So you want 1 unemployed person to paint a wall, then the next day someone else unemployed to repaint the wall, sounds like a punishment to me. Plus of the cost of the paint so the benefit is more because of the cost.
I would imagine there would be be a variety of tasks.
"stacking shelves" i is seen by some to be a punishment.
There will be a considerable financial cost in setting them up. I expect that there will be a high drop out as "stacking shelves" for a proper wage becomes attractive.
If you lose your job you can claim for help the same as anyone else. You will be given jobseekers allowance, money for rent and council tax. Obviously children, who are unable to work and provide for themselves, will be given priority. Do you really expect them to give a single adult with no dependents priority over a person with 2 children?
WOW How to miss the whole point.
You have summed it up nicely with you emotional outburst at the end of your post putting children way above everyone else always and saying that it's normal.
They abuse that very attitude in society to blackmail the system. 'I have a child and so know damn well that you must now support me, in fact, that was why I got myself knocked up multiple times!'
These people know how besotted society is with children and so play the game that can't be changed. They have for decades.
I would imagine there would be be a variety of tasks.
"stacking shelves" i is seen by some to be a punishment.
There will be a considerable financial cost in setting them up. I expect that there will be a high drop out as "stacking shelves" for a proper wage becomes attractive.
Time to accept that there will always be unemployed people there will never be a time when there is a job for everyone, people working longer 1 million people over 65 still in full time work, for the first time ever.advances in technology replacing people which has been happening and will continue
I may be wrong, but long term unemployed + not in work = a relatively small number of benefits claimants. I would estimate less than 10% of JSA claimants are long term unemployed - spread out across the country. The cost of implementing and overseeing a work house would prove an expensive drain on the country too.
Those in work but claiming housing benefits may find it difficult to spend time in the 'work house'. Who knows what hours they are working in this day and age. Additionally, the longer a person is unemployed, the more difficult it is to find work. There could also be psychological issues there too. Seems redundant to spend more money more implementing work schemes, which will in turn effect their mental state and not helpful to finding employment. They will have gained no skills, with the exception of agreeing to be forced to work. An abundance of unskilled workers is partly why there is such a high unemployment figure in the first place!
Crèches and childcare are not usually in the actual place of work, no reason to presume this will be the case in workhouses.
But when the children aren't at the creche they will be with their parents, in the workhouse no?.
A place that will be filled with hundreds, if not thousands of long term unemployed, some who will as we know, be a bit anti-social, some will be drug takers or dealers, some will be nasty people, some will be desperate, some will have mental health problems and some will be other types of criminals. Of course, the majority will be down to earth normal people, but you cannot get away from the fact that you would be endangering children in many cases.
But when the children aren't at the creche they will be with their parents, in the workhouse no?.
A place that will be filled with hundreds, if not thousands of long term unemployed, some who will as we know, be a bit anti-social, some will be drug takers or dealers, some will be nasty people, some will be desperate, some will have mental health problems and some will be other types of criminals. Of course, the majority will be down to earth normal people, but you cannot get away from the fact that you would be endangering children in many cases.
I see your point, but crèches are very well protected, and often (but not always) offsite. However lets not get bogged down in the child care facilities of a system that will never happen.
I see your point, but crèches are very well protected, and often (but not always) offsite. However lets not get bogged down in the child care facilities of a system that will never happen.
Oh never say never.
Quite a number of people on here have mooted the idea of modern workhouses, and I believe one Tory MP mentioned them several months ago.
But then again, I think it highly doubtful the Tories are going to win the next election anyway.
You have summed it up nicely with you emotional outburst at the end of your post putting children way above everyone else always and saying that it's normal.
They abuse that very attitude in society to blackmail the system. 'I have a child and so know damn well that you must now support me, in fact, that was why I got myself knocked up multiple times!'
These people know how besotted society is with children and so play the game that can't be changed. They have for decades.
There's no emotional outburst from me?
In our society we look after our children so they are less likely to burgle your house or shoot you as part of a gang they joined to make money.
