Single mum of five says her £18K benefit is not enough to buy her kids’ school uniform – but she still finds cash for fags and takeaways

by eddie Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:26 pm

First topic message reminder :

Single mum of five says her £18K benefit is not enough to buy her kids’ school uniform – but she still finds cash for fags and takeaways

A SINGLE mum says her £18,200-a-year benefits handout isn’t enough to cover her living costs and buy her children school uniforms.

Emma Lawlor, 26, from Wolverhampton, became pregnant when she was just 17 and now has five kids – aged one to eight – by two different dads. She has never had a job.

“I never thought I’d have this many kids to be honest with you. I love them though, wouldn’t change them for the world,” she told Channel 5’s On Benefits: Breadline Brummies.

Emma has recently split up with the dad of her four youngest children meaning she has to run the family’s three bedroom housing association property on her own.

She said: “As you can imagine it’s a lot of washing with five kids.

“My tumble dryer is on all the time. I do go through a lot of electric and washing powder.”

Emma currently receives child benefits and child tax credit but has now put in a claim to get income support. She would receive an extra £280 a month if successful.

“Some people might look at me and think, ‘She’s a single mum, she’s scrounging!’, but I’m not,” she said.

“The money that I get is for my children. It goes on clothes, it goes on food, nappies, baby wipes, none of it goes on me.”

Benefits mum hits back at claims she's a 'scrounger'
Emma says she is “doing the best by my kids” and plans to do “something good with my life” such as get a career or go to college when they are older.

Revealing why she split from her partner, she told the programme: “We’ve decided it’s not working out and I’m putting the kids first. I do get on with him still though. He still comes and sees the kids.”

As well as her benefit money, Emma also receives cash from her ex but she says making ends meet is a struggle.

“I’m just making that money last me, trying to prioritise the stuff that I need,” she said.

Emma has to pay £5 a month towards her rent, £20 on electricity bills, £7 on water and £15 on gas. She also spends £120 a week on food.

Related Stories

Despite having less cash, there are certain luxuries she can’t live without. She is seen buying a packet of 20 cigarettes on the show and spending £18 on a chip shop supper.

“When the income support comes in it will help me. I need to get them some school uniform and bits of clothes. They are growing out of it now,” she said

Although Emma has spent the last decade on benefits, she wants a different life for her children.

“I want the best for my kids. I hope they do well. Better than I have with my life,” she said.

At the end of the programme, Emma is granted her claim for income support which means she pockets an extra £280 a month.

“I’m glad it’s been sorted out because it’s really helped me get my kids more stuff,” she said.

On Benefits: Breadline Brummies airs on Channel 5 at 8pm.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1785556/single-mum-of-five-says-her-18k-benefit-is-not-enough-to-buy-her-kids-school-uniform-but-she-still-finds-cash-for-fags-and-takeaways/

by blackie333 Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:25 am

eddie wrote:Can I play devils advocate for a moment?

She may be a soft touch, fell in love each time and thought it was forever, had children as she doenst like the thought of abortion, each time been left or it didn't work for whatever reason, and perhaps she can't get a job due to juggling child care and finding a job that enables her to be there in the school holidays?

Just a different viewpoint.

One shown had 5 kids by 5 different fathers.
How she had the cheek to go on TV and admit that is beyond my comprehension but she just came out with it as if that was normal!
Not many would come out with that but the puzzling thing to me was how she found 5 guys to have sex with her in the first place as
she's hardly Miss Carpet World, Miss Ugly would be a better description lol.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:13 am

sassy wrote:
scrat wrote:
Here we have a prime example of the right wing hive mind, a fascist without any sense of compassion, a vile creature that wallows in its own comfort without thought for those who actually provide that security and comfort, no comment on the disgusting activity of the super rich, no comment on the fact that the tax payer are paying to fund their lavish lifestyles, no comment on the £125Billion lost in revenue.

Society pays for the effect of homelessness, in the repercussions of such actions, the trauma, the suicides, the lost lives, and the tragedy of it all reflects on each and everyone of us, I think you might be #gelijihadi, a poster who supports far right terrorism and was caught laughing at the death of burning Palestinian children, please do not soil my posts with your presence, you disgust me.

Absolutely bloody right Scrat:

Absolutely wrong Sassy ...

by eddie Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:32 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
eddie wrote:I'm just trying to see it from another point of view. I have a school mum friend who has one daughter and a pretty good job. After her mortgage is paid every month (she could move to a cheaper house, it's not cheap round here) and she has paid childcare etc, she hasn't an awful lot left. Her ex pays her some but she still struggles.

So she's working, buying a house, paying childcare so she can carry on working and buying the house... and gets money from ex...

Well done her...!

But... what's your point...?

That if I was getting almost the same after paying out all that money, I'd go on the dole until my kids were old enough to look after themselves, (about 11) so they could let themsleves in and get a snack or warm food etc if I was late.

I can tell you now, I would NOT work all the time, pay out nearly all my money and NEVER see my kids if I was only breaking even. If it wasn't worth my time I'd rather sit on the dole, have my kids and cook them nice wholesome food as I'd have time, and get a job that paid cash in hand.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:52 am

eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

So she's working, buying a house, paying childcare so she can carry on working and buying the house... and gets money from ex...

Well done her...!

But... what's your point...?

That if I was getting almost the same after paying out all that money, I'd go on the dole until my kids were old enough to look after themselves, (about 11) so they could let themsleves in and get a snack or warm food etc if I was late.

I can tell you now, I would NOT work all the time, pay out nearly all my money and NEVER see my kids if I was only breaking even. If it wasn't worth my time I'd rather sit on the dole, have my kids and cook them nice wholesome food as I'd have time, and get a job that paid cash in hand.

That's the point - the problem with benefits is that people are often better off on them, which is why the system is wrong. Technically, you wouldn't be allowed to refuse to get a job if you could get one, but nobody enforces the rules. This is why working for benefits is a good idea.

by eddie Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:00 am

Do you understand what I mean though? Lots and lots of single mothers want to work but what it the point if there's only £20 a week difference between what you earn in a wage and what you earn not working?

Personally, I prefer to stay home until my children are old enough to no longer need me for the basics - like I said, 11 or so, where it doesn't matter if you're running late from work becasue you know you've left a meal for them to warm up etc

Something is wrong with the system, you're right there. I think it should start with a look at childcare and this should be made free.

by Syl Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:53 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl... you said...

"...Your last paragraph is just fiction....that may happen in some cases, in others separated parents actually DO put the kids welfare before their own...it's called being a good and loving parent..."

You cannot say something is 'fiction' and then say 'it does happen'...!!!

What I said is the reality for vast numbers of fathers here in uk!!!

No, you spoke about how the fathers in this case will be treated.....obviously you don't know, you made up your own scenario...so it's fiction.

You seem to tar every woman with the same brush when a relationship breaks down and children are involved. Believe it or not women who have a childs best interest at heart often bend over backwards to accommodate the estranged spouse.
Fathers as well as mothers can use their kids as pawns to get back at their partners, but in this case none of this is relevant....as the story was about her benefits.

by Tommy Monk Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:59 pm

eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

So she's working, buying a house, paying childcare so she can carry on working and buying the house... and gets money from ex...

Well done her...!

But... what's your point...?

That if I was getting almost the same after paying out all that money, I'd go on the dole until my kids were old enough to look after themselves, (about 11) so they could let themsleves in and get a snack or warm food etc if I was late.

I can tell you now, I would NOT work all the time, pay out nearly all my money and NEVER see my kids if I was only breaking even. If it wasn't worth my time I'd rather sit on the dole, have my kids and cook them nice wholesome food as I'd have time, and get a job that paid cash in hand.

In your example, she was working to buy her house...

Benefits wouldn't be buying her a house...

Plus cash in hand is illegal... as is earning money while claiming benefits and not declaring it.

by Tommy Monk Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:03 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

Absolutely bloody right Scrat:

Absolutely wrong Sassy ...

Sassy never bothers to confirm the truth of any of the shit she posts up... she thinks that cos it's on Facebook or handed to her from her local labour HQ that it must be true!

The sad thing is that when you prove it to be bullshit... she doesn't get angry at the people who lied to her and made her look stupid... she gets angry at the ones who show her the truth... then she goes away still believing the bullshit is true!!!

How's that for mental...!?

by Tommy Monk Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:10 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl... you said...

"...Your last paragraph is just fiction....that may happen in some cases, in others separated parents actually DO put the kids welfare before their own...it's called being a good and loving parent..."

You cannot say something is 'fiction' and then say 'it does happen'...!!!

What I said is the reality for vast numbers of fathers here in uk!!!

No, you spoke about how the fathers in this case will be treated.....obviously you don't know, you made up your own scenario...so it's fiction.

You seem to tar every woman with the same brush when a relationship breaks down and children are involved. Believe it or not women who have a childs best interest at heart often bend over backwards to accommodate the estranged spouse.
Fathers as well as mothers can use their kids as pawns to get back at their partners, but in this case none of this is relevant....as the story was about her benefits.

What I said happens a lot... and you have no knowledge otherwise in this case...

Only her saying that they are still friends and he still sees the kids...

Wonder what his version is... oh... we don't get to hear that...

Maybe they are still together secretly but milking as much benefits as they can by pretending she's on her own now...

But... fact remains... bloke goes from father at home and integral part of everyday family life and decisions etc... to being a complete outsider with no real control over anything and only gets to see kids for a couple of hours a fortnight... if he's lucky!!!

This is what happens in huge numbers of cases!!!

by eddie Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:43 pm

Tommy you read an article then you just start making shit up.

by Tommy Monk Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:54 pm

Just exploring possibilities eddie...

What people say is not always reality...

by Syl Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:29 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:

No, you spoke about how the fathers in this case will be treated.....obviously you don't know, you made up your own scenario...so it's fiction.

You seem to tar every woman with the same brush when a relationship breaks down and children are involved. Believe it or not women who have a childs best interest at heart often bend over backwards to accommodate the estranged spouse.
Fathers as well as mothers can use their kids as pawns to get back at their partners, but in this case none of this is relevant....as the story was about her benefits.

What I said happens a lot... and you have no knowledge otherwise in this case...

Only her saying that they are still friends and he still sees the kids...

Wonder what his version is... oh... we don't get to hear that...

Maybe they are still together secretly but milking as much benefits as they can by pretending she's on her own now...

But... fact remains... bloke goes from father at home and integral part of everyday family life and decisions etc... to being a complete outsider with no real control over anything and only gets to see kids for a couple of hours a fortnight... if he's lucky!!!

This is what happens in huge numbers of cases!!!

In this case none of us know what has happened to the relationships other than the mother and both fathers are not together....so it's all guess work on everyones part.

Tommy, if a couple have children then split up, the childrens welfare is the priority, and given that they cant be split in half....one parent has to be absent from the family home, that's life.

Seeing their dad a couple of hours a fortnight is obviously not in a childs best interest, and in cases I know about that's never been the case anyway.

by eddie Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:37 pm

Most mothers wouldn't mind the ex taking the children for a weekend. It gives them time off.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:19 pm

eddie wrote:Do you understand what I mean though? Lots and lots of single mothers want to work but what it the point if there's only £20 a week difference between what you earn in a wage and what you earn not working?

Personally, I prefer to stay home until my children are old enough to no longer need me for the basics - like I said, 11 or so, where it doesn't matter if you're running late from work becasue you know you've left a meal for them to warm up etc

Something is wrong with the system, you're right there. I think it should start with a look at childcare and this should be made free.

They don't want to work, they just say they do to make themselves look better. If they did want to work, they'd do it. The system is wrong because it doesn't pay to work for some people, and those on benefits should never have a lifestyle equal to those who work.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:23 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
eddie wrote:

That if I was getting almost the same after paying out all that money, I'd go on the dole until my kids were old enough to look after themselves, (about 11) so they could let themsleves in and get a snack or warm food etc if I was late.

I can tell you now, I would NOT work all the time, pay out nearly all my money and NEVER see my kids if I was only breaking even. If it wasn't worth my time I'd rather sit on the dole, have my kids and cook them nice wholesome food as I'd have time, and get a job that paid cash in hand.

In your example, she was working to buy her house...

Benefits wouldn't be buying her a house...

Plus cash in hand is illegal... as is earning money while claiming benefits and not declaring it.

It would be benefit fraud not to declare cash in hand, and it would be illegal not to declare it to the Inland Revenue. It's also benefit fraud to claim JSA if someone has no intention of getting a job.

by Syl Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Do you understand what I mean though? Lots and lots of single mothers want to work but what it the point if there's only £20 a week difference between what you earn in a wage and what you earn not working?

Personally, I prefer to stay home until my children are old enough to no longer need me for the basics - like I said, 11 or so, where it doesn't matter if you're running late from work becasue you know you've left a meal for them to warm up etc

Something is wrong with the system, you're right there. I think it should start with a look at childcare and this should be made free.

They don't want to work, they just say they do to make themselves look better. If they did want to work, they'd do it. The system is wrong because it doesn't pay to work for some people, and those on benefits should never have a lifestyle equal to those who work.

