So you are saying one unemployed woman with a shedful of children demanded that the authorities in Gloucester build her a new home and they complied with her demands.
So if what you claim is correct then can you explain why it is that she has so much influence over them that they did what she demanded and can we expect other large families in Gloucester to demand they have houses built for them ?
Nobody would question supporting the elderly, the sick and those who genuinely need support. However we should not be supporting someone's choice to have eleven children. It just shows how out-of-balance the system is.
Yes, I would agree there needs to be limits on what we can support in terms of child benefit for example but the trouble is a system of limitation relies on personal responsibilty. i.e. I have two (for example) children and I will not get paid any support for any more so therefore I wont have anymore. I wonder how many people think that logically and how many children would suffer if we did withdraw support. We need to be tackling why the horses keep bolting, not looking at how many new bolts we need to put on the stable doors.
But she started her family 22 years ago not in this day and age. How old are her youngest children?
I meant in the last 30 years. Which to me is still modern era.
Large families like this were usually the norm after WW2. Since the 50's I believe the numbers of large families began to shrink. Why anyone would see having such large families, even back in the 80's to now, see it as a good thing is beyond me.
Even if you remove the financial aspect, having a large family like this, even with the father(s) present cannot be healthy (mentally) for the kids or parents.
Both my parents came from large families like this in the 30's and 40's, back then you survived. No benefits, no help, they just got on with it. But then that was a time when the father went out to work with the eldest boys for long hours and the mother and girls stayed at home and cleaned, whilst the younger kids ran amok in the streets.
Yes, I would agree there needs to be limits on what we can support in terms of child benefit for example but the trouble is a system of limitation relies on personal responsibilty. i.e. I have two (for example) children and I will not get paid any support for any more so therefore I wont have anymore. I wonder how many people think that logically and how many children would suffer if we did withdraw support. We need to be tackling why the horses keep bolting, not looking at how many new bolts we need to put on the stable doors.
That's a fair point too. The fact is that most working folk know what they can or cannot afford. Those who rely on the benefit system don't all have that sense of responsibility. I'm not sure if that can be taught. People need to understand the consequences of their behaviour.
I meant in the last 30 years. Which to me is still modern era.
Large families like this were usually the norm after WW2. Since the 50's I believe the numbers of large families began to shrink. Why anyone would see having such large families, even back in the 80's to now, see it as a good thing is beyond me.
Even if you remove the financial aspect, having a large family like this, even with the father(s) present cannot be healthy (mentally) for the kids or parents.
I do not think families of 11 children were the norm after WW2 - and definitely not in the last 50 years.
According to the original article she believes she can. Her arrogance is extremely distasteful.
So according to the Daily Mail she has so much influence that because she moaned to them she was able to force this housing association into building her a brand new house and you have fell for it hook line and sinker :eek:
Well I live in a housing association house and I would like an extension on the back kitchen as there isn't enough room to swing a cat round in it ...perhaps I should go and have a good old moan
That's a fair point too. The fact is that most working folk know what they can or cannot afford. Those who rely on the benefit system don't all have that sense of responsibility. I'm not sure if that can be taught. People need to understand the consequences of their behaviour.
Absolutley. Solve that problem and we're half way to solving a lot of the ills of society. We live in a soceity, it seems, where everyone knows "there rights" but few seem to care about their responsibilities. Generation X Factor where wanting something is reason to expect it irrespective or effort or talent (or lack of).
So according to the Daily Mail she has so much influence that because she moaned to them she was able to force this housing association into building her a brand new house and you have fell for it hook line and sinker :eek:
Well I live in a housing association house and I would like an extension on the back kitchen as there isn't enough room to swing a cat round in it ...perhaps I should go and have a good old moan
have 10 kids, then you will get one.
part of the trouble is we are in a society where everyone knows their (yooman) rights, and accepts none of the responsibilities.
So according to the Daily Mail she has so much influence that because she moaned to them she was able to force this housing association into building her a brand new house and you have fell for it hook line and sinker :eek:
Yet despite your derision. This house exists and she claims that if its not good enough for her she'll demand another one. Tell me that's no arrogant of her. Then tell me that arrogance isn't a very attractive quality. Then, when you've reached your conclusion, tell me why you think she's getting death threats and if there was anything she could have done to avoid them in the first place?
So according to the Daily Mail she has so much influence that because she moaned to them she was able to force this housing association into building her a brand new house and you have fell for it hook line and sinker :eek:
Well I live in a housing association house and I would like an extension on the back kitchen as there isn't enough room to swing a cat round in it ...perhaps I should go and have a good old moan
your point seems to be somewhat undermined by the fact they have built this house for her.
I do not think families of 11 children were the norm after WW2 - and definitely not in the last 50 years.
I guess that depends on where you were born. In the leafy green Kent suburbs it wouldn't be seen as the norm, however in the war ravaged industrial North it was common.
So according to the Daily Mail she has so much influence that because she moaned to them she was able to force this housing association into building her a brand new house and you have fell for it hook line and sinker :eek:
Well I live in a housing association house and I would like an extension on the back kitchen as there isn't enough room to swing a cat round in it ...perhaps I should go and have a good old moan
Me too.
