Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Property/DIY

Join our Property forum for renovation, DIY, and house selling advice.

How to get a £500k house free

412 replies

Judy1234 · 24/07/2007 17:25

www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23405477-details/Jobless+couple+with+12+children+are+give n+a+%C2%A3500%2C000+home/article.do

OP posts:
aloha · 24/07/2007 17:37

Actually, I don't think two people have the right, if perfectly able-bodied and capable of work, to expect other people to pay for them to have endless children. I really don't.

NotReallyHereHunker · 24/07/2007 17:37

Christ, I'm not, imagine potty training 12 times.

NotReallyHereHunker · 24/07/2007 17:38

No, it's not.

Welfare should be there for people who can't work through no fault of their own.

Not people who can't stop boinging out kids.

wildwoman · 24/07/2007 17:38

What annoys me is that surely benefits are meant to be a tempory measure that you can rely on if you need to, not for you to abuse and view it as a permanent lifestyle option.

zookeeper · 24/07/2007 17:39

Good luck to them - I'd rather see my taxes going on this than killing innocents in Iraq

expatinscotland · 24/07/2007 17:40

And people like this give those who really need it a bad name.

NotReallyHereHunker · 24/07/2007 17:40

I'd rather see my taxes go on supporting people who need help than these idle scroungers.

WTF has Iraq got to do with anything?!

People who have no leg to stand on always resort to "yeah, starving children, yeah" type arguments.

Or "perhaps you just WANT children to die of cancer?"

Weird.

zookeeper · 24/07/2007 17:41

No they don't - I don't think any less of people who claim benefits because of this article.

noddyholder · 24/07/2007 17:41

But where do you tell them to stop?If they have lots of kids and they need to be there to look after them that is that.Not many people go down this road this is quite an exceptional situation.

aloha · 24/07/2007 17:42

I'd rather my taxes went to properly support people who cannot work or educating children with disabilities, not on people who simply choose not to work and selfishly expect other people to fund their chosen lifestyle.

expatinscotland · 24/07/2007 17:42

Well, obviously they're not looking after them properly if one of them gets hold a friggin' cigarette lighter and burns their entire house down.

Cammelia · 24/07/2007 17:44

Its illegal to make yourself to deliberately unemployed to get benefits, he should be refused them. Well done for dobbing yourself mate.

Looks like she went a bit loopy with the childrens' names thing after meeting him.

zookeeper · 24/07/2007 17:46

obviously, expat, why none of our kids have ever had accidents. They must be terrible parents too.

Spidermama · 24/07/2007 17:46

I can't get worked up about it really. It takes all sorts. I couldn't bring up twelve kids. It must be very hard work.

IlanaK · 24/07/2007 17:46

Surely it is not a valid reason to say that they can earn more staying on welfare? I don't remember reading anything that guarrantees you will be better off working? That is not what welfare is about - it is not a choice for people to make. It is there if you can't work, not if you figure out that you are better off financially by not working.

And I totally agree with the thought that you do not have a RIGHT to as many children as you want if you are not going to support them yourself. Have 30 kids if you want, but pay for them yourself.

aloha · 24/07/2007 17:48

Bloody selfish, irresponsible people. This is NOT what the welfare state was set up for. It does piss me off.
And actually, most people manage not to let their three year olds burn their house down with cigarette lighters, oddly enough.

expatinscotland · 24/07/2007 17:48

You know, zoo, I actually do think people who make themselves deliberately unemployed and have kid after kid they can't support and expect the government to do it ARE terrible parents.

Part of being a good parent is teaching your kids personal and social responsibility as much as you can, by example even.

This doesn't.

CountessDracula · 24/07/2007 17:49

how would they afford childcare???

I mean they would have to earn a fortune to be able to pay people to look after 12 kids

moljam · 24/07/2007 17:49

i might have a few more children.
its madness

PeachesMcLean · 24/07/2007 17:49

I just think I'd better change my name.

NotReallyHereHunker · 24/07/2007 17:50

ZK< I was on benefits a while ago - disability benefits. I was 22.

So I don't think any less of people who claim benefits.

I have the same opinion of people who expect others to fund a lifestyle they haven't the discipline or ability or fund themselves.

quiveutmabonnebaguette · 24/07/2007 17:50

I'm disgusted at these lazy healthy parents...a 500 K house..it's disgusting...a majority and I'm sure I'm not wrong by saying a majority...work really hard and cant even afford a house...and they choose, YES THEY CHOOSE NOT TO WORK because they are better off...how disgusting is that.......it's an insult to people who dont abuse the system.

expatinscotland · 24/07/2007 17:51

An 'accident' involving a cigarette lighter and burning down your entire house, thereby necessitating new accommodation . . .

aloha · 24/07/2007 17:51

All the children qualify for school or nursery. Anyway, they don't both need to be at home. One of them should be working. And if they find that hard work, well, nobody made them have 12 children!

Ladymuck · 24/07/2007 17:52

I definitely think that one of them should work, and that the system is bizarre if a minimum wage job pays less than benefits.

Swipe left for the next trending thread