[Ammi]

SCROUNGER mum Sara Hesmonhalgh has spent her entire working life on benefits — after deliberately having kids to avoid getting a job.

Sara, 24, started planning her first pregnancy in her last year at school and had Charlie when she was 16.

She said: “For me and for many of my friends at school it was the only way out and a few of us took it. What was the point of getting a crummy job on minimum wage?

“I struggled to bond with Charlie at first — he’d been born primarily to put money in my pocket and it worked.

“Within weeks I was given a flat. I was 16, had income support, child tax credits and my housing paid for.”

As Charlie reached seven, Sara realised she would be put on Jobseekers’ Allowance, and have less cash.

So she simply set out to get pregnant again. Her baby daughter Summer is now six months old.

Shameless Sara boasted: “I was getting £130 a week with everything else paid for. With Summer it’s gone up to £200.”

The girl’s dad is an unemployed drain technician claiming sickness benefit because he has a drug problem

And Sara’s two-bedroom council flat in Leyland, Lancs, shows just how well she has worked the system

There is a 42-inch 3D plasma TV in her lounge and only last week she bought herself a £400 laptop and a £120 PSP for her son Charlie to go with his PS3.

Sara — who has no qualifications — revealed: “I bought the laptop so I could go online and play poker. Online poker is my release.

“I won £50 the other day but I don’t always win.”

She continued: “People might call me a scrounger but I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong. Everybody else is doing it.”




http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ing-a-job.html

[arista]

Yes this is Not Right


[She continued: “People might call me a scrounger but I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong. Everybody else is doing it.”]

Thats no reason to be like that.

[lostalex]

mum admits deliberately having children to avoid getting a job...


so basically she's like every woman that gets married by 25 ever? just without the marriage part.



I don't think we as a society can complain about this sort of thing though, because women still don't have equal opportunities in the work force, so many of them understandably think that a woman's job is just to have babies. We still raise girls in a society that makes them think their main purpose on this planet is to breed. It's a problem in our society.

[Ammi]

..hmmm, I’m not sure whether I agree with that Alex...I know a lot of young people (females) and I don’t know any who feel their role in life is to be ‘maternal’ and have children..I’m not saying they won’t do that eventually but it’s not a priority for them at the end of their education and start of a career...and it may be true that females still don’t always have equal status in the workplace but in my experience that doesn’t stop them from trying to achieve something....I also know of females under 25yrs who have married but still intend to pursue their careers until such time that both partners decide the time is right to start a family...

..it may be that for this particular person that she had no qualifications etc and therefore felt that there wouldn’t be many opportunities out there for her...but the way the article depicts it, she didn’t even try to see..apprenticeships, college courses, alternative training etc.. but ‘opted’ or chose a life on benefits as opposed to it being something that found her, sort of thing...I think there is also a ‘social’ life to working ..meeting people, making friends etc, not just about the salary and the world is so overpopulated that having children as a solution to something seems extreme..but of course, the source of this story is The Sun newspaper, so sensationalism is their middle name as well.....

[Tom4784]

I'd hate it if her children found this article in a few years time and realised that they were born to be meal tickets. It takes a callous person to bring a child into the world for money.

[Ninastar]

I knew someone like this... Well I say I knew her, I don't. It's one of my school friends mums. Anyway, guess who's 16 year old daughter is pregnant....

Originally Posted by Ninastar

I knew someone like this... Well I say I knew her, I don't. It's one of my school friends mums. Anyway, guess who's 16 year old daughter is pregnant....

Can you get me her number in 6 years, when she's ready for number 2?

[joeysteele]

Of course this is morally wrong,however the system is the one that is to blame for it in the main,of course she could have taken the decision to provide for her Children herself rather than totally rely on the state.

It is the system that is wrong however and she is right, she has likely done nothing legally wrong, however I do not think this is a reason to take a sledgehammer to those on benefits in a general sense as this Govt is doing.

Sort out this element of the benefits system by all means as Govts should but don't have all people on benefits labelled as scroungers and help fuel the media hysteria of demonising those reliant on benefits everytime they find cases like this.

For me she is wrong to expect so much from the State for so long,I wouldn't want or would do that,she decided to however.
It is a plughole that needs to filled and removed.
I think it's an area the Govt is in fact looking at and I agree with that part of the welfare and benefits reforms they are doing.
It's the only likely part of it all that I do agree with though.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Of course this is morally wrong,however the system is the one that is to blame for it in the main,of course she could have taken the decision to provide for her Children herself rather than totally rely on the state.