You need to look at the bigger picture. Maybe you should look up 'street children of Brazil' and you might understand why children in this country are given higher priority for public funding than adults.
No emotion involved it just makes far more economic sense in the long term.
Maybe if she'd considered earning a crust and developing self worth rather than becoming some sort of brood mare who deems herself only fit for having kids and taking care of them at the expense of others, this could have been avoided. Unfortunately budgeting and contraception seem to be things she is ignorant of which is a shame but not something someone else should pay for. She chose to have 7 kids, now she must try to live with that decision by living off the funds she is given or accept that perhaps she should have done a little more professionally to be able to afford that many children. As for her circumstances changing and her not foreseeing that happening... I'm quite sure 9 months is generally considered enough time to consider future changes to your life and budget.
Richard Branson is a multi billionaire and even he doesn't have that many children even though he's certainly able to afford to do so. So to me it just indicates she decided to drop sprogs than pick herself up and get her act in gear rather than lying back and thinking of the next pay packet for a future dependent. Lord knows why she thought having another child if her budget was already stretched after the 2008 bank collapse happened, everything was going downhill in 2010 but apparently she thought "I know, I'll have another baby!" would somehow be the solution. She's either incredibly selfish, incredibly dumb or both and basically a burden on the state due to her life choices. I have no sympathy for her and if anything just feel bad the kids have such a useless and lazy mum. The father may have duties he is ignoring but she's the one that apparently has decided to keep having kids she couldn't afford rather than taking a morning after pill or using contraception herself. If he wasn't packing rubbers there are other options but clearly that wasn't a prime concern.
Why is all the blame put upon the mother? It takes two to tango. Atleast the mother stuck around and is bringing up the children. The father has (it appears, he hasn't given his side) has just upped and left and decided he doesn't want 6 children any more and doesn't want to see them, help them through education and clothing and bring them up. Maybe if the mother had walked out and left the children, just like the father, maybe everyone would be berated and ranting about the father who was stuck with the 6 children claiming £2,600 or £2000 a month in benefits?
Why is it, it's only the mothers fault? Such a sexist, unequal society we still live in. The mother is always expected to bring the children up, and incase of a split, the children (nearly) always stay with the mother and the father sometimes pay child support, sometimes just get on with his life without a care in the world. It's wrong.
If it's tough to support a couple of kids with an income of around £24k, doncha think it's a bit silly to have 7 kids unless you're a lottery winner?
The father (of 6 of her children) hasn't given his side of the story and nothing is known about the mother or the father's circumstances, except for they had a mortgage. That already means that he must've been working (we know she hasn't worked for 15 years) or worked at some stage. Salary unknown, he could've been earning £40k, £50k+, he could've even won millions on the lottery. None of us know. So your question and your original point is nil and void.
Her circumstances changed, she is now reliant on benefit because of those circumstantial changes.
Income tax is not the only form of tax and taxation is not the only form of income for the government. Everyone is a taxpayer, regardless of employment status and wealth.
She likely gets cheaper housing because she is on benefits.
She's not living in a council house. She's renting privately. The landlord wouldn't charge cheaper rent because she was reliant on benefits.
I really fail to see the big deal on the size of the house lives in. She rents it privately and very cheaply. It's not like she had all 7 children in order to get a large council house.
So her kids aren't the meal ticket she thought they would be. there should be a cap of benefits for the first two, unless the second pregnancy is twins, then pay per child. She is the sort of parasite that drags this country down.
Another that clearly hasn't read either articles.
She had 6 of her children with her ex, they had a mortgage - means that atleast one of them worked and earned enough to have a mortgage. The father left, leaving all six of his children and, going by the two articles, doesn't pay towards bringing them up, clothing them, feeding them, getting them through education, trips out or even seeing them. The father leaving and deserting her and their 6 children meant that the mother struggled financially and the house was repossessed five years ago. She is now reliant on benefits and now doesn't own a house, but rents privately.
Now that you know the basics of her situation, do you care to comment?
In our society we look after our children so they are less likely to burgle your house or shoot you as part of a gang they joined to make money.
You need to look at the bigger picture. Maybe you should look up 'street children of Brazil' and you might understand why children in this country are given higher priority for public funding than adults.
No emotion involved it just makes far more economic sense in the long term.
How many posts before you actually address or even see the point?
The point is that these sorts of people know how you and the Government see things and abuse that. That is the only point, not your excuses as to why kids are so bloody wonderful! :rolleyes:
She expects the taxpayer to pay for her children's designer clothes? :rolleyes:
Please feel free to point out where the mother "expects the 'taxpayer' to pay for designer clothes"?
And everyone, regardless of employment status or wealth is a taxpayer. Income tax is not the only form of tax and taxation is not the only form of income for the government.
Having children is a choice - a lifestyle choice. This woman chose to have 7 of them, and as with all choices you have to accept the situation that life throws at you from making that choice.
It seems to be clear that this country can no longer afford the benefit bill that it pays out - and it isnt going to get any better as these benefits come from the taxes of those who work, and at the moment, there are less of them.
If you add the amount this woman has to pay for rent and the amount she says she has for each kid there is a gap of £715 up to the £2,000 a month mark. She now has to start making some decisions about things (smaller home, any what might be called luxuries if she has them (TV, Mobile Phones, Sky)) that she may be able to let go, though I understand that some of this will need to fund household essentials. The important thing is she keeps a roof over her head. And they need to pursue the fathers of all the kids to contribute - they cant just walk away from their responsibilities.
At the end of the day, she has to make the choices that ALL of us have to make (whether working or not) when we have kids, and I feel that the benefits system we have in the UK, in a number of cases, tends to fund a lifestyle choice for some.
So did the father! Does he have no responsibility? Did he have no say in having 6 children and the other father having one? Did the father(s) not have unprotected sex which ended with pregnancies and children?
It's the errant husband who should be hauled over the coals for this, not her for having a lot of children in what was a committed relationship
The fault lies with HIM.
Finally, a sensible comment adn one that brings in the father who decided one day that he didn't want 6 children anymore. He didn't want the responsibility or pay for their upbringing. But no, apparently, all the mother's fault. I'd love to know what some people's comments would've been if this situation was the reverse, i.e. it's was the mother that deserted her 6 children and left them with the father.
I would say that society only needs to cater for the needs of the individual. She CHOSE to have 7 kids and not work for a living, and while it would not be good for them to be on the streets, I would argue that society does not need to be responsible for that decision.
The fact it does is another argument .....
Again, so did the father. The father chose to have 6 children with her too. He could've stayed at home and looked after them, whilst she went out to work, but no in this sexist and unequal society it's always the woman's fault, always the woman's choice and always the mother who 'has' to stay at home and bring the children up. Yes, there are now a few fathers that stay at home and bring the kids up, but not many.
Perhaps if we put down her kids and sterilise her she could manage on a lot less.
What a disgusting comment to make. Read the articles, then comment. Don't make such a disgusting and inhumane comment so blindly. So many awful comments in this thread.
She is someone who made the decision to have so many children.
So did the father! I hate that this society is such a sexist and unequal one. Why is it always the mother that gets the blame or always (apparently) her choice to have a family. It takes two to tango. In this mother's situation, one has deserted their previous decision on having 6 children, leaving the other to sort everything out.
£26k will not result in a Third world situation. She'll be fine! Think about it, in America she'd get nothing but food stamps, theres no housing benefit there and there are no starving children there
There are no starving children in the USA? Really? You really think that? Well, that made me laugh. Feel free to prove that "fact" that you came out with there.
My greatest regret is that I only had one child. Why? Because I couldn't afford anymore. Why on earth should the state be paying someone to churn out kids?
The mother didn't plan this, she previously had a mortgage with the father of six of her children. He left, leaving her and all six of his kids and doesn't help bring them up as father or finicially. That's when things got tough for the mother. Why is it people find it so difficult to read an article or two?
