http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrit...ameron-5052146


The hypocrisy of some of the right wing who complain is astounding. Why doesn't Hopkins go on TV or social media to complain about him claiming it as well.

I am now imagining Cameron attending one of those humiliating ATOS assessments.

Because he's in a position of power and therefore useful to her. Katie Price is not.

It's the same sort of reason she has nothing negative to say about tax dodgers but words of support, but viciously rounds on people on benefits.

His son is dead. Would be a little inappropriate don't you think?

And Katie P's son is seriously disabled, so what gives her the right to gob off.

Oh she will once she's officially standing as a UKIP candidate

But he and his family are millionaires yet he claimed it and now appears to want to cut it for the most vulnerable people in society according to his policies. As I said before total hypocrisy.

We have worked hard all our lives in our family and don't begrudge help to the vulnerable and disabled and even Katie Prices son. I just do not believe there should be one rule for one and one for others. Maybe I am naive but I would like a fair society for everyone wealthy or not and that people who need it should be well cared for be it elderly/disabled.

DLA was for his Son & for his care & not for David Cameron.

But he still claimed it for his son, same thing really. Look I am not saying that he was not entitled as Katie Price is also entitled to it, just that if you are going to raise an issue as Hopkins did, raise it from the top and include everyone.

This isn't a fair society.

My son who is physically and mentally handicapped from birth had all the care, respite & schooling he needed for FREE .... Then as soon as my son reached the age of 18 all his free treatments, respite, prescriptions was taken away from him.

So unless you're under the age of 18 or over the age of 70 you are thrown on the society's scrap heap.

The Op was referring to The PMs late son, not KP's son and therefore pretty disrespectful theme given his son is dead.

didn't you know?
that's why he made it a personal mission to change DLA into PiP. He found the form filling horrendous and thought it much easier to make sure everyone got humiliated as much as possible. And yes they did claim everything its only because Katie Hopkins personal mission is to make sure anything tax payers fund is abolished this became an issue.

the daily star headline took the Guess KP did.

the taxi service comes in at around 150 pounds a week (65 of that is for the escort)
the carer at the school is on Minimum wage Holidays etc are not paid for obvious reasons.
Its all BS making a scandal out of nothing

^This!

Another aspect which p*sses me off about this is the way KH had to tactlessly shoehorn her prejudices into a conversation she was not really part of in the first place. She merely overheard KP talking about it and without understanding the broader context instantly had to feed the subject through her knee-jerk, "Private = Good/State = Bad" ideological "Meat grinder" and broadcast it to KP in her best "Girl's Boarding School Prefect/mummy knows best" voice.

Oh, and isn't Sandhurst Military Academy a state owned institution? And didn't she lie about her medical condition to gain acceptance to it? But of course that's perfectly fine for Hopkins...

This argument could go on and on and round and round. Do all millionaires over 60 get the winter fuel allowance as it's not means tested? Did the same people and the Queen etc get child benefit before it was means tested? I'm really not a fan of KP but I assume she's paid quite a whack of tax in her time.

But I thought that Katie H was given credit for telling it like it is and being brave for saying what she thinks?

I got the impression that Katie H was unaware that you could claim money for taxi fares for disabled children. I am sure when she comes out, she will be very vocal about multi millionaires claiming benefits designed to help people who cannot afford a chauffeur for their disabled children.

Actually I am offended by your post as my thread was not about his son but the benefits he claimed for him. I provided a link as well as I did not know until I myself had read it.

We too as a family have lost a child so I would never disrespect him at all for that reason.

What I was trying to do was say it is one rule for one and one for the other, both the PM and Katie Prise are entitled to to it, fine but Hopkins should not preach about KP.

I personally have no problem with KP doing all she can to help her son, just like the PM did, but just dont be hypocritical about it and single one person out.

I also took it that she was saying the SYSTEM is wrong. We all know that LEGALLY Katie P can claim all these benefits, it whether MORALLY she should. The same goes for the millionaires who get fuel allowance etc. Our benefits system was thought of to help those in need, millionaires are not in need of the benefits they can legally claim.

To be fair, I did not know you could either as I can only go on what I read in the media and on the forum.

I do hope Hopkins will right this when she comes out. I just happen to think that looking after a disable child is hard enough without all this hassle.

That's terrible. PiP hasn't got around to us yet, but I fully expect to be in the same situation when they do.

They have got away with it by making the public believe that all benefit claimants are lying scroungers. People like Hopkins only make the situation worse for people with genuine disabilities who are being denied the care they genuinely need.

This article from the Guardian shows the true figures. Less than 1% of claims are fraudulent. About the same amount are paid out in error without fraudulent intent.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...iversal-credit

The fact of the matter is that this money which is lost is actually less than the money which could genuinely be claimed by people who are entitled to it, but who don't claim, for whatever reason.

It seems on the face of it to be a deliberate attempt to deflect attention away from the greedy robbers at the top who can get away with it, onto the poor and helpless at the bottom who can be kicked in the teeth with impunity.

Aww Skyrah I had no idea this sort of thing happens. I do hope you have managed to sort things out for your son and he is getting he help and care he needs.

Not a fan of Hopkins or Price, but from what I saw on tv that episode Katie Price was talking about having a driver for Harvey and the Government was funding it, Hopkins then said her opinion on the matter, she wasn't nasty or shouting then when Katie Price replied it ended there....until Price was telling someone else about it later. I am sure if Hopkins was in the house with David Cameron and he brought up the subject about his son, she would of had an opinion.

It seems to be the threads on here and other places and the papers that are keep bringing it up, from what I see in the BB house things are back to normal..........so Perez running around looking for attention and Hopkins pulling faces and the others just trying to get a bit of air time when possible.

Apparently being the operative word. Didn't the poor child die - no need to bring it up on here.

I posted a link jean and this is a forum. Put your claws away it doesn't really suit you.

BIB Forgive me if I find that slightly implausible.