Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

400,000 pounds? Isn't that like 600,000 bucks or something along those lines?

 blood reaper wrote:
Such a waste of money on someone who doesn't deserve it.

Its not for her, its for the children. What always gets missed in these kinds of situations is that even though the mother is clearly playing the system or is ignorant and/or stupid there are 11 children here who need at least a semi decent upbringing. The mother is clearly not a role model given that she is now a grandmother but if they are all jammed into a house not big enough for them the situation will only be made worse.

There are basically 3 options here, none of them good. Either forced steralisation (not going to happen even if it is temporary), take the children into care (probably do more harm than good) or to try to educate the next generation so that this sort of situation doesn't arise in the future.

 Alfndrate wrote:

But Miss Frost, 37, who is also a grandmother,

This quote sums it up nicely as well... This woman is about a decade older than me,

I'm the same age as this lady and I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you!

Is this where I get to use the phrase Don't look a gift house in the mouth or something?

 rubiksnoob wrote:
400,000 pounds? Isn't that like 600,000 bucks or something along those lines?

Approximately $618,880

Palindrome wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Such a waste of money on someone who doesn't deserve it.

Its not for her, its for the children. What always gets missed in these kinds of situations is that even though the mother is clearly playing the system or is ignorant and/or stupid there are 11 children here who need at least a semi decent upbringing. The mother is clearly not a role model given that she is now a grandmother but if they are all jammed into a house not big enough for them the situation will only be made worse.

There are basically 3 options here, none of them good. Either forced steralisation (not going to happen even if it is temporary), take the children into care (probably do more harm than good) or to try to educate the next generation so that this sort of situation doesn't arise in the future.

3 of her children are of legal adult age, and could live on their own, it's curious as to why they aren't. Though they could all be Uni students that live at home, so the government would only have to take care of 8 of the children which is also still going to harm the kids. You did also miss the part that no one has to force her to be sterile, cervical cancer in 2011 took care of that. We're left with educating her kids on how this probably isn't the way to conduct one's self.

Palindrome wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
Such a waste of money on someone who doesn't deserve it.

Its not for her, its for the children. What always gets missed in these kinds of situations is that even though the mother is clearly playing the system or is ignorant and/or stupid there are 11 children here who need at least a semi decent upbringing. The mother is clearly not a role model given that she is now a grandmother but if they are all jammed into a house not big enough for them the situation will only be made worse.

There are basically 3 options here, none of them good. Either forced steralisation (not going to happen even if it is temporary), take the children into care (probably do more harm than good) or to try to educate the next generation so that this sort of situation doesn't arise in the future.

How dare you think of the children!!!

 Albatross wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
She's now sterile? Good. No more popping out.

You really are a charming individual aren't you?

When not discussing absolute gakheads (like her), absolutely. I am. Perhaps I should have added an addendum: it sucks that she has cancer. It does not, however, suck that she is sterile. Better? It's hard to accept that people bust their asses, work hard, make decent/good/great pay, and then when taxes are taken out, they go to people like this: people who are popping out children as often as possible to milk the monetary system, then demand a house, then demand a new one because the old one isn't good enough. If she worked, and at least attempted to contribute, that would be different. Here she is taking directly from you, Albatross, and anyone you know who works. Family? Yup, she's taking from them. Your friends? Them too. I feel bad for her children-they're victims in this. The state should take them and put them up for adoption-there's no way they have a rewarding life with bare minimum food, hardly any toys, and having a family that has no intention of improving. And you say I'm not charming.

 Alfndrate wrote:

3 of her children are of legal adult age, and could live on their own, it's curious as to why they aren't. Though they could all be Uni students that live at home, so the government would only have to take care of 8 of the children which is also still going to harm the kids. You did also miss the part that no one has to force her to be sterile, cervical cancer in 2011 took care of that. We're left with educating her kids on how this probably isn't the way to conduct one's self.

I didn't miss that actually. Stories like this crop up all the time in the tabloid press, this is just an extreme example but the fundamental problem of the children's well being is something that routinely gets ignored. Its also possible that the older children won't be living there/weren't counted when the size of the house was agreed.

The single biggest thing that would help with this is effective basic sex education, I work with a lot of people in their early 20s and their level of ignorance about contraception can be shocking, as are the risks that they apparently take.

But if the 3 oldest children aren't living there, then why mention them and their ages? It's quite obvious that they want to provide sensationalism to this story, because 11 kids and 1 grand kid is more of a story than 8 kids...

Oh england, your abilities to handle welfare leeches is laughably...oh wait nevermind we have the same problem if not worse due to sheer volume of leeches here in the states.

 Necroshea wrote:
sheer volume of leeches here in the states.

Except for the research to show this to be bs, of course. This is another example of taking an outlier and using it to perpetuate the Myth of the Wellfare Queen to play on some peoples misguided notions of welfare and rile them up. The great majority of people that use assistance do not abuse it, which isn't to say that we shouldn't always be vigilant of graft and abuse.

So, let me get this straight. I work my ass of cutting onion, carrying boxes of heavy produce, and sitting infront of a hot onion. only to get the money taken out for people who dont work who live more comfortable then me?
y'know, I have a cousin with 4 kids, and somehow she has more money then me, a nicer place, and better food, and she is on welfare.
And all because they do something my two dogs do everyday?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And all because they do something my two dogs do everyday?

Well because that and because they're opportunistic.

Why work when you can sit around and leech all day? Some people just don't see the merit in an honest days work.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
The Mail and Guardians slanted reporting has an audience which likes to believe that they are being besieged by malcontents on all sides.

I didn't know Rupert Murdoch owned those two.

 Necroshea wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And all because they do something my two dogs do everyday?

Well because that and because they're opportunistic.

