Happylittlegreensquirrel Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 I went through Edgware Road Tube Station today and was thinking of Danny Biddle who I have mentioned before , Danny was on the train at Edgware Road July 7th 2005 and suffered horrific injury's from the explosion ( he lost both legs, one eye, his spleen , suffered 3 heart attacks stayed in hospital for 51 weeks and suffers from post traumatic stress disorder ) the thread I posted about Danny is Here and if you listen to the podcast link from that thread you will see that Danny has received no where near the type of assistance the family quoted in the first post of this thread have even with the injuries he has received and whilst still suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder he still works part time and trys to provide for his family Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anneski Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 If the system didnt allow people to do nothing and get money for it, the people couldnt do it.Im disabled and cant work, but im better off than when I was working. I have a council adapted house, a new motability car, and some savings, which I never had before. Im not a scrounger, I used to have 3 jobs to keep the house, but the government decides who can have what, and how much. If you was given the choice of working all hours to keep your head above water, or have money put in your hand to stay at home and do what you want, what would you do? But as you say, you ARE disabled, so I'm glad you're better off! As to your question, I would - as I do - work. In theory I could get attendance allowance (I think it's called?) or carer's allowance or something and stay home and do nowt and claim I'm looking after mum, who is registered disabled. However, she's feeling very well right now, and can do most things herself, so I go to work and only take time off when she needs me, which right now is hardly ever. She's also not renewed her disabled driver badge, because she can walk well right now and says she doesn't need a parking space close to anywhere. She's 76, and an inspiration to me So neither mum or I would sit on our bums and be paid for it, though obviously the couple in question are happy to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fee4 Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 i dont come from money-i have worked for everything i own. im lucky-im of average intelligence and got myself an education-and now earn reasonable money. i pay lots of tax-i also pay full whack on everything. i have no problem what so ever with people having the help they need IF they are unable to work-id like so benefits for elderly/disabled radically increased... in this day and age there is no reason to have 12 kids-if You -(not the tax man or me as a tax payer)-cant afford them. i can accept you might have a large family-but 12! now come on-your own intelligence surely would say-12 mouths/12 lots of heating/clothing/shoes-have i got that money? if Not then dont bloody have them! maybe as a family they should spend less time in the bedroom and more time out seeking work. every penny that gets spent in a situation like this means there is less in the pot for those who have no choice-the lad who develops schizophrenia, the woman with a brain injury, the couple with dementia..... fiona an interesting study in the states with young unmarried girls showed that if you did not pay benefits for any second or more children-the birth rate fell like a stone-those with 1 child chose not to have more till they were in a position to do so and younger girls saw that childbearing was not a cash cow and actually used more contraception..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazz Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 they should put a limit on how many children you get child benefit for, definately. In the old days, people had lots of kids because they died of diseases, or worked on the land with the family, but that isnt an excuse now. Its plain greed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakeysmum Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 I don't think people should be allowed to keep having children and expecting the tax payer to pay for them. We always wanted 3 kids but only had two, a third would place an impossible strain on our budget and make it impossible for me to work. Benefits are supposed to help people in genuine hardship, and so they should be, but I know personally one woman who was claiming benefit whilst living with a partner (not declared), she was laughing about all the stuff she gets. She had a clothing grant to go to an interview for gods sake. Free baby gates and car seats, and free holiday childcare which really got my goat as I paid for mine! In some cases they even get free holidays. So I work and pay for my own stuff, live in a little house, can't afford a holiday and buy my clothes from supermarkets in the sale. Who's the daft one? xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nancy Posted August 28, 2007 Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 This makes me so bloody angry , why the hell should taxpayers have to pay for these Lazy Ba---rds to bring up thier kids . As my mum used to say they've made thier bed let them get on with it. I'm sure if they stuck them in a 4 bed council house and cut thier allowance they would be able to work and I think they should (SPEY) sorry mean steralise the stupid bitch . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts