# join a campaign to protect CB - check out www.childbenefit.info



## dragonl (27 Apr 2009)

I am middle income Public Sector worker, 4 children under 5 and got hammered (like everyone else) in the budget in April - disproportionately so, given the elimination in ECS from Jan 1st - 4k in this house.
But i will have to get over it.adjust like everyone else.
But I cant take a hit on CBenefit - be it means tested or taxed.
If you feel as I do, then join a campaign to protect CB - check out [broken link removed] for further info.

At least we can have our say.


----------



## Pique318 (28 Apr 2009)

Why can't you take a hit on Child benefit ?
Is it essential to the rearing of your children ? 
Maybe this should have been considered before having 4 children ? Harsh I know, but there you go.


----------



## pinkyBear (28 Apr 2009)

Have to say would agree with above pique - one thing I do think those with children should get is tax credits as opposed to state handouts...


----------



## csirl (28 Apr 2009)

One big problem we have in this country is that it is more attractive to be on social welfare than to take a low or even low to medium paid job. This is because there is little or no difference between social welfare income and income levels in these jobs. Means testing child benefit will tip the balance more in favour of not working. It is not good for society or the countries finances to have a large proportion of its potential workforce being paid to stay at home because it is not cost effective for them to take a job.

In spite of us now having 10% unemployment, visit your local convenience store, fast food outlet, cleaning/security company etc. etc. and you'll struggle to find an Irish worker. These employers still have to import foreign workers, including a large percentage of non-EU on work permits, to fill their vacancies. Madness.

For this reason, child benefit should not be means tested. In fact, there is an argument for changing it into a tax credit to encourage people to work. Afterall, if you are unemployed, you have no childcare costs.


----------



## DublinTexas (28 Apr 2009)

Another group thinking they are entitelt to handouts from the goverment is complaining that their benefits are going to be means tested or taxed. 

What a surprise.

Nobody did force you to get kids. If you deceide to have kids it’s your responsiblity to ensure that you can affort them, it’s a simple as that in my opinion. Use a condom or if that is against your "religion" than I’m afraid don’t expect me to finance your "religion". 

The state is already providing more than enough benefits for your children paid by the general population and now you complain that when hard times are hitting us, that the state actualy wants the right to check if you should get handouts?

On you website you quote that it “serves an antipoverty objective” so how can you be against a means test? If you don’t need help because you don’t meet the guidelines, how can you expect that the state does not have a right to check if you need the money?

I’m all for recognising that children might be considered a public good (well beside those children in my estate) and that there should be some assistance for parents which are struggeling. But I’m all for means testing that and only giving it to people that are struggeling and not everybody. 

This is not North Korea (despite sometimes I think we are not to far off), we don’t need to have the state to finance everything. 

You should take personal responsiblity, if you deceide to get 4 children than you should take responsiblity for it and don’t expect the state to take up the bill.


----------



## csirl (28 Apr 2009)

> Another group thinking they are entitelt to handouts from the goverment is complaining that their benefits are going to be means tested or taxed.


 
I dont think that this is the issue. It isnt a case of whether or not people are entitled to handouts. The issue here is that the handouts are not distributed fairly or in a way that is beneficial to both the country and the recipients. Many people would have no issue with the government abolishing child benefit altogether if cuts need to be made - this is fair. What isnt fair is penalising people for working by using means testing to unevenly distribute the handout.


----------



## MrMan (28 Apr 2009)

> Use a condom or if that is against your "religion" than I’m afraid don’t expect me to finance your "religion".


 
That's not even an argument so why bother bringing it up?



> Nobody did force you to get kids. If you deceide to have kids it’s your responsiblity to ensure that you can affort them, it’s a simple as that in my opinion.


 
i don't think it is quite that simple because if we all decided that we could not afford to raise kids then we would be in a bit of a pickle. There is personal responsibility of course and there is also collective responsibilty for the next generation and we should be a little more open minded. From the arguments put forward I see tax credits as a good idea, but cb shouldn't be ruled out entirely.


----------



## Ceist Beag (28 Apr 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> Nobody did force you to get kids. If you deceide to have kids it’s your responsiblity to ensure that you can affort them, it’s a simple as that in my opinion.



Charming DublinTexas, so only the wealthy should have kids? I'm glad you're not calling the shots! Agree with MrMan, there is merit in the tax credits idea but also think that child benefit has a place. I definitely don't agree with those that think it should be scrapped completely.


