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!!!

Agree Twopenceworth

Chop off his dick, Isay.

I think the next government should bring in a rule that you are only paid for the amount of kids you have when you go on benefits - someone has to stand up for the people who work in this country and are only having as many kids as they can afford - we manage contraception - is there a problem with benefits that they cannot? You can even bloody well get it free if I am not mistaken!

No point mumblechum - he would only claim more benefits for loss of a vital part/trauma etc

JN2p - that is how it is done in the States apparently - gets my vote.

poor lad's skin looks sore

I think it would be fair for the government to put a top figure on benefits that can be received. Perhaps increasing benefit up to a 4th child but from 4 onwards just a flat figure?

I know there would be cases when it would be unfair but... it is not on to make a living out of popping children out into the world.

Re this Tarty...

'they are just getting what they are entitled to - typical dm shite again'

Whether or ont one believes the DM is a shite paper, how, whichever way you look at it have we reached a stage where people like you, and this pathetic family consider that they are 'entitled to' have their swarms of children and way of life subsidised by others

Looks like they are trying to prevent the ginger gene dying out all on their own!!

Arf at Bubblerock. Maybe also the pasty fat genes too.

Plus - with all the clubcard points they're earning surely they could get a week at Haven each year?

I'm more weirded out by the fact that the same article appears in the DM and Telegraph. Since they both plug Closer, I'm guessing that they're all bed-fellows.

@ Dueling

bubblerock - quick, come back on and say you were joking - we don't do gingerist jokes on mumsnet.

and I don't agree unfortunately with not paying them for subsequent children (much though I understand the point the view) as it's only the children that would suffer.

We can never and should never stop having children supported just cos their parents are feckless losers or have issues.

Yes, I like the idea of there being a benefit 'ceiling' where you stop receiving money - and increasingly giant houses/cars - no matter how many children you go on to have.

Since this is supposed to be the Mumsnet election, yep - I'd vote for whichever party implemented that too!

Yes we should Laurie and I bet they would take more care when shagging relentlessly all that pasty white wobbly flesh sprouting orange pubes everywhere. I bet if they were to get no more money for subsequent children they wouldn't have anymore - they wouldn't want to see their standard of living drop would they.

They are only claiming what they are entitled to and that is the problem.

anyone who loses their job or finds themselves unable to work for whatever reason should receive help from the state.

BUT when you get jobseekers allowance/income support or anything similar, it should be for the family you have. If whilst on benefits you fall pregnant then that child should also be supported. any children after that should receive only benefits that are for the direct benefit of the child ( milk vouchers, free school meals etc) but no monetary value.

It is wrong that someone can sit on the dole for decades whilst producing more and more children at the states expense.

And before anyone jumps on me, I am in receipt of some benefits and come from a very large family who have had to rely on state assistance at times.

Was just an observation

But Laurie - how many of these children would not have been conceived if the parents knew in advance that they would not receive extra money? I suspect that contraception would be used!

And I know the reply to that is no contraception is 100% effective and that's true. But using it because you know you won't be getting any more money for any more children is better than not using it and having a dozen children because the system gives you extra to cover each child.

I appreciated your observation, BubbleRock

MC - I bet the ones with drug/alcohol/very low IQ won't be able to 'take more care' and the children of those families would suffer the most.

We cannot have a system where people can't feed their children, however many they have.

"pasty white wobbly flesh sprouting orange pubes" - that is a very nasty thing to say - you're not exactly making yourself sound particularly nice with that statement (though I'm sure you're lovely inside and not a nasty bitch at all)

No contraception is 100% certain, true - but I have managed not to fall pregnant for seven years now so I think it is possible to plan your family. And if the money was cut off, you can bet this pair would suddenly discover that they could too.

"Planning" a family requires thought JMTPW - some people with problems don't plan.

I foster a child who ate out of bins - her mum had mental health problems and has subsequently gone on to have 5 more children. She has been allowed to keep 2 so far.