Family with ten kids on £90,000 state hand outs.
Discussion
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083998/Be...
So when he resigned from the Army they had three children and have added another seven since they've been on benefits.
The cost of the council providing breakfast every day is £950 a week
So when he resigned from the Army they had three children and have added another seven since they've been on benefits.
The cost of the council providing breakfast every day is £950 a week
Would i live in that lifestyle for £90,000 a year
not a chance in bloody hell
Would you swap places with either of them for £90,000 a year?
I'm not going to get particuarly angry or upset about the handful of families like this as the government wastes far more cash then that on stupid s
t and I'm certainly not jealous of a bunch of thick no hopers living in their own st with 10 screaming brats for company 24/7.
The daily wail will make 100K from this story which was published purely to make you angry
On the other hand it would be great fun if you offered them a million to stay off benefits for the next ten years. They would be dead and/or broke after 2 years
not a chance in bloody hell
Would you swap places with either of them for £90,000 a year?
I'm not going to get particuarly angry or upset about the handful of families like this as the government wastes far more cash then that on stupid s
t and I'm certainly not jealous of a bunch of thick no hopers living in their own st with 10 screaming brats for company 24/7.The daily wail will make 100K from this story which was published purely to make you angry
On the other hand it would be great fun if you offered them a million to stay off benefits for the next ten years. They would be dead and/or broke after 2 years
Edited by thinfourth2 on Monday 9th January 12:44
southendpier said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If they trashed a house then the kids (younger ones) should have been taken away from them imo.
It is an awful story and makes you think that sterilisation for people like this wouldn't have been a bad thing after the 3rd/4th kid?
Duncan
anonymous said:
[redacted]
After 10 kids I doubt either of them can feel anything when they are at home all day! Does it say anywhere why the council are spending £950 per week supplying breakfast? and on a different note how can I get that contract? I could do that before I start work.
Guam said:
...
Being more serious for a mo, if you decide to have 10 kids then YOU should be responsible for their upkeep not the state. With choice should come responsibility!
I agree with you, but how do you enforce it?Being more serious for a mo, if you decide to have 10 kids then YOU should be responsible for their upkeep not the state. With choice should come responsibility!
The way I would do it would give BHLs a heart attack and would not be allowed...but I see no other way.
Cutting and capping benefits is all well and good, but then the kids end up "maltreated" and even if taken away from their parents, they still cost the taxpayer money.
I understand the angle of "there are hardly any of these cases so why worry". But even one is one too many. Unfortunately our society has painted itself into a corner in terms of dealing with it.
Deva Link said:
Frankeh said:
Take kids into care,
Great - it costs £2500/wk to keep a child in care. Either way it's not a direct cost benefit but the long term effect of people knowing that if you can't look after your kids then someone else will might change peoples attitudes in the long term.
Frankeh said:
I know some people who foster kids and they get nowhere near that much. Are you including admin in that?
True, but no one is going to foster any of these wretched f8ckers - especially the older ones which will have developed all kinds of behavioural problems. The only solution will be to freeze their benefits over time so that eventually it won't pay to have this many kids - there will be some pain in the process but once they are old enough they can throw them out onto the street. Also if they could add some sex-altering hormones into their free breakfast so that future sprogs are all male, they would be unable to produce more offspring.Frankeh said:
How so? I know some people who foster kids and they get nowhere near that much. Are you including admin in that?
That's for kids in children's homes. Foster parents get around £200/wk depending on the age of the child, but typically double that if it's done through a private agency (but still on behalf of the local authority).Frankeh said:
Either way it's not a direct cost benefit but the long term effect of people knowing that if you can't look after your kids then someone else will might change peoples attitudes in the long term.
I know someone who works with this sort of family and they believe the only hope is to take the kids away at birth and give them to 'nice' families.Deva Link said:
I know someone who works with this sort of family and they believe the only hope is to take the kids away at birth and give them to 'nice' families.
Try running that past the BHLs...And where do you start - the first kid? Third? Ninth?
Maybe those signing on should be offered a cash incentive for sterilisation (as opposed to the opposite, aka Child Benefit)
paper said:
She claimed they were so short of money that the children had only one Nintendo Wii games console between them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083998/Be...
I'm sorry but i have one reply to this, GET A JOB... a job = buy nice things. I fully support ensuring those who need it have food and a home, but there should be no situation where the tax payer provides luxuries.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083998/Be...
If the counter argument is that the kids should not suffer, well thats the parents failing not the state.
AND in what world am i paying for breakfast to be delivered to people? its not like they're too busy working
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff