Feral children

[Overbearingndn]

Several children, have been arrested in connection with the death of an 80 year old dog walker.

What is wrong with children today? I remember the Bulger case and it sent shockwaves around the world, now people just accept that children kill.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/sep/03/five-children-arrested-over-murder-80-year-old-man-in-leicestershire

opening post edited by MNHQ

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5072038-if-you-could-decide-how-much-people-get-in-benefits

🙃

I'm not wading through a MN thread to back up other people's claims. If you make the claim, be prepared to back it up.

I've said on another thread legalise all drugs.
Let the losers ruin their lives but let's get the revenue.
Refuse them treatment if they're going to abuse their bodies and minds.
Build towns especially for this lot.
Sorted.

Do you really think that drugs are a wholly underground operation?!
Do you really think that anyone that has the power to cares about the exploitation of anyone?!
Do you really think Prohibition Laws are there for the safety and health of the people of any nation and not a way to keep both the above and under ground economies going?

After the age of 23 most people wise up to the ways of the world.

You said "posts" in your original claim. If you could provide details of specific posts it would be appreciated.

After the age of 23 most people wise up to the ways of the world.

It's a nice thought.

So you want to build ghettos for the poor and legalise all drugs? Are you standing for parliament? You have well thought out views.

Why don't you do your own research?!

Anyone that has lived on benefits for more than a year where there is no disability or mental illness, they've had a good time.

There's no funding for severally mentally ill people that are released onto the streets but there is funding for people's lifestyles!

I don't have a problem with poor people.
We were all poor people once.
Middle classes didn't emerge out of thin air.
Middle classes are now back to being poor.
Poverty isn't a crime.
Using poverty as an excuse to commit crime is an insult to human kind.
This country has made provisions for the poor and how to get out of poverty - people have become millionaires who were once born into poverty - many people on this forum, their parents or grandparents have come from poverty - that is why it so insulting!
It's the emergence of the underbelly that most don't like.
There is a difference between being poor and being part of the underbelly.

The monthly standard allowance for Universal Credit is £311.68 for single people under 25, £393.45 for single people 25 or over.

You could afford a 'good time' on £393.45 a month could you? Take off bills, contribution to rent and food, you're left with very little.

Don't. Talk. Tripe.

Try living on that money yourself. Dare ya.

How many people do you see living off £400 a month on here? None. You won’t live comfortably if you’re a single person on UC, but you will if you have a few kids, claim DLA for a couple of them. Somebody posted a couple of days back querying her UC amount of - wait for it - £2,500 per month plus DLA plus her partner’s full time salary. The benefits worked out at roughly £35,000 per year and with her partner’s salary on top, something like £65,000.

So yes, some people will be totally broke, but very many people are not.

If you're still on it after a year, living at home with your parents - they yeah, you've had a good time.
Get a job, cleaner, care assistant, retail, plenty of entry level jobs.
But no - most people are too good for them!

Not like in 3rd world countries where no job means eventually death.
Where a harvest crop fails, family annihilation is preferred rather than leaving your family to destiny and your kids begging, being maimed, organs stolen, prostituted.

I'll say it again - anyone that is on benefits for more than 1 year is a King, anyone that hangs around parks because they don't have a job because their little hovel is paid for by the government is a Lord - no wonder why people are coming over illegally.

Yes!!!
That thread was amazing.
She did have disabled kids though that is why her allowance was high.

Single UC - it's probably the wasters living with mum - money for vapes I guess.

Most others have all sorts handed to them - if they are entitled then they are entitled I guess.

It should not be allowed though - working has to be more financially beneficial than benefits. Otherwise the nation will strike and go on benefits soon enough.

Do you have a breakdown of benefits to back that up? For example, stats demonstrating how many single people are on UC and families and those out of work? It would be informative as opposed to a single anecdote.

There are many people, especially single mothers, struggling on the bare minimum. They'll get child benefit and UC but that's it. A lot of single people are struggling on UC. They're not all living at home.

You don't need a breakdown.
Read some of the posts on here and it's a hefty number of claimants.
It's not up to @Blueybanditbingochilli to prove anything to you.
You're a benefit apologist.
There's no money left in the coffers there will be a crackdown in the next 10 years.

Breakdown of the nuclear family.
Why should we pay for that?

What the government needs to do asap is build special prisons for men that don't pay child maintenance and make them break rocks and earn a wage that way and give that to the mother.

This is amusing (yes I am easily amused)

"Wild unsubstantiated claim."

"Do you have any evidence to back that up?"

"Why should they?"

Why should 'we' pay for people to survive? Well we pay tax and part of that tax goes towards welfare so that we can support the vulnerable.

Children are considered vulnerable as they can't survive without support so the state helps support them. If their mothers can't work, then they can't afford housing or food or heating, so they receive a contribution from the state. If they don't get that support, they won't survive.

Stop making excuses.
Prioritise the rights of law-abiders over the rights of law-breakers.
If there is any conflict of interest, on any level, the rights of law-abiders should come first.
I don't care about the "human rights" of criminals. If they cared about the human rights of others not be affected by crime, they wouldn't have chosen to become criminals in the first place.

Their father's need to pay - not strangers.
Too many 'vulnerable' people these days.

That's a great idea. You need to write all these ideas down:

Legalise drugs
Refuse medical treatment
Ghettoise the poor
Let babies starve
Get men to break rocks

Email it all to Starmer. He'll be really grateful.

I agree that their father's should pay but until that's properly enforced, they won't survive without support.

Not the poor.
The underbelly.

Why differentiate? Who likes poor people?