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

I suspect large families are prevalent in poorer countries where education and contraception are not readily available, or the women are so cowed by their menfolk they have little say over their own reproductive choices. Having loads of children is rarely empowering for women and limits the chances of their offspring. Traditional catholic countries where women were previously lumbered with huge families, are a thing of the past. It's quite common for Italians and Spaniards to have one child only.

At the moment if a parent is unable to care for their child for whatever reason that child is taken into care. If the mother is a drug user who cannot/will not stop then her child is put up for adoption. If this were the option for the people who do not work and keep having children how many would carry on having children they could not keep? Yes, I know it is really harsh but no one so far has come up with any other solution and it does worry me that so many children are being brought up in homes where no one is working. I know it is simplistic but surely if the working population restricts the size of their families to what they can afford and the non-working families continue to bring up lots of children without work ethics the future looks pretty bleak to me.

Can anyone come up with a better suggestion than carrying on the way we are?

What good does complaining do, ana? Bugger all, as far as I can see.

Whereas improving living standards and education does make a difference. There will always be exceptions to the rule and Heather Frost is one of those.

I should have thought that reality might have got through to the "we only had n kids (where 'n' is a small positive integer*) because that's all we could afford" people by now. How else can they explain that poverty, even extreme, dire poverty, does not seem to be a successful "incentive" to limiting numbers of offspring?

* lateral thought for the day: if 'n' were a small negative integer.... #mindboggles

No, anno, I'm not suggesting that, nor am I pretending that I have the answer. I'm just surprised that so many here seem to feel that since all alternatives are unacceptable, we should just shut up and stop complaining about the obvious unfairness of the system as it is.

There are people on whom disincentives to have more than two children would have no effect. Then there would still be children to deal with - how? What do you suggest, Ana? Compulsory sterilisation?

I would much rather live in a compassionate society and have a smaller disposable income than be self righteous in a totally fair one. After all, as so many have said above, who makes the rules? Is a feckless mother of two lazy children more deserving than a hardworking mother of four who then go on to make a huge contribution to society?

BAnanas, the problem with giving child benefit for a limited number of children is that once again it would penalise working families, while those with no intention of working would have any shortfall made up by the state when their entitlement to benefits is assessed.

Having watched this I did find myself feeling sorry for Heather Frost and her children.
I don't know what the person who publicised her story hoped to gain by the press demonising them.

I don't think anything can be done retrospectively about children that have already been born. However, if, having given everyone a suitable amount of notice, child benefit were to be paired back to provide for say the the first two/three children the onus would then be on the individual to make the choice as to whether they could afford to exceed that number.

Ana if you try to get people to limit their families by means of sanctions, you have to consider what sanctions you will apply. Reducing their income will mean more children living in unsatisfactory homes. I can think of a few more; sterilisation, vasectomy, forced abortion. Fines (we're talking about people whose whole income comes from other people's taxes) imprisonment (leaving the children where?). Forced adoption? There is also the very important point that these sanctions would only be applied to people on benefits. Would they be applied if people became unemployed after having a number of children?

So - no sanctions, no incentives to limit families, no benefit cuts and housing for all, paid for by the state. The spirit of Ivanhoe is certainly here on this thread, even if he doesn't seem to be posting any more!

Thanks for asking that, lily. I'll add my name to the list of those who would like a nice, easy, pat answer [sarc emoticon] to the question of what to do about the children who didn't ask to be born. What does a civilised society do about its poor children? Oh, well, fancy that! – it looks after them. Which seems to be what we're trying to do in this case.

This is a council house not her own. £200K is not a massive amount for a larger house these days! It will be rented and eventually available for some one else. The costs of using two houses at present are probably as much.

This government's current housing benefit policy is just stupid!

Some councils are finding that the cuts in housing benefits are going to make more people homelesss and put more pressure on the local authorities with a duty to rehouse them in expensive B& Bs. This could cost the state a lot more money than it saves.
It could potentially damage the private rental market leaving small landlords losing tenants when they cannot afford the rents. The loss of rental income is probably needed to pay their buy to let mortgages. There could be a real problem caused by this.

