Derby, you've let me down!!! - Page 3

Russ · 15-03-2006, 10:21

His job as a driver ended 15 months ago.

Nugget · 15-03-2006, 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ D

His job as a driver ended 15 months ago.

Ah, apologies - I misread the article, and thought it said that he had the job at the hospital

However, my basic point remains - just becuase he has a shed load of kids doesn't automatically make him a 'sponger'.

danielf · 15-03-2006, 11:34

While I do agree this bloke is taking the ****, I think I'd struggle to raise 15 kids on ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£500 a week. I'd much rather work. I don't exactly fancy having to deal with 15 kids either.

15-03-2006, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

Ah, apologies - I misread the article, and thought it said that he had the job at the hospital

Ditto.

basa · 15-03-2006, 13:30

IMO Derby Council have taken exactly the correct stance:

Quote:

The council spokeswoman said the family's property, which has three double bedrooms and a spare parlour room, has space to accommodate up to 16 people.

The local authority has a handful of five-bedroom homes which are not available at present, she said.

She added: "As soon as anything larger becomes available we will get in touch. Properties to accommodate huge families are not built nowadays. I think they will have a long wait.

"We don't make judgements on people's lifestyles, we just try to accommodate their requests the best we can."

Again IMO people who cannot reasonably support their offspring, whether financially, housing or socially, without excessive state benefits (i.e. over and above standard child benefit / tax credits), should be *offered* the chance to release them for adoption by people who want but can't have children.

PS: It is one of the mothers who has the hospital job (shouldn't she know better ??)

Nugget · 15-03-2006, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by basa

Again IMO people who cannot reasonably support their offspring, whether financially, housing or socially, without excessive state benefits (i.e. over and above standard child benefit / tax credits), should be *offered* the chance to release them for adoption by people who want but can't have children.

PS: It is one of the mothers who has the hospital job (shouldn't she know better ??)

But how would you define 'excessive' state benefits? Also (and I'm aware that it's pretty much the same question), how would you define someone who can 'reasonably support' their kids?

At present, myself and Mrs Nug aren't exactly rolling in cash. with her now receiving maternity pay, and my pay being reduced this month because of the 2 weeks paternity leave I've just taken. As a result, our income for this month has suffered from an approximate 30% drop. so it could be argued that our son may well not be 'reasonably supported' until I receive full pay again at the end of March. Depending on your definition, should we be offered the chance to have him adopted for the next 3 weeks?

Saaf_laandon_mo · 15-03-2006, 14:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

Depending on your definition, should we be offered the chance to have him adopted for the next 3 weeks?

Mate, if you're offered the chance to get him adopted for 3 weeks, go for it. You'll enjoy some much needed sleep as a result

etccarmageddon · 15-03-2006, 15:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

...TBH, what business is it of anyone on here to dictate how many kids someone can have? As much as I couldn't stomach the idea of having 14 kids (just the one has deprived me of all my sleep over the last month) but, if he wants to keep having them, that's down to him, his wife and his girlfriend. The benefits system is there for everyone who is entitled to use it - just because some of us find it unpalatable doesn't mean that it's wrong

when I'm paying for it, it's my business. it stops being my problem when I dont pay taxes.

Nugget · 15-03-2006, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

Mate, if you're offered the chance to get him adopted for 3 weeks, go for it. You'll enjoy some much needed sleep as a result

Does it count as adoption if we just fob him off on the grandparents

etccarmageddon · 15-03-2006, 15:06

the difference is nuggart, you aren't exceeding the state benefits AUP policy - there is a cap on the amount you take - check out the fair use policy!

---------- Post added at 15:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:05 ----------

we will have to disconnect him if he continues to exceed his limits!

Nugget · 15-03-2006, 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by etccarmageddon

when I'm paying for it, it's my business. it stops being my problem when I dont pay taxes.

But how much council tax do you pay for living in a shoe

As I said, this family will be paying VAT on any products that they buy; they may well be paying road tax if they have a car and, if the wife is earning enough, she'll be paying tax on her income. TBH, I can't see what the problem is (other than the fact that he appears to be the most fertile man in the world)

basa · 15-03-2006, 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

But how would you define 'excessive' state benefits? Also (and I'm aware that it's pretty much the same question), how would you define someone who can 'reasonably support' their kids?

I accept that at least one mother is working to support her kids, but it appears the others in the household are entirely dependant upon state benefit over and above earned benefits i.e. child benefit / tax credit. IMO this level of dependance is unacceptable i.e. two adults and who knows how many kids.

Nugget · 15-03-2006, 15:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by basa

I accept that at least one mother is working to support her kids, but it appears the others in the household are entirely dependant upon state benefit over and above earned benefits i.e. child benefit / tax credit. IMO this level of dependance is unacceptable i.e. two adults and who knows how many kids.

Yeah but, while I accept that there are rather more children than normal in this situation, what's the difference between them and any other single parent with two or three kids, who exists solely on benefits?

basa · 16-03-2006, 09:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

Yeah but, while I accept that there are rather more children than normal in this situation, what's the difference between them and any other single parent with two or three kids, who exists solely on benefits?

None .. but I think that behaviour is all wrong as well, if at the time of conception the mother knew she would have no support besides the state.

Nugget · 16-03-2006, 09:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by basa

None .. but I think that behaviour is all wrong as well, if at the time of conception the mother knew she would have no support besides the state.

But, to a certain degree, all new mothers are dependant on the state - Statutory Maternity Pay is controlled by the state, as are Child Benefit and Tax Credits.

Anyway, by definition, single mothers will be dependant on the state (amongst others) for a certain period of time after birth, becuase they aren't working - that;s just the way it is.