Katie Price and state benefits

I see no reason why KP shouldn't receive benefits for Harvey. The costs involved when caring for anyone disabled can be substantial especially when 24 hour care is needed.

Well, I take our fuel allowance, although we could manage fine without it. I'm not throwing any stones.

Likewise Jings! Thinking seems to be that she probably pays a huge amount in tax and she hasn't left the country to avoid it - like so many others - so why shouidn't she claim. She may have started off as a 'glamour' model but I think Ms Price has a very astute business brain underneath it all.

KateK I have read all about it in media and saw the programme where she gave her reasons and I fully support her choice but there will be many who will disagree because of her previous earnings and her future earning potential.She is a very astute business woman and has always worked since she was 15 for everything she has got and paid her taxes along the way,and it is not her fault that the schools near to her home have been closed and her boy goes to the nearest one available to help with his needs,the cost surely is off weighed by the fact she pays for schooling for two of her other children thus saving the Local Authority X amount of £s per year.

I totally agree with you Glamma, she's no empty headed bimbo.

Agree

She certainly is not empty headed, and as she pays her taxes she is fully entitled to help with her son who has profound disabilities. These benefits are for her son, nor for her, and I dont think anyone wants to start seeing these kind of benefits being means tested. Also, her son has two parents, why are people attacking Katie Price? Why not the over paid footballer that fathered the child?

I agree with these comments. The funding is for Harvey, not his parents. It was reported yesterday that Katie Price tried to get a local special needs unit set up, to help other children as well as Harvey, but it was swimming against the tide when so many of these units have been closing. I find it distressing to think that Harvey has to endure a 50 mile round trip by taxi each day to receive the education he needs. Why local schools can't just add on a special needs unit so the children are nearer home, I can't fathom. Nearby in Trafford local authority, there are several primary and high schools with special needs units integrated, so the children all go to school together where possible. At least one I know of has catered for a range of needs, from social communication for high functioning children on the autistic spectrum to children with profound learning disabilities who have 1:1 support.

I do not know who Katie Price is! - but I assume from the comments that she is rich. These benefits are rightly not means-tested but based on health needs. Her child is entitled to them.

Mishap she was also known as Jordan if that's any help

Good luck to Katie Price.
She works hard and pays her taxes and rates which cover these essential services so why should she have to pay again?
According to yesterday's paper her local council closed down special schools in the area in favour of taxi-ing pupils out to another borough because that was cheaper so it's not Katie Prices's fault that it is a long way for her son to travel to school by taxi.

I think this is the first thread I have seen on gransnet since I joined, where everyone is in agreement!

I agree with all of the above!

I have no problem with her claiming what her son is fully entitled to ....

It's sad that her marriage to Peter Andre didn't last. He was a kind and caring stepfather to Harvey.

I agree with everything that has already been said.

Rosie Millard covers this subject superbly in todays Independent www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/lay-off-katie-price--shes-entitled-to-state-help-for-her-disabled-son-10008994.html.

To quote '....surely on of the great standpoints of our society, at least since the end of the last war, is that there are some benefits that are universal. Education, health, literacy, policing, ambulances.............If we, as a nation, feel that the well off should be precluded from the assistance of the state, then we cannot complain when they pull a way.....

and live in their own little exclusive world.

I couldn't say it better myself, so I haven't.

Just a point - if people who could afford not to take the benefits they are entitled to because they can easily afford it themselves, then surely this money could be used to keep schools open which would be nearer to Harvey? If people are taking all money entitled, how is there supposed to be enough in the pot to keep schools open? And my son's school closed down too, causing the spiral of awful education and assaults my son had after this. Two other primary schools, one secondary for one year, five assaults, four years home school. So yes, we have suffered these cut backs terribly. But hey, if you're rich, still help to close down schools and let children suffer. I wish I had 40 million in the bank and still claim benefits. I do claim benefits and would have to account for any extra penny that came into my home.

I presume she is paying her taxes - unlike many slebs - so I don't see why she should not claim on behalf of Harvey.

We had our fuel allowance, but probably gave the equivalent to charity. KP may well do the same, and more.

What a positive thread, I'm another one who agrees that Harvey is entitled to the same support as other children with similar needs. I share the concern about the distance he has to travel to a special school that can meet his needs.

Katie Price has worked hard to publicise the needs of children with disability and I've never heard her moan about the difficulties she must face in caring for Harvey alongside her other children (and managing her difficult personal life) As whenim said earlier, KP tried to get a unit set up locally.

On the one hand I can't help thinking that Katie Price could well finance her own son if she cut back on her spending on her horses. On the other hand I think it is probably a good thing that Harvey is seen to need this assistance as who knows what may happen in the future? At least he is on someone's radar as having special needs and, however exotic his mother's life becomes, there should always be help available for him.

I agree with the statement that "FlicketyB* posted from the Independent.

This young boy has profound disabilities and it's not Katie Price's fault that there is no suitable school nearby. I wouldn't criticise wealthy people who use the NHS or send their children to a state school (although I would hope they pay the appropriate amount of tax). Personally, I rather admire them for staying within the system.

It's just that ghastly Katie Hopkins stirring it up again - there's nothing she likes better than starting a hate campaign.

Hear hear about the ghastly Katie Hopkins. I am a gentle soul, but I was beside myself with truly violent emotions when she said patronisingly
"ginger babies, just like real babies but so much harder to love"
(actually doesn't come close!)

Soutra I agree

He is a very disabled child with behavioural issues which need a lot of support of course he should get the money.

www.reveal.co.uk/showbiz-celeb-gossip/news/a582871/pregnant-katie-price-talks-disabled-son-harvey-

"Having a child with disabilities is hard work and I would not change it for anything," said 36-year-old Katie. "Harvey has so much medication each day and if he doesn't, he'd die basically."

Harvey has a string of disabilities including blindness, autism, ADHD and Prader-Willi syndrome (a genetic disorder meaning he's likely to eat to excess)."
He will continue to need a lot of care all his life.

I don't think that anyone could disagree with Harvey having all the help he needs to cope with his disabilities and to live an enjoyable life and that Katie seems to be a very good. loving mother who wants the best for her child.
The point being made and discussed by many is that Katie can well afford to fund his needs herself. It is a moral issue not one of entitlement because taxes have been paid.
In her position I could not justify taking the money at a time when the country is struggling to pay the welfare bill. The more people claim when they are not in need means that there is less to help those who are in desperate need.