'British Fritzl' got sex slave daughters pregnant 19 times to milk thousands in child support

Come on, we all knew it would happen, didn't we?

Hmmm. So they're allegations rather than actual fact at the moment. But why let that get in the way of a good story?

That's absolutely fucking staggering, to be honest. The natural assumption would be that at most he opportunistically 'milked' child support after the fact, rather than him thinking 'hmm, I could do with a bit more cash, how about repeatedly raping and impregnating my own daughters for the child benefit?'. Presumably this sister-in-law knew no more about the situation than any of us anyway, unless she'd known the details all along but didn't say anything?

(Incidentally, they've changed the story on that link to the similarly ludicrous British Fritzl: The 150 missed chances to save the sisters made pregnant 19 times by their father - the 150 largely being made up from a guess about how many times the average pregnant woman sees a doctor which I'd guess probably didn't apply here. The benefits-bashing story is here now: The baby farmer: British Fritzl made daughters pregnant to gain child benefits).

Good to see some political point-scoring in the comments:



YEAH! Except the abuse took place in both Sheffield and Lincolnshire over a number of different decades.

DAVID CAMERON: There are 5 million people on benefits in Britain. How do we stop them turning into Karen Matthews?

Right. So Cameron thinks that because one person on benefit used their daughter in a get rich quick scheme, everyone else on benefit could do so too.

What about the people who have been laid off recently in the credit crunch? Are they likely to become council estate junkies too? I think the Mail reaches for the 'benefit claimants = scum' conclusions far too easily.

Forget that, what can we do to make sure all lawyers don't turn into shotgun-wielding manics?

Or all GPs start killing dozens of their patients?
Or all school caretakers start killing a couple of girls in their bathroom?

Remember that Shannon Matthews was physically unharmed. But society must be protected from this benefit-claiming SCUM!

Maybe so, but im pretty sure being locked in a draw under the bed for god knows how many hours every day wouldn't do her mental health any good. At least Cams suggesting some ideas for how to get people out of the cycle of unemployment and, dare i say it, the chav lifestyle. Its not about 'protecting society' (whatever that meens), it's about helping them to help themselves. I really don't understand why folk seem so keen to twist anything an evil Tory says so that it ends up as some kind of upper vs lower class/right vs left rant



Is that realy such a bad thing?

Cam is a moderate for the Conservatives and surely the fact that the Mail is embracing him at the moment can only be a good thing

_________________
'Because we've reached the limits of what rectal probing can teach us'

What ideas does Cameron have to get people out of the Chav lifestyle, then ?

I was wondering that too. Don't get me wrong; I think the current govt are failing those on very low incomes. An overloaded welfare system is bad news for any govt in any country. Perhaps, as Mad Mel is proposing today in her column, we should scrap child benefit payments to mothers. She goes further by suggesting that benefits to single mothers should be scrapped altogether lest they all turn into Karen Matthews. It's a well-known fact in Mail land that women only have children out of wedlock to get a council house and thousands a month in benefits.

I'm sorry, but Child Benefit was introduced in the 70s and caused much debate then. The Tories had 18 years to fix the cycle of deprivation that has led to our 'broken society' (sic). They didn't give a fuck then and they don't give a fuck now.

Here you go, just a few snippits from actually reading the article:



nothing wrong with rewarding people for working hard to make a marriage work.




SMACKDOWN!



I realise many of these issues are being delt with by Brown & friends, but how long do they need? Another 10 years of throwing money at everything? Fuck that!

_________________
'Because we've reached the limits of what rectal probing can teach us'

Surely arresting MPs is part of their job is they have reason to believe said MP broke the law?

He will insist on banging on about the police not being good enough, it means that if he does become Prime Minister and if there is (for example) a terrorist attack, any remark he makes saying the police do a good job is worthless.

This post sums it up for me:

http://www.chickyog.net/2008/12/08/a-tale-of-two-dewsburys/

Dave Cameron: the estate are all scum, I've never been there but I just know it, they're all on drugs and part of Broken Britain.

Copper who actually lives in the area: The people on the estate rallied together and did everything they could to try and find the little girl.

I know who I believe.

Cameron might pretend he gives a shit about Broken Britain, in which case why only reward married couples? Don't other couples count? Why is he determined to pursue the failed Labour policies of 'tougher sentences' and 'more prison places'? [/url]

And that's one of the reasons MPs are despised.

We're on about a whole country, lots and lots of issues with huge amounts of research needed to understand then, and possible solutions.

And what does Cameron spend part of his time on? "How can I get a dig in at Labour". Stop playing schoolyard games and get some f*cking work done man!

Reform tax and benefits how? This is rhetoric, 'strengthen families and marriage' being the key phrase to delight 'right-thinking' (pun intended) voters everywhere. But what is the actual policy? Will low-income families get more benefits? Will married couples get tax breaks? Will they bollocks.



How many times have we heard that from MPs on both sides of the house? Of course we need to treat the causes of social breakdown, crime etc., but HOW? Ask any senior police officer, or any social worker, or any magistrate and they'll tell you. In fact, they're probably sick of telling people because the people who need to hear it don't want to listen. They'll tell you that early intervention is the key, and it must be supportive not punitive, comprehensive not ad hoc. And yes, it's going to cost a lot of money. That's the bit MPs don't want to hear.

Because new Labour NEVER did that when they were in opposition, no siree bob!



But he didn't actually say that, did he? Theres a big difference between highlighting a problem and exaggerating it.

_________________
'Because we've reached the limits of what rectal probing can teach us'