Longford family reject €42-a-week 4-bed house and take over another

Could you not just keep your dick in your pants?

Longford house

Isn’t it well for them? as ladies of my mother’s generation might have said.

Isn’t it well for the Doyle family that they were able to reject a 4-bedroom bungalow at a weekly rent of €42 and instead squat in a house another family was intended to have?

Isn’t it well for them?

Initially their objection was that the house was too close to the road, and their children might have been in danger from traffic but Longford Council solved that problem by building a fence for them, and still the Doyle family decided that they wouldn’t move into the house.

Instead they squatted in a house intended for another family.

John Paul Doyle, the paterfamilias, now runs the risk of imprisonment unless he moves his six children out of that house.

Of course I can’t help thinking that John Paul must be 37 years old, as all John Pauls are. Thirty-seven years old, with six kids and no means of housing them apart from a demand to the local council to provide his progeny with a place of his choosing.

Shouldn’t we all be so lucky?

Wouldn’t we all love to be able to reject a four-bedroom bungalow?

Wouldn’t we all love to produce a large family knowing that somebody else will look after us?

Recently on radio we heard a mother describe the humiliation of living in a hotel with no means of cooking for her children and here’s John Paul feeling entitled to place his six children in the best accommodation money can buy. He’s probably a very nice guy, but why is John Paul entitled to a better house than anyone else? And why is he entitled to get it for €42 a week when people are sleeping on park benches?

There was a time when I would have been sympathetic to men like John Paul, men who felt entitled to bring as many children as they wish into the world even though they aren’t able to house them, but I don’t feel that way any more.

If you want to have a large family, that’s your business, but don’t expect everyone else to take responsibility for your decision, or lack of it.

A few years ago, some protester set up a placard outside the offices of Limerick City Council. His problem was that he had too many children for his four-bedroom council house and he wanted something bigger. I was going into the office to pay my car tax and I couldn’t help stopping to talk to him.

Why are you protesting?

I want a bigger house.


I have too many children. We have no room for them.

Where did all these children come from?

We just had them.

Did somebody force you to have them?

We just had them.

Could you not have kept your dick in your pants?

Luckily for me, he didn’t quite seem to grasp what I was asking him.




81 thoughts on “Longford family reject €42-a-week 4-bed house and take over another

  1. When are you going to write about social welfare we have in this country for the rich Bock?

    I know it’s a bit more complicated.. but I’m sure you could manage to follow some of it, instead of the easy pickings you have with people needing social housing.

  2. Artemis..sir or madam, as you for f@€King real…
    With your easy pickings with people that need social housing… I’m paying a mortgage…I go out each day to work to pay for it…it was my choice to get s mortgage..in a non social housing estate…. But not anymore… Landlords have rented their houses out…to yes people that are in the receipt of social welfare…I look out my window observing people that probably never worked to contribute one cent to society….and pump out a load of kids between them.

    So yes… I suppose it is easy pickings on people in need of social housing….on our expense….

  3. You know perfectly well what I’ve written about the banks and their kind. Spare me that whataboutery bullshit.

  4. If he’s able to have that many kids he’s able to work and provide for them


  5. I don’t think it’s whataboutery. I don’t any narrative I don’t want to.

    I’m talking about all the funds and tax breaks being created for the wealthy.. I’m not just referring to the failed banks we bailed out. What about the ongoing shenanigans with Nama.. vulture funds paying zero tax on their profits here. Property investment funds, where zero tax is applicable. Billions worth of assets being sold off on the cheap, to billionaires who’ll pay no tax.

    I don’t think people are aware of these schemes that are being concocted for the wealthy.
    I’d be waiting to read about it here anyway..

    No offence now. But what I’m reading about is how we should be paying for water, (how the less well off in our society need to fund that failing infrastructure..that’s not very progressive.. no mention of water being turned into a private commodity) a family who have some issue with their council house, and how we shouldn’t pay to replace lead pipes in peoples’ home – the cost of which wouldn’t be a burden to the wealthy of course. Anyone would be forgiven for thinking you dislike the poor.

    It’s just an observation now. Don’t ask me to read the community rules again for it like.

  6. ” I don’t any narrative I don’t want to. ” follow any, I meant. Pardon me.. don’t make me read the community rules now.

