Super Scrounger Mum

[Josy]

SUPER-scrounger Susan Greenfield celebrated the birth of her 12th child — at her seven-bedroomed home created with £45,000 of taxpayers’ cash.

The benefits sponger, who rakes in £30,000 a year in handouts, returned home to a house decorated with banners and balloons by relatives a day after little Junior’s birth at Wishaw General Hospital.

And her welfare payments are set to rise by thousands more after the baby’s arrival.

Yesterday we watched as the serial mum, wearing stripey pyjama shorts and a baggy blue top, sauntered along her street with a pal puffing a ciggie and surrounded by kids.

There was no sign of the new baby, who remained indoors.

Last night one neighbour in Viewpark, Lanarkshire, fumed: “Some say this is number 12, others think it’s 13. There are even bets being taken on just how many she has.”

Boyfriend William Findlay, who has been with Greenfield since 2006, is the father of the latest child. The warehouseman — known as Willie Boom Boom —is also the dad of her eleventh child, born in December 2010, and two daughters aged six and four.


The neighbour went on: “When Susan discovered she was pregnant some of her pals said she should think about having the pregnancy terminated.


“Then she went for a scan and was told the baby would be a boy. She said Willie had been desperate, daft, to have a son and to try to make him happy, she went ahead and had his child. Willie isn’t the most popular guy in the area.


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/feeds/smartphone/scotland/4551153/Were-in-the-mummy.html#ixzz27E0TiwoA

There is so many things wrong with this scenario, something needs to be done about situations like this imo, like limiting benefit entitlement to a certain number of kids that way they may be a bit more careful of getting pregnant in the first place, then theres the amount of cash it cost to accomodate them in a specially adapted council house, it's just ridiculous.

Opinions?

[Marc]

There's THAT much money in it?! :o

Seriously that's mental!

[King Gizzard]

Alot of that money goes on drugs by the looks of her

Most of them will probably end up in that situation themselves, people need to be able to prove they're ''fit and proper'' before having children but I guess that's kind of impossible because you can't stop someone from having them..

I agree with your benefits cap thing

[AnnieK]

I agree....I think everyone entitled to children but benefits should be limited to two or so children...if you want more get a job where you get maternity pay then go back to work....

Although the government have to help too... It's so expensive to get nursery places etc that a lot of people are worse off if they go back to work so there needs to be more incentives to work.

[Marc]

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01588/SNA2205OLD--_1588526a.jpg

******* me she's disgusting D:

[Roy Mars III]

Jesus.

Agreed that there should be a limit to how much benefits a person can receive. I mean, my cousin has ten kids but they can support them by themselves

[fruit_cake]

legend

[Ninastar]

she sounds like a treat

[CharlieO]

I swear 30,000 a year isnt that much??

:conf2:

[CharlieO]

I swear 30,000 a year isnt that much??

:conf2:

[Josy]

I swear 30,000 a year isnt that much??

:conf2:

It is when she does nothing at all to earn it, plus its going to rise again because of this newest baby she's just had and she also lives in a double council house that cost the council 45k to adapt to accommodate her, really unfair actually when there is over 12,000 people on the council housing register in her area alone.

[joeysteele]

It is near obscene in my opinion. There does need to be something done as to the number of Children the State has to support with no provision whatsoever from either Parent.
She won't for sure have to worry about the bedroom tax then.

[michael21]

There is so many things wrong with this scenario, something needs to be done about situations like this imo, like limiting benefit entitlement to a certain number of kids that way they may be a bit more careful of getting pregnant in the first place, then theres the amount of cash it cost to accomodate them in a specially adapted council house, it's just ridiculous.

Opinions?

are they not new rules coming in that limit the number of children that can get benfit i think it the 1st 3 then that it might have to check the internet to see when it come in

[michael21]

here a better story on the same topic http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206255/Latvian-mother-demands-bigger-council-house-despite-raking-34k-benefits.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Latvian mother who already receives £34,000 in benefits demands a bigger council house for her TEN children

[Jack_]

I'm really quite sick of stories like this appearing in red top tabloids and other trashy papers which give those who are welfare dependant a collective bad name. The demonisation of this group of people is really quite appalling, cases like this are few and far between and are vastly exaggerated and it's awful that they're used as means to target often the most vulnerable and needy people in society.

[Marc]

I swear 30,000 a year isnt that much??

:conf2:

s**t me how much money do you have then/have money spent on you

[Ninastar]

I'm really quite sick of stories like this appearing in red top tabloids and other trashy papers which give those who are welfare dependant a collective bad name. The demonisation of this group of people is really quite appalling, cases like this are few and far between and are vastly exaggerated and it's awful that they're used as means to target often the most vulnerable and needy people in society.

She's not vulnerable in the slightest. She's given birth to 12 kids just to get benefits.

Lazy old twat is what I'd say she is

[Munchkins]

I'm really quite sick of stories like this appearing in red top tabloids and other trashy papers which give those who are welfare dependant a collective bad name. The demonisation of this group of people is really quite appalling, cases like this are few and far between and are vastly exaggerated and it's awful that they're used as means to target often the most vulnerable and needy people in society.

Just what i was going to post
gives everyone on support labelled lazy and scroungers

[armand.kay]

I know she gets money for every child she has but doesn't it mean she has another mouth to feed and another baby to buy cloths, nappies etc. for, so won't she just end up with around same amount left over as before to spend? so what's the point of her having more kids?

[Ninastar]

Why have kids if you know that you can't afford it?

[armand.kay]

I'm really quite sick of stories like this appearing in red top tabloids and other trashy papers which give those who are welfare dependant a collective bad name. The demonisation of this group of people is really quite appalling, cases like this are few and far between and are vastly exaggerated and it's awful that they're used as means to target often the most vulnerable and needy people in society.
This. Some people genuinely need benefits and people like her are giving them a bad name and making it harder for them to get the help they need.

[Jack_]

She's not vulnerable in the slightest. She's given birth to 12 kids just to get benefits.

Lazy old twat is what I'd say she is

I never said she was vulnerable, I said I'm sick of exaggerated stories like this being used to scapegoat and target some of the most needy and vulnerable people in society, i.e. those majority on benefits who do actually need the money and contrary to popular belief, do actually claim and use the money fairly. It's stories like these (which, like I said, are few and far between) that are constantly pumped out by the tabloids giving people reasons to stereotype all welfare claimants as the same, and labels such as 'scroungers' to be passed around without any thought whatsoever. While this kind of demonising goes on we have big corporations ****ing everybody over left, right and centre and does anybody know or give a toss? No. Weird that.

[Kizzy]

Oh, are the tories creating a moral panic again like they did in 93...
A woman with 12 kids costs the taxpayer £45K,
Dozens of MP's cost the taxpayer 3 times that every year in expenses...
This is a tory government, masters in the art of spin and subterfuge, and people fall for it time and time again.

[Mystic Mock]

Wow I could imagine 12 or more kids would drive anyone insane, then you've got the fact that she's probably only having these children for the benefits.

Something needs to be done about it tbh.

[Nedusa]

I'm really quite sick of stories like this appearing in red top tabloids and other trashy papers which give those who are welfare dependant a collective bad name. The demonisation of this group of people is really quite appalling, cases like this are few and far between and are vastly exaggerated and it's awful that they're used as means to target often the most vulnerable and needy people in society.

I agree there are too many stories like these appearing in tabloid newspapers for their shock value, they are in reality a very very small minority of a much larger socially deprived underclass who rely on a variety of benefits to survive.

I think we have seen recently an increase in these types of sensationalised articles which reinforce this lazy idle ignorant benefit claiming stereotype. I have to wonder if there is not a more sinister plot at work here. It's no secret the current Govt is desperate to overhaul the whole benefit system and needs public opinion onside so it has cover when the axe falls and thousands of recipients will find their benefits vastly reduced or stopped.

The current system is too complicated and is open to certain abuses but it does offer a safety net to the most disadvantaged members of our society so any reform has to measured, fair and should focus on helping the people who need help the most. Using the press to create a climate of fear and loathing for these people to justify savage cuts is not the answer...!!!

[joeysteele]

I'm really quite sick of stories like this appearing in red top tabloids and other trashy papers which give those who are welfare dependant a collective bad name. The demonisation of this group of people is really quite appalling, cases like this are few and far between and are vastly exaggerated and it's awful that they're used as means to target often the most vulnerable and needy people in society.

I do feel her case is as you say an exception and I do think it is wrong she can get so much.

I also though totally agree with you, being the exception as she and this case is, it is completely out of order for most benefit claimants to end up being demonised as scroungers when the media set out to present this case as a likely norm or at least more widespread in the system.

I think it totally wrong to allow those on benefits to be demonised by the media and also that the Govt permits that demonisation to go on even fuelling such demonisation of them at times too.
Really good point you made.

[Jake.]

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01588/SNA2205OLD--_1588526a.jpg

******* me she's disgusting D:

Stunner

[Kizzy]

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/hrb9701.html

QUOTE:
''The Guardian in 1993, "The Moral Panic and the Facts", which discusses a Conservative Party Conference: "What many feared was going to be a 'cost panic' conference over welfare expenditure turned instead into a 'moral panic' over unmarried mothers". [November 9, 1993]. Ironically the press criticised the conference for focusing on myths which had apparently already been dealt with in a Cabinet briefing paper, when they themselves are guilty of partaking in such witch hunts.

On this occasion the myths provided served as justification to take measures to introduce the "withdrawal of benefits entitlement and new restrictions on access to housing". [Eldridge 1997: 71] Cabinet members accused young women of getting pregnant merely to be entitled to a considerable amount of state benefits and suddenly there is talk of restrictions. Hypocritically The Guardian noted: "they have clearly abandoned rational policy making in favour of undiluted political prejudice". [9 November 1993]. Obviously the media's stance on 'moral panics' is ambiguous as they both use and criticise the concept.''

[Vicky.]

There is so many things wrong with this scenario, something needs to be done about situations like this imo, like limiting benefit entitlement to a certain number of kids that way they may be a bit more careful of getting pregnant in the first place, then theres the amount of cash it cost to accomodate them in a specially adapted council house, it's just ridiculous.

Opinions?

This is already happening as far as I am aware. When universal credit is introduced there will be a benefit cap per household (no matter how many of you there are) at £500 per week, that includes housing benefit and council tax benefit.

Personally I think 2 grand a month is still too much, but its a start. Its one of the only things the government has got right recently in regards to benefits. People like this woman disgust me. Luckily they are few and far between, though if you listen to the rags its as if everyone on benefits is the same :S

[joeysteele]

This is already happening as far as I am aware. When universal credit is introduced there will be a benefit cap per household (no matter how many of you there are) at £500 per week, that includes housing benefit and council tax benefit.

Personally I think 2 grand a month is still too much, but its a start. Its one of the only things the government has got right recently in regards to benefits. People like this woman disgust me. Luckily they are few and far between, though if you listen to the rags its as if everyone on benefits is the same :S

That's right, however there are many organisations now screaming out about this and I personally wouldn't be surprised at some re-think as to this.
Something like 70 organisations are now detailing and hammering against the Universal Credit and cap scheme arguing it is going to cause homelessness.

I would have thought £500 weekly as to all income should be adequate for a family,however these organisations are stating that this will greatly also affect any family in temporary accommodation where often the costs are higher as to housing benefit payments,for example,those temporarily housed in B&Bs too.

For me, and I am in favour of welfare and benefit reform but I had strongly hoped with the Lib Dems,any reform would be compassionate and fair.
However,I do bow to so many organisations who are in the front line of dealing with issues like this and saying it is going to cause massive and unnecessary further hardship that maybe there is room to think again as to parts of the policy before implementation.

If it all goes ahead as planned then I feel sure the news will be, over the next year or so following, be filled with 'We told you so' cases' being levelled heavily against the Govt.
This particular lady though, has little or no sympathy from me, in my opinion it is completely unnecessary to have such a large family and have no independent means herself to support that family even in part.

