Nothing to do with Edwina or the story (which I haven't read), but a different comment, and that is the split (in attitude) within British society:
who on one hand want welfare benefits reduced;
and on the other, defends mightily benefit recipients like the one described.
You know, guys, you can't have it both ways.
The growth of the underclass was predicted in 1948, when the welfare state was set up - that people would become trapped in poverty.
Margaret Thatcher squandered a huge opportunity given Britain by North Sea Oil royalties, by increasing welfare payments and redistributing income, instead of building a central fund along the lines of Singapore.
Labour racked up huge and unsustainable debts increasing the public sector in its drive for justice and fairness.
Public opinion does show a recognition of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor, and would like the welfare system reformed.
So, no conclusion folks, just setting out a few facts and pointing out that ALL actions have consequences. What do we want? Because we can't have both.