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

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/

I'm getting fucked off now. You seem to think that most single mums make this a life choice - some of them have no choice! They find themselves on their own and they have to toss up what it best for them and their families. Unless you have a generous ex-partner who's willing to help you out for the sake of the children, then you can be pretty much left on your own.


I think, before you make an opinion on someone else's shoes, you should put those fuckers on, lace them up and try to walk a while in them.

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

Do you know what, I came to the conclusion long ago that mothers can never please everyone. Either someone is telling them they don't mother enough, others are telling them they are not filling their own potential, and mixed in with that is their own guilt because they are not superwoman.

Do what you think is best.....it's your life and no one else is in your shoes.

Tommy Monk wrote:
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...!

Tommy, don't you think that the tabloids write about certain women and families who obviously do breed for the benefits they can get? They, like the woman in the OP, and various other stories that crop up about people who have numerous kids and enjoy a good lifestyle at the tax payers expense, rile people who work hard. They are the extremes....the vast majority of people who claim benefits do it because as I said before....life has thrown them a few hard choices, ones they didn't expect, like unemployment, separation, divorce, death, abuse ..etc.

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.

It's not supposed to be an "option" at all. Benefits are for those who cannot work, not for those who can't be arsed to work, or who think they might as well be on benefits because they don't make much more if they work. People choose to have children remember - they should make sure they can afford it first. Those on benefits are not contributing one penny to the welfare of anyone else - they just take money all the time.

Whose fault is it? The Government's of course, but if they try to cut benefits, the lefties make such a song and dance that they back down. If they tried to make childcare free, the tax payers would kick off, quite rightly because why should they pay for someone who chose to have children?

You said yourself that you would choose to go on benefits, and not just that - you would work cash in hand and cheat the rest of the country by not paying one penny in taxes. See what I mean?

eddie wrote:I'm getting fucked off now. You seem to think that most single mums make this a life choice - some of them have no choice!  They find themselves on their own and they have to toss up what it best for them and their families. Unless you have a generous ex-partner who's willing to help you out for the sake of the children, then you can be pretty much left on your own.


I think, before you make an opinion on someone else's shoes, you should put those fuckers on, lace them up and try to walk a while in them.

Maybe those who live off the tax payers without lifting a finger should walk in the shoes of those who do work - often in jobs which aren't that great - and who have to pay tax for the layabouts to sit about contributing zilch. Even if they don't mind that, they probably don't want to hear how someone on benefits spends money on luxuries.

Rags I appreciate what you're saying but I don't think you actually get it.

eddie wrote:Rags I appreciate what you're saying but I don't think you actually get it.

I think that you don't get it.

This thread is winding me up.

It shouldn't...you are nothing like the woman in the OP who started it all.

Off to eat....night all. x

Night Syl X

eddie wrote:I'm getting fucked off now. You seem to think that most single mums make this a life choice - some of them have no choice!  They find themselves on their own and they have to toss up what it best for them and their families. Unless you have a generous ex-partner who's willing to help you out for the sake of the children, then you can be pretty much left on your own.


I think, before you make an opinion on someone else's shoes, you should put those fuckers on, lace them up and try to walk a while in them.

The system should force both parents to work enough hours to pay to support themselves and force shared custody so both can have enough time to do enough work...


If kids are at school then there's 5-6 hours a day both can work... the parent not looking after kids before/after school can obviously do more hours during the day time (full time working week of hours)... but should then have kids at weekend so other parent can do more work/hours to also mean they have a full time working week of equivalent hours too!


And if kids too young for school then one parent should work the days while other looks after kids then other works evenings while day work parent then looks after kids in evenings...



Saturday and Sunday are also days where either could work too for extra overtime money!!!


This is a simple and practical solution whereby both parents can work full time number of hours each week as well as both having equal custody/access/responsibility of their children... as well as eliminating the claimed requirement for a fully funded life on benefits...!

Can you think outside the box for a minute? Let's take your "kids are at school 5/6 hours a day" comment.

You drop them at nine. Now unless you actually work in the school you have to get to your job ASAP - that's even if you can get one that starts at 9:30 or 10 or later. I'll be very generous with you and say you start at 9:30 and you're lucky enough to be able to walk it.
Then you have to leave by 2:30 right? To do a pick up.

So you've worked for five hours. How much does that even pay you for a day? But okay, you have no child fees so it's all yours.

