Parasites like these make everyone else suffer

[katy1981]

I've said before that vouchers should be issued for people on benefits, and vouchers can only be redeemed for items on an approved list.

 

However thinking about it, that would punish people who ARE responsible with their benefit payments and may want to treat themselves at some point.

 

Both these women should immediately have their benefits withdrawn as they have proven that they cannot be trusted. If that means moving to a smaller house because her wage from McDonald's is lower than £30,000 then she should have thought about that before carrying out her actions AND posing for a national newspaper!

 

maybe a 50/50 would work, you know like half cash half vouchers maybe that would be viable?

 

when i was unemployed and my partner got made redundent all we were given were job seekers allowance and very nearly lost our home and had to go hungry on occasions ourselves to make sure our children were fed and clothed and all treats and everything else went ou the window, luckily it only lasted about a month as i was lucky enough to get something small and part time. so this sort of thing really does wind me up when i read about them showing off!

[Halibut]

Scrounging gets!

I hope their houses burn down (with them not inside of course) and they lose all 'their' possessions!!

 

How horribly mean spirited of you.

[Hayley1]

voluntary work, and bring back national service.

[gnvqsos]

I thought this was a post about the idle rich.I suspect the figures used are contrived as there is no detailed breakdown of how the money is made up.I suspect the media have bought the story and the real laugh is on all the mug punters who purchase the Sun and Mail who are vicariously subsidizing the pair in question.The Philip Greens and Michael Winners of this world are having a massive laugh at you all carping at each other over a stunt.The biggest grin will be found on the Megalomaniac Marsupial,Murdoch.

[shims]

But Kelly Marshall cannot command the sort of salary necessary to support her family - she is unskilled due to the appalling state of the British education system.

Her family is something that she has control over and something she has allowed to expand despite contributing absolutely nothing financially.

 

You're in no position to make assertions as to why she is unskilled. She may well be unskilled because because she's idle and lacks motivation and incentive.

 

We are still waiting for you to explain how Kelly Marshall legally claiming benefits for her family has made you suffer. Or anybody else.

It makes people suffer mental anguish, knowing that there are people out there who abuse the systen to such a degree whilst people with a sense of personal rsponsibility often struggle to make ends meet.

 

In the absence of a time machine that advice is worthless. The children are already here. What do we do about them?

Appoint childminders to look after them while mum is off doing some compulsory work as a penalty for her chronic irresponsibilty.

 

Firstly, why does she have questionable morals?

You answer this fairly well in the same post:

I personally find it irresponsible for anyone to have so many children when they are not in a position to support them.

 

What about the morals of these absent fathers? Where are they and what are they contributing? Or do they just go around impregnating women then decamping into the sunset?

My bold. Quite possibly. If this woman was more responsible and knew who they were perhaps she could name them so they could be made to contribute to the childrens' upbringing.

 

 

 

 

Nevertheless, the post that best sums up this thread is this one:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6755721&postcount=105

[Suffragette1]

Her family is something that she has control over and something she has allowed to expand despite contributing absolutely nothing financially.

 

You're in no position to make assertions as to why she is unskilled. She may well be unskilled because because she's idle and lacks motivation and incentive.

 

 

It makes people suffer mental anguish, knowing that there are people out there who abuse the systen to such a degree whilst people with a sense of personal rsponsibility often struggle to make ends meet.

 

 

Appoint childminders to look after them while mum is off doing some compulsory work as a penalty for her chronic irresponsibilty.

 

 

You answer this fairly well in the same post:

 

 

 

My bold. Quite possibly. If this woman was more responsible and knew who they were perhaps she could name them so they could be made to contribute to the childrens' upbringing.

 

 

 

 

Nevertheless, the post that best sums up this thread is this one:

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6755721&postcount=105

 

Being irresponsible is not the same as lacking in morals, as far as I'm concerned.

[Keith Rich]

It's nice easy story to do and it causes outrage, which is good for selling papers. If they spent even half as much time investigating business and governmental fraud, they might start getting close to some of Murdoch's mates, so they wouldn't want to do that. Plus those stories can be complicated, so people with short attention spans wouldn't read them anyway.

Better to whip up the crowds with endless taless of women on benefits who have plasma screen TVs.

 

 

Spot on!

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/07/01/benefit-fraud-is-624-times-more-serious-than-tax-evasion/

[Grandad.Malky]

So, just to confirm, newspapers shouldn't report the dishonest use of benefits?

 

Dishonest were did it say that, dodgy morals and shameless yes but is that dishonest.

 

Why don’t they run stories about blokes with a house full of kids working 12 hr shifts at £5.80 £5,93 ( don’t forget the pay rise) just to scrape a living …………. would that sell papers.

[alex3659]

yes they could forage for food behind sainsbury's...

 

Plenty in the skips at northern foods.

You have to get there early though to beat the rush.

[mj.scuba]

At last, a politician prepared to ignore politically correct norms and grasp the nettle.

 

The Government's new family cap on benefits will encourage long-term claimants to ''take responsibility'' for the number of children they have, Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, has said.

 

Mr Hunt said the ''state shouldn't support'' large families who receive more in benefits than the average wage, currently £26,000.

 

But he denied that the new limit was a ''penalty'' on large families.

 

''The number of children that you have is a choice and what we're saying is that if people are living on benefits, then they make choices but they also have to have responsibility for those choices,'' he told BBC2's Newsnight.

 

''It's not going to be the role of the state to finance those choices.''

 

He added: ''You can have children but if you are going to ask for support that is more than the average wage that people earn, then we're saying no, the state shouldn't support that.

 

''That's not fair on working people who have to pay the taxes to pay those benefits.''

 

Full story

 

Well said Jeremy Hunt