I agree totally.
Free child care, raise the minimum wage, and cut benefits for people who refuse to work.....pay them in food stamps rather than cash, it may focus the mind and also give them a sense of pride to actually work for their money.

by eddie Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:24 pm

You're entirely wrong and I'm not sure how you can speak for every single unemployed mother out there?

I met lots of mums in this posttion when I ran a toddler playgroup on a very run-down council estate. I was supposed to make a living from the playgroup but ended up making it a voluntary payment run place aided by the local council.
Those women were poor and had nothing.

I don't know who you mix with but not everything is as black and white as you seem to believe.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Absolutely wrong Sassy ...

Sassy never bothers to confirm the truth of any of the shit she posts up... she thinks that cos it's on Facebook or handed to her from her local labour HQ that it must be true!

The sad thing is that when you prove it to be bullshit... she doesn't get angry at the people who lied to her and made her look stupid... she gets angry at the ones who show her the truth... then she goes away still believing the bullshit is true!!!

How's that for mental...!?

She just agreed with Scrat because she's arse-licking the lefties. There was no truth in his post which he directed at me, so that makes her a bit stupid really.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:32 pm

eddie wrote:You're entirely wrong and I'm not sure how you can speak for every single unemployed mother out there?

I met lots of mums in this posttion when I ran a toddler playgroup on a very run-down council estate. I was supposed to make a living from the playgroup but ended up making it a voluntary payment run place aided by the local council.
Those women were poor and had nothing.

I don't know who you mix with but not everything is as black and white as you seem to believe.

I'm talking about single women. If they have a partner who works, their benefits will be means tested, so they would be better off working. Those single women who say they want to work are not telling the truth. Why would they want to work when they can get a whole load of benefits for doing nothing?

by eddie Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:35 pm

Sorry perhaps I'm not understating - you said "single women" then went on to say "if they have a partner who works".
Are they single or attatched? Just being clear.

I was talking only of single mothers, as per the OP.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:35 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They don't want to work, they just say they do to make themselves look better. If they did want to work, they'd do it. The system is wrong because it doesn't pay to work for some people, and those on benefits should never have a lifestyle equal to those who work.

I agree totally.
Free child care, raise the minimum wage, and cut benefits for people who refuse to work.....pay them in food stamps rather than cash, it may focus the mind and also give them a sense of pride to actually work for their money.

The system is not fair to those who do actually go to work, whether they have children or not. The new National Living Wage is not enough to live on for many people, and they still have to pay tax to pay for those who sit on their arses instead of working.

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:36 pm

eddie wrote:Sorry perhaps I'm not understating - you said "single women" then went on to say "if they have a partner who works".
Are they single or attatched? Just being clear.

I was talking only of single mothers, as per the OP.

I mean a partner who they live with. In that case, their benefits will be means tested and they probably won't get any or not as much. If they're single they can get benefits. It pays to be a single mother these days.

by Syl Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:36 pm

eddie wrote:You're entirely wrong and I'm not sure how you can speak for every single unemployed mother out there?

I met lots of mums in this posttion when I ran a toddler playgroup on a very run-down council estate. I was supposed to make a living from the playgroup but ended up making it a voluntary payment run place aided by the local council.
Those women were poor and had nothing.

I don't know who you mix with but not everything is as black and white as you seem to believe.

My mum brought two of us up single handedly Eddie...she worked at 3 cleaning jobs at one time to put food on the table.
I don't speak for every mother, some have genuine reasons for not earning their own money, and everyone needs help sometimes. But to bring up a family solely relying on benefits, not intending to work because they can 'earn' more in benefits is wrong for them and society in general imo.

by Tommy Monk Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:54 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They don't want to work, they just say they do to make themselves look better. If they did want to work, they'd do it. The system is wrong because it doesn't pay to work for some people, and those on benefits should never have a lifestyle equal to those who work.

I agree totally.
Free child care, raise the minimum wage, and cut benefits for people who refuse to work.....pay them in food stamps rather than cash, it may focus the mind and also give them a sense of pride to actually work for their money.

'Free' child care...?

It's not free if everyone else has to pay for it in taxes...

Why should I lose money to pay for someone else's children to be looked after, so they can gain money by not having to pay for their own children to be looked after and for them to then be better off...?

And I've said before about parents being given equal shared time/responsibility for the kids... and some here argued against it...

I agree that working fathers could have the kids for the whole of weekends... and mothers could work through the week from 9-3... and then also do other work Saturday/Sunday too!!!

by Raggamuffin Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:57 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:

I agree totally.
Free child care, raise the minimum wage, and cut benefits for people who refuse to work.....pay them in food stamps rather than cash, it may focus the mind and also give them a sense of pride to actually work for their money.

'Free' child care...?

It's not free if everyone else has to pay for it in taxes...

Why should I lose money to pay for someone else's children to be looked after, so they can gain money by not having to pay for their own children to be looked after and for them to then be better off...?

And I've said before about parents being given equal shared time/responsibility for the kids... and some here argued against it...

I agree that working fathers could have the kids for the whole of weekends... and mothers could work through the week from 9-3... and then also do other work Saturday/Sunday too!!!

Maybe people without children should get a tax rebate because they're having to pay for others to get free childcare for children they chose to have.

by Tommy Monk Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:18 pm

Or maybe just those who want childcare should pay for it...!

And maybe parents with younger children who split up... mothers could look after them in the day time while father is at work... then father could have them in the evenings so mothers could then go to work...?

Father could then drop kids off in the morning to mother again on way to work... mother looks after them through the day again... then drops off to father in evening etc...

Both could then work... each earning enough money to support themselves, their children, and their life choices of no longer being together...!!!

And both parents get equal time with and responsibility of their children!!!

lol!

by Syl Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:19 pm

I believe that children are our future...♫♫

by Tommy Monk Wed Sep 21, 2016 7:51 pm

What's wrong with what I suggested Syl...?

by Syl Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

What's wrong with what I suggested Syl...?

Plenty...most of it isn't practical.

As for free child care....why not? your taxes have to go somewhere, why not know they are helping society in a productive way?
Also it would cost less in the long run....paying for free child care would cost less than paying for benefits because the parent isn't working.

by Tommy Monk Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:04 pm

What's not practical...?

My taxes already go to well deserving places... don't they?

So are you saying other places should face cuts to pay for your proposal... or saying there should be a tax hike to pay for it...?

And I don't get your last point... surely parents working and paying their own childcare costs (if they need childcare) is the cheapest option for the rest of us taxpayers...!?

You seem stuck in an outdated view of working hours as being a set 9 hour daytime shift... or nothing...!?

Also seemingly stuck in the outdated view that it's a woman's place at the home with the children and the mans place going to work every day to provide/pay for it all... while also believing that it's fine for the man to be pushed out of the home and then only have occasional visiting rights to the children... and still pay for it all... as well as all the additional costs he now has from paying other accommodation costs/bills/expenses etc...

And woman should then be entitled to shit loads of taxpayer funded benefits too to pay for a nice comfortable lifestyle... for the children of course...!

All in the name of equality...!?

Brings me back to my original point... over generous benefits encourages parents to split up!

by Syl Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:23 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:What's not practical...?

My taxes already go to well deserving places... don't they?

So are you saying other places should face cuts to pay for your proposal... or saying there should be a tax hike to pay for it...?

And I don't get your last point... surely parents working and paying their own childcare costs (if they need childcare) is the cheapest option for the rest of us taxpayers...!?

You seem stuck in an outdated view of working hours as being a set 9 hour daytime shift... or nothing...!?

Also seemingly stuck in the outdated view that it's a woman's place at the home with the children and the mans place going to work every day to provide/pay for it all... while also believing that it's fine for the man to be pushed out of the home and then only have occasional visiting rights to the children... and still pay for it all... as well as all the additional costs he now has from paying other accommodation costs/bills/expenses etc...

And woman should then be entitled to shit loads of taxpayer funded benefits too to pay for a nice comfortable lifestyle... for the children of course...!

All in the name of equality...!?

Brings me back to my original point... over generous benefits encourages parents to split up!

What better way is there for taxes to be spent on helping people better themselves, so that they become self funding?
Many parents don't work because they cant afford private child care.....well over £100 pw per child.
A lot of council subsidised child care has suffered because of cut backs.

Why don't you understand my point? If a parent cant afford child care they cant work.....it's a catch 22 till the child starts school, even then it's difficult.

Where have I said it's OK for a father to be pushed out of the home?
In the event of a marriage breakdown where children are involved the courts will decide who is best able to care for the children.
Facts and figures show that it's usually(not always ) the mother.

You also seem to overlook the fact that many reckless men breed with no intention of looking after the kids they spawn.....I don't think over generous benefits cross their minds, they don't think that far ahead..

by eddie Wed Sep 21, 2016 11:25 pm

Tommy, do you ever flip through your photo albums at home, and wonder if someone has photoshopped them behind your back?

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:54 am

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:What's not practical...?

My taxes already go to well deserving places... don't they?

So are you saying other places should face cuts to pay for your proposal... or saying there should be a tax hike to pay for it...?

And I don't get your last point... surely parents working and paying their own childcare costs (if they need childcare) is the cheapest option for the rest of us taxpayers...!?

You seem stuck in an outdated view of working hours as being a set 9 hour daytime shift... or nothing...!?

Also seemingly stuck in the outdated view that it's a woman's place at the home with the children and the mans place going to work every day to provide/pay for it all... while also believing that it's fine for the man to be pushed out of the home and then only have occasional visiting rights to the children... and still pay for it all... as well as all the additional costs he now has from paying other accommodation costs/bills/expenses etc...

And woman should then be entitled to shit loads of taxpayer funded benefits too to pay for a nice comfortable lifestyle... for the children of course...!

All in the name of equality...!?

Brings me back to my original point... over generous benefits encourages parents to split up!

What better way is there for taxes to be spent on helping people better themselves, so that they become self funding?
Many parents don't work because they cant afford private child care.....well over £100 pw per child.
A lot of council subsidised child care has suffered because of cut backs.

Why don't you understand my point? If a parent cant afford child care they cant work.....it's a catch 22 till the child starts school, even then it's difficult.

Where have I said it's OK for a father to be pushed out of the home?
In the event of a marriage breakdown where children are involved the courts will decide who is best able to care for the children.
Facts and figures show that it's usually(not always ) the mother.

You also seem to overlook the fact that many reckless men breed with no intention of looking after the kids they spawn.....I don't think over generous benefits cross their minds, they don't think that far ahead..

Maybe they should have got established in work before having children they can't afford to pay for...?

Eddie has already said... what's the point of working to be £20 a week better off than money that could be got in benefits...!

Proving that benefits are too generous!!!

Why work if you can get it all for free!!!???

I've already posted this reasonable solution...

"mothers could look after them in the day time while father is at work... then father could have them in the evenings so mothers could then go to work...?

Father could then drop kids off in the morning to mother again on way to work... mother looks after them through the day again... then drops off to father in evening etc...

Both could then work... each earning enough money to support themselves, their children, and their life choices of no longer being together...!!!"

Your last point... many reckless women don't care that the workshy idiot they are banging might result in spawning a child that the twat won't pay towards supporting... because they will get it all paid for by everyone else in benefits...!!!

by Ben Reilly Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:48 am

What you need to do is lower benefits to the point that people slowly starve, regardless of the state of the job market.

Why not? They're only your fellow citizens. What's a few human beings here or there?

by eddie Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:36 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Sorry perhaps I'm not understating - you said "single women" then went on to say "if they have a partner who works".
Are they single or attatched? Just being clear.

I was talking only of single mothers, as per the OP.

I mean a partner who they live with. In that case, their benefits will be means tested and they probably won't get any or not as much. If they're single they can get benefits. It pays to be a single mother these days.

Yeah rags, mothers really want to bring up children on their own and have less money and watch their children go without.
Jeez. Rolling Eyes

by eddie Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:37 am

Ben Reilly wrote:What you need to do is lower benefits to the point that people slowly starve, regardless of the state of the job market.

Why not? They're only your fellow citizens. What's a few human beings here or there?

And cut the water supply. Until they get a job obviously.

by Raggamuffin Thu Sep 22, 2016 8:10 am

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean a partner who they live with. In that case, their benefits will be means tested and they probably won't get any or not as much. If they're single they can get benefits. It pays to be a single mother these days.

Yeah rags, mothers really want to bring up children on their own and have less money and watch their children go without.
Jeez.

The point it that they don't have less money if they don't work.

by Major Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:41 am

I would rather MPs starve, fat catz

by eddie Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:53 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean a partner who they live with. In that case, their benefits will be means tested and they probably won't get any or not as much. If they're single they can get benefits. It pays to be a single mother these days.

Yeah rags, mothers really want to bring up children on their own and have less money and watch their children go without.
Jeez.

The point it that they don't have less money if they don't work.

Who's fault is that? If the minimum wage covered someone comfortably and childcare costs were not so stupidly extortionate (and in some areas they are!) then working would be a better option.

