View Full Version : Kevin Myers-Good Journalist or 'Person of Questionalbe Origin'?
joeSoap
10/02/2005, 1:19 PM
Surprised nobody has put this up until now (maybe its hidden away in another thread I can't find). I am sure everyone has by now read about and developed opinions on Kevin Myers controversial article in the times concerning children born out of wedlock...or bas tards as he liked to call them at least 50 times during his column.
Myers made a lot of very salient, valid points in the article, particularly about how the social welfare system gets abused by single parents etc...but I found his (and his newspapers decision to print them)opinions quite startling and shocking to say the least. Myers is, in my opinion, suffering withdrawal symptoms from not being in the limelight, and probably wanted to stir up a bit of controversy 'a la Dunphy'.
I see today he apologised unreservedly for his comments. But the damage is done, and the net effect achieved. Despicable use of journalistic priviliege I think.. :mad: :mad:
Bald Student
10/02/2005, 1:31 PM
His articles always use controversial language, I don't like it but that's his style. He went way over the top the other day though.
His apology today in contrast was excellently written, I thought. He seemed very genuine in his apology for his use of language but refused to apologise for his opinions.
1. Myers is not a "journalist" in the commonly accepted meaning of the word. He is someone who is given space to rant, fume and spew his bile. Take away the insults, name calling and hectoring and you are left with NOTHING of any substance or validity.
2. He does not make "salient, valid points" about anything. He does little or no research, is quite often spectacularly wrong on facts, and he has little feel or understanding of any of the subjects he pontificates on.
3. His "analysis" of topics is less sophisticated than your average cranky taxi driver.
4. His pieces are reactionary polemics.
5. He is a complete misogynist who hankers for the days of the British Empire, and thinks all young men who come from a lower "class" than he should be all sent off to be killed at the front for the greater glory of his version of "freedom".
6. His articles EVERYDAY are little bits of reactionary nonsense. There was nothing in that piece that he does not do every week.
7. Himself, Steyn and Waters are a most pathetic bunch of middle-aged, curmudgeonly, bitter little tossers who feel they have to be more and more outrageous to garner a little attention for themselves and their pointless little existance.
8. I read these guys regularly for:
a) a laugh
b) lessons on how not to write newspaper articles
c) what the current gripe from the brainless "right" is
Myers, (btw, he is from Leicester, so even his byeline, "An Irishman's Diary" is inaccurate), a petty little man shouting "look at me".
:p
I heard about it, but tbh I'm surprised at the shock and outrage. Myers always has come out with this rubbish. I'll admit that if I buy an Irish Paper it would be the Times, however I only read An Irishmans Diary to remind myself what knobends the right are.
Haven't got the Pheonix for a while, but are they still carrying their series on Myers U turns on Iraq :D
He is someone who is given space to rant, fume and spew his bile. Take away the insults, name calling and hectoring and you are left with NOTHING of any substance or validity.
I agree with Patsh, Myers is exactly the same as Pat Rabbitte
I agree with Patsh, Myers is exactly the same as Pat Rabbitte
Now, now, Sean, don't be as obvious as Myers with your predujices.......:p
leave aside his acting the maggot with the language (MoBs, ******* this that and the other etc etc - which was done deliberately to wind up certain people) which is another matter altogether his central point - if you could sift through the holier than thou tone long enough is that in the long run two parent families are a hell of a lot better than lone parent families - better for the kids - better for the parents - better for "society" if you wanna go that far.
He takes it on a step further saying welfarism here encourages lone parent families - thats a point for debate (a debate worth having - as his first point above is realistic).