  7. This post is about responsible parenthood and state obligation with regard to social welfare . It’s not about antisocial bank practices. If parents have too many children to care for and too little money for the task, they can apply for some of the children to be cared for in foster families. I know a social worker who visits foster families and he tells me the system works and children are happy.

  8. “What about’ the hard working married taxpayer, struggling to provide fot his own children, in a 2 bed flat?
    Why should he be subsidising this family?

  9. I’m not telling you what to write…. but we’re talking about social welfare aren’t we? Except it’s always about the obvious ‘scroungers’.. the well off don’t look like scroungers I suppose and we’re not exactly getting much information on the tax incentives being concocted for them by our government.

    If the likes of Madhatters above there knew who is and who isn’t paying their fair share, he’d be much angrier. There’s massive social welfare for the wealthy going on in Ireland. Social welfare for the wealthy isn’t being discussed IMO.

    Continue to talk about the Longford families out there, while there’s bigger greedier hands in your pocket robbing you blind.

  10. Well this fella in Longford clearly isn’t paying his “fair share” as you put it. Why the fuck should the rest of us keep having to pay taxes to keep these feral baby machines in the lifestyle they are accustomed to. It’s bred into them from birth, sponge, scrounge and cream every cent you can get. The sense of entitlement in this country is shocking. I haven’t the price of the weekly shopping in my pocket and there’s this waster refusing a 4 bedroom house with a brand new fence for him and his family. We are awash with families like this across the country. Want to mass produce but contribute shag all. Makes me sick

  11. The rich rule the world, divide and rule being the chief strategy used. Contempt on the part of each layer of the social order for the layers underneath is the glue that holds the whole pyramidical structure together. The wageslaves’ contempt for the lumpenproletariat would be better directed towards the slave drivers and owners.

  12. I agree with Pat… economic illiteracy is rife. The wealthy want us hating the poorer amongst us. They want us to believe they’re the problem.
    This Longford man could well be working too.. We have plenty of working poor, when all the economic gains are going to the top, who are paying little to no tax.

    Bock, it’s just an opinion. Don’t make me read the community rules now.

  13. Sorry, Bock, that was a kneejerk response as I was in a hurry. It’s a pity there isn’t an editing function for these comments.

    What I should have said is, was your “editor” comment a response to mine. If it was, could you please clarify what you meant because I’m not sure I understand it.

  14. Very simple. I’ve written many posts here about the rich, the oligarchs and the corrupt bankers. But when I dare to write something about people taking over a house, everyone is telling me I should write about something else instead. People are telling me not to write about this topic.

    That’s why I think people are under the delusion that they own this site.

  15. @Artemis – I’d love to know what your definition of “rich” is and how, just because “rich” people are able to avoid paying more tax than you think they should, that this somehow is the main cause of the problem.

    What you seem to be saying (and correct me if I am wrong) is that someone who has more money than you should give you and other people some of that money via increased taxation on their money. How is that in any way fair?

    Like it or not, people like the guy in this article *are* a part of the problem, and a large one at that, and I’d be willing to wager that they are a far greater problem than a relative handful of “rich” people who don’t pay proportionately higher taxes.

  16. Yeah, it’s simple alright, Bock.

    I posted a comment that’s relevant to your post but critical of it.

    You’ve responded not by addressing the substance of my post but by saying indirectly that you own this site and you’re the only one who can edit or delete what anyone else says.

    The message is loud and clear.

  17. What a hate filled author. The government takes 52% of my earnings and Enda Kenny pays himself €5,000 a week. I like to think that the Ireland he rules with an iron fist isnt the type of country that leaves children to live in a ditch. I have no problem with anyone that wants to have a large family and if for whatever reason they cant support all those children I like to think that other Irish people are willing to help out. We have a long tradition of large families and I have no problem with that. I wouldnt mind paying more tax if that money went to children rather than over paid politicians.
    As for housing employees in county councils, they set a very low standard that makes me ashamed to be Irish. They are the real problem, its not people that have a lot of children that are the problem. Children are our future at the end of the day not housing officers. Who knows what John Pauls children will grow up to be. For all we know one of them might find a cure for cancer and that’s not something any housing officer is likely to do.

  18. Give one example of hate in this post or risk being called a thundering fool. This family was offered a perfectly good house and refused it.

    Responsible parents produce as many children as they can support and no more. If you want to drag us back to DeValera’s insane Catholic Ireland, you’re welcome to live there yourself, but don’t expect the rest of us to join you.

