KathyM Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 How about swinging it the other way round though - there are just as many people on long term benefits who aren't being supported properly by the government or anyone else. Baz had to apply twice for DLA, the first time they told him being blind "Isn't a disability". He only gets lower rate now that the CAB have been involved, as the first time the doctor visited to ask him all the questions, he (the doc) answered every question as Baz being able to do things that he couldn't - because I was there to do it for him. Where were the government when Baz was fighting tooth and nail to *keep* his job? You always hear people moaning about people who don't stay in work, but you never hear anyone praising someone for clinging to theirs as long as he did. I'm not saying this to personalise it all, I'm using him as an example of something that many disabled people face every day. They (in the beginning) dragged him in for interview after interview. They downright lied on his DLA application. All this shame brought on a person who had worked solidly for nearly 20 years without a break. But were they there when he needed someone to protect his job? Did they help him afterwards? Did they heck as like. On a side note I've just spent an hour filling in repeat IB forms. They have boxes for spouse, civil partner and even flippin' babysitter, but none for long term co-habiting partnery carer type thing. Seems they not only devalue him, but now me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobean Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 That's what we're trying to say though Kathy. Those that need help don't get it. Those that sit back and do nowt do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redditchlady Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 of course I don't mind you quoting me. my point was that what these guys get in benefits is not huge in relation to their outgoings. I could not manage 10 more kids on our income. To quote the article:- 'Former book-keeper Samantha, 35......' 'Carl, who used to work as a door-to-door salesman.....' If these are facts the it appears to be untrue that they are Again, from the article:- 'When asked why they don't work, the couple say that looking after their children is a full time job. And they claim they would earn less working than they do claiming the dole'. We know this is true. It's wrong, but it's true. Not the looking after their children bit btw. Again, I ask: are we damn sure these people are the spongers they are painted to be? Are they sitting as pretty as the majority of us think they are? Are they the 'winners' here or in the long term are they victims of a system that is reactive rather than proactively helps people to make the most of their lives? I wish the journo had asked these guys 'is this what you want from your life?'. Sorry to quote you yet again!!! But exactly. They chose to produce these kiddies. Knowing full well they couldn't possibly support them. Like I said earlier on in the thread I worked a twilight shift in a factory to get extras for my 3 doglets at the time and Meelie. My ex looked after Meelie cos I had to go to work. KathyM I have no problem at all with you and Baz. You are doing what you can, Baz has poor eyesight. You are a proportion of the "genuine" claimants. (I hope that makes sense) i don't think they are living in the lap of luxury but what they have they are given and do nothing to earn it. If they can't afford to support 12 kids they shouldn't of had them not just keep popping them out and expect others (like me) to fund them. Exactly!! Make him go to work, reduce the benefits by the amount he earns. Also I feel that they (well the older kiddies) could do some work around the community. Like Sarah (EGAR) said about the family near her. Let the kiddies capable mow lawns, clear snow, check elderly neighbours etc. That's true Jacobean. sadly though i don't think they are the brightest people on earth. otherwise why would they give interviews and smile for a photo that's going to make them loathed nationally? two things here:- how you manage this family how you manage the system to make sure it cant happen again in the future. scary thing is that she's still got a few more breeding years in her!!!! Like I said earlier, keep his flies firmly (Excuse the pun) zipped. lets see if the PSDA can get her speyed In our dreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazz Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 A little story .. when I was married, 2 little boys, we had a flat, top floor. I worked part time, hubby full time. We didnt have much money over, but there you go When I split up from him, I was then disabled. Me and my sons were given a ground floor flat. I had worked full time by then, I now couldnt. I was on full housing benefits, and had more money in my hand than when I worked permanent nights. The government also gave me a grant for furnishing my house, and for clothes as we had to run and had nothing. The council then gave us a 2 bed house, then a 3. As soon as I was classed as a single parent, and disabled, they kept asking me what I wanted, and gave me money left right and centre. My money has now been halved as my sons have left college, but im better off than ive ever been. If tomorrow i was not disabled and could work, I couldnt afford to, they do make it so hard. I can see why they have