I'd have a lot of respect for him if he stood by his piece more vigorously but he tamely apologised for the remarks -- so Myers , you passionately held those views on Wednesday but completely see the error of your ways on Thursday? Hypocrisy - just like the middle class liberal hypocrisy you claimed to be confronting in the article :rolleyes:
I agree with Patsh, Myers is exactly the same as Pat Rabbitte
I thought he was just playing up Bertie - although I suppose Bertie hasn't even got the insults and name calling to his credit.... Can we stop now before the thread is locked? :D
drummerboy
10/02/2005, 2:37 PM
The guy is a spiteful little worm. If he wanted to start a debate about welfareism why didn't he go on TV or radio to discuss his arguments, especially when they were all clamouring to interview him. Instead we were offered Mary-Ellen Sydon (sp?) a pompous cow, who tried to defend his use of the MOBs phrase, as just a “turn of phrase”. This is the same woman who was “offended by the sight of disabled people competing in the Special Olympics”. It amazes me why newspapers employ these people.
joeSoap
10/02/2005, 2:43 PM
I do feel though, that he is trying to always hog the limelight. No matter what way you look at it, there's no such thing as Bad Publicity within publishing circles.
Myers had the opportunity in that article to define the key reasons as to why the Social Welfare system is to blame for a lot of todays problems, and could have made those points tellingly.He chose the other 'I want people to talk about this for a while' route, and he has succeeded.Countless reports in all facets of the media over the past two days, two whole Joe Duffy programmes dedicated to it, and now we're all on about it.
Who's the winner: The Irish Times, Geraldine Kennedy and of course, the West Brit himself. :(
tiktok
10/02/2005, 3:07 PM
A pompous columnist, not a journalist since, as has been mentioned, his research seems minimal. He deliberately set out to wind people up with provocative language, he knew exactly what he was doing. in the end what's most disappointing is how quickly he scuttled away with his tail between his legs, even though his is an opinion's column.
Ridiculous how 24 hours can produce such a marked difference in his outlook.
Myers had the opportunity in that article to define the key reasons as to why the Social Welfare system is to blame for a lot of todays problems, and could have made those points tellingly.
Myers probably does believe that, but he is to lazy/stupid to actually go out and get the evidence to support that contention.
I believe that claim (that the Social Welfare system is to blame for a lot of todays problems) is absolute boll*x, btw, but simply writing an article calling everybody who disagrees with me "facist w/-\nkers" wouldn't do much to help me convince people, would it?
All the little turd has done now is to make sure that if anybody tries to have the debate, we will get drowned in a sea of insults and counter claims.
This proves he has no interest in debate as he claims, but is a little attention seeking saddo.
joeSoap
10/02/2005, 3:29 PM
I believe that claim (that the Social Welfare system is to blame for a lot of todays problems) is absolute boll*x, btw, but simply writing an article calling everybody who disagrees with me "facist w/-\nkers" wouldn't do much to help me convince people, would it?
So, do you not think that there is need for radical reform in the social welfare system as it currently stands today?? I certainly do.
Bald Student
10/02/2005, 6:25 PM
he tamely apologised for the remarks To be fair his apology today contained the paragraphs:
"We cannot tolerate a situation in which large numbers of young women are drawn into the perils of early and unmarried motherhood by the allure of the apparent protection afforded to them by the State. This "protection" is a trap, in which young woman can spend the rest of their lives, thwarting them of ambition, purpose and any proper individuality away from a chronic State dependence.
This is good for no one, least of all the children, who not merely are raised without the disciplines of work and wage, but also without the presence of a male authority figure in their lives. Other societies have pioneered the mass experiment in fatherless families, and they have found them as way-stations to male delinquency, gang membership and criminality."
He apologised for the language he used, not for expressing his opinions which he repeated.
Éanna
10/02/2005, 11:16 PM
I can't stand the man. I find him obnoxious, unpleasant and disagreeable. I also differ from him on most of his beliefs. However, he DOES normally manage to put his point across fairly well, even if it makes your blood boil reading him. This time, he went WAY too far. Even thought the issue he was raising is one that NEEDS debate, he has made an absolute balls of it, because of his use of language
"We cannot tolerate a situation in which large numbers of young women are drawn into the perils of early and unmarried motherhood by the allure of the apparent protection afforded to them by the State. This "protection" is a trap, in which young woman can spend the rest of their lives, thwarting them of ambition, purpose and any proper individuality away from a chronic State dependence.
This is good for no one, least of all the children, who not merely are raised without the disciplines of work and wage, but also without the presence of a male authority figure in their lives. Other societies have pioneered the mass experiment in fatherless families, and they have found them as way-stations to male delinquency, gang membership and criminality."
"Young women are drawn into.......the allure of the apparent protection afforded to them by the State"
This is the greatest load of boll*x ever. A pet little theory of those who do not want any sort of social welfare system at all.
We are asked to believe that young women from lower socio-economic backgrounds around the country sit down, plan their pregnancy and then all the wonderful financial benefit which will flow from that.
Get real, ffs......:rolleyes:
These young women get pregnant because of their own and the "boyfriends" STUPIDITY. Most of them couldn't come up with a plan for the weekend, never mind mapping out the rest of their life. They are growing up in a cycle of ignorance that only effort, money and strong will on behalf of the government, it's agencies and the will of the rest of society can overcome.
These people need to be shown that there is a better way, but that will take a long time, a lot of effort, and a lot of money. However, the response from Myersians/PDs will be "I worked hard, why should I do anything for them, I'm not working so that my taxes keep these lazy, stupid, ungrateful, criminal scumbags?"
We want all these people to be carted off to jail or somewhere and we will pay for that, but it would far too much to expect to pay for what is a difficult, but solvable, problem that in the long term will obviate the need to pay for all these prison/social welfare payments.
This whole system does not work to anyones satisfaction, yet rather than take a brave and different approach to it, we settle for the Myers/Walsh rants, the inevitable outrage in return, and the polarisation in society between the "hard men" and the "do-gooders".
So, do you not think that there is need for radical reform in the social welfare system as it currently stands today?? I certainly do.
Exactly what "reforms" do you think are necessary?
There have been a few points made in other posts about the whole world becoming far too PC and while I think Myers went OTT on his use of language, this is a genuine problem in this country.
I was reading a post on this topic on the PROC message board and while most people were "horrified" etc etc not everyone was, one poster had the following to say on someone he knew...
"Sponger A - has four kids by three fathers. None of them share the house and she is still hooring around. The kids don't give a sh1te about anything or anyone. Courtesy of the State she has been given a 4 bedroom house in the same area as myself and her brother. My mortgage is 880 a month. Her rent is 40 a week. Next she has a car under her fat arse that is further supported by the State. We all know what regular people pay for tax and insurance and all that other sh1t. She gets assistance for dental and medical and get this, the State recently paid for her to have a brest reduction procedure !! My wife and daughter and I would be f*cked without the VHI I get thru work and we are paying bills hand over fist to stay above water. If both of us weren't working we would go under. This coniving bitch needless to say doesn't work a fooking tap. Sorry for being brief with exhibit A but if I were to fill in all the details we would be here til doomsday."
I can only think Myers was referring to people like this who make a career out of sponging and while his use of language was wrong the can of worms has well and truly been opened.
Exactly what "reforms" do you think are necessary?
For a start they could introduce taxes on zoned development land not developed. Increase the supply of houses to rent or buy, lowering the cost and then social welfare payments for rent allowance, affordable housing, social housing would all come down. Myers/FF/PD would probably think that was interferring with the free market though.
They could also start by having more state provided and state subsidised child care. Then these mothers of bástards (not to mention the 1000's of mothers/fathers effectively working for nothing), could go back to work, "contribute to society", pay their taxes, have increased self worth etc. Again that'd be Government interference, and we couldn't be doing that. Myers would probably be happy as he could have a rant away about the breakdown in society with mothers working rather than staying at home and raising their kids. :rolleyes:
Bluesky
11/02/2005, 9:20 AM
Anyone remember the patronising way he used to present the RTE version of University Challenge ?
Particularly enjoyed the way he would waffle on about why someone had given a good/bad answer to a question he found interesting and the next minute he would say hurry up with your answer you're taking too long !
There have been a few points made in other posts about the whole world becoming far too PC and while I think Myers went OTT on his use of language, this is a genuine problem in this country.
I was reading a post on this topic on the PROC message board and while most people were "horrified" etc etc not everyone was, one poster had the following to say on someone he knew...
