£1600 pw housing benefit!

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Osem

Well I'd have started this thread if the family(ies) concerned were from Huddersfield or anywhere else in the UK for that matter. It's still taxpayer's money after all...

But why should the children be punished for her crimes?

============================================

Quoted wrong post.

Should have been:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

And another ponce, this one a thief who avoids jail because of her kids, tuff I say, she didn't give a damn about them when she was ripping the country of to the tune of £70k, despite owning property abroad.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....perty_in_dubai

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But why should the children be punished for her crimes?

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 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.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

EU citizen, she wasn't even Somalian....

As a convicted criminal I believe she can be kicked out of the UK, and then refused entry in the future.... So why hasn't this bitch been given the Spanish Archer?

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But why should the children be punished for her crimes?

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

[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?

[Osem]

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

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 and it is highly unlikely she will be able to repeat her felony. What punishment do you think she should have received?

I'm not arguing the specific punishment she received and that's not the subject of this thread - I only referred to this woman as a result of your post about her crimes which had nothing to do with anything I'd previously written.

The topic of this thread is benefits and to what extent the state should be able to intervene in extreme cases such as the 2 which were the original subject of this thread. Your stance seems to be the state should never intervene in such cases, people on benefits should be allowed to have as many children as they like and the state should accomodate them all accordingly because it's not the fault of the children involved.

Given what you'd written, I simply asked whether you'd extend that concept to mothers who've committed serious crimes and, if so, at what point (if any) you would deem them so serious that the need for custodial punishment would override any harm which may be done to the children as a result of that punishment. If you agree that there are circumstances in which that must, sadly, happen then you also agree that the state should and must have the right to intervene EVEN if that results in some form of harm to innocent children.

I wish all children could be safe and well cared for but they're not and many would argue that a benefit system which SOMETIMES seems to encourage or reward having children without requiring responsibility or restraint isn't the best way to achieve that ambition.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But why should the children be punished for her crimes?

She should have thought about those same children before she stole, they'll have to go and live with their father or another relative until she gets out, so what.

[Flyboy]

How long should she be in jail? What family members should take the children in. Do you expect those family members to also be punished for someone else's crimes?

It is not the children's fault that he mother committed a crime, or do you really think that they should be punished because of it?

Originally Posted by Flyboy

How long should she be in jail? What family members should take the children in. Do you expect those family members to also be punished for someone else's crimes?

It is not the children's fault that he mother committed a crime, or do you really think that they should be punished because of it?

she should go to prison for as long as the crime justifies

if the family members cant or wont look after the kids then they go into a home with the knowledge that it was their mother who put them there

It is not unusual for this to happen children get taken from parents for all sorts of reasons sometimes you just have to be cruel to be kind

[nomadking]

It's just yet another, in the very long list of cases where women get away with a crime.

[Osem]

That's 'equality' for you eh??.....

Originally Posted by nomadking

It's just yet another, in the very long list of cases where women get away with a crime.

or were women use children as a safety net

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by martyh

she should go to prison for as long as the crime justifies

if the family members cant or wont look after the kids then they go into a home with the knowledge that it was their mother who put them there

It is not unusual for this to happen children get taken from parents for all sorts of reasons sometimes you just have to be cruel to be kind

So, the children should be punished for the crime of the parent, great. What respect for authority do you think these children wouild have when growing up in a home somewhere?

The mother was sentenced to prison, however it was suspended. If she commits another crime, she will have to serve that sentence. She has been punished in other ways as well, she has been given a supervision order and has to work for three hundred hours, unpaid.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, the children should be punished for the crime of the parent, great. What respect for authority do you think these children wouild have when growing up in a home somewhere?

The mother was sentenced to prison, however it was suspended. If she commits another crime, she will have to serve that sentence. She has been punished in other ways as well, she has been given a supervision order and has to work for three hundred hours, unpaid.

if thats how you want to see it thats up to you ,but if children have to go into a home or live with relatives while a parent is in jail then so be it ,its not the end of the world for them and like i said its the parents fault not society or the judicial system

If we're going to start letting women off prison because they have kids then we really are on a road to hell because surely the proper way to look at it is if they have children they shouldn't do anything to risk being parted from them or their children suffering. Sorry but whether you have children or not you commit a crime you do whatever punishment and the children shouldn't be a consideration when being sentenced. Truth is what we have is a government that has completely failed to increase prison places meaning we have a myriad of scheme's to get people out many of them long before they deserve to be out because we don't have space.

Anyhoo all this is off the main topic which is about the stupidity of certain sections of the benefit system and how thats needs changing for the benefit of everyone in this country.