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 rlthis.rl

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.