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

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.
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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!
 
Compulsory sterilisation. If he wants a bigger house, no more kids.
 
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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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

You know his children will be wasters?
 
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 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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
The_Banker said:
You know his children will be wasters?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register