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.

A little anecdote about a friend of mine to add to the "scrounger" theory.

His mum had given up work to give birth to him, there not being much in the way of maternity pay at th time. His dad was in a decent, fairly well paid job. Then she had become pregnant with his younger sister when he was about 5. So obviously did not seek employment.
The plan being, in 4 or so years when his sister starts school then his mum would probably find at least part time work, but even then she wasn't receiving benefits. But his sister had severe MS and needed a large amount of care. So she stayed off work. The money from his dads job just about seeing them through.
Then, when he was 13, my friends dad died suddenly of a heart attack. Suddenly there was no income and 2 kids to look after, 1 with serious issues. Fortunately there was a safety net there for my friend and his family. The benefits his mum received (I'm unsure what exactly they were but some form of housing benefit, income support etc) enabled them to stay in their modest house and just about scrape by. She couldn't get a job, she was essentially a full time carer. Then, a few years later she did, in my opinion, a wonderful thing. She adopted a 4 year old deaf boy with severe MS.
Now if you take the Daily Mail route you could say, single mum with 3 kids who hasn't worked for decades scrounges off the state. I'd rather say incredible woman deserves all the help the state and society can give her.

Its not an unusual story, the circumstances are unique but changing circumstances are the cause of most peoples reliance, short or long term, on state help.

Of course it doesn't make for newspaper headlines or for politicians spin to say "This family's main breadwinner has been made unemployed because of the recession and so for the next year or so, until things pick up, they will rely on benefits", no its much easier to call the unemployed "shirkers" to deflect blame for the fact that its you, the politician who caused the unemployment, directly or indirectly, and its you the politician who has it within their means to do something about it, but you won't, because your political machinations haven't gone far enough yet and the shirking unemployed are a price worth paying as long as everyone believes the spin.

The stories of a lifetime spent unemployed refer to small numbers, the stories of generations of unemployed have been proven by their own f'kin statisticians to be outright lies, yet still they print them.

Given that his area of representation was contained within Greg Mulhollands constituency I tweeted the House of Commons most prolific tweeter too asking him what he thought of one of his coalition partners being so ignorant of facts, surprisingly he did not reply either.

What arrant nonsense! Even by Southstanders diminishing standards, that is a pretty poor attempt at fake outrage. No mention of rickets.....sleeping 4 to a bed under a pile of old overcoats.....the mockery of the other schoolkids at the holes in their secondhand clothes, etc etc.

Perhaps a second look at what has been actually written, both here, and in that particular article will help clear the fog?

One simple question people.....Are none of you surprised at the amounts being handed out to these claimants? And yes, we are aware that ticking the required boxes on the pro forma will result in x amount being dished out.

Why ?

Type as much flummery as you like, it doesn't cover up the fact that have either failed to answer (or are ignoring) the vital question.
What would you do about the children?

I'm sorry, is there something in the AUP that requires either me, or the author of this particular article to provide a solution?

Perhaps you could take a moment to answer what was a very simple question......

You are the one getting in a froth about the amount of money in benefits being paid to one family ... but, so far, you appear to be deliberately avoiding saying what you would do otherwise.
I am reasonably sanguine about it because I believe that we, as a society, have a collective responsibility, especially where children are involved.