what they have, if its there, take it. I dont agree that they should not work when they are able, and have more kids to keep the money coming in, and be given a big house that working people cant afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nouggatti Posted July 28, 2007 Report Share Posted July 28, 2007 I have known a few people from very big families - talking about double figures now. The youngest ones had a much happier childhood than the older ones. One friend was oldest of 15, and he just didn't get a childhood, he was looking after infants all the time and none of the older kids took any pleasure in the arrival of yet another baby each year or so. I can relate to this I am the oldest of ten and my dad worked whilst between him and mum they ran a small shop. I worked in the shop from the age of six, and sister next to me was the official babyminder for mum. The house was run on military lines with everyone having assigned work as soon as they were old enough. This family imo don't seem to want to really contribute, at least three of their children are teens who could help out mum and dad and enable at least one if not both to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Dobie Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 But a sudden change in circumstances that leads to your being unable to work for a while/for good (for example an accident) is different to making the decision to have 12 children and expecting other people to pay for their upkeep isn't it? Yes, I don't disagree BUT there WASN'T a decision to have 12 kids - it was a combination of two partnerships and the "fruit" of that partnership - I presume (probably incorrectly) that they didn't look at the benefit aspect of it because they (appear) to be in love...... Scooby that is not entirely correct. My stepmum has been in hopsital for 3 months and she is not entitled to anythnig even though she has worked all her life. As my dad is still on full pay from his job, they have been told that his wage is sufficient for them both. She is currently getting SSP from her employers. Yet we want to get her: - a mobility allowance for a car that is equipped to carry her - disability allowance So please tell me why it is acceptable to give a scrounging family of 12 thousands of pounds of money yet a 50 plus year old woman who has worked all her life, then has an accident which will affect the rest of her life is entitled to nothing because her partner works?? So, dont rely on the government for anything. Difficult one (and I don't know the individual circumstances), but if your mom has worked all her life i presume she has paid tax / NI / etc...all her life IF this IS the case - the situation is wrong... If your mom is getting SSP - your dad can claim an allowance for looking after her - carers allowance which i am told will be the ammount of time he would earn at work (at the hourly rate he would actualy earn) for remaining at home to look after your mom... good point but i think the figure is six or seven times more budget for social security than for armed forces and education budget. Unsustainable and totally wrong. imo. At least these people paid into the system at one time. Unlike migrants who come over with the one aim of finding free housing, free healthcare and handouts. And what about the super rich who use the UK as a tax haven and probably contribute LESS to the UK than the Gillespies have done in the past? There is a HUGE problem here. It is not this family of 14. They are simply a by-product. Maybe it is (the budget figure) BUT if this IS the case - be thankful that you live in a society that spends this kind of money for the populous....... I REFUSE to comment on the "migrant" theme..... I AM a migrant (dad was Italian) and he contributed MORE tax to the UK government than anyone else I know - AND he owned 2 restaurants when he died - giving dozens of people work.... I (being the SON of a migrant) IN YOUR WORDS!!! have been brought up with both Anglo / Italian parentage, seen the benefits and misfits of both cultures - have FOUGHT in a Gulf War (Italian National Service) and TBH have never been given ANY benefits from ANY country despite the SH*TE i went through....(I WILL NOT TALK ABOUT IT!!!!) - I have seen the money that war demands - I do not lie....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheryl33 Posted July 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 they aren't entitled to anything as my dad is still being paid by work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Dobie Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 It is not this family of 14. They are simply a by-product. But it is this family of 14. There are hundreds of others like them, not neccessarily with loads of kids, but will not get off their backsides to get a job because they get more in handouts from the governement. I am pretty sure we all know someone like this. Thay are NOT a by-product they are THEMSELVES....... Disability Living Allowance is not means tested, if entitled you can get it regardless of what other people in your family earn. TY I wouldn't be so sure about that Scooby. If you are single with no children, you qualify for virtually nothing. If you are single, no children and self employed and things go wrong, you're in an even worse position That happened to me a few years ago and I had to battle tooth and claw to claim job seekers and council tax benefit for the few wks I was out of work. The job seekers was £56 and a few pennies. That amount of money is nearly impossible to live on. If I'd needed it I could have got housing benefit too, but only upto £65 a week, anything more and it would have had to come out of my js benefit, or of course move. Needless to say I was job hunting and back in work PDQ and now save all I can, so that if I'm ever in the same position again I can add a few veggies to the value beans on toast ps Scoobs - agree totally about the war ! PS - If you are self employed (like me) spend £10 a month on insurance for when you don't work (to cover your average wage) and you should be OK they aren't entitled to anything as my dad is still being paid by work Well you should be claiming on the fact that your mom CANNOT work..