Why work when you can sit around and leech all day? Some people just don't see the merit in an honest days work.

Why should they see any merit in it? She gets to live in a house that many of us will never be able to afford, busting our asses all our life. There is no negative for her to continually be popping children out of her womb. As long as she does it, the state lets her live on easy street.

At the same time, this is reinforcing in those children that same lack of values that she has. Why bother working when you'll get rewarded more then those who do? There are times when a parents conduct should give the state no choice but to remove the children for their own good, and I feel this is one of them.

There has to be relatives that the children can live with, who aren't bags of wasted flesh. Give them the mansion, make the child popping machine live in a shack with her equally worthless "partner".

As for the community getting the house back when the children are grown up and gone? IF that happens, I'd be willing to bet a paycheck that the value of the place will be absolutely decimated and it will still pretty much be a total loss anyways.

 djones520 wrote:
There are times when a parents conduct should give the state no choice but to remove the children for their own good, and I feel this is one of them.

Agreed, if we're working towards what best for the kids, I think it's safe to say that someone besides their train wreck of a mother would be better for them. I don't know why after complaining for two years they didn't just take them from her anyways.

Yeah, that then with will spread exponentially.
Govt assistance isnt a bad thing, Im on it right now for school, because i would be able to pay for school at all without it. Some people need it. But there is a bloody limit.

I agree, some government assistance is good. I'm on WIC myself. Given my daughters allergies, there is no way we could afford to feed her if we weren't.

There has to be a limit though. There has to be a point where you realize that the person is no longer standing on their two feet, and instead they've fully planted their ass on the back of the tax payer.

The question is...What is that limit? How do we determine it?

Eh, she worked the system - good for her.

While I don't particularly feel happy about people like this playing the system, as has been mentioned it is not even a drop in the ocean compared to the companies avoiding taxes (and indeed taking money in hand outs) and the CEO's/managers/etc of these companies getting huge payments rather than jail time.

Just to put things in perspective, this £400,000 house is about the same size as my house in Japan. My house was very confortable for three of us, and we could easily have fitted in a fourth. It would have been effing cramped with 12.

It is not being given to the woman, and she will be moved out when her children start to leave home.

In the mean time, whatever we think of the mother, the children deserve a roof over their heads and it would be more expensive and socially harmfull to split them out among a number of care homes or foster parents.

 Necroshea wrote:

Agreed, if we're working towards what best for the kids, I think it's safe to say that someone besides their train wreck of a mother would be better for them. I don't know why after complaining for two years they didn't just take them from her anyways.

Because taking children into care is, and always should be, a last resort. It is not something that should be done lightly. Reducing welfare levels or simply removing the children can't help but cause more social problems than it solves.

The numbers don't really add up here. If she has 11 children and is a grandmother where is the grandchild(ren)?

Palindrome wrote:
The numbers don't really add up here. If she has 11 children and is a grandmother where is the grandchild(ren)?

Giving birth

Maybe she was the 9 year old from that thread last week

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
She's now sterile? Good. No more popping out.

You really are a charming individual aren't you?

When not discussing absolute gakheads (like her), absolutely. I am.

Really?

You wrote:Seriously. I'm suggesting that somebody goes inside this woman and rips out her ovaries so she can't continue this gross abuse of the system. Pain killers are optional. In fact, it's highly suggested they're avoided altogether.

Somehow, I doubt it. I'm more inclined to believe that you're a sexless mouthbreather that only ever speaks to fast-food delivery men. Or your mother, with whom you live.

Perhaps I should have added an addendum: it sucks that she has cancer. It does not, however, suck that she is sterile. Better? It's hard to accept that people bust their asses, work hard, make decent/good/great pay, and then when taxes are taken out, they go to people like this: people who are popping out children as often as possible to milk the monetary system, then demand a house, then demand a new one because the old one isn't good enough. If she worked, and at least attempted to contribute, that would be different. Here she is taking directly from you, Albatross, and anyone you know who works. Family? Yup, she's taking from them. Your friends? Them too.

No gak, Sherlock. She takes fractions of a penny from me - the state provides her with food, accommodation and money. I know full well how our welfare state works, I was brought up within it. The question is, why do you give enough of a gak to make yourself look like a jackass over it with all your idiotic talk of ripping out a woman's ovaries? Do you have any idea what you sound like?

The state should take them and put them up for adoption-there's no way they have a rewarding life with bare minimum food, hardly any toys, and having a family that has no intention of improving.

And yet still, those kids probably have a better life, higher life expectancy, better healthcare, greater educational prospects and a better diet than those from a welfare dependent American family a third the size. That's what happens when you actually look after the poorest in society. Yes, sometimes people game the system, but I'd rather have the system we have over yours any day of the week. Seriously, if it's a choice between welfare loafers having ten kids on the government quid or kids eating ketchup soup under a bridge in the world's richest nation, I know which side I'm on.

Also, I'd like to see a source for this story.

Something is wrong in this day and age when hard, honest work is punished more than not working.

wow.... with the rabid defence of the "left" on this site, I'm pretty surprised with the ire this topic has generated.

Just think America; this will be us in another 4-10 years.

 gregor_xenos wrote:
wow.... with the rabid defence of the "left" on this site, I'm pretty surprised with the ire this topic has generated.
.

Are you talking about Dakka? The right wing nutjobs outnumber the left wing nut jobs here.

Palindrome wrote:

 gregor_xenos wrote:
wow.... with the rabid defence of the "left" on this site, I'm pretty surprised with the ire this topic has generated.
.

Are you talking about Dakka? The right wing nutjobs outnumber the left wing nut jobs here.

Not in my expierence.... maybe I just see the left because Im right?
lol no pun intended.