  19. Pat Ryan

    Anyone is free to express an opinion here including me. That means writing about anything I choose.

    Is that clearer?

    If there are things you think are inaccurate in the post please point them out.

  20. @Bock the entire article is full of hate and condemnation. Call me a thundering fool or anything else you like, if you call me a horse that doesn’t mean I’m going to grow an extra set of legs and start eating hay. I don’t expect anything from you or anyone else for that matter. What I am curious to know is what qualifies you to determine what makes a responsible parent? Please point me in the direction of the definition of a responsible parent. I would also like to know why you feel the need to drag religion into this? You claim that the family was offered a perfectly good house, who are you to decide this?
    “Isn’t it well for them?” Please tell me how you know this family and how you know what’s best for them? That’s a condescending comment if I’ve ever heard one so who are you to judge anyone? Are you an author or a judge? If you are an author what qualifications do you have if any? I’ve certainly never heard of you before reading this article. Perhaps you would prefer if we scraped social welfare and left children living in ditches? Is this really the Ireland you want to live in? I know its not the Ireland I want to live in.

  21. Is that clear? Whos on a power buzz? lol Whats the matter Bock? Cant you deal with people whos opinion differ from yours?

  22. John, you’ll have to calm down.

    One comment at a time please or nobody will be able to answer you. This isn’t the Joe Duffy show where people just shout at each other.

    Please behave yourself.

  23. @Bock I am calm as it happens but I do feel that the social welfare system is absolutely essential and I am proud that we have such a system in Ireland. I am out of work at the moment due to medical reasons and I don’t get any form of social welfare but I don’t hold it against anyone that does get social welfare. I can understand peoples frustration at people that abuse the social welfare system but I make exceptions where children are concerned. No matter what the parents do it cant be held against the children. Surly you agree with that?
    Ps Im not shouting and Im not trying to insult you but children need to be protected and thats something I do feel strongly about. My apologies if Ive caused you any offence.

  24. It has nothing to do with me being offended. My feelings are irrelevant.

    This family were offered a good house and instead are squatting in another house preventing a homeless family from moving in.

  25. @bock you point is moot at best, what was to stop the other family accepting the four bedroom house that was offered to the first family?

  26. Please don’t try to change the subject. This family were offered a perfectly good house and decided to squat in another instead.

    That is the subject of this post.

    I never had that freedom.

    Do you?

  27. No I never did have that option, I’m afraid I have to work for a living and as I previously stated I don’t get government handouts. I made the mistake of saving money which mean I don’t qualify for social welfare. Had I spent all the money I earned as I earned it I would have qualified for social welfare but social welfare is means tested so I cant claim any but that’s a different issue.
    I’m not trying to change the subject, I’m simply trying to offer you a different perspective. Nothing more. I don’t know the family nor am I familiar with the house that was offered but I do feel that not ever house is suitable for small children. If the house is very close to a major road than I wouldn’t consider it suitable for small children but that’s just my opinion. Even with fences around the house it doesn’t mean a child wont climb over the fence and get hit by a car. Without more details I don’t think its fair for me to make any kind of judgement.

  28. If the circumstances were unusual, I might have some empathy but forgive me — families all over the country live next to roads.

    There is nothing unusual about that.

    Should the council have a responsibility over and above what is normal among the general population?

  29. I don’t feel any council should have any responsibility over and above what is normal among the general population but I do feel all councils should have a responsibility for the safety, health and welfare of all children and providing any house that could endanger the life of a child is in my opinion careless and irresponsible. I do strongly feel that any house offered by any council should take into account any possible risks to children and without knowing exactly where the house is I cant either condemn the council in question or condemn the parents in question. In engineer we have a saying “specify, specify, specify” and this article does not specify the exact location of the house in question so I cant honestly determine if the council or the parents are at fault.

  30. The house is like any other house beside a road. You can view it on Google Earth if you take the trouble.

    But let me be clear, for the avoidance of all doubt. Are you saying that a council must provide housing that is superior in all respects to anything a person would have if they were buying the property for themselves?

    Are you saying that a local authority must supply a standard of safety over and above what a reasonable person would consider acceptable?

  31. I cant view the house if I don’t know the address and I don’t know the address. Your article doesn’t give the address and your article is the only information I have regarding this story.
    I am not claiming that any council must provide housing that is superior in all respects to anything a person would have if they were buying the property for themselves. I am stating that all councils must provide social housing that does not present a danger to its tenants regardless of the tenants age. I am also stating that all councils must provide social that meets code. I am not stating that any council must supply a standard of safety over and above what a reasonable person would consider acceptable. Again I am stating that any social house provided by any council must not provide health and safety risks to its tenants. This really has nothing to do with what tenants think is acceptable. The issue as far as I am concerned it does the house in question meet standards and does it present a health risk to its tenants and as I don’t know the address there simply is not enough information in your article to make those determinations. If you post the address it would be a lot easier to make an informed decision on this issue.

  32. What I don’t get is, what difference it makes to anyone if they ‘reject’ this house and accept another? Or is the real problem the fact that they’re paying 42 euros a week for whichever house they accept? Is the problem the fact that we have social housing at all? Or is it that they should know their place.. beggers can’t be choosers.

    “This family were offered a good house and instead are squatting in another house preventing a homeless family from moving in.”
    The homeless family can’t provide a home for their kids either, but there’s no ire directed at this unknown homeless family. Property might well have been affordable in this country except for the set up of NAMA. But that’s not what we’re talking about, shur it isn’t..

  33. This is just like a “debate” on the Joe Duffy Show. If the man in question has done anything wrong the authorities will deal with it. As John O’Kelly said, debating it without full knowledge of all relevant particulars is a waste of time and a distraction from other more important issues. That’s what the mainstream media do all the time.

    Hence the “economic [and political] illiteracy” mentioned by Artemis, which illiteracy on the part of the majority of wage slaves results in their unwittingly voting for the perpetuation of their slavery in election after election.

  34. Off-topic posts by Artemis have been removed. I will remind people that this post is not about NAMA, Denis O Brien or any other pet topic. If you refuse to respect the site and refuse to stay on topic, your posts will not be published.

    It’s very simple.

    Artemis, please don’t post while drinking. We have had this problem before with your addiction.

    Thank you.

  35. @Bock your cheap insults are more indication of your absolute bigotry. Delete this post all you want but the real issue is your all apparent hatred for people on social welfare. The problem is not that a family refused a house, its that they were offered a house at such low rent and you don’t have the courage or intellect to admit that you are a bigot. Delete away and be damned. You sir are all that’s wrong with Ireland. You are a condescending pompous fool.

  36. You know, after reading this article which provides some interesting facts


    I do agree with one thing – it’s not a very suitable location for small kids. So I do have some sympathy there.


    This guy is 36 years old and has never had a job. He can’t read. He gets EUR 490 a week for doing FUCK ALL. It’s hardly a fortune but it’s not bad for sitting on your backside. What the fuck has he been doing for the last 20 odd years?
    And whilst he seems content to blame this country and other people’s attitudes for his current situation, at the same time he had no problem illegally breaking into a house and leaving some other poor schmuck with no-where to live.

    I am probably going to regret saying this but it is this man, and all the others like him, that are a very large part of this country’s problems.The sense of entitlement and the narrow, selfish self-interested view they have is staggering in its scope and horrifying in its implications. I truly feel sorry for his kids and for the other family that this man has deprived of a home through his selfishness.

    The bottom line is that he, like many others, seems content to place the burden of their own shortcomings on the shoulders of the state and by extension the rest of its citizens; I’m on holiday in Bulgaria at the moment (@Aretmis, I suppose that makes me rich or something, oops!), and this morning I watched some locals who are on this country’s equivalent of the dole, emptying bins and picking up litter, sweeping the streets and generally keeping the place nice and tidy. Why can’t we do the same in Ireland? Perhaps John Paul Doyle’s “Learning Disability” precludes him from using a shovel or a brush, I dunno.

    I have no problem paying ridiculous amounts of tax (and like anyone here who’s working,I do), as long as it means that every person in this country can get a decent education; that any person can get quality healthcare for free, and that the state (and remember, we are all the state) will be there to help them in hard times if they cannot help themselves. But I object in the strongest terms that the fruits of my labour should be given to those who will not apparently do anything to help themselves.

  37. oh and p.s. Artemis, thanks for the Panama link, it is a very interesting read and perhaps we’ll get to debate it if Bock has anything to write on the matter :)

  38. This from Steve’s post above:

    “And whilst he seems content to blame this country and other people’s attitudes for his current situation, at the same time he had no problem illegally breaking into a house and leaving some other poor schmuck with no-where to live.”

    That’s what literate logical people call a non sequitur, Steve. Look it up and reflect upon what you’ve written. I could write a long post exposing the nonsensical nature of not just that sentence by you but of your post as a whole and it would be a complete waste of time. But of course, as I have explained above, this whole contrived “debate” is a complete waste of time.

    So they’re Travellers. I don’t recall Bock mentioning that little fact in his original post. It underlines the fact that I was spot on in my original comment on this thread – my comment about “contempt”.

    I rest my case.

  39. You’re again misrepresenting what I said.

    Instead of my repeating myself, I suggest that you again read what I said, this time more carefully.

  40. Bock is a bigot plain and simple and his emails are going into my spam folder from this point forward. Ireland is full of stupid fools that would rather judge others than try and formulate solutions. Next he will be blaming foreigners for stealing all our jobs.

  41. John, I don’t send emails to readers.

    You, however, sent me one, which reads as follows:

    I really enjoy debating with you, you have a very sharp mind which is a rear
    (sic) thing. Thank you for offering me an alternitive (sic) perspective on this story.

    I didn’t reply.

    Now John. Please read the community standards here. You will see that personal abuse is not permitted on this site. If you wish to comment here in future, you will please respect the standards that are designed to promote civilised debate.

    Again let me repeat, trolling is not acceptable. One person insisted on posting multiple irrelevant links to other sites, which were removed. We established long ago that the same poster is in the habit of consuming large amounts of alcohol while commenting. That person spent a long time banned from this site for abusing other posters and for sending me inappropriate emails.

    Incidentally, John, here’s a little bit of education for you. Your comment about blaming foreigners is an example of a well-known dishonest debating tactic and logical fallacy. Look up “Straw man”.

  42. Bock,

    You are misrepresenting by homing in on one detail – my comment on your omitting to mention the Travellers angle – in isolation from my argument as a whole.

    You accused John O’Kelly of dishonesty. You’re guilty of a similar dishonesty not just in this respect but in other respects in relation to your post.

    To take but one other example, you misrepresented my criticism of your post as me dictating to you what you could or couldn’t write.

    But of course all of this is grist to your mill and a distraction from the nub of my original criticism.

    Joe Duffy gets paid over 400k per year for that kind of codology. How much money are you making from this site, or if you’re not making money, what do you gain from all the time you put into it?

    That’s a serious question, by the way.

    PS: I see that you have somehow linked this to my website. Why is that?

  43. Pat, why are you now calling yourself Truth and Consequences? Please read the section about posting under more than one name.

    I didn’t link this to your website, but if I chose to do so I’d offer you no apology.

    Stop, I beg you. The paranoia seems to be strong with you. Please post under one name only.

    Thank you.

    Incidentally, my reasons for operating this website are none of your business, any more than I need to know why you set up your website. If you have something to add to the subject of this post, as opposed to my personal shortcomings, please feel free to post it but if your next comment is just about me and my failings, don’t waste your time. That’s how this site works. When you’ve been here long enough, you’ll eventually understand the concept.

  44. Bock, could you please restore my posting name to what it was – Pat Ryan – if you can as I can’t do it.

    My criticism of you is not personal as you claim. It is about your online behaviour in your online persona of Bock the Robber. The fact is you did misrepresent comments by me as I have shown.

    You have said both on this and the “Heydrich” thread (though it seems to have disappeared from the latter – fairies I suppose?) that I am paranoid. In what way am I paranoid?

  45. I haven’t changed your name. Perhaps it appears because you’re logged into WordPress.com.

    That matter is entirely in your hands.

    Nothing you said has been misrepresented, unless you think a question can do such a thing. Please be rational.

  46. You have again ignored a question I asked you: In what way am I paranoid?

    Instead of answering it you have levelled another baseless personal criticism at me. Needless to say if I asked you to back that up you would again be unable to do so.

    But one step at a time – I again ask you, in what way am I paranoid?

  47. Pat, you seem to think that someone on this site is out to get you. That’s paranoia.

    It’s only a blog and you are just another commenter. Nobody has the time or the inclination to bother about you since most people are more concerned with earning a living and leading a life.

