So someone with millions in the bank.....taking money she really doesn't need is ok?
yes H is entitled to it, but that money is to help pay for care and extra help he may need in my eyes KP doesn't need the extra money....that is what I have a problem with not whether His entitled to it.
There will be families who earn very little trying to get this little bit extra money that it will make a great difference too
what difference can it make to KP, yes H is entitled but should she really claim it if she doesn't need the money just because she can?
The only way to stop the rich claiming benefits is to make all of them means tested. We can all get a basic pension when we retire, but with the top-up Pension Credit your savings limit is £10,000.
If people with 12 kids and no job are milking the system as it stands, then so are rich people like KP - always assuming she IS getting benefits for Harvey.
So someone with millions in the bank.....taking money she really doesn't need is ok?
yes H is entitled to it, but that money is to help pay for care and extra help he may need in my eyes KP doesn't need the extra money....that is what I have a problem with not whether His entitled to it.
There will be families who earn very little trying to get this little bit extra money that it will make a great difference too
what difference can it make to KP, yes H is entitled but should she really claim it if she doesn't need the money just because she can?
Yes HARVEY should claim it..he isn't a millionaire ..he is entitled to it and I don't see what difference it will make to those already on benefits as there is a set amount given to each claimant on their needs.. Those recieving benefits won't get extra if some people don't claim
It's not about 'forming a club' Cyril and it's not about cheap publicity - it's a serious case with a lot at stake so if someone can offer legitimate evidence which is helpful he'd be a fool to turn it down wherever it comes from. He seemed to be on pretty good terms with Leo who has also been complimentary about Pete since his breakup with Katie so I can't see any reason why he would shun their support if offered.
I agree with Cyril that Pete would never want to be seen as needing assistance from any of Kate's ex.
I also doubt either Alex or Leo would be of benefit to the defence. Alex has just been seen as a liar in the press, so his credibility would be doubt. Unless Leo had an interpreter with him 24/7 in their relationship, his lack of English could be pulled apart by the prosecution.
Yes HARVEY should claim it..he isn't a millionaire ..he is entitled to it and I don't see what difference it will make to those already on benefits as there is a set amount given to each claimant on their needs.. Those recieving benefits won't get extra if some people don't claim
Betty for the last time I have never said H isn't entitled to it.....
like all my other posts what I have a problem with is the fact KP doesn't need it, yes H isn't a millionaire but his mother is...she could sent up his care for the rest of his life and not see much of a dent in her bank balance,
just like the big families KP had a problem with in her paper column and felt the need to comment on,they are also entitled to the money they claim for as their kids are entitled to it......none of them are breaking the law KP included, but IMO (like all I have ever said my posts were ) it is morally wrong in my eyes on both accounts, KP for not needed the money, and the big families for not trying to earn a living.
I also have a problem with pensioners who live abroad yet still claim for winter fuel allowance....but then again that is my opinion.....and not for this thread....:)
Betty for the last time I have never said H isn't entitled to it.....
like all my other posts what I have a problem with is the fact KP doesn't need it, yes H isn't a millionaire but his mother is...she could sent up his care for the rest of his life and not see much of a dent in her bank balance,
just like the big families KP had a problem with in her paper column and felt the need to comment on,they are also entitled to the money they claim for as their kids are entitled to it......none of them are breaking the law KP included, but IMO (like all I have ever said my posts were ) it is morally wrong in my eyes on both accounts, KP for not needed the money, and the big families for not trying to earn a living.
I also have a problem with pensioners who live abroad yet still claim for winter fuel allowance....but then again that is my opinion.....and not for this thread....:)
I have read all the posts on this thread and dopey me understands what you are trying to say, its hardly rocket science.
Oh, they are all as bad as each other - her - and them. No sentient, quiet, non fame seeking, private man would go within 200 miles of her.
But - you did say above that PA has class and pride. Sorry - but - :D:D:D:D:D:D
I know .. i did feel a bit writing that or even a bit :eek: but to be honest its true. The TV image is a bit of a character and yes he will allow his kids to be filmed or advertise a cheap perfume but there ARE private things kept back with him and he does have quite a high opinion of himself so I think the thought of being seen as just another of KP's exes and being seen with them would horrify him!
To be fair Lorise, as I said above, just because an interviewer saw the forms, doesn't mean she actually claimed for the benefit.
There's also nothing to say the interviewer wasn't mistaken getting a 5 second look at some forms on a table.
