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

The children are not to blame therefore she is not to blame because her father is useless, we don't know what his parents were like so perhaps he is not to blame either. So what do we do to stop it continuing from generation to generation?

We seem to have gone back to bankers etc. again, why? What have they got to do with this? It is about as relevant if I were to post about getting annoyed with the people who don't clear up after their dogs

I agree about bankers, whilst the banking crisis and the cavalier way in which those involved behaved is still upper most in our minds when we evaluate the financial mess we are in, nevertheless, I don't think it should be weighed against welfare, it's a separate issue. A set up like this woman has is going to rankle with a lot of people, particularly when so many have to work their backsides off and still can't make ends meet. No it's not her childrens' fault but the system is clearly wrong.

I agree with Moved - we really do need to consider how to stop this - for the sake of the children and their development.

I understand that already two of her teenage kids have had children.

As others have said, in the overall scheme of things this family doesn't really affect anyone else ...... unless you live next door. However, there are many other families who live like this, albeit not with 11 children, but there are plenty with 4, 5, 6, and more ..... children, living totally at public expense. The costs must add up somehow.

In today's low-income families where one/both parents work, it's rare to have 4 or more children. There must be a correlation in there somewhere.

As I said in an earlier post, the children do need to be housed appropriately, I just question the wisdom of building a huge house specifically for them when they are already adequately housed.

On the question of the press naming and shaming who is fathered by whom, etc., that's despicable but not the issue that we're discussing.

Maybe there should be a cut off of family allowance at, say, 5 or 6 children. After that you are on your own. It may make think before they continue to have children to be supported by tax payers.

Well said, janthea

janthea that's gone full circle now but you have been more generous than my and IDS's suggestion of stopping at 2.

Janthea - I do not think that having a cut-off for FA will make families such as this think - it is not how they operate and that is the crux of the problem. The Mums do not get pregnant in any planned or rational way - thinking beyond the moment is a challenge too far. Sadly, they are likely to have been brought up in a disordered family themselves.

The state is in a Catch 22 because the last thing we all want is children being brought up in deprivation and poverty - we want them to have every chance in life in spite of their background.

There always will be families such as this - probably now more so because there are so many children who have no role models for hard work.

The children need to be protected as best we can. And the parents need to be supported from the start to learn good parenting: parent and child centres, Home Start - all those things that have a preventive role that are losing their funding - very short-sighted policy.

It's a stark choice. Provide suitable accommodation for the size of family and benefits to ensure that they are not on the breadline. Or don't.

My point about single mothers and bankers is single mothers are the kicking posts. Those who struggle are usually the people who governments are the first to be affected by cuts to the budget. They are the people who are vilified by the media. While bankers and the like are given massive handouts and their individual lives are not splashed all over the daily news.

In Australia they started a trial for a selection of teen mothers to finish Year 12 or lose their welfare payments. The government is also cutting payments to single parents to save $700 million. Middle class welfare was brought in by the last liberal government. These particular people are very happy to take welfare but still criticise single mothers.

I prefer to see taxpayers money going to help those who need it.

Seems like we are all agreed that single mothers are the scapegoats for society's ills, and that this is not fair. Almost all start out in a relationship, and end up on their own. Here in Australia I remember reading about a very pregnant journalist, married and not on any welfare, getting berated by an old bloke at the next table in a cafe for being a welfare-bludging single mother. All because weight gain had forced her to remove her wedding ring.

Things are rarely what they seem.

What puzzles me is the child who earns £200 for looking after other people's horses. Why is it being spent on her horse and not going into the family coffers? I haven't read all this thread so I apologise if someone has already mentioned this.

I do not think we are all agreed, Joan - just the usual suspects!
I really do not care who gets what for looking after the horse but I suspect the girl gives her time and in return gets stabling - not cash. This is common practice.

Yes Greatnan you are probably right. This is common practise among
the horsey set my DIL has a similar arrangement. She looks after several horses and in return gets free food and board for her beloved horse that she would otherwise not be able to afford to keep.

Stories are quite often not what they originally seem.

But as I have already said, being 'paid' for work in any form whether cash or service should be taken into account. If she worked in a bar and had accommodation instead of cash that would still be income.

Some have said that such women would still have more children regardless of whether the state paid or not but I think that many would not and surely it is worth a try? A very sensible article on this subject in this week's Sunday Times.

Surely it is up to our government to try to make life fair for those who struggle and work hard to be independent as well as for those who either choose to be on welfare or are forced to do so. I would be surprised if many on GN don't know of someone who is cheating the system in some way.

Is work done by people who are not yet adults taken into account in the same way, mal? Or is it regarded more as pocket money (either as cash or 'in kind' as it appears to be in this instance).

What I'm thinking is that if the girl didn't have the gift horse, she wouldn't be doing the stable work to keep her horse, so taking what she 'earns' at the stable into account wouldn't arise.

Exactly Bags My DIL helps at the stables in order to get free board and lodging for her (now quite elderly) horse. If she did not have the horse she wouldn't be there and therefore no payment. Incidentally in case anyone suspicious, she works FULL TIME as does my son.

I'm aware of people who abuse the benefits system - it's how they've learned to cope, not having the benefit of good role models to show them how to make an independent living. The government has a responsibility to enable chidren to learn how to obtain and hold down a job when they leave education. The sad fact is that many adults permanently living on benefits might not be good enough role models for ther children.

I'm also aware of, but don't know them personally, people from a privileged background, who have inherited wealth, financial advisors, and an old boy network that looks after its own. Their ability to avoid/evade their tax responsibilities far outweighs the comparitively small amounts that some people are not entitled to.

This large family has been so closely scrutinised, over the past week or so, that I am sure they do not get a single penny they are not legally entitled to.

When I was a tax inspector I knew many people who were cheating the system - they had big houses too, plus flash cars and expensive holidays. I did get angry and tried my best to make them pay their fair share .
I realise now that I forgot to ask them if their children earned pocket money or vgot paid in kind for any sort of part time job!

I don't think we should get too hung hung up on the daughter having a horse and working to keep it. She's learning to take responsibility, work to a time table and most of all, not spend her time hanging round street corners, chatting up boys and ending up in the same position as her mother.

One worse wrong does not make a right though. We should all strive to be fair and not abuse the system, at either end.

Granjura, I am sure all our members do not abuse the system and I doubt if women like this idiot read Gransnet! I am afraid exhortation to be good will not be heard by those who see nothing wrong in using the system (she is apparently claiming only those benefits to which she is legally entitled) and the rest of us don't need telling to behave!
No, two wrongs do not make a right, but nevertheless I feel much more anger about the rich and powerful who are abusing the system.

We do not actually know that Heather Frost has done anything "wrong". I know some people think having kids is "wrong" in certain circumstances, but I think that's just a personal judgement, and a very modern one at that. Aren't we supposed to 'respect' other people's attitudes about such fundamental things as reproducing and the ise of contraceptives?

We are social animals so it makes sense for the whole of society to support the whole of society. Everyone benefits from that. An each man for himself approach works better for solitary animals.

Anyway, she isn't in the wrong if she is legally entitled to what she gets, whereas, as greatnan points out, we know plenty of examples of "the great and good" claiming more than they were legally entitled to, and that on top of a decent salary. That kind of claimant is far more disgusting in my view.

jura, you mention somewhere that you think the British benefits system ultimately causes more dependency than systems in other countries. I would like you to back that up with solid evidence, please, or else for you to withdraw the statement except as a statement of opinion. I do not believe, without evidence, that it is a statement of fact.

IMHO lack of available and adequately-paid jobs causes welfare dependency.

When I left school in 1961 everyone who wanted a job got one. There were jobs in factories and mills, in shops and in offices, all depending on what you could manage.

But technology has removed many jobs from the market, as has outsourcing them overseas, to increase profits. The obvious answer is shorter hours, but the opposite is happening: people in work do their utmost to keep their jobs, and this often involves a lot of overtime, including unpaid.

It is true that some people are welfare experts who have no intention of working, but are they typical? How can we know? if there are more people looking for work than available jobs, we have to have a welfare system, or chaos would ensue.

Furthermore, i prefer a family to be on welfare than have their children deprived.