# Unemployed father of 8 demanding bigger house from LA so he can have more babies.



## monagt (28 Apr 2012)

> ‘We want more babies but need a bigger council house’ By David Raleigh


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/we-want-more-babies-but-need-a-bigger-council-house-192006.html



I would cut his social welfare and make him work.......


----------



## Guest105 (28 Apr 2012)

What adorable happy looking children, the little one with the pink hat at the back is gorgeous 

Well would it be worth his while going out to work with a brood as large as his, the welfare benefits must come to many hundreds of euro every week.  Maybe he is a good dad and helps out with the kids and housework, he certainly looks as if he is interested in his kids. The article states he has tried to work but the powers that be didn't allow him to.


----------



## The_Banker (28 Apr 2012)

They look like a happy family, 8 adorable and well looked after kids.

There are bigger fish to get annoyed about. The CEOs of our banks who were in charge during the Celtic Tiger years walked away after the crash of 2008 with millions in pay offs and more millions in their pension funds.

I personally wouldn't like that many kids but why should I tell others who do that they can't?
Just because they might be poor?


----------



## PaddyBloggit (28 Apr 2012)

The_Banker said:


> I personally wouldn't like that many kids but why should I tell others who do that they can't?
> Just because they might be poor?



Let 'em have all the kids they want ... but the arrogance of expecting the taxpayer to fund it annoys me.

He can't afford more kids (not to mind the ones he has got) ... neither can the state afford to subsidise him.


----------



## Guest105 (29 Apr 2012)

PaddyBloggit said:


> Let 'em have all the kids they want ... but the arrogance of expecting the taxpayer to fund it annoys me.
> 
> He can't afford more kids (not to mind the ones he has got) ... neither can the state afford to subsidise him.




I am pretty sure all of these kids will grow up to be great citizens.  The father has attempted to run his own business but was knocked back.

I begrudged the likes of Bernie Aherne getting a huge state pension from the tax payer at the expense of vulnerable little children such as this family.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (29 Apr 2012)

cashier said:


> I am pretty sure all of these kids will grow up to be great citizens.



I wouldn't dispute that.



cashier said:


> The father has attempted to run his own business  but was knocked back.



Then he needs to cut his cloth to his changed circumstances .... he can't afford more children.


----------



## DerKaiser (29 Apr 2012)

Don't like the culture of entitlement, but I suspect the moral hazard issue (sure if you gave him a bigger house everyone would have 8 kids) is a bit far fetched a concept for 99.9% of us!


----------



## Time (29 Apr 2012)

Compulsory sterilisation. If he wants a bigger house, no more kids.


----------



## truthseeker (29 Apr 2012)

A totally morally irresponsible individual.

Stop making babies if you cant afford to support them, stop expecting the state, and by extension the tax payer, to pay for the results of your sexual activity. Wear a condom and take some responsibility.

In my opinion someone like this, a waster probably producing more wasters, should have to agree to sterilisation in order to qualify for benefits. Its a massive mistake for the state to keep paying benefits for irresponsible reproduction.


----------



## Purple (29 Apr 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Stop making babies if you cant afford to support them, stop expecting the state, and by extension the tax payer, to pay for the results of your sexual



I agree with this bit, the rest might be taking things a bit far.


----------



## Sue Ellen (29 Apr 2012)

PaddyBloggit said:


> He can't afford more kids (not to mind the ones he has got) ... neither can the state afford to subsidise him.



The bottom line is *WE* can't afford both his present and any future kids.


----------



## truthseeker (29 Apr 2012)

Purple said:


> I agree with this bit, the rest might be taking things a bit far.



Not forcing sterilisation, but offering him sterilisation + benefits, or no benefits.


----------



## Guest105 (29 Apr 2012)

Sue Ellen said:


> The bottom line is *WE* can't afford both his present and any future kids.


 

Babies make the world go on, these little uns might be nursing some of ye yet


----------



## The_Banker (29 Apr 2012)

truthseeker said:


> A totally morally irresponsible individual.
> 
> Stop making babies if you cant afford to support them, stop expecting the state, and by extension the tax payer, to pay for the results of your sexual activity. Wear a condom and take some responsibility.
> 
> In my opinion someone like this,* a waster probably producing more wasters*, should have to agree to sterilisation in order to qualify for benefits. Its a massive mistake for the state to keep paying benefits for irresponsible reproduction.



