Crosswords0 min ago
Why Should The State Pay For A Persons Chosen Life Style?
18 Answers
http://
What is not mentioned in this report is, where is the father or fathers are they contributing?
What is not mentioned in this report is, where is the father or fathers are they contributing?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Where is the father or fathers?
The children do look "half caste" and sadly certain "ethnic" members of society are unwilling to take responsibility for their children so they father them and then just disappear.
And we are left to pick up the pieces.
ps. She says she goes to bed a 3am and gets up at 6am. Every Day !!!
Telling porkies there I think.
The children do look "half caste" and sadly certain "ethnic" members of society are unwilling to take responsibility for their children so they father them and then just disappear.
And we are left to pick up the pieces.
ps. She says she goes to bed a 3am and gets up at 6am. Every Day !!!
Telling porkies there I think.
I watched this programme,the children all have the same father but could not handle the amount of children so left!!What astonished me was she had £1000 rent arrears and they were nullified and at the end she was given a larger council house despite this to accommodate all of them,unbelievable.I have never heard of this happening before,I thought you were not even considered if rent arrears were not paid?
The problem is always the innocent children. Decent humanity is what stymies things in this sort of situation. But then nothing changes, nothing gets better.
Perhaps the answer is to set a low limit that should just cover the needs of a small family who are temporarily on hard times. If the children are then seen to suffer because either the money is not being spent wisely, or because the parents already ensured there were too many to be covered by welfare, then the parents could be charged with neglect of those children, be given a gaol term.
The children would need to be taken into care, after all they are already being funded. It'd cost more and not be ideal for the kids, but the responsibility for that experience would be down to the parents, and public finances may improve if it acts as a deterrent in the long term to expecting the taxpayer to fund the irresponsible ?
Perhaps the answer is to set a low limit that should just cover the needs of a small family who are temporarily on hard times. If the children are then seen to suffer because either the money is not being spent wisely, or because the parents already ensured there were too many to be covered by welfare, then the parents could be charged with neglect of those children, be given a gaol term.
The children would need to be taken into care, after all they are already being funded. It'd cost more and not be ideal for the kids, but the responsibility for that experience would be down to the parents, and public finances may improve if it acts as a deterrent in the long term to expecting the taxpayer to fund the irresponsible ?
and she's probably living with the father of her latest baby. One of our new tenants I thought was an unmarried pregnant girl is now getting housing benefit as a single mum and her boyfriend is living in the house and he's working full time. Its a joke the Benefit system. This is probably highly controversial but there is no real poverty in the UK. This girl said she could not afford the full security bond so had to get a bond agency involved, yet after she moved in fully decorated the house even though it had been done by the previous Tenant, took a perfectly good fireplace surround down and bought a new one. Years ago these girls would have been placed in an unmarried mothers home, not given money to rent two bed semi's and paid not to work. Seems these days only the 'poorest' in society or the 'affluent' can afford to be stay at home mums.
This is astonishing (or perhaps I should no longer be astonished by such things!).
Gromit is dead right, the children did not ask to be brought into the world, and whilst I do find her and her partner's actions to be entirely feckless and unecessary (nobody needs 8 kids), we should continue to pay the benefits so that her kids are housed, fed and clothed.
I welcome George Osbourne's plan to limit child benefit to two children. I would bet my left arm that if this was in place when this woman started to breed she would not have had more than two - she has bred for money.
There is not such thing as an accidental pregnancy.
Gromit is dead right, the children did not ask to be brought into the world, and whilst I do find her and her partner's actions to be entirely feckless and unecessary (nobody needs 8 kids), we should continue to pay the benefits so that her kids are housed, fed and clothed.
I welcome George Osbourne's plan to limit child benefit to two children. I would bet my left arm that if this was in place when this woman started to breed she would not have had more than two - she has bred for money.
There is not such thing as an accidental pregnancy.
-- answer removed --
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
Body & Soul16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.