"Sponger A - has four kids by three fathers. None of them share the house and she is still hooring around. The kids don't give a sh1te about anything or anyone. Courtesy of the State she has been given a 4 bedroom house in the same area as myself and her brother. My mortgage is 880 a month. Her rent is 40 a week. Next she has a car under her fat arse that is further supported by the State. We all know what regular people pay for tax and insurance and all that other sh1t. She gets assistance for dental and medical and get this, the State recently paid for her to have a brest reduction procedure !! My wife and daughter and I would be f*cked without the VHI I get thru work and we are paying bills hand over fist to stay above water. If both of us weren't working we would go under. This coniving bitch needless to say doesn't work a fooking tap. Sorry for being brief with exhibit A but if I were to fill in all the details we would be here til doomsday."
I can only think Myers was referring to people like this who make a career out of sponging and while his use of language was wrong the can of worms has well and truly been opened.
1. What has this got to do with "PC"?
2. I can post anything I like on a board, but that does not make it true.
3. This guyTHINKS this person gets all these benefits, and it's quite obvious that he sees her as less than himself, when he refers to "regular people ".
4. The "State" does not "support" cars or cosmetic surgery or pay for tax or insurance on private motor vehicles.
There is no doubt that there is abuse of the Social Welfare system in this country. However, it is of no use people ranting on in a completely un-informed manner, is this begrudging, ignorant way. I have had to survive on social welfare myself at times and you get the minimum they can give you, and make you feel like some sort of diseased leper while giving it. This problem COULD be largely eradicated by long term planning, but the chances of this happening in this country are zero.
For a start they could introduce taxes on zoned development land not developed. Increase the supply of houses to rent or buy, lowering the cost and then social welfare payments for rent allowance, affordable housing, social housing would all come down. Myers/FF/PD would probably think that was interferring with the free market though.
They could also start by having more state provided and state subsidised child care. Then these mothers of bástards (not to mention the 1000's of mothers/fathers effectively working for nothing), could go back to work, "contribute to society", pay their taxes, have increased self worth etc. Again that'd be Government interference, and we couldn't be doing that. Myers would probably be happy as he could have a rant away about the breakdown in society with mothers working rather than staying at home and raising their kids. :rolleyes:
Couldn't agree more with you.
There are things that could actually be DONE, but expecting a PD to DO something, rather than have 20 press conferences to TALK about it, would be something far too much to expect.
And of course, it's so much easier to RANT than to ACT.
Couldn't agree more with you.
There are things that could actually be DONE, but expecting a PD to DO something, rather than have 20 press conferences to TALK about it, would be something far too much to expect.
And of course, it's so much easier to RANT than to ACT.
Just wondered, why the FF exemption? Or like me do you see no difference between them...
razor
11/02/2005, 10:44 AM
1. What has this got to do with "PC"?
That you can't open your mouth anymore on any subject without certain people mounting the high horse and while Myers overdid it a bit, his main point is being lost in the furore.
2. I can post anything I like on a board, but that does not make it true. Who are ya tellin ? Gavin Dykes ? :o
3. This guyTHINKS this person gets all these benefits, and it's quite obvious that he sees her as less than himself, when he refers to "regular people ". I don't see it like that, my take is that he is differentiating between 'regular' people like us all that have to go out and work for a living versus these spongers.
The guy did say he knew these people and they openly admit to these benefits and the fact that he has to go out and burst his balls just to exist really galls him. And I don't blame him.
I've been on the dole myself and don't begrudge anyone social welfare but there are some people flaaing the situation.
patsh
11/02/2005, 11:05 AM
Just wondered, why the FF exemption? Or like me do you see no difference between them...
They are the government. As Von Dowell and Harney can say what they like, whenever they like and not a peep from FF, I think it is fair to deduce that a coup has taken place and FF are now the tail to the PD mongrel....;)
Fair_play_boy
11/02/2005, 11:09 AM
Mary Ellen Synon came out of the mist to support Myers on Joe Duffy on Wednesday. What a bovine! The last we heard of her she was receiving deposits at the Bank of England, on the office floor, from the deputy governor, Rupert Pennant-Rea.
patsh
11/02/2005, 11:12 AM
That you can't open your mouth anymore on any subject without certain people mounting the high horse and while Myers overdid it a bit, his main point is being lost in the furore.
