Advanced search

To feel a little sorry for the 7 children benefits Mum.

(1000 Posts)
MilgramsLittleHelper Wed 12-Jun-13 11:19:38

Is just seems like another bit of benefit bashing to me.

I know she shouldn't have had children she couldn't afford, but what hope of improving her lot???

Ashoething Thu 13-Jun-13 16:19:35

Liberals have had a bit of a pasting on this thread too-my how things change..

BeerTricksPotter Thu 13-Jun-13 16:18:58

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ashoething Thu 13-Jun-13 16:18:55

The benefit reforms will go ahead-you can bet your life on it. Hallelujah.

BeerTricksPotter Thu 13-Jun-13 16:18:05

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JakeBullet Thu 13-Jun-13 16:17:25

So perhaps what we should be saying is that anyone who has more than 3-4 children is selfish then?
After all you may have these children in good times and fall on hard times. This woman was in a marriage and they had a mortgage which she could not keep up when the marriage broke down.

Can any one of us say we are safe from that?

And if you have more than 4 children and this happens does that make you selfish?

tethersend Thu 13-Jun-13 16:17:07


BeerTricksPotter Thu 13-Jun-13 16:16:27

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BeerTricksPotter Thu 13-Jun-13 16:14:35

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tethersend Thu 13-Jun-13 16:14:16

Williamina, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but if you really think that it might be nice to have a social worker for the extra care and attention, there's not a lot I can say to you.

Do you know what social workers do?

ophelia275 Thu 13-Jun-13 16:12:19

If she is claiming DLA then the cap won't apply to her anyway so perhaps she went to the papers because she wanted some extra cash and knew she would get some from interviews?

LadyEdith Thu 13-Jun-13 16:09:33

Yep - you can only ever say you are a net contributer 'so far'.

BeerTricksPotter Thu 13-Jun-13 16:08:47

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

williaminajetfighter Thu 13-Jun-13 16:07:25

tether I'd like a reduction in council-run services and social services which are run by a council. Councils in this country are massive, bloated and fat and not exactly run by 'the cream of the crop'. I know, I've been there albeit briefly. Corrupt, poorly run, lifers holding onto jobs. Dreadful, second-class organizations.

I think the idea of a government agency intervening into family life and having to intervene into other's care is grim. Probably needed but when I went to my doctor and he asked on a form 'If I had a social worker' and I said, 'um, no' and he said 'a lot of people around here do' I thought - hmm maybe I do need a social worker. Wouldn't mind that extra care and attentioN!

glam71 Thu 13-Jun-13 16:04:02

O and where is the cut off for being a net contributer. How much would you have you earn in a lifetime to put in what you take out?

glam71 Thu 13-Jun-13 16:01:36

Maybe not faster. But i expect lots of working families on here get help supporting their dc. Things such as child tax cr. Working tax credit and child benefit. Only those earning more than 60k get no help.

FasterStronger Thu 13-Jun-13 15:50:44

I am travelling for business. Been up since 6am. Lead a meeting I knew nothing about at the start. Explained to a business how to deliver better services to clients. Did a bit of problem solving for senior staff at meeting 2. MN is a wonderful contrast.

BeauNidle Thu 13-Jun-13 15:46:50

Fudgeface My working day starts at 7.30pm thank you.
Work in this world is 24 hours. Not everyone is on 9-5 monday to fridayhmm

Bonquers Thu 13-Jun-13 15:46:14

Fasterstronger I agree with all you say .Like you we are net contributors pissed off at piss takers.

tethersend Thu 13-Jun-13 15:44:07

Williaminajetfighter- I don't think you mean social services, but council run services.

Social services have a very specific remit.

PatPig Thu 13-Jun-13 15:41:44

It's fairly standard that 'hardworking taxpayers' are allowed personal use of the internet at work, because it saves them going off-site to do so, and makes them work longer hours and so on.

cory Thu 13-Jun-13 15:40:38

CarpeVinum Thu 13-Jun-13 14:03:15

"Yet the sharp contrast in support systems may have had the inintended consequence of rendering the British far more supceptable in increasing numbers to a romanic outlook when creating children, compared to the cold, hard logic typically practised by Italians. (with their low birth rate and low abortion rate, likely due to no expectation of substantial state support when things go bent)"

Do we know that this is actually cause and effect though?

The low Italian birth rate is a recent thing. In the first half of the 20th century, not to mention the 19th Italians were known for their large families. Are you saying there was some kind of welfare system encouraging these families? And that birth rates went down because welfare was cut?

If not, how can we possibly know what effect cutting welfare would have in the UK?

Otoh during the second half of the 20th century, Sweden was known for its high welfare- and its low birth rate.

Even today, large families are very much a rarity in the UK as well as in other Western countries. This is why they become almost freak shows in the press or on television: we wouldn't find this mum so alien if she was in any way the norm.

The countries which do still have high birth rates are the ones with virtually no welfare.

My own feeling is that people have large families when there is a cultural expectation that women will spend all their life child rearing. Either because this is a respected position in that society or (as in some poorer areas in the UK) because women do not see themselves as having any chances of succeeding elsewhere. Or occasionally, as feelger reminded us, because individual women are controlled by men who do not want them to succeed elsewhere.

FudgefaceMcZ Thu 13-Jun-13 15:39:44

I'm always a bit bewildered by 'hardworking taxpayers' who are on a non-work related site in the middle of the working day, chatting about politics. Do you work for the Daily Mail as official representatives, or something else that requires you to be on mumsnet while at work? I wonder, does the mum with 7 children get time to do this? If not, who is harder working?

williaminajetfighter Thu 13-Jun-13 15:38:21

tether yes, I want less need for social services, less people using social services and a reduced social services and local authority. I am baffled by the way people go to the govt - and particularly the local council - for so much. I grew up in another country and thought that local services covered garbage collection and water supply!

Sorry but a world where I work part-time for a council, live in council housing, go to a council-run gym, get support from the council, go to a council-run babynme program and then get a council-led social worker to provide additional support is my version of hell. I'm not sure why it's considered so normal now. I thought a life of independence is what people should strive for.

BeauNidle Thu 13-Jun-13 15:34:02

The question is, will there be a thread part 2? grin

Or have we all run out of puff grin

Morethan - you paid HR Tax, corporation tax and capital gains, yet claimed tax credits? Sheesh

FasterStronger Thu 13-Jun-13 15:33:56

Morethan, yes if you don't mind being hypocritcal. Dp and I paid about 80 k in tax last financial year. So yes we were net contributors. Which is fine. People need life saving treatment. Children need taking into care etc

Its just lazy irresponsible people I don't like getting paid money by the state because it could be better spent.

This thread is not accepting new messages.