oh no help please

OrkneyStar

Originally posted by krisskross: Perhaps you should reread my post, that is not what I said at all. I will suggest however that professional people like solicitors have rather different aspirations for their children than a council flat, benefits and state education. This is why they limit their family to just those they can provide for.

Originally posted by OrkneyStar: I grew up in a Council House, Dad was bus driver, Mum was a housewife/cleaner. I have two degrees (one being a PhD) and sister has a degree and professional qualifcation. Both parents encouraged us.You cannot be so judgemental as to say that someone has higher aspirations for their child just because they have a better paid, or seemingly more important, career!
Sorry OP, I know this post will not be of much help to you but I really felt the need to speak up against such judgemental drivel!

Originally posted by krisskross: You had two parents, both worked. Nothing at all like career single mothers on benefits who have as many children as they like knowing the taxpayer will fund them. My point was if you are having to pay for everything yourself , from the roof over your head, to every shred of clothing, to every morsel of food then you only have what you can afford to pay for thus have to limit your family to as many children as you can personally afford to bring up in the manner you want to.
Trouble is no one is allowed to be judgemental anymore, no one is allowed to say you shouldn't be doing that. No one is allowed to say you should work and support yourself and your family. Why not? Why should people be able to do exactly as they like without any repercussions?

Krisskross, I am not saying people should be able to do anything without any thought or repercussion, however it was your sweeping statement that a solicitor would have more aspirations for their child which I took offense to! Who are you to say what aspirations a parent has based on where they come from/live ?
Anyway as I said this is of no use to OP, who incidentally, I wish the best to.

mitchaa

''icouldcry'' admitted in the 1st post that this was a 2nd user account in order to disguise herself. I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye also otherwise there would be no need to hide herself.

I suspect ''icouldcry'' has been claiming single persons benefits including housing and CTB whilst living with working ''ex''

She has discovered she is pregnant and because the father of both children are the same, the time claiming single persons benefits could and should be questioned.

Was she really single, or was this blatant benefit fraud by a moneygrabbing scheming couple?

I suspect the latter, and if i were a fraud investigator, i would be chapping on neighbours doors, carrying out surveillance, checking the movements of the ''ex'', check financial linkage, bills, electoral roll etc etc.

The fact that you did not seek the morning after pill after discovering a split condom tells me that no condom was ever used to begin with. if no condom used i can only assume, regular sha**ing partners, regular sha**ing partners majority of time = couple.

Now what gets to me here is, instead of holding your hands up and now declaring your ''ex'' as your partner, you will continue to claim as a single parent reaping money from the taxpayer along with the financial income of your partner and living the life of luxury at the taxpayer expense:mad:

Some of you lot are so gullible it's untrue, the above is clear in my mind. No morning after pill after condom split, a 2nd account to hide, and pregnant by the ex and father of my 1st....Yeah right:rolleyes:

No wonder you posted under a different name as you should rightly be named and shamed.

I also suspect child 3 and child 4 will also come from the same father but of course they will be blamed on accidents too:rolleyes:

I am not a fraud investigator, but i certainly think like 1.

feelinggood_2

Mitchaa - I imagine the poster chose to use a different name for very different reasons - specifically the judgemental posts on this forum, like yours.

This board isn't about benefits policy or being judgemental.

Please can we stick to the rules, or take it to the CORRECT board.

OrkneyStar

feelinggood wrote: »

Mitchaa - I imagine the poster chose to use a different name for very different reasons - specifically the judgemental posts on this forum, like yours.

This board isn't about benefits policy or being judgemental.

Please can we stick to the rules, or take it to the CORRECT board.

:T :T :T
We will all likely have opinions on posts but that is for Discussion Time (DT), this board is for NON-JUDGEMENTAL advice. If you want to be judgemental either don't post anything or go to DT!

mitchaa

feelinggood wrote: »

Mitchaa - I imagine the poster chose to use a different name for very different reasons - specifically the judgemental posts on this forum, like yours.

This board isn't about benefits policy or being judgemental.

Please can we stick to the rules, or take it to the CORRECT board.

I do not think this board should harbour and tolerate benefit thieves.

You are hardly going to get someone on here admitting to benefit fiddling. Instead, they make false stories, in this case trying to perceive the father as a waste of space to get people to lower their guard and feel sorry for her. This tactic draws away any suspicion for most. (It's psychology) She is genuinely worried that she is going to get caught out hence the point of this thread, she is looking for reassurance that her made up story is going to hold water and is checking it out on here first to see if it stands up.

I think this thread is prime example of where the above is happening, no-one is going to admit benefit fiddling, sometimes you need to think a little deeper, get the facts together and draw your own conclusions.

The O.P is worried, looking for reassurance that if it comes to it, her story is ''believable'' in order to make her sleep a little better tonight.

My advice to the O.P, as i know you'll be reading and you'll know that i'm right, is to stop it now before it gets a lot worse. Claim as a couple NOW as if you get found out later on, they will take you all the way back to the birth of your 1st, and claim back every penny that you have fraudulently claimed since then. Fraud investigation, criminal record, owing thousands etc etc, stop that from happening by claiming as a couple now, wiping that dirty slate clean.

I dont think i'm wrong, no one except the original poster can say if i am wrong or not. (Of course she will in her defence on here)

We are all grown ups and we can all make our own minds up, i hope fraud investigators think exactly the way i do. (I suspect that they do as they've heard all these stories before;) )

I will not post on this matter again, i have made my opinion felt, if you disagree with it move on, if you agree with it, move on.

I am not here for an argument, just giving my thoughts.

Damzel_In_Distress

Mittchaa-Your thoughts are so beyond stupid,im not sure if your being serious.
This whole thread is pretty ridiculous but your comments really take the biscuit.
I am a single mother on IS and lets say i had slept with my ex on boxing day just gone,after prehaps drinking with family and high emotions etc due to the time of year and us already sharing a child,and then i somehow ended up pregnant now,Are you saying that clearly i must of been living with him all along and that i too would be a benefit theif?...stupid comes to mind there,stuff like that happens all the time-doesn't make you a benefit theif!So you have sex with an ex once,and then suddenly youve been living together and sharing a life all along-your far to paranoid in my opinion,see a shrink and stop looking into things to deeply.

icouldcry

mitchaa your right i will come back and deny all your alligations for the simple fact of they are not true. people will always draw there own conclusions and make up stories in there head when people ask for advice. i have absolutly NOTHING to gain by staying on income support even longer but like i said in my previous post who would emply me now? no one so now im stuck when you think about it for the next 9 months. i also created a second account because i knew people would judge. my situation is far from ideal and i wanted advice on that and not have people assume i was something im not.

for the rest who want to doubt me if only all your idea was true, what a happier world i would be in then cause it was always obviously my dream to grow up have a child, have the father walk away and compleatly use me for 8 years and live of the goverement handouts. i would also then have my own fancy council house decked out to the max i suppose :rolleyes:

for the rest that did offer non-judgemental advice i thank you once again, you are all right i did nothing wrong (maybe regretful action) and that part of my life is nobody elses business. i will be telling the DWP the whole story for that fact that i have nothing to hide and im not lying.

astonsmummy

mitchaa wrote: »

I do not think this board should harbour and tolerate benefit thieves.

You are hardly going to get someone on here admitting to benefit fiddling. Instead, they make false stories, in this case trying to perceive the father as a waste of space to get people to lower their guard and feel sorry for her. This tactic draws away any suspicion for most. (It's psychology) She is genuinely worried that she is going to get caught out hence the point of this thread, she is looking for reassurance that her made up story is going to hold water and is checking it out on here first to see if it stands up.

I think this thread is prime example of where the above is happening, no-one is going to admit benefit fiddling, sometimes you need to think a little deeper, get the facts together and draw your own conclusions.

The O.P is worried, looking for reassurance that if it comes to it, her story is ''believable'' in order to make her sleep a little better tonight.

My advice to the O.P, as i know you'll be reading and you'll know that i'm right, is to stop it now before it gets a lot worse. Claim as a couple NOW as if you get found out later on, they will take you all the way back to the birth of your 1st, and claim back every penny that you have fraudulently claimed since then. Fraud investigation, criminal record, owing thousands etc etc, stop that from happening by claiming as a couple now, wiping that dirty slate clean.

I dont think i'm wrong, no one except the original poster can say if i am wrong or not. (Of course she will in her defence on here)

We are all grown ups and we can all make our own minds up, i hope fraud investigators think exactly the way i do. (I suspect that they do as they've heard all these stories before;) )

I will not post on this matter again, i have made my opinion felt, if you disagree with it move on, if you agree with it, move on.

I am not here for an argument, just giving my thoughts.

LOL you are something else! you do not know the OP is a benefit theif.
From experience of knowing people who do exactly what you have described, none of them need to come on to an internet forum to ask if they will be found out, the thought probably doesnt even occour to them.

fairplay4u

mitchaa wrote: »

''icouldcry'' admitted in the 1st post that this was a 2nd user account in order to disguise herself. I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye also otherwise there would be no need to hide herself.

I suspect ''icouldcry'' has been claiming single persons benefits including housing and CTB whilst living with working ''ex''

She has discovered she is pregnant and because the father of both children are the same, the time claiming single persons benefits could and should be questioned.

Was she really single, or was this blatant benefit fraud by a moneygrabbing scheming couple?

I suspect the latter, and if i were a fraud investigator, i would be chapping on neighbours doors, carrying out surveillance, checking the movements of the ''ex'', check financial linkage, bills, electoral roll etc etc.

The fact that you did not seek the morning after pill after discovering a split condom tells me that no condom was ever used to begin with. if no condom used i can only assume, regular sha**ing partners, regular sha**ing partners majority of time = couple.

Now what gets to me here is, instead of holding your hands up and now declaring your ''ex'' as your partner, you will continue to claim as a single parent reaping money from the taxpayer along with the financial income of your partner and living the life of luxury at the taxpayer expense:mad:

Some of you lot are so gullible it's untrue, the above is clear in my mind. No morning after pill after condom split, a 2nd account to hide, and pregnant by the ex and father of my 1st....Yeah right:rolleyes:

No wonder you posted under a different name as you should rightly be named and shamed.

I also suspect child 3 and child 4 will also come from the same father but of course they will be blamed on accidents too:rolleyes:

I am not a fraud investigator, but i certainly think like 1.

You live in fantasy world, How did your come to this conclusion? By looking into your crystal ball? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Catch a grip!!!!!!!!!

You have no evidence to back up your allegations, if you have share them. OP was asking for advice not a lecture from ppl like you who think you know everything when infact your stuck behind your computer making judgemental comments about things that you know nothing about :rolleyes:

dmg24

fairplay4u wrote: »

You live in fantasy world, How did your come to this conclusion? By looking into your crystal ball? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Catch a grip!!!!!!!!!

You have no evidenceto back up your allegations, if you have share them. OP was asking for advice not a lecture from ppl like you who think you know everything when infact your stuck behind your computer making judgemental comments about things that you know nothing about :rolleyes:

Good to see that people can see mitchaa for what he is.

I have to question why this thread is still here, or has not at least been tidied up by Abuse. It was reported nearly twenty four hours ago. Sadly I am not in the least bit surprised. :rolleyes: