Britain’s Most Shameless Mum

[handyjack]

Mother-of-twelve who rakes in £45,000 in benefits is evicted from home after revealing on TV that she was illegally crammed into property for eight people

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-illegally-crammed-property-eight-people.html

 

[longdogs]

All that money but she can't afford a bottle of shampoo.

 

[JBR]

I doesn't surprise me one bit. There will always be opportunist leeches who will take advantage of whatever is on offer.

Therein lies our REAL problem. After the war, the government put in place the 'welfare state' which, at the time, was a very beneficial move. Over the decades, however, the wrong sort of people have seen a means of living well for no effort and have learnt all the ins and outs of how to play the system. More recently, the message has spread to foreign parts and the result is swarms of locusts queuing up to come and join the party by any means they can find.

There is one patently obvious answer as far as I can see: stop the handouts. Anyone capable of working should be given jobs that need doing but no-one wants to do: cleaning the streets, washing away graffiti, maintaining the homes and gardens of the old and incapacitated. If they don't like it, tough. Find a job you like better or go without.

Needless to say, the other immediate action that should be taken is to leave the EU - we are being taken for mugs - and repatriate all illegal immigrants.

 

[handyjack]

Probably cheaper just to give them the money. Any work you give them would need to be supervised, appropriate (free) PPE supplied. A whole new branch of DWP to oversee and pay wages. A new Minister appointed, new equal opportunities officers. The list would be endless.

 

[EFLImpudence]

What I find incredible is the thinking of those who decide the terms and control the system.

That they should find it acceptable, that someone in her situation should (if true) receive four times as much as the woman next door who works all week, is unbelievable.

Did none of them think to insert a maximum?

 

[Deleted member 63160]

Anyone long term unemployed, over 18, of sound mind, should be offered say a £2,000 incentive to be sterilised. Long term this would be money in the bank.

 

[JBR]

Probably cheaper just to give them the money. Any work you give them would need to be supervised, appropriate (free) PPE supplied. A whole new branch of DWP to oversee and pay wages. A new Minister appointed, new equal opportunities officers. The list would be endless.

True. We live in a bureaucracy.

 

[JBR]

What I find incredible is the thinking of those who decide the terms and control the system.

That they should find it acceptable, that someone in her situation should (if true) receive four times as much as the woman next door who works all week, is unbelievable.

Did none of them think to insert a maximum?

The Chinese have the answer. 2 children maximum. Perhaps a more 'acceptable' alternative in this country might be no more handouts after 2 children.

 

[D_Hailsham]

The council have shot themselves in the foot as now they are having to cough up twice as much each week to pay for a larger house. See end of the mail article: The home the family are now set to be moved into is to cost the taxpayer £227-a-week - more than double their previous rent.

 

[fender]

You really could not make it up.
It's so easy. Child benefit for two kids only and that's it. If you have any more - tough!!

 

[EFLImpudence]

The council ...

Yes, we keep blaming "The Council".

However, the council is PEOPLE, paid by us, following rules thought up by PEOPLE, paid by us, and implementing the system with no thought nor common sense.

These PEOPLE live down the road, Are they fit for purpose?



Back to the subject -

How is this 'eviction'? Surely it is 'promotion'.

 

[handyjack]

You really could not make it up.
It's so easy. Child benefit for two kids only and that's it. If you have any more - tough!!

How much would we save if we stopped paying Child Benefit and Winter Fuel Payments to anyone earning over a certain amount a year?

Me and er indoors will be getting £100 each some time this month. Will certainly be a bonus for us, but my sister and brother-in-law earning over £50,000.00 a year between them see it as a bit of pin money.

 

[fender]

You really could not make it up.
It's so easy. Child benefit for two kids only and that's it. If you have any more - tough!!

How much would we save if we stopped paying Child Benefit and Winter Fuel Payments to anyone earning over a certain amount a year?

Me and er indoors will be getting £100 each some time this month. Will certainly be a bonus for us, but my sister and brother-in-law earning over £50,000.00 a year between them see it as a bit of pin money.

Which is exactly the problem. I agree that those over a certain income should not get it. It should be those in genuine need, but certainly NOT those that simply choose to have christ knows how many kids and expect us to pay.

 

[ladylola]

There is one patently obvious answer as far as I can see: stop the handouts. Anyone capable of working should be given jobs that need doing but no-one wants to do maintaining the homes and gardens of the old and incapacitated.

Slow down , those homes and gardens are where a lot of my income comes from , I don't want forced labour edging me out . Your other suggestion about only giving child benefit to the first couple of kids on the other hand makes much more sense. /QUOTE]

 

[JBR]

There is one patently obvious answer as far as I can see: stop the handouts. Anyone capable of working should be given jobs that need doing but no-one wants to do maintaining the homes and gardens of the old and incapacitated.

Slow down , those homes and gardens are where a lot of my income comes from , I don't want forced labour edging me out . Your other suggestion about only giving child benefit to the first couple of kids on the other hand makes much more sense. /QUOTE]

I apologise. No offence intended.

As I travel around I see many things that need doing but are not being done, and I assumed that was because they couldn't persuade anyone to do them. Such things could be done in return for benefits payments and the claimants encouraged and helped, at the same time, to find work that they would prefer to do.
Needless to say, the job of 'baby factory' would not qualify.