. As lilygran suggests I feel this furore seems to be rabble rousing and press spin doctoring. Nothing more.

Without doubt some people deliberately defraud the benefits system. I'm prepared to believe that there are people who go on having children, or have them in the first place in order to get benefits. I also believe there are a lot of people who don't claim what they are entitled to. I can't claim to have an answer to Movedalot's question. I'll ask another question instead. What would you do with parents who went on having children even though they got no extra money? Or rather, what would you do about the children?

wisewoman "There are no simple answers in these situations. If we say that child benefit should only be paid for the first two children, then what. Do we compulsorily sterilise women? Do we allow the children to go hungry. I wish there could be a reasoned debate about it all instead of this witch hunting that goes on."

I don't understand why you think paying child benefit for only the first 2 children is not 'reasoned debate'. If people knew they would not get more money if they had more children I think a lot of them would not keep procreating. At the moment there is no incentive for people to keep their family to a manageable size and we need to create that incentive, if not by managing child benefit, then what would you suggest? We have thrown money at the welfare system for many years and it has not worked so imo it is time to try something else.

I would be very interested to know whether you think it is right to carry on the way we do or if you have an alternative suggestion?

wisewoman, wisely said. It's easy to imagine a scenario where a sixteen year old girl works at a stables to earn her horse's keep. As I now understand it from this thread, it's not the mother of eleven children who owns a horse, but girl of sixteen who was given a horse – by who knows whom and in what circumstances – who just happens to be the daughter of a woman who has ten other children. So the horse is probably nothing to do with the mother.

It is something the daft meeja can grouse and complain about though. #envy, #resentment, #bitching, #moanmoan, #neverhaditsogood, etc. Sometimes I could weep for humanity!

Hi, just a quick comment about keeping a horse. It isn't about just the buying that costs, They need feeds, not just grass and hay in the winter. They need blankets in the winter and also they need to have their shoes changed on a regular basis. And farriers aren't cheap and then there are vet bills. So, I dont think the fact she was given a horse is the whole story, because that would be a one off payment and all the others are on a very regular basis. Oh and there shpold be grooming equipment and tack, eg.saddle and reins. Lucky girl ay?

My DD has three children and would love to make it four, but she knows that they couldn't afford it and they would need to move. So she won't have any more. That is it. No question. So why should other people be supported by the state (ie me) just because they want lots of kids. It is so wrong.....

Vampirequeen, I'm sure you're right - I only know what I found on the internet and the information does seem a bit confusing - this quote is from one article:

'The new rules will affect less well-off tenants who are paid housing benefit to help with rent on council housing or housing association properties - but not those renting in the private sector.'

It doesn't always cost a lot to look after a horse and, to be fair to them if they're spending time and money on horses they're not going out drinking and clubbing. We don't know the whole story. They may be kept on land belonging to a friend and the horses might be fully turned out. Most of the people I knew when we had a pony weren't very well of but were devoted to their ponies/horses.

According to an interview I heard the sixteen year old girl works in the stables in return for keeping her horse there. The horse was given to her so there is no cost to the state involved. These situations are so complex and I feel upset when a whole family of children are demonised because of the actions or otherwise of their mother. What are the local authority to do? Should they take the children into care? Should they let them wander the streets with no home. There are no simple answers in these situations. If we say that child benefit should only be paid for the first two children, then what. Do we compulsorily sterilise women? Do we allow the children to go hungry. I wish there could be a reasoned debate about it all instead of this witch hunting that goes on.

Ana private tenants are affected by the bedroom tax too.

How does a 16 year old schoolgirl manage to pay for the upkeep and stabling of a horse??

Someone should look into the differences in tone between on-line and print versions of the same story in the same organ. Rabble rousing comes to mind. Or perhaps as it's the Telegraph and the Mail I'm thinking of, it's more a case of pour epater la bourgeoisie