[Pyramid*]

This is already happening as far as I am aware. When universal credit is introduced there will be a benefit cap per household (no matter how many of you there are) at £500 per week, that includes housing benefit and council tax benefit.

Personally I think 2 grand a month is still too much, but its a start. Its one of the only things the government has got right recently in regards to benefits. People like this woman disgust me. Luckily they are few and far between, though if you listen to the rags its as if everyone on benefits is the same :S



I think the comments as reported in the article in respect of what her neighbours who've been quoted have said, say much - they sound as cheesed off as the vast majority of people are - but as has been touched upon: the dregs of society such as this woman and her ''current'' partner are in the minority as far as 'how many children and therefore, subsequent amassing benefits' are concerned.

What isn't on the decrease however, is the amount of single mothers (and I'm not talking of those who have had long term relationships break down) - I'm speaking of those women who have sex whenever they please, with whomever they please and expect the state to look after them, give them housing and money to feed, clothe themselves and their children.

It's about time a limit was addressed and it's great that we have a government in place that finally has the balls to address this head on - it's one thing that should have been done many many years ago - but at least it is a start in the right direction.

When I read the story - I did wonder how many different men have fathered all the children :shocked: and how many actually contribute to their upbringing (financially or otherwise). I'll hazard a guess at none - exc the current one!

The words "chucking a banana up the Clyde" also came to mind... :blush2:

[Kizzy]

I think the comments as reported in the article in respect of what her neighbours who've been quoted have said, say much - they sound as cheesed off as the vast majority of people are - but as has been touched upon: the dregs of society such as this woman and her ''current'' partner are in the minority as far as 'how many children and therefore, subsequent amassing benefits' are concerned.

What isn't on the decrease however, is the amount of single mothers (and I'm not talking of those who have had long term relationships break down) - I'm speaking of those women who have sex whenever they please, with whomever they please and expect the state to look after them, give them housing and money to feed, clothe themselves and their children.

It's about time a limit was addressed and it's great that we have a government in place that finally has the balls to address this head on - it's one thing that should have been done many many years ago - but at least it is a start in the right direction.

When I read the story - I did wonder how many different men have fathered all the children :shocked: and how many actually contribute to their upbringing (financially or otherwise). I'll hazard a guess at none - exc the current one!

The words "chucking a banana up the Clyde" also came to mind... :blush2:

I wondered when the lone parent bashing would start...:sleep:
Here are a few FACTS,
''Estimated Costs
9. From the individual perspective moving lone parents off benefit and into work incurs costs through benefit losses and increased spending on taxes (income tax and indirect taxes) and National Insurance Contributions (NICs). These costs to individuals will be around £560m over the Spending Review Period to March 2015. Further there will be around £60m of in-work costs to individuals such as childcare and travel over the Spending Review Period to March 2015.''

''Estimating Costs and Benefits
7. Currently there are 1.9 million lone parents in Great Britain, with 1.1 million lone parents being in work. The employment rate for lone parents with a youngest child aged 5 and 6 is 54.4%, lower than the lone parent employment rate for lone parents with children aged 7 to 15 which stands at 66.8%2. There are around 100,000 lone parents claiming IS with a youngest child aged 5 or 63. Based on evidence of historic benefit flows the policy is expected to affect around 75,000 lone parents per year in steady state''

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/IA11-040.pdf

[Pyramid*]

I wondered when the lone parent bashing would start...:sleep:
Here are a few FACTS,
''Estimated Costs
9. From the individual perspective moving lone parents off benefit and into work incurs costs through benefit losses and increased spending on taxes (income tax and indirect taxes) and National Insurance Contributions (NICs). These costs to individuals will be around £560m over the Spending Review Period to March 2015. Further there will be around £60m of in-work costs to individuals such as childcare and travel over the Spending Review Period to March 2015.''

