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

Greatnan hope you are having a lovely time. Good you are still on the ether.

The mother was on day break and what she said was that they might not move in because of the scandle ,the daughter does have a horse kept in some stables ,how she can afford it is by working in the stables ,

Thank you, Lily - yes, I am having a wonderful time with my lovely daughter and son in law, and three of their SIX children.

It must be easier to feel compassion for the less fortunate or more profligate in society when neither you or your nearest and dearest are affected.

Some of us have children who work long hours for low pay and can't even think about having more children - my own DD, who struggles to pay her own mortgage on her full-time earnings, lives next door to a family housed by the local council. The mother has four children, doesn't work and got the council to clear her garden, install a downstairs toilet and can somehow afford to run a car, smoke, and drink several cans of Stella a night!

I can feel compassion for those in true need of it - but not for those who are taking advantage of the system.

I suppose as I pay tax on my two UK government pensions I am just as affected as anybody else.
I don't condone profligacy but neither would I wish to punish all those who are in need of support because of the actions of the well-publicised minority.

Does your daughter's neighbour look after her children, ana? If so, she works. She may not be paid to look after her own children, unlike if someone else did it and got paid for having a "proper job", but if she looks after them, is their "child-minder", she works. Wish people would get their heads round that idea.

If being a child-minder/carer for other people's children is a job, then it's a job when you do it for your own, pay or no pay.

Getting money for doing something is not the definition of work, even though most people seem to think it is.

We need some perspective here. As it has been mentioned before, large families are unusual. The vast majority of people limit their family to what they can cope with. I certainly did.

Who knows why she had so many? Perhaps she can't take the pill. Perhaps she is ultra fertile. perhaps she just loves babies. To force someone to limit their family through enforced poverty or legal means is unconscionable and unethical. A civilised society just does not do that .

It seems to be too late to protect the children now though - the right wing press has succeeded - the family is now so hated she is afraid to move in.

I'm wondering why so many people feel able to make judgements about someone they have only heard about through the distorted lens of a tabloid. Who knows what an individual's circumstances are, and how many of our own actions and circumstances would stand up the scrutiny of a newspaper with a nasty agenda?

Bags, two of her children are over 18. Neither of them works either, nor do they help out with the care of the other two - but of course we mustn't judge...

Do you know why they don't work have paid jobs, ana? If you don't know all the details (and you don't!), then, no, you shouldn't judge.

movedalot there are so many things "wrong' with our society. There are feckless parents as well as parents who try very hard to get jobs but can't. However, announcing that there will be no family allowance after two children is unlikely to stop the feckless ones getting pregnant! What then - do we ignore the children who are there or do we invest in their future? I can understand that people get upset when they see how hard their own families work to provide for their families but IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE CHILDREN whose parents don't provide for them. Do we abandon them?

I think "reasoned debate" would be around improving the economy, stopping massive tax evasion by big business, penalising rather than rewarding bankers who have driven the banking system into the ground, making sure there are jobs for people who want to work and (my personal favourite)getting rid of hugely expensive nuclear weapons. These are things that make me much more angry than the occasional big family who is reliant on the state.

mouse, I think some people just have a built in GrumbleAboutOthers machine. It runs on grumpiness and whining.

How do you know I don't know, Bags? I find your automatic assumption that I don't judgemental in itself.

Bags

I am confused. Are you saying that if a mother does not work as she chooses to look after her children, it is a 'job' and therefore she should be paid by the state.

You can't know all their circumstances and what has led to the position they are now in. You cannot!

Of course, Bags. You are right, as always.

Looking after children is work, pogs. Some people get paid for doing it and some people don't. Perhaps we can't pay mothers to look after their own children (though in a truly utopian society, I think we might), but it's still work.

No one is ALWAYS right. Even me. But unless you a personal friend of this lady, perhaps you could explain how you are able to be so sure?

Thanks, ana. Much obliged for your kind opinion. BTW, it isn't an automatic judgement on my part, but a reasoned one: there simply is no way you can know all the relevant details of someone else's life unless you were somekind of omniscient goddess. #thatcouldexplainit.

Blimey! it's late for me! Off to bed. Toodlepip till tomorrow.

Although I totally deplore the income this family seems to enjoy from benefits ( BTW why does she get incapacity benefit?? Where is ATOS when you want them?) nevertheless I do not think it is any of our business what she spends her money on - unless she comes back for handouts at a later stage. Her benefits should be (I hope) based on need and if she is entitled to over £1000 a week, then there is something wrong with the system. I also think that unless teenagers are in full time education, they should be treated as young adults. What about the graduate recently whose Job-seekers was dependent on her doing unpaid work at Poundland which I found ridiculous, but why apply that to her and dish out handouts to this family? This is an appalling case, but again I wonder if it has been dredged up to arouse our righteous indignation?

Bags

I understand that point, I don't think anybody would not agree that looking after our children is a job,have we not all had to do it. Do most of us not see our own children doing it.

This is, as you say, not a utopian society. Women do go to work and make arrangements for childcare, to pay their bills. If they decide they want to take control of their family and know having more children than they can afford would be irresponsible,why if they stop at the level of children they are comfortable to be able to support are they not afforded respect for being responsible.

I don't have a built in 'grumble about others machine', as described by Bags, although I agree that some people in life do. I think that one of the problems is that people in paid employment have seen their take home pay stay the same or fall year on year for such a long time that they have in effect taken a significant paycut with no prospect of anything improving for years to come. I am certainly in this position, which applies whether one works in the private or public sector and is causing real hardship for many. It then becomes frustrating to see that benefits are protected and continue to rise in line with inflation. The media will always fuel this resentment with stories such as this one, which is an extreme example. I agree we must protect the vulnerable in society which of course includes children, but the benefits system needs a complete overhaul so that those who do work and earn a low salary, like Ana's daughter, are not disadvantaged when compared to those who have no intention of working.

All this makes me think back to my early married years. You didn't get family allowance until the second child - eight shillings - and if you didn't pay your electricity bill it was cut off. We lived in a farmhouse that was tied to DH's job so, no work, no roof above your head. We managed with two very young children and didn't have our third until our life was much more secure.

If things had gone pearshaped we wouldn't have been considered disadvantaged but irresponsible.

Considering the cost of rearing a child, plus the sheer hard work it takes, I find it hard to believe that many women keep on having children for the sake of the supposed benefits.
The suggestion of only paying child benefit for the first two children was first mooted some time ago but the member who proposed it is no longer with us. Obviously, her spirit lingers on!