 wrote: »

The homeless charity industry really winds me up sometimes.

I’m glad you referred to it as an industry, that’s what it’s always been since people discovered that the State would throw money at them for keeping the underclass out of sight of civilised society.

Richard571 wrote: »

See latest news story on RTÉ on increasing amount of babies born into homelessness...,“The charity's founder (Focus) Sr Stan said it was "shocking and appalling" and "fundamentally wrong", adding that the situation was "worse than ever”.

She has a point - ever since the criteria defining homelessness have been jigged to mean anyone who doesn’t have a permanent roof over their heads, the amount of children “born into homelessness” has skyrocketed. It’s basically a PR stunt by the charity industry to lobby the State to provide more funding so they can keep more people hidden from civilised society.

Richard571 wrote: »

What is wrong is the complete lack of personal accountability- WTF are people having children for if they are in temporary accommodation. The state should not be there to support everyone in every situation if they recklessly add to their own woes.

They’re not in their current position due to their keen foresight, which explains why they don’t see things the same way you do for example. The State is falling well short of supporting anyone, let alone everyone, even though it actually is the duty of the State to provide for it’s citizens, particularly children, as opposed to ensuring they are kept out of sight of civilised society by funding the charities industry instead.

Richard571 wrote: »

I’m sure they do good work and I know there are genuine cases but this undermines their position in my mind.

End of rant.

I’d be happier to see the fundraising managers of these charities speaking up about how the vast amounts of money being thrown at them by the State is being spent already tbh, because the State doesn’t appear to be getting value for money.

Kermit.de.frog

Stop child benefit after the 2nd child for everyone regardless.

Problem solved.

They should never have introduced these benefits in the first place. It creates dependency culture.

If they had never introduced these things people would have gotten by and we would be far better off now.

But once they introduce them the damage is done.

end of the road

Eric Cartman wrote: »

those who are not in employment or have no prospects of working enough to meet the current contributory pension rules should not be allowed even apply to live inside our cities, and those who fall in to severe long term unemployment (>3 years) should be made to move out of cities to make space in the housing for those who work.

this would no doubt end up being a repeat of the already tried and failed ghettoisation/dumping grounds, out of sight, out of mind which hasn't worked, and will not work.
so no, this absolutely should not happen.

dartboardio

Seen a woman recently on the Facebook end homelessness group. She was actually saying she wanted to have a new baby asap, despite being in hotels the last three years with her other kids.

Complete selfishness.

Eric Cartman

dartboardio wrote: »

Seen a woman recently on the Facebook end homelessness group. She was actually saying she wanted to have a new baby asap, despite being in hotels the last three years with her other kids.

Complete selfishness.

there was one story on rte before where a woman and one child had moved in to a hotel room , she had become pregnant and had another child and become pregnant again, standing there 6 months pregnant with another kid under 1 , a 4-5 year old saying how the room was getting overcrowded and the government were a disgrace etc... "how is this room suitable for a woman and 3 children"

Lillyfae

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

Low income members of society having more children in order to move up the priority list happened because Govt housing policy incentivised that behaviour. Sure, it’s irresponsible, but that’s how the system works.

I really can't imagine anything more disgusting than purposely having a baby when you know that you're going to have a newborn in such fragile circumstances. You have no capacity for love for a baby if that is your sole purpose for having them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

civilised society.



civilised society.



civilised society

You know the only difference between what you called "civilised society" and these people? Not seeing procreation as a career.

Macdarack

If they have kids while homeless, the newborn should be put up for adoption. Each one of these kids born could go on in life and end up costing the state over 600,000 over their lifespans if they end up likd their parents. I know a lot of professional couples who can't have kids and could give these home less kids a great life.

Macdarack

If they have kids while homeless, the newborn should be put up for adoption. Each one of these kids born could go on in life and end up costing the state over 600,000 over their lifespans if they end up likd their parents. I know a lot of professional couples who can't have kids and could give these home less kids a great life.

Wanderer78

Pmacv1 wrote: »

There's no excuse for having children you can't afford. Abortions are free.

Macdarack wrote: »

If they have kids while homeless, the newborn should be put up for adoption. Each one of these kids born could go on in life and end up costing the state over 600,000 over their lifespans if they end up likd their parents. I know a lot of professional couples who can't have kids and could give these home less kids a great life.

forced sterilization, its the only way!