Well, that story...

So, she's about 42 now according to the article. Her eldest is 24 and left home. That means she's been having children since about the age of 18. Second eldest was 17, I think. When you think about the rest, I think it's safe to assume she has done little to no work in her life - not necessarily a bad thing, as a "Stay At Home Mum" should be a valid life choice.

But she has 8 kids as it is, a 9th supposedly on its way. Her partner is on £1k a month from work, it doesn't say if that's with or without tax. Unless she's saving some of the money from her benefits or comes into money, she's not exactly going to be doing well in her older years unless her kids support her.

The eldest at home will soon be off child support, which is a blow to her finances.

Not sure where I stand on this at all. I mean I respect her right to have as many kids as she likes, but it seems to me that later life is going to be far from easy for her. Hm...

_________________
Changin' avatars like there's no tomorrow

It's not wrong, it's irresponsible. People do irresponsible things all the time — not just poor people. This family's irresponsibility will cost the state less than £1m in child and housing benefit. I'm sure you don't need reminding of how much the state has lost through irresponsible investment, failure to regulate the financial sector, tax breaks for the rich, pointless wars, etc.

It's quite understandable to feel exasperated at the bad choices people make. It's also important to keep a sense of proportion. It's easier to feel anger at a woman with ten children rather than towards a huge, complicated, impersonal system. But she's not the only one taking the piss.

Why cant I be angry at both?

Especially because cases like this are like a cancer for the welfare state. It makes it easy to argue that its somehow corrupt to its core - that people on benefits are shirkers, preferring to let the state pick up the tab than show personal responsibility. We know thats not the case - that cases like this are outliers - but it makes the job of those who wish to defend the welfare state against the continuous pernicious attacks in the Mail that much harder. Its poisoning the well.

My heart sinks a little when I see cases like this because the individual case is, tbh, indefensible. This isnt someone who has fallen on hard times. Its not someone who, through no fault of their own needs the safety net of the welfare state. This is someone who has wilfully decided to have kids that they know will be paid for by someone else. And its cases like this that aid and abet those who wish to dismantle the welfare state. It fails the classical liberal test of 'doing no harm'. And thats why it boils my piss.

Of course you can be angry at both.

The Mail will always find ways of attacking the welfare state. As you point out, the actions of a few individuals from a group shouldn't influence our opinion of the rest, whether it's women claiming housing benefit or black people committing crime (© Rod Liddle). What makes it hard to defend the welfare state is not so much this family as Dacre's drip: the (false) idea that there are huge numbers of idle scroungers like this.

The price of having a welfare state is that a small number of people will abuse it. The smart, liberal response is to learn from these cases in order to prevent them from happening again. The mere fact that we're reading about this family shows how rare it is. Is there specialised family planning advice for mothers after, say, their fourth pregnancy? Should it be compulsory? Was it ever made clear to the woman that she couldn't expect bigger accommodation if she had more children?

But all of this is less urgent than getting the family out of a damp house. Not that the Mail gives a shit about the 'undeserving' poor.

The key is to remember that you can be angry about individual cases, but what seperates us from the Mailite mentality is through us not then using that individual example as a stick with which to beat something or someone else. For example, visage is angry about this case, and I can see why, and that's fine. Where I have the problem is the Mailite attitude which can be summed up with the term "therefore" and links to a larger Mail-based attack.

This case makes me angry "therefore" I think the entirity of the benefits system needs to be scrapped.
Russell Brand acts like a prick "therefore" the entirity of popular culture is evil.
The 7/7 bombings were awful "therefore" all Muslims should be rounded up and deported.

It's a key fact to remember. Be angry about things, be angry about things you read in the mail, but remember in 99% of cases these are either one-off or incredibly rare cases.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

It's probably worth pointing out that the majority of UK families are nowhere near this large, so it isn't worth anyone working themselves up over, as that is exactly what this paper wants.

Someone earlier mentioned that there is no need in a modern society with a longer life expectancy for people to have so many children, and this I agree with (mind you I have no intention of having any at all, so there you go).

They were quite right, which leads us to the question of why they do it, if it is not essental.

The ones who just claim they love children, or the weirdos who say they love been pregnant and are adicted to it don't count as they know what they are doing and how stupid it is (plus they are in the minority also).
The ones who the public get most angry about are the ones on benefits, having more than one child by more than one man.

I hate to generalise, but a lot of women in this situation are not living very happy fulfilling lives, nor are they usualy in decent happy relationships. They tend to atract a bad sort, who often doesn't make for good partner or father material.

This as I say is by no means always the case, but it happens often enough for it to be an obvious concern - one that most governments seem to ignore.

Prevention is better than cure as they say, and if more could be done to try and help some of these people and find out why they treat themselves this way, perhaps more of these men and women would have more respect for themslves in the first place.

There is always a reason why people act with so little self respect, and attacking them via the press and benefits cuts doesn't solve these problems - if anything it makes people more angry and defensive.

If people like this had better help and prospects to start with, perhaps fewer of them would end up this way?

But that involves counciling, mentoring and caring about people - not the kind of wishy washy, lefty liberal nonsense that the average mail, express or sun reader thinks will do any good. Nor do they ever want to see investment in such things in the short term, no matter what the future and long term benefits will be - if it costs money NOW, fuck it I won't pay for it! And they certainly don't like the idea of non PLU's getting any help to improve their situation, even if it benefits society in the long run.

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"

I've done 84 a week in a summer job as an undergraduate. 7am till 7pm, 7 days a week, 10 weeks straight through. Got home in time to go to sleep and leave the house at 5.45 to get there. Fuck.

Luxury. I used to get up at half past ten, half an hour afore I went to bed. I worked 36 hours a day for 8 days a week............ (carry on ad nauseam).

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

That's nothing. You know the mysterious repeating patterns in the cosmic background radiation, which originated before the beginning of time? Those are the remnants of my father beating me so that I could be up and at the coal mine (which didn't even exist yet) 13.75 billion years before the foreman arrived. That way I could be home in time for prayers.

_________________
Soppy anti-British, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-immigration, anti-family nonentity

Part-timer!!!

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

Right...

Before t'universe were formed, I had to get up, create light by which to see, create the universe and all matter therein, seperate waters to create firmament, mould Sun, Moon, Stars, Earth and all other planetary bodies, give t'bugger form, cover with plants and all things that creep, crawl, swim or fly, from beasts of t'field to bloody leviathan, create man in my image, breathe life into him, recognise his loneliness, set him somnolent, create woman from his flesh and bone, set couple to fruitfulness and multiplying, delegate task of naming all t'beasts of t'field to man, set him and woman right about what's what and then rest. Now that's a proper working week and don't thee forget it lad!

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.

I'm slightly over my hours this month.....

I am a full time mum and receiver of carers allowance, therefore do not work, but spend all day watching Jeremy Kyle on my 60 inch plasma screen tv, paid for by you lot of course.

_________________
Blog...http://itsjustahobby.wordpress.com/

Soon, if we are not prudent, millions of people will be watching each other starve to death through expensive television sets. Nye Bevan

You're welcome. I hope you enjoy your motability Range Rover, too

_________________
Soppy anti-British, pro-crime, anti-education, pro-immigration, anti-family nonentity

More of the Dacre drip effect.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2108928/Meet-middle-class-benefits-cheats.html

If this stupid woman really has got evidence that people are fiddling the system why doesn't she tip off the relevant authorities, surely that would be the Mail thing to do.

_________________
www.newshuddlines.blogspot.com