You know his children will be wasters?


----------



## oldnick (29 Apr 2012)

The fact is that as the birth rate decreases there'll be more old people with fewer young ones to support them. This is already a problem in some countries like Japan ,Italy and others. It will be a tremendous problem in China in a few years as a result of two people producing only one.

ireland,so far, is doing better than most advanced countries. And this man is doing his part. His job is clearly to produce children. *If* he properly takes care of them as well then why not reward him?  

If they grow up and become even average citizens then this man has done more to benefit the country than thousands of politicans,bankers, bureaucrats. At a relatively low price.

If ,on the other hand ,the kids appear to be turning out to be sponging, thieving scumbags then of course he should be sterilised and the kids given to proper care-takers. What little evidence we have suggests that so far,so good.


----------



## The_Banker (29 Apr 2012)

Sue Ellen said:


> The bottom line is *WE* can't afford both his present and any future kids.



Maybe we should hand his present kids over to the church to look after. That's what we did with poor peoples kids in the past.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (29 Apr 2012)

The_Banker said:


> Maybe we should hand his present kids over to the church to look after. That's what we did with poor peoples kids in the past.



Bit extreme.

He has what he has now in terms of kids and he's being well supported by the state (us) for it.

The point being made is that he has enough kids now as he has to be supported with the ones he has.

No one is suggesting that his children be taken into care. The man can't afford to provide for his children .... there's no way we should be expected to support more.

*DerKaiser* hit the nail on the head when he refered to a culture of entitlement .... the man's arrogance in thinking that he's entitled to a larger house because he wants to continue procreating when he will place the full care of his efforts in the lap of the state.

He has 8 children .... plenty to carry on his legacy.

It's time to end this culture of entitlement mentality.

When he can afford more kids (without state support), by all means let him procreate to his heart's content!


----------



## Sue Ellen (29 Apr 2012)

+1.


----------



## Knuttell (29 Apr 2012)

We would like more kids as well but unfortunately because we are both working we can only afford 2...

People like this guy just annoy me with their gimme gimme gimme attitude.

Childrens allowance should only be paid for the first 3 kids,after that zilch,zero,nada,bet he wouldn't be half as keen to have 8 kids plus if that was the scenario.


----------



## truthseeker (29 Apr 2012)

The_Banker said:


> You know his children will be wasters?



I said probably.

8 kids born to 2 parents, neither of whom work, living on benefits. Theyre not going to learn a good work ethic at home. Theyre going to learn that the state will support them. Theyre going to learn that if you keep making babies, you get paid more by the state. Theyre going to hear Daddy referring to the benefits as his 'wages' - so yeah, theyll probably be wasters.


----------



## Guest105 (29 Apr 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I said probably.
> 
> 8 kids born to 2 parents, neither of whom work, living on benefits. Theyre not going to learn a good work ethic at home. Theyre going to learn that the state will support them. Theyre going to learn that if you keep making babies, you get paid more by the state. Theyre going to hear Daddy referring to the benefits as his 'wages' - so yeah, theyll probably be wasters.



plenty of parents with lots of kids these days on welfare benefits  given the state of the economy and unemployment situation, its a sweeping generalisation to say they will all turn out as wasters.  Limerick isn't the best place in the world right now for employment opportunities.


----------



## PaddyW (30 Apr 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I said probably.
> 
> 8 kids born to 2 parents, neither of whom work, living on benefits. Theyre not going to learn a good work ethic at home. Theyre going to learn that the state will support them. Theyre going to learn that if you keep making babies, you get paid more by the state. Theyre going to hear Daddy referring to the benefits as his 'wages' - so yeah, theyll probably be wasters.


 

Wow, just wow. There are 7 of us now (9, but 2 passed, RIP) and we were brought up by 2 parents, neither of them could get work, although they tried their best. If anything, having to cope on the very little that we had, having had to at times be visited by SVdeP to give us some food to survive on, I can tell you that none of us turned out to be wasters. We are all in employment (bar my brother who is special needs), we all pay our own way. I've never taken a cent off the government that I wasn't entitled to. I pay my own debts, as do my family. So don't think that having parents that support their family through social welfare payments, will probably turn you into a waster. If anything, it has had the opposite effect on us, it makes us want to have a better life. 
So give these kids the benefit of the doubt, you don't know them and you most certainly do not know how they will turn out.


----------



## Firefly (30 Apr 2012)

"Mr Casey, from Glenbrook, Childers Rd"

Sounds like he's in the right place to me


----------



## truthseeker (30 Apr 2012)

cashier said:


> plenty of parents with lots of kids these days on welfare benefits  given the state of the economy and unemployment situation, its a sweeping generalisation to say they will all turn out as wasters.  Limerick isn't the best place in the world right now for employment opportunities.



First of all, I said probably, not definitely.

Second, yeah, there is a recession on NOW - but I doubt he had his 8 kids in the years since 2007. He claims in the article that his housing issue started 10 years ago, when he had 3 kids. So he has been looking for housing from the state during a massive economy boom (and bust), so why did he keep having more kids? Because he is irresponsible. He should have stuck with the 3 he had and worked to support them, but no, he kept having more and now he is crying he hasnt enough room for them. I cant get my head round an individual like this, the sense of entitlement and pure irresponsible behaviour just baffles me.



PaddyW said:


> Wow, just wow. There are 7 of us now (9, but 2 passed, RIP) and we were brought up by 2 parents, neither of them could get work, although they tried their best.



I dont know what age you are PaddyW but contraception was not available in my own parents time, so probably not in your parents time either.

This is not the case for the man having 8 children in the decade 2000 - 2010. 

Im sorry, but there is no excuse in todays times for what this man is doing. Its irresponsible procreation and all the 'wow, just wow' in the world wont change that, a comparison to a generation or two generations ago is irrelevant.

And as for the kids being wasters - people seem to miss the word probably, but thats the word I used. Not definitely, probably.


----------



## ney001 (30 Apr 2012)

This guy and his wife absolutely disgust me I have to say! .  Myself and my OH have put family on hold for now because he is unemployed and we just can't afford it at the moment.  We have a mortgage and bills and we don't want any hand outs.  I don't know how accurate it is but I read on some of the boards that he hasn't worked since 2002? can he explain why he hasn't been able to get a job in the boom?, he seems to be clinging on to this hotdog story for dear life as if to prove that he tried his best but couldn't get anywhere! Rubbish- he tried once and failed (i'm sure he was gutted :roll eyes: ) and has sat on his a**e for the past ten years getting up only to make babies that he can't support. 

He's damn lucky to have any house at the moment let alone a bigger one in a better area.


----------



## blueband (30 Apr 2012)

in fairness he seems to come across as a decent enough man but i dont think he should have anymore children. what people forget is that having children is not a right, its a lifestyle choice, noting more or noting less.  if you cant afford them dont have them ... if you cant afford a rolls royce dont drive one and expect everyone else to pay for it!


----------



## PaddyW (30 Apr 2012)

truthseeker said:


> First of all, I said probably, not definitely.
> 
> Second, yeah, there is a recession on NOW - but I doubt he had his 8 kids in the years since 2007. He claims in the article that his housing issue started 10 years ago, when he had 3 kids. So he has been looking for housing from the state during a massive economy boom (and bust), so why did he keep having more kids? Because he is irresponsible. He should have stuck with the 3 he had and worked to support them, but no, he kept having more and now he is crying he hasnt enough room for them. I cant get my head round an individual like this, the sense of entitlement and pure irresponsible behaviour just baffles me.
> 
> ...


 
Fair enough, I accept all your points and I know you did use the word probably, I even used it in my post.

As an aside, we all lived in a three bed house. 4 of us boys together, 3 girls together and the youngest in with the parents. I can't understand his need for a bigger house, we only had 3 rooms and it never bothered us, in fact some of my best memories come from having the craic in the room with the 4 of us in there, it was priceless. He should reconsider his need for more children, be happy with what he's got and look after them as best he can for now.

Oh and I was just 'wow'ing at the use of the words 'wasters'. The rest of your post is grand, I've no problem with it, but you can't say they'll probably turn out wasters, no one knows that and it seems a bit judgemental really. They may all turn out to be fine upstanding citizens that pay their taxes and do the right thing. They may even provide towards our pensions!


----------



## truthseeker (30 Apr 2012)

PaddyW said:


> Oh and I was just 'wow'ing at the use of the words 'wasters'. The rest of your post is grand, I've no problem with it, but you can't say they'll probably turn out wasters, no one knows that and it seems a bit judgemental really. They may all turn out to be fine upstanding citizens that pay their taxes and do the right thing. They may even provide towards our pensions!