Meanwhile; single people without children are the butt of the benefits system as they have no children to blackmail with.
It's a whole way of life for some, get born, get knocked up ASAP and use the children as an excuse never to work and get free money. Some never had any intention of ever working in the first place. It's a scum and one they know that there is no getting around. Present yourself with a kid and the Government has to keep you. Do the same without a kid and the same Government can abuse you as they see fit.
Which doesn't describe this mother. If you had read either articles, you'd have known.
Jesus Christ she's no looker, The blokes that tupped her must have had seriously thick beer goggles on.
I really hate it when people comment negatively on people's looks. Such an ugly trait. I suppose you the perfect human with the best looks, features and body, yes?
You never thought that she may feel like she's not the best looking person in the world and suffer with low self esteem? People have feelings, that includes people of varying beauty and what people perceive to good looking and not.
Someone living entirely on benefits, is not paying any tax.
It is the taxpayers, who finance the benefits, who are paying the benefit claimant's taxes.
But the same argument could be used in many other cases.
Any civil servants, anyone who works for the NHS. anyone who works for the fire service, the police, local authorities, any government department at all in fact, MPs and anyone who works for them.
For every single one of these people, it is the tax payer who funds them and therefore pays their taxes too.
If it is a valid argument to use against benefit claimants then it is just as valid an argument to use against anyone whose lifestyle is funded by the tax payer.
So, you have a thousand pounds a month each and they have three hundred and seventy pounds a month each. Not a surprise you are able to enjoy such things. Your position is hardly a fair comparison then, is it. :rolleyes:
My greatest regret is that I only had one child. Why? Because I couldn't afford anymore. Why on earth should the state be paying someone to churn out kids?
We waited to have a second child until my daughter was 4, as we both worked and couldnt afford childcare for 2 kids. Unfortunately, we couldnt have another.
I totally agree with you - why should the state churn out money for families who want multiple kids? Surely, it's a lifestyle choice?
How many children has the sate "paid" for her to "churn" out?
I agree it can be annoying watching the Jeremy Kyle types live a seemingly charmed life. However, the welfare state is in place to help our society as a whole. By giving those unable to provide for themselves a reasonable standard of living you reduce poverty and all the undesirable effects that come with it.
If it ended tomorrow, or was curtailed to the extent that would make many posters happy, you wouldn't have to wait much longer than 10 years to see the dramatic increase in crime.
Lack of money has never stopped the poor and uneducated from having lots of children.
ETA: I think the woman in question was just very unfortunate and I can't understand why people are bashing her. Very few seem to be upset at the father, just a poor woman with a hell of a lot on her plate at the moment. I hope everyone else's plans work out for the rest of their lives.
Because she is an easy target for the bullies and keyboard thugs, who find pleasure in the misfortune of others.
A Bristol University study looking at similar issues came to similar conclusion.
Yes, there are those who are happy to live off benefits, but it isn't a culture that is generally passed down whole families and generations as many seem to think.
But it must be true....Ian Duncan Smith said it was and all the benefit bashers on here have said they know hundreds and hundreds of families like this. :rolleyes:
In all fairness it ultimately comes down to the woman. Legally if she found out she was pregnant and didnt want another baby but her husband did, he would be powerless to stop her having an abortion. Likewise if he didnt want another baby he couldnt force her to have an abortion.
So when all is said and done, its the woman that has the ultimate decision when it comes to pregnancy. Yes it takes two to create the foetus, but only one has the choice of what happens after conception.
I have an awful feeling you were off sick, the day they did the birds and the bees at school.
Meanwhile; single people without children are the butt of the benefits system as they have no children to blackmail with.
It's a whole way of life for some, get born, get knocked up ASAP and use the children as an excuse never to work and get free money. Some never had any intention of ever working in the first place. It's a scum and one they know that there is no getting around. Present yourself with a kid and the Government has to keep you. Do the same without a kid and the same Government can abuse you as they see fit.
What benefits do single childless people need that they are denied?
