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

POGS it is because it is unusual that it is news. That is how 'news' works!

Saying 4 million (just to be clear I have made this figure up as an example) families in state subsidised homes go to work and live decent lives will not sell the daily rag or any other paper!

I agree it is totally unnecessary & irresponsible to have a large family especially when you have little or no income to support it.

But what would you do for this family now that they exist?

Deja vu!
Why do you presume there are 11 different fathers?

My grandmother, who died in 1966 aged over 90, raised 11 children in a two up two down cottage with no hot water or bathroom and an outside loo. Her life was further complicated by nursing her husband who ended up bedridden with his legs amputated. He died when my father, the youngest but one, was 13. All the children lived to grow up and all got good jobs. Several went to college and one went to Oxford. Of course as the older ones went to work they contributed financially and the oldest and youngest daughters never married but lived with their mother and looked after her. They owned the property and I don't think any state help was ever forthcoming or expected.

nanaej

I say again.

"People simply will not, do not take responsibility for their lives, the state will do it. They only give everybody a bad name. The mad, bad,sad thing is, this will never change."

I only had one child because that is all I could afford. My daughter the same. We take full responsibility for our families. I am not however so cocky as to think that will never change but I was not so irresponsible from the outset.

It is not upto me to do anything, it was however upto them , surely.

I agree they are now entitled to what the state has to give them, whether or not I or anybody else may agree . We are entitled to our opinion though. Is it unusual news!

Cervical cancer has many causes - genital warts is just one. Having several children is another. It is not a punishment for promiscuity (No, I know nobody said it was).

The poorest people in the world generally have the most children. That is widely known. At present it explains the global population growth rate. In rich countries the population growth rate, except for immigration, is not rising. When you have very little, "affording" doesn't come into it. Think about poor Victorian families in this country, or about people living in what we would call poverty in, say, South America or India. Talk about being able to "afford" this number or that number of children is something only the relatively rich (I said relatively; we are all relatively rich) can do. And besides, those of you who say you could "only afford" one or two children would have managed, would have "afforded" another one if another one had come along 'by accident'.

Being a mother of eleven nowadays in Britain is very very very uncommon. This woman is highly unusual. That's why the daft media focus on her. She's weird and hihghly unusual so she makes a story people will get het up about.

And they cry and whinge: "It's not fair!" I agree. It isn't. But there are worse unfairnesses to sort out before I find I can mind much about this one.

I doesn't bother me, but I'm sure there are a few hidden agendas here. For one thing, when she leaves the two houses joined together, this will free up the two houses for two needy families.

When she gets the new house, the council can show that they have done everything possible for her kids - and the kids are the real reason for all this, after all.

I think many contentious welfare solutions are there to protect the kids, regardless of the idiocy of their parents. This house may well save money in the end, in preventing future problems.

I have to say the irresponsibility and greed of casino bankers strike me as being much more unfair and certainly damaged far more people than one silly woman who keeps having babies that she can;t afford.

But she can afford them! She may not be earning the money to pay for the house and the 11 children but the cash is forthcoming. It's the eternal dilemma that faces the state, isn't it? We have to support those who cannot support themselves and their children, whether we approve of the individuals and sympathise with their situation or not. What's the alternative? Only the 'deserving poor' get supported? Beggars in the street? The workhouse? And where is Ivanhoe on this subject?

Lilygran Be careful what [who] you wish for.

POGS you will see that I said I feel it was irresponsible to have children when you were unable to support them.

Of course you do not have to do anything about it. But I do think if you make critical comments about a situation it is good to try to empathise with those trying to deal with it and think what other solutions there might be! i was just asking what , if you were the local council, you would have done differently.

Not sure if it is the council action or the woman you are most cross with!

Do not think having 11 children is common in UK nowadays.

That's my opinion!

Although the media have focussed on this extreme case it does surely point to the fact that people on benefits can have as many children as they like and the rest of us will pay. There are many more cases of people who have say four or five children they cannot afford and the rest of us are paying for. I fully understand that we have to help people currently in this situation but believe we must do something to limit people having more children than they can afford. Perhaps if there were more emphasis on the fact that we are paying for it rather then 'the government' it might change attitudes?

Yes, there are other situations, bankers etc. which outrage us but this thread is about us paying for the feckless.

What will happen to this house when all her children have left home? Am I right in thinking that people in social housing do not have to move into a smaller house when the family leaves?

I heard an interview with a Councillor about this case. She was put into the two properties as a temporary measure 4/5 years ago (was only supposed to be there for a few months). The Council sold off land cheap to the developer on the condition the developer built the house within his new development.

Whilst I agree this woman has been irresponsible I don't think the situation is as bad as has been made out. Although I too was dumbfounded by her comment that if she didn't like the house the Council would have to build her another one. I understand she now wants to buy a second horse!

Don't agree with affording and managing an accidental baby Bags I have seen the misery and hardship caused by overcrowding, usually it is the woman who goes without while she tries to ensure the children are cared for.
When I met DH he was living at home and sharing a bedroom with three adult brothers. The room was tiny and had two sets of bunk beds, no space for belongings, no privacy. Yes he was fine he survived but was he happy ? no absolutely not.

All sorts of oddities about this case..a damage limitation by council going on I expect. Agree it is strange if she has horses as they cost a pretty penny to keep.

It's people in social housing who will be affected by the so-called 'bedroom tax', Movedalot. It won't affect those in private accommodation, but rents for smaller properties are likely to go up because there is such a shortage, and housing benefit will only pay so much.

Well, plenty of people did and do manage, harri, and plenty of poor people are happy (lots of literature on that). Bringing happiness into the equation does change the dynamic though, I agree, but my thoughts ran along more basic health and survival lines than that. I don't know your husband but from what you've said on here he seems to have done allright for himself. Maybe that early experience helped to form his character and actually helped him on his successful way. I hope he is happy now too .

What one person says they "can't afford" can be wildly different from what someone else says they can't afford too. It depends what one wants once one gets beyond the basics for survival and reasonable health.

Now that the horses are known about I think it is time the autorities looked into her situation. When my son was at college we met the mother of one of the other students and she was being kept by the state but the boy's father was also giving her money in cash so that was not taken into account. I am very unhappy about subsidising her horse/s.

Two horses seems a bit excessive though, when on benefits...

Yes Bags DH is happy now. He could write a book though, his parents were both from families of twelve children and they all lived in the same street. He has 72 first cousins. Although they lived in social housing they were not claimimg benefits. When his paternal grandfather died his grandmother bought a handcart and sold fruit and vegetables around the estates.
It is one thing having enough money for the basics of life but to have leisure activities funded is pushing it a bit. Does this woman really have a horse ?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9882427/Jobless-mother-of-11-may-not-move-into-six-bedroom-council-home-being-built-for-her.html. This much more designed to cause shrieks than the print article which also had a rather nicer photo of her (brown hair, not pink).

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

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