  48. “you seem to think…” That’s all you’ve got, Bock? You can’t cite anything I’ve done or said so you rely on your imagination.

    As for your second paragraph, I think you need to look in the mirror.

  49. Bock,

    I’d agree with you that the man’s attitude is shocking. But what’s to be done about it? It’s not reasonable for the state (or society if we prefer) to adopt a position that’s going to impose suffering on the 6 kids, who aren’t to blame.

    I suspect that this (thankfully small) fringe of abuse is simply the price we have to pay for having any sort of social safety net.

  50. @Pat or TruthAndConsequences1 or whichever it is; I am bemused how you rage against Bock leveling “baseless personal accusations” against you and then you do the same to me.

    I feel I am adequately literate (and logical) to have an opinion in this matter, and although you obviously don’t agree, I’ve read your reply several times and I cannot find a single rebuttal or counter-point to anything I wrote.

    So I’m confused. Am I so blind that I am missing some huge obvious point that only someone of your mighty intellectual prowess could grasp? If so, please, I beg you, enlighten me. Or at least tell me what I’m wrong about. Otherwise quite frankly you may begin to sound like you’re trolling.

  51. Steve, I pointed a non sequitur in your post. If you still don’t understand it, what more can I do for you?

    I have no desire to get into “a blind man battering blind men” Joe Duffy Show type schemozzle with you. If you read and understood previous posts by me on this thread you would understand why.

  52. @Pat – come on, the old “you’re too stupid to understand” thing isn’t going to get us very far….

    Even if it is an actual literal logical fallacy, so what? It’s hardly the core message of my post which is just my opinion anyway; I get your point about letting the authorities deal with it but I’m more interested in the social and economic drivers behind the situation, and how I believe that there are a lot of people in this country who do not do enough to help themselves and are therefore placing a hefty burden on the rest of our shoulders.

    In that regard, I have a poor opinion of anyone who takes what is not theirs if it is to the detriment of someone else, whether it be a loaf of bread, a house, a million euros or an entire country. So for me this is not actually about the socio-economic pyramid, but is instead about human empathy, or the lack thereof.

    Anyway. I re-read the first post here where you expressed some kind of relevant opinion to the subject:

    “The rich rule the world, divide and rule being the chief strategy used. Contempt on the part of each layer of the social order for the layers underneath is the glue that holds the whole pyramidical structure together. The wageslaves’ contempt for the lumpenproletariat would be better directed towards the slave drivers and owners.”

    That’s an interesting thought, even if it is itself somewhat of a false premise since it seems to assume that the criticisms leveled here are as a result of contempt for the guy’s social standing.

    I personally do not recognise social class, because I believe that in many cases it’s a construct used to rationalise one’s shortcomings, as opposed to some kind of deliberate stratification by the “rich”. And in my experience, rich people (I mean truly rich,not the nouveau-riche celtic tiger types) really don’t give a shit about it either. They see people for what they are and what they can do, not for where they came from or what the perception of their social stratum is.

    The simple fact of the matter is that no matter the system (capitalist, socialist, communist, post-apocalyptic, even post-scarcity) there will always be people that feel that their needs and wants come before everyone else’s, which I feel is an attitude that leads to an unfair world. And I think this story is one example of that – I can’t recall if it’s that article or another one, but at one point he referred to the house as a “kip hole”. To me that indicates a snobbish attitude which, considering the circumstances, is a bit “rich” :)

  53. Steve,

    You dismiss the significance of your non sequitur in criticizing that man but there’s no denying its significance. Non sequiturs are by definition irrational. Since your criticism of the man is irrational it must be based on prejudice. Prejudice is closed-mindedness, hence the futility of trying to reason with you.

    You say you do not recognize social class. You are in denial of reality.

    What more can I say?

  54. T&C. So we’ve gone from it being a logical fallacy to an irrational one. OK. And if I disprove that statement I’m sure you’ll find a grammatical error or something.

    My criticism is based on facts reported by various media, as well as observations from my personal experience of people in his situation who have acted differently. If that counts as irrational, so be it.

    Also, I say I do not recognise social class. I do not deny that it exists in the minds of other people. But that’s their problem; I say only that I refuse to entertain it and I treat everyone the same, in much the same way as I refuse to recognise that someone’s religious beliefs, cultural background or sexual orientation means they should be treated any differently to any other human being. That’s *my* reality, and it cannot be denied.

    Anyway. It seems to me you are only interested in having everyone accept your version of reality as the only correct one, as opposed to simply expressing an opinion…which is of course your perogative but isn’t something I am interested in entertaining. So unless you want to talk about the topic of the original article, I don’t feel this is a productive use of our time any more :)

  55. Why would you think a comment headed Ts & Cs was aimed at you?

    I haven’t seen you being in any way nitpicking, obsessional or pedantic on this thread.

  56. Ha ha ha, so that comment of endearment by Bock was addressed to me!

    Thank you for that measured and reasoned response, Bock.

    To paraphrase Saint Oscar, I hope, Bock, I shall not offend you if I state quite frankly and openly that you seem to me to be in every way the visible personification of absolute perfection.

  57. Steve,

    To return to the topic, my exposing your nonsense was obviously not to Bock’s liking. Hence his derailing the thread by his resumed trolling – this time about my arse of all things!

    The big picture as outlined in my initial post on this thread is what matters here. The authoritarian ideology to which you and Bock subscribe (capitalism, neoliberalism – call it what you like) has failed disastrously and not just economically. The scientific consensus on global warming among other things is proof of that.

    But yet you, Bock and your fellow travelers stupidly cling to your irrational top down ideology which involves kicking the cat rather than thinking rationally and objectively about the dire and (if the above mentioned scientific consensus is anything to go by) probably doomed situation the world is in.

  58. Ts & Cs

    Again I’ll have to educate you.

    Accusing the proprietor of trolling his own site would get you banned from most discussion boards and websiites.

    Do you have any understanding at all of etiquette in these things?

    I said you were in danger of vanishing up your own arse because of your bombastic and pedantic obsession with irrelevant details. You have made your point, which is wrong since this post is not based on ideology.

    If you have nothing more to add, why do you keep picking fights with other commenters on trivial matters?

    Finally, you are not the one who decides what matters on this thread, so don’t presume to act in that way. You are just another random commenter and as already said, most sites would have grown weary of you by now.

    One last time, I’ll ask you to behave yourself. If you show yourself incapable of that, we’ll just have to part our ways but it won’t be for want of trying to educate you about how to conduct yourself in internet debates.

  59. Bock,

    I have accused you of trolling because you have been trolling and here you are trolling again. Here’s the Wikipaedia definition of trolling:

    “In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.”

    This latest post by you is patronizing and insulting. It misrepresents what I have said, it is laced with false accusations and it is fundamentally unfair. For all these reasons it constitutes trolling.

    I’m not going to waste my time by itemizing every one of these instances of trolling in your post. They should be self-evident to any objective reader.

    The reason you get away with this obnoxious behaviour is that you are the self-appointed prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in your own little dystopic domain, the Bock the Robber website. In other words, your whole modus operandi is a violation of a fundamental principal of natural justice, “nemo judex in causa sua” (no-one should be a judge in his own cause).

    Some self-awareness and psychological insight on your part wouldn’t go amiss. As they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It seems that the power you have arrogated to yourself in your own little fiefdom here has gone to your head.

    You educate me? You must be out of your mind. You’ve presided over this cesspit for so long you’ve completely lost the run of yourself. The main problem with this website is that you seem to be blinded by egomania and indeed megalomania. To paraphrase Patrick Kavanagh, you sing on a steaming dunghill a song of coward’s brood.

    Etiquette? What would you know about etiquette? Numerous people have described you in different places on the internet as “a prolific cyber-bully” or simply a bully.

    Your apparent egomania/megalomania is manifested very clearly in the way you misrepresent things I say. You misrepresent my merely expressing an opinion as me deciding “what matters on this thread”. You are so jealous of your power as the sole arbiter of everything on this site that you imagine anyone expressing an opinion you don’t agree with is threatening your all-powerful position.

    You get yourself into knots because I choose not to share your obsession with the alleged minor misdemeanor of that poor traveller man in Longford and because I instead try to put it into its proper context.

    I reject the context you’re trying to impose – anti-traveller prejudice and contempt for the poor. Your form on travellers is well established, which presumably is why John O’Kelly said you were a bigot.

    You can jump up and down all you like but I refuse to share your sick worldview or submit to your petty tyranny. And if that means my being banned from here, I’ll be well rid of your toxic little fiefdom.

