Jobless Mother of 11 to get six-bedroom eco-house after moaning her TWO council homes are cramped

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.

**Manchu**

Palindrome wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
After delivering a course like that, the onus is on the student.
I think its is more on the parent.

How do parents come into it at that point?

Sex education is not just about cause and effect. The program also entails values: disease is bad, unplanned pregnancy is bad, contraception is good, etc. The point of teaching these values in school is that the people who ordered it be done don't believe that these values are being taught by parents.

The purpose of this education, whether undertaken by schools or parents, is to exert control. Neither schools nor parents can control what kids do at any given moment. The idea is that the education will impart these values to them so that, in any given moment, they will make decisions based on said values.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
And that's their goal, they don't care so about the number of unemployed so much as making the unemployed a cheaper burden on the state because they know that the jobs aren't there and it's easier than creating them.

Such are the horrors of pretending that governments should be run like businesses.

**Dreadclaw69**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I agree that the system is back to front in that regard. But as indignant as you want to be about it, I'm a British taxpayer, without children, subsidising this woman and you're not.

Until 8 months ago I was also a UK taxpayer, in the same position as you with my tax money being spent in the same way as yours. My family are still in the UK and are also taxpayers. Does the fact that I no longer pay taxes in the place that I was born render my opinion void? The OP is American, was he wrong to start this thread? What about the others in this thread who are not from the UK, are they not allowed to have an opinion? Are you entitled to your opinions on developments in other countries or should you only concern yourself with the UK and the UK alone?

Howard A Treesong wrote:
But I'm still going to argue that there has to be a way found to tackle such people that doesn't damage the welfare of the children, and taking their kids into social care as they're popping them out also isn't an option. Where possible, the failures of the parents shouldn't be borne by the children IMO, but that is what will happen when you cut people's benefits unless it's done in a constructive manner, but I can't see our current government being particularly careful about how they go about it.

A lot of attacks upon those on benefits are very negative, they're scroungers and workshy trying to exploit the system. Forget this woman with her 11 kids, most families are not like that, but families like her are being used to tar everyone. Masses of unemployed people want to work, that's why you get single jobs with 500 applicants. But wait, that doesn't fit the narrative of the right wing press that the unemployed are scroungers who could actually get a job if they go out and tried. Our fundamental problem is that we have poor job creation and a lot of areas of long term unemployment where it's become normalised. That's because our heavy industries have dried up and there's little replacement. The last government tried to push as many people as possible through university because it would supposedly guarantee a a good job, not everyone is suited for university education and there aren't nice middle class jobs for everyone at the end.

I agree that the vast majority of benefit recipients are not abusing the system. It was not my intention to give this impression, as I thought was clear from my opening post;
"Things like that, while being an extreme example, show that there are people who are quite content to abuse a system that is supposed to be a safety net to help those in need.
It is unfortunate that a system that is supposed to help those seeking employment or unable to work because of a physical or mental impairment is seen by certain people as preferable to working. . .
. . .
I am not saying that everyone who is unemployed is lazy and feckless and sponging off the system. What I am saying though is that there are elements who abuse the system, and because of them they give those in genuine need a bad name."

**deathholydeath**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
That's the issue with capping benefits and the like. It hurts the children who had no choice about being born to this idiot woman and are now going to suffer.

So people who can't afford to have more children because they can't afford it on the money they earn have to subsidise those who have as many kids as they want on welfare? That seems to give the impression that hard work isn't rewarded, but playing the system is.

I agree that the system is back to front in that regard. But as indignant as you want to be about it, I'm a British taxpayer, without children, subsidising this woman and you're not. But I'm still going to argue that there has to be a way found to tackle such people that doesn't damage the welfare of the children, and taking their kids into social care as they're popping them out also isn't an option. Where possible, the failures of the parents shouldn't be borne by the children IMO, but that is what will happen when you cut people's benefits unless it's done in a constructive manner, but I can't see our current government being particularly careful about how they go about it.

A lot of attacks upon those on benefits are very negative, they're scroungers and workshy trying to exploit the system. Forget this woman with her 11 kids, most families are not like that, but families like her are being used to tar everyone. Masses of unemployed people want to work, that's why you get single jobs with 500 applicants. But wait, that doesn't fit the narrative of the right wing press that the unemployed are scroungers who could actually get a job if they go out and tried. Our fundamental problem is that we have poor job creation and a lot of areas of long term unemployment where it's become normalised. That's because our heavy industries have dried up and there's little replacement. The last government tried to push as many people as possible through university because it would supposedly guarantee a a good job, not everyone is suited for university education and there aren't nice middle class jobs for everyone at the end.

