To think actually, this IS about benefits?(100 Posts)
I feel desperately sorry for this woman over the awful loss of her son, but although she maintains that all this isn't about benefits, I can't help but feel it is. AIBU.
i don't think she's helping her younger two by going on hunger strike
if it was me I would put all the money into a trust fund for the 2 DC and then put in a new claim < don't know if that is legal>
Seems like a horrible situation but I can't see how the woman is helping her younger children by doing something like this. Unless it is just a way of getting into the papers and drawing attention to the situation. Which I am not saying is right or wrong. Just saying it. <sits on fence>
His family received a £68,000 death-in-service (DIS) pay-out, combined with a £150,000 PAX insurance payout.
William's wish that his death-in-service payout would be used as a trust fund for his younger brothers
He should have made a will
She want's to keep benefit payouts.
Call me harsh but she could use that money to retrain, ultimately get a job, and secure her childrens futures instead of using her dead son to do so.
She has been threatened with eviction from her three-bedroom home over rent arrears and warned she faces bailiffs for non-payment of council tax.
She's got 218K in the bank so as not to be in arrears.
I'm sorry for her loss, but she has the money to pay - if she's taking the moral high ground that the money is to secure the siblings future, she should look to their immediate future and provide a secure home.
read this earlier
very sorry that she lost her son but REALLY the woman sounds greedy and she has plenty of money to bring her other sons up,her deceased son wanted the money to go to his siblings and there upbringing so use it woman
its more than most and what good is she to her living children if she dies through the strike
i dont think she is getting the reaction she thought by the response ive read elsewhere
Today the single mother vowed she would continue to refuse solid food until the Government 'started a dialogue' with her about the issue. Lucy, said: 'Right now I am feeling hungry and tired. 'But I am doing it to give my sons the future their big brother wanted for them and for other military families in my position. The boys dont know whats going on as they are staying with their grandparents. 'I hope it doesnt come to it but whether I die or not is in the governments hands.
Translation: I CBA to look after the kids I have living, and have palmed them off on grand parents, I'm an attention seeker, so much so, I don;t care if I get ill/die because the state will pick up the bill, probably having driven my parents into the ground through my selfish need for attention
It's awful what happened to that young soldier, but benefits are supposed to be to help you when you couldn't manage otherwise. She can get by, and pay for her children, by using the money she inherited, so shouldn't get benefits. It's as simple as that.
Of course it's about benefits. The woman is selfish and entitled, I honestly don't understand what planet she is on. Does she seriously think that her one woman hunger strike/toddler tantrum is going to get the government to change the laws surrounding benefits just for her? Or can we all just throw a hissy fit and expect Westminster to do as we demand?
My DH is in the Forces. We have got Life Insurance that will pay out should he die in Service, so I can continue to bring up my DC without needing benefits.
My DS1 wants to join the Army. We shall be advising him to take out a life insurance policy and to make a will as soon as possible, so any money that gets left, should he die, goes where he wants it too.
This lady is being very, very silly. I honestly do not know why she thinks the State should continue to support her, when she has in excess of £200k. I don't like it, that some people believe that members of the Armed Forces should be exempt from laws that govern other people because of the job they do. I feel dreadfully sorry for her, but the rules can not and should not be changed for one case.
She's disabled and can't work.
What she is saying is that she has to spend the money her son leaves her on living until she is below the 16k threshold and she can claim benefits again - instead of carrying out the expressed will of her son (because he only said it to her and didn't write a will).
What Ophelia said. She needs to pull herself togther and look after her son's who have just been bereaved.
I don't really understand hunger strikes.
'Today the single mother vowed she would continue to refuse solid food until the Government 'started a dialogue' with her about the issue.'
Um, OK? Why should anyone give a fuck as to what she is choosing to eat (or not?).
She has 200,000 quid, how she came into it is awful but she has it, she now has the means to make a big difference to her and her children's future.
slightly OT, but can they force her to eat like they can do for Anorexia patients
What Laurie said.
The fact she is disabled and can't work makes this different IMO
I get the point others are making, but if she was able bodied and could work, she and her sons would get the full benefit of this payout.
But she is eating. She just isn't eating solid food. She can live fine on soup and milkshake.
Her son will have been spoken to about making a will anyway, they tend to make you think about these things when they send you off to a war zone.
It makes no difference whatsoever that she is disabled! She will still get her DLA, the same as every other rich person with a disability will get.
I think she needs proper counselling to deal with her grief.
Does anyone really believe this 18 yo soldier wanted the insurance to go specifically into a trust fund ?
It does make a difference though doesn't it?
I actually get why she doesn't want her day to day life paid for by her dead sons money, that would feel awful for every penny you spent.
However it's also not right that with the money there she should be entitled to benefits.
The best solution would be to move x% of the money into trust for the boys £50k each would sort them a good education and deposit on their first home and car. Then use the remainder of the money to raise them, feed them, clothe them etc. what is that if not securing their future as per his wishes?
Then for any of her personal needs outside basic survival to be there for her sons she can use her CTC and CB money.
What the worst solution would be is being totally emotional and selfishly disrupting her already bereaved DSs lives further whether that is in personal grief or to fight a cause.
I read this this morning in our local paper. Sh needs a slap, some counselling and to put her sons needs first. Her older son wanted to help his younger brothers, not have their mum starve herself to death in the hope of keeping her benefits and the money for the younger boys.
I do see her point, in that it was meant to be for the boys, but she cannot hope to keep that and benefits as well.
I know what she wanted was to put the money in trust for them and keep the benefits, but what she could do is buy a house and still claim benefits.
As her older son left the money to her, she cannto expect people to go against that.
It's not at all clear to me. I can't see how it makes any difference at all.
What if she wasn't disabled but was working for a low wage and was on the breadline? No doubt in that situation she would use the money to enhance hers and her children's lives, so why should it be any different just because she's on benefits. Her disability payment will be the same regardless.
She's disabled and can't work.
Stephen Hawkin manages a rather large contribution to science and society.
Join the discussion
Please login first.