To think it is ridiculous that a woman with 11 kids is getting a £400,000 house for nowt

[angelos02]

Especially when most working people couldn't never afford to live somewhere costing that much?
Link: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280385/Home-fit-dole-queen-Mother-11-gets-BRAND-NEW-400-000-house-built-council-shes-struggling-current-homes.html

[pinkhalf]

This story can also be found in the Guardian and the Telegraph. The basic facts are true.

Plainly she is stupid, irresponsible and feckless. I hope her children do better than she. While it looks like a privilege to some, its just a way of staying put, and never going anywhere. I wouldn't want her life.

And the benefit changes to come will really make it unbearable, so let us think of those kids. It will not be good for them, will it?

[Morloth]

Because it is the lesser of two evils.

The alternative is forced contraception/abortion/adoption or watching children be homeless.

Better to float the occasional chancer IMO.

[pashapasta]

If that was aimed at me, TSC, I am not angry at all with anyone. I am amazed that people can have so many children with means of supporting them. We would have liked another one but couldn't afford it, so we didn't.

[Inertia]

She isn't being given it, she'll be renting it.

It isn't a mansion being built to her specifications- the plans in the article clearly show that it's part of a development, and presumably the council are matching families to appropriate housing. It won't have cost £400,000 to build - that's just the value that the DM have decided to use, perhaps based on valuations of other similar sized houses, probably houses that were never social housing stock. And it makes sense for councils to build houses to meet their housing obligations, especially as housing stocks have been depleted since the 'right-to-buy' came in. And TBH it makes sense to have a programme of building social housing during a recession- it provides housing, it provides jobs and keeps construction firms and associated trades in business, and it is a way of getting public money back into circulation.

No matter how irresponsible we think the parents are, as a society it is our responsibility to provide for children in need. It's much more cost-effective to have these children brought up by a parent than to place them in care. And by the way, why is it only the mother who is expected to carry the responsibility? Why isn't the DM castigating the fathers of each of these children, if they are not contributing financially or socially to the children's upbringing?

The 'first falls pregnant at 14 to man who ends up in prison' headline is a disgrace; she was a legally a child, legally she couldn't give consent - so how can it be acceptable for the DM to use this is a stick to beat her with? Perhaps that's actually why he went to prison?

If she genuinely think she gets to veto the house design she's deluded- however I always take DM reports with a pinch of salt.

[countrykitten]

No one is angry at her for being poor thesecondcoming.

[gordyslovesheep]

What I find interesting is people who throw around words like 'politically correct' etc fail to offer an alternative solution

other than 'pay for your own kids' which is hardly an effective remedy since it wont happen

either she is housed - and her children live in safe uncrowded condition or what?

I get that people get very clenchy about it but it is what it is - social housing exist and people are allowed to use it - regardless of their personality faults or number of children

and I agree 100% with the comments about rape victims - this woman was pregnant at 14 to a 23 year old - I am guessing she didn't have the greatest start in life - I wouldn't swap with her for any sized house

[secretofcrickleyhall]

Amber - they bloody well do (the 'bloody' aimed at my frustration of the system, not yourself.) The cost of nursery fees means that I am afraid they do. Income support, CTC, council tax benefit, housing benefit.

Sorry, just knackered and it's a sore spot for me.

[Inertia]

Oh lots of cross posts but especially with TSC who has put it much more succinctly than me.

[Viviennemary]

Perhaps if the law did something about 23 year old men who think it is perfectly OK to have sex with an underage girl, this woman would not be in the situation she is today. There is a law against underage sex though you wouldn't think so. As it never seems to be applied.

[AmberSocks]

I dont think it matters she has 11 children,its her attitude towards it really,and theres a good chance her kids wil be similar,the apple never falls far fromm the tree and and all of that.

[HoHoHoNoYouDont]

I like how they managed to get a photo of a trampoline to complete the 'council house' scene.

As others have said, I wouldn't like her life either.

As an individual she is selfish and entitled. I feel sorry for her children if this is the attitude she will educate her children with.

As sad as the circumstances are I too think it is good that she can no longer have more children. I say this for the sake of the children she has already. She has been blessed with as many as she has already got. Bringing more into the world just wouldn't be fair.

[ChairmanWow]

YY Elllie. What would other posters have the system do with all her kids? They're here now and deserve a roof over their heads.

Am a bit fed up of the moany 'well I had to work for it' brigade. Yup, me too. Child care costs a fortune, yadda yadda yadda. But you know what, this woman's case is an extreme, focussed on by the DM to scapegoat benefit claimants. The typical benefit claimant (esp housing benefit) is actually in work, usually low paid and part-time. The subsidising of low pay by the taxpayer is a much bigger problem than the odd person who has never heard of contraception. You want to get pissed off, get pissed off at Tesco and friends who pay poorly and let the taxpayer top up the rest while paying their shareholders fat dividends.

[countrykitten]

She may well have been 'blessed' but those children cannot be described as 'blessed'.

[HoHoHoNoYouDont]

Exactly country which is why she shouldn't have any more. Nature has taken care of that as no one else has the right to.

[countrykitten]

Yes - thankfully.

[manicinsomniac]

This is a woman who:

• at 36, looks more like 46
  
• was, if not raped or sexually assualted, at least groomed into sex as a child
  
• went through pregnancy and child birth 3 times before most children have even left the classroom behind them.
  
• almost certainly has no qualifications, educational satisfaction or job prospects.
  
• may never have experienced going out to work to a job she enjoys
  
• probably has nothing to do all day except clean the house and look after a toddler
  
• is potentially passing on that sad lifestyle to many or all of her children.
  
• lives in run down, overcrowded accomodation
  
• probably has very low self confidence and self belief
  
• has probably been expolited and had her words twisted for a seedy newspaper.
  
  so she gets a new council build with just about enough space for all her kids in a nicer area. Good for her.
  
  She'll have a better house than me but everything else in her life ... hell, no. I wouldn't swap my life with hers for anything.

[somebloke123]

I don't have an answer either.

It's highly irresponsible to have children that you can't support, just assuming that the state will step in. (I'm not talking here about people whose circumstances change through no fault of their own.) I have little sympathy for the woman.

But what's the alternative? Put them out on the streets? I guess some of the children could be put into care but (a) it's highly likely that they would fare worse there than living with a loving - if highly flawed -parent and (b) this might well cost the taxpayer more anyway.

It's easy to pick on extreme cases like this and also easy to characterise benefits dependents as feckless. No doubt some are, but benefits dependency is really a culture that has to be changed rather than an easy opportunity for preaching about the "undeserving poor".

[kimorama]

It would be if it was true. Councils have an obligation to house parents with children (If it was just adults it is rather different) I get more upset by the rich than the poor.
Our set up is so unequal do be barely credible.

[secretofcrickleyhall]

I do agree with that last post Amber - the amount of children are to an extent immaterial.

The problem is that as far as I can see money has been flung at this problem for years now and it has made very little difference: if anything, the problem has excaberated. I am not actually a believer in the old "they had a baby to get a house" stereotype, or that most families on benefits set out to spend their life on benefits.

I think a "typical" case is a teenage girl who does moderately well at school, probably with quite a lot of pushing from teachers (magic 5 A*-C targets) and goes on to do some form of further education. In many cases, the spoon-feeding environment of school has meant the students are ill-equipped to deal with the more independent attitude demanded from them from college and after meeting a boy at college, becomes pregnant, often at the age of 17/18/19. The pregnancy isn't planned but it is celebrated. A second child often follows the first fairly promptly and it seems that it's that second baby that pushes most couples to their limits and the relationship falls apart, leaving the girl with two tiny ones. Obviously, she didn't plan any of this and nor does she plan to be on benefits forever and makes plans to go to college or university after her youngest is at school. Only by then she's met someone else, or she realises that the job she had such hopes for actually doesn't pay that well.

I have a lot of friends who that exact story applies to, give or take a few changes. They are all "nice" girls. None of them meant to end up on benefits long term, but they all have. They all, from time to time, get fired up with something and start at college or university but then lose interest. And the truth is, they have nice lives. There isn't a LOT of money, sure, but there's certainly enough and they live close to each other, and to their mums and sisters and cousins. The fathers stay in touch: child maintenance is touch and go as the father's work is touch and go but they'll give the mums £50 when they can afford it and take the kids to McDonalds when they can't.

I have wished many times I'd made different choices, and I really do mean that. If I could live my life again, I know I'd do it "their" way.

[pashapasta]

Maybe a better OP would be AIBU to wonder how as a society we have got to the position where it is acceptable for people to have many children which they can not support and ask what is being done to break this cycle.

[pashapasta]

Maybe a better OP would be AIBU to wonder how as a society we have got to the position where it is acceptable for people to have many children which they can not support and ask what is being done to break this cycle.

[FellatioNels0n]

I don't have any comment to make on the story itself but I did have to laugh at the neighbour's comment 'It's a disgrace - she treat her womb like a clown car.'

I'm not entirely sure what's that's meant to mean but it's hilarious.