... to feel angry about single mother of 11 getting new house built for her!!

Eloethan - what an excellent post. I know I have been fortunate in having the good health and intelligence to be able to find well paid posts in teaching, the civil service and finance. I did work hard, but I reaped the rewards and now I don't grudge my taxes helping to fund those who have not had my advantages.

Thinking about the poor being scapegoated for the horrors brought on by the rich, reminds me of that old rhyme from our childhood:

It's the same the whole world over
it's the poor wot gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Ain't it all a bleedin' shame.

Of course, there are lots of disgusting versions of it, but, well, many a true word is spoken in jest.

Interesting article - relevant to this thread:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/03/blame-poor-poverty-barbara-ellen

Reposting this, which MiceElf posted on another thread and greatnan put on this thread further up. It's what the newspaper article refers to:
www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Truth-And-Lies-Report-smaller.pdf

Thank you Joan very interesting article.

Bags I will read this report as soon as I get the chance to. Thank you for the

In this country absolute greed at the top never seems to be quite as bad as taking a few pounds in benefits to help feed and clothe a family does it?

jan I can understand that you are upset with this but to assume that all 11 children have different Fathers isa bit un fair don't you think

Oooops Thank you for the ...........link Bags

What a nice thing to say greatnan and such a relevant point about having advantages in life. I do appreciate there is no excuse for laziness but its not always the case though is it, and we should not label every person on benefits as lazy.

My brother was a hard working man but fell ill and was unable to work through no fault of his own at all, it took him a year to get through his savings then he had no choice but to rely on the state for 3 years.

But its nice to know that there are people like you that are understanding and not judgemental.

I do not get involved in polotics as I believe they are all out for themselves and so I am neither a consevative on a Labour supporter but I do know that this government is going to cause alot of poverty which will effect children greatly as it seems he is on a mission to cut benefits as much as possible but what I would like to say to him is maybe he should start by cutting the mad salaries that MP's receive.

Interesting article, thanks, Joan. It has long annoyed me that politicians of every party have a mantra about 'hard-working families'. Time and again, they portray 'working' families having to support the feckless unemployed with their taxes, which couldn't be less accurate. I have no statistics but would bet that there are few families which have not at some time or another been touched by redundancy or loss of employment due to a company's failure. I've had periods of unemployment when I have claimed what was then unemployment benefit, if only for a few weeks; and I have been made redundant. My very hard-working and highly qualified DS2 was made redundant last year because of company restructuring. Yes, he signed on for a month before getting temporary work. Perhaps they were still a 'hard-working family' by virtue of his partner's job! I am hoping that some of these politicians who trot out meaningless clichés will some day find out what it means to be unemployed.

Perhaps I've missed something, but has anybody here said it was wrong to claim benefits if one becomes unemployed through redundancy sickness or accident?

A huge difference between someone again and again having children they know full well they cannot look after? Of course we can all make mistakes, but nobody makes 11 'mistakes' in a row, unless something is seriously wrong in these days of free and available contraceptive advice and condoms, coil or pill. Or those who work on the 'black' whilst claiming benefits fraudulently. I refuse the insinuation that I am heartless, insensitive or even 'right'wing' for saying it is wrong. Of course tax evasion by big businesses is much worse, I've said it before - but I just hate the way this is used to justify abuse at the other end.

It is because I think the benefit system is a wonderful way to support people in times of true need, that I hate the abuse. Her abuse is legal, I know, as she is claiming what the system entitles her to. In my eyes it does not make it right - is there anybody here who has had such a huge family expecting others to pay for them? I'm sure not. So why accept that this is fair of her to do so. Irrespective of bankers bonus or tax evasion - what on earth has it got to do with this? Why compare? If you respect the benefits system, abuse should be seen for what it is - wrong.

granjura I believe the whole family limitation thing has been raised and examined and raised and......

I agree, granjura. No one has expressed the opinion that benefits should not be available to those in need, but those of us who question the apparent largesse shown towards someone who did not control the size of her family are accused of lacking compassion.

Bankers' bonuses and tax evasion at the other end of the scale is a separate issue, surely?

I agree with both Granjura and Ana, separate issues, one cannot be weighed against the other.

Love the rhyme Joan - and still so true.

I think we are all agreed that there are some people (a small minority, according to the government's own figures) who rely on benefits and do not take responsibiity for their own and their children's lives. What concerns me is that the high-lighting of the odd case like this one in certain newspapers leads to a general impression that all claimants are 'scroungers'. This must be very hurtful to those who need to claim benefits through no fault of their own.
What many of us objected to was the way the paper cynically listed all the children's parentage, which must have led to playground bullying and name calling. The mother appears to be very silly and irresponsible, although none of us know her whole story, but the children should not be demonised.
Nobody has come up with any suggestion of what the UK government can actually do once the children have arrived. Nobody wants to forcibly sterilise overly fecund mothers, or take the children into care unless they are at risk (and these did not appear to be so).
I think if everybody read the report which Micelf posted it would help to defuse the situation, as it makes it clear that we are not supporting a huge army of feckless claimants, whatever certain parts of the press try to say.
I notice that none of the people who caused the financial crisis has been punished - there may be some prosecutions in respect of the Libor-fixing scandal and Fred 'the Shred' got the boot, but plenty of the greedy and incompetent people who sold the dodgy mortgages are still drawing fat bonuses. I simply feel that incandescent anger, of the type suggested by the op, would be better directed at the banking industry.

As an add-on to my last post, I would like to say that I have read the entire report which MiceElf posted, and also that I don't think any Gransnetter seriously thought that all or most benefits claimants are feckless, irresponsible and/or workshy.

The OP did, however, highlight one of the aspects of the welfare system that makes even the most tolerant individual angry. The unfortunate consequences of the article for the children are of course regrettable - no one is blaming them for their situation.

But what is the solution? I have none to offer but then I am not the person feeling very angry about this story!

There are no obvious solutions to a lot of things which make people angry. That's probably partly why there is so much frustration mixed in with the anger.

Ana

I agree with your posts.

I have just reread the link that Micelf posted and I do urge everybody who has posted here and has not yet read it to do the same. I found in heart-breaking to read of the families in poverty, not able to give their children any little treats or outings - even though one of the parents might be in work, albeit on the minimum wage.
Please read the way the government and some newspapers have twisted the truth to make it seem that we are supporting a huge army of people who could work but prefer to live on benefits. Especially take note that having an extra child actually reduces the income level of the family.

On a more-or-less unrelated theme - I found it very heart-warming to read how much the various churches are doing to alleviate poverty. I will never believe in any god, and I will never stop disliking the hierarchy of most established religions, but I have come to appreciate that Christianity did introduce a different way of thinking. I have never been hostile to individual believers, and certainly the humane and thoughtful responses I have seen on Gransnet from some members have helped to make me see religion in a different light.

Greatnan I thoroughly agree with your above post.

As I was walking back inside after wading through the mud and feeding the chickens, a thought occurred.

It has been suggested on here that the woman in question should not have had 11 kids, should have used contraception etc etc. But I think she loves babies, and the thought of preventing something she loves, would be as unthinkable as, well, a banker taking action to prevent getting a bonus.

Just a thought....

PS
And I don't mean she had them for the money - I mean she had them for the love of them.

What makes you think that, Joan, how can you possibly know? I haven't read anything where she states that....

And even if that were the case, does that mean that the state should indulge her love of babies to the extent that it has?