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

[MilgramsLittleHelper]

www.itv.com/daybreak/hottopics/benefits-mum/

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???

Beau she is not asking for more, she is askIng to not have her benefits cut because she can not afford to live otherwise.
Benefits should be enough to live on otherwise you can't call it a saftey net can you?
She probably won't be able to move without financial assistance from her local council. If she was allocated the larger house then it wasn't really 100% her choice, that's what living a life like this is like,, you don't have the luxury of choice as she would if she earnt the 30+K herself which a lot of people are forgetting, or ignorant off.
Moving her may make her financial situation worse, if she can find somewhere cheaper but only further away from schools, public transport then the reduction in rent will be negated by larger transport costs.
It's highly likely that she gets the social housing paid for automatically, so out of the 2K her rent and council tax benefit are automatically taken off, she doesn't get that cadh in hand!
So even If she moved, she would still get a similar amount for all her other bills, its just the council wouldnt be paying X amount for her rent, it would become Y amount, which would only save money if she was paying full tent out of wages.
she won't save herself money, the 6 bed house will still be there, empty and unused, what a waste.

Hang on, hang on, hang on.

Unless I have missed something upthread where do we have it confirmed that she claims DLA (possibly for two children, not even one) and carer's allowance? Aren't we jumping to conclusions here just because she is on benefits and uttered the SN word?

And if she does claim them, and that exempts her from the benefits caps, why is she on the telly moaning about the benefits caps?

As far as I can tell, whether she claims DLA and carer's allowance or not, the main issue is that she uses a good portion of her disposable income to fund some sort of top up on renting her house, after the 700+ HB she gets. Unless she has a remarkably generous LA who says she is entitled to six bedrooms with 7 kids, (and it would appear that as her 17 year old has only just come back to live with her, whatever that means) that she may have moved into it with only 5 or 6 children living with her at the time. The youngest is only two. So she has existed in a situation where none, or only one or two of the bedrooms at most have had to have more than one occupant at any given time, which is a pretty luxurious and unsustainable state of affairs for someone with so many children and no earned income, isn't it?

Then again, how do we define a 'six bed' house? Are they all upstairs? Or is she using a couple of downstairs reception rooms (let's say a house that had a study and a separate dining room) In which case she would actually be in a four bed which is much less exciting and froth-worthy, isn't it? It could be a bit of manipulative reporting, that.

If it is truly a six bed place, with the footprint of a six bedder, meaning spacious living accommodation downstairs as well, then it is superfluous to her requirements and she should really be made to decide where her priorities lie. We cannot just keep funding that kind of thing without question. (There are many things we should be asking ourselves if we can keep funding without question, not least the Royal family admittedly, but this is 6 bed house nonsense is certainly one of them.)

As for what Holly said, which was this:

And frankly if is she is too uneducated to hold down a rudimentary job, SS should have stepped in to protect her from sexual advances and pregnancies she couldn't understand the consequences of.

Please note she said protect. I am inclined to agree with her, and I think you are all being a bit naughty implying that she supports eugenics, or god forbid 'genocide' as one person said. Desperate tactics, much?

You think you've scored game, set and match with the E word, but you really haven't. That is political point scoring of the cheapest and most desperate sort, and I had thought some of you were better than that.

We do know that very vulnerable women and teenaged girls with LDs and/or perhaps MH issues already are encouraged (or coerced?) by support workers and HCPs to have implants and contraceptive injections etc, if they are thought to be sexually active and are incapable of parenting independently and adequately at that point (or any point) in their lives. This already happens. It is not eugenics, it's kindness, a sense of responsibility towards the most vulnerable, and an exercise in damage limitation. And if they do have children they are very often removed at birth or are the subject of huge amounts of Social Services intervention in order to help the family to function safely and with the right support.

In the case of a woman's mental capacity for understanding being severely limited, there is a big question mark over whether any kind of sex or impregnation can be truly consensual, and we know we need to protect them from potential abusers. That is not in dispute, I hope.

Again, unless I have missed something upthread, are we not making enormous assumptions that this woman is intellectually vulnerable, in order to defend her position? And is it not rather patronising to make those assumptions? Do only 'vunerable' or intellectually incapable women choose large families? I hardly think so.

And how have we arrived at the assumption that she probably has LDs, and has quite possibly ended up with 7 kids as a result of a limited capacity to recognise abuse and exploitation, or to understand the consequences of her actions? How have we arrived at the conclusion that she probably could not access BC due not one, but two men who used keeping her PG as a means of DA and control?

But if she has, then surely Holly has a point?

She is either intellectually capable of doing a rudimentary job or she isn't. And if she isn't then she probably isn't intellectually capable of parenting either. And from what I could see of the video and the interview there was absolutely no evidence of that. you can't have it both ways.

Beau, your post is not unreasonable when you consider a family of this size where all the children have normal needs. This one does not, she has at least TWO children with care needs significant enough for her to be able to claim Carers Allowance. THAT is the issue here, as potentially two of her children cannot share with others without disturbing their sleep significantly.

I only have ONE child but he is autistic and no way could he share a bedroom. He'd have any other child awake half the night, thankfully he is an only child.

There was a link further back where she described claiming CA and DLA.

Whilst i believe tax loopholes should be closed, Amazon etc are simply taking advantage of them no different to every other SE person or business does of tax law to keep taxes low. However they likes of Amazon etc employ thousands of people so are providing to the pot that way unlike those that live on benefits.

Not working in 20 years and having 7 children means a massive amount has been taken from the pot. The likelyhood is that some of the children will go onto claim themselves as the cycle often repeats as there is no work ethic in the household. The children see you get to stay home all day and money handed to you for doing nothing.

Morethan, given you have admitted you claim benefits although dont need them and have aquired enough to buy a home from saving them so i doubt its only the very very rich who are not struggling.

My 3 bed is cheaper than 90% of 2 beds in the area.
Her choices of housing would have been limited because it is quite common for landlords to not accept DSS or HB for renting as it conflicts with their insurance.

No matter the source of your income, you SHOULD live within your means.

The reason a lot of people are angry is that this lady's "means" increase every time she has another child.

For most of those who provide for themselves, 7 children is out of the question because it's too expensive.

As I've said before, contraception is free. Food, heating and a roof are not. This lady had had her 7 kids and no-one wishes her eternal damnation, but nevertheless when I get up for yet another day at work I can't help but sometimes think I'm the mug.

We'll said fellatio!

Feegle- it's very easy to see why you have been one of the most vocal on this, it's in your bloody interests to have women like this in society. After all if people were responsible for keeping their own legs shut unless they could pay for what comes out of them, then you would be out of a job! got a vested interest much?

SHE CAN AFFORD TO LIVE ON THE BENEFITS SHE HAS.

Believe me those children will not starve. They will be getting fsm, so that is one meal she does not have to feed them from her benefits.

She can downsize. Purlease don't tell me they approached her and said, you cannot possibly live in a 3 bed house, here is a bigger one my lovely. She would have requested to live in a bigger house.

My whole point is there are families in much smaller houses with lots of children and much smaller incomes who have to struggle to get by.
She cannot afford to heat the house, well neither could I heat a 6 bedroom house!

It comes down to how she adjusts to live within her means, like the rest of the country has to.

I would not take umbrage if she was living in a 3 or 4 bed house paid for by the welfare.

As for googling the reality of living on benefits and winding my neck in, no I won't thank you. You take a google at what it is like to have 2 parents working and trying to pay a mortgage and everything else with no help. People are speaking their minds, and quite right too. Enough of not daring to say it how it is in cases like this. I am not talking about everyone on benefits, I am talking about this woman and her situation.

Threads like this are good for one thing, who to avoid on MN.

Lol

I've done my googling thanks as I said before, the internet is rife with people talking about this story. Majority are riled. All the newspapers have comments, not just the DM.

"I'd rather look at the inequalities that lead to people choosing a life supported by the State"

I suspect if the State stopped doing quite so much supporting, many people would make different choices. Just ask those who have to work and pay taxes.

Oh yes, I would be well and truly satisfied for one.

As I said upthread, there are a multitude of ways to spend that 2 grand. Hey, you never know she may not have to wait so long for her child's next hospital appointment.

Every little helps as they say in Tesco.

Beau it is quite clear you have no experience of the benefits system, nor do you care to learn about it either, so I can't not fathom why you are even trying to justify your opinion.
If you can not see or refuse to see the flip side of this then I suggest you go back to your little benefit free bubble and pray with crossed fingers, arms and legs that you never end up relying on this saftey net.

I can't remember how it goes, but it's something along the lines of "to enrage a criminal who's not a thief, call him a thief" - and so here we see (yet again) the usual benefits-defence brigade.

The only reason they get all uppity about defending this type of person is that they feel different (i.e., middle class and educated) and don't want to be lumped in with the bottom-feeders.

All benefits bludgers though.

But Beer the state (and indeed the law) already does step in to prevent (or protect) some women from having children! (or at least keeping them.)

I would certainly not advocate a society where only people who are born clever, or who end up rich can be parents, but it is a bit far fetched for people to assume that all women in her position are where they are because they are somehow 'vulnerable.' We know no such thing about this particular woman, and yet again and again it has been assumed on this thread that she is probably the victim of some sort of huge misfortune or social injustice, or domestic abuse that directly caused her to have seven children.

We do have to give people some credit for being able to understand the concept of personal responsibility, surely? Or are we too assume that poor automatically equals stupid?

No-one is saying she should not have had any children. They are saying that unless you are exceptionally affluent, it is inadvisable to have seven, even when you have a good income, because it places you and your family in a precarious and vulnerable position, and far less likely to weather any financial storms that come your way.

And she is living proof of that.

OTT! The point is, it's not a safety net, it's a way of life. £2700/m and living in a 6 bed house is more than most peope an dream of. Benefits used to be a safety net till people could get themselves back on their feet. I am afraid it has now become a reason to never get on your feet in the first place more like a reason to stick them up in the ad and have another baby

air

Alot of peple are missing the point. People on this thread are not against the welfare state, or helping those in need. What they are against is a woman who is expecting to be housed by the welfare state in a 6 bedroom house, and moaning that 2k is not enough for her to pay her rent.

I think that is a sideways way to represent what I think the resentment is based on. And that's why the argument gets so polarized.

What I think people react to is that benefits and wages are not based on the same principle of "this is your pie, you decide how many slices you want to cut it in to"

Wages do not automatically increase with a situation where additional ougoings increase. Benefits do, in the sense that the creation of a child attracts an incremental rise.

I think perhaps rather than a "per child" rate, a flat "children" rate would address many of the unintended consequences of the orginal system.

I don't think you could apply it retropectively though. Not without causing childrenwho were born under the expectstions of the system currently in place considerable distress.

There would have to be a warning period (44 weeks) and a transtion to a new system for families created after that point.