"PC" is a convenient label, mostly, right-wing reactionaries use to dismiss valid criticism. They are either to lazy or unable to come up with compelling counter arguments, so they lash out some meaningless coverall term that does the job for them.
I don't see it like that, my take is that he is differentiating between 'regular' people like us all that have to go out and work for a living versus these spongers.
The guy did say he knew these people and they openly admit to these benefits and the fact that he has to go out and burst his balls just to exist really galls him. And I don't blame him.
I've been on the dole myself and don't begrudge anyone social welfare but there are some people flaaing the situation.
So were you "irregular" when you were on the dole, and pined to be regular?
Did you stop becoming a sponger when you got a job?
I have to "burst my balls" just to exist, but it's not becuase some "young wan" can't understand the concept of a condom or birth-control. It is because of the economic policy of the country I live in, where the cost of living has bloomed to ludicrous proportions.
That you can't open your mouth anymore on any subject without certain people mounting the high horse and while Myers overdid it a bit, his main point is being lost in the furore.
That's no one's fault by Myers. He writes in a deliberately inflammatory manner, and then the right jump to his defence and say that the point is being lost. Who's fault is it exactly?
razor
11/02/2005, 11:50 AM
So were you "irregular" when you were on the dole, and pined to be regular?
Did you stop becoming a sponger when you got a job?
I have to "burst my balls" just to exist, but it's not becuase some "young wan" can't understand the concept of a condom or birth-control. It is because of the economic policy of the country I live in, where the cost of living has bloomed to ludicrous proportions.
I don't begrudge anyone their entitlements, the use of the word regular was not mine, just tryin to explain to you what I thought the guy means in what he says. Use it as you will.
There are girls out there that get caught but to get caught twice or 3 times? Come on. You don't credit them with very much.
Agree totally on the cost of living but are these people helping the situation?
harry crumb
11/02/2005, 9:33 PM
I thought he made some good points in the original artical.
A lot of single mothers are just milking the state. A lot of these mother's partners are out earning a good living but they can still claim a nice allowence of the state.
Whatever happened to waiting to marry to have children.
A face
12/02/2005, 12:18 AM
AFAIK in the states, girls were supported for the first child, and got nothing for the second .... and it nearly cleared the whole problem up.
It doesn't really matter what was said in whatever column .... people, from what i have seen are feeling the pinch whenever they try and do anything in this country nowadays, so there is very little pity to go around for girls who are getting "caught" to get onto a five year waiting list for a house and all the goes with. And it is not just single mothers, it is couples purposely not putting the fathers name on the birth cert so they can both abuse the system later on, that IMO is totally pushing the boat out. The fathers then move into said house when he is not meant to be there. When caught ... they should lose everything.
The short of it .... there is a problem .... and it is up to the government of the day to sort it out. If they dont ... they haven't done their job.
One thing I really take issue with is people talking about "unmarried mothers" when what they mean is single mothers. People don't have to be married to be in a happy secure relationship, and the archaic terms used by Myers are just proof of deeper prejudices held in this country
Not having a go at any poster, but it's interesting to see that the topic is concerned with "women" only. I've heard very little discussion of the role of men in all this. I suspect that very few of the mothers are getting articial insemination, so the vast majority of pregnancies have a male involved for some period of time, (no matter how short :p), and at least 50% of any pregnancy must attach to the father. Men CAN insist of wearing condoms, they CAN take responsibility for where they put their dicks!....;)
Women who get "caught" two or three times get a bad name, but if you want to screw someone whether or not they have had a child, it's very simple to make sure you don't get her pregnant no matter what way she feels.
joeSoap
14/02/2005, 8:41 AM
Not having a go at any poster, but it's interesting to see that the topic is concerned with "women" only. I've heard very little discussion of the role of men in all this. I suspect that very few of the mothers are getting articial insemination, so the vast majority of pregnancies have a male involved for some period of time, (no matter how short :p), and at least 50% of any pregnancy must attach to the father. Men CAN insist of wearing condoms, they CAN take responsibility for where they put their dicks!....;)
Women who get "caught" two or three times get a bad name, but if you want to screw someone whether or not they have had a child, it's very simple to make sure you don't get her pregnant no matter what way she feels.
