Personal responsibility is so passé, yes?

I think you'll find that I'm perfectly aware of that, which is why I highlighted the fact and mentioned that it appears in the breakdown of her monthly payment, the fact that the council can't provide housing for her is not unusual, the fact that they then have to resort to private accommodation, more than likely at an inflated rate, is also not unusual.

If the facts of the report are to be believed then she'll potentially be facing a penalty under the "bedroom tax" as at least six of those kids should be shared across three of the bedrooms.





Again I hesitate to use this woman's specific case to either defend or attack her, I don't know her but I'll assume that because she has allowed her photo to be used then she has at least been interviewed by a reporter and to be fair to the Mail its not a complete hatchet job on her, you however seem perfectly happy to label her as one of Camerons Shirkers Army ?

Lets not refer to her specifically but instead take an example of a married female with a number of children who chooses to stay and home and raise those children rather than working, there are no reports that her kids are feral or anything other than normal well behaved kids, so she's pretty much the Tory blueprint for the "perfect wife", one who is prepared to set aside ambition and career in order to be a home-maker, mother and role model to her children.

Then her husband abandons her and the children and fails to contribute to their upbringing, she loses the family home and has to seek social housing from the local council and fall back on social security to simply survive.

What is she now ?

Under this system? Set up for life. Apparently.

And your solution ?

I take it that the caring part of you (even hypothetically) got lonely and went away?

To the fact that someone who hasn't worked in 20 years can receive a level of benefits that equates to a salary of circa 40k/50k?

Oh, I think a root and branch review of the current system may just be in order. Surely even the most moist of Liberals,, would agree that there is a need to make work and contributing to society a tad more attractive than living on Benefits?

That is not to suggest they all be thrown into a poorhouse. Heaven forbid. We are a rich and caring enough Nation, are
we not Jerry?

Chris, I have not replied to inane chatter simply because i am a caring person, but when you have the wit, or intelligence to raise a valid point, rest assured i will.

There's a certain irony here, since you seemed to ignore almost all of the points in Jerry's post and simply respond with a soundbite.

Indeed, at no juncture have you offered anything like an alternative approach that deals with the issues.

The problem is that the level of benefits provided to anyone with a NIS number has already been assessed as being adequate to maintain a standard of living, the only question remaining is whether you and the Daily Mail find that level set to high.

No government minister ever chooses a single unemployed person as an example to vilify, mainly because the level of support provided is minimal and would be considered by some to be at a poverty level, its wouldn't be a very popular rebel rousing vote winner to point to such a bed-sit person and accuse them of shirking and scrounging.

It also doesn't help the government ministers cause that each type of benefit claimed by the example person in The Mail is an entitlement, she isn't fiddling the system, she's entitled to claim for each of those amounts and the claims are checked by government departments and awarded after cross-checking against other claims, yes, I know what the process is.

So its a system that has already been assessed many times as being fair and required to support the unemployed and low waged and its been long recognised that as a society we should do that - so what has changed ?

This government needs to make cuts, thats what has changed, but rather than just admit that they can't afford these previously approved support measures they prefer to try and substantiate them by turning the population against those who need to claim them, and with the collusion of a willing press they are doing a damn good job of it too by picking extreme examples and presenting them as the norm.

Its called PR spin.

Indeed. Of course you're right. You mention the press - let's not forget that the [iMail[/i and the [iSun[/i (to a slightly lesser extent) attempted to claim that Mick Philpott would not have committed mass murder were it not for the welfare system.

Spin indeed.

What never ceases to amaze me is that we can't afford the benefits that successive governments have designed, costed, put in place and religiously assessed in each individual case, but we CAN afford untold billions to unceasingly s down bottomless pots in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is indeed shameful how they pick the targets to denigrate. One interesting comparison would be that it costs the government £32k to keep this woman and all her kids, but £45k to keep the average prisoner in jail.

I'm more concerned about pi[is[/ising away untold £bns on HS2, just so someone can get from Birmingham to London 20 minutes earlier. Wouldn't it be cheaper to encourage them to catch an earlier train?

I looked at the figures for the proposed changes to legal aid and in total it costs us around £30 each per year. I dunno about anyone else but I'm more than happy to pay just over 10 bob a week for a legal safeguard

If we make the huge assumptions that you have made and we follow your line of thinking regarding benefits and, say, halve hers, who gains and who loses?
We, the taxpayers gain, what, £20k?
Then what do we do about those kids?
I guess your answer would be that if you can't afford kids you shouldn't have them, but they exist nonetheless and none of this situation is their fault, they are entirely innocent and blamelesss and the benefits are for their upkeep more than anyone else's.
Should we let them sleep on the streets? starve? send them to the workhouse?.... or what?
Or is it just not your problem and you couldn't fking care less?

£6bn per year for our armed forces in Afghanistan alone, apparently.
But hey, that's nothing compared to what the rare example of a woman with 7 kids costs us.