Money for grabs!

national | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis Sunday June 06, 2004 02:09 by Harry Rea - National Men's Council of Ireland hrea at eircom dot net

Need some extra cash? Check out the governments offers.

Why bother to work? This could be the answer to the easy life with cash galore

A recent newspaper article brought the following facts to the attention of the public and prompted a reply from a concerned father. The newspaper reported that a married couple had expressed concerns at the cost of childcare and their difficulties in coping with an average wage to support their family in a reasonable manner. The wife described how she could earn up to €38,000 in her employment and how the family is financially better off by her husband remaining at home and unemployed. The reply to the newspaper commented on the fact that she must be one of the very few remaining, naive working women still around to not have considered taking advantage of the Irish Government's ‘get-rich-quick’ scheme that is readily available and has been promoted widely by all Family Support agencies and Feminist’s groups through extensive radio and television advertising and explanatory brochures.

The government has established a widespread network of supportive offices that are copiously manned to help with all required form filling and advice. There is a minor price to pay, she has to agree to destroy her family, although she could be exceptionally conniving and just pretend to fall out with a husband and still make the same financial gain. In replying to the newspaper article the responder said that of course is not meant to be in any way a personal affront to this decent woman or her family but rather to explain the fabulous opportunity available to her, should she decide to simply cheat. He did not suggest that the couple should cheat but merely that the opportunities exist, many of which are government sponsored. He suggested the following you could to ploy to maximise the couple's income:

The rules are quite simple. The wife could call to her nearest Family Law solicitor with a concocted story of abuse. Her husband need not involve himself whatsoever. In fact it will make no difference whether he offered a defence against her claims of abuse or not as he will be treated as an abuser anyway. Therefore, it only remains for him to go out to the nearest pub (if he is a drinking man) and relax. The system will then take over. The delightful facts for the wife to know is that if she wishes, she could pack up her job and also go to some local hostelry but perhaps it would be better for the time being if she temporarily selected a different choice to her husband's. Now, with their feet up, they can watch the money roll in.

The mathematics are extremely simple. Her fictitious injuries can cause her to be eligible for a disability benefit of about €190 per week. She can move to new (rented) accommodation that will free her family home where are husband can take in students or other rent providers and now the money starts to mount up. She could refuse to return to the family home by, for instance saying, that it holds too many bad memories for her. But in the meantime, the wife will be entitled to rent allowance of about €170 per week. She can lay legal claim to the vast amount of her husband’s income, say €250 per week or upwards?

Should he decide to get legal representation himself, the husband will be advised not to contest her request. In fact, in truth he will not be given the chance to contest her claim as his legal advisor will more than likely concede on his behalf anyway. She will of course continue to receive her children's allowance, which should be about €25 per week. Now just because she's receiving all of the above this not mean that she is not entitled to do some part-time work which could net her, say another €150 per week or if she decides to work from home she can do some child-minding for other couples who are going to work still and have not figured out how to take advantage of this superb government sponsored scheme. If she minds just three children during the working-hours week she could earn a tasty sum. The wife will not have to register her income officially as a childminder unless she looks after more than three children per week. With the average hourly rate of about €4 per child, at 8 hours per day comes to about €32 - by three children, €126 per day by five days makes €530 tax-free per week. Roll on the summer hols!

Now, she need not worry about initial start-up costs, as systems are in place to ease her mind on immediate cash worries as she will be assisted by the Social Welfare Department to fill out the necessary forms to acquire some ready cash. She will of course be immediately eligible for a medical card and other such ancillary supports such as ‘back to school allowances’ to help with child uniform and books etc. The one thing she must not forget to do is apply immediately for a One Parent Family Payment about another scrumptious €140 per week. She is supposed to declare if she is in receipt of financial support from her husband but she shouldn't worry, if she lies nobody will check anyway.

