40k a year mum wants another kid

I think Holly was gentle with her.

http://www.comeonengland.org/2016/06/07/holly-willoughby-slams-shameless-mum-of-12-on-40k-/

Shameless cow....and people like her will carry on so long as the government pay people to breed.

I have always thought that child benefits should be stopped after the second baby.
If people want more let them fund them themselves.

She is an immoral ****** but she is doing it legally with the blessing of those thoughtful lovely conservatives who you voted into power.

Child benefits were introduced for the second and subsequent children in 1945.....back then people were encouraged to have children. The second world war had just finished and we needed to repopulate the UK so it was a good idea.
I think around 1977 the benefits were altered so to include ALL children, including the first born.
Each government has paid them ever since.

Syl wrote:Shameless cow....and people like her will carry on so long as the government pay people to breed.

I have always thought that child benefits should be stopped after the second baby.
If people want more let them fund them themselves.

I agree. How the hell is it right that she can purchase designer handbags while she's on benefits?

What happened to the benefits cap...?


And I'm surprised her fanny hasn't fallen off!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:
What happened to the benefits cap...?


And I'm surprised her fanny hasn't fallen off!!!

Well she can well afford a new designer vajazzled one on her 40k per year benefits.

I recon she'd need a team of Romanian pebble dashers to vajazzle that quim...!


And I've just thought of a job for her... she could hire it out for yodel practice... imagine the echo!!!

This woman isn't hurting anybody.

Ben_Reilly wrote:This woman isn't hurting anybody.

except the children

it is not good, we have women that do it here too, the thing is yeah it's a lot for a single person but not a lot to look after 12 kids...
and she (like the ones here) go and spend it on rubbish they shouldn't be rather than on the children.

there will always be some that abuse a social security system, BUT that is not reason to get rid of Social security (what the RW want here and the UK) , just punish the indidivuals (and try and refine the rules) that are abusing it.

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:This woman isn't hurting anybody.

except the children

it is not good, we have women that do it here too, the thing is yeah it's a lot for a single person but not a lot to look after 12 kids...
and she (like the ones here) go and spend it on rubbish they shouldn't be rather than on the children.

there will always be some that abuse a social security system, BUT that is not reason to get rid of Social security (what the RW want here and the UK) , just punish the indidivuals (and try and refine the rules) that are abusing it.

Yeah, but it ain't like rich people aren't raising their kids wrong, too.

Oh, and the RW want to rid America of Social Security as well, even though here it only applies to the disabled and retirees.

It says a lot when you compare the agenda from country to country, doesn't it?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

except the children

it is not good, we have women that do it here too, the thing is yeah it's a lot for a single person but not a lot to look after 12 kids...
and she (like the ones here) go and spend it on rubbish they shouldn't be rather than on the children.

there will always be some that abuse a social security system, BUT that is not reason to get rid of Social security (what the RW want here and the UK) , just punish the indidivuals (and try and refine the rules) that are abusing it.

Yeah, but it ain't like rich people aren't raising their kids wrong, too.

True, but they have the money to support their children.
Look i come from a vry large family as you well know and had very little growing up, but my parents had a large family knowing it was their responsibility. She is having children and more of them in order to gain more money. She has no care that she is doing this
So its her ethics that people are rightly challenging.
Like I say, my parents worked hard in order that we would have food on the table and there was nothing like this when i was growing up.
They rented for years, and they did not even have a council house offered until I was 8 and I am thje third youngest.
It would be different if someone had a big family and the parents divorced and the father left them with nothing or one parent became a widow, or both losts their jobs etc but to actively have more children in order to be paid and be better off than most couples with children who work is ethically wrong.
Yes the system is to blame also, as it allows this to happen, but it is her no care attitude which is evident when you watch the clip.
I mean she even begrudges having to work 15 hours

She's a money whore.
One without morals, who uses her vagina for money.

Bet some of her kids grow up with little to no respect for her.