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 PS - If you are self employed (like me) spend £10 a month on insurance for when you don't work (to cover your average wage) and you should be OK Who with, and what's it called? Last time I looked into insuring myself, it was so prohibitively expensive to get cover for the things that seemed more likely to actually happen, that I decided I'd just take the risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Dobie Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Who with, and what's it called? Last time I looked into insuring myself, it was so prohibitively expensive to get cover for the things that seemed more likely to actually happen, that I decided I'd just take the risk. Well I'm with Northern Rock (my mortgage provider) and they insure me for DOUBLE my mortgage value payment to cover living expenses (gas / electric / council tax/ secured loans etc... for 24 months if due to sickness / accident / enforced unemployment (termination of contract prematurely) for an extra £17 / month on my mortgage payment AND i get free "emergency service" (broken boiler / pipes / roof) etc.... thrown in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jemimap Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Yes, I don't disagree BUT there WASN'T a decision to have 12 kids - it was a combination of two partnerships and the "fruit" of that partnership - I presume (probably incorrectly) that they didn't look at the benefit aspect of it because they (appear) to be in love...... Of course there WAS a decision to have 12 kids, it doesn't happen by itself Well I'm with Northern Rock (my mortgage provider) and they insure me for DOUBLE my mortgage value payment to cover living expenses (gas / electric / council tax/ secured loans etc... for 24 months if due to sickness / accident / enforced unemployment (termination of contract prematurely) for an extra £17 / month on my mortgage payment AND i get free "emergency service" (broken boiler / pipes / roof) etc.... thrown in... Those kind of policies are notoriously difficult to get paid out when needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingrid Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Yes, I don't disagree BUT there WASN'T a decision to have 12 kids - it was a combination of two partnerships and the "fruit" of that partnership - I presume (probably incorrectly) that they didn't look at the benefit aspect of it because they (appear) to be in love...... She already had 5 kids from a previous realationship, so they must have thought they could afford those when they got together Former book-keeper Samantha, 35, had five children from a previous relationship when she married Carl, who used to work as a door-to-door salesman. They are Craig, 16, Adam, 14, Jack, 13, Rebekah, 11, and Harry, nine. The couple then had seven of their own: twins Parris-Jordan and Kesla Blu, eight; twins Mason and Peaches, six; Logan, four, and the three-year-old twins Skye and Kalifornya But where is the father of the first 5 and why isn't he paying towards their upkeep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoC Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople...ort/DG_10011731 DLA isn't affected by income, even if the person claiming it works you can still claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staffymad Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 First off I would like to say that I am suprised and shocked by some peoples views and statements about Imigrants. I am one. I moved to the UK from Germany 9.5 years ago. I did not come here to claim all those benefits and be a scrounger. I worked from day 3 for £2.50 per hour (this was before min wages) as a fruit packer until I found a permanent job. If I get made redundant, I get no benefits as being not a UK citizen I can only stay if I can support myself Never mind that I paid 9.5 yrs worth of taxes. Is the system wrong - most certainly but blaming imigrants is not making it any better, it is you guys who are allowed to vote in the general election (funny I am not allowed to) and vote the goverment who can make changes. We imigrants are not allowed to As for 12 kids and sponging, well I am disgusted as there is no need to 'breed' that many kids if you can't financially care for them. Cindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheryl33 Posted August 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 I'd take all their benefits away, make the parents work as shelf stackers and then make all the kids go work in the fields and pick fruit . Only if I was PM, of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts