crazybaby Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 It must be hard for the woman, she's been in this country now for 16 years. Although I cant help thinking she would have a better life outside London & in better accommodation. "The mothers who brought the challenge include "MG", a member of the Roma community who fled Poland 16 years ago and was granted refugee status in the UK. A mother of five who is illiterate and speaks no English, she is a "devout" Roman Catholic and believes contraception "to be against the will of God". She has been granted a DHP for 13 weeks, but fears what will happen when the payments end. The judges were told that she had lived with four of her five children, aged between 12 months and 15 years, in damp, rodent-infested accommodation in Fulham for five years after her husband left her." http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/single-mothers-lose-benefit-fight-8921689.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 No truman, the effects would not be the same which I have explained previously in detail. Look back, its's all there. The HUGE difference is that the £35k family have a completely different mindset, a mindset that can proactively fix problems, find solutions, get back up like Loob did. Even if this were true, and I don't agree that it is. It's no reason to continue to give excessive amounts of money to people that refuse to improve their own situation. The children won't be damaged from the experience. A family or single mother with kids on benefits will not have a positive mindset or the skills to get out of the mess she finds herself in. She won't have a property with massive equity and OPTIONS! Neither will any other household that is today on an income of 35k. This is happening right now, people on 35k in the past were able to buy property now with huge gains. We're talking about today, not in the past. They have the education and skills to climb out of any whole. Not so for the benefits family. They are absolutely screwed and so are their children. I don't agree with that. What education and skills. A household on 35k could be 2 people both earning less than average wage. This is very obvious. Are you trying to make me smash my face into my keyboard trueman? do you want me to have a letter K for a front tooth? Is that what you want? It's not obvious, it's not even true. ---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 14:18 ---------- Moving is not a problem if you can move to somewhere just as nice or better or at least where the children won't lose their schooling, friends and family. A single mother on benefits with 3 kids should not be forced out when she has no options. The children are the ones who will suffer. It's so wrong and cannot be compared with a family on £35k which is ridiculous. The children will be in an identical situation to those of any other family that moves house to a new area. No different at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Neither will any other household that is today on an income of 35k. We're talking about today, not in the past. erm, If you live in a house today that you bought in the PAST and suddenly fell on hard times today and had to move from the house you bought in the past. When did you buy that house? IN THE PAST! if you bought in London before 2005 or there about, you would be laughing TODAY especially in London. Not so for a single mother who moved to London in the past on benefits and is now TODAY being forced to move. The government allowed her to be there, let her settle. It's immoral to now shoot her like a sitting duck with no options or massive equity to allow her to move around the corner with young kids and that's before you take into account her mindset and ability to cope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Moving is not a problem if you can move to somewhere just as nice or better or at least where the children won't lose their schooling, friends and family. A single mother on benefits with 3 kids should not be forced out when she has no options. The children are the ones who will suffer. It's so wrong and cannot be compared with a family on £35k which is ridiculous. If she has no options, i.e. nowhere suitable to move to then I agree, she shouldn't be forced. BUT, if there is somewhere suitable to move to that reduces her burden on society then why shouldn't she? Families move all the time, children cope, they're good at it. Why do you insist on painting benefits claimants as weak willed wilting flowers who will have a mental breakdown if told to move from a three bed to a two bedroom house, or to a different area where the rent is cheaper? jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 If she has no options, i.e. nowhere suitable to move to then I agree, she shouldn't be forced. BUT, if there is somewhere suitable to move to that reduces her burden on society then why shouldn't she? Families move all the time, children cope, they're good at it. Why do you insist on painting benefits claimants as weak willed wilting flowers who will have a mental breakdown if told to move from a three bed to a two bedroom house, or to a different area where the rent is cheaper? I'm all for stopping this situation from occurring in the first place but under no circumstances should the lives of children be negatively impacted which could cause them physical or emotional harm. Even seeing the distress caused to their parents is wrong. No government should be able to backtrack on the stability of children. The likelihood of these families being moved to a suitable new place that won't have a terribly negative impact will be non existent. You know it and I know it. If you think a single mother on benefits with 3 kids isn't going to be weak willed you're not giving it much thought. Besides, it's the kids I'm worried for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 erm, If you live in a house today that you bought in the PAST and suddenly fell on hard times today and had to move from the house you bought in the past. When did you buy that house? IN THE PAST! if you bought in London before 2005 or there about, you would be laughing TODAY especially in London. Not so for a single mother who moved to London in the past on benefits and is now TODAY being forced to move. The government allowed her to be there, let her settle. It's immoral to now shoot her like a sitting duck with no options or massive equity to allow her to move around the corner with young kids and that's before you take into account her mindset and ability to cope. I find it odd that families, sometimes single parent families, can escape war torn countries get into the country, not only cope but flourish but moving long term benefit claiments to stoke is the end of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 I'm all for stopping this situation from occurring in the first place but under no circumstances should the lives of children be negatively impacted which could cause them physical or emotional harm. Even seeing the distress caused to their parents is wrong. No government should be able to backtrack on the stability of children. The likelihood of these families being moved to a suitable new place that won't have a terribly negative impact will be non existent. You know it and I know it. If you think a single mother on benefits with 3 kids isn't going to be weak willed you're not giving it much thought. Besides, it's the kids I'm worried for. Perhaps a move from... The judges were told that she had lived with four of her five children, aged between 12 months and 15 years, in damp, rodent-infested accommodation in Fulham for five years after her husband left her. ... to somewhere more suitable would be an improvement. A move up north might be the best thing that ever happened to her and her children, just think what kind of accomodation and lifestyle they could have in sheffield for £500/wk compared to that in London. Maybe she could even learn English while up here. jb http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeed...t-8921689.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 Perhaps a move from... ... to somewhere more suitable would be an improvement. A move up north might be the best thing that ever happened to her and her children, just think what kind of accomodation and lifestyle they could have in sheffield for £500/wk compared to that in London. Maybe she could even learn English while up here. jb http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeed...t-8921689.html Well I would imagine that's probably quite an extreme case. If you put it like that Barleycorn, then if an improvement to the lifestyle of the family can be found. Fair enough. If the family want to move and are happy to, who could argue. But the families going to court don't want to move and are in great distress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted November 6, 2013 Author Share Posted November 6, 2013 erm, If you live in a house today that you bought in the PAST and suddenly fell on hard times today and had to move from the house you bought in the past. When did you buy that house? IN THE PAST! if you bought in London before 2005 or there about, you would be laughing TODAY especially in London. Not so for a single mother who moved to London in the past on benefits and is now TODAY being forced to move. The government allowed her to be there, let her settle. It's immoral to now shoot her like a sitting duck with no options or massive equity to allow her to move around the corner with young kids and that's before you take into account her mindset and ability to cope. Why are you making such an assumption. There was no such comparison made. The ONLY comparison was made my me and it was for both parties to be renting a houses on the same road for the same amount. Break it down for us to show the difference, if two families live side by side and rented their homes. One receives £500 a week in state benefits while the other earns £34,090pa equaling £500 a week after tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted November 6, 2013 Share Posted November 6, 2013 I find it odd that families, sometimes single parent families, can escape war torn countries get into the country, not only cope but flourish but moving long term benefit claiments to stoke is the end of the world. People running away from bullets will have their lives IMPROVED if they escape the war torn country and thus be able to cope and flourish when they move. A family being ripped out of their homes, forced to move away from schools, friends and family with no options will suffer and probably not be able to cope. You find that odd? I find YOU odd! ---------- Post added 06-11-2013 at 15:12 ---------- Why are you making such an assumption. There was no such comparison made. Have you not been reading this thread. Lots of posts comparing the two which is ridiculous as I've pointed out many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.