ForumGarden

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... about.html

BBC News - Derby fire deaths: Mick Philpott 'watched wife having sex'

We've had a few threads about the UK's beneit culture and recently debated weather people actually have more children despite having not worked In order to get more money from the government and bigger free housing.

I'm not talking about the genuine needy and the deserving who the welfare system was put In place for back In the 40's but these people are just two examples.

They are not one off's... the country Is full of them and Its because of people like this that others get tarred with the same brush.

For every genuine needy family, there Is another like this... enough Is enough

Just for once i would agree with you. I know people whop have had to sell their homes and go back to living with grandparents and the like as they struggle to get by. There should be a cap on benefits the welfare state was never intended to leave people better off than if they were working. Trouble is it's mostly labour that are to blame for this not that the tories help tarring everybody with the same brush - in some areas here there really aren't any jobs we can't all work in poundland

gmc;1420636 wrote: Just for once i would agree with you. I know people whop have had to sell their homes and go back to living with grandparents and the like as they struggle to get by. There should be a cap on benefits the welfare state was never intended to leave people better off than if they were working. Trouble is it's mostly labour that are to blame for this not that the tories help tarring everybody with the same brush - in some areas here there really aren't any jobs we can't all work in poundland


House them here:

Houses bought for as much as £70,000 each under John Prescott's regeneration Pathfinder scheme to be sold off for just £1 each | Mail Online

I too feel outraged about our taxes being used for that woman and her 11 children

(and clearly new generations of her family too) but I don't see an answer. What can be done?

From my time on Housing the problem Is this.....

You can not force women to be sterilised. You can not force women or men to use contraception.

Years ago couples even single women asked themselves 'can we afford another baby'. Now It's a god given right to have as many children as you like even by a variety of fathers and the tax payer picks up the tab.

People like this woman and The Phillpotts know they can not fund another baby but know the government will. There are women who leave school and have babies by various Fathers and never do a days work. The Fathers of those children most likely have never worked either because If they had or do work, they would be paying maintainance for their child.

Many council houses that become available side by side are turned Into 6 and 8 bedroom houses to accomodate people like this women. That's fewer 3 bedroom houses for the genuine needy and these people know that the more kids they have, the more money they will get and the bigger the house.

It's because of feckless, selfish morons like this that deprive genuine young families from social housing and I think It has to stop.

I suppose that one answer could be that benefit is paid only for a limited number of children? This couldn't be introduced for existing large families but it could for new families.

theia;1420647 wrote: I suppose that one answer could be that benefit is paid only for a limited number of children? This couldn't be introduced for existing large families but it could for new families. The problem with any welfare reform Is that ultimately, some genuine women are affected.

If we capped all benefit for any children over 4, then a woman who's husband has abandoned his family or died, Is going to suffer with the reckless.

That's a good Idea about starting the capping on new families but then, wouldn't those newer families scream their rights are being breached?

The problem Itself could lead to children living in poverty.

Not every one of the feckless does the right thing by their children... notice the woman In the article can afford ridiculous hair colour on benefits.?

I have a disgusting specimen of a neighbour who on getting her benefit fills her trolley with cut priced booze and ciggs before buying food for her kids. She also sports a new hair colour every week.

I remember some mutterings pre-election that If the Tories got In they would Introduce food stamps and utility vouchers to stop that. I suspect the loony left of the Coalition won't hear of such a thing but If Cameron gets a clear majority come 2014, It could be on the cards.

oscar;1420649 wrote: The problem with any welfare reform Is that ultimately, some genuine women are affected.

If we capped all benefit for any children over 4, then a woman who's husband has abandoned his family or died, Is going to suffer with the reckless.

That's a good Idea about starting the capping on new families but then, wouldn't those newer families scream their rights are being breached?



The problem Itself could lead to children living in poverty.

Not every one of the feckless does the right thing by their children... notice the woman In the article can afford ridiculous hair colour on benefits.?

I have a disgusting specimen of a neighbour who on getting her benefit fills her trolley with cut priced booze and ciggs before buying food for her kids. She also sports a new hair colour every week.

I remember some mutterings pre-election that If the Tories got In they would Introduce food stamps and utility vouchers to stop that. I suspect the loony left of the Coalition won't hear of such a thing but If Cameron gets a clear majority come 2014, It could be on the cards.


Probably :wah: But, seriously, which rights would be breached? If they chose, they could have 22 children but they would have to be wholly responsible for the additional 18!

theia;1420652 wrote: Probably :wah: But, seriously, which rights would be breached? If they chose, they could have 22 children but they would have to be wholly responsible for the additional 18! True but then your relying on the Mothers or fathers of those 22 children doing the right thing and finding even part time work to bring the extra money Into the home. Most won't so ultimately It's the children who suffer and go hungry.

