[Josy]

Originally Posted by Ellen

It was on a police tv show. She got pulled over for illegal plates and was found to have no insurance as well.
I am not 100% but i think at a later date she showed she was insured but there was a mix up so she got let off.

Yep I'm sure I read this

[sampvt]

Originally Posted by Ellen

It was on a police tv show. She got pulled over for illegal plates and was found to have no insurance as well.
I am not 100% but i think at a later date she showed she was insured but there was a mix up so she got let off.

She accused her secretary for mixing up the papers and not sending her payment in with enough time but \I do believe no further action was taken but she was defo allowed to drive away from the scene in a car with no insurance or correct plates, which is in itself a crime.

At the time she was stopped, she wasn't insured, end of. It was sorted out later so why let her drive home. We would have been impounded and asked to pay 300 quid to get our car out of the pound.

[bots]

Originally Posted by sampvt

She accused her secretary for mixing up the papers and not sending her payment in with enough time but \I do believe no further action was taken but she was defo allowed to drive away from the scene in a car with no insurance or correct plates, which is in itself a crime.

At the time she was stopped, she wasn't insured, end of. It was sorted out later so why let her drive home. We would have been impounded and asked to pay 300 quid to get our car out of the pound.

If she had no insurance for a month or something, yes, but they always allow for delay in systems being updated. The same would apply to anyone if they were talking hours or a day or 2.

[Pink Pegasus]

"It wasn't clear that the insurance at that time had been purchased for the vehicle" "we asked her to produce the details of her her vehicle within 7 days"

"Kate Price, WAS able to prove she had valid insurance after all" "Her real trouble was having to make sure her personalised numberplate is legal"


At the start of the video they say they "stopped Jordan the other day" because of her number plates, they later say it was "within 3 weeks" since they had last spoke with her.

They said she definitely had insurance the first time they spoke, so it reasonable to believe that it had just been very recently expired then renewed so computer hadn't processed it yet when they picked her up the second time.

[sampvt]

On ds they are saying a local mother said Harvey got special treatment and she has to drive her disabled son on her own nickel but I cant say if his disabilities are the same as Harvey. Its all very patchy but its front page news now so maybe Pricey will learn to shut her mouth about her private business. She seems to want everyone to know everything private about her life, its macabre because she is only mid 30's and has about 5 auto biographies already. She is a little sick to do that.

[Denver]

What people need to understand is that this money is not for KP but for a disabled child and i find it saddening that some people dont think he should be entitled to any help from the goverement

[Tip]

My sister is entitled to DLA, but she doesn't claim it as she can manage without. She's always paid her taxes and is hardly well off.
It's down to one's personal attitude I guess.

[abhorson]

Originally Posted by Tip

My sister is entitled to DLA, but she doesn't claim it as she can manage without. She's always paid her taxes and is hardly well off.
It's down to one's personal attitude I guess.

This

[Hope Springs]

Originally Posted by Tip

My sister is entitled to DLA, but she doesn't claim it as she can manage without. She's always paid her taxes and is hardly well off.
It's down to one's personal attitude I guess.

It's not down to one's personal attitude... Harvey is A CHILD. He is entitled to a free education. Forget the taxi to school, why the hell should a child have to travel a 100 miles round trip to get a FREE education, and why on earth should his parent, irrelevant of who the parent is, why should the parent have to pay for a taxi.. that's not free education. The child has human rights. Your human rights are not punctuated with the clause that "unless you are rich, or your parents are rich".

[Caballo]

Originally Posted by Hope Springs

It's not down to one's personal attitude... Harvey is A CHILD. He is entitled to a free education. Forget the taxi to school, why the hell should a child have to travel a 100 miles round trip to get a FREE education, and why on earth should his parent, irrelevant of who the parent is, why should the parent have to pay for a taxi.. that's not free education. The child has human rights. Your human rights are not punctuated with the clause that "unless you are rich, or your parents are rich".

It's not about entitlement it's about social conscience.

[Hope Springs]

Originally Posted by Caballo

It's not about entitlement it's about social conscience.

I am sure KP has no conscience whatsoever about it... she pays a huge amount in tax every year. I wonder what Dwight Yorke's social conscience is like?


if you want to talk about social conscience... what about all the fat useless drunken drugged up layabouts that leech of the system all their lives... where's THEIR social conscience? Don't make me laugh...

