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.

Stunner

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.''

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.

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/i...s/IA11-040.pdf

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

A disgrace.

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

Wow. Just wow.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.