I think the issues raised here are not of responsiblility for the pregnancy, but the fact that some pregnancies are by and large used in order to improve the quality of life of the mother, who screws the welfare system into paying for cars and holidays. Take the first Tuesday of the month, and look at the amount of people that are out on the razz compared to normal Tuesdays.Perhaps these benefits should be paid out in nappies, baby food, school uniforms, books and the like, instead of giving neglectful parents the means to go out and get hammered, possibly leading to more unwanted pregnancies.
I think the issues raised here are not of responsiblility for the pregnancy, but the fact that some pregnancies are by and large used in order to improve the quality of life of the mother, who screws the welfare system into paying for cars and holidays. Take the first Tuesday of the month, and look at the amount of people that are out on the razz compared to normal Tuesdays.Perhaps these benefits should be paid out in nappies, baby food, school uniforms, books and the like, instead of giving neglectful parents the means to go out and get hammered, possibly leading to more unwanted pregnancies.
Are you Kevin Myers cousin?
On what basis are you making that outrageous claim?
Do you have facts and figures to prove it, or are you just making more wild accusations?
Show me ONE instance anywhere in this country where Social Welfare paid for a car or a holiday for ANYONE?
That claim is based on nothing but ignorance and predujice.....:rolleyes:
joeSoap
14/02/2005, 9:45 AM
Are you Kevin Myers cousin?No....
On what basis are you making that outrageous claim?I personally know someone living in Rathfarnham who has 3 kids by different fathers, and uses every penny of her childrens allowance to make repayments to the credit union for loans for holidays to Spain twice a year.
Do you have facts and figures to prove it, or are you just making more wild accusations?See above...this is not a wild accusation, its a sad fact.
Show me ONE instance anywhere in this country where Social Welfare paid for a car or a holiday for ANYONE?I think I just have.
That claim is based on nothing but ignorance and predujice.....:rolleyes:That claim is based upon a real person, who I know, who uses welfare for her own benefits. That is her own business I guess, but don't come all moralistic with me preaching about ignorance and prejudice when I am stating fact. I would also like to say that I believe there is several more out there like her.
I don't agree with Kevin Myers use of the English language towards the children, but it would be a prejudiced ignoramus who believes there aren't people out there who bleed the system in this way.
Joe Soap, that isn't the state paying for her credit union loans, it's her spending he money how she chooses. Very different for the state paying for holidays and cars. Does she take the kids on holidays, or transport them in the car?
Actually I know plenty of married, working couples for whom the childrens allowance allows them to run cars and go on holidays. Childrens allowance isn't an allowance specific to single parents....
joeSoap
14/02/2005, 10:14 AM
Joe Soap, that isn't the state paying for her credit union loans, it's her spending he money how she chooses. Very different for the state paying for holidays and cars. Does she take the kids on holidays, or transport them in the car?
Actually I know plenty of married, working couples for whom the childrens allowance allows them to run cars and go on holidays. Childrens allowance isn't an allowance specific to single parents....
Agreed...to a point. She doesn't take the kids on holiday, so therefore the money she gets from the state to rear her kids is being used for her own gratrification. Wrongful use of welfare imo.
I agree that childrens allowance isn't specific to single parents, but it is an allowance for children....for basics and essentials...not so mammy can swan off the Spain twice a year.
Agreed...to a point. She doesn't take the kids on holiday, so therefore the money she gets from the state to rear her kids is being used for her own gratrification. Wrongful use of welfare imo.
I agree that childrens allowance isn't specific to single parents, but it is an allowance for children....for basics and essentials...not so mammy can swan off the Spain twice a year.
We'll have to agree to differ on the Childrens Allowance thing, as personally I don't even think that that was what Myers was getting at. From my point of view, being a believer in Credit Unions, I'm actually pleased it's paying off a credit union loan rather than a loan shark...
joeSoap
14/02/2005, 10:23 AM
Yes, but you're moving away from the core of the point I'm making. I believe that the use of State money, given to improve your childrens health, upbringing, education etc, should be used for that, and that alone. Not to develop your own tan, or buy yourself the latest fashions.
Yes, but you're moving away from the core of the point I'm making. I believe that the use of State money, given to improve your childrens health, upbringing, education etc, should be used for that, and that alone. Not to develop your own tan, or buy yourself the latest fashions.
But you're bringing in a benefit that isn't specific to single mothers. Like I said, I know people who are married and both working that use Childrens allowance in that way. It's up to the parents how they chose to spend it, married or unmarried, single or in a relationship. To me it is very different to the alleged single mother creaming it off the state.
Ultimately the problem is due to Government inaction on things like childcare that would make it beneficial for people to work. Too much focus on the stick, rather than carrot.
WeAreRovers
14/02/2005, 10:40 AM
Agreed...to a point. She doesn't take the kids on holiday, so therefore the money she gets from the state to rear her kids is being used for her own gratrification. Wrongful use of welfare imo.
She could spend all her welfare money on smack and it would still be none of you business.
As for Myers, words can't express my contempt for the man. I don't buy the Irish Times for lots of reasons and Myers is just one of them.
To people who say that he brought up an important topic for debate I'd say have a look at the real problems. Surely poverty, lack of opportunities and education are slighly more important than s few people ripping of the welfare.
Put it this way - how many fraudulent welfare claims would you need to add up to equal one Ray Burke? Quite a few I'd imagine.
KOH
joeSoap
14/02/2005, 10:44 AM
She could spend all her welfare money on smack and it would still be none of you business.
When welfare money is abused it becomes every tax payers business, because its tax payers money that pays welfare.So, I would consider it my business.
patsh
14/02/2005, 10:53 AM
Are you Kevin Myers cousin?No....
On what basis are you making that outrageous claim?I personally know someone living in Rathfarnham who has 3 kids by different fathers, and uses every penny of her childrens allowance to make repayments to the credit union for loans for holidays to Spain twice a year.
who screws the welfare system into paying for cars and holidays.
Hmmm, since when is the "State" the local Credit Union?
Do you have facts and figures to prove it, or are you just making more wild accusations?See above...this is not a wild accusation, its a sad fact.
So your claim that "screwing the welfare system into paying for cars and holidays" is nothing but a wild accusation with NO BASIS in fact. You haven't produced a single FACT to back up that accusation.
Show me ONE instance anywhere in this country where Social Welfare paid for a car or a holiday for ANYONE?I think I just have.
No you haven't, you simply made a wild accusation. Or do not understand the difference between getting a SW payment and a loan from a Credit Union?
That claim is based on nothing but ignorance and predujice.....:rolleyes:That claim is based upon a real person, who I know, who uses welfare for her own benefits.
So this person uses benefit for her own benefit....She should be hung, drawn and quartered forthwith.....:rolleyes:
That is her own business I guess, but don't come all moralistic with me preaching about ignorance and prejudice when I am stating fact. I would also like to say that I believe there is several more out there like her.
If you are going to try engage in a debate, learn the difference between a FACT and an accusation that has to be withdrawn in your very next post.
I don't agree with Kevin Myers use of the English language towards the children, but it would be a prejudiced ignoramus who believes there aren't people out there who bleed the system in this way.
There are plenty of "prejudiced ignoramus"s out there. You can spot them quite easily by the wild and ridiculous claims they make about people that they percieve should be grateful for the scraps they throw them.
People on SW going on holidays....:eek: DISGUSTING!
People on SW driving cars.....:eek: :eek: SHOCKING!
Jim Smith
14/02/2005, 11:00 AM
Agreed...to a point. She doesn't take the kids on holiday, so therefore the money she gets from the state to rear her kids is being used for her own gratrification. Wrongful use of welfare imo.
I agree that childrens allowance isn't specific to single parents, but it is an allowance for children....for basics and essentials...not so mammy can swan off the Spain twice a year.
Children's allowance is a completely different issue form single parent allowance - its not means tested. Many of my colleagues used their children's allowance to invest in government savings schemes. If I relied on children's allowance to rear my kids I'd be up for neglect :(
**Sorry this is a bit out of date - I had to do some work mid message**
joeSoap
14/02/2005, 1:42 PM
My whole point in all of this is that I do believe that there are people out there who obtain social welfare benefit and do not use it for the purposes for which it was given. I accept your points on childrens allowance and stand corrected, however I do know of someone who has deliberately gotten pregnant, with no intention of letting the father be a part of the childs upbringing, or even aware of its existence, knowing that the state are going to look after her and her needs. She uses this benefit money to pay back loans for holidays, and clothes for herself, not for the child. I know this because I have seen welfare reports from officers who are concerned for the childrens safety and are currently considering taking them into care.The child suffers as a result of this, and I believe the system should be overhauled to make people like her realise the potential consequences of her actions. If she was aware that she would have no state benefits for the child, then I doubt very much she'd put herself in the position in the first place, or consider termination.This is not speculation, this is how she perceives things, and it is quite disturbing. Thats why I feel that something should be done about it. :mad: :eek:
joeSoap
14/02/2005, 1:53 PM
Hmmm, since when is the "State" the local Credit Union?
The 'state' repays the credit union for her as this is where the single mothers and childrens allowance benefits go directly.
So your claim that "screwing the welfare system into paying for cars and holidays" is nothing but a wild accusation with NO BASIS in fact. You haven't produced a single FACT to back up that accusation.
Its FACT enough for me when I am aware of a situation where this is happening. No wild accusations.
Or do not understand the difference between getting a SW payment and a loan from a Credit Union?.
So, you agree with the fact that she uses every cent of her benefit to repay the Credit Union for loans for things from which her children don't gain. They are deprived vital items because of this womans greed.
So this person uses benefit for her own benefit....She should be hung, drawn and quartered forthwith.....:rolleyes:
Nice to see you condone child abuse and fraud.
If you are going to try engage in a debate, learn the difference between a FACT and an accusation.
I strongly urge you to do the same.
So do you propose that state benefits be cut, because you can come up with one example where you believe a girl is behaving in a certain way?
Did this girl tell you that she deliberately got pregnant to get €168.00 a week from the state, so that she could use it to pay back loans?
Getting a job on an assembly line would pay 2 1/2 that wage, and she wouldn't have had to go through a pregnancy or the hassle of minding a child, and she would be in a much better financial position to pay off her loans.
If this girl seriously thought that this was a better option for her, then you cannot use her as an example, because you are talking about someone who is either a complete moron or is mentally disabled.
joeSoap
14/02/2005, 2:11 PM
So do you propose that state benefits be cut, because you can come up with one example where you believe a girl is behaving in a certain way?
Did this girl tell you that she deliberately got pregnant to get €168.00 a week from the state, so that she could use it to pay back loans?
Getting a job on an assembly line would pay 2 1/2 that wage, and she wouldn't have had to go through a pregnancy or the hassle of minding a child, and she would be in a much better financial position to pay off her loans.
If this girl seriously thought that this was a better option for her, then you cannot use her as an example, because you are talking about someone who is either a complete moron or is mentally disabled.
I never said state benefits should be cut, but I do believe they should be more stringently assessed and monitored, and perhaps paid out in more practical ways than cash to parents.
One of my best friends works as a social worker for the EHB, and this girl is one of his cases. The fact that she is a complete moron, or mentally disabled does not prevent me using her as an example, because she is an example. Not everybody is of the same mindset as you. This girl also has a part-time job, being paid under the counter in a pub. Don't tell me she's a moron, or mentally disabled. She's a scheming, manipulative user, who knows exactly what she's doing.
WeAreRovers
14/02/2005, 2:18 PM
He doesn't seem to be exactly the soul of discretion...
Anyone can cite individual cases. Hard cases do not make for good law.
What's the story Conor? You're being the epitome of a level-headed, rational human being on this thread. All this on the back of Minister Brennan's new found humanity re. single parent families. :eek:
Is this the new FF socialism I've heard so much about? ;)
KOH
Not everybody is of the same mindset as you.
And what mindset would that be, exactly?
He never told you names, but told you of the situation?
Why doesn't he have her arrested and charged with fraud?
You seem hung up on this one case, must VERYBODY be judged on your hearsay?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.