Now it's not fair that she should have all of this hard work to do while her husband sits in the pub, although his relaxing will further substantiate any fictitious story she might wish to create about him, but fair is fair he must now play his part. If he can manage to drag himself away from the bar stool to do one or two 'Foxers' (illegal jobs), the couple would really be on the pigs back. Perhaps he might wash a few windows, or do a little labouring or even find some knickknacks to sell from door to door. Now they're in to the real profit. This explanation could be a great money-spinner for the couple if they work it together, but realistically, the wife would be by far better off if she went it alone, as is now standard practice, and dumped 'the hubby' (God forbid).

The vast amount of the money would remain with her but with the added bonus of tremendous public support along with generous government sponsored battered women's support groups that are scattered strategically throughout the city and surrounding countryside. She does not necessarily have to be a very good at twisting the truth, as the established network will support her while she is learning. There are many many other advantages awaiting poor hard-working wife, depending on how well she learns to use her new and profitable roguery. Many decent and devout groups such as St. Vincent de Paul will provide her with extra cash and household commodities if she can fool them enough. She will of course be eligible for waste charges waiver and other such goodies but the best of all, she can spend some of this treasure chest of cash to ‘doll herself up’ to the hilt and find herself 'a Toy-Boy'.

I am certain that this couple are perfectly decent and honest people and this set of suggestions are not meant in any way to be hurtful or disrespectful to them. In fact decent people should acclaim them for presenting themselves so openly to a newspaper to explain the facts when something is so wrong. They should be thanked and congratulated. The suggestions described above have therefore nothing whatsoever to do with this good couple but rather to show what government funded aid is available to help them destroy their family, their integrity, and their child's life.

The newspaper responder continued by saying that to be very fair to the couple that it would be wise to temporarily exclude them from his following fictitious but very possible (if not normal), sequence of events and then he continued his explanation in a family where the wife decides to take advantage of the State created and funded opportunities. He said that this other lady might do this for a number of reasons.

One, it makes mathematical sense and is legally provided by the state if for example she cannot cope with the money constraints imposed on her in her current state and her husband just cannot seem to find a reasonable remedy or alternative to their plight. To her, he could seem to be an inept provider.

Two, she could just be fed up of working for some unattainable goal and realise that her regular workload, her share of household work and strain of child rearing is just too much, and she wants out.
Or three, She might simply suffer from a Borderline Personality Disorder, which would make it impossible for her to comprehend the harm she is doing to others while she herself gains. This recognized psychiatric condition is known to be widespread, yet is not recognized (how fortunately) by the Family Law industry. Therefore by just choosing any one of the above she can decide to go for it.

Now her husband's turn comes and he confronts her, there are blazing rows, there might even be threats, but the wife knows that the outcome will always favour her. Should she decide to provoke or physically abuse him and he responds, he is now gone from her and her child's life forever. Should he become so distressed at what he now perceives as soul-destroying damage to his very existence and inevitable alienation from the life of his pride and joy, his son, he might be pushed beyond reason. For a quiet man this might mean raising his voice in anger. For another kind of man, the kind that a country would necessarily embrace into their protective armed forces to defend against wrongdoers and foreign oppressors, it would be natural for him to physically oppress anyone, including any family member who tries to hurt the innocent ones in his family. This is what some good fathers might resort to, rather than be part of the other side of the coin where he could remain henpecked, outcast, maybe destitute and even suicidal. But think about it, in this fictitious family there is actually a war on at this point in time. His very family home is under attack. His child is under attack. The very fabric of what he has been raised and now understands as being the fundamental part of Society is about to be crushed before his very eyes and yet even worse is to come.

By pure coincidence while searching the Collins Dictionary I came across four words in consecutive order as if they were placed there by some Superior power and almost meant to be found.

'Free-living': given to ready indulgence of the appetites.

'Freeloader': a person who habitually depends on the charity of others for food shelter etc.

'Free love': the practice of sexual relationships without fidelity to a single partner or without formality or legalities.

'Freeman': a person who is not a slave or in bondage, a person who enjoys political and civil liberties; A citizen.

It seems that herein lies the state created answer. By simply choosing a single and free life away from the hassles and pressures of family life and having to work for a living she can just walk away. By filling out the appropriate forms based on the copious advice provided this fictitious lady can become a 'Freeloader' and be automatically thronged with a feast of goodies readily available that are garnished with the delicious sauce of society's approval that has been created in the propaganda kitchens of state-funded feminist support groups that will confirm beyond any shadow of doubt that she is ‘free at last’ from the oppression called Marriage. Now she can delve into the dessert of 'Free Love', she certainly would be able to afford the gear. Various feminist groups continuously organise event and outings to help their new members to ease back out into the social scene.

Then arrives Family Law, this works like an organized maze. In a normal maze the player has multiple opportunities of choice but Family Law is different. Once you enter the game there is but one path and although it twists and turns, there are only corners and no junctions. It is necessarily convoluted because the longer you stay in the maze, the more money is made by those who own and run the game. Family Law is now seen to be one of the fastest growing industries in the Legal world. It has created an immeasurable wealth for the organisers and better still it is set to continue indefinitely as anyone who decides to investigate the practice will have to wear a blindfold called "The In-Camera Rule". The public are not the only ones to be provided with this compulsory game apparel, the father must also where one. He will be prevented from seeing the full contents of his Court file. The reader must understand that he could not be allowed to see the full file because what happens behind the closed doors is against the Law, against the Constitution, against his Human Rights and against Nature. If he could bring proof of this out of the room then the Family Law industry would no longer make money and surely he or his child are not to be regarded as of any significance when compared to the might and employment potential and money spending caused by current FAMILY LAW Practices.

Now getting back to our game, we find the father blindly trying to find his way through, but at many points along his path he will find little subversive ploys that are designed to make sure that when he pops out the far exit, he will not want to come back in. By this I mean that men have been known to fight to the death for what they believe in. Some men have chosen to starve to death for what they believe in. Neither of these types of men have lost by doing what they possibly could, they died with their integrity and their pride. Consider only the ones who caused the State to exist through the tyranny that existed before the Irish Rebellion in 1916. Did they die so that such a cunning and wicked enemy of the people could annihilate Irish men like this? Remember, Bunreacht na hÉireann was written, not to protect the State, but to protect the ‘people’ from the State. Who can claim the Right to steal that vital protection from just one Irish Citizen behind closed doors? To defeat such strong-minded good men there is only one way known. To make them feel ashamed of themselves or their cause. How? The FAMILY LAW machine has it to a 'T'.

Through devious and strategic propaganda, the general public now believes that if there's ever arguments or violence in the home that ‘wicked-cowardly-despicable-men’ are always the cause. In fact the term ‘Domestic Violence’ covers a multitude; inter-sibling violence, Sibling to Parent violence, Cohabiting Couples Violence, Gay-partner Violence, Lesbian partner Violence (which by the way is the greatest percentage of all) and Married Partners Violence (which by the way is the least of all violence). What is even more interesting is that with Married Partner Violence, which amounts to about 3% of all Domestic Violence is that a year 2000 Department of Health Report showed that the violence is shared at about 50-50 between the sexes. This actually means, that as opposed to current propaganda, that the safest place for any woman to be (as we all knew anyway) is within a marriage. Is the truth not shocking when it hits you between the eyes? The truth of the matter is that when the family break-up seems inevitable that we must not question why. We are not allowed, the Family Law Industry has put in place a structure called ' no-fault' decision-making. Keeping the facts under the carpet makes their lives easy. It is already an established fact, perhaps even in the reader's own mind, that men alone can't rear children but then let's for a moment revert back to e initial couple. Who exactly looks after their child when that wife is justifiably out all day at work?

In the meantime, our friend in the maze will probably have passed a number of the flogging-post obstacles designed specifically to affect his self-belief, in his righteousness and cause. His Solicitor will have advised him that if he does not support his wife, even though the solicitor might clandestinely agree that his wife is cheating, that the father should pay money in order for him to be seen in any kind of respectable light by the Court and promises him that because of this action alone he will be given Justice. This is probably one of the sickest acts of betrayal imaginable. That his own solicitor would advise him to initially offer a payment of money toward the cost of supporting, even the child only, outside his proper and decent parenting control. This advice will be given, knowing full well that this very normal action of providing financial support for his offspring will in effect be seen by the Family Court as his ‘consenting’ to relinquishing the custody of his child and maybe even their only source of loving refuge, the family home. But then again, he has to realize that this is just the beginning although it is fair to say that he is already about 90% out of his family.