I don't understand why people who choose to have children knowing they can't afford them should be given any money whatsoever. People who have children should do so knowing that they can look after them both emotionally and financially. Why should they be rewarded for being irresponsible and having a child (or several) which they can't look after?
I'm not talking about this case specifically, since we have no idea of the financial situation of the family prior to the Dad sodding off and leaving the mother with all those children to look after. But a proportion of society today seem to have children with the mentality of ''Oh, I can go on benefits and get my rent paid, so it's no problem. I'll just get pregnant/get my girlfriend pregnant.''
How about actually working for what you have instead of expecting to be bailed out by the government when you make irresponsible and unfair decisions?
I work doing a very low paid job, and there are so many people I work with who refuse to do over a certain number of hours a week because ''I'll lose my benefits.'' The hours are there (in fact, many of them go to the manager and demand to be given less hours so their benefits remain intact.) One of them even had the cheek to complain that she'd been forced to pay her rent due to doing too many hours at work, and expected sympathy because she was so worried about not being able to afford it, then proceeded to come in to work the next day and say she'd spent £70 on a custom made birthday cake for her daughter! How the hell can someone who is claiming benefits and ''struggling to pay the rent without benefits'' spend that much on such a bloody trivial unnecessary thing?
Unfortunately, we live in a society where trivial things are seen as necessities. People have a mentality of ''Someone else will have to pay for my rent/children because I can't afford it. I can, however, afford to get the latest phones for my children/go out drinking every night/get a 40 inch HD t.v.''
I should point out that this post doesn't apply to people whose circumstances have changed through no fault of their own, and people who had children when they were financially stable only to find themselves struggling further down the line. Benefits should be there for people who genuinely need them through no fault of their own, not people who decide to get pregnant whenever they feel like it and then expect someone else to pay for everything.
Comments
"stacking shelves" i is seen by some to be a punishment.
There will be a considerable financial cost in setting them up. I expect that there will be a high drop out as "stacking shelves" for a proper wage becomes attractive.
WOW How to miss the whole point.
You have summed it up nicely with you emotional outburst at the end of your post putting children way above everyone else always and saying that it's normal.
They abuse that very attitude in society to blackmail the system. 'I have a child and so know damn well that you must now support me, in fact, that was why I got myself knocked up multiple times!'
These people know how besotted society is with children and so play the game that can't be changed. They have for decades.
And now it's called Poundland!
Indeed they were horrid places. There is no reason why any modern day equivalent would be bad.
Time to accept that there will always be unemployed people there will never be a time when there is a job for everyone, people working longer 1 million people over 65 still in full time work, for the first time ever.advances in technology replacing people which has been happening and will continue
Those in work but claiming housing benefits may find it difficult to spend time in the 'work house'. Who knows what hours they are working in this day and age. Additionally, the longer a person is unemployed, the more difficult it is to find work. There could also be psychological issues there too. Seems redundant to spend more money more implementing work schemes, which will in turn effect their mental state and not helpful to finding employment. They will have gained no skills, with the exception of agreeing to be forced to work. An abundance of unskilled workers is partly why there is such a high unemployment figure in the first place!
But when the children aren't at the creche they will be with their parents, in the workhouse no?.
A place that will be filled with hundreds, if not thousands of long term unemployed, some who will as we know, be a bit anti-social, some will be drug takers or dealers, some will be nasty people, some will be desperate, some will have mental health problems and some will be other types of criminals. Of course, the majority will be down to earth normal people, but you cannot get away from the fact that you would be endangering children in many cases.
I see your point, but crèches are very well protected, and often (but not always) offsite. However lets not get bogged down in the child care facilities of a system that will never happen.
Oh never say never.
Quite a number of people on here have mooted the idea of modern workhouses, and I believe one Tory MP mentioned them several months ago.
But then again, I think it highly doubtful the Tories are going to win the next election anyway.
There's no emotional outburst from me?
In our society we look after our children so they are less likely to burgle your house or shoot you as part of a gang they joined to make money.