A full time minimum wage job is not good money, it's not a huge amount more than someone claiming full benefits. There's a carrot and stick approach, but there aren't enough jobs for the carrot to work and they don't want to address things like low wages. The government instead of trying to create industry in this country, improve working pay and conditions, instead choose to attack the unemployed. They want to make work more 'favourable' not by making work better, but making unemployment a lot worse, even though minimum wage work is still pretty poor. The other benefit is that even if none of these people can get out of the unemployment they are trapped in, the government have saved money anyway. And that's their goal, they don't care so about the number of unemployed so much as making the unemployed a cheaper burden on the state because they know that the jobs aren't there and it's easier than creating them.

Very true. The media tends to paint the poor in broad strokes not at all representative of average situations. I'm not certain about how the system works in the U.K., but I can tell you that unemployment here in the states often leads to a vicious cycle that can't easily be broken. Here's a personal example: My friend's father is a chemical engineer, or rather he was. He worked hard and made a lot of money in the 90's and early 00's but got laid off and lost his savings when the economy tanked. Due to his age, he has pretty much no chance of getting rehired by a new company (not when there are 100's of fresh faced and desperate college graduates for them to milk every semester). He's diabetic. Now, he's been able to get jobs as a dishwasher at casinos and things like that, but the problem is this: if he works (and gets a paycheck), he receives no state benefits for his medicine. If he doesn't work, he gets state benefits, but can barely afford cost of living. Unless he gets some miraculous break, he's completely fethed.
All this to the point that I would much rather have the U.K.'s system than ours. I'll gladly shave some money from my paycheck if it means keeping some people from needless suffering. Some of those people will take advantage, but I don't really care about that; all systems will be abused--that's the nature of the beast. But, those are few and far between. America is certainly rich enough that we could provide for the people that need it.

By the by, if Angel Frost can afford to keep her horse, good for her. I'm certain both she and the horse are much happier as a result.

Also Manchu, your post on page 3 is one of the more level headed I've read here.

**Manchu**

deathholydeath wrote:
By the by, if Angel Frost can afford to keep her horse, good for her. I'm certain both she and the horse are much happier as a result.

Also Manchu, your post on page 3 is one of the more level headed I've read here.

Thanks. I just wanted to show that, even from the perspective of the political right, it might be a good thing that a girl from a family receiving welfare benefits owns a horse. Of course, my initial assumption is that rightists sincerely want to "lift" the poor into the middle class.

I will say that the whole perspective is shot through with condescension ("the burden of the bourgeoisie") but that's hardly unique to the right.

**purplefood**

Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
You're jealous because you're not Texan.

I'm Cornish, we stand closest to the Gods. Also, we have pasties.

In the US "pasties" is a term used for little bits "dancers" used to put on to avoid local nudity restrictions. I don't know if Cornwall having that is a good or bad thing.

According to legend the Devil never entered Cornwall because he was afraid of being made into a pasty.

Also possibly my favourite lunch time appropriate food item in existence...

**Palindrome**

Manchu wrote:
How do parents come into it at that point?

The parents come into it at all points The education that they receive in school should be reinforcing what they receive at home, certainly when it comes to basic social and life skills.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:

In the US "pasties" is a term used for little bits "dancers" used to put on to avoid local nudity restrictions. I don't know if Cornwall having that is a good or bad thing.

According to legend the Devil never entered Cornwall because he was afraid of being made into a pasty.

Also possibly my favourite lunch time appropriate food item in existence...

**Alfndrate**

Palindrome wrote:
Manchu wrote:
How do parents come into it at that point?

The parents come into it at all points The education that they receive in school should be reinforcing what they receive at home, certainly when it comes to basic social and life skills.

Obviously you don't watch the debates around education, everyone expects teachers to be everything to a kid, including their parents, but heaven forbid you actually try to discipline them...

**Palindrome**

That entirely depends on what you define as discipline doesn't it.

**Alfndrate**

Palindrome wrote:
That entirely depends on what you define as discipline doesn't it.

People get bent out of shape for things like after school detentions, suspensions, etc...

**Da Boss**

I don't think it depends on the parents once the kid is over the age of 12. Not entirely. Kids are coddled and divested of any responsibility in our society, it's not good for them. Once they've been given that information, they should be able to act on it. Their parents are still responsible to an extent, but it's the kid's own life they're ruining (or at least, altering beyond recognition), so I should think taking it seriously is in their best interest.

I think saying that it's all on the parents does the kids a disservice. I've dealt with many young people who were well capable of making sensible choices.

**Frazzled**

Palindrome wrote:
That entirely depends on what you define as discipline doesn't it.