Also, there should be more job-sharing schemes, some people don't want their children going to a childminder - I don't - so there should be more jobs available for school hours ie finishing at 2pm so mum's can pick up their own kids at 3pm, school kick-out time.

by Syl Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:20 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Syl wrote:

What better way is there for taxes to be spent on helping people better themselves, so that they become self funding?
Many parents don't work because they cant afford private child care.....well over £100 pw per child.
A lot of council subsidised child care has suffered because of cut backs.

Why don't you understand my point? If a parent cant afford child care they cant work.....it's a catch 22 till the child starts school, even then it's difficult.

Where have I said it's OK for a father to be pushed out of the home?
In the event of a marriage breakdown where children are involved the courts will decide who is best able to care for the children.
Facts and figures show that it's usually(not always ) the mother.

You also seem to overlook the fact that many reckless men breed with no intention of looking after the kids they spawn.....I don't think over generous benefits cross their minds, they don't think that far ahead..

Maybe they should have got established in work before having children they can't afford to pay for...?

The majority of part time and lower paid jobs are done by women, so even if their jobs are still available afer they have taken time off to have their babies the wage wouldn't cover todays child care cost.

Eddie has already said... what's the point of working to be £20 a week better off than money that could be got in benefits...!

If child care was free it would be a huge incentive for mothers to work. The government money saved on paying out benefits could go towards supplying free child care .If someone refuses to work without reason part of the benefits could be paid in food vouchers.

Proving that benefits are too generous!!!

See above.

Why work if you can get it all for free!!!???

/\

I've already posted this reasonable solution...

"mothers could look after them in the day time while father is at work... then father could have them in the evenings so mothers could then go to work...?

Father could then drop kids off in the morning to mother again on way to work... mother looks after them through the day again... then drops off to father in evening etc...

Both could then work... each earning enough money to support themselves, their children, and their life choices of no longer being together...!!!"

Not practical. In any case people should not be forced to work nights.

Your last point... many reckless women don't care that the workshy idiot they are banging might result in spawning a child that the twat won't pay towards supporting... because they will get it all paid for by everyone else in benefits...!!!

Yes women can be reckless just as men can be. But every family who claims benefits isn't the result of recklessness, sometimes life steps in, unemployment, death, abuse, many reasons why there are single parents, and many reasons why hard working people sometimes need a helping hand.

by Syl Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:28 pm

eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The point it that they don't have less money if they don't work.

Who's fault is that? If the minimum wage covered someone comfortably and childcare costs were not so stupidly extortionate (and in some areas they are!) then working would be a better option.

Also, there should be more job-sharing schemes, some people don't want their children going to a childminder - I don't - so there should be more jobs available for school hours ie finishing at 2pm so mum's can pick up their own kids at 3pm, school kick-out time.

I never wanted my son to go to child minders either Eddie so he didn't. I was a stay at home mum till he started senior school, we did without certain things but it was a choice I would do all over again.

Do you remember a while back two mothers who were best friends (they were police officers) worked out a solution where they could mind one anothers child whilst the other one worked.
The local council got involved, said they were not equipped too mind anyones child but their own, and they were forced to give up their jobs.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:40 pm

Syl wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Maybe they should have got established in work before having children they can't afford to pay for...?

The majority of part time and lower paid jobs are done by women, so even if their jobs are still available afer they have taken time off to have their babies the wage wouldn't cover todays child care cost.

Eddie has already said... what's the point of working to be £20 a week better off than money that could be got in benefits...!

If child care was free it would be a huge incentive for mothers to work. The government money saved on paying out benefits could go towards supplying free child care .If someone refuses to work without reason part of the benefits could be paid in food vouchers.

Proving that benefits are too generous!!!

See above.

Why work if you can get it all for free!!!???

/\

I've already posted this reasonable solution...

"mothers could look after them in the day time while father is at work... then father could have them in the evenings so mothers could then go to work...?

Father could then drop kids off in the morning to mother again on way to work... mother looks after them through the day again... then drops off to father in evening etc...

Both could then work... each earning enough money to support themselves, their children, and their life choices of no longer being together...!!!"

Not practical. In any case people should not be forced to work nights.

Your last point... many reckless women don't care that the workshy idiot they are banging might result in spawning a child that the twat won't pay towards supporting... because they will get it all paid for by everyone else in benefits...!!!