The next trap set is really the killer stroke, as particular establishments have been set up ostensibly to provide family therapy and mediation. There can be no doubt that there are many decent and skilled practitioners in this area but also have no doubt that there are some parasites who happily feast on victims of family strife. This continues while they openly represent themselves as providing the compulsory mediation services, which are required by Law to ensure that families are given a fair chance to sort themselves out before they make the ultimate decision to break up. Yet, the staff in some of the very same mediation rooms are often used to promote the most sinister forms of family destructive agendas. This statement is not incorrect or exaggerated because by simply viewing the business cards of one of the biggest mediation services available in the southern part of Ireland the following words are an blazoned there to emphasize what they really believed and stand for. It uses the words Domestic Violence and then says;

“Treatment Programme for MEN - and Education Group for WOMEN”.

Before this man or his wife ever found the need to seek help, the trap was ready, set and waiting. The motto leaves very little room for imagination. Men need to be treated for their violent behavior and women need to be educated in how to best deal with the men. What the man doesn't know is that this supposedly confidential mediation will then most likely be entered into the court files secretly, and remember this can only be done with the explicit agreement of both Solicitors. The particular mediation office referred to here have (they said!) discovered, through their own contaminated government-funded view, that women are less then 2000 times the cause of family violence than men are. This fact is outrageous, it completely contradicts what every report has ever said on this matter and completely contradicts what every citizen knows to be the truth, yet the taxpayer funds its existence.

This all but means that the way back for the man in the maze is now firmly closed and the only exit out of the Family Law quagmire is marked to identify with the fourth word found earlier in the Collins Dictionary to be consecutive with Free living, Freeloader, Free love, and now we see the end of the 'Freeman'; Again, this is a person who is not a slave or, in bondage, or a person who enjoys political and civil liberties.

Once he goes through this door there is no return. To be a Freeman is obviously not to be a ‘Slave’. Yet, consider the existence of a father removed illegally from his family home and his children and even though it might be without his consent and supported by lies, or his wife’s mental state or by state-funded structures that support the destruction of their marriage. Then compare his plight to the definition of a ‘Slave’ offered in the same Collins Dictionary;

One: A person, legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property.

Two: A person who is forced to work for another against his will.

Three: A person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence.

How accurate is that! One: The man, whether guilty or not guilty can no longer go to his home if his wife or the state decide that he can’t. Two: The man will have to give the lion's share of his income and possibly also his life's labours to his wife, some of this obviously is intended to provide the lucrative fees for the Family Law vultures that have been waiting for his demise. Three; A father who has had the habit of being with his child is typically addicted to that bond and will cling to it until to his death. The very fact that he is the ‘Natural Protector’ will ensure that he will not walk away from his family and this is the exact reason why the industry thrives, with the added bonus that now with the father will be all but excluded from the proper and full parenting of his child. Because of this the child in the future might not be able to sustain a relationship himself and so the Family Law ghost ship continues to reap the saddest of all harvests, human lives and dignity.

Words can mean so much but can also do so much harm when their meanings are twisted to suit a divisive end goal. Take for example the word ‘Rape’. Consider it’s meaning before you read on. Perhaps your understanding is; “the offence of forcing a person, especially a woman, to submit to sexual intercourse against the person's will”. Of course that is right but according to the dictionary it also means more. Some other meanings are; Any violation or abuse: the rape of Justice, - or - to carry off by force; abduct. One cannot detract from the horror of physical rape of human being in the sexual sense, but does the same horror not exist when a father's right to justice is abused, as is the absolute norm in the Family Law Courts, and is he not ‘Raped’ of his children when they are carried off by force when he has not been indecent and yet has no avenue to portray his decency and natural and rightful wish and need to be with his children.

