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

So much has been assumed about her in a negative way, it would be quite nice to believe something good about her!
I think we are all agreed that she is not a good role model, but the main point many of us want to make is that she is not representative of the huge majority of benefit claimants. That is the only point I ever wished to make and it is well borne out in the link.

Ana, we are back to the question - what would you like the state to do in these circumstances?

I refer you back to my previous answer on that point, Greatnan. Round and round....

So - I don't think there is a huge problem, and those who do think there is do not have any solution. Yes, seems we have gone about as far as we can go with this one!
But of course anybody who so wishes can continue to post - just in case I get accused of trying to impose censorship!

ana asked (about why she had so many babies)
What makes you think that, Joan, how can you possibly know? I haven't read anything where she states that....

I did say it was a thought. No-one can know, but I know that after having two I really really did not want any more. I cannot help believing she wanted them.

I understand that the government in fact intends to impose a solution in the form of a benefits cap. We might all have different views on the ethics/ workability/ effectiveness of this but it's in the pipeline.

Another nail in the coffin of the welfare state - how will families manage when many of them barely get by already?
In the 1930's, my father was unemployed for many years and tried desperately to get work. My mother had to sell the only thing she had left of her own mother's, a piano, for much less than its worth, because no assistance was payable until you were down to the bare bones. I think you were allowed to keep a cooker, beds, a table and chairs.
The inspectors from the National Assistance Board (I think that was the name) could enter your home and tell you what you had to sell. I don't think my mother would have invented this, but I will do some research.

Welfare state during the 1930s

In the 1920s and 1930s, Britain had a relatively advanced welfare system compared to many of the industrialised countries. In 1911, a compulsory national unemployment and health insurance scheme had been put in place by the Liberal government of Herbert Henry Asquith (see Liberal reforms). This scheme had been funded through contributions from the government, the employers and the workers. At first, the scheme only applied to certain trades but, in 1920, it was expanded to include most manual workers.[5]
However, the scheme only paid out according to the level of contributions made rather than according to need, and was only payable for 15 weeks. Anyone unemployed for longer than that had to rely on poor law relief paid by their local authority. In effect, millions of workers who had been too poorly paid to make contributions, or who had been unemployed long term, were left destitute by the scheme. With the mass unemployment of the 1930s, contributions to the insurance scheme dried up, resulting in a funding crisis.
In August 1931, the 1911 scheme was replaced by a fully government-funded unemployment benefit system.[14] This system, for the first time, paid out according to need rather than the level of contributions. This unemployment benefit was subject to a strict means test, and anyone applying for unemployment pay had to have an inspection by a government official to make sure that they had no hidden earnings or savings, undisclosed source(s) of income or other means of support. For many poor people, this was a humiliating experience and was much resented.

I found the above on Google - there is much more of the same. The thing I remembered my mother talking about was the dreaded means test, which allowed all aspects of your life to be examined.

But who are we to judge those who are angry about this? Do we know what circumstances make them angry about this kind of abuse. Joan, she may well love them dearly and wanted them - but if she can't look after them, what gives her the right to expect others to pay for them?

I refuse to demonise the woman, but neither would I wish to demonise those, who, because they have been trying hard to be responsible and work hard, find themselves in difficult circumstances and on a waiting list long as your arm for a council property - and then see a mansion built with a large part of the budget for somebody who seems totally irresponsible?

The UK welfare system was indeed the first and the best in the world - but anyone who says that it is not abuse by many is deluding themselves. Every abuse is one nail in the coffin of a brilliant system.

Greatnan As late as 1950, my grandfather was lying at home with lung cancer, not having worked for over a year. The family helped where they could, but the family was persuaded to ask for National assistance.

A supercilious young lady came to see the house and interviewed her in the livingroom. She then looked around her and said "I see you have two armchairs in here. With your husband in bed, you only need one. You could sell the other." Grandmother was poor but proud and told her where to put her assistance.

Should have read the family persuaded grandma.

I agree with you Granjura.