You need to look at the bigger picture. Maybe you should look up 'street children of Brazil' and you might understand why children in this country are given higher priority for public funding than adults.
No emotion involved it just makes far more economic sense in the long term.
Why is all the blame put upon the mother? It takes two to tango. Atleast the mother stuck around and is bringing up the children. The father has (it appears, he hasn't given his side) has just upped and left and decided he doesn't want 6 children any more and doesn't want to see them, help them through education and clothing and bring them up. Maybe if the mother had walked out and left the children, just like the father, maybe everyone would be berated and ranting about the father who was stuck with the 6 children claiming £2,600 or £2000 a month in benefits?
Why is it, it's only the mothers fault? Such a sexist, unequal society we still live in. The mother is always expected to bring the children up, and incase of a split, the children (nearly) always stay with the mother and the father sometimes pay child support, sometimes just get on with his life without a care in the world. It's wrong.
The father (of 6 of her children) hasn't given his side of the story and nothing is known about the mother or the father's circumstances, except for they had a mortgage. That already means that he must've been working (we know she hasn't worked for 15 years) or worked at some stage. Salary unknown, he could've been earning £40k, £50k+, he could've even won millions on the lottery. None of us know. So your question and your original point is nil and void.
Her circumstances changed, she is now reliant on benefit because of those circumstantial changes.
Income tax is not the only form of tax and taxation is not the only form of income for the government. Everyone is a taxpayer, regardless of employment status and wealth.
You clearly haven't read either of the articles.
I suggest you read them and then take back your awful and inhumane comment.
She's not living in a council house. She's renting privately. The landlord wouldn't charge cheaper rent because she was reliant on benefits.
I really fail to see the big deal on the size of the house lives in. She rents it privately and very cheaply. It's not like she had all 7 children in order to get a large council house.
Another that clearly hasn't read either articles.
She had 6 of her children with her ex, they had a mortgage - means that atleast one of them worked and earned enough to have a mortgage. The father left, leaving all six of his children and, going by the two articles, doesn't pay towards bringing them up, clothing them, feeding them, getting them through education, trips out or even seeing them. The father leaving and deserting her and their 6 children meant that the mother struggled financially and the house was repossessed five years ago. She is now reliant on benefits and now doesn't own a house, but rents privately.
Now that you know the basics of her situation, do you care to comment?
"Silly and irresponsible" to you, but it's personal choice. If she and her ex wanted 6 children, why shouldn't they?
I never want kids, but does that mean I turn around and say anyone who wants or has children (any amount) are "silly"? No. Peersonal choice.
How many posts before you actually address or even see the point?
The point is that these sorts of people know how you and the Government see things and abuse that. That is the only point, not your excuses as to why kids are so bloody wonderful! :rolleyes:
Are you in the same circumstances as the mother? Are you a single parent brigning up 7 children? If not, then your comment is nil and void.
Yes, for someone single £2k a month wouldn't be a struggle (depending on where you live), but a single parent to 7 children, yes it is.
Please feel free to point out where the mother "expects the 'taxpayer' to pay for designer clothes"?
And everyone, regardless of employment status or wealth is a taxpayer. Income tax is not the only form of tax and taxation is not the only form of income for the government.
So did the father! Does he have no responsibility? Did he have no say in having 6 children and the other father having one? Did the father(s) not have unprotected sex which ended with pregnancies and children?
Please point out to me how the benefits system is "overly generous".
Finally, a sensible comment adn one that brings in the father who decided one day that he didn't want 6 children anymore. He didn't want the responsibility or pay for their upbringing. But no, apparently, all the mother's fault. I'd love to know what some people's comments would've been if this situation was the reverse, i.e. it's was the mother that deserted her 6 children and left them with the father.
Again, so did the father. The father chose to have 6 children with her too. He could've stayed at home and looked after them, whilst she went out to work, but no in this sexist and unequal society it's always the woman's fault, always the woman's choice and always the mother who 'has' to stay at home and bring the children up. Yes, there are now a few fathers that stay at home and bring the kids up, but not many.