Ben_Reilly wrote:This woman isn't hurting anybody.

She is taking £40k a year benefits when genuine people in need are struggling because benefits have been drastically cut in other areas. She is breeding like a bloody rabbit KNOWING that the more kids she has the more her own nest will be feathered.
Like was pointed out in the interview, other people who NEED a helping hand are suffering, and she, and others like her are grabbing every penny they can off their backs.

Plus each child will be costing another £6000 for school place per year too!!!

Syl wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:This woman isn't hurting anybody.

She is taking £40k a year benefits when genuine people in need are struggling because benefits have been drastically cut in other areas. She is breeding like a bloody rabbit KNOWING that the more kids she has the more her own nest will be feathered.
Like was pointed out in the interview, other people who NEED a helping hand are suffering, and she, and others like her are grabbing every penny they can off their backs.

Is she breaking the law?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

She is taking £40k a year benefits when genuine people in need are struggling because benefits have been drastically cut in other areas. She is breeding like a bloody rabbit KNOWING that the more kids she has the more her own nest will be feathered.
Like was pointed out in the interview, other people who NEED a helping hand are suffering, and she, and others like her are grabbing every penny they can off their backs.

Is she breaking the law?

No, she is using the laws re benefits to make her life cushy at the expense of others. She is using her children as a healthy wage packet to give herself a comfortable lifestyle.
Many people who have the morals of a rabid dog scrounge off others without breaking the law....does that make it right?

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Yeah, but it ain't like rich people aren't raising their kids wrong, too.

True, but they have the money to support their children.
Look i come from a vry large family as you well know and had very little growing up, but my parents had a large family knowing it was their responsibility. She is having children and more of them in order to gain more money. She has no care that she is doing this
So its her ethics that people are rightly challenging.
Like I say, my parents worked hard in order that we would have food on the table and there was nothing like this when i was growing up.
They rented for years, and they did not even have a council house offered until I was 8 and I am thje third youngest.
It would be different if someone had a big family and the parents divorced and the father left them with nothing or one parent became a widow, or both losts their jobs etc but to actively have more children in order to be paid and be better off than most couples with children who work is ethically wrong.
Yes the system is to blame also, as it allows this to happen, but it is her no care attitude which is evident when you watch the clip.
I mean she even begrudges having to work 15 hours

My mum was a married but single parent bringing up 2 children without help from anyone...she did 3 cleaning jobs to put food on the table.
She, like your parents had something this scrounging excuse for a woman will never have...pride and respect.

Syl wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


True, but they have the money to support their children.
Look i come from a vry large family as you well know and had very little growing up, but my parents had a large family knowing it was their responsibility. She is having children and more of them in order to gain more money. She has no care that she is doing this
So its her ethics that people are rightly challenging.
Like I say, my parents worked hard in order that we would have food on the table and there was nothing like this when i was growing up.
They rented for years, and they did not even have a council house offered until I was 8 and I am thje third youngest.
It would be different if someone had a big family and the parents divorced and the father left them with nothing or one parent became a widow, or both losts their jobs etc but to actively have more children in order to be paid and be better off than most couples with children who work is ethically wrong.
Yes the system is to blame also, as it allows this to happen, but it is her no care attitude which is evident when you watch the clip.
I mean she even begrudges having to work 15 hours

My mum was a married but single parent bringing up 2 children without help from anyone...she did 3 cleaning jobs to put food on the table.
She, like your parents had something this scrounging excuse for a woman  will never have...pride and respect.

Thanks, your mum sounds like a hard working responsible caring angel.

Thank you Didge...that has touched me, and to me she was. xxx

Syl wrote:Thank you Didge...that has touched me, and to me she was. xxx

You are welcome Syl.  x

Syl wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

She is taking £40k a year benefits when genuine people in need are struggling because benefits have been drastically cut in other areas. She is breeding like a bloody rabbit KNOWING that the more kids she has the more her own nest will be feathered.
Like was pointed out in the interview, other people who NEED a helping hand are suffering, and she, and others like her are grabbing every penny they can off their backs.

Is she breaking the law?

No, she is using the laws re benefits to make her life cushy at the expense of others. She is using her children as a healthy wage packet to give herself a comfortable lifestyle.
Many people who have the morals of a rabid dog scrounge off others  without breaking the law....does that make it right?

It doesn't make them the problem -- the law is the problem.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

No, she is using the laws re benefits to make her life cushy at the expense of others. She is using her children as a healthy wage packet to give herself a comfortable lifestyle.
Many people who have the morals of a rabid dog scrounge off others  without breaking the law....does that make it right?

It doesn't make them the problem -- the law is the problem.

The law is as stated part of the problem, but what responsibility is she teaching her children here?
What you are forgettting is that having children is a responsibility of the parents, not the state.
The state should only intercede where it is a necessity where as stated a parent becomes a single parent, is a widower etc.
If that person is a single parent and has say 6 children already. Do you think she is thinking of her other children, by wanting more?
I may have come from a large family, but what with everything they had to do for us, we mainly interacted when we eating. That is not putting my parents down, but it was the decision they chose, and they still loved us very much, but one to one time, was a rare opportunity.
Children need help and guidance growing up and it helps having older siblings, but it is a struggle with so many children and to have more doing so to ensure you have to do as little as possible, is teaching the worst aspects to a child.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:This woman isn't hurting anybody.

She is taking £40k a year benefits when genuine people in need are struggling because benefits have been drastically cut in other areas. She is breeding like a bloody rabbit KNOWING that the more kids she has the more her own nest will be feathered.
Like was pointed out in the interview, other people who NEED a helping hand are suffering, and she, and others like her are grabbing every penny they can off their backs.

Is she breaking the law?

You don't have to break the law to be a fuck-up.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

She is taking £40k a year benefits when genuine people in need are struggling because benefits have been drastically cut in other areas. She is breeding like a bloody rabbit KNOWING that the more kids she has the more her own nest will be feathered.
Like was pointed out in the interview, other people who NEED a helping hand are suffering, and she, and others like her are grabbing every penny they can off their backs.

Is she breaking the law?

No, she is using the laws re benefits to make her life cushy at the expense of others. She is using her children as a healthy wage packet to give herself a comfortable lifestyle.
Many people who have the morals of a rabid dog scrounge off others  without breaking the law....does that make it right?

It doesn't make them the problem -- the law is the problem.

unfortunatly she is the problem
it is her attitude that makes it harder for society to have 'nice things'

if we tighten laws to much then those that need help might miss out.
she is abusing the safety net, which provides ammo for the RW to argue for removing it.

What Veya said ^^^^
And she's just acting like a total selfish fuck-up and she needs to be told to stop acting like a fuck-up or else unless she's lucky her kids will be 12 more fuck-ups.

Of course she's wrong in expectiing people tp pay for kids when she decides to have so many without a care in the world. Unfortunaly that's the type of society we have today but these people see others at the other end of the scale doing much  the same and say well why not. Reminds me of Peter Oborme's article in the Telegragh a few years back that summed up why our society has become.

The origanal has vanished from the Telegraph site but you can read it here...

The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom. By distinguished thinker Oborne 110811

https://sites.google.com/site/cronyblatcher/distinguished-thinker-oborne-110811

Spot on Peter

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh, and the RW want to rid America of Social Security as well, even though here it only applies to the disabled and retirees.

It says a lot when you compare the agenda from country to country, doesn't it?

Don't you mean SSI?

veya_victaous wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

It doesn't make them the problem -- the law is the problem.

unfortunatly she is the problem
it is her attitude that makes it harder for society to have 'nice things'

if we tighten laws to much then those that need help might miss out.
she is abusing the safety net, which provides ammo for the RW to argue for removing it.

spot on and also well said Eddie.

the system is there to help those who really need it, not those who can't practice birth control or abstinence.