Was your mouth agape as you sat and typed that?



Been told the fourh eldest daughter also has a hamster.

Yeah and you can guarentee the Government would link up with someone like Tesco so not only provide them with free labour but send them new customers too.

Their cat must be worried as the local vigilantes will be after his blood

lol - pretty much, I just resent the fact that me and mine struggle to make ends meet sometimes despite contributing about £750 a month in NI and Tax between us, yet this woman who contributes sweet FA is able to keep horses.

Could be the way forward?

I think the point that you miss is - a house of this size and quality is beyond 99% of the people who are actually funding it. The point of the horse comes back to the point I made earlier benefits should provide the basic essentials - owning and feeding a horse doesn't fall into that category - even you must agree? It would also suggest the levels of benefits this family is receiving is in excess of their basic needs.

And this would affect her housing situation how?

How much is he charging to bowl share???

Guess the good thing is he will forget if you've paid the rent or not this week

To put it in perspective, how many families keep a dog?
Multiply that size of family up to an eleven-kid family and you get to the size of a pony quite quickly.
Not that I'm excusing it, if I was unemployed, I wouldn't have a pet of any kind ... just let's keep things in perspective.

As for the voucher idea ... illegal or not, every estate would soon have a local voucher dealer.

As I've said before, it irritates me that irresponsible parents get into these situations ... and in this case it suggests to me that the pony is paid for by something the kids aren't getting.

But what is the alternative to benefits?
Let the kids go naked and starve? Split them up and send them to orphanages?

She does contribute as I am sure she spends her money is shops, perhaps even buying highly taxed items such as Petrol, Fags and booze. The claim that those on benefits contribute FA would mean they kept every penny under the matress and never spent a dime.

The lady who keeps a horse is wise. Few burghers plan healthy future lean meat meals so far in advance.

So the kids should starve to death or be flung out on the streets? What do you suggest is done with the kids?

Who else other than the taxpayer is going to pay for their welfare if she can't? "...the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to fork out what is a significant sum of money each year because she can't keep her legs closed." is glib nonsense.

Some very good friends of ours adopted four siblings and I know there are at least two further children from the same mother. Our friends were looking to adopt as they could not have kids themselves and were delighted to be offered two children and went ahead. The women unfortunately kept producing and while they were not initially very keen on taking another from the production line they did when no. 3 popped out and did the same again when no. 4 arrived. They were asked to do it by social services and did so to keep the siblings together.

The mother was deemed unfit and not cable of looking after the children and so they ended up on the adoption register as soon as they were born.

Now the cost of doing all this is NOT cheap. The point is whichever way you handle it there are going to be rare occasions where some woman for all sorts of reasons end up with a large number of children and if they can't look after them then the rest of society has no option but to do so. People just need to get over it, accept it doesn't happen very often and move on.

Bring back the workhouses.

Blimey mate, edit that before Iain Duncan Smith sees it.

The only reason it upscales like you suggest is that she is spending money intended for her children on keeping livestock. Shouldnt be happening IMO.

Sure, we are agreed on that bit.
It's "what to do" that is the issue.

This thread seemed as good a place as any to put [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mansion-tax-it-always-seems-to-work-out-that-taxing-the-rich-is-pointless-doesnt-it-8501455.htmlthis.[/url

I love Mark Steel, me.

Wonder if keeping a horse costs more than say Sky TV for a month, would not make such a good story if it said she spent money on that (plus not sure The Sun would see that as a bad way of spending her money).

Quality

I'd cut her benefits, but I'm not in charge - the "what to do" is what we our elected representatives are meant to work out.

To be honest if she had not sold her story we would not know and to all intents and purposes nor would the government the problem is each case is not judged on its merits and sweeping cuts accross the board are the only thing that will make any difference and she might well be ok after them, someone getting far less may not.

What else do you think people on benefits shouldn't be spending their money on? Cigarettes? Beer? Pet food for the family dog? Tub of food for the Goldfish? Should it be a requirement of being on benefits that you have any existing pets put down the moment you become a claimant?

There is no doubt in my mind keeping a horse while on benefits is irresponsible but you can't legislate against that and the fact she manages to do it is no reason to suggest benefits are too high in general. People behave irresponsibly all the time and the tax payer funds it. How many people end up in A&E each week because they play rugby of either code or sport in general? How many people each year need rescuing from the mountains or the sea's?

People need be very careful about trying to legislate against irresponsible behavior or we will soon end up in the situation where if you are in work you can be irresponsible at the tax payers expense but if you are on benefits you can't. Bottom line is people don't really have a right to dictate how people spend their money whether they earn it or receive it as a benefit. We can express our dislike that she is spending it on a horse just as we can express our dislike of any other behavior that has a cost to the tax payer but the demonizing of this woman is not about that. It is purely political.

Bloody hell sorry! Don't want to be putting ideas in their heads. I'm sure they've considered it though. All these freeloading, scrounging kids receiving benefits. They think they're too good to sweep chimneys.