To not understand benefits of £7k a month!

[CoastalWave]

Awful story in the paper today (apologies, Daily Mail! But I'm sure it's in others)

Beyond distressing what has happened to the children (and the dogs) and I'm delighted this pair have been jailed.

But what also stood out, was the comment that they received £7000 a month in benefits.

How?

When my DH lost his job during cover and we only had my part time wage to live on, we were told that £1k a month was absolutely fine for a family of 4 to live on and we were entitled to nothing. Zero. Nada. Out of that £1k a month was our £600 mortgage, £200 council tax, £150 gas/electric etc etc. Basically there was no bloody chance we could live on £1k a month. We lost all of our savings and we're still paying back the debt we accrued now.

How do scumbags like this even just get handed that amount of money per month? And moreover, no one is bloody checking up on them clearly. Those poor children.

link

Can someone please enlighten me as to how these even happens/is allowed? What on earth is £7k benefits made up of? Are all families with 7 kids and not working getting £7k a month because if they are I'm sacking off work and popping out a few more children.

Sorry I didn't mean to sound doubting there I was supposed to be acknowledging it happened

I've lived in both 3rd world countries and 1st world countries.

I've been both dirt poor, well-off and inbetween.

I've been both a receiver of charity and a donor.

I'm very grateful to the donors who helped me and my family when we were down and in need of charity. Without them I would have suffered greatly.

And I expect the receivers to whom I donate, to also be grateful for the charity they receive.

You didn't read the article clearly. They're getting £7000 a month. Not £7000 a year.

If you want someone to go around people's houses and ask for receipts of how DLA and PIP are being spent then campaign for this. It will never happen as it would be so bloody expensive to administer.

I apologise if anyone has been offended.

My concern over this is about the children. If they are so severely disabled they need £7000 a month, then why is that given without checking how they're coping - so how is the money helping, do the children need further support, do you need further support etc.

Obviously, that's at a simple level. It's been explained many times to me now that obtaining PIP is awful and it's not how the system works. Clearly these parents must have had help to fill out the forms and provide the evidence - who helped them? Did they not see what was going on?

I understand better now. Thank you to the posters who have simply explained this. To those shouting obscenities at me and making out that I don't care about disabled people , not so helpful or needed.

Can we all just agree that the system is clearly broken?

To those shouting obscenities at me and making out that I don't care about disabled people , not so helpful or needed.

Do you mean when I called you ableist or said the word fucking?

Either way you don't get to decide what 'is needed' - you spoke disgustingly about disabled people so I stand by everything I said. I believe it absolutely was helpful to point it out and very much needed.

Well we can say that about tax evasion which involves far larger sums.

Gov stats are gov stats. The amounts unclaimed dwarf the tiny number of fraudulent claims.

Because, as others have pointed out, there’s next to no support services left.

All very well going to check to parents are coping, but what if they’re not?

Obviously this is an extreme case where the children should have been removed from their care, but I mean for those who are not neglecting or abusing their children, but also aren’t coping, what support can they get?

If you mean they should be checked for abuse/neglect then why only those who are on benefits rather than all parents?

Please show how I spoke 'disgustingly' about disabled people?

Please show how I spoke 'disgustingly' about disabled people?

That's the problem though OP, you don't think you did. You don't see it. It would be like pissing in the wind.

Quote me then?

This, this is what I keep trying (but not as succinctly to say)

There are no additional services and the cost of running this would be prohibitively high and better spent on more readily available respite care etc.

But if its just to avoid child abuse, then either you think disabled people are more likely to be abusers @CoastalWave or you would be shouting for all parents to be checked on regularly

If there are disabled people all in a house together, all 7 of them, all needing payments, all needing support - why shouldn't that be checked? I can't imagine that's safe for either the adults or the children. Would not that qualify as a high risk household? (not high risk for abuse, high risk for needing help)

Quote me then?

Now you are just being goady.