Now then, what do you do in all the school holidays?
You are only working to pay a childminder because you're paying out what you're getting in and nothing else, so you get behind with all your bills and rent etc.

You think that's easy for a single mother? That's how they get in debt and behind with rent.
I've seen it happen.

5 hours a week during the day... That's 25 hours... plus other parent can have custody at weekends so could do another 10 hours Saturday and 10 Sunday... That's 45 hours...



Other parent forced to work full time in the week... but could have kids for 3 hours in evenings too so other parent could do an extra 15 hours work in evenings...


Plus parent not having full custody and earning more money should be giving main parent extra money too!



If kids not at school then revert to the other set up where one parent has kids days while other works full time... then kids go to that parent while other one does evening or night work...



Plenty of jobs with 24/7 hours available!!!



Maybe not a lovely option... but a viable option... and if sit back doing fuck all on benefits instead wasn't such an easily available option... then this would be the only option and people would have to do it!!!

eddie wrote:This thread is winding me up.

But you started the thread in the first place, and what you quoted was critical of the woman. You must have expected critical remarks on here too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:This thread is winding me up.

But you started the thread in the first place, and what you quoted was critical of the woman. You must have expected critical remarks on here too.

Duh. We have moved on from the woman in the OP and as usual, we are trying to seperate the lumps of people you have stuck in the same mold.

eddie wrote:Can you think outside the box for a minute? Let's take your "kids are at school 5/6 hours a day" comment.

You drop them at nine. Now unless you actually work in the school you have to get to your job ASAP - that's even if you can get one that starts at 9:30 or 10 or later. I'll be very generous with you and say you start at 9:30 and you're lucky enough to be able to walk it.
Then you have to leave by 2:30 right? To do a pick up.

So you've worked for five hours. How much does that even pay you for a day? But okay, you have no child fees so it's all yours.

Now then, what do you do in all the school holidays?
You are only working to pay a childminder because you're paying out what you're getting in and nothing else, so you get behind with all your bills and rent etc.

You think that's easy for a single mother? That's how they get in debt and behind with rent.
I've seen it happen.

It shows willing though - that's the point. The other point is the complaining going on about not being able to afford luxuries. Benefits aren't supposed to be for luxuries.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But you started the thread in the first place, and what you quoted was critical of the woman. You must have expected critical remarks on here too.

Duh. We have moved on from the woman in the OP and as usual, we are trying to seperate the lumps of people you have stuck in the same mold.

Well if you start a thread about benefits and a woman complaining that she needs more, what did you expect?

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.

There's no obligation for a woman to have a kid with every bloke she takes a fancy to you know - contraception is widely available.

"Benefits aren't supposed to be for luxuries"

I can't even begin to explain how ridiculously insipid and useless that comment is.

eddie wrote:"Benefits aren't supposed to be for luxuries"

I can't even begin to explain how ridiculously insipid and useless that comment is.

That's because it's not. You posted an article about a woman on benefits who smokes and has takeaways, yes? If she can afford those ...

She's an exception to the rule rags - did I need to explain that to you, or do you assume that once a relationship breaks up this mother becomes a piss-taking, wine-swilling, double-crossing frogturd benefit cheat?

The OP had moved on to mothers on benefits in general, then you came out with the classic line of "no luxuries for those kids on benefits!"

eddie wrote:She's an exception to the rule rags - did I need to explain that to you, or do you assume that once a relationship breaks up this mother becomes a piss-taking, wine-swilling, double-crossing frogturd benefit cheat?

The OP had moved on to mothers on benefits in general, then you came out with the classic line of "no luxuries for those kids on benefits!"

Well then maybe you should have made a comment in your OP rather than just post an article about a woman which was clearly designed to invite criticism of the benefits system and those who abuse it.

I didn't mention kids actually, merely luxuries in general. Do you think that people on benefits should have the same standard of living as those who actually work for a living and pay tax - ie, contribute?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Can you think outside the box for a minute? Let's take your "kids are at school 5/6 hours a day" comment.

You drop them at nine. Now unless you actually work in the school you have to get to your job ASAP - that's even if you can get one that starts at 9:30 or 10 or later. I'll be very generous with you and say you start at 9:30 and you're lucky enough to be able to walk it.
Then you have to leave by 2:30 right? To do a pick up.

So you've worked for five hours. How much does that even pay you for a day? But okay, you have no child fees so it's all yours.

Now then, what do you do in all the school holidays?
You are only working to pay a childminder because you're paying out what you're getting in and nothing else, so you get behind with all your bills and rent etc.

You think that's easy for a single mother? That's how they get in debt and behind with rent.
I've seen it happen.

It shows willing though - that's the point. The other point is the complaining going on about not being able to afford luxuries. Benefits aren't supposed to be for luxuries.

It shows willing... yes... and it also gives a lot of other things too... sense of achievement, experience, improved skills, wider social network colleagues/friends, training opportunities, better opportunities for future employment... plus it saves the taxpayer a bit of money that would be better spent saving lives in the NHS or fighting crime on the streets etc...

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:She's an exception to the rule rags - did I need to explain that to you, or do you assume that once a relationship breaks up this mother becomes a piss-taking, wine-swilling, double-crossing frogturd benefit cheat?

The OP had moved on to mothers on benefits in general, then you came out with the classic line of "no luxuries for those kids on benefits!"

Well then maybe you should have made a comment in your OP rather than just post an article about a woman which was clearly designed to invite criticism of the benefits system and those who abuse it.

I didn't mention kids actually, merely luxuries in general. Do you think that people on benefits should have the same standard of living as those who actually work for a living and pay tax - ie, contribute?

Tell me why they shouldn't. Bearing in mind, each and every case, is entirely different.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then maybe you should have made a comment in your OP rather than just post an article about a woman which was clearly designed to invite criticism of the benefits system and those who abuse it.

I didn't mention kids actually, merely luxuries in general. Do you think that people on benefits should have the same standard of living as those who actually work for a living and pay tax - ie, contribute?

Tell me why they shouldn't. Bearing in mind, each and every case, is entirely different.

Because the idea is that people earn money by working, and they pay tax so they contribute to the wellbeing of others. Those on benefits don't earn their own money, they take money from those who do work. If everyone had the same standard of living whether they lifted a finger or not, nobody would bother to work.

Most people are actually genuine cases rags, you get the odd one here and there as in the OP, that seemingly, (if media is to be believed), take the piss.

I just think until you witness something up close, you cannot know.
That's all.

So what is wrong with my working/custody suggestions for the vast majority where split is amicable and both parents are decent and willing to work to look after the best interests of their children...!?

eddie wrote:Most people are actually genuine cases rags, you get the odd one here and there as in the OP, that seemingly, (if media is to be believed), take the piss.

I just think until you witness something up close, you cannot know.
That's all.

It doesn't matter - those who work are still having to actually work for the money they get - ie, they have to actually do something, and often they'd rather not be doing it. People who work don't sit around drinking coffee in the canteen all day you know.

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!!!

What do you think schools are? If a single parent gets free childcare that enables them to work, then they contribute towards it by paying taxes.

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.

Not all mothers, no. But some aren't arsed. I have personal experience of just such mothers. The daughter of someone I dated years ago, has five kids from five different fathers. Her fridge was full of cider, and she smokes and has a 50 inch tv with full Sky package...all on benefits. You tell me that's ok?

She had no bedding on her kids beds. No sheets or pillow cases. I even offered to purchase some for her but when she laughed in my face and told me to give her the money instead, I was like...what the fuck?

eddie wrote:I'm getting fucked off now. You seem to think that most single mums make this a life choice - some of them have no choice!  They find themselves on their own and they have to toss up what it best for them and their families. Unless you have a generous ex-partner who's willing to help you out for the sake of the children, then you can be pretty much left on your own.


I think, before you make an opinion on someone else's shoes, you should put those fuckers on, lace them up and try to walk a while in them.

Nobody is 'forced' to have a child these days. Most women choose to have them. I've walked in those fucked up lace ups, I was a single mother with a single child through no fault of my own...but...I didn't go and have another one and then another one, and then another one.... I was responsible for my own actions.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:I'm getting fucked off now. You seem to think that most single mums make this a life choice - some of them have no choice!  They find themselves on their own and they have to toss up what it best for them and their families. Unless you have a generous ex-partner who's willing to help you out for the sake of the children, then you can be pretty much left on your own.


I think, before you make an opinion on someone else's shoes, you should put those fuckers on, lace them up and try to walk a while in them.

Maybe those who live off the tax payers without lifting a finger should walk in the shoes of those who do work - often in jobs which aren't that great - and who have to pay tax for the layabouts to sit about contributing zilch. Even if they don't mind that, they probably don't want to hear how someone on benefits spends money on luxuries.

