knsc Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 So why should the tax pay have to pay for this ,it must so anger those who work full time and cannot afford a house like this. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/412088/EXCLUSIVE-Jobless-mother-of-eleven-Heather-Frost-to-get-500-000-luxury-home-we-pay-for Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Que Sera Sera Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I would say she's living a nightmare not a dream ! 11 kids!!! Even if the housed me in Buckingham Palace it wouldn't be worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candygirl Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Ha ha, I have to agree with Que Sera Sera, would be my very worst nightmare. Who has 11 kids and then cannot pay for them? Who is the daft one though? We have both worked full time since 16 and both had part time jobs over the years as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest30085 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 And to say she's having a hard time being called names by people in her local area, she then gets photographed by a national newspaper, just to ensure her kids get an even tougher time. Displayed for all to see :no:. It's not the children's fault, why should they be ridiculed? Oh, and if she has received payment from the newspaper for this 'exclusive story', then she wants to be careful the Benefits Agency don't come after her for undeclared earnings. More sensationalist rubbish from a paper with nothing better to write. I actually saw Sundays edition of The Fail on Sunday and the had a full page dedicated to a MP who came out as bi-sexual. Really? Who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxlornaxx Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I think it's right for the kids that they are given a bigger house, 6 bedrooms is still 2 per room, but how must the kids have been living in their 3 bedroom house, it's not their fault their mother does not consider her children her own responsibility, but they will love their mum and be better of with her so I am happy for my tax to go towards giving these kids a stable better life in a house fit for purpose for them, it's not to benefit the mum but the kids, hopefully at least one of them may have the space to do homework now, have a little less stress at their young age and go on to be a valuable asset to society..personally I would rather give vulnerable kids the money than the tax that was stolen from me by the people who are running our country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight7 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 How could she work with all those kids? Not possible. Jealousy's a curse isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy1 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) First of all, she is hardly jobless by the mere fact that she has 11 children. That does not mean I think it is right, but it annoys me when Mums are called jobless when they have children, just because they are single. A stay at home Mum in a relationship is not called jobless ( no she is lucky enough to be able to do that because her other half can financially provide for all of them ).... I know that I am opening myself up for all sorts of comebacks by that comment, but as a single Mum myself ( who does work full time and wishes there were more hours in the day), I still feel it is unfair to call a Mum of young children jobless. It's a pretty bloody important job. Now, whether the lady in question is doing a good job of raising her children is indeed questionable. That's a whole other debate though. I am glad for the kids sake that they have a decent house to live in at least. Edited July 3, 2013 by Sammy1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 O her again. This did the rounds a couple of months back. Has she finally moved in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scrumpy Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I dont think she had the 11 in one go, or wake up one morning and thier they all were, surley after 2 or 3 she worked out what maybe causing it. I would say she's living a nightmare not a dream ! 11 kids!!! Even if the housed me in Buckingham Palace it wouldn't be worth it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perthbum Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Looks horrible and it's a semi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Ropey HOFF Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Looks horrible and it's a semi. Its 1.85 squares of living space, it's nearly as big as the average Australian house and nearly three times bigger than the average UK house. It's just how things are, it's not something that bothers me, as long as the kids get looked after, that's all that matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casson35 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 How could she work with all those kids? Not possible. Jealousy's a curse isn't it? For me it's an issue with the benefit system not with her really. Ye she's abused the system but it is so easy for it to be abused. If the system was different maybe she would have thought a bit more after she had 2 or 3 kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosiew Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I am so glad to see the sensible responses on here. yes she has made some bad choices, but at the end of the day the 11 children need to be housed. The DM talks like she has been given the house when of course she is just living in a (large) council house like many others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scrumpy Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 poor lass, made bad choices,repeatedly,and ends up in a Eco-house, Silly me,I stopped having children as I believed I couldnt provide for any more to a level I could maintain, due to stupid things like income,mortgauge, running costs etc etc etc etc etc. I don not begrudge the kids one lil bit, but cases like this do p*ss me off and I feel rightly so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peach Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I swear, if I ever decide to go back to the UK with my tail between my legs I am going to retire onto the benefits system and never lift a finger again :wacko: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosiew Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 poor lass, made bad choices,repeatedly,and ends up in a Eco-house,Silly me,I stopped having children as I believed I couldnt provide for any more to a level I could maintain, due to stupid things like income,mortgauge, running costs etc etc etc etc etc. I don not begrudge the kids one lil bit, but cases like this do p*ss me off and I feel rightly so I think you have every right to be angry - she's an idiot - and obviously needed a big intervention in her life around 9 kids ago! But the alternative of putting the kids into care is a lot more expensive. There is a fundamental values/ parenting/ education issue and I wonder if it is getting much better as the UK continues its champion run in the teenage pregnancy world championships........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scrumpy Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 Tis another odd one, to keep them as a family would cost the state less, however I think there may be an argument that being brought up in that environment would "normalise" that life style,and then we MAY have the same again x11 on the next generation, it seems self-perpetuating to me. If we could get the care right, and education right maybe we could break the cycle. I am not saying the kids should go into care, just putting a different thought into the mix Ive always worked,Im not doing the working class hero bit here, but it has always been a big part of my life,and not sure how I would fill it without it. Im guessing having kids is a fantastic way of filling it, especially with support like this. I think you have every right to be angry - she's an idiot - and obviously needed a big intervention in her life around 9 kids ago! But the alternative of putting the kids into care is a lot more expensive. There is a fundamental values/ parenting/ education issue and I wonder if it is getting much better as the UK continues its champion run in the teenage pregnancy world championships........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Que Sera Sera Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I was watching the show Midwives yesterday and there was a woman that had had her fifth child taken into care. She gives birth, they take them away. But she carries on having them. She has psychological problems, perhaps this woman has too unless its religious reasons , either way I wouldn't think it's any easy way to get a house like that. And as others have said at least she is home looking after them. She'd have to get a bloody well paid job to cover child care costs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scrumpy Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 (edited) Maybe she has no problems at all, and knows exactly what she is doing. No one is disputeing her mothering ability, but if we all had this outlook where would it all end? Am I missing something here, Isnt having kids meant to be a joy , not some heroic burden, where its give me some sympathy,cut me some slack, Ive had 11 kids, you dont know how hard it is O pleaseeeeeeeeeeee She hasnt got 11 toddlers to keep an eye on, a whole range of ages and abilties, and as a family, it must be great the vast majority of the time Edited July 4, 2013 by scrumpy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpo1971 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 The DM talks like she has been given the house when of course she is just living in a (large) council house like many others. Express not DM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERYSTORMY Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 It is why there should be a cap on the legnth of time a person can recieve benefits I would propose 4 years in a lifetime. I would also remove all child benefits as we are now in an age where people can decide if they can afford to bring up children. Not if the state can afford to bring up children Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flybyknight Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 its an awful looking house, i pity her. her options are severely limited with that many kids. its just lucky she lives in a country where there are tax breaks for having kids. its lucky the population of the country is so small that the government fund those who choose procreation as a career. its a vagina, not a clown car my dear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Just glad I don't live next door. There was a story on the radio this morning that a family of 11 have just been turfed out of their public housing. They have a 3 strikes and your out policy here. Sounds fair enough to me. a family of 11 was evicted from their Girrawheen property, after neighbours complained several times to the Department of Housing over their behaviour.Under the policy, tenants are evicted if three instances of disruptive behaviour are recorded against them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bibbs Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 It's a vagina, not a clown car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1Perth Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 It is why there should be a cap on the legnth of time a person can recieve benefits I would propose 4 years in a lifetime. I would also remove all child benefits as we are now in an age where people can decide if they can afford to bring up children. Not if the state can afford to bring up children I don't think it would stop or even influence people like this lady having lots of kids. Does the financial cost come into her consideration? I very much doubt it, she knows the government will pick up the slack. Doesn't seem to stop certain types of people from having kids just because they might not be able to afford it. Look at the kids that are starving to death on a daily basis in Africa and the number of kids that the average pakistani or Indian family have. I don't think cutting benefits is going to change this ladies mind. There are always going to be this type of person around and due to the social support in the UK. stories like this in the papers to stir people up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.