Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

To wonder about Heather Frost?

71 replies

SugarMouse1 · 21/02/2013 16:39

I have read various articles in the last few days about a mother of 11 getting a brand new house.

Some articles say she is a scrounger taking advantage of taxpayers money; others say she is a victim of our society.

The main points:

#She has a horse, which daughter Angel, says is hers, but not how the upkeep is paid for
#She doesn't work, but her partner does.
#Most people probably couldn't afford a house large enough to accomodate 11 kids
#2 of her kids have followed in her footsteps, having kids and raising them on benefits
#The childrens' father does not support the family, and refuses to.
#She had her first child at 14, by a 21 year-old, sad, and clearly the victim of abuse.
#She has gone through cancer and can't have any more children
#She completed a 'race for life' for charity, good on her.

Her children seem happy and well cared for, and she shows her concern by really, really not wanting them 'picked on' by the incident.

Your thoughts please!

And this is not a benefit bashing thread!

OP posts:

BegoniaBampot · 21/02/2013 18:09

I don't care really. All this attention can't be good for her kids tough.

carabos · 21/02/2013 18:11

And of course it's an "eco-mansion". The council will, rightly, be building this home to the highest, most sustainable standards in line with and possibly exceeding all regulatory requirements. That's as it should be, they are using taxpayers' money and have a responsibility to get the very best they can for it.

There would be another outcry if the social housing landlord built some crappy, shoddy, environmentally unsound pile of crap and then asked a vulnerable woman in poor health with young children to live in it .

MrSlant · 21/02/2013 18:12

I was wondering; It's not like they have given her £400,000 pounds though is it? The council have built a house for however much money but surely not £400k, now it is worth lots and it still belongs to the council and they have freed up two homes for two other families that need them. Turning some money into more money by building a house with it seems quite astute to me. I appreciate I might be missing the main point some are trying to make but that was what came into my mind first.

NC78 · 21/02/2013 18:16

Good luck to her.

And I hope they built a stable for the horse too.

MrsDeVere · 21/02/2013 18:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 21/02/2013 18:17

I like the idea that she has been "given" a house. What is it now hers? No, a Social Housing provider have offered her a house of an appropriate size to rent.

I think Mrs DV is right.

LtEveDallas · 21/02/2013 18:17

#2 of her kids have followed in her footsteps, having kids and raising them on benefits

On the local news when the story 'broke' it said that her daughters did work and that she was providing childcare for them so they could? Did Daybreak say different?

Otherwise, I can't be arsed to go through this again so I'll just say "Wot MrsDV said, with bells on"

MrsDeVere · 21/02/2013 18:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster

SugarMouse1 · 21/02/2013 18:35

Carabos- People have got to want help though, you can't force it on them.

OP posts:

Pigsmummy · 21/02/2013 18:45

I am surprised that her adult children and their children are still living under her roof, why haven't they been rehoused? (too much to hope that they are working and can sort themselves out) then they wouldn't need this new super house and we wouldn't be talking about them?

Orwellian · 21/02/2013 18:48

I don't think she is a "victim". She is being housed adequately (perhaps not in a mansion but a very nice home that most people could never afford) and lives in a country where she can live comfortably enough to buy a horse for her daughter and pay for flying lessons for her partner via the welfare state without lifting a finger.

I think that if you are dependent on the state to such an extent that you are being housed by them in two adjoining homes (so depriving another family of a home) and the state is paying out thousands in benefits when you have never paid into the system, then the state and the taxpayer paying for your entitlements has a right to know where their money is being spent.

mathanxiety · 21/02/2013 19:03

How long does it take to pay into the system the amount it costs to have even one baby on the NHS?
How much would you have to pay in taxes to put a child or two through state schools?

feckwit · 21/02/2013 19:13

There are many, many people in this country with loads of money and a big house and they are shit parents.

There are others who have no money and are great parents.

Most are somewhere in the middle.

The house she is moving in to will free up the two houses she is in now for two more families. The house has been designed so it can be divided into two houses in the future.

Many people cannot afford houses these days so we need to address the social housing situation. I am thrilled to think more houses are being built for this purpose actually.

I don't get all the furore.

Sleepyfergus · 21/02/2013 19:13

11 times as much when you have 11 kids probably.

mathanxiety · 21/02/2013 19:25

If you have even the usual 2.3 children on the NHS you have already taken out far more than the average family puts in. That is before you even start them in school. There are very few people in Britain who can throw stones when it comes to entitlement/welfare. If you want to live in a society where everyone pays their way, go to the US. It doesn't exist in Britain.

Family lives in several taxpayer-funded mansions that are probably not eco friendly. They will be adding to the taxpayer burden this coming summer.

LtEveDallas · 21/02/2013 20:02

Math, that made me

carabos · 21/02/2013 20:11

I agree with you sugarmouse but she's picking and choosing what help to accept - she accepts benefits, but not support from the feckless fathers, and I just wonder whether with proper intervention when she was a pregnant teen, she might have been able to recognise her need for help with big decisions.

I feel sorry for her.

Dawndonna · 21/02/2013 20:28

Nice one, Math

LineRunner · 21/02/2013 21:45

Of course under the policy of dearest maddest Margaret Thatcher she could buy the house after 20 years or so for the price of a car; and flog it on.

Maybe the Daily Mail should shove that up its arse.

Busbybabe · 28/02/2013 12:40

It really is a terrible shame that her poor children have no choice but to be lumbered with this useless, selfish, greedy individual as a parent. She did not lose a job because she was ill, she has NEVER had a job her life. You may think looking after 11 is a job? That is laughable! The older ones are left to look after younger ones. Shes always out here, there, and everywhere with the lastest waste of space she co-produces with. A man old enough to be her father! If you knew her, you wouldnt even be shocked. Ive been through so many emotions trying to find the right words, but really at the end of the day, SAD says it best.

BridgetBidet · 28/02/2013 20:35

One of her kids said that their Dad (well the Dad of a lot of them) did work and the problems started when he left and subsequently refused to support them. And as others have said she is recovering from cancer so perhaps not quite as undeserving as some might have us believe.

She seem to be a singularly unpleasant individual but you don't get benefits for being a nice person, you get them according to need.

The house, however is a bit dodgy. It's built to a very high spec and is extremely roomy and spacious with open plan living areas. I don't think it's necessary to provide a place of that quality and standard when housing is often very cramped and poor for those who work and pay for what they can afford.

Flip

1 2 3