Very good point. Everyone seems to forget the work horses who have absolutely no entitlement from the Government in any areas simply because they work. They struggle too. Very often living from hand to mouth. You'll find these people don't have the luxury of holidays, 50 inch flat screen TV's, full Sky package and a 20 a day fag habit. And if they do, they've earned every one of them.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then maybe you should have made a comment in your OP rather than just post an article about a woman which was clearly designed to invite criticism of the benefits system and those who abuse it.

I didn't mention kids actually, merely luxuries in general. Do you think that people on benefits should have the same standard of living as those who actually work for a living and pay tax - ie, contribute?

Tell me why they shouldn't. Bearing in mind, each and every case, is entirely different.

Tell us why they should?

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggmuffin asks >>"Do you think that people on benefits should have the same standard of living as those who actually work for a living and pay tax - ie, contribute?"

Tell me why they shouldn't. Bearing in mind, each and every case, is entirely different.

Tell us why they should?

They should have whatever they want.  The legislature didn't tie a particular social theory to the enactment of benefits.  They could have...but didn't.

I'm wondering if my beautiful best friend who has an incurable cancer caused by asbestos, through no fault of her own, should have to go without because she's getting benefits.

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tell us why they should?

They should have whatever they want.  The legislature didn't tie a particular social theory to the enactment of benefits.  They could have...but didn't.

In that case, nobody would get anything because nobody would be working and paying tax.

eddie wrote:I'm wondering if my beautiful best friend who has an incurable cancer caused by asbestos, through no fault of her own, should have to go without because she's getting benefits.

Seriously eddie.

How, where did your beautiful best friend contract asbestosis?

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tell us why they should?

They should have whatever they want.  The legislature didn't tie a particular social theory to the enactment of benefits.  They could have...but didn't.

Good job we don't all hold that philosophy. As pointed out by Ragga, there would be no benefits system without the tax payer.

Major wrote:

eddie wrote:I'm wondering if my beautiful best friend who has an incurable cancer caused by asbestos, through no fault of her own, should have to go without because she's getting benefits.

Seriously eddie.

How, where did your beautiful best friend contract asbestosis?

From the high school we both attended for five years.

eddie wrote:

Major wrote:

Seriously eddie.

How, where did your beautiful best friend contract asbestosis?

From the high school we both attended for five years.

How come she got and others didn't? Genuine question.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Major wrote:

Seriously eddie.

How, where did your beautiful best friend contract asbestosis?

From the high school we both attended for five years.

How come she got and others didn't?   Genuine question.

Well it can take 40 years plus to show itself which is often why it's diagnosed too late in the day. She is one of the youngest people the doctors have seen. I guess any of us from school can show signs later....in a few years....I try not to think about it.

Some people, according to what I've read, can be predisposed to it due to a faulty gene or something like that.

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

How come she got and others didn't?   Genuine question.

Well it can take 40 years plus to show itself which is often why it's diagnosed too late in the day. She is one of the youngest people the doctors have seen.  I guess any of us from school can show signs later....in a few years....I try not to think about it.

Some people, according to what I've read, can be predisposed to it due to a faulty gene or something like that.

Whereabouts was the asbestos? You don't tend to see all people of those generations succumb to this, and it must have been in lots of schools and public places.

She's had a search done of all records and floor plans of our school and it seems it was in the music rooms and the corridor leading to them, mostly.

When she got the floor plans she face timed me and said she didn't remember that part of the school at all, and neither did her sister who went there.

I remembered though; I have been dreaming of that exact corridor and those music rooms for years.

There is shit loads of asbestos in vast majority of older buildings!!!


And floating around in the air in many places you wouldn't expect...

Tommy Monk wrote:There is shit loads of asbestos in vast majority of older buildings!!!


And floating around in the air in many places you wouldn't expect...

It's floating naturally in the air. We all have it in us apparently. Spiffing!

I used to go to an asbestus manufacturering works in Stroud, Gloucestershire with my old many many years ago, he had a contract to haul asbestos sheets back to Coventry,
The works was the most disgusting, filthiest , stinking place imaginable, the general public were not aware of the ASBESTOS problem them.

During my lifetime so far I have only personally known one person to be affected by asbestos, his breathing today is awful and he worked for a council, stripping out houses for remodelling.

My old man was clear and I have not noticed anything wrong apart from my spelling.

Asbestos is no danger unless cut,sawed or smashed, releasing fibres into the air.