''Estimating Costs and Benefits
7. Currently there are 1.9 million lone parents in Great Britain, with 1.1 million lone parents being in work. The employment rate for lone parents with a youngest child aged 5 and 6 is 54.4%, lower than the lone parent employment rate for lone parents with children aged 7 to 15 which stands at 66.8%2. There are around 100,000 lone parents claiming IS with a youngest child aged 5 or 63. Based on evidence of historic benefit flows the policy is expected to affect around 75,000 lone parents per year in steady state''

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/IA11-040.pdf


I've got a right to voice an opinion Kiz without you being sarky about it.

[bbfan1991]

A disgrace.

[Niall]

What a disgusting woman. I can't even. :bored:

I swear 30,000 a year isnt that much??

:conf2:

Wow. Just wow.

[Vicky.]

Yeah I would be over the moon earning 30k a year :joker:

Not that this woman earns it, but even so...

[Pyramid*]

I swear 30,000 a year isnt that much??

:conf2:

The kind of standard wage for someone around this area Charlie (which is literally 10 mins drive from where I live) - for a 40 hours week is about £17k - £20k or thereabouts. £30k is a lot of money - and it's most certainly a hell of a lot of money for someone who appears to do nothing to deserve it other than churn out babies to god knows how many men.

All the more galling when you read the final paragraph underneath.


Three of the kids, two boys aged 20 and 12, and one girl aged 11 were fathered by ex William Miller.

The birth certificates of the remaining five — aged 22, 19, 16, 15, and nine — name no dad.




Over 12,000 people are on the waiting list for a council house in North Lanarkshire where it takes almost five years to get a house.


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/feeds/smartphone/scotland/4551153/Were-in-the-mummy.html#ixzz27KeQ4XIs

[Mystic Mock]

So are we not allowed to be disgusted at this woman abusing the system Kizzy?

[Kizzy]

So are we not allowed to be disgusted at this woman abusing the system Kizzy?

If you can explain to me how she is abusing the sytem, and why it affected you so deeply, then I will give you my permission to be as disgusted as you like mock.

[Josy]

No one needs your permission to do anything on here Kizzy, if you don't like the debate then leave the thread.

[Mystic Mock]

Exactly Josy, but to explain why she is abusing the system Kizzy is that she is delibrately having more children so she can claim more benefits money, it's cruel on the children and just out and out greedy.

[Kizzy]

No one needs your permission to do anything on here Kizzy, if you don't like the debate then leave the thread.

Hang on.... I know this, right now i get it did you have to remove my post though?

[Josy]

Hang on.... I know this, right now i get it did you have to remove my post though?

You know why the post was removed Kizzy, the infraction you received for it tells you.

[Kizzy]

How some people are sooo incensed by this. Always nice to have someone to feel superior to isn't it? Thats the easy option though.
You can be given fact after fact and alternative perspectives, but when it comes down to it some people are still media *****s.
Taking the full thrust of whatever is the tabloids shove at you.

I amended it so as not to offend anyone, sorry josy.

[thesheriff443]

Hang on.... I know this, right now i get it did you have to remove my post though?

i still love you kizzy,
josy i think your out of order posting kizzy got an infraction!

[Josy]

i still love you kizzy,
josy i think your out of order posting kizzy got an infraction!

Kizzy made it public when she asked why her post was removed, she already knew the answer since the infraction told her....

Anyway back on topic please.

[thesheriff443]

Kizzy made it public when she asked why her post was removed, she already knew the answer since the infraction told her....

Anyway back on topic please.

i dont agree with you but we will leave it at that.

[Josy]

I couldn't care if you agree with me or not, this thread isn't about you or Kizzy so stop trying to make it so.

[thesheriff443]

I couldn't care if you agree with me or not, this thread isn't about you or Kizzy so stop trying to make it so.

im not!
back on topic!
you will always get situations where the system seems to get abused.

[Pyramid*]

Exactly Josy, but to explain why she is abusing the system Kizzy is that she is delibrately having more children so she can claim more benefits money, it's cruel on the children and just out and out greedy.


Unfortunately: the 'system' as it stands currently, is allowed to be abused in this way.