The ease of availability for such a devastating opportunity is not only atrocious but it is Anti-Constitutional as it provides for the destruction of the family, which is deemed in the Constitution to be the cornerstone of all society. It seems that families are being destructed at a shocking rate as is clearly evident by the contents of every newspaper, news broadcast and practically all conversations where people sit and talk about their everyday lives.

Who is to blame? Could it be the people who find it impossible to cope because of the now accepted 'keeping up with the Joneses society'? Could it be the politicians who come and go through government positions? Or could it be the State establishment, which has existed throughout many different political parties involvement with government and served to orchestrate the people's demise for some confounded ideal or direction that has gone hideously astray? We might as a people admit that we do not know who? or why? but we cannot ignore the facts. Something is terribly terribly wrong and we can wait no longer to stop this malignant and seemingly indisputable deliberate shredding of what we once knew as decent humanity.

What’s the bottom line? If the original couple in this article stay married wife will have to go to work every day and by her own account let ‘her man on the dole play a mothers role’ or, she can play the victim’s role and can scoop a continuous lottery, easily in excess of €1000 per week The family finances sorted - with the ‘Toy-Boy’ thrown in to boot.

But have we not forgotten the most important fact of all, the child in this fictitious but extremely possible scenario? No, not really, his being ignored is now an intrinsic part of the Family Law status quo. If his words are heard - the whole money train will fall apart. In human nature the child should be with both parents and only with their combined involvement will he be properly prepared for his own independent life and relationships.

If his parents just cannot get on, should he be condemned to a sentence likened to bereavement, not to know his father's influence in his life? If his father was not indecent but through some failing, temporary or otherwise, just simply fell out with his mother, should both father and son be sentenced not to know each other throughout the child's formative years? But most importantly, what if the mother is mathematically proficient and decides to take an indecent path herself? What protection is there in the system to let a potentially decent father have the normal relationship he would deserve with the son he loves? More importantly, how can the son be assured that his Legal and Constitutional Rights to have a say in his own life and future will be upheld? If it takes two to tango how come so many fathers and children never get to know each other when the family 'Protection' agencies get involved? Perhaps we should become more clued into the reasons why our late-night streets are full of so many directionless adolescents and consider how their plight today will affect our lives tomorrow and the lives of their children to come?

The responder to the initial letter informed the paper that he was himself involved in a Family Law case. And said that he did not consider it fair not to be able to put my name to his reply as the current regime might try to say that he was ‘bound’, or more appropriately ‘gagged’ by the racket called Family Law. If this were true then here again is another injustice. He questioned the right of anyone else to have more or less, than he did; to state his or her opinion in public? He asked why he too was not protected by the Constitution to ‘Free Speech’? Most importantly, he asked “who but the people who have been there; can say what is going on there”?

He made further valid points by saying;

“I have not mentioned any facts about my own personal Family Law matter although I dearly would love to. I also know that this is an extraordinary long letter but it is an extraordinarily huge and important subject. Newspaper people are at the fore of knowing how badly our society is floundering. Just as with ‘green house gases’ there are holes appearing in our family environment. If we pretend that they are not there - future generations will suffer through our irresponsibility”.

Today alone in family courts around the country we could easily count bunches of innocent family members being destroyed by a hidden yet ferocious onslaught. Families and communities are being torn apart, being mangled by entities that will not stand up to be counted. We have no right to neglect them and God knows, they are neglected.

He finished by saying that he personally had no fear of his name being at the foot of his letter and offered the newspaper full permission to do so. He wondered however, if the journalists were more gagged than he was because he could not reach the public but they always had an open path to public education. His letter was intended to reveal facts for the ‘Common Good’ and so had a constitutional mandate. He stated that if what he had written had not yet directly affected the reader’s personal family life, it certainly would soon. He asked the newspaper to print his article in its entirety he believed that he had played is part and that the ball was now clearly in the journalist’s court. He wondered if they would stand up and be counted?

It was signed:

To my children with fondest love; Dad.