to be annoyed RE healthy pregnancy grant

[RedRedWine1980]

Especially as someone on facebook has mentioned going to Zara to spend it....is this just another ridiculous waste of public funds or what?

She says that, in this woman's circumstances, she had already received extra financial help in her pregnancy, so was the extra grant necessary?

It is a valid question.

Wow, - I've been sitting reading this, and have just read it back again - poor Sterryerryoh!
She didn't say the woman shouldn't get the money - she just said it was an example of why it was a waste of funds - and you, tory, have gone on and on at her for no reason. I wasn't going to comment, but I really feel for her.
She hasn't said anything that I've seen about her Ds's biolgical mother that has been anthing other than supportive - and I might be being a big ol' bitch here, but for a woman to have 9 kid's taken away, she has to have seriously done something wrong.
Does this mean she shouldn't have the grant? No - she's entitled, like sterry said. BUT should sterry have had some help? Yes! She's raising the little mite.
Tory - why so nasty? Chill out and leave this good mummy alone!

So if you get a Sure Start grant should you get this too?

I think the point which annoyed me was that the HIP was to do with the pregnant woman, the fact her adoption cost her a lot should have nothing to do with the situation. I thought it was very odd to bring it up.

tory I think she was just saying that after everyone else had said they spent the money on furniture and prams and stuff,it might have been nice for adoptive families to get a bit of cash - my colleague has adopted, and it cost her a fortune. I think SHE would have liked some financial help to - it's valid, no?

Not as odd as how vitriolic you have been to her (and me, for some reason). "She put my back up" is not much of an excuse.
In reference to an earlier remark, I just hope you go to bed realising that you have come across as harsh, shrill and not capable of following the thread of an argument.

Yes, but it has nothing to do with a PREGNANCY grant!

I will go to bed thinking nothing of the sort Clemette. Only that I hope a woman who has had 9 children taken into care is getting the help she needs, not judgments.

We do not know anything about the circumstances which is why I think it's very very wrong for someone to post part of this woman's life story on the internet without the chance to defend herself.

You're doing my head in.
She said
"I merely mentioned that the whole idea behind the HIP was to ensure women saw their MW - I was stating that she was already being paid and supported to see MWs. In GENERAL terms, and in line with the OP, this supports the opinion that the HIP is a waste of good money as it has been implemented badly. 'Twas an example."
She had to mention the adoption as well, otherwise it wouldn't have made sense!
She was just saying that the scheme is silly and giving this as an example!- not that this woman shouldn't have had it! Cant you get that through your skull!!??

Defend herself against what??? What has she told us? Nothing! Nothing to defend herself against - she hasnt said one bad word about her!
She hasn't told us ANY of the reasons why the kids were in care,just that they were!!!

In that case, please could you withdraw your accusation of me being uncompassionate. You have NOTHING on which to base it, it is (probably) slanderous, and it does you no credit.

Clemette I said it because you wrote this

By clemettethecoalitionbreak... Wed 19-May-10 20:48:59
She was pregnant and her 8 children were in the care of social services because of systematic neglect and abuse...!

Which I did feel was unsympathetic to the fact she was still a pregnant woman and needed support, and also the fact we know none of the details of her life other than what we have been told.

Didn't sterry say she got lots of support?

There is no judgement in that statement. I wrote it in response to you saying "she was pregnant and had done nothing wrong" which is patently not true (unless you are a beleiver that the social services take children off parents for no reason).

So, you acknowledge that I have said all along that every woman (including "illegals" as you describe some human beings) should be entitled to this grant?

missus84 - nope - if you get tax credits you can get the grant - i learned that on mn!!

I said she had done nothing wrong in accepting the grant!

Am I missing something? Who said that she had done something wrong in acceptin the grant?

No-one ever said she did. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

wow. lots of judging going on here and not much data protection/confidentiality

'mamatomany Wed 19-May-10 20:36:26
She spent it on a sofa, that her child will never sit on or in anyway benefit from, says a lot about her priorities doesn't it, the least she could do is give the baby a good start, extra fish/fruit/veg but no a sofa.'

It was comment like this that you can spend the money on any crap you like when you're keeping the baby but if it's being adopted...

data protection? all we know is there was a family with 9 children in care, and the woman got £190
I'd be willing to wager a couple of the details were changed in order to protect confidentiality - adopters know the score.
it may have been 7, 8 or 10 children, it may have been a bed not a sofa!

i dont think its very appropriate!

Seconded. A good night!

and a good night rather

well, to be fair I think that sterry has been very dignified and not said anything untoward, and was just using her personal situation to make a comment - like we all do! It was tory that made it personal and kept banging on about it. Sterry didn't make big deal out of it at all!

also, just looked back at sterry's last post. She apologised for being rude to you, and you are still criticising her, even though she has said you upset her, and didn't even acknowledge her apology.
I know who I think has come out on top!