£42,000 per year and a Mercedes, why should I work?

[wellquickwoody]

No - I meant in terms of the kids. They didn't ask to be brought up in that environment. We all have our parents as an accident of birth.

I refer you to my previous post in reply to Bozza (very harsh but true)

'Absolutely correct Bozza, but as I said earlier, 'a few sacrificial lambs etc.'.

Shit happens.'

 

[BLOCK F]

I don't think this is unreasonable. Sounds like a perfectly normal, happy family to me. Both parents are together, they can spend all their time at home looking after their children instead of wasting their time at work. They all look very well fed. The curtains have tiebacks, which illustrates they take some pride in their surroundings.

As taxpayers, we have to accept that some people have different values and choose different lifestyles to that of the 9-5 grind, and it is our duty in a civilised society to afford people those choices. This family have stumbled across a reasonably comfortable lifestyle, funded by the state, which means none of them go without and all of them can live happily together as a family unit, and can bring up their children as they want to, not dictated to by a work timetable. Its a shame they can't afford holidays as well, but then many people who work are in the same position in that respect.

Before judging people and casting aspersions, we should all take a step back and recognise that as adults, everyone has a choice how they want to live their life. We should be prepared to tolerate this and pay for it. Choice is liberty. Perhaps we should be paying MORE into the welfare state so that more folk such as these can enjoy the benefits this lifestyle choice can bring.

 

[pork pie]

Just for a bit of balance, they are 24hr a day carers for their son whose "Skin Condition" is Epidermolysis bullosa, potentially fatal, but the Torygraph or more likely Mail wouldn't let that get in the way of a good scrounger story.

So, just because they have a sick kid, we all need to support them in that lifestyle? It is tough, but there is no way they should get all those hand-outs. Another story of Labour's excessive handouts to scroungers.

 

[Acker79]

You're missing the point. How can they take kids into foster care when there aren't enough foster carers right now. There are kids 'at risk' staying with families as there's no where to place them - social workers are terrified there's going to be another Baby Peter - so how on earth is the system going to cope with hundreds (thousands) more kids? Neither you nor NWGull have suggested how to get round that problem.

The foster system, as far as I'm aware, is complex and off-putting. If it is made simpler (without risking children) and perhaps paid better (using the money saved from not paying benefits) there would be more foster places.

I know an initial response would be "but if you use that money, you're not saving anything", but again, I'd say think longer term. Yes, there would be no immediate saving (though perhaps money would would saved in less red tape to qualify as foster carer), but long term, a sea change in attitudes to benefits will save money.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

8 kids,
I bet her cvnt looks like an explosion in a mattress factory,
ginger fucker.

 

[Gwylan]

The foster system, as far as I'm aware, is complex and off-putting. If it is made simpler (without risking children) and perhaps paid better (using the money saved from not paying benefits) there would be more foster places.

I know an initial response would be "but if you use that money, you're not saving anything", but again, I'd say think longer term. Yes, there would be no immediate saving (though perhaps money would would saved in less red tape to qualify as foster carer), but long term, a sea change in attitudes to benefits will save money.

This a hugely complex issue and it can't be dealt with simply in a few lines. But one of the problems faced by foster carers, as you rightly intimate, is a strict bureaucracy (at the moment, every child placed in foster care has a social worker, it also has a guardian, every foster parent has a social worker and birth parents have a social worker - that's a complex structure).
It would be easy to take short cuts and not rigorously examine and monitor potential foster carers but the first time that a kid is abused by a paedophile, all hell will let loose.

One of the issues facing foster parents is that often kids have deep, behavioural issues - they're often left to their own devices and some approved foster parents give up because of this. Of course, providing the psychological and emotional support is expensive.

The main point about foster care (and adoption) is that kids who are "looked after" (to use the jargon) tend to fare worse at school, are more likely to be criminals and have drug/alcohol problems so the long term effects of taking kids into foster care could be expensive. That's why the thinking these days is to use foster care as a last resort and ensuring kids stay with their parents (although cost is a motivation here too).

That's why taking kids like these into foster care is a bad idea, costing the country money in the short term and the long term.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I bet her cvnt looks like an explosion in a mattress factory

could be a job opportunity there , **** double to Jordan.

 

[Cpt. Spavil]

she should learn to keep her legs closed

 

[Mr Burns]

Simple solution is allow anyone person to claim benifits for 3 children. After that make it a criminal offense if you have any more children if you are on benifits.