I have lost count of the times I've got onto them regarding insufficient heating for the property to be given the proverbial middle finger. Maybe I need to complain more.
I meant in the last 30 years. Which to me is still modern era.
Large families like this were usually the norm after WW2. Since the 50's I believe the numbers of large families began to shrink. Why anyone would see having such large families, even back in the 80's to now, see it as a good thing is beyond me.
Even if you remove the financial aspect, having a large family like this, even with the father(s) present cannot be healthy (mentally) for the kids or parents.
There is a family on our estate with 14 kids all born between the 70's and late 80's, they lived in a 3 bedroomed house and they refused to swap when they were offered a four bedroomed house. They are still living in that same house even now most of the children have moved out. He's never worked as he claimed he couldn't afford to. So really it wasn't much different then to what it is nowadays apart from people didn't moan about them and call them names, I guess they were more tolerant because around here most people are Labour voters.
I guess that depends on where you were born. In the leafy green Kent suburbs it wouldn't be seen as the norm, however in the war ravaged industrial North it was common.
your point seems to be somewhat undermined by the fact they have built this house for her.
No they haven't because they are building other large properties on that land too. What are they going to do if she moves out? knock it down? of course not. IF she and her family leaves the HA will just get another family in from their waiting list.
The HA wanted the land and the council wanted shot of this woman and her brood. The council now has a spare property to allocate to another family. A good decision by a Tory council, makes a change.
Yet despite your derision. This house exists and she claims that if its not good enough for her she'll demand another one. Tell me that's no arrogant of her. Then tell me that arrogance isn't a very attractive quality. Then, when you've reached your conclusion, tell me why you think she's getting death threats and if there was anything she could have done to avoid them in the first place?
My derision if it exists is towards The Daily Mail which is the best newspaper for stirring up resentment against the unemployed and the taxpayer. How do you know for certain that she has claimed that if its not good enough for her she'll demand another one. If you provide proof (not just a newspaper report) that she has then I will admit she is arrogant until then I will assume it's just another s**t stirring story in the Daily Mail.
It does pain me to see this kind of thread clearly a divide and rule story what other reason is there to print such crap??
Anyway she ain't the worst is she?? i mean the royal family have been doing the same thats to say scrounging for far longer
Not that your question makes sense seeing as no one is building her a house, the HA is building a number of large properties of which she is going to be the tenant of one. So they were going to built them with or without this family.
It does pain me to see this kind of thread clearly a divide and rule story what other reason is there to print such crap??
Anyway she ain't the worst is she?? i mean the royal family have been doing the same thats to say scrounging for far longer
Ah but she is part of our heritage etc and represents everything that is good, pure, wholesome and conservative (small c) with the Union Jack waving masses.
No they haven't because they are building other large properties on that land too. What are they going to do if she moves out? knock it down? of course not. IF she and her family leaves the HA will just get another family in from their waiting list.
The HA wanted the land and the council wanted shot of this woman and her brood. The council now has a spare property to allocate to another family. A good decision by a Tory council, makes a change.
unfortunately that is not what happened. the house was built specifically for her. the council have no use for it until another family this size come along.
However I would change CB rules with immediate effect. Only for 2 children max and up to a family income total of £30k.
i'm not entirely convinced that would work. that would mean feeding, clothing and housing 12 people on £30k a year. i think a lot of people would describe that as poverty.
unfortunately that is not what happened. the house was built specifically for her. the council have no use for it until another family this size come along.
Yes it was. I'm not disputing that I'm disputing the claim that she FORCED them to build it for her .
Living in a housing association house myself I can't see there being anyway that she could have FORCED them to do anything which is what you and others are claiming.
That's a strong accusation how do you know that any of her children are delinquents ?
Who are you to preach how people should live. Maybe there's some people who'd find your way of life unacceptable but I expect you'd soon tell them were to get off if they told you so.
As the saying goes 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'
As a responsible, tax paying member of society i am entitled to "preach" how this net drain, irresponsible member of society should live. It is not acceptable. I suppose you are right about my writing off of her children as delinquents a bit tough, but i should wager the odds of them becoming poet laureates, quantum physicists is slightly longer than them becoming a benefit dependent drain on good society (due to their parentage). Call me mean, i shall get over it. Also personally i would love to be proven wrong about them.
Well i guess they'll need to build alot of new houses soon for all those romainians and some bulgarians
that will be arriving next year maybe it will take the heat of the "dolequeen" as im sure the gutter press will turn their
attention to these people to scapegoat em for all whats wrong with the uk.
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280385/Jobless-mother-11-Heather-Frost-6-bed-eco-house-moaning-TWO-council-homes-cramped.html
According to the original article she believes she can. Her arrogance is extremely distasteful.
Yes, I would agree there needs to be limits on what we can support in terms of child benefit for example but the trouble is a system of limitation relies on personal responsibilty. i.e. I have two (for example) children and I will not get paid any support for any more so therefore I wont have anymore. I wonder how many people think that logically and how many children would suffer if we did withdraw support. We need to be tackling why the horses keep bolting, not looking at how many new bolts we need to put on the stable doors.