Thankfully though: this kind of thing isn't the norm - but yes, at least it is something the government are starting to address.

Something you mentioned about 'poor kids' - that's a good point: It's not giving any of them the best start in life in various ways - from the standard of living they may have (or not as the case may be), from the younger ones having to share mum and dad with so many other siblings, and of course the ones who aren't even aware who dad is - ('dad' could not be interested). That's the part I think is really sad as far as the kiddies are concerned; it's hardly their fault.

[Kizzy]

Exactly Josy, but to explain why she is abusing the system Kizzy is that she is delibrately having more children so she can claim more benefits money, it's cruel on the children and just out and out greedy.

I can see where you are coming from, but to avoid JSA now you would have to churn out kids every 4 years..
and the cut off for IS may reduce further yet.
So that is not an option any longer, and that is a good thing as long as the government make it easy for mums to work, that is the ideal senario.

[thesheriff443]

its only in recent years that familes have got smaller,
in the past it was the norm to have a large family,
the goverment is going to put the whole benefits system on line which will see the ones that are genuine face real hardship.

[Kizzy]

its only in recent years that familes have got smaller,
in the past it was the norm to have a large family,
the goverment is going to put the whole benefits system on line which will see the ones that are genuine face real hardship.

To be fair it is over the last 30 years that families have become smaller really, and capping benefits will stop any abuses hopefully.
The cycle of poverty is real however there is a difference between a helping hand and a rough shove!
I have posted lots of relevant material relating to this issue, the one thing I would have hoped they would want to avoid when dealing with lone parents was the 'cost to individuals' as quoted in the links.

[Pyramid*]

its only in recent years that familes have got smaller,
in the past it was the norm to have a large family,
the goverment is going to put the whole benefits system on line which will see the ones that are genuine face real hardship.

True that big families used to be the way but wasn't that down to contraception (or rather the lack of it), - with the advent of the Pill in the late 60's / 70's, family sizes began to reduce then, rather than recent years - I'd say recent decades.

To explain: of my friends who have familes, they have 1 or 2 children, very very few of them have more - the woman in this story is on par age wise with those friends (in fact, some are older that the lady in the story) and the most children any of them have is 3. Through choice, mostly because they couldn't afford more.

I've no issue with those in genuine need: that's the purpose of the sytem being in place - but it's when you get ones like the women in the story abusing the hell out of it: that diverts money away from those who DO need the help and who are responsible enough to stop having more children than they can afford - same with the similar type story that had a link earlier: the person with 10 kids from Latvia.

[InOne]

If it's not directly affecting my life. I really don't care.

[Pyramid*]

If it's not directly affecting my life. I really don't care.


I live in the area, this type of thing does affect me as I fall under the same council who are seriously strapped for cash and funds, - I have friends who have been on housing lists for years and have little hope of ever getting a house - so their choice is either remain with parents or take up private rentals and pay through the nose for it - so it's pretty relative to me for a variety of reasons.

[InOne]

I live in the area, this type of thing does affect me as I fall under the same council who are seriously strapped for cash and funds, - I have friends who have been on housing lists for years and have little hope of ever getting a house - so their choice is either remain with parents or take up private rentals and pay through the nose for it - so it's pretty relative to me for a variety of reasons.

Erm, good for you?

[Pyramid*]

Erm, good for you?

Just stating that some of us do care about people abusing the system and why some of us care - in response to your own comment. to be honest: I'd still have the same opinion whether she lives 10 minutes up the road - or 100miles down the road - it's all money from the public purse that could be getting used for far better and more needed things - for people who do have a sense of responsibility.

clearly this woman has none.

[InOne]

Just stating that some of us do care about people abusing the system and why some of us care - in response to your own comment. to be honest: I'd still have the same opinion whether she lives 10 minutes up the road - or 100miles down the road - it's all money from the public purse that could be getting used for far better and more needed things - for people who do have a sense of responsibility.

clearly this woman has none.

I quite like it when you're feisty Pyra. Keep it up.

[Pyramid*]

I quite like it when you're feisty Pyra. Keep it up.

so you told me on my very first post when I first joined !! .

[InOne]

so you told me on my very first post when I first joined !! .

:evilgrin:

[thesheriff443]

you will always get people that abuse the the system that is in place thats a fact of life!
its happening on this forum!
its not what you know but who you know!

[realitytvsux]

I agree there are too many stories like these appearing in tabloid newspapers for their shock value, they are in reality a very very small minority of a much larger socially deprived underclass who rely on a variety of benefits to survive.

I think we have seen recently an increase in these types of sensationalised articles which reinforce this lazy idle ignorant benefit claiming stereotype. I have to wonder if there is not a more sinister plot at work here. It's no secret the current Govt is desperate to overhaul the whole benefit system and needs public opinion onside so it has cover when the axe falls and thousands of recipients will find their benefits vastly reduced or stopped.

The current system is too complicated and is open to certain abuses but it does offer a safety net to the most disadvantaged members of our society so any reform has to measured, fair and should focus on helping the people who need help the most. Using the press to create a climate of fear and loathing for these people to justify savage cuts is not the answer...!!!

I agree with you Nedusa and Jack it is so very easy to demonise people at the lower end of the economic scale. Meanwhile the super rich, corporations and our delightful rulers whose unpaid taxes and misclaimed expenses far exceed any financial damage the benefits claimants are doing to the general population - get off free. Not to mention the wars we are all paying for to protect business interests in oil rich countries. Seriously, this woman is hardly a shining example of UK womanhood but let's not be deluded about where the real misappropriation of funds goes on.

[thesheriff443]

I agree with you Nedusa and Jack it is so very easy to demonise people at the lower end of the economic scale. Meanwhile the super rich, corporations and our delightful rulers whose unpaid taxes and misclaimed expenses far exceed any financial damage the benefits claimants are doing to the general population - get off free. Not to mention the wars we are all paying for to protect business interests in oil rich countries. Seriously, this woman is hardly a shining example of UK womanhood but let's not be deluded about where the real misappropriation of funds goes on.

great post!

[realitytvsux]

great post!

Thanks :)

[Pyramid*]

I agree with you Nedusa and Jack it is so very easy to demonise people at the lower end of the economic scale. Meanwhile the super rich, corporations and our delightful rulers whose unpaid taxes and misclaimed expenses far exceed any financial damage the benefits claimants are doing to the general population - get off free. Not to mention the wars we are all paying for to protect business interests in oil rich countries. Seriously, this woman is hardly a shining example of UK womanhood but let's not be deluded about where the real misappropriation of funds goes on.

Absolutely -and I agree with every word said in that respect.However, the thread is about this SPECIFIC story: it's not a comparison thread as to who drains the government resources the most, which though understandable that some will do so: it is ultimately been raised to spotlight this particular story.

I don't think anyone is deluded enough to think that it's anything other than a thread raised to highlight that there are people like this woman in particulary who do abuse the system. Yes, she is an extreme example: but extreme or not: it doesn't excuse what she is doing - nor invalidate the right to discuss same.

[Jake.]

Tbf when you are as sexy as she is I can see why she has 12 kids

[Kizzy]

It's the demonisation of certain socio-economic groups, you will never stop it the same as you will never stop the cycle of poverty. The measures to be imposed next april are going to cause havoc, we will again see families destitute and homeless on the streets in the UK.
I just hope that something happens to stop it.
Turning your back on the weak is a recipe for further social decline, in essence we have stopped moving forward as a society and are now firmly in reverse.

[joeysteele]

Tbf when you are as sexy as she is I can see why she has 12 kids

:joker:I near choked on my lunch when I read this post, great comment.:joker:

[Nedusa]

I agree with you Nedusa and Jack it is so very easy to demonise people at the lower end of the economic scale. Meanwhile the super rich, corporations and our delightful rulers whose unpaid taxes and misclaimed expenses far exceed any financial damage the benefits claimants are doing to the general population - get off free. Not to mention the wars we are all paying for to protect business interests in oil rich countries. Seriously, this woman is hardly a shining example of UK womanhood but let's not be deluded about where the real misappropriation of funds goes on.