I think KP's view would be if he's entitled to it from the government, she pays her taxes too and he should get it. It's not taking money from anyone else really. She may well have got in touch with that man and made sure he got his loo - she does tons of charity stuff that isn't made public. Probably more so than most celebs.
The bone idle chavs who have never worked a day in their lives claim benefits which they are legally entitled to.. Morally should they be entitled to these benefits? In my opinion...NO!
Extremely wealthy people are legally entitled to claim certain benefits -But - morally - should they?.
That is the question and what I think is the point Lorise is trying to get across.
It's not about 'forming a club' Cyril and it's not about cheap publicity - it's a serious case with a lot at stake so if someone can offer legitimate evidence which is helpful he'd be a fool to turn it down wherever it comes from. He seemed to be on pretty good terms with Leo who has also been complimentary about Pete since his breakup with Katie so I can't see any reason why he would shun their support if offered.
They will all be complimentary about Pete, it'll get them column inches.
I don't know what to say here, other than I would honestly gamble my life savings that PA would NEVER allow the support of any of KP's exes, even if his career depended on it. Nothing would turn his stomach more. So believe what you want, but IMO, keep dreaming on this one and best of luck with it.
The main focus of the court case will be on documents passed between others and the trails.
Personally, I don't believe they are entitled to it since it's a gross abuse of a system designed to extend help where there is genuine need and not 'need' manufactured in order to cash in. JMO.
No comparison whatsoever between that and claiming an allowance set up specifically for those with special needs.
This ^^^^ "manufactured in order to cash in" is the key
I know .. i did feel a bit writing that or even a bit :eek: but to be honest its true. The TV image is a bit of a character and yes he will allow his kids to be filmed or advertise a cheap perfume but there ARE private things kept back with him and he does have quite a high opinion of himself so I think the thought of being seen as just another of KP's exes and being seen with them would horrify him!
I'm sorry Cyril, but Peter Andre is not and never has been full of class and pride. I'm sure there are certain things he keeps private - I don't think we've ever seen him have a number 2 on screen for example, but any man that dry humps Katie Price on screen and begs her for a bl*w job is not classy or proud.
I don't believe for 1 second that what we saw then wasn't the 'real' Pete and just because he is now going out with a medical trainee does not change my opinion.
The bone idle chavs who have never worked a day in their lives claim benefits which they are legally entitled to.. Morally should they be entitled to these benefits? In my opinion...NO!
Extremely wealthy people are legally entitled to claim certain benefits -But - morally - should they?.
That is the question and what I think is the point Lorise is trying to get across.
It is Harvey who is claiming not his mother.. And he is entitled to the money and I really don't see how a child with disabilities and what he receives have to do with a family who have never worked a day in their lives but keep producing children we are keeping...that "we" includes Katie as she pays more taxes than all of us combined ..probably ..
The two have no comparison at all
And in answer to your question ..yes Harvey SHOULD claim ..and I believe a cap is now in place to prevent people like those discussed from getting a stack of money just because they are popping out kids every year and expecting us to keep them.
We are not keeping Harvey and I'm sure his extra needs are being paid for by his mother..
It is Harvey who is claiming not his mother.. And he is entitled to the money and I really don't see how a child with disabilities and what he receives have to do with a family who have never worked a day in their lives but keep producing children we are keeping...that "we" includes Katie as she pays more taxes than all of us combined ..probably ..
The two have no comparison at all
H can't claim it as he is too young someone who is his parent or cares for him as if they were his parent has to claim for it, So that would be KP and/or Amy.
I've noticed that the latest OK! issue with the Pwicey, 'Kev' & Baby Jett doesn't seem to be selling well in my local newsagent as they normally would be by Saturday mornings. Oh dear...
It's not about 'forming a club' Cyril and it's not about cheap publicity - it's a serious case with a lot at stake so if someone can offer legitimate evidence which is helpful he'd be a fool to turn it down wherever it comes from. He seemed to be on pretty good terms with Leo who has also been complimentary about Pete since his breakup with Katie so I can't see any reason why he would shun their support if offered.
legitimate evidence what that she shouted at them and then threw them out because one stole her sons meds while the other left her with his debts around her neck
Dont think thats going to hold any weight against documented evidence from people who gave up their jobs rather than be a part of a personal vendetta against some one
H can't claim it as he is too young someone who is his parent or cares for him as if they were his parent has to claim for it, So that would be KP and/or Amy.