----------



## DublinTexas (28 Apr 2009)

Ceist Beag said:


> Charming DublinTexas, so only the wealthy should have kids? I'm glad you're not calling the shots! Agree with MrMan, there is merit in the tax credits idea but also think that child benefit has a place. I definitely don't agree with those that think it should be scrapped completely.


 
I also said that 



> I’m all for recognising that children might be considered a public good (well beside those children in my estate) and that there should be some assistance for parents which are struggeling. But I’m all for means testing that and only giving it to people that are struggeling and not everybody.


 
I know that this is not popular because it might end in non workers having more money than workers for a while, but there has to be a balance. For example there could be a child benefit for a first year for non workers while working parents get paternity leave.

We need a paternity leave that makes sense, combined with a financial benefit for those who are having problems coping with the cost of having a child and rewarding those who work after paternity leave. A tax credit could be a good idea.

But I am against giving everyone money by the child as it does not take personal responsiblity into account. We can't just give money out to everybody just because they have a child.


----------



## UptheDeise (28 Apr 2009)

The government has no business in the raising of kids. Why should someone who doesnt have kids be forced (via taxes) to pay for other people's kids?

The majority of people don't really need CB. What they do need is a reality check and stop spoiling your children with all the latest gizmos and gadgets.


----------



## Ceist Beag (28 Apr 2009)

UptheDeise said:


> The government has no business in the raising of kids. Why should someone who doesnt have kids be forced (via taxes) to pay for other people's kids?



As the song goes, the children are our future!!  Seriously tho where would you stop with that line of argument? I don't want to reopen the whole stay at home parent vs two working parents argument again but there has to be some way of balancing the two being treated equally and we shouldn't simply try and steer both parents to employment and leave their kids in creches. I don't agree that the majority of people don't need CB, just my opinion tho.


----------



## UptheDeise (28 Apr 2009)

Ceist Beag said:


> As the song goes, the children are our future!!  Seriously tho where would you stop with that line of argument? I don't want to reopen the whole stay at home parent vs two working parents argument again but there has to be some way of balancing the two being treated equally and we shouldn't simply try and steer both parents to employment and leave their kids in creches. I don't agree that the majority of people don't need CB, just my opinion tho.


 
It seems like a sound and reasonable arguement to me. The government should stay out of the family. They have no business there. People make choices for themselves and need to live with the consequences of those choices.

The problems as I see it is that people have adopted a life style that they could afford when the times were good. Now those times are over, we have to tighten the belt big time and bring down our public spending.

The government should also get rid of the rent allowance or rent supplement or whatever they call it as well.


----------



## DublinTexas (28 Apr 2009)

Ceist Beag said:


> As the song goes, the children are our future!!  Seriously tho where would you stop with that line of argument? I don't want to reopen the whole stay at home parent vs two working parents argument again but there has to be some way of balancing the two being treated equally and we shouldn't simply try and steer both parents to employment and leave their kids in creches. I don't agree that the majority of people don't need CB, just my opinion tho.


 
I don't know where you life but if I look out of my windows in the afternoon I see loads of the little ankle-biters arround doing nothing but loitering and creating havoc. 

If I look out of the windows at 2100 in the evening the same types are still out there loitering arround and up to no good and creating a noise level that is boyond acceptable.

Now explain to me why I have to pay parents which don't want to controll their offspring for ever money? 

It's fair that for a period of time the goverment helps them getting started (just like they help you buying a house, setting up a company or starting to work), but once that is done it's the parents responsibility. Paternative leave for a year or so (or financial assistance during that time) but after that it's down to the parents. Maybe a tax credit (as I can get one on my bin, that's only fair). THis parallel is made in reference to the webpage of the OP where he argues the same, I'm not comparing ankle-biters to bins!

I made the decision not to have children, so can someone explain me why I have to pay other peoples children which are just a making my life harder by not respecting common good? My taxes (considerable amount each month) are already paying for a useless goverment, a health system that rivals that of Congo (even the health system of our comrades in Cuba is better), an education system (yeah right), criminal bus drivers and other useless stuff. 

So if you take way the CB from people that don't need it than that is a right step.


----------



## z104 (28 Apr 2009)

Did you have children so you could get benefit or becuase you wanted them?

If you had children because you wanted them then the child benefit was just a bonus.