Spare the cattleprod and spoil the er never mind...

**Manchu**

I thought I already addressed this? Since neither the parents nor the schools can physically control children around the clock (or at least since doing so would be worse than anything doing so would prevent), some parents and most schools attempt to ideologically control children through education. The goal of this education, as far as the school is concerned, is that the children will accept these values (among others) as their own values:

- Disease is bad; I should avoid it.
- Unplanned pregnancy is bad; I should avoid it.
- Contraception is good; I should obtain and use it.

To be fair that last one is sometimes:

- Pre-marital sex is bad; I should avoid it.

Whether this education comes from parents or schools is immaterial for the purpose of what comes next: whether the kid will follow through on these values in practice is ultimately up to her or him.

That's not to say that parents and schools are thereby relieved of all further responsiblity in the matter.

**Albatross**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
That's the issue with capping benefits and the like. It hurts the children who had no choice about being born to this idiot woman and are now going to suffer.

So people who can't afford to have more children because they can't afford it on the money they earn have to subsidise those who have as many kids as they want on welfare? That seems to give the impression that hard work isn't rewarded, but playing the system is.

I agree that the system is back to front in that regard. But as indignant as you want to be about it, I'm a British taxpayer, without children, subsidising this woman and you're not. But I'm still going to argue that there has to be a way found to tackle such people that doesn't damage the welfare of the children, and taking their kids into social care as they're popping them out also isn't an option. Where possible, the failures of the parents shouldn't be borne by the children IMO, but that is what will happen when you cut people's benefits unless it's done in a constructive manner, but I can't see our current government being particularly careful about how they go about it.

But you see, that's just prejudice on your part. The fact is, Labour threw money at the unemployed and the so-called 'underemployed'. The news was filled, almost every day, with stories of spongers and people complaining about them. They dished out billions in what basically amounted to bribes to their core constituencies. There were some truly ludicrous and wasteful ideas - paying kids to go to college (or EMA, as it was known), giving benefits to people in full-time work... If you want to see the legacy left by Labour, just have a look at this page from on the governments website: https://www.gov.uk/browse/benefits
Click on each of the headings on the page - there must be around 50 individual benefits you can claim. It's atrocious. What exactly is wrong with one universal, means-tested benefit?

A lot of attacks upon those on benefits are very negative, they're scroungers and workshy trying to exploit the system. Forget this woman with her 11 kids, most families are not like that, but families like her are being used to tar everyone.

That's simply untrue. The line is about separating those people with get-up-and-go, who are trying to find work, from those who are happy to stay on benefits - and we absolutely should be calling those people scroungers, because that's what they are. It should be a source of shame to be on out-of-work benefits. They are intended to be a safety net, not a hammock.

Masses of unemployed people want to work, that's why you get single jobs with 500 applicants. But wait, that doesn't fit the narrative of the right wing press that the unemployed are scroungers who could actually get a job if they go out and tried. Our fundamental problem is that we have poor job creation and a lot of areas of long term unemployment where it's become normalised.

Right, now that's just a lie. There have been over 1 million new jobs created since the coalition took over, and the employment figures are out today showing YET ANOTHER decrease in the number of people out of work, indeed, record numbers of people are currently in work.

That's because our heavy industries have dried up and there's little replacement.

Again, no. Manufacturing is still a big industry in the UK, except the jobs have become more specialised - there just aren't any entry-level jobs in high-end manufacturing in anywhere like the numbers there used to be in mining etc. As for replacements? Well, it's the 21st century! The IT industry is burgeoning in the UK. If you wanna know where the jobs are, it's in that sector. There are hundreds of IT jobs just in Manchester. And I should know, I've been job-hunting myself.

A full time minimum wage job is not good money, it's not a huge amount more than someone claiming full benefits. There's a carrot and stick approach, but there aren't enough jobs for the carrot to work and they don't want to address things like low wages. The government instead of trying to create industry in this country, improve working pay and conditions, instead choose to attack the unemployed. They want to make work more 'favourable' not by making work better, but making unemployment a lot worse, even though minimum wage work is still pretty poor. The other benefit is that even if none of these people can get out of the unemployment they are trapped in, the government have saved money anyway. And that's their goal, they don't care so about the number of unemployed so much as making the unemployed a cheaper burden on the state because they know that the jobs aren't there and it's easier than creating them.

How are they making unemployment worse, exactly? By capping benefits at £32K a year?! My heart bleeds.

**Alfndrate**

Feth, I wish I made 32k in GBP a year...

**whembly**

Alfndrate wrote:
Feth, I wish I made 32k in GBP a year...

? How expensive is it in UK?