Its really the fathers attitude and sense of entitlement that made me say that (including the probably!) - its difficult to overcome the value system you learn from your upbringing. And this mans value system is all wrong.

Those kids are at an immediate disadvantage in life.


----------



## michaelm (30 Apr 2012)

truthseeker said:


> In my opinion someone like this, a waster probably producing more wasters, should have to agree to sterilisation in order to qualify for benefits. Its a massive mistake for the state to keep paying benefits for irresponsible reproduction.


"A waster producing wasters" is at best a silly and blinkered comment.  Sterilisation linked benefits is a step before eugenics.  The State has a duty to all its citizens and children are citizens and the lifeblood of the State.





ney001 said:


> He's damn lucky to have any house at the moment let alone a bigger one in a better area.


Lucky indeed.  But the State provides social housing at minimal rents for hundreds of thousands of people.  If the Council indicated they would provide more suitable accommodation and it is doable then they should do it.  10 in a 3-bed is a bit of a squash and an squeeze; conversely, I know an older woman who lives alone in a large 4-bed council house.  It strikes me as poor resource management by the Council.


----------



## Guest105 (30 Apr 2012)

Maybe he is a conservative Catholic opposed to all forms of contraceptives, I wonder would the Church be willling to support him and his family after all he is abiding by their motto to go forth and produce!


----------



## Ceist Beag (30 Apr 2012)

All very laudable sentiment michaelm but is there not a point where the state is entitled to turn around to citizens such as this and say "you know what, we've provided for you for the past 10 years and all you've done is take, take, take, how about you give something back instead of complaining now that you're not getting even more?". I don't doubt there are inequalities in how housing is allocated but I have absolutely zero sympathy for people like this man, I'm fed up woes such as these (entirely caused by the man himself) when there are so many other stories worthy of much more sympathy.


----------



## micmclo (30 Apr 2012)

michaelm said:


> 10 in a 3-bed is a bit of a squash and an squeeze; conversely, I know an older woman who lives alone in a large 4-bed council house.  It strikes me as poor resource management by the Council.



Do the council actively manage situations like this?

Suppose a family breaks up and you have one person living in a three bed or maybe your example, an elderly person living alone in a local authority house

Would the council step in and ask them to move elsewhere, give up the large house and we'll allocate a nice cosy flat in the area.

But then if they do this would there be an outcry? Council moving people out of their homes

I don't know how it works.
Managing the stock is good but I'd imagine it could difficult to move people on out of a large council house. Those are desirable and there is a long waiting list


----------



## michaelm (30 Apr 2012)

Ceist Beag said:


> . . is there not a point where the state is entitled to turn around to citizens such as this and say "you know what, we've provided for you for the past 10 years and all you've done is take, take, take, how about you give something back instead of complaining now that you're not getting even more?".


For sure.  But I think families of this size are rare these days and those who might otherwise have modest earnings fall into a welfare trap.  Anyone who can work should work but it shouldn't cost them to work.





micmclo said:


> Would the council step in and ask them to move elsewhere, give up the large house and we'll allocate a nice cosy flat in the area.


The woman I know asked to transfer to a 2-bed bungalow but the Council turned her down.


----------



## truthseeker (30 Apr 2012)

michaelm said:


> "A waster producing wasters" is at best a silly and blinkered comment.  Sterilisation linked benefits is a step before eugenics.  The State has a duty to all its citizens and children are citizens and the lifeblood of the State.Lucky indeed.  But the State provides social housing at minimal rents for hundreds of thousands of people.  If the Council indicated they would provide more suitable accommodation and it is doable then they should do it.  10 in a 3-bed is a bit of a squash and an squeeze; conversely, I know an older woman who lives alone in a large 4-bed council house.  It strikes me as poor resource management by the Council.



There is nothing silly and blinkered about my comment, its my opinion and its as valid as yours - which I think is ridiculously idealistic - yes yes itd be lovely if we could all sit around producing children and not work but guess what? My taxes pay for this guys laziness, and so do yours. He is morally irresponsible. Eugenics has nothing to do with it - this persons way of life is parasitical and he is being rewarded by the state for him lack of moral responsibility.

I dont buy into the whole 'lifeblood of the state' rubbish. This guy was the lifeblood of the state 40 odd years ago - and look at him now, a parasite.

Having a family that size that you cannot afford to feed or house or clothe yourself is just ignorant and irresponsible.