I also think it is simple... put a cap on how many children are paid for or supported by the State... maybe 4 or something. No one actually needs more than 4 children and if it were set at that, that indulges those who prefer a bigger family to those that want one or two.

Having 11 children is just ridiculous, unless you can afford it. It's an indulgence, not a right. I had 2 because we knew that we could comfortably afford that. Why should the State pay for me to have more? If 4 were the limit where you got child benefit, I bet you would see less of these larger families supported by the State.

My son has 4 children which he and his wife decided to have when they first met. Although my wonderful DIL does not work but looks after her family and provides a lovely home for them my son works very hard to ensure they have a lovely home and food on the table. The children range from 6 - 1 years and they wear clothes handed down from friends and my daughter and new ones are bought by family members for birthdays. They cook proper meals with cheaper cuts of meat from their local butchers and generally go without treats that have to be paid for. The children play outside in the garden all year round, they are taken to the park regularly and are all healthy, happy and fit. My son would never expect the state to pay towards his family that they decided to have. I am really proud of them as they seem to have taken a trip back in time to when I had my children - you were expected to leave work to become a mum and went without or made do. If only we could turn the clock back then the country would not be in the state it is now in.

So how are you going to make sure no-one has more children than they can afford? And if we, tax-payers, don't support the 'extra' children, what should be done about them?

Mamalinda for your family.

But this is exactly the intention behind the benefit cap. How it will work in practice, and what will happen to children in families such as this remains to be seen. I'm not sure the government will be able to implement this but I can see a period of great confusion and increased pressure on other services if families' incomes are suddenly reduced dramatically. The cap is set at £26000 which apparently equates to a salary of something like £36000. But it's very confusing and has been delayed once already.

Lilygran I am sure I have already pointed out the obvious solution to the problem of surplus babies, thanks to Jonathan Swift – sell them off to the rich for food.

absent Mamalinda your family sounds lovely and you are quite right to be proud of them. Unfortunately, the world is full of people who are neither sensible nor careful. There are also families to which really bad luck causes a complete change of circumstances, however careful and sensible. And it isn't always bad luck, either. There was another lovely family on television the other day; the parents had three children and decided to have another as they could afford it. They actually had triplets. Fortunately, they seemed to be able to manage even with six children instead of four. Some families wouldn't have been able to. And there are many families where if one thing goes wrong - car breaks down, boiler breaks down, illness or accident the whole thing tips over the edge.

Hi Lilygran I agree with what you say but I was just really thinking how the lady who the original post was about has not been responsible at all. I have no problem with anyone having a large family - I am the eldest of 5 girls and also think we must help anyone that falls on hard times through no fault of their own. She however could work - her older children could work and if she can afford a horse, flying lessons as a present and all the other stuff we have heard of we should not be paying for them - my children can't afford this stuff for their children so why should she.

I thought the daughter was managing the horse independantly of her mother. Didn't know about the flying lessons as a present though - that's taking the p**s, that is.

There are women who just love being pregnant and having babies. Like a drug they cannot stop regardless of whether or not they can afford to care for the children they already have and knowing the state will step in to help. I believe Social Services can step in to persuade the mother to stop - if they want, have the time, have the inclination.

Now here is a great role model, an immigrant who does not expect to be fed by the State:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddr...lled-Jack.html

my hat off to her

Telegraph came up - but page could not be found - sorry.

I give up. If people will not read and understand the report which Micelf posted there is no point in trying to persuade them any further that this woman is NOT representative of benefits claimants.
The present government is hell bent on reducing the welfare state and already the most vulnerable people are being targetted. Now that makes me very angry, not the odd very large family on benefits.

Exactly!

...and of course she is not representative of most benefits claimants. In fact from what I've read recently, she was the neighbour from hell. I would NOT want to live next door to her and her wild kids.

But this just means her kids have double jeopardy: they are brought up with little or no discipline, and now they are demonised in the press.

Oh well -perhaps all this attention will make her look at herself when she moves in to her big house - perhaps she will not want to give the press any more ammunition.

(no comments about flying pigs please )