The Public are easily conned into thinking the benefit claiming masses are responsible for the budget deficit due to an ever increasing social welfare budget. But in truth this govt and successive govt's have created the conditions of economic hardship for millions by destroying the manufacturing base of this country together with the Heavy Engineering Industries. Add to this the enormous cost of funding illegal wars and the disgusting actions of the major banks in forcing govt bailouts, then one starts to see where the real money has gone from the govt purse.

Don't forget vast numbers of this so called "benefit class" used to work in these industries and after they collapsed there was little else to replace them. This has resulted in vast areas of the country where there is effectively no hope of finding suitable employment, and what new companies do open up are too busy enticing foreign EU workers from Eastern Europe to take jobs at rates which UK workers with mortgages & families cannot survive on.

So successive govts must take a lot of the blame for the messed up state of Britain today, the Woman in the OP is a sad product of Broken Britain but to sensationalize and demonize her with these ridiculous news stories only distracts the public from seeing the REAL problems in Britain today...!!!!

[Kizzy]

The Public are easily conned into thinking the benefit claiming masses are responsible for the budget deficit due to an ever increasing social welfare budget. But in truth this govt and successive govt's have created the conditions of economic hardship for millions by destroying the manufacturing base of this country together with the Heavy Engineering Industries. Add to this the enormous cost of funding illegal wars and the disgusting actions of the major banks in forcing govt bailouts, then one starts to see where the real money has gone from the govt purse.

Don't forget vast numbers of this so called "benefit class" used to work in these industries and after they collapsed there was little else to replace them. This has resulted in vast areas of the country where there is effectively no hope of finding suitable employment, and what new companies do open up are too busy enticing foreign EU workers from Eastern Europe to take jobs at rates which UK workers with mortgages & families cannot survive on.

So successive govts must take a lot of the blame for the messed up state of Britain today, the Woman in the OP is a sad product of Broken Britain but to sensational and demonize her with these ridiculous news stories only distracts the public from seeing the REAL problems in Britain today...!!!!

Spot on, a very inciteful post!
coal, steel, textiles vast swathes of the country devastated by the loss of industry.
Privatisation, deregulation, outscourcing and war have ruined this country, it is time to stop pointing fingers of blame at those who are casualties of years of governmental failing.
Your bit in bold x 1000!

This is a quote relating to a different issue but it has relevance here..
''Without an acknowledgement that class-based discrimination is unacceptable, the MPs who are cutting wages, jobs and services will be allowed to peddle the myths that blame impoverished people for their own difficult circumstances.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/23/class-based-bigotry-andrew-mitchell

[Harry!]

This woman is terrible, some people should not have children.

[the truth]

its way more than £30,000 thats just her tax free income
she gets free everything, free 7 bedroom house (that would be worth over £500,000) free heating, free council tax, free prescriptions, free glasses for all kids, free food stamps, she probably even gets free cleaners from the social services.
you can guarantee she will costs the tax payers over a million pounds a decade

90% of hard working people could never afford a 7 bedroom half a million pound house.

id take her kids off her unless she finds work

I blame the radical twisted agenda of womens lib. in recent years its just been a brainless doctrine, of man hate and false propoganda that all british women are somehow enslaved. utter bilge.

men are oppressedin the Uk massively. obviously thats not the cause in the third world, but it is in the western world. now we end up with lazy bloaters with endless kids, setting a dreadful example of greed and no work, they smoke and drink all day, swear and fight in front of their kids. waste money on tatoos and fags and meow meow and of course get grotesque tatoos.

go down any pub 99% of the people are workless chavs milking the benefits system. the hard working people havent the time, money or energy or inclination to go down the pub anymore. its sad. its they who deserve a few beers, not this chavvy scum

meanwhile the sick , needy and elderly are treated like scum
Im sick of it and say what yoyu like about the nasty tories but theyre at least attempting to weed some of these yobs out