Anyone know of a useful standard of living comparison tool?

**Alfndrate**

Let's put it this way if you were to convert 32k GBP a year into US dollars, I would gain 18,000 USD a year (as I currently make 32k USD a year)... That extra 18,000 a year would allow me to live on my own, since all my money goes to gas, student loans, car loan, and cell phone...

**Albatross**

You can live very well indeed on £32k a year here. Well, outside of London, in which case you'd be generally living in a very *ahem* 'vibrant' part of town, but generally doing well.

For example, our household has been running on less than that for the last 4 years while I've been at university, and we live in a decent sized house that we own, in a nice suburb, and have a brand new car.

**purplefood**

Yeah 32k is pretty comfortable.
That's what my mum earned through most of my childhood. She had two kids and was single through all my childhood as well.

**Albatross**

£32K is VERY comfortable.

**Dreadclaw69**

Alfndrate wrote:
Feth, I wish I made 32k in GBP a year...

whembly wrote:
? How expensive is it in UK?

Anyone know of a useful standard of living comparison tool?

Albatross wrote:
£32K is VERY comfortable.

£32K is more than comfortable according this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20442666

BBC News Report wrote:The average annual earnings of full-time workers in the UK rose by 1.4% to £26,500 in the year to April 2012.

**Da Boss**

Wages in the UK seem lower on face value than the US, but then you get free healthcare that is a much better standard than your media let on. The NHS rocks.

It seems like many things are cheaper, too, outside of london. The south east generally is quite expensive but the North is really a lot cheaper.

**Dreadclaw69**

I'd hardly call it free when wages are taxed at source to pay for it.

**Albatross**

The amount is piddling when you consider what you're getting for your money - a comprehensive healthcare and dental plan, with ridiculously low (or zero, depending on the part of the UK you live in) prescription costs, which won't turn you away if you have a pre-existing condition, plus a pension, care allowance for your old-age, and it also acts as insurance for if you lose your job. National insurance is great. Don't knock it. It saves money and lives.

**Dreadclaw69**

I'm not knocking it, I just said that it wasn't free.

**Albatross**

Oh. I see.

Carry on.

**Selym**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
People should be rioting in the bloody streets these sons of bitches are still sitting at the heads of their banks, or slipped away in platinum parachutes instead of standing trial for bringing the Western World into a crippling economic freefall.

The greatest smoke and mirrors the right wing has ever pulled on the working class was turning on the recreated underclass, allowing it to recreate a new fiscal aristocracy, above the law.

We tried. It's about as effective here as it is in the rest of the world...

**Eilif**

This kind of thing should probably outrage me, but all I can summon up is a "Meh". I think she's kind of reprehensible, but I don't find it surprising at all.

I've lived in DuPage County Illinois (very wealthy) and west side "Inner City" Chicago (extremely poor). So I can very honestly say I know how the rich and poor live. My unfortunate observation in 31 short years of life is that there's a huge swath of the population that will game the system any way they can.

-Poor folks using their LINK card for others in exchange for $.
-Rich folks who can afford more lawyers than the IRS can bend the taxcode to keep their millions overseas or in "corporations" or other tax shelters to make them virtually untaxable.
-Poor folks having more babies to stay on welfare and increase their "benefits"
-Rich folks who can severely damage a company yet still walk away with huge compensation packages.
-Poor folks getting "friends" at CEDA and other organizations to sign them up for beneifts they don't qualify for.
-Rich Folks Pony up big campaign contributions to politicians who promise to lower corporate tax rates while gutting education, welfare, and any scraps of "rehabilitation" left in the penal system.

Etc, etc, back and forth. There are some on both sides grabbing what they can whenever they can.

So you're mad that this lady get's bigger housing and doesn
t have to work? Fine. Get out there and push for legislation with work requirements and better job training programs.

I think it's kind of shady that she get's a nice new place also, but homelessness isn't exactly a solution either, especially when there are children involved. I've seen that and brother it ain't pretty.

Sorry if that got a bit wordy, but there's alot of knee-jerking that goes on in these kind of stories and it seems to be rather one-sided.

**Selym**

This thread has put me back where I usually am on the thought of how to fix this country.
Arbitrarily execute people.
I'm not saying this to be particularly mean, but take, for example, Stevenage. Take out about 80% of them. Bulldoze a large part of the city and start again.

I'm going to get a lot of flak for this, but some people really are better of not living...

**Albatross**

Lemme guess, all those girls who reject you at school?

Ba-zinga.

**Selym**

Albatross wrote:
Lemme guess, all those girls who reject you at school?

Ba-zinga.

Nope, just hate chavs.