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.

I don't know. Should they?

www.facebook.com/gemma.brogan.923

Seems strange that nobody in her social circle knew what the home life was like.

Surely these two statements by you are contradictory

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

"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 didn’t know at that point that they had a mortgage but in a lot of other cases large benefits payments are often due to housing element paying expensive rent

Only back in august she was posting about cleaning her house ? Something terrible must have happened on a short space of time for the situation to deteriorate so much?

Apologies just seen in original article this happened the year before

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

Aye do you did. 1 is such a common typo for 7 and you corrected it straight away - oh no you didn't, you just changed your story 13 hours later because people have disagreed with you.

You asked what you said that was disgusting. Then implication that disabled people should have home checks to check they aren't lying is disgusting.

Now you may have meant something different. Or you might be backtracking. But you said this and it's disgusting and saying you didn't say something disgusting is incorrect.

Why do you think the system is "clearly" broken because of one extreme case?

And why do you think the solution to that is to make the system more intensive and complex for everyone?

I'm done with you being arsey!

I stand by what I said.

And in the context of this report, if checks had been made, these children could have been saved sooner.

"And in the context of this report, if checks had been made, these children could have been saved sooner."

I agree with you. Checks by social services. Whose role it is to ensure children are safe and well cared for.

And for the 100th time, don't try to bullshit us. If you are far more concerned about the children than the money, why is the title of your thread (you wrote it) To not understand benefits of £7k a month! Why are the majority of your posts about checking up on people in receipt of benefits? If you are that concenred about children you should be advocating checking up on parents.

You are spieling the exact same bullshit that the Mail and the other papers are weaving. They care about those kids do they? So, given that the pair were in court and pleaded guilty in MAY, and it is now NOVEMBER - where has the outrage been over those months. Why is this story only now coming to light? Perhaps because until the judge mentioned that they are on benefits the papers really didn't care all that much??? Media cannot comment on stories that are pending or during trails except in the broadest and balanced of tones. Quite rightly. But the "trial" ended at the point that they pled guilty. BUt not a peep of outrage. I wonder now, would we ever have heard about it at all if it had happened to be some "eccentric" multi-millionaires.

The narrative here and in the media is about benefits and nothing else. The rest is window dressing. Just like you concern OP, for the "poor children" is window dressing for the appallling narrative you have consistently spewed. If you GENUINELY want to police neglect and abuse of children properly, it is PARENTS that you should be focussed on - all parents, regardless of their income or the source of their income. If you had any clue about the negelct and abuse that goes on in "naice" homes, and which is seldom highlighted or discovered, then you would truly have something to work on fixing.

My main belief is that a welfare check should take place to see how it's helping.

It would also pick up any fraud at the same time. What's wrong with that?

When HMRC want to see my books, am I offended by thinking they clearly think i'm being fraudulent? Or do I just accept that's part and parcel of producing my own accounts? I know I'm genuine so it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Both can happen at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive. Anyone claiming who is genuine it's surely of no concern to them.

I don't know (and wouldn't know where to find) how much we spend each year on disability payments but is it wrong to think it should be checked up afterwards? Clearly you (and others) find me disgusting for thinking this.

i'm entitled to my opinion. If you have a different one, that's fine too.

Me too.

@goldsparklyChocolate I looked back over it, it is very odd. Nothing matches up with the report. I'm not sure I would be singing on tiktok if my 7 children had been taken away from me. I'm not sure I would continue to be friends with someone that had treated their children and animals in this way. Her older kids were at school, how on earth was this not picked up sooner.

5.9 billion total annually on disability benefit (nor fraudulently, all)

4.8 billion annually lost to tax fraud.

Yeah I am totally more comfortable with the HMRC investigating you, and others for tax evasion than I am with intrusive visits to disabled people. From a purely practical point of view one is financially justified the other isn't.

Regardless you are missing the point. Your own point in fact.

This.

The money isn’t the relevant point in this situation. The welfare of these poor children is the important thing. The kids will be costing the local authority far more now and rightly so. I do agree that this level of mistreatment and neglect should have been spotted but the benefit payments are irrelevant.

The important question here is why the children were left in this situation.
not 'benefit fruads' (sic) as some would have it...
the rate of disability 'fraud' is extremely low, much lower than the non-awarding / uptake of those who are entitled to extra financial help.

OP you can try to back track all you like. We see you.

I can’t believe after the recent discussions @mnhq are allowing another clearly benefits bashing thread to stand

is it wrong to think it should be checked up afterwards? Clearly you (and others) find me disgusting for thinking this

People are "checked up on" every few years. You know, to make sure their missing limb hasn't grown back or their faulty gene hasn't repaired itself. But that clearly isn't enough for you and you'd like to see disabled people put through the wringer even more than they are now.

MNHQ said two hours ago that they were taking a look at it, yet here it still is.

And in the context of this report, if checks had been made, these children could have been saved sooner.

If saving children is the real goal here then surely all families, not just those who receive benefits should be ‘checked’ regularly. I mean, it would be seen as intrusive and overkill by many and take a huge amount of money and resources, far more than the current system, but surely well worth it to ensure that children are safe.

I’m assuming that sort of process is what you are championing, anything less suggests that you might be of the opinion that only those in receipt of benefits neglect and abuse children.

I'm done with you being arsey!

You mean you can't argue because you know every single thing I have said is actually true?

I am far from the only person here who can see what I see.

@CoastalWave so how would anyone know to inspect any family?