You can go back and read your own posts and see how you have spoken, you don't need me to do that for you, and I shall disengage from discussion with you. I used to be easily goaded in to pathetic arguments but I did something you haven't, I paid attention and I learned from it, so I no longer do it.

In the case this thread is about I would suspect fraud. But I am sure this will be being looked at.

The very fact that you think disabled people, who have gone through a rigorous application process with medical evidence of their disabilities, should submit to someone coming to their home to check they aren't lying is to speak disgustingly about disabled people. You just can't see it.

The fact that you think disabled parents should have home checks done as a way to prevent child abuse, but only disabled parents is to speak disgustingly about disabled people. You just can't see it.

The fact that you keep going on about two adults caring for multiple children with disabilities as 'not working' with tones of 'they should be grateful for benefits' is to speak disgustingly.

Those who bash people who claim disability benefits never seem to understand there are only three solutions to disabilities in society

1. have a social system that allows carers or those with disabilities to have enough money to live within society
2. have a system whereby disabled people are locked away from society in institutions
3. Terminate the lives of those with disabilities who can no longer support themselves financially.

Options 1 and 2 will always cost taxpayer money. Option 1 is kinder for both disabled people and their families, better for their mental health and well being. But if you are someone bashing any tax payer money being spent on benefits lets not gloss over the fact you are advocating for option 3 even if you don't want to admit it to yourself.

I have gone back and read all of my posts. I've just looked at everything I have written. I'm not being goady in the slightest - you've said it, please tell me where???

I literally cannot see where I have been 'disgusting' about disabled people.

I've said I think checks need to take place. I stand by that when 7 people all with disability are in one house, surely that counts as a high risk household? (not for child abuse, or benefit fraud - high risk because how on earth are they all coping)

You're actually the one being goady by saying I'm disgusting but not backing up what exactly I wrote to make you think that?

That would be a failure by social services, not the benefits system.

Ensuring children with disabilities are receiving all they are entitled to is the role of children's services.

You’re still missing the point.

You’re frothing about tbt money because that’s your priority - if people hadn’t been so quick to froth about money then we’d have more chance of not being in these circumstances with the services being slashed.

If people had focused more on the people and the services then successive governments wouldn’t have been able to share very rare stories of people getting large amounts to back up their “benefits have gone wild, people are getting thousands and we need to curb it” stance that has allowed.

This case will come up the next time cuts are wanted. People will use the “well yea I think things should change because I saw a story about a family getting 7k a month and they didn’t even spend it on the kids” so it’ll help put “more checks” or “greater screening” in place. Yet I guarantee you that won’t actually do anything to help kids like this, it’ll mainly make it easier to deny people genuinely entitled the help they need. They’ll end up being added to the 70% of people who appeal and win (can you imagine if you made nigh on 70% mistakes in your work - would you keep your job).

There is a lot to froth about in this case. The money aspect should be very near the bottom of the list.

That the money is the main thing people are frothing about is one of the reasons the system won’t be fixed, because people are blinded to what the actual problem is.

I didn't say a check to check they're not lying.

its a check to see how they're coping - how the award is helping them.

I

@CoastalWave should someone be coming round to check how I am coping too?

OP
@Greennetting has just said it all really; so I won't repeat. They also said it in a much better way than I ever could.

High risk households could also be counted as single mum households. Because abusive men are known to prey on single mums to get access to their children.

They vast majority of single mums don't let that happen. Some do.

Do we flag up single mum households as high risk and do checks? Or just disabled parents?

You literally said this:

Well surely if you're giving people £1k a month say in disability, there's someone who goes out to check it's not fraudulent?!

I stand by this. Although, I meant to type £7000 as per the article.

£7000 is an insane amount of money to transfer each month to a family without checking - no?

Why shouldn't there be a follow up check? I would expect there to be tbh and wouldn't personally have a problem with it.

I did say that. How does that make me 'disgusting' and not care about disabled people? I was thinking a welfare check to see how they're coping and how the money is helping, it could pick up any fraudulent claims at the same time.

But it's obvious now why that would never happen (lots of posters have pointed this out to me)