Example if you have 5 kids and lose your job you get help.

If you have three children, but have claimed benfits from the beginning, and never worked, then go on to have more, the old man should be locked up for neglict, the women should be made to have to the op so she cannot have any more, otherwise she goes inside as well and the kids are adopted.

Harsh, but if everyone did like this pair of ***** do, then where would we be?

 

[Mr Burns]

Just for a bit of balance, they are 24hr a day carers for their son whose "Skin Condition" is Epidermolysis bullosa, potentially fatal, but the Torygraph or more likely Mail wouldn't let that get in the way of a good scrounger story.

But judging by the photo, the son is one of the younger ones, so if she stopped at two or three when it was clear she couldn't support any children on their own, itwouldn't be an issue.

I'm sure if we all turned out a kid a year, sooner or later we'd all get one that needs 24 hour care.

These people are totally what is wrong with this country today, and the only people worse than this scum, is people that try and defend the fuckers

 

[bhadebenhams]

These people are totally what is wrong with this country today, and the only people worse than this scum, is people that try and defend Dick Knight

Here, here

 

[mikeyjh]

Can anyone really justify the state having to support a family of SEVEN kids?

These people are ruining the state safety net for everybody else. Nobody wants the kids to suffer, nobody wants vulnerable families to go starving, but having SEVEN kids and then expecting the state to pick up the tab for EVERYTHING is taking the piss. The result of which will be a cost cutting backlash felt by the genuinely vulnerable.

Probably not - Just wanted to point out that there's (always) a bit more to the story than a slanted story will tell you. as an eg. It's a battered 15 year old Mercedes, not a brand new SLK or owt.

For what it's worth, I find this one a bit difficult to defend, I think everyone's staring point should be to work if you possibly can and they are to some extent or other taking the piss.

 

[bhaexpress]

Simple solution is allow anyone person to claim benifits for 3 children. After that make it a criminal offense if you have any more children if you are on benifits.

Example if you have 5 kids and lose your job you get help.

If you have three children, but have claimed benfits from the beginning, and never worked, then go on to have more, the old man should be locked up for neglict, the women should be made to have to the op so she cannot have any more, otherwise she goes inside as well and the kids are adopted.

Harsh, but if everyone did like this pair of ***** do, then where would we be?

The thing is that what about people who start off being able to afford large families and then for some reason can't. Suppose the bread winner gets taken ill, has an accident or heaven forbid, gets made redundant ?

 

[Mr Burns]

The thing is that what about people who start off being able to afford large families and then for some reason can't. Suppose the bread winner gets taken ill, has an accident or heaven forbid, gets made redundant ?

That's why I said people in that scenario get helped.

Its the ***** like these that are the problem, not just with 7 kids, but those with only one or two that see having kids as a career.

Thank f*** will now have a tory government, that it would appear, are going to tackle this sort of scum head on.

 

[Tesco in Disguise]

eugenics.

 

[tedebear]

makes me feel a mug for having a small family and struggling...

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

makes me feel a mug for having a small family and struggling...

The right thing is the right thing.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The foster system, as far as I'm aware, is complex and off-putting. If it is made simpler (without risking children) and perhaps paid better (using the money saved from not paying benefits) there would be more foster places.

Fostering should absolutely NOT be better paid.

It is already very significant [foster parents of some children are paid up to £400 per month per child. Some have up to 3. The last thing you need is to encourage people to go into fostering for the wrong reasons.

What does need to be done, is for the system to be properly managed by the public sector, so that huge fees are not spunked through securing foster parents through agencies.

 

[bhaexpress]

That's why I said people in that scenario get helped.

Its the ***** like these that are the problem, not just with 7 kids, but those with only one or two that see having kids as a career.

Thank f*** will now have a tory government, that it would appear, are going to tackle this sort of scum head on.

I doubt that a Tory government would help as they know the EEC will go after them at great expense for messing with these peoples' human rights.

 

[Simster]

Fostering should absolutely NOT be better paid.

It is already very significant [foster parents of some children are paid up to £400 per month per child. Some have up to 3. The last thing you need is to encourage people to go into fostering for the wrong reasons.

What does need to be done, is for the system to be properly managed by the public sector, so that huge fees are not spunked through securing foster parents through agencies.

Correct. Fostering is already *very* well paid.