Unemployed ? Got 11 kids ? Fancy a new house ?
Discussion
I had to stop reading the article in my Express this morning otherwise I'd have torn the whole paper into little pieces and then I would not have done the crosswords etc.
"If I find the house is not big enough, then they will have to build me a bigger one, wont they?" f
kING HELL - words fail me too.
This country is seriously fked, and I cannot see that any of the main political parties will ever sort it. (broken manifesto promises blah blah) Bunch of twunts. (perhaps UKIP, but I wont hold my breath for them to get in)
"If I find the house is not big enough, then they will have to build me a bigger one, wont they?" f
kING HELL - words fail me too.This country is seriously f
ked, and I cannot see that any of the main political parties will ever sort it. (broken manifesto promises blah blah) Bunch of twunts. (perhaps UKIP, but I wont hold my breath for them to get in)Rovinghawk said:
My girlfriend just told me that it's unreasonable to dictate what they spend their benefits on. And she wonders why I don't agree with her.
RH
Do you have a shared account? If so, drain it and see how she feels when you have pissed it all up the wall. Then she'll understand.RH
Chris
McWigglebum3rd said:
Newc said:
And just as the flames of outrage were dying down, the Maily Telegraph uncaps another can of petrol and shakes it vigorously:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9880720/Une...
" An unemployed mother-of-11 for whom a council is building a six-bedroom "eco mansion” is keeping her own horse despite being on benefits.
Heather Frost, 36, bought a grey mare called Annie last year and pays paddock fees, food and vet’s bills every month.
According to stable hands the animal, which Miss Frost keeps for her 16-year-old daughter Angel, costs about £200 per month to look after."
Well cut her benefits and they won't starve thenhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9880720/Une...
" An unemployed mother-of-11 for whom a council is building a six-bedroom "eco mansion” is keeping her own horse despite being on benefits.
Heather Frost, 36, bought a grey mare called Annie last year and pays paddock fees, food and vet’s bills every month.
According to stable hands the animal, which Miss Frost keeps for her 16-year-old daughter Angel, costs about £200 per month to look after."
ked up than I thought.
Lets put this into perspective...in the paper I read...ahem..the Sun...there is a list of similarly fertile and multi-generational families quoted as being put up in £2 million houses, £1 million houses etc. It somehow makes it worse that they are also non indigenous, recently immigrated families....now they really have come here just to take the pi55...straight from Afghan, Somalia & Pakistan. I guess we should be thankful that this £400K house family were all born here and that they live in a relatively cheap part of the UK, otherwise the bill would be bigger.
Far from an expert on the matter, but isn't £200 a month to stable and feed a horse + deal with any vets bills (apparently the old nag has a lung condition) rather cheap ? A mate's wife has a horse and it costs her a frigging fortune to look after the thing.
I agree with whoever said abolish child allowance. Or at the very least stop it after the second child.
Just had a go at benefits calculators online, seems she's getting between £45-48k a year. Obviously some assumptions but nevertheless thats a stload of money for someone who is contributing the square root of fk all to the nation, local area or society in general.
IMHO I struggle to see how she can be a fit parent with that number of kids + probably grandkids around.
And to think that couple up north had their adopted child taken away because they supported UKIP.
Its a fking disgrace.
As the elder kids are old enough to do any babysitting duties she should be given a job with the council - sweeping streets, cutting grass, whatever. The (taxable) pay should be enough for her to lose the majority of the benefits she currently claims.
I agree with whoever said abolish child allowance. Or at the very least stop it after the second child.
Just had a go at benefits calculators online, seems she's getting between £45-48k a year. Obviously some assumptions but nevertheless thats a s
tload of money for someone who is contributing the square root of fk all to the nation, local area or society in general.IMHO I struggle to see how she can be a fit parent with that number of kids + probably grandkids around.
And to think that couple up north had their adopted child taken away because they supported UKIP.
Its a f
king disgrace.As the elder kids are old enough to do any babysitting duties she should be given a job with the council - sweeping streets, cutting grass, whatever. The (taxable) pay should be enough for her to lose the majority of the benefits she currently claims.
Newc said:
And just as the flames of outrage were dying down, the Maily Telegraph uncaps another can of petrol and shakes it vigorously:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9880720/Une...
" An unemployed mother-of-11 for whom a council is building a six-bedroom "eco mansion” is keeping her own horse despite being on benefits.
Heather Frost, 36, bought a grey mare called Annie last year and pays paddock fees, food and vet’s bills every month.
According to stable hands the animal, which Miss Frost keeps for her 16-year-old daughter Angel, costs about £200 per month to look after."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9880720/Une...
" An unemployed mother-of-11 for whom a council is building a six-bedroom "eco mansion” is keeping her own horse despite being on benefits.
Heather Frost, 36, bought a grey mare called Annie last year and pays paddock fees, food and vet’s bills every month.
According to stable hands the animal, which Miss Frost keeps for her 16-year-old daughter Angel, costs about £200 per month to look after."
Too much apathy for rage.just for a bit of balance...
Huge families on benefits may make for spectacular news stories but economically they are insignificant
...
There are 1.35 million households with children in which at least one adult receives an out of work benefit. Of those, precisely 190 contain 10 or more children. There can be very few who are yet to be honoured with their own double-page tabloid feature or their own TV show.
When that number was revealed through a freedom of information request in late 2011, the Daily Mail pointed out that each of those families could be entitled to at least £61,000 in benefits per year. There's no evidence as to whether those families do collect their full entitlements, but if they did that would total £11m in annual benefits. With a total benefits bill (excluding pensioners) of £100bn per year, that means we could stop all payments to those 190 families, and the country would reduce its bill by less than one hundredth of 1%. However spectacular they may be as news stories, economically and fiscally these families are entirely irrelevant.
Media coverage of such spectacularly large families bolster the belief that people on benefits, and young women in particular, pop out sprogs as a matter of course to boost the size of the weekly benefit cheque or to secure a bigger, better house. In fact, official figures show that those 1.35m benefit-claiming households have 2.55 million kids between them, an average of 1.9 children per household – pretty much identical to the reproduction rate for the population as a whole.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/1...
Can I add, that I DO think the woman at the heart of this story is taking the piss.
Huge families on benefits may make for spectacular news stories but economically they are insignificant
...
There are 1.35 million households with children in which at least one adult receives an out of work benefit. Of those, precisely 190 contain 10 or more children. There can be very few who are yet to be honoured with their own double-page tabloid feature or their own TV show.
When that number was revealed through a freedom of information request in late 2011, the Daily Mail pointed out that each of those families could be entitled to at least £61,000 in benefits per year. There's no evidence as to whether those families do collect their full entitlements, but if they did that would total £11m in annual benefits. With a total benefits bill (excluding pensioners) of £100bn per year, that means we could stop all payments to those 190 families, and the country would reduce its bill by less than one hundredth of 1%. However spectacular they may be as news stories, economically and fiscally these families are entirely irrelevant.
Media coverage of such spectacularly large families bolster the belief that people on benefits, and young women in particular, pop out sprogs as a matter of course to boost the size of the weekly benefit cheque or to secure a bigger, better house. In fact, official figures show that those 1.35m benefit-claiming households have 2.55 million kids between them, an average of 1.9 children per household – pretty much identical to the reproduction rate for the population as a whole.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/1...
Can I add, that I DO think the woman at the heart of this story is taking the piss.
Edited by rover 623gsi on Wednesday 20th February 07:46
rover 623gsi said:
just for a bit of balance...
Huge families on benefits may make for spectacular news stories but economically they are insignificant
...
There are 1.35 million households with children in which at least one adult receives an out of work benefit. Of those, precisely 190 contain 10 or more children. There can be very few who are yet to be honoured with their own double-page tabloid feature or their own TV show.
When that number was revealed through a freedom of information request in late 2011, the Daily Mail pointed out that each of those families could be entitled to at least £61,000 in benefits per year. There's no evidence as to whether those families do collect their full entitlements, but if they did that would total £11m in annual benefits. With a total benefits bill (excluding pensioners) of £100bn per year, that means we could stop all payments to those 190 families, and the country would reduce its bill by less than one hundredth of 1%. However spectacular they may be as news stories, economically and fiscally these families are entirely irrelevant.
Media coverage of such spectacularly large families bolster the belief that people on benefits, and young women in particular, pop out sprogs as a matter of course to boost the size of the weekly benefit cheque or to secure a bigger, better house. In fact, official figures show that those 1.35m benefit-claiming households have 2.55 million kids between them, an average of 1.9 children per household – pretty much identical to the reproduction rate for the population as a whole.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/1...
Can I add, that I DO think the woman at the heart of this story is taking the piss.
so, as long as it's a minority, it's OK then?Huge families on benefits may make for spectacular news stories but economically they are insignificant
...
There are 1.35 million households with children in which at least one adult receives an out of work benefit. Of those, precisely 190 contain 10 or more children. There can be very few who are yet to be honoured with their own double-page tabloid feature or their own TV show.
When that number was revealed through a freedom of information request in late 2011, the Daily Mail pointed out that each of those families could be entitled to at least £61,000 in benefits per year. There's no evidence as to whether those families do collect their full entitlements, but if they did that would total £11m in annual benefits. With a total benefits bill (excluding pensioners) of £100bn per year, that means we could stop all payments to those 190 families, and the country would reduce its bill by less than one hundredth of 1%. However spectacular they may be as news stories, economically and fiscally these families are entirely irrelevant.
Media coverage of such spectacularly large families bolster the belief that people on benefits, and young women in particular, pop out sprogs as a matter of course to boost the size of the weekly benefit cheque or to secure a bigger, better house. In fact, official figures show that those 1.35m benefit-claiming households have 2.55 million kids between them, an average of 1.9 children per household – pretty much identical to the reproduction rate for the population as a whole.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/1...
Can I add, that I DO think the woman at the heart of this story is taking the piss.
guess that fits with the Grawniad's normal MO
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff