Thursday, October 17, 2013

This shouldn't be our problem.

A woman with nine children who is getting £38,000 a year in benefits is demanding a bigger council house. Now granted she and her partner work part time, but, it really ought not to be the problem of a council or the taxpayer if she can't keep her legs closed.
Express.
A MOTHER-of-nine who pockets £38,000 a year in handouts is demanding a bigger council house – after accusing benefit slobs of giving big families a “bad name”.
Cheryl Prudham and ­husband Robert rake in the equivalent of an £80,000 salary, of which 70 per cent comes from benefits and tax credits and the rest from their part-time work.
But despite pocketing the huge sum the couple claim it’s “cruel” to keep them “like animals” in their three-bedroom property.
Mrs Prudham, 31, whose children are aged between nine months and 13 years, said: “I see other people in the paper and it makes me sick. They shouldn’t just get a new home handed to them on a plate.
“It gives people with big families a bad name. I don’t want people to judge us because we have so many children.”
The part-time carer, who works 20 hours a week, added: “If I sat on my a*** I would understand people would have something to say.
“You wouldn’t keep animals in the confined space we live in. It’s cruel and I don’t think we’re getting the help we’re entitled to.”
She added: “I know it’s possible to have two houses knocked through into one big house because I’ve read they do that for people.
“Even an extra bedroom would make the world of difference.”
It should also be noted that the woman's children come from three different partners too...
Now I do admire the fact that they have part time jobs, but raking in £80k in kind from the various benefits they qualify for does seem a tad excessive, particularly as the choice of having children was hers. After all, her body, her rules as the feminists constantly tell us males when we question what women do.
Personally I'm of the opinion that you should only have kids if you can afford them and whilst I'm sympathetic to the government assisting with the first two to encourage a stable population, after that it ought to be your problem, not the states. Not that I blame them for taking everything that they can get, perhaps in a similar position we all would. However it is the fault of the state which allows this to happen in the first place by not capping benefits above a certain level
Personally I believe that the benefit system as a whole ought to simply be a short term safety net for the healthy at least, for the elderly and the disabled alone it ought to be a means of comfort for them. All others... if you want a family of nine, you'd better be able to pay for them, it's not my job as a taxpayer and it shouldn't be the states either.




7 annotations:

Anonymous said...

Actually 2.8 for a stable population to cover for illness and accident plus wars. But yes, it's nonsense to rob the taxpayer for this and arguably everything else.

Anonymous said...

If this woman was that interested in right and wrong she could always chase the errant fathers through the courts (or Facebook) for financial support, thereby reducing the burden on you and me. Unfortunately, parasites rarely care about the health of the host.
Penseivat

Budvar said...

Stories like this really get on my tripes, wanting a bigger council house is pretty much irrelevant to the story.

She gets £38k from the state, OK she lives in a council house (smaller than she'd like) so what proportion of that £38k goes to pay for rent and council tax?

A goodly portion I'll wager, so the state pays out £X a week in benefits in one hand to pay for said rent and council tax, and then takes it back with the other as payment.

The remainder will be things like free prescriptions, free school meals and family allowance. School meals and prescriptions are once again handed straight back to the state, and family allowance is a universal benefit anyway and paid to anyone with kids under the age of 16 and a UK resident regardless of income.

Looked at through this particular lens this story is nothing more than the usual of placing the blame for the country going down the shitter firmly on their shoulders and not bankers whose latest tranche of bailouts would have paid the benefits bill for decades.

Kath lissenden said...

Agree with you 100%

Rickie said...

This not working benefits career choice of babies makes houses lifestyle has changed the culture in Britain, we now have 24 hour family homes, lights always on, t.v never swithced off, and mother in dressing gowns at 3pm having a fag at the front door with Jeremy Kyle on the 50 inch telly behind them.

I reckon you have it wrong with this couple Quiet man, both working part time means a lot to me, lets face it Victorian large familes and living in poverty with no help didn't stop them, i reckon the real scroungers will not work and will only have enough babies to make the scam work

Quiet_Man said...

@ Budvar, as the UK pays out £37 billion in bonuses each year it would appear you have a point, until you realise the benefits bill is £208 billion each year and rising.
So grabbing the bankers bonuses as you propose is simply not going to be anything like enough.

Kath lissenden said...

I had 3 children, my husband was a manual laborer and earned very little we managed, I stayed at home because we both felt it was best this did not mean I didn't work damn hard because I did.
When the children reached secondary school I started to work because I had to we needed the money. Apart from when my husband prolapsed 2 discs in his back we never claimed anything, until both our youngest 2 children were almost at college because we fell short of the ceiling on earnings by £1.50p.
We struggled but our kids grew up happy and well adjusted. They didn't have the latest gadgets or mobile phones they didn't have xboxes etc and it did them no harm. People expect too much in life. Now my partner is disabled and I care for him 24/7 we struggle but we cut our cloth according to our means. We have food heat light and a roof over our heads and all our bills are paid. He has worked full time since he was 13 and is now 50 and unlikely to ever work again after breaking his spine 2 years ago next month. He has paid his dues, yet now we are called scroungers. Families like this may work but that does not entitle them to taxpayers free money. Yes hurrah they work but one of them could work full time or even both, they don't because they can screw the system for all that family tax credit if they both only work full time. So rather than struggle as I did bringing up my children, they take other people taxes.