----------



## Ceist Beag (28 Apr 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> I don't know where you life but if I look out of my windows in the afternoon I see loads of the little ankle-biters arround doing nothing but loitering and creating havoc.
> 
> If I look out of the windows at 2100 in the evening the same types are still out there loitering arround and up to no good and creating a noise level that is boyond acceptable.



DublinTexas you sound like Victor Meldrew!  I don't think whether you think they are little darlings or little crettins really comes into it does it?


----------



## Caveat (28 Apr 2009)

dragonl said:


> But I cant take a hit on CBenefit - *be it means tested or taxed.*


 
This is key IMO.

If it _is_ means tested and you don't meet the criteria, then according to current, reasonable, standards of living assessment, you probably *can* take the hit.


----------



## TarfHead (28 Apr 2009)

Pique318 said:
			
		

> Maybe this should have been considered before having 4 children ? Harsh I know, but there you go.


 


			
				DublinTexas said:
			
		

> You should take personal responsiblity, if you deceide to get 4 children than you should take responsiblity for it and don’t expect the state to take up the bill.


 
Trolls


----------



## demoivre (28 Apr 2009)

When it's eventually means tested / taxed the ones who don't need it ie the ones who spend it on cigarettes, go to cafés/pubs on the first Tuesday in the month will keep getting it and the better off who are more likely to spend it on their kids education will lose it imo.


----------



## Lex Foutish (28 Apr 2009)

If it's going to be taxed rather than means tested, can the Government consider it as income and use that to push tax payers into a higher income levy bracket?


----------



## Pique318 (29 Apr 2009)

TarfHead said:


> Trolls


At least we gave an opinion on the OP, tarfhead, and not posted a one word post, which is much more troll-like.

What's the matter, is it not OK to think that someone who has 4 kids and 'needs' state assistance to rear them is asking for more than they deserve ?

Assistance like this should be scrapped or at the very least, added as a tax credit. As someone said above, why pay stay-at-home parents a sum of money every month considering they have no childminder expenses ? 
If you're working, paying taxes, contributing to society, they yeah, here's a little back in tax credit as a thank you for raising the next generation of tax payers who'll pay for your pension. 
However, if you're a skanger who sits around all day, mooches off the govt, claims every other benefit under the sun, then tough, you ain't gettin it until you start to work (which is never because their equivalant salary would be miles out of their reach should anyone actually hire them).


----------



## DublinTexas (29 Apr 2009)

Pique318 said:


> However, if you're a skanger who sits around all day, mooches off the govt, claims every other benefit under the sun, then tough, you ain't gettin it until you start to work (which is never because their equivalant salary would be miles out of their reach should anyone actually hire them).


 
Wow you know one of my neighbours?

I agree that it is utterly important that a balance made so that working is rewarded and not as it is presently penalized. Just wait until the new tax come into effect shortly, we all are going to loose major money while the social welfare benefit is actualy in real terms going up.

Paternity benefit is in my opinon crucial and people should have the opportunity to take off work for the first couple of month on a paid basis and similar non working people should get a benefit allowing them to have the same benefit.

But once that is over there is no reason for the community to reward you for having children by paying you money. 

I can agree to a tax credit which rewards people with children who work as they have higher cost (child minder etc.), but somebody on welfare does not have such cost so they should not be getting a benefit.

I'm all for an total overhaul of our social welfare system. We must provide assistance to those in need for a resonable time frame, but we also must not provide more than actualy needed or even a level where it is better to stay home than to go to work.


----------



## Caveat (29 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> Why is it that every other country in Europe provides far more assistance to those with children?


 
You are absolutely sure about this are you?  Off the top of my head I can think of at least two or three countries who don't.


----------



## liaconn (29 Apr 2009)

As I said on another thread I don't think children should be seen as an 'affordable' commodity, as if they were a holiday home or decking for the back garden and it is important to support and encourage people to have families if they want them. However, it is annoying when some people who claim that they 'need' child benefit seem to have plenty of money to spoil their kids rotten. People like that don't need a handout from the taxpayer and when times are hard it is only reasonable to means test child benefit. I know they're raising the next generation but I don't think people have kids for altruistic reasons, they have them because they want them, not for the future of Ireland.


----------



## liaconn (29 Apr 2009)

csirl said:


> One big problem we have in this country is that it is more attractive to be on social welfare than to take a low or even low to medium paid job. This is because there is little or no difference between social welfare income and income levels in these jobs. Means testing child benefit will tip the balance more in favour of not working. It is not good for society or the countries finances to have a large proportion of its potential workforce being paid to stay at home because it is not cost effective for them to take a job.
> 
> In spite of us now having 10% unemployment, visit your local convenience store, fast food outlet, cleaning/security company etc. etc. and you'll struggle to find an Irish worker. These employers still have to import foreign workers, including a large percentage of non-EU on work permits, to fill their vacancies. Madness.
> 
> For this reason, child benefit should not be means tested. In fact, there is an argument for changing it into a tax credit to encourage people to work. Afterall, if you are unemployed, you have no childcare costs.


 
The jobs you mention above are not eligible for first time work permits and haven't been since 2007. The list of jobs eligible for permits has been tightened even further this year. The only people who are eligible for employment permits from now on are those who have a skill that cannot be obtained from within the EU and the salary on offer must be at least 30,000.


----------



## Caveat (29 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> Wow, 2 or 3 countries are even stingier than we are....we should be meaner, race to the bottom!


 
No-one is saying that.  And it was _at least_ 2 or 3 countries.

So you admit your original statement was emotional and inaccurate?


----------



## csirl (29 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> The jobs you mention above are not eligible for first time work permits and haven't been since 2007. The list of jobs eligible for permits has been tightened even further this year. The only people who are eligible for employment permits from now on are those who have a skill that cannot be obtained from within the EU and the salary on offer must be at least 30,000.


 
Pull the other one.......this does not seem to be applied by our immigration service. It appears that if you advertise a job at such a low salary that would not be financially attractive to an unemployed person, you can claim that the "skill" cannot be obtained within the EU and you'll get permits for non-EU workers on close to min wage. In my area, these jobs are dominated by Chinese and Indian workers.

In any event, 30k is far far far too low a salary level for a work permit - is way lower than the average income and well within the non-skilled range. Permits should only be given for jobs in excess of 50-60k that require third level qualifications or other extensive training. There is no 30k job in Ireland that someone cant be trained to do within a matter of weeks.


----------



## DublinTexas (29 Apr 2009)

jaybird said:


> You keep saying paternity benefit/leave (or paternative, which isn't actually a word) do you mean parental? Or do you have some social engineering plan to make all fathers stay at home and send the mothers out to work?


 
You are right, I mean parental leave.


----------



## Howitzer (29 Apr 2009)

Wow, talk about stepping into a Bizarro World thread. They're talking means testing, not abolishing, Child Benefit. Means testing would imply those with the means no longer receive it. Seems pretty rational to me. Everything else in this thread is just conceited nonsense.



demoivre said:


> When it's eventually means tested / taxed the ones who don't need it ie the ones who spend it on cigarettes, go to cafés/pubs on the first Tuesday in the month will keep getting it and the better off who are more likely to spend it on their kids education will lose it imo.


I hope you, or no one you know, ever have to rely on child benefit to put food on the table.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2009)

The phrase “Race to the bottom” is union speak for defending protectionism.
We cannot have what we cannot afford. Those countries that do have more state support for parents have economies that can sustain the burden of that social infrastructure. We do not. That’s why we don’t have it. If, at some point in the future, we have an economy that can afford it we should look at putting such structures in place. Until then we should not as only a fool spends money he doesn’t have.


----------



## demoivre (29 Apr 2009)

Howitzer said:


> Wow, talk about stepping into a Bizarro World thread. They're talking means testing, not abolishing, Child Benefit. Means testing would imply those with the means no longer receive it. Seems pretty rational to me. Everything else in this thread is just conceited nonsense.



Means testing cb is wrong. The money is for the benefit of the child. The better off  parents are more likely to spend the money on their children



> I hope you, or no one you know, ever have to rely on child benefit to put food on the table.


Well the people I'm talking about don't rely on cb for putting food on the table. After they've blown it along with the dole on cigarettes/alcohol the food is put on the table for them by the St Vincent de Paul, who've also furnished the 3 bedroomed semi they live in, the rent for which is being paid for by the state.


----------



## Howitzer (29 Apr 2009)

demoivre said:


> Well the people I'm talking about don't rely on cb for putting food on the table. After they've blown it along with the dole on cigarettes/alcohol the food is put on the table for them by the St Vincent de Paul, who've also furnished the 3 bedroomed semi they live in, the rent for which is being paid for by the state.


Well that's not a problem so. You just adjust the means test to exclude all selfish, self centered, ignorant, narrow minded fools. 

Something we can all agree on.


----------



## liaconn (29 Apr 2009)

csirl said:


> Pull the other one.......this does not seem to be applied by our immigration service. It appears that if you advertise a job at such a low salary that would not be financially attractive to an unemployed person, you can claim that the "skill" cannot be obtained within the EU and you'll get permits for non-EU workers on close to min wage.



Not any more. There are certain jobs that are ineligible for a work permit and it doesn't matter whether you advertise them or not, they are simply ineligible. And it is the Dept of Enterprise, Trade & Employment who control this, not the immigration services. The €30,000 is now going to be strictly applied, apparently, very very few 'exceptions' will be made from now on.


----------



## liaconn (29 Apr 2009)

demoivre said:


> Means testing cb is wrong. The money is for the benefit of the child. The better off  parents are more likely to spend the money on their children
> 
> .



Yes, but the point is that the better off parents don't 'need' the money. Just because they spend it on the child doesn't mean they're automatically entitled to it. There are people who need taxpayers money more eg special needs children.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2009)

A citizen of the state should be entitled to a vote, your freedom and equality under the law. State benefits are institutionalised charity given by your fellow citizens. Those who accept benefits are accepting charity from others; it is the ignorance of this fact that has lead to the culture of entitlement that pervades this country like a cancer.

I do not need CB, just like many others. I should not be “entitled” to it.


----------



## z104 (29 Apr 2009)

The OP was selling 2 houses for 700k on another thread. Hardly dependant on child benefit..


----------



## Caveat (29 Apr 2009)

Niallers said:


> The OP was selling 2 houses for 700k on another thread. Hardly dependant on child benefit..


 
Really? Oh dear...

Well spotted.


----------



## Guest128 (29 Apr 2009)

Niallers said:


> The OP was selling 2 houses for 700k on another thread. Hardly dependant on child benefit..




You mean this one:
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=60652

"Also, I am baffled that buyers in the commuter belt are not considering the value for money to be achieved in the country (never mind the Quality of life issue). The road networks are so good now, people can work from home......."

What a difference a year and a half makes, I wonder what percentage of the €700K would represent value for money now....


----------



## DublinTexas (29 Apr 2009)

So let me understand this, this OP who claims to be a middle income Public Sector worker with 4 children and at least 2 high end properties is complaining about the state possibly taking away the Child Benefit?

Say it loud with me "Personal Responsiblity"!

If you can get 2 properties on a middle income public sector workers salary than please get your act together.

People like the OP are what is wrong with this country, not to mention that ever since doing the OP nothing from them here anymore.


----------



## Ceist Beag (29 Apr 2009)

Hard to disagree with that DublinTexas!


----------



## MrMan (29 Apr 2009)

DublinTexas said:


> So let me understand this, this OP who claims to be a middle income Public Sector worker with 4 children and at least 2 high end properties is complaining about the state possibly taking away the Child Benefit?
> 
> Say it loud with me "Personal Responsiblity"!
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps what's wrong with this country is people making judgements based on very little information.


----------



## MrMan (29 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> A citizen of the state should be entitled to a vote, your freedom and equality under the law. State benefits are institutionalised charity given by your fellow citizens. Those who accept benefits are accepting charity from others; it is the ignorance of this fact that has lead to the culture of entitlement that pervades this country like a cancer.
> 
> I do not need CB, just like many others. I should not be “entitled” to it.


 
If people are contributing each and every week how can it be then declared charity? Your post does have a 'shame on you wretched people' vibe to it, but maybe I am just reading into the tone.


----------



## orka (29 Apr 2009)

Niallers said:


> The OP was selling 2 houses for 700k on another thread. Hardly dependant on child benefit..


Might not change the arguments but in fairness to the OP, it was one house at 700K which had been sale agreed twice...


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2009)

MrMan said:


> If people are contributing each and every week how can it be then declared charity? Your post does have a 'shame on you wretched people' vibe to it, but maybe I am just reading into the tone.



I have no problem with society redistributing wealth to those who need it but cannot obtain it in a way that satisfies their basic but does not disincentives those from whom that wealth it taken from producing more wealth.
My problem is that few people seem to grasp the nature of the transaction. Basically the citizenry form a social contract to help each other if they are in need. This is no different to helping your neighbour if they fall on hard times (only the scale and mechanisms vary). The conduit through which we give that help to each other is our government but the government has no money, it simply distributes our money.
Once the above is recognised and all welfare payments are seen in the correct context it is clear that those who take welfare payments to which they are not entitled are stealing from their neighbour and those who take payments which they do not truly need are taking wealth from those who may be worse off than they are.


----------



## demoivre (30 Apr 2009)

liaconn said:


> Yes, but the point is that the better off parents don't 'need' the money.



And the people blowing it on cigarettes /alcohol do and are more justified in receiving it ?


----------



## michaelm (30 Apr 2009)

It is in the interest of the State and society to support children.  Child Benefit is one such support.  As it is a universal payment there is relatively little administrative overhead and it does not feed into the welfare traps which are a disincentive to work.  I think that there are a lot of other areas which could be targeted before looking at the €5/day/child which the State currently provides.


----------



## liaconn (30 Apr 2009)

demoivre said:


> And the people blowing it on cigarettes /alcohol do and are more justified in receiving it ?


 
No, but two wrongs don't make a right. Saying well off people should get a state handout because less well off people spend their's on the wrong thing really doesn't make sense.


----------



## BoscoTalking (30 Apr 2009)

This was posted in a mums forum when they promoted this website in the last few days - can you imagine the reaction?.....

"We are very fortunate to be in high income bracket - I work 2.5 days a week in a well paid job and hubby full time in professional services. Its taken us a few years and lots of hard graft to get where we are - hubby in particular came from nothing and worked his ass off to get where he is. 
I suppose what bugs me, and I'm sure people will have their own view on this, is people's assumption that because we are both in well paid jobs we have money to burn and we do not deserve money from the State.
Firstly, with new tax levies etc, we are giving 55% iof our earnings to the State - more than we get for ourselves. We have both been working since we were 18 so have been funding the State for 20 years.
We have a huge mortgage, we bought in peak times, and a small house - our 4 children share 1 room. We pay €400 per month for DS2's montessori and we pay an aupair €600 a month to mind our smallest 2 while we work. We are also supporting DH's nephew through college. When we were left a small inheritance 5 years ago, we used it to put down a deposit on an investment property and have a second mortgage on that. The rent we get on the house is €350 less than the mortgage so we are funding that as well. At the end of the month we have c. €750 to pay for gas, electricity, food, clothes, kids activities (presents for birthday parties etc, school stuff), petrol & car running costs, GP visits, health insurance, house insurance, refuse collection etc etc. If Boolaru can show me where I can get a Prada handbag for a couple of cent I'd be really delighted"

it was followed by: "Re the comment on us using our inheritance to buy an investment property when we should have used it to pay off our mortgage, foresight is a wonderful thing and if we knew 5 years ago that we would be targeted by the current government just because we work hard to provide a future for our kids we would have done. By the way, we are participating in the Cork city rental accommodation scheme to provide housing to those in need - in other words we are helping those who not only cannot afford to buy but are having their acccommodation paid for by the State while we struggle to pay the mortgage!!!! We bought the house as an investment for our children as we want them to benefit from the hard slog we have put in over the last 20 years - needed more than ever if our CB is taken from us"

I wonder is the OP on this thread the same as the one here? both have 4 children....


----------



## Purple (30 Apr 2009)

How the hell is she paying 55% of her total income in tax? If it was her marginal rate that would be one thing but she said it was 55% of income. In order to do that they must have a household income of over €500’000 a year. If that is the case and they have one very small house the mortgage on which is taking up nearly all of their income then it must be some house... perhaps it’s a solid gold house?... or maybe, just maybe, she’s posting a load of emotional nonsense.


----------



## Howitzer (30 Apr 2009)

A quick whois on the url gives the OP, an Offaly woman working in the Tipperay Institute (Programme Specialist?). The information is available for anybody to see so I'm not giving out any more than the OP has done herself. 

I suppose if you're going to post on multiple forums in order to gain publicity for a web site you have to be prepared to stand over that and not expect anonymity (for example Brendan Burgess owns the AAM domain, well known information and no secret).


----------



## BoscoTalking (30 Apr 2009)

Purple said:


> she’s posting a load of emotional nonsense.


 she got short shrift i can tell you from many - it just sounded similar. 

But there were some who approved of her argument.


----------

