[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by martyh

nobody wants to punish the children Flyboy ,that's a ridiculous thing to suggest ,

That is exactly what has been suggested.

All children have to live with the actions of their parents, good or bad.

even the most drastic solution of removing the kids and placing them in foster or state run homes will result in a better upbringing .Consider that in most cases of this type of extreme "scrounging" the family is involved in criminal activity so removing the children would be beneficial to them
I'm not saying this should be done in all cases just the most extreme and remember that it would be the parents fault

You have absolutely no idea that would be the case. This woman has been convicted of the crime and the court has decided not to punish her children for her mistakes. This woman poses no threat to the public, bar her misuse of the benefits system. If she posed a threat to her children, the court would have ordered a social services review.

---------- Post added at 11:35 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Crimes? Whose crimes? I don't recall reading that the 2 cases I cited involved crimes.. IMO the main 'crime' here is a system which allows this sort of situation to arise in the first place.

If you're referring to the 'fake' Somalian.....

Oops, again. Twice in the same thread. Only excuse is that I should not be doing business and typing posts at the same time.

are you saying that she shouldn't be severely punished because doing so might harm her children in some way? If so, at what point (if ever) would you deem a crime she committed so serious that it'd be acceptable for the state to impose a punishment which would, by your definition, harm her children?

Children should never be punished for what their parents do but real life isn't like that is it. All children have to live with the actions of their parents, good or bad. I'm not sure what your point is but if it is that the state should have no right to intervene what would you suggest it do in cases where people insist on having children they can't afford or can't/won't look after? Should it just turn a blind eye and continue to pay out more and offer larger and larger houses to people on benefits simply because they happen to want to keep having children? What size house should the unemployed mother of 13 have been offered had all her kids not been taken into care? How much in benefits? Should it be never ending so as to ensure the children don't suffer? If you do accept there has to be a limit then what do you propose to do about those whose personal choices cause their needs to exceed the available provision? Are the children in these cases not going to suffer in some way? The funds for all of this are finite and I wonder how many other deserving families are having to survive on far less and live in conditions far worse than these people are.

As I said, this woman poses no threat to the public. Her children are more likely to be adversely affected by her absence than by her presence. There is nothing in any of the reports to suggest that she is likely to be a harm to the children. There is no indication, apart from the offences she has committed, that she is a bad parent and these children are not living in a loving relationship with their mother. There has been no blind eye, the courts have convicted her, she has been punished, she has been given a prison sentence, albeit suspended, she has a supervision order and has been ordered to do three hundred hours of unpaid work. and it is highly unlikely she will be able to repeat her felony. What punishment do you think she should have received?