[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.

[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.

[SaveUs]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

I agree, also I agree with you more because you have an Avatar signature and Avatar is awesome

But I digress

There are 260 working days in a year so that's roughly 260,000 she'd need to pay annually just for transport presumably . I mean, does she make that much?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by SaveUs

I agree, also I agree with you more because you have an Avatar signature and Avatar is awesome

But I digress

There are 260 working days in a year so that's roughly 260,000 she'd need to pay annually just for transport presumably . I mean, does she make that much?

1000 a day is HER OWN TRANSPORT. Not Harvey's.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

1000 a day is HER OWN TRANSPORT. Not Harvey's.

Its for her to take her disabled son to ****ing school grrrrrr

[sampvt]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

I have never said she shouldn't get the gov aid she is entitled to, but her aid is way ott. She shouldn't be able to claim that much, That's all I am saying. she is entitled to a taxi, not a bloody driver and a private nurse, that's just taking the piss.

Wait till tomorrow when her council makes a statement which they will be forced to do in light of the headlines. I am right, you will see.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by sampvt

I have never said she shouldn't get the gov aid she is entitled to, but her aid is way ott. She shouldn't be able to claim that much, That's all I am saying. she is entitled to a taxi, not a bloody driver and a private nurse, that's just taking the piss.

Wait till tomorrow when her council makes a statement which they will be forced to do in light of the headlines. I am right, you will see.

How do you know that she's getting any more aid than what a normal parent would get for a child with Harvey's health conditions and needs? Why are you presuming to be the authority on what a child of Harvey's needs may be and whether or not he's entitled to it? You know nothing of their situation so it's dumb to get the pitchforks out for a Daily Mail styled witch hunt.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by adamski94

Its for her to take her disabled son to ****ing school grrrrrr

Uh, no it isn't.






















grrrrrr