Sexism gets on my nerves.
What a disgusting comment to make. Read the articles, then comment. Don't make such a disgusting and inhumane comment so blindly. So many awful comments in this thread.
So did the father! I hate that this society is such a sexist and unequal one. Why is it always the mother that gets the blame or always (apparently) her choice to have a family. It takes two to tango. In this mother's situation, one has deserted their previous decision on having 6 children, leaving the other to sort everything out.
There are no starving children in the USA? Really? You really think that? Well, that made me laugh. Feel free to prove that "fact" that you came out with there.
The mother didn't plan this, she previously had a mortgage with the father of six of her children. He left, leaving her and all six of his kids and doesn't help bring them up as father or finicially. That's when things got tough for the mother. Why is it people find it so difficult to read an article or two?
Which doesn't describe this mother. If you had read either articles, you'd have known.
I really hate it when people comment negatively on people's looks. Such an ugly trait. I suppose you the perfect human with the best looks, features and body, yes?
You never thought that she may feel like she's not the best looking person in the world and suffer with low self esteem? People have feelings, that includes people of varying beauty and what people perceive to good looking and not.
Someone living entirely on benefits, is not paying any tax.
It is the taxpayers, who finance the benefits, who are paying the benefit claimant's taxes.
But the same argument could be used in many other cases.
Any civil servants, anyone who works for the NHS. anyone who works for the fire service, the police, local authorities, any government department at all in fact, MPs and anyone who works for them.
For every single one of these people, it is the tax payer who funds them and therefore pays their taxes too.
If it is a valid argument to use against benefit claimants then it is just as valid an argument to use against anyone whose lifestyle is funded by the tax payer.
So, you have a thousand pounds a month each and they have three hundred and seventy pounds a month each. Not a surprise you are able to enjoy such things. Your position is hardly a fair comparison then, is it. :rolleyes:
How many children has the sate "paid" for her to "churn" out?
And all earning a big profit that won't even have to pay tax on.
Because she is an easy target for the bullies and keyboard thugs, who find pleasure in the misfortune of others.
But it must be true....Ian Duncan Smith said it was and all the benefit bashers on here have said they know hundreds and hundreds of families like this. :rolleyes:
I have an awful feeling you were off sick, the day they did the birds and the bees at school.
Flippin' 'eck....don't go telling them the truth, their worlds will implode.
What benefits do single childless people need that they are denied?
I'm not talking about this case specifically, since we have no idea of the financial situation of the family prior to the Dad sodding off and leaving the mother with all those children to look after. But a proportion of society today seem to have children with the mentality of ''Oh, I can go on benefits and get my rent paid, so it's no problem. I'll just get pregnant/get my girlfriend pregnant.''
How about actually working for what you have instead of expecting to be bailed out by the government when you make irresponsible and unfair decisions?
I work doing a very low paid job, and there are so many people I work with who refuse to do over a certain number of hours a week because ''I'll lose my benefits.'' The hours are there (in fact, many of them go to the manager and demand to be given less hours so their benefits remain intact.) One of them even had the cheek to complain that she'd been forced to pay her rent due to doing too many hours at work, and expected sympathy because she was so worried about not being able to afford it, then proceeded to come in to work the next day and say she'd spent £70 on a custom made birthday cake for her daughter! How the hell can someone who is claiming benefits and ''struggling to pay the rent without benefits'' spend that much on such a bloody trivial unnecessary thing?
Unfortunately, we live in a society where trivial things are seen as necessities. People have a mentality of ''Someone else will have to pay for my rent/children because I can't afford it. I can, however, afford to get the latest phones for my children/go out drinking every night/get a 40 inch HD t.v.''
I should point out that this post doesn't apply to people whose circumstances have changed through no fault of their own, and people who had children when they were financially stable only to find themselves struggling further down the line. Benefits should be there for people who genuinely need them through no fault of their own, not people who decide to get pregnant whenever they feel like it and then expect someone else to pay for everything.