Yes women can be reckless just as men can be. But every family who claims benefits isn't the result of recklessness, sometimes life steps in, unemployment, death, abuse, many reasons why there are single parents, and many reasons why hard working people sometimes need a helping hand.

The part time jobs are done after the children... not before... and as I've said... if benefits were not so generous then the parents would be more likely to stay together... or... would have to have more shared time with children so both parents could do enough work/hours to support their choice to live separately... father has children weekends and mother could do 20 hours work over that time... and through the week could do 25 hours part time through days while kids at school... or
.. if kids too young then she could look after them through day and father works then... then father has them in evening while mother works then...

And free child care is not free... as I've already said... people can work as I've suggested above...

by nicko Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:15 pm

All very well going on about getting jobs, where are they?

by eddie Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:19 pm

Syl wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The point it that they don't have less money if they don't work.

Who's fault is that? If the minimum wage covered someone comfortably and childcare costs were not so stupidly extortionate (and in some areas they are!) then working would be a better option.

Also, there should be more job-sharing schemes, some people don't want their children going to a childminder - I don't - so there should be more jobs available for school hours ie finishing at 2pm so mum's can pick up their own kids at 3pm, school kick-out time.

I never wanted my son to go to child minders either Eddie so he didn't. I was a stay at home mum till he started senior school, we did without certain things but it was a choice I would do all over again.

Do you remember a while back two mothers who were best friends (they were police officers) worked out a solution where they could mind one anothers child whilst the other one worked.
The local council got involved, said they were not equipped too mind anyones child but their own, and they were forced to give up their jobs.

My thanks to you as you get what I'm saying.

Case in point, where the stupid officials get involved in the scenario you've just outlined.
Two mothers worked out a system whereby everyone was happy and all was well - then the whatless man behind the desk read some stupid outdated policy and shut down their little set-up. I can understand if they had said that the plan was fine but each couple had to be CRB checked and house checked for the safety of the children etc - that's just good sense - but to close them down because neither of them were childminders?
That's just plain idiocy. Makes me mad.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:23 pm

That is idiocy... it's not against the law for your child to be at their friends house under the supervision of the other kids parent is it...?

by eddie Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:35 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:That is idiocy... it's not against the law for your child to be at their friends house under the supervision of the other kids parent is it...?

Only if you make it official somehow. Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the case (nor the law in find detail) but I do know that you have to be registered as a childminder to look after a child that isn't yours for long periods of time, but of course, there are a zillion ways around it.

by Syl Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:15 pm

There are lots of do's and dont's when caring for someone elses child, they don't make it easy to make arrangements between friends and neighbours, which forces many mums to either not work or actually pay out most of their wages in child care.

http://www.netmums.com/back-to-work/childcare-swaps-the-rules

by Syl Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:20 pm

eddie wrote:
Syl wrote:

I never wanted my son to go to child minders either Eddie so he didn't. I was a stay at home mum till he started senior school, we did without certain things but it was a choice I would do all over again.

Do you remember a while back two mothers who were best friends (they were police officers) worked out a solution where they could mind one anothers child whilst the other one worked.
The local council got involved, said they were not equipped too mind anyones child but their own, and they were forced to give up their jobs.

My thanks to you as you get what I'm saying.

Case in point, where the stupid officials get involved in the scenario you've just outlined.
Two mothers worked out a system whereby everyone was happy and all was well - then the whatless man behind the desk read some stupid outdated policy and shut down their little set-up. I can understand if they had said that the plan was fine but each couple had to be CRB checked and house checked for the safety of the children etc - that's just good sense - but to close them down because neither of them were childminders?
That's just plain idiocy. Makes me mad.

Thanks Eddie, and I do get completely what you are saying.

Believe it or not I was criticised by some back in the 80's for not working and being a stay at home mum....people actually said I was wasting myself by doing "nothing" with my life....I was doing plenty being a wife and mum...and I loved being a stay at home mum till my son was 11.

I never claimed benefits because I was lucky to have a OH who earned enough, but we certainly went without certain luxuries, and imo it was worth it.

by eddie Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:36 pm

Well I have every sympathy for single mothers who are trying every day to do what's right.

by Tommy Monk Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:39 pm

Good for you Syl...!

You and your OH made your lifestyle choices, and didn't expect everyone else to pay for it...!

Sadly others see the lucrative amount of benefits they can get by taking certain choices... namely not working and presenting themselves as a single parent... and see this as a perfectly valid and acceptable lifestyle choice because the benefits system facilitates and encourages this...!

by Sponsored content