[Josy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

She's entitled to it so she's not doing anything wrong legally speaking but I think it's crazy that she is entitled to it in the first place

DLA isn't means tested, I think that's a good thing, look how it would affect people and not just income wise, if people that had a certain amount of money were unable to receive DLA then how would they be able to apply for their care needs, home improvements that aid their illness, blue badges etc?

If they had to use the money they had to do all this themselves then they would end up having to claim the benefits at some point anyway.

It would affect the elderly massively that maybe had a few quid put away over the years, they would get knocked back for the benefits and the money they had wouldn't last long again they would then need to apply for benefits anyway.

Where would it end?

[sampvt]

You are all missing the point. She is defo entitled to whatever the gov sets aside for her but when she decided to go further afield to get a better deal, she lost the right to that special treatment. The other kids are not getting the same as her because if they were all getting £1000 a day or a week, whatever it is, there would be a crisis of mega porportions.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by sampvt

You are all missing the point. She is defo entitled to whatever the gov sets aside for her but when she decided to go further afield to get a better deal, she lost the right to that special treatment. The other kids are not getting the same as her because if they were all getting £1000 a day or a week, whatever it is, there would be a crisis of mega porportions.

Sam it doesn't cost 1000 each way to send Harvey to school, Katie Price used that figure to explain what it costs her in a limo when she travels to and fro London IIRC when she was trying to explain to Hopkins how expensive travel costs could mount up to.

[sampvt]

Also the poor kid has to endure a 100 mile a day 3 hr trip, that's wrong.

[sampvt]

[QUOTE=Josy;7539472]Sam it doesn't cost 1000 each way to send Harvey to school, Katie Price used that figure to explain what it costs her in a limo when she travels to and fro London IIRC.[/QUOT

So she has a driver, which is hers, to ferry him to school in a Volkswagen beetle then. Of course he uses her car, the same one she uses when she goes to London. Where did I misunderstand

[Josy]

Originally Posted by sampvt

So she has a driver, which is hers, to ferry him to school in a Volkswagen beetle then. Of course he uses her car, the same one she uses when she goes to London. Where did I misunderstand

She used that figure to explain her point, that was the figure for her travelling not Harvey.

[sampvt]

The other thing I don't like is the fact that she is such a great mother that she sends her kid to school with a driver and a nurse on a 100 mile round trip. Why the fook cant she do it herself because then we wouldn't need to fund her.

[sampvt]

Originally Posted by Josy

She used that figure to explain her point, that was the figure for her travelling not Harvey.

So why is her journey more expensive than her sons

[Josy]

Originally Posted by sampvt

So why is her journey more expensive than her sons

Maybe because she hires a limo? I don't know and I'm not really interested, I was just pointing out that she never said Harvey's travelling cost £1000.

Obviously the government don't see Harvey's travelling costs as excessive or they wouldn't be paying it.

[sampvt]

Maybe she didn't explain herself very well on the tv but the fact still remains that she chose to do something we mere mortals cant and she should pay.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by sampvt

So why is her journey more expensive than her sons

She travels in a limo

For the people saying she is immoral and should pay for it herself, who is more immoral someone who is quite capable of getting a job, with no medical or other issues, but is too lazy to get off their arse who is supported by the tax payer, or someone like Katie P who pays into the system, should she not get something she is entitled to?

[bots]

I think the matter requires a detailed investigation, and look forward to reading the results of that investigation

[Josy]

Well I never thought I would see the day were people actually grudge a child with multiple disabilities receiving benefit to get him to school and help him lead as normal a life as possible.

[johne]

Put the blame squarely where it belongs, cynical and immoral governments (lab and con) whose policies are decided almost entirely on the most votes they can buy, or how much they can benefit the government insiders and their friends rather than what is right or wrong. We've had several other celebs crucified lately for tax avoidance, again perfectly legal, but which should be stopped under new tax laws, not by public trial in the media.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by sampvt

The mere fact that nobody is looking at this debate correctly is sad. There are facilities that she could use closer to home BUT SHE CHOSE TO SEND HIM TO THE BEST, MILES AWAY.

Do you know this with absolute certainty? closer facilities doesn't mean suitable facilities. If this was your child and you knew your child would get a more focussed education whilst fully understanding the specific disability; within in a very specialized facility, wouldn't you fight every avenue to make sure your child got that assistance?

Nothing against a mother wanting the best for her kid, but whilst she is rich and the others in her borough are poor, she gets preferential treatment because of who she is and the poor have to make do with what the government offer, but the poor pay taxes as well. So where is the fairness in that.

Do you know that these poor children aren't being given the same offers as Katie Price's son? I do and I absolutely know they are. There really is no favouritism going on here. To get preferential treatment from the government you would have to be a sponsor of that government. I can assure you, Katie Price is offered the same as her poorer neighbours. There is no such thing as top schools for children with disabilities, only schools better geared for specific conditions.


They conveniently overlooked that little fact and I personally believe that if she chooses not to accept whats on offer to her and the rest of the poor people, then she should pay if she goes for the upgraded version. I doubt anyone else in her manor with disabled children are being offered that funding, ortherwise all the schools in her area would close.

I've already said but I will reiterate for clarity...when it comes to educational facilities for disabled children, there are no "upgraded" facilities. What they do have are specialized facilities geared for individual disabilities and this is variable depending on where you live. My sister is blind and had to attend a school for the blind but because her condition is caused from a brain tumour which carries various rare conditions, an ordinary blind school weren't able to facilitate her. This meant a lot of travel back and forth to an establishment that was geared for her condition. This was never means tested and was fully funded by the government.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Josy

Well I never thought I would see the day were people actually grudge a child with multiple disabilities receiving benefit to get him to school and help him lead as normal a life as possible.

Oh trust me it happens, I work with Children with Special Needs, I see it a lot.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Josy

Well I never thought I would see the day were people actually grudge a child with multiple disabilities receiving benefit to get him to school and help him lead as normal a life as possible.

aw Josy people aren't begrudging the child, you know he'd be getting looked after either way, it's about his mother being more than able to afford to pay for it herself (and his father btw, he's gotten off lightly here, he was a multi millionaire football player)

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I think the matter requires a detailed investigation, and look forward to reading the results of that investigation

will this investigation include child benefit and winter fuel payments as well, because neither of those are means tested either.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

aw Josy people aren't begrudging the child, you know he'd be getting looked after either way, it's about his mother being more than able to afford to pay for it herself (and his father btw, he's gotten off lightly here, he was a multi millionaire football player)

That's what some comments in this thread reads to me Nimah, Harvey is the one entitled to the benefit from the government but all I keep seeing is Katie Price has enough cash, she should pay.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I think the matter requires a detailed investigation, and look forward to reading the results of that investigation

Oh wow me too because only then will it stop people spouting off about how unfair it is. I don't find what Katie Price does for her son shocking, but I find some of the posts here heartless.

[sampvt]

Originally Posted by Josy

Maybe because she hires a limo? I don't know and I'm not really interested, I was just pointing out that she never said Harvey's travelling cost £1000.

Obviously the government don't see Harvey's travelling costs as excessive or they wouldn't be paying it.

She has a big pink blob of a range rover she is always seen in. In fact on the tv in that police program she was clocked without insurance and mot ON A SCHOOL RUN

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Josy

That's what some comments in this thread reads to me Nimah, Harvey is the one entitled to the benefit from the government but all I keep seeing is Katie Price has enough cash, she should pay.

Ok, well, imo it should be means tested, I'm going to leave it there I think

[Josy]

Originally Posted by sampvt

She has a big pink blob of a range rover she is always seen in. In fact on the tv in that police program she was clocked without insurance and mot ON A SCHOOL RUN

Ok well I'm not sure what that has to do with her disabled son so I have nothing else to say..

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Ok, well, imo it should be means tested, I'm going to leave it there I think

Fair enough, I don't think it should and if it was then it would really have to be a very high threshold because living with a disability can be very expensive.

[Mike Literous]

So. All people who are multi millionaires should still get child benefits? Not what the average voter thinks.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Josy

Ok well I'm not sure what that has to do with her disabled son so I have nothing else to say..



Fair enough, I don't think it should and if it was then it would really have to be a very high threshold because living with a disability can be very expensive.

Yes, that's true enough