[Caballo]

Originally Posted by Hope Springs

I am sure KP has no conscience whatsoever about it... she pays a huge amount in tax every year. I wonder what Dwight Yorke's social conscience is like?


if you want to talk about social conscience... what about all the fat useless drunken drugged up layabouts that leech of the system all their lives... where's THEIR social conscience? Don't make me laugh...

That's easy, they haven't got one.

[Tip]

Originally Posted by Hope Springs

It's not down to one's personal attitude... Harvey is A CHILD. He is entitled to a free education. Forget the taxi to school, why the hell should a child have to travel a 100 miles round trip to get a FREE education, and why on earth should his parent, irrelevant of who the parent is, why should the parent have to pay for a taxi.. that's not free education. The child has human rights. Your human rights are not punctuated with the clause that "unless you are rich, or your parents are rich".

Just as the people can choose to send their children to schools where they pay fees (if they can afford it) whilst still having an entitlement to send them to state schools, it can be a matter of personal attitude and choice.

Benefits can be removed or changed legally, they aren't so much to do with Human Rights necessarily.

If people think they need to use the welfare state and they have a legal entitlement then that's down to them to decide whether to or not depending on their circumstances and attitude. Not everyone chooses to use them if they don't absolutely need to.

[Marsh.]

The majority of this thread reads like thinly veiled jealousy of Katie Price's fortune more than any actual concern for the "tax payer's" money.

[Tip]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The majority of this thread reads like thinly veiled jealousy of Katie Price's fortune more than any actual concern for the "tax payer's" money.

Could be - I didn't make my post with that at the forefront, but I wouldn't mind a bit of that fortune. I couldn't have done what she had to do to get it though

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Tip

Could be - I didn't make my post with that at the forefront, but I wouldn't mind a bit of that fortune. I couldn't have done what she had to do to get it though

Well I didn't actually mean your post.

[Tip]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Well I didn't actually mean your post.

Thought I'd own up anyway

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Tip

Thought I'd own up anyway

[sampvt]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The majority of this thread reads like thinly veiled jealousy of Katie Price's fortune more than any actual concern for the "tax payer's" money.

And your point is.......

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by sampvt

And your point is.......

In the post you quoted. No actual concern over how tax money is used, more jealousy over Price's fortune.

[Hope Springs]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The majority of this thread reads like thinly veiled jealousy of Katie Price's fortune more than any actual concern for the "tax payer's" money.

Doesn't it bloody just!

[Tom4784]

It's a non issue, she's entitled to it and she's probably paid more in taxes than any of us ever will in our lives so it's ridiculous to say that she's in the wrong for doing so.

It's not like she's building a duck house from tax payer money, she's using it to help her son. People just like to find reasons to whine it seems. There's plenty to dislike about Katie P but this is not one of them.

[sampvt]

Its not about a poor child nor is it about anything other than the simple fact that KP chose a different and probably better route for her son over other less fortunate kids and she embellishes that choice by insisting on a driver and a nurse to accompany him and the tax payer stumps up. If she is getting more than others, she should be expected to pay her wack, not to expect the tax payer to bear the brunt of it just because she wants more and isn't willing to pay. Its not about how rich she is.

[Hope Springs]

Originally Posted by sampvt

Its not about a poor child nor is it about anything other than the simple fact that KP chose a different and probably better route for her son over other less fortunate kids and she embellishes that choice by insisting on a driver and a nurse to accompany him and the tax payer stumps up. If she is getting more than others, she should be expected to pay her wack, not to expect the tax payer to bear the brunt of it just because she wants more and isn't willing to pay. Its not about how rich she is.

SHE PAYS FULL TAX FFS.
And can you please tell me where you have seen the fact you are harping on about that she CHOSE a different and "probably" better route for her son over "less fortunate" kids..
Links please? If of course you're not making it up...

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by sampvt

Its not about a poor child nor is it about anything other than the simple fact that KP chose a different and probably better route for her son over other less fortunate kids and she embellishes that choice by insisting on a driver and a nurse to accompany him and the tax payer stumps up. If she is getting more than others, she should be expected to pay her wack, not to expect the tax payer to bear the brunt of it just because she wants more and isn't willing to pay. Its not about how rich she is.

She. Pays. Her. Taxes. What is it about this simple fact that you cannot seem to grasp?

A person's financial situation is irrelevant, if someone pays their dues then they deserve help from the system when they need it. It's incredibly petty to begrudge her for it, she's not taking the money for frivolous reasons.