Yes it's the DM, yes it's about a large family on benefits, but surely even if only half of it is true it's shocking!

[StrawberriesAndCherries]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265508/Peter-Davey-gets-42-000-benefits-year-drives-Mercedes.html

Are they wrong to get what they are entitled to?

42K a year though - I must be going wrong somewhere!!!

I'm sure they are too, but doesn't it make you doubt the accuracy of the rest of their reporting?

They are trying to make out that in addition to claiming a lot of benefits they may be committing fraud.

Still to me it's like someone said further up unfortuately there will awalys be someone on the margins of acceptable behavior. Like the court system, there will always be one or two unsatisfactory results. It should be when looking at the whole picture we should decide whether the system is right or fair not one or two extreme cases.

I didn't pick anything up that suggested fraud at all.

Just that the family are playing the system to fund the lifestyle they want. It also highlights the fact (as others have said) that its possible to run up massive debts on catalogues etc and then effectively have them written off. It's the system that needs to be changed. There will always be a small number of people who try to defraud any system, and obviously that's a separate issue. But the family here don't appear to be - they don't need to - they can rake in huge amounts of money entirely within the system!

I think the "I can't afford the second child" is veryt relevant for the purposes of this article. We are a classic middle income couple, probably the kind that buys the Daily Mail. The article is relying on people like me to react in an emotional manner.

Do you remember the documentary, the boy whose skin fell off? He had EB. A bit more than 'a skin condition'

''Santa is always generous in our house,' said Mrs Davey, who once applied to join the police but was turned down.'

right....santa issue aside, lets look at this sentence....NO...REALLY....i'm not a writer or a jouno, but i was really appauled at this paragraph inparticular. wondering what her job applications have to do with anything?

Fio - the husband gave up work because he preferred to live on benefits nine years ago, well before most of the children were born, and certainly years before the boy with EB! The wife has never worked! So clearly it isn't a case of giving up work because of caring responsibilities.

The bankruptcy thing gets my goat far more. but maybe that is because we meet more people who do this and they are not vulnerable just greedy.

We know someone who deliberately ran up tens of thousands of grands of debt on purpose with the intention of going bankrupt. He fiddled his agreed payments so has paid back very little of what he borrowed. He then used false details to get further credit and is considering doing the same to get a mortage.

We ran up debts funding my last stint as a SAHM and medical bills. We did this with every intention of paying it off and have almost done so, much to the above couple's amusement. According to them no one pays of their debts anymore, which I am sure is a factor in the current recession.

Oh no Riven, according to him it is redistribution of wealth.

he has, Fio - someone linked earlier to his dad's Debra sponsorship page

here (misdee found it)

sucking you in is what the DM does best

& yes, it does seem weird if they have had genetic counselling (which they surely must have done?)

I really don't understand why people like this (or people who cannot safely look after children) aren't subject to compulsory sterilisation.

What's worse - sterilising grown-ups who cannot make sensible choices or watching children suffer?

See?

I knew someone would mention it sooner or later

Do I win £5?

here you go

EB is simply a very very nasty condition which sooner or later has a fatal end. So they have my sympathy on that. However, living near to the realities of raising a chid with disabilities, I'm a bit surprised she is wanting to have another 6 children.

It is not just about the money, but about providing adequate care. Obviously, I'm not saying she should stop having babies because he has a disabled child, but that having 14 seems utterly unreasonable, even before we take in consideration the needs of the baby.

I totally agree with SGB and Riven.

Please remember that Closer magazine in nothing more than the Sun in magazine form. It is a tabloid and the reporters have tabloid backgrounds and morals.

I would bet money that this family imagiend that it was being interviewed about the marathon running/EB/living with disability. Then they were probably naive enough to make comments about what benefits they get. Of course 'Beneifts Scum claim 42K a year' is a far better story than 'Living with a hideous skin condition' ever would, and would fetch more interest in synidcation to the papers.

I imagine that this was a stitch up operation.

And, even if every single word was true, and the article is the actual truth and an accurate representaton of what the family said, I still wouldn't care. This famiy does not have a fortune. Yes, they may have TVs and DSs, but I bet they don't have a spare penny in savings, I bet they don't have a pension, they don't have a career where they will go up the career ladder and earn more money, they don't have money in property and, frankly, they (economically) don't have a future. So they are emphaticallu not to be envied.

Frankly I don't care about the relatively small amount of money which is spent on benefit 'scroungers', when untold billlions are being squandered on management consultants, and insanely extortionate IT projects. I am proud to live in a country which has such a comprehenmsive welfare system.

I think the system is obviously at fault here. Living on benefits and breeding incessantly should not be a lifestyle option funded by working families.

'Breeding'?