So maybe it comes down to that there will always be a few people who have many, many children and expect to be funded by the taxpayer and that is not going to stop. Shame though, because it's expensive and unfair for those who are genuinely claiming benefit and struggling, or working in low paid jobs.

I have hovered long enough.

I see it as similar to the large companies that pay as little tax as possible, the reason being that they can get away with it.

In a world that is geared to instant gratification, with low aspiration, high unemployment, and constant talk of economic doom, having a child is a career move, a step on the housing ladder.

Throw in the entitlement culture and everybody knowing thier rights, and excused their responsibilities, plus the fact the money involved is pitched to make a second third fourth fifth and sixth child the best possible option once on the 'family' career path, and you have the situation we are in now.

It is now down to education and a brave Politician to reverse the benefit system from being a profitable option, it is something that needs to be phased in slowly.

theia;1420656 wrote: So maybe it comes down to that there will always be a few people who have many, many children and expect to be funded by the taxpayer and that is not going to stop. Shame though, because it's expensive and unfair for those who are genuinely claiming benefit and struggling, or working in low paid jobs.


My way of thinking Is hard line tactics for women such as the one In the article...Did you see, she can afford to keep a horse despite never working !!!! Keep benefits to a bare minimum for women like her who keep having kids with no Father on the scene but paid In food stamps and utility vouchers.

Reward genuine families for finding even part time work by giving them a bit extra.

If she can afford a horse & its feed, here her case would be up for review & that excess money for it might be cut from her check. Also suspect would be her boyfriend & the grandchildren & their mother(s) would be considered a separate case(s).

Hideous woman, IMO.

AnneBoleyn;1420661 wrote: If she can afford a horse & its feed, here her case would be up for review & that excess money for it might be cut from her check. Also suspect would be her boyfriend & the grandchildren & their mother(s) would be considered a separate case(s).

Hideous woman, IMO. I agree.

Did you notice also In the pics In the article, there are 3 cars outside her house? Two bangers but a decent one with them.

Looking at the outside of her house and garden, I can't help believe that within 6 months of getting her new mansion, she's have turned It Into a s.hithole.

Also reading that 3 of her kids are over 16... they should be working and helping with household bills but then all she's doing Is raising another generation of scroungers given her 16 year olds comment In the article.

Oscar, I'm sure you already know this story that I happened to come across a minute ago:

Family May Be Forced to Demolish Secret Castle They Call Home

"In 2001, Fidler began constructing the home, which is now called Honeycrock Farmhouse and resembles a castle, but he did not get permission to build it from the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. He secretly lived in the castle, which he hid under a large blue tarp and behind giant 40-foot-high bales of hay. In 2007, Fidler was ordered to tear down the four-bedroom home...................The high court's reasoning is based on the fact that Fidler kept the home concealed and he "set out deliberately to deceive.""

Family May Be Forced to Demolish Secret Castle They Call Home | Trending Now - Yahoo! News

I think she set out deliberately to deceive too. I bet it can be proven, even in a small way. The horse, the boyfriend (she claims husband, but what's the diff?), somethings gotta go. I hate it when average people 'gang up' on a person, but this is ridiculous. Her neighbors should complain long & loud & not give up.

AnneBoleyn;1420673 wrote: Oscar, I'm sure you already know this story that I happened to come across a minute ago:

Family May Be Forced to Demolish Secret Castle They Call Home

"In 2001, Fidler began constructing the home, which is now called Honeycrock Farmhouse and resembles a castle, but he did not get permission to build it from the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. He secretly lived in the castle, which he hid under a large blue tarp and behind giant 40-foot-high bales of hay. In 2007, Fidler was ordered to tear down the four-bedroom home...................The high court's reasoning is based on the fact that Fidler kept the home concealed and he "set out deliberately to deceive.""

Family May Be Forced to Demolish Secret Castle They Call Home | Trending Now - Yahoo! News

I think she set out deliberately to deceive too. I bet it can be proven, even in a small way. The horse, the boyfriend (she claims husband, but what's the diff?), somethings gotta go. I hate it when average people 'gang up' on a person, but this is ridiculous. Her neighbors should complain long & loud & not give up.


We even had a TV programme about the castle behind the hay bales. That doesn't bother me. It was paid for on their land with their hard earned money.

This woman had her first child at 14 and just kept going curtesy of our tax payers..

I see it as similar to the large companies that pay as little tax as possible, the reason being that they can get away with it.