I meant in the last 30 years. Which to me is still modern era.
Large families like this were usually the norm after WW2. Since the 50's I believe the numbers of large families began to shrink. Why anyone would see having such large families, even back in the 80's to now, see it as a good thing is beyond me.
Even if you remove the financial aspect, having a large family like this, even with the father(s) present cannot be healthy (mentally) for the kids or parents.
Both my parents came from large families like this in the 30's and 40's, back then you survived. No benefits, no help, they just got on with it. But then that was a time when the father went out to work with the eldest boys for long hours and the mother and girls stayed at home and cleaned, whilst the younger kids ran amok in the streets.
It hasn't been like that for a long time.
That's a fair point too. The fact is that most working folk know what they can or cannot afford. Those who rely on the benefit system don't all have that sense of responsibility. I'm not sure if that can be taught. People need to understand the consequences of their behaviour.
I do not think families of 11 children were the norm after WW2 - and definitely not in the last 50 years.
So according to the Daily Mail she has so much influence that because she moaned to them she was able to force this housing association into building her a brand new house and you have fell for it hook line and sinker :eek:
Well I live in a housing association house and I would like an extension on the back kitchen as there isn't enough room to swing a cat round in it ...perhaps I should go and have a good old moan
Absolutley. Solve that problem and we're half way to solving a lot of the ills of society. We live in a soceity, it seems, where everyone knows "there rights" but few seem to care about their responsibilities. Generation X Factor where wanting something is reason to expect it irrespective or effort or talent (or lack of).
have 10 kids, then you will get one.
part of the trouble is we are in a society where everyone knows their (yooman) rights, and accepts none of the responsibilities.
Interesting. so what is it you want to do about this woman? spaying?
Yet despite your derision. This house exists and she claims that if its not good enough for her she'll demand another one. Tell me that's no arrogant of her. Then tell me that arrogance isn't a very attractive quality. Then, when you've reached your conclusion, tell me why you think she's getting death threats and if there was anything she could have done to avoid them in the first place?
your point seems to be somewhat undermined by the fact they have built this house for her.
I guess that depends on where you were born. In the leafy green Kent suburbs it wouldn't be seen as the norm, however in the war ravaged industrial North it was common.
Me too.
I have lost count of the times I've got onto them regarding insufficient heating for the property to be given the proverbial middle finger. Maybe I need to complain more.
There is a family on our estate with 14 kids all born between the 70's and late 80's, they lived in a 3 bedroomed house and they refused to swap when they were offered a four bedroomed house. They are still living in that same house even now most of the children have moved out. He's never worked as he claimed he couldn't afford to. So really it wasn't much different then to what it is nowadays apart from people didn't moan about them and call them names, I guess they were more tolerant because around here most people are Labour voters.
did we have to build everyone a house then too?
My point is that I doubt very much that it was built because she demanded it was.
Nothing you can do about her.
However I would change CB rules with immediate effect. Only for 2 children max and up to a family income total of £30k.
No they haven't because they are building other large properties on that land too. What are they going to do if she moves out? knock it down? of course not. IF she and her family leaves the HA will just get another family in from their waiting list.
The HA wanted the land and the council wanted shot of this woman and her brood. The council now has a spare property to allocate to another family. A good decision by a Tory council, makes a change.
My derision if it exists is towards The Daily Mail which is the best newspaper for stirring up resentment against the unemployed and the taxpayer. How do you know for certain that she has claimed that if its not good enough for her she'll demand another one. If you provide proof (not just a newspaper report) that she has then I will admit she is arrogant until then I will assume it's just another s**t stirring story in the Daily Mail.
Anyway she ain't the worst is she?? i mean the royal family have been doing the same thats to say scrounging for far longer
Not sure as that was before my time.
Not that your question makes sense seeing as no one is building her a house, the HA is building a number of large properties of which she is going to be the tenant of one. So they were going to built them with or without this family.
Ah but she is part of our heritage etc and represents everything that is good, pure, wholesome and conservative (small c) with the Union Jack waving masses.
i'm not entirely convinced that would work. that would mean feeding, clothing and housing 12 people on £30k a year. i think a lot of people would describe that as poverty.
They built prefabs to house people and yes I do know because I was born in a prefab in 1947 the youngest of three children to be born in it
Yes it was. I'm not disputing that I'm disputing the claim that she FORCED them to build it for her .
Living in a housing association house myself I can't see there being anyway that she could have FORCED them to do anything which is what you and others are claiming.
As a responsible, tax paying member of society i am entitled to "preach" how this net drain, irresponsible member of society should live. It is not acceptable. I suppose you are right about my writing off of her children as delinquents a bit tough, but i should wager the odds of them becoming poet laureates, quantum physicists is slightly longer than them becoming a benefit dependent drain on good society (due to their parentage). Call me mean, i shall get over it. Also personally i would love to be proven wrong about them.
that will be arriving next year maybe it will take the heat of the "dolequeen" as im sure the gutter press will turn their
attention to these people to scapegoat em for all whats wrong with the uk.