On his behalf... Let's not use Harvey to have a go at the system.. Which has its faults but not created by him or his mother ....He doesn't deserve that
It is Harvey who is claiming not his mother.. And he is entitled to the money and I really don't see how a child with disabilities and what he receives have to do with a family who have never worked a day in their lives but keep producing children we are keeping...that "we" includes Katie as she pays more taxes than all of us combined ..probably ..
The two have no comparison at all
You obviously missed the point I was trying to make.:D
I do NOT for one second compare a bone idle scrounger to a disabled person needing benefits.
The point I was making was just because people can legally claim for a benefit doesn't always mean they should...If they don't need it then morally they shouldn't claim for it. JMO.
And I am referring to ALL wealthy people who don't really need benefits, not just KP.
As for the bone idle scroungers who milk the system THEY should be made to do community work and earn their benefits.
Nicola
I do think you and i agree on the abusers of the system ..but I do believe a person with a disability..no matter what their background is ...is entitled to apply.
On his behalf... Let's not use Harvey to have a go at the system.. Which has its faults but not created by him or his mother ....He doesn't deserve that
Please show me where I have used H to get at the system Betty?.....all along I have said my problem has been with KP
Please show me where I have said H isn't entitled to the DLA...also please show me where I have ever had a problem with H....no you can't as I have not
If you re read all my posts on this subject my problems are about the moral side of the claims never about who they are claiming for or who is entitled.
KP have ever right to claim for H just as the families she was having a go at in the paper are legally entitled to claim, yet I think both are wrong in doing so and I have stated why in many of my last posts so please don't try to make me out as if I am having a go at a disabled child.
Please show me where I have used H to get at the system Betty?.....all along I have said my problem has been with KP
Please show me where I have said H isn't entitled to the DLA...also please show me where I have ever had a problem with H....no you can't as I have not
If you re read all my posts on this subject my problems are about the moral side of the claims never about who they are claiming for or who is entitled.
KP have ever right to claim for H just as the families she was having a go at in the paper are legally entitled to claim, yet I think both are wrong in doing so and I have stated why in many of my last posts so please don't try to make me out as if I am having a go at a disabled child.
I think people understand what you are saying, others are just trying to cause mischief and deliberately misunderstanding
Please show me where I have used H to get at the system Betty?.....all along I have said my problem has been with KP
Please show me where I have said H isn't entitled to the DLA...also please show me where I have ever had a problem with H....no you can't as I have not
If you re read all my posts on this subject my problems are about the moral side of the claims never about who they are claiming for or who is entitled.
KP have ever right to claim for H just as the families she was having a go at in the paper are legally entitled to claim, yet I think both are wrong in doing so and I have stated why in many of my last posts so please don't try to make me out as if I am having a go at a disabled child.
I understand your points Lorise and I'm in complete agreement.
Comments
The only way to stop the rich claiming benefits is to make all of them means tested. We can all get a basic pension when we retire, but with the top-up Pension Credit your savings limit is £10,000.
If people with 12 kids and no job are milking the system as it stands, then so are rich people like KP - always assuming she IS getting benefits for Harvey.
Then a genuine question...what are they disputing?
Yes HARVEY should claim it..he isn't a millionaire ..he is entitled to it and I don't see what difference it will make to those already on benefits as there is a set amount given to each claimant on their needs.. Those recieving benefits won't get extra if some people don't claim
I agree with Cyril that Pete would never want to be seen as needing assistance from any of Kate's ex.
I also doubt either Alex or Leo would be of benefit to the defence. Alex has just been seen as a liar in the press, so his credibility would be doubt. Unless Leo had an interpreter with him 24/7 in their relationship, his lack of English could be pulled apart by the prosecution.
Betty for the last time I have never said H isn't entitled to it.....
like all my other posts what I have a problem with is the fact KP doesn't need it, yes H isn't a millionaire but his mother is...she could sent up his care for the rest of his life and not see much of a dent in her bank balance,
just like the big families KP had a problem with in her paper column and felt the need to comment on,they are also entitled to the money they claim for as their kids are entitled to it......none of them are breaking the law KP included, but IMO (like all I have ever said my posts were ) it is morally wrong in my eyes on both accounts, KP for not needed the money, and the big families for not trying to earn a living.
I also have a problem with pensioners who live abroad yet still claim for winter fuel allowance....but then again that is my opinion.....and not for this thread....:)
I have read all the posts on this thread and dopey me understands what you are trying to say, its hardly rocket science.
Thank you Williow33....I thought maybe I was wording it wrong and only I could understand what my point was as it sounded okay in my head.......:)
I know .. i did feel a bit
There's also nothing to say the interviewer wasn't mistaken getting a 5 second look at some forms on a table.
I think KP's view would be if he's entitled to it from the government, she pays her taxes too and he should get it. It's not taking money from anyone else really. She may well have got in touch with that man and made sure he got his loo - she does tons of charity stuff that isn't made public. Probably more so than most celebs.
Morally should they be entitled to these benefits? In my opinion...NO!
Extremely wealthy people are legally entitled to claim certain benefits -But - morally - should they?.
That is the question and what I think is the point Lorise is trying to get across.
They will all be complimentary about Pete, it'll get them column inches.
I don't know what to say here, other than I would honestly gamble my life savings that PA would NEVER allow the support of any of KP's exes, even if his career depended on it. Nothing would turn his stomach more. So believe what you want, but IMO, keep dreaming on this one and best of luck with it.
The main focus of the court case will be on documents passed between others and the trails.
:cool:
This ^^^^ "manufactured in order to cash in" is the key
From what I read the case is mainly between CAN and Katie ..peters part isn't that important .. Am I right?
I'm sorry Cyril, but Peter Andre is not and never has been full of class and pride. I'm sure there are certain things he keeps private - I don't think we've ever seen him have a number 2 on screen for example, but any man that dry humps Katie Price on screen and begs her for a bl*w job is not classy or proud.
I don't believe for 1 second that what we saw then wasn't the 'real' Pete and just because he is now going out with a medical trainee does not change my opinion.
It is Harvey who is claiming not his mother.. And he is entitled to the money and I really don't see how a child with disabilities and what he receives have to do with a family who have never worked a day in their lives but keep producing children we are keeping...that "we" includes Katie as she pays more taxes than all of us combined ..probably ..
The two have no comparison at all
And in answer to your question ..yes Harvey SHOULD claim ..and I believe a cap is now in place to prevent people like those discussed from getting a stack of money just because they are popping out kids every year and expecting us to keep them.
We are not keeping Harvey and I'm sure his extra needs are being paid for by his mother..
H can't claim it as he is too young someone who is his parent or cares for him as if they were his parent has to claim for it, So that would be KP and/or Amy.
legitimate evidence
Dont think thats going to hold any weight against documented evidence from people who gave up their jobs rather than be a part of a personal vendetta against some one
On his behalf... Let's not use Harvey to have a go at the system.. Which has its faults but not created by him or his mother ....He doesn't deserve that
You obviously missed the point I was trying to make.:D
I do NOT for one second compare a bone idle scrounger to a disabled person needing benefits.
The point I was making was just because people can legally claim for a benefit doesn't always mean they should...If they don't need it then morally they shouldn't claim for it. JMO.
And I am referring to ALL wealthy people who don't really need benefits, not just KP.
As for the bone idle scroungers who milk the system THEY should be made to do community work and earn their benefits.
I do think you and i agree on the abusers of the system ..but I do believe a person with a disability..no matter what their background is ...is entitled to apply.
Please show me where I have used H to get at the system Betty?.....all along I have said my problem has been with KP
Please show me where I have said H isn't entitled to the DLA...also please show me where I have ever had a problem with H....no you can't as I have not
If you re read all my posts on this subject my problems are about the moral side of the claims never about who they are claiming for or who is entitled.
KP have ever right to claim for H just as the families she was having a go at in the paper are legally entitled to claim, yet I think both are wrong in doing so and I have stated why in many of my last posts so please don't try to make me out as if I am having a go at a disabled child.
@MissKatiePrice @TheSunNewspaper Another intelligently written column Katie,as always #cleverlady #notjustaprettyface
@MissKatiePrice @TheSunNewspaper just read your sum column. All so true you need to be an MP and go kick some political ass! Go pricey
Intelligent? Her intelligence must be buried very deep then. Don't these wallies realise anything in print isn't her actual work?
MP? What party would she stand for? Perhaps the 'I'm Always Right' Party'.
I think people understand what you are saying, others are just trying to cause mischief and deliberately misunderstanding
I understand your points Lorise and I'm in complete agreement.