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???

I do have some sympathy for her, she was married with 6 kids, mortgage etc and then her husband left her,

nope - they created a very vulnerable situation for their DCs.

I do feel sorry for her in a way £2000 isn't a massive amount of money to cover rent, bills, feed 8 people, clothes, toys, birthdays, christmas etc. She may have a 6 bedroom house but to be fair it didn't look upto much. Her family are going to be pushed in to poverty and even though I think you should only have the number of children you can afford to have (also understand circumstances change after sometimes) I will feel really sorry for her children.

What about her child with sn?
Maybe they need it to get to and from appointments?
She would have to pay for bus passes for the children over 5, and herself.

Sadly she is probably not going to be very employable after being out of work for so long. There's enough competition for jobs as it is.

I don't know what the solution is, but painting her as a scrounger and making her worse off isn't the answer imo. My first though when I saw the story is that she probably has deep seated self esteem issues.

Unfortunately, I don't think she'll be able to turn her life around very easily.

How do you know what surestart have or haven't done?

You are flapping your bloody gums to be as controversial and goady as possible.

I refuse to continue to engage with such an obtuse, inflammatory, ignoramus.

HTH

I do have some sympathy for her, she was married with 6 kids, mortgage etc and then her husband left her, she and kids became homeless due to house repossession, she has only had 1 further child whilst on benefits, it's not as if she has been constantly reproducing (unlike some) and expecting others to pay for them.

Well not constantly reproducing, no, but she has chosen to exacerbate an already very difficult situation, hasn't she?

And this is why it's probably not a great idea to have 6 kids even when you think everything is going swimmingly. We are all of us only one job loss or one illness away from potential disaster. A bit of sensible damage limitation wouldn't go amiss. That's why most of us stop at 2 or 3, maybe four is we are feeling especially optimistic.

I cannot comprehend why so many women leave school with nowt, get married/shacked up /pregnant and then end up living off the tax payer when the relationship fails.

What happened to qualifications, working, postponing families?

Hands up any employer who wants to take on a women who has been out of the work place for 15 years, admits to needing skills training and has 7 children, one with special needs? And she lives in an area with shockingly high unemployment.

How do you discourage people from going into situations where they are effectively choosing to not support themselves, without punishing people who are already in these situations or in them because of the circumstances that life has thrown at them? And if real wages are so low that they can't support a normal sized family, and people feel like it's only fair if benefits are lower than wages, then how is the welfare system even going to help anyone?

It's all fine and well saying that she shouldn't have had seven kids (and really she probably shouldn't have) but they're here and they need to be looked after and fed and this woman, for whatever reason, is unable to contribute financially to that. I think we have an obligation to make sure that children and vulnerable people are supported.

But then I don't know how to marry up that thought with how we encourage people to have aspirations of self support and how we don't make people feel like shit for needing help and how we they can contribute to society.

Blah, that was a lot of thoughts in not a very good order.

She is 38, and if she hasn't worked for 20 years that means since she was 18.

Oops, I seem to have missed a large chunk

We do it by capping benefits at two or three children at a point in the future whilst maintaining support for those children already in existence from that point.

Quite simple.

Massive career of 2 years max then!

I think people are probably less bothered than how much she receives in benefits than they are by the fact that she chose to go to the papers and complain that she will be needing more.

But people wont accept that because it's not going to reduce the welfare bill* or stop things like this making it to the paper.

*I understand that the breakdown of where welfare and benefits actually goes doesn't make very palatable reading for the right wing frothers though.

OTTMummA Wed 12-Jun-13 15:12:30
What about her child with sn?
Maybe they need it to get to and from appointments?
She would have to pay for bus passes for the children over 5, and herself.
_

Do you think she has to go to daily appointments with the child? Or has to catch a bus every so often to the hospital. To run a car of the size she must have would be very expensive, tax insurance maintenance petrol. Far cheaper to walk the kids to the primary and I am sure the older ones would get a bus pass to school. So highly likely that she could cut down in this area.

In fact she has lots of things she could do with immediate effect to close the gap of the 600 per month she claims she will lose. But I doubt she has even thought of one of them. Because she doesn't want to.

We do it by capping benefits at two or three children at a point in the future whilst maintaining support for those children already in existence from that point.
So what do we do when a family with 2/3 kids on benefits do have another baby? Let it starve? Take it into care - how much will that cost the taxpayer?
Or should we become more like China and force abortions on the poor?

Am a little confused by this if she has a child with special needs does she not receive dla for her dc. If so she would be exempt from the benefit cap.

Did the DM really give her 500 for the interview as someone said upthread?

Let's hope she has declared it.

WTAF? I can't fucking help myself with you, Bonquers!

What is it with women?

Bonquers

You keep suggesting capping benefits at 2 children. You haven't explained what should happen when families still have more than 2, which they then at some point cannot afford to support. Should the children be left with insufficient food and clothing, to punish them for their parents choices?

I had some sympathy for her. 7 kids must be hard work, I have 5 and it is chaos at times. Also she had them while she was married. Not her fault if the bloke cleared off. Why isn't he getting slated? It is going to be hard for any mother of several children to get a job and do everything else aswell especially if her son has severe behavioral issues and is often excluded.

As for the not working in however many years, I haven't been in paid work for 14 years as have been a SAHM. Lots of SAHP haven't worked in years but still have been doing vital unpaid work in the home. I am not on benefits which is the only difference really but don't see how better off mums are ok to be a SAHM but lone parent are 'layabouts' etc.

It needs to be made clear that it is anti-social to have large families at the taxpayers expense. So many young girls become single mothers due to lack of self-esteem.

adoption would probably be the best thing for the child, at birth, but unfortunately in a 'civilised' society thats not politically viable

Kaluki - if they decide to have a 3rd or 4th child, then it is down to the parents to support it. Simple.
Best idea ever.

YANBU.

In fact you are showing compassion for somebody who is probably a lot worse off than yourself, which imo is very commendable.

I can't believe somebody on this thread has described a human being as a drain on society. I don't know where some people get off.