----------



## Leper (30 Apr 2012)

truthseeker said:


> In my opinion someone like this, a waster probably producing more wasters, should have to agree to sterilisation in order to qualify for benefits. Its a massive mistake for the state to keep paying benefits for irresponsible reproduction.


 
What an appalling assessment of this case. 

What qualifications have you to call anybody or his offspring "Wasters"?

Would you agree to sterilisation for yourself under any circumstances?


----------



## truthseeker (30 Apr 2012)

Leper said:


> What an appalling assessment of this case.
> 
> What qualifications have you to call anybody or his offspring "Wasters"?
> 
> Would you agree to sterilisation for yourself under any circumstances?



Im sorry if you dont like my opinion of this persons behaviour. His behaviour is appalling. I dont need qualifications to make a judgement call on a story in a newspaper - its my opinion. You dont like it? Tough, I dont express it for your approval.

The guy doesnt work, doesnt support his family, keeps having more children he cant support - course he is a waster! What would you call him - a model of modern fatherhood? Total waster - gives nothing back to society, just takes and takes. Just to point out _again_ - I didnt call his offspring wasters, I said they *probably* would become wasters.

I personally wouldnt behave in such an irresponsible way so feelings on my own sterilisation and this situation are irrelevant. I believe people shouldnt be rewarded by the state for continuing to have more and more children when they cant even afford to put a roof over their OWN heads, let alone over the childrens.


----------



## michaelm (1 May 2012)

truthseeker said:


> There is nothing silly and blinkered about my comment, its my opinion and its as valid as yours


I stand corrected.  I should have said 'measured and insightful' .  We seem to live in a world where all opinions and choices are equally valid.


----------



## ney001 (1 May 2012)

+ 1 Truthseeker.  This guy is a parasite as is his wife.


----------



## Purple (1 May 2012)

I didn’t like Truthseeksers comments about this guy being a waster but the more I read Truthseekers defence the more I have to agree that yes, he is a waster.
This guy wants his neighbours to give him their money to pay for the costs of raising his family. He’s saying “don’t spend your money that you earned on your family, give it to me instead for my children”. His choices have a direct detrimental effect on other people and he doesn’t care. 
“The state” doesn’t have any money; it takes and spends its citizens money.


----------



## Knuttell (1 May 2012)

truthseeker said:


> The guy doesnt work, doesnt support his family, keeps having more children he cant support - course he is a waster! What would you call him - a model of modern fatherhood? Total waster - gives nothing back to society, just takes and takes. Just to point out _again_ - I didnt call his offspring wasters, I said they *probably* would become wasters.



How anyone can view this guy as anything other than an entitled leech is beyond me,there is a whole sub class of wasters like him always with the hands out.

I am not talking about those made redundant in the depression either,I was unemployed once and know the pain of it and I know they are doing everything they can to find work but this class of a useless lump with his begging bowl strapped round his neck probably never did a days turn in his life.

He needs to be told where to go in no uncertain terms or indeed language.


----------



## PaddyW (1 May 2012)

10 in a 3 bed is fine, my family did it, he can surely do it. And like the old saying use to go "Wear a condom, just in Casey".


----------



## Ciaraella (1 May 2012)

I can't understand how anyone can defend this guy, he chooses to have children that he cannot support, how irresponsible can he be??
Fair enough if at one time he had the money and then fell on hard times, it could happen to us all, but choosing to have a family that he knowingly can't provide for? 
Not much of a family man if you ask me


----------



## TarfHead (1 May 2012)

In the words of Twink ..

.. "_Zip up yer m****y_" !


----------



## Firefly (1 May 2012)

Knuttell said:


> He needs to be told where to go in no uncertain terms or indeed language.


 
A lot easier to just cut child benefit for those with larger families. Nothing like money to focus the mind.


----------



## michaelm (2 May 2012)

Ciaraella said:


> I can't understand how anyone can defend this guy, he chooses to have children that he cannot support, how irresponsible can he be??


I don't think there is any robust defence of this guy here.  He should work to help support his family. The prejudice towards the children irked me into posting on this thread.


----------



## net64 (4 May 2012)

My husband was one of a family of 8 brought up in a two up/two down and it didn't do him any harm!

Net64


----------



## Neadyk (4 May 2012)

This guy is not on his own having babies.  His wife should also take responsibility and give him a stern "not tonight dear"!


----------

