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

Just found this article about how the Left should take notice of how George Galloway gets his point across. This extract resonated with this thread:-

^"…..with relentless examples of scroungers in mansions full of feral children and plasma TVs. A tiny unrepresentative minority are portrayed as the tip of an iceberg, scrubbing away the reality of unemployed and disabled people; but because it taps into a very small element of truth, it resonates.
Take the poisoned welfare debate: the scrounger caricature needs to be smashed with stories of low-paid workers struggling to make ends meet; unemployed people desperately looking for work; disabled people having their state support removed – all of whom are having their benefits slashed."^

(The whole article is here
www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-left-should-learn-about-plain-speaking-from-george-galloway-8498536.html)

Not sure what point you're making, Joan? The Left should take notice of George Galloway, and how he gets his point across? Why? Can't we make our own minds up, based on our own experiences?

It just seems wrong that my daughter & her husband who both have degrees and "good" jobs and bought their own home are stuck for the foreseeable future in a one bedroom flat with two children. They had been married 10 years when they had the first one so one can hardly say they rushed into it. They've been able to divide the one bedroom into two and, after waiting 6 years to have the second baby, they are hoping to be able to extend into the practically non existant garden. All the years my daughter was at university studying for her degree and then a Phd I used to joke that she should have left school at 16, had a couple of children and got herself a nice council house. Sometimes it doesn't seem much of a joke.

AnaI'm saying that this story is a gift to the right wing press, who have brilliantly exploited it, in spite of the fact it is not representative of anything.

Galloway is awful, but as a leftie I agree we should learn from the Right about how to get a point across.

Of course Left wing points are good, and right wing points are bad, but that's another story.

Joan

Sorry George Galloway!

He who said on Question Time he wanted to BEATIFY Cait Reilly for saying she suffered 'Slave Labour' for working at Poundland.

He who refused to debate at Oxford with an Isreali student, walked out like a child.

He who took the buck by going on a show where he made a total fool of himself pretending to be a cat.

Blimey. Sorry I cannot share that point.

He takes the Westminster wage but you don't see him there debating or putting his views over.

I don't much care for George Galloway, but I have to say that the demonisation of this woman by the right wing press is unacceptable. We don't know her full circumstances - perhaps she was happily married for many years and then her relationship failed. Let he who is without sin amongst you.....
If she really is a 'scrounger' she represents a tiny minority of the people who have to exist on benefits, and almost certainly unclaimed but claimable benefits amount to a greater sum.
How do 'newspapers' like the Daily Mail or The Telegraph get hold of these stories? Why don't they publish stories about the huge majority of benefits claimants who are fully entitled to their benefits? Well, it wouldn't be news and it wouldn't fit their right wing hate-filled agenda.
If you want to boil with anger, try thinking about the many millions of women in third world countries who are treated as less than human beings. Or fat cat bankers and industrialists who are coining huge bonuses and dividends. For goodness sake, is one single mother worth all this anger?

Well said, gn.

They are indeed not worth 'all that anger'- neither is the unemployed young man with 17 children by almost as many women. And the Press in publishing their stories as anger and indignation does make very good money.

And yet - why should we ignore that such cases do not help. It is clear that she has not had 11 children in a stable relationship, and then lost her partner to illness or accident. She has deliberately put herself in that situation, and expect others to pick up the tab. And it is not fair on those who do take responsibility for their actions and children, and then have to pick up said tab. The State does not pick up, but the people who pay taxes. Of course tax evaders, etc, are worse. But I really do hate this extreme duality of 'their scrounging in worse than mine, so mine is oK', kind of attitude. All kinds of tax evasion have to be tackled- and all are wrong.

I am not sure how not ignoring such cases can help! Presumably, she is claiming within the law, so if you don't like it, ask your MP to get the law changed. As I am not resident in the UK, I can do nothing about it - and I am not honestly going to lose any sleep over the odd case dug out by the right wing press in order to demonise all benefits claimants.

NfkDumpling Thanks for the link. Sadly, the planners would certainly not give consent. Our plans [according to the planner we've spoken to] meet the required specifications. We're between a rock and a hard place at the moment. Whether or not we proceed, comes down to cost. The wee house we wish to build, will accommodate two medium-size old codgers and a large, black cat. Bijou in all respects!

NfkDumpling Mr soop and I have looked at the website that you recommended. There are two designs that we would be HAPPY with. The simpler, the better. However, he agrees that the planners would not permit us to build either on the site we hope to purchase. Mr soop is a retired architect...he knows all about rules and regulations. Thank you once again for your suggestion.

Been interesting reading all the comments. I stand by my comment that I am angry. I'm angry about a lot of things that we can't do anything about. I just flagged the story

In a perfect world people would be able to have as many children they wanted without worrying about how they were going to pay for them. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world. The cost of supporting this family probably puts pressure on the council and other people needing their support may not get it because of that.

I wish I had an answer to the world's problem. If I did, I would probably be declared Leader of the World or even a god!! Not going to happen!! So we have to live with these problems until someone does have an answer.

Until such time as that happens, I'm going to voice my opinion of the situation.

janthea It's allowed. I'm with you. I could tear my hair out with frustration.

Heartfelt thanks dear Elegran

Slainte mha, Soop (and Mr Soop )

They should not be ignored because it tars all benefit claimants with the same brush. It is wrong to just keep having children and expect others to pick up the tab- no excuse for it in the days of free contraception, etc. Why should those who behave responsibly find their benefits cut because the budget is unable to cope due to abuses - and of course, fraud. Women who refuse to use contraception and say 'I don't believe in contraception, its my right to having as many kids as I want'. Sorry, but this is not on- but yes, there is worse, I won't lose any sleep over it either- and it is despicable for the press to dig those out to sell papers.

I worry that young people will see this news and think that it's acceptable behavior and follow this as a life plan so they can live in a £400,000 house!

I have worked all my life and still could not afford to live in that type of property.

Soop - bums! I thought there may have been a chance that they're considered temporary as they can (theoretically) be disconnected from their utility connections and moved.

ABC Where on earth when did you get that £400 thousand figure from?

The original figure, (see below) is £210 thousand.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9877213/Mother-of-11-gets-custom-built-super-council-house.html

This sort of article and the spin off and speculation that follows just seem to just get embellished until until people hear what they want to hear to match the viewpoints.

Always check the facts don't trust newspapers some are worse than others in spinning stories to fit their own political leanings.

The 210 thousand is for the land only.

Well spotted, Riverwalk. Goodness knows what the eventual cost will be.

The house will of course not be "given" to the woman. The house will belong to the council and be an appreciating asset. The woman will rent it.

Yes, of course, wisewoman. She will be the tenant, although the rent will be paid for by the taxpayer.

I agree with everything said about this topic. What on earth is the so called do gooders up too now? I think the first thing that would have been a help and not a burden on the tax payers would have been a long lecture in contraception after her second baby. I am 71 now and have worked hard all my life in various jobs but went back to nursing, so i still pay tax on my NHs pension, just lost my hubby and now they stop me double on a small pension of his, why should we have to struggle to keep the likes of this woman and her kids, fed, schooled and warm as toast in a new house where three or four elderly and infirm people could be housed for the rest of their lives.

Whether we approve of having 11 children or not, they exist so do need to be housed appropriately.

However, it seems perverse in the extreme to be purposely building such a house for one family - they currently have two adjoining houses which, whilst not being totally suitable because of layout etc., is adequate I would have thought, even if not ideal.

There are many families, large and small, council tenants or owners, or those languishing in B&Bs, who live in less than ideal homes.