  60. Ah Bock, somebody get that man’s coat off him. While I agree that on the face of it John seems unreasonable, I understand the ire caused by yet another article pointing the finger at those less well off as if the Johns of this world were responsible for the political and economic disasters besetting us. The narrative seems to be that ‘the poor have too much money and the rich not enough’. If John is to be accused of a lack of reproductive forward planning why not the woman in the hotel room, indeed how dare anyone reproduce without the appropriate bank balance or education or career prospects.
    I know you have pointed out the corruption at the heart of Irish politics and criminality within the financial system but I believe more needs to be done in that regard because the damage done by people like John is as nothing compared to that caused by yahoos in suits and corrupt politicians. As an aside I believe most crime occurs in offices, not on the street.
    To those who complain about working and paying taxes for the likes of John, stop voting for parties that punitively tax labour and not the wealth created from our land and natural resources, give planet sized bailouts to the wealthy and then bleat about not having enough money for our crumbling infrastructure.
    By the way I think you’re great and we need more of you.

  61. You see, that’s where John got it so wrong.

    This article has nothing to do with poor people. This is about somebody behaving like a total bollocks. I didn’t see John complaining when I attacked the Irish bankers.

    Poor old John in the end could see no way forward except to play the Traveller card, which was a little silly since I didn’t know the man was a Traveller until John pointed it out, but that’s what happens when you argue with ideologues. They’ll accuse you of being them.

    I think I was right in my initial comment about paranoia.

  62. @aon – I see where you are coming from, but I am not sure I fully agree that the Johns of this world don’t do more damage. There are many more of them, and all those drops tend to add up to a big bucketful.(Not that the bankers and politicians don’t have a lot to answer for – they do – but I am not sure that comparing one magnitude of wrong to another is productive. i.e. 2 wrongs don’t make a right)

    And I tend to agree with Bock, this is about people behaving poorly without any circumstantial context….I mean, if you think about it, if you reworded this article a little and changed John to “a bunch of Jewish people who wanted a new housing estate” and the house he stole to “some land belonging to Palestinians who are trying to build their homes there” then it would be the same type of dickishness at play, wouldn’t it?

    Lots of people seem to be forgetting that, for all the troubles that John has in his life (which I do have sympathy for), there is at least one other person on this planet who has been directly and negatively influenced by his choices and his actions. Who is standing up for the person or family that was supposed to get the house he illegally occupied? How would any of us like it if we were in that person’s place?

    Ultimately I believe that we’re all responsible for the choices we make and in this case I believe he made a selfish one.

    All that being said – if the government would get their fingers out and sort out the social housing crisis, none of this would have happened. (although the cynic in me says it would happen here and there, cos you can’t please everyone!)

    Incidentally – I didn’t vote for the government currently in power. And I don’t really mind paying a fuckton of taxes as long as I see some benefit from it spread equally amongst my fellows. But I don’t, because most of my taxes disappear into a black hole populated by every able-bodied person in this country who consumes its resources but produces nothing of value in return. In that respect, I include the entire middle management of the civil service :) :)

    Interesting point about taxing the wealth created from the land and resources – but isn’t income tax just a materialisation of that concept? Like, how do you tax a potato? Surely you can only tax the person who planted dug it, or bought it? I’m asking, not telling, cos I don’t really understand how we would tax these. We can’t tax the companies that own or manage the resources, since people pay tax, not corporate entities. Isn’t income tax a reasonable way of doing it, and if not, what’s a better alternative (I’m all ears!)

    Shame to see T&Cs go all the same, I would have loved to discover how we somehow ended up talking about climate change.
    And I love this:

    “It seems that the power you have arrogated to yourself in your own little fiefdom here has gone to your head.”. Yes, I see a power-mad Bock, sitting on a throne made from from the swords of vanquished readers, laughing cruelly as he *forces* them to visit his website and write comments on pain of death, as he makes plans for a full scale assault on the other houses of WordPressteros…

  63. It’s madder than you think. Some of the people who claim to hate the site just won’t go away. I realise drink is a major factor with some of them but still, why do they hang around? They remind me of my neighbour’s dog. No matter how many stones I throw at him, he crawls back to snarl at me.

    Given that I haven’t bothered too much with the old site in recent times, it seems that’s what I’m left with: drunken dogs.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.