In a world that is geared to instant gratification, with low aspiration, high unemployment, and constant talk of economic doom, having a child is a career move, a step on the housing ladder.


This I definitely would agree with, everybody is trying to get everything they can. I always said that a common thief is the ultimate capitalist, this woman is just being a capitalist. Taking everything she can get from the system for her own benefit. Such is our society.

One thing I do certainly think needs to be addressed is the fathers. Find those bastards and toss them into a work camp, give them a good wage for working for the state doing what ever and leave them a basic allowance. Take the rest of what they earn and distribute it amongst their offspring. If the mother doesn't know who the father is or won't say take the kid away. It'll hurt for awhile and no doubt it will hurt some children but in the long run we;ll all be better off.

oscar;1420682 wrote: We even had a TV programme about the castle behind the hay bales. That doesn't bother me. It was paid for on their land with their hard earned money.

This woman had her first child at 14 and just kept going curtesy of our tax payers..


Are you suggesting she turned a profit from having the children?

Bryn Mawr;1420742 wrote: Are you suggesting she turned a profit from having the children?
She was on TV this morning being Interviewed and when questioned about the £200 a month for the horse and cars, she could or would not answer.

She also said she didn't put a gun to anyone's head about the new house being built for her.

I don't know If she continued to have 11 children In order to make a profit but In the Phillpott case, that's what the prosecution Is alleging. Who's to say she's any different? We don't know.

No, she didn't put a gun to anyone's head In the real sense but metaphorically speaking she did whith every child she continued to have. Local authorities are obliged to house those on benefit If they have children, Depending on circumstances determines the wait they will have for a social house.

Once anyone has a social house, by having more children, they can constantly seek an upgrade to accommodate them all.

Once they get the 6 bedroom house, they can sit out the 5 year statuary period and then under the right to buy, buy the house at a discount.

I'm not saying this Is what she's doing but there are others who have done It.

In a country where pensioners can't heat their homes and people who have worked since school are losing their homes due to redundancy, not being able to answer how you fund 3 cars and a horse on benefits leaves a lot to the Imagination.

Mother of 11 having £400k taxpayer-funded house built now says she might not even move in | Mail Online

She also said today that she doesn't want the Fathers of some of her children to contribute to their upbringing and keep.... well, as a tax payer, I believe they need Investigating and forced to pay.

Another thing, an aside.... I noticed she has no teeth.... now call me an old cynic, but hmmmmm

oscar;1420745 wrote: Mother of 11 having £400k taxpayer-funded house built now says she might not even move in | Mail Online

She also said today that she doesn't want the Fathers of some of her children to contribute to their upbringing and keep.... well, as a tax payer, I believe they need Investigating and forced to pay.

Another thing, an aside.... I noticed she has no teeth.... now call me an old cynic, but hmmmmm


I'd agree with you there. She should have thought of that before she got pregnant.

gmc;1420870 wrote: I'd agree with you there. She should have thought of that before she got pregnant. She's In the paper again today.... now having whined on TV that she may not be able to take her new mansion after all because everyone would know who she Is and could lead to her kids being bullied, she allows a photographer Into her home to photograph her children even Inside their bedrooms which Is now plastered along with the faces of all her children In the Mail...

Sorry, but this Is a vile specimen. Truth probably Is that It's not a case o not wanting some of the Fathers to contribute towards their kids upkeep but more a case of her not having a clue who they are.

oscar;1420644 wrote: From my time on Housing the problem Is this.....



You can not force women to be sterilised. You can not force women or men to use contraception.



Years ago couples even single women asked themselves 'can we afford another baby'. Now It's a god given right to have as many children as you like even by a variety of fathers and the tax payer picks up the tab.

People like this woman and The Phillpotts know they can not fund another baby but know the government will. There are women who leave school and have babies by various Fathers and never do a days work. The Fathers of those children most likely have never worked either because If they had or do work, they would be paying maintainance for their child.



Many council houses that become available side by side are turned Into 6 and 8 bedroom houses to accomodate people like this women. That's fewer 3 bedroom houses for the genuine needy and these people know that the more kids they have, the more money they will get and the bigger the house.



It's because of feckless, selfish morons like this that deprive genuine young families from social housing and I think It has to stop.


Does your government fund abortions?

flopstock;1420974 wrote: Does your government fund abortions?


Yes.

A simple enough procedure.

Abortion: your options - Live Well - NHS Choices

flopstock;1420974 wrote: Does your government fund abortions?


We also fund contraception.

gmc;1421130 wrote: We also fund contraception. She was In the paper again today.

This time her Father has spoke out saying she doesn't know who the father of some of her kids are and he said he's humiliated by her lazyness