- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 25,218
- Points
- 3,672
Another fantastic addition to UK society....
- Thread starter ChrisUK
- Start date
Currently reading:
Another fantastic addition to UK society....
how can it cost £50,000 to put a door in the wall between 2 houses 
:yuck:
I think these people need to be given a little credit here. I mean they are smoking roll-ups and seem to have taken a breather in their breeding programme.
Perhaps this would be an opportune moment for the new Government to introduce a cap on child benefit; say benefit for maximum of 2 brats, sorry children per household.
Mind you, there is another scam that's perpetrated, whereby in order to get round the law concerning bigamy, a couple will have a load of kids, then they seperate and the husband moves out of the marital home and in with his new wife and kids, also in some form of "social housing". However, he still goes round a few times a week for his tea and crumpet and the Social forks out for another child. I'm not quite sure what the religion of these people has to say about a husband leaving his wife without supporting her and the kids, but I'm sure there will be a wise teaching that allows it.
Perhaps this would be an opportune moment for the new Government to introduce a cap on child benefit; say benefit for maximum of 2 brats, sorry children per household.
Mind you, there is another scam that's perpetrated, whereby in order to get round the law concerning bigamy, a couple will have a load of kids, then they seperate and the husband moves out of the marital home and in with his new wife and kids, also in some form of "social housing". However, he still goes round a few times a week for his tea and crumpet and the Social forks out for another child. I'm not quite sure what the religion of these people has to say about a husband leaving his wife without supporting her and the kids, but I'm sure there will be a wise teaching that allows it.
LOL the child benefit limit wouldnt work because its not means tested, whereas Social Security is, so if you took away the CB for 7 of the kids, the DSS would have to make up the shortfall
No, what I had in mind was no Government Department paying for more than 2 kids, so means testing doesn't come into it from that point of view. It strikes me as odd that just having come out of 13 years of Labour rule, means testing comes into the equation at all.LOL the child benefit limit wouldnt work because its not means tested, whereas Social Security is, so if you took away the CB for 7 of the kids, the DSS would have to make up the shortfall
My recollection of previous attempts by the last Tory administration to introduce, or extend the use of means testing was met by wails of Labour protest.
If you look at the root of the problem it isnt actually anything to do with the benefits system, its to do with the legislation regarding children which is why its so hard to change anything.
If this couple didnt have all these kids, they would be facing the same issues as everyone else who doesnt work, a short spell signing on then an expectation to find work. They will also have to do that when the youngest child reaches 12. A few years back that threshold would have been 17 so things are being tightened up.
We used to have a family who lived close by, a single mother with 4 kids. She was caught working for cash whilst claiming benefits and they stopped all her claims. BUT, because she STILL HAD the 4 kids, the Social Services stepped in and picked up the tab for everything, so for her, nothing changed, it just came from a different source. This is because as a country we have a safety net that stops kids from living in poverty. The government are taking care of the kids in this scenario, NOT the parents, they just happen to come as part of the package.
If you take away the benefits from these people then its the kids who suffer. No decent food, no heating in the winter, no basic needs being met, so you are punishing kids for being born to these parents. There are already way too many cases of children being neglected, no government is going to be the cause of that.
Personally, I think that these people should be required to do some sort of work in order to top up what they get, either minimum wage, voluntary, community type stuff, ESPECIALLY where there are TWO parents so no childcare issues.
i thought it went down to 10 and now 7
You are probably right, I think maybe the 12 YO threshold is for single parents. Maybe the limit for couples is lower, as it should be...
ah i didnt know there was difference. i was going off what they told my daughter an she is a single as the baby daddy did a runner, she moved back home
Im going by a friend of mine who had a 13 year old. She was getting income support and the benefits office called her in and said she was no longer entitled because she didnt have a dependent child under 12. The rules were changed from 17 to 12 so any single mums who fell into that criteria had their benefits changed overnight. They went from Income Support to Job Seekers Allowance which meant signing on and actively seeking work like everyone else on JSA. But this was a few years ago so it could well have changed again.
Hmm, perhaps my plan needs a little re-think. OK, from a particular date, child benefit from whichever source should only be paid for the first two children. There's not a lot that can be done for all those who have already had a shed load, but it's not difficult to avoid having children.
Perhaps I'm a little biased as we don't have any children, but that was by choice based on the fact that Mrs. Beard and I met quite late on in life and by the time we would have been able to sort everything out and been in a financial position to have kids it was too late to have them safely.
No-one we know who is what I would consider as being a "responsible parent" has a large number of offspring. They have all struck what they consider to be a balance, namely a small enough number of children to enable them to feed and clothe them adequately, take them on holiday and not have them living in the kind of conditions that some kids I knew while growing up, namely 3 or 4 to a bedroom and often 2 or 3 to a bed. Thankfully that was towards the end of the period of large families the parents couldn't afford to look after properly. Sometimes this was because of religious belief and sometimes it was because of ignorance, but now there are no excuses and no valid reasons, except one, the benefits system allows some people to earn amounts they would never be able to without the DSS.
Perhaps I'm a little biased as we don't have any children, but that was by choice based on the fact that Mrs. Beard and I met quite late on in life and by the time we would have been able to sort everything out and been in a financial position to have kids it was too late to have them safely.
No-one we know who is what I would consider as being a "responsible parent" has a large number of offspring. They have all struck what they consider to be a balance, namely a small enough number of children to enable them to feed and clothe them adequately, take them on holiday and not have them living in the kind of conditions that some kids I knew while growing up, namely 3 or 4 to a bedroom and often 2 or 3 to a bed. Thankfully that was towards the end of the period of large families the parents couldn't afford to look after properly. Sometimes this was because of religious belief and sometimes it was because of ignorance, but now there are no excuses and no valid reasons, except one, the benefits system allows some people to earn amounts they would never be able to without the DSS.
Child Benefit isnt the issue here, its a pittance compared to Social Security and Housing Benefit - getting the rent paid on a private rental can be as much as £1000 a month+. I saw on the local news last month that one immigrant family who were asylum seekers had a £2,500 a month apartment in central London because the local authority couldnt find anywhere else ' suitable'. Also, everyone with a child is entitled to CB. Someone earning £100K a year can get CB, all you need for that is a child. Princess Di would have been entitled to it!
When you claim Social Security, there is a calculation that takes into account the amount of people, ages and existing income. Child Benefit is classed as income so if you get £15 a week CB then you get £15 a week LESS Income Support so stopping Child Benefit wouldnt change the bottom line because if you didnt get it then you would get more Income Support.
There is also a lot of manipulation that goes on with the unemployment figures. The number of people who are classed as 'unemployed' at any given time are the ones who are signing on and getting JSA. People on Income Support dont have to sign on as they are not classed as 'available for work' and are therefore not considered 'unemployed'. So the figures are actually far higher than many people think.
There needs to be a cap on how much private landlords can charge to take DSS tenants, that is widely exploited, also the 'bed and breakfast' hotels for people awaiting council housing. This alone costs the local authorities more than twice as much per family as it would to get a mortgage and buy them a house. It also holds the families in a position where they are trapped on benefits as its very hard to find a job when you live in temporary housing, you have childcare to arrange and the rent is sky high. In London, families are left in these places for YEARS before they get housed. These may not be huge families they may be young unmarried mums with one child but it all adds up.
In many cases, and Im not saying this is right, but the fact is that many people, esp single parents can easily work 40 hours a week and not only hand over pretty much all they earn to a childminder, but only end up £15 - £20 a week better off than they would have been staying at home on the social. While someone else sees more of their kids than they do. Putting a baby in a day nursery in London is upwards of £150 a WEEK before you have paid the rent, bought food etc.
There are huge flaws in the whole system and millions could be saved without even touching CB or allowances for each child.
the people you are aiming this at though will just put the oldest kid into care when it gets to the age of no money and then just have another one, so they will still only have 2
OP
OP
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 25,218
- Points
- 3,672
And the authorities should tell them to get f***ed and pay their way for children THEY decided to have and still cut their money weither the eldest is in care or not. No one's holding a gun to their head and making them pop out kids at a faster rate than Binki the rabbit in his prime.
I've got 1 child and that's exactly how its staying as even so much as one more child and I will have to invest in a bigger house/mortgage and I will loose part of the standard of living we enjoy now due to the fact I work pay ALL my bills and TAX with 0% help from the government (if you don't count CB, schooling,NHS etc etc as benefit).
I could quit my job now knock out another 5-6 kids and leech of the government get a nice big house but its just a matter of time before it knocked on the head and their living in what the UK would class as poverty and children need to be taken into care which I may add would still be cheaper than what some of these people are claiming.
Its like a massive section of UK society has just given up all personal and social responsibility for their own actions!
Last edited:
i still want to know how it cost £50k to make a doorway. looks like some one else is also on a scam
OP
OP
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 25,218
- Points
- 3,672
No doubt the many thousands of health and safety regs they have to follow due to it being a housing association / council house.
Its the same in my job when working at schools its absolutely beyond ridiculous. For instance storing printer toners in a locked container in a locked cupboard to stop 5-11yr old kids huffing printer toner.
Its the same in my job when working at schools its absolutely beyond ridiculous. For instance storing printer toners in a locked container in a locked cupboard to stop 5-11yr old kids huffing printer toner.
Making two houses into one takes more than making a doorway. There would be two Gas, Electric and Water Meters and the wiring / piping etc would be two independent systems. Two boilers, each running the heating and water for its own house, two immersion heaters, two water tanks etc. They probably also ripped out one of the kitchens which would mean a complete refurb and rewire of the whole room as it would have to be wired up correctly and would have random water and waste pipes that needed to be removed.
The property would then need to be re evaluated as one dwelling. While 50K does sound expensive just moving a gas meter can run into hundreds and like Chris said, it would have to meet health and safety standards etc.
I think we should go back to the good old caveman/woman days, if you do not provide something to or for the "clan" you would be outcast and left to "die"
E.g. sitting at home and not hunting for food = you get scraps or nothing, being the hunting party you get big portions for actively killing the animal
It annoys me that people have no want to do anything other than sit on their arse all day, I mean I would love to sit and play my xbox all day rather than work but I actually want to work/feel compelled to do something.
E.g. sitting at home and not hunting for food = you get scraps or nothing, being the hunting party you get big portions for actively killing the animal
It annoys me that people have no want to do anything other than sit on their arse all day, I mean I would love to sit and play my xbox all day rather than work but I actually want to work/feel compelled to do something.