It is the system that is wrong however and she is right, she has likely done nothing legally wrong, however I do not think this is a reason to take a sledgehammer to those on benefits in a general sense as this Govt is doing.

Sort out this element of the benefits system by all means as Govts should but don't have all people on benefits labelled as scroungers and help fuel the media hysteria of demonising those reliant on benefits everytime they find cases like this.

For me she is wrong to expect so much from the State for so long,I wouldn't want or would do that,she decided to however.
It is a plughole that needs to filled and removed.
I think it's an area the Govt is in fact looking at and I agree with that part of the welfare and benefits reforms they are doing.
It's the only likely part of it all that I do agree with though.

I don't see how you could change the laws though, because it's only going to be the children that suffer if you take money away from them.

It's not like these moms are getting rich off of it. None of these single moms are living the high life off of benefits.

In relation to the main story, we make a bet as a society that the safety net of benefits is there to provide for people unable to provide for themselves.

We do this for a few reasons, but providing for the least amongst us should always be our top priority. Also, it actually saves money in the long run. If we had the jobless statistics we have these days, but without society providing anything to them, what do people think would happen to safety and crime?

Gated communities would become necessary, with armed guards to protect the haves from the have nothings.

Of course, people will always game the system, but no one wants to read a story about a single mother, who, because of the benefits system was able to take herself back to college and night school, before going on to university and back in to well paid work.

Every time these stories crop up, and they're as regular as clockwork, I always make the same points. The way rich people game the system is far worse, and far more costly to British tax payers than people having children to avoid working for minimum wage.

The global banking crisis didn't happen because too many single mothers were greedy.

[Kizzy]

Oh the sun is doing it's job again? whipping up the angry mob into a feeding frenzy for the 'scummy mummy'?....
Pathetic!
Get educated the days of income support and assuming ALL teen mums get preggers for a council house is sooo 1993.
Here we are in 2013 20yrs after Mr Darlings speech and they are still demonising teen mums, lone parents and anyone who is below the poverty line.
When will people stop sucking up this ****?

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

In relation to the main story, we make a bet as a society that the safety net of benefits is there to provide for people unable to provide for themselves.

We do this for a few reasons, but providing for the least amongst us should always be our top priority. Also, it actually saves money in the long run. If we had the jobless statistics we have these days, but without society providing anything to them, what do people think would happen to safety and crime?

Gated communities would become necessary, with armed guards to protect the haves from the have nothings.

Of course, people will always game the system, but no one wants to read a story about a single mother, who, because of the benefits system was able to take herself back to college and night school, before going on to university and back in to well paid work.

Every time these stories crop up, and they're as regular as clockwork, I always make the same points. The way rich people game the system is far worse, and far more costly to British tax payers than people having children to avoid working for minimum wage.

The global banking crisis didn't happen because too many single mothers were greedy.

awesome post. i concur.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I don't see how you could change the laws though, because it's only going to be the children that suffer if you take money away from them.

It's not like these moms are getting rich off of it. None of these single moms are living the high life off of benefits.

Hi again Lostalex and really great to see you back posting, you have been a really big miss on here as far as I am concerned.

It is never easy to change a benefit structure as this Govt is finding with its current chaos and confusion and stress caused to benefit recipients.

However I would agree that Children should not suffer and I doubt anyone would support that, however she could be made to have to accept that she needs to provide herself independently too.

One of the thinngs in the possible policy pot is to only support the first 2 children anyone has, if anyone wants more Children then they need to be sure they can provide themselves for them.
I agree with you though, it will not be easy, despite the press highlighting these sort of cases, if the Govt did act severely as to the issue then the Govt would get hammered by the same press for causing Children to suffer.

As I said, she hasn't done a thing legally wrong though, only possibly morally as I would want to provide for my own Children and not expect the State too,if I was fit and able to work as she clearly seems to be.

Anyway, welcome back again Lostalex, all my best to you.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Hi again Lostalex and really great to see you back posting, you have been a really big miss on here as far as I am concerned.

It is never easy to change a benefit structure as this Govt is finding with its current chaos and confusion and stress caused to benefit recipients.

However I would agree that Children should not suffer and I doubt anyone would support that, however she could be made to have to accept that she needs to provide herself independently too.

One of the thinngs in the possible policy pot is to only support the first 2 children anyone has, if anyone wants more Children then they need to be sure they can provide themselves for them.
I agree with you though, it will not be easy, despite the press highlighting these sort of cases, if the Govt did act severely as to the issue then the Govt would get hammered by the same press for causing Children to suffer.

As I said, she hasn't done a thing legally wrong though, only possibly morally as I would want to provide for my own Children and not expect the State too,if I was fit and able to work as she clearly seems to be.

Anyway, welcome back again Lostalex, all my best to you.

Thanks for the big welcome back! I appreciate it. <333 ( I missed you guys too, yu have no idea how many times i came to TiBB while i was banned wishing i could post over the last 4 months)

I just think trying to socially engineer having children, and families, it just never turns out well. Look at China, who tries to control their population's reproduction, and we all know the horror stories that come out of China and the 1 child policy.

I think the solution is something we need to fix as a whole. I don't think singling out or spotlighting single moms is the right way to go about it. I think it's a problem for everyone. If we just focus on single moms, it will get us nowhere.

I think all families, rich or poor, single parent or dual parent, it's an issue as a country, we shouldn't be trying to single certain "types" of people out.

Let's just try to provide more opportunities for everyone.

I just think it's strange that when we are having economic problems, we automatically start to point the finger at the poorest people first. I don't think it's the poorest people that caused this economic crisis. Single moms didn't create the economic recession.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Of course this is morally wrong,however the system is the one that is to blame for it in the main,of course she could have taken the decision to provide for her Children herself rather than totally rely on the state.

It is the system that is wrong however and she is right, she has likely done nothing legally wrong, however I do not think this is a reason to take a sledgehammer to those on benefits in a general sense as this Govt is doing.

Sort out this element of the benefits system by all means as Govts should but don't have all people on benefits labelled as scroungers and help fuel the media hysteria of demonising those reliant on benefits everytime they find cases like this.

For me she is wrong to expect so much from the State for so long,I wouldn't want or would do that,she decided to however.
It is a plughole that needs to filled and removed.
I think it's an area the Govt is in fact looking at and I agree with that part of the welfare and benefits reforms they are doing.
It's the only likely part of it all that I do agree with though.

...I think also Joey..more should be done to help people who 'slip though the net' in the education system and try to support them more and provide training, apprenticeships etc..so they have skills and don't feel this is their only option....

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Thanks for the big welcome back! I appreciate it. <333

I just think trying to socially engineer having children, and families, it just never turns out well. Look at China, who tries to control their population's reproduction, and we all know the horror stories that come out of China and the 1 child policy.

I think the solution is something we need to fix as a whole. I don't think singling out or spotlighting single moms is the right way to go about it. I think it's a problem for everyone. If we just focus on single moms, it will get us nowhere.

I think all families, rich or poor, single parent or dual parent, it's an issue as a country, we shouldn't be trying to single certain "types" of people out.

Let's just try to provide more opportunities for everyone.

I just think it's strange that when we are having economic problems, we automatically start to point the finger at the poorest people first. I don't think it's the poorest people that caused this economic crisis. Single moms didn't create the economic recession.

I 100% agree with what you say and especially your last paragraph, that to me is what is massively wrong and unjust as to our Govts cureent poicies on benefit reform.
You make a really valid point as to the social engineering point too.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...I think also Joey..more should be done to help people who 'slip though the net' in the education system and try to support them more and provide training, apprenticeships etc..so they have skills and don't feel this is their only option....

Definately Ammi, there are far more areas that needed looking at first as you point out in the post above with more urgency than has been enacted.

[Kizzy]

Was the intention of this post to highlight the failings in the education system?..
Oh, I got the wrong end of the stick totally then

[Claymores]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Definately Ammi, there are far more areas that needed looking at first as you point out in the post above with more urgency than has been enacted.

Fortunately they've remembered that Child Benefit is the most ridiculous payout ever unless means-tested.

Why should a couple on £200k a year be eligible for Child Benefit?

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Claymores

Fortunately they've remembered that Child Benefit is the most ridiculous payout ever unless means-tested.

Why should a couple on £200k a year be eligible for Child Benefit?

Another valid point, I am not sure at what level I would say Child benefit shouldn't be paid but I can agree with the means testing as to it.