Breeding for Benefits

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8758592.stm

Whats wrong with this picture?

Answers on a postcard....

silvercar

The Dad was feeding the baby?

The parent in the second family was working, even though it left them worse off?

One partner in both families had kids from their previous family?

More England flags per square mile than anywhere else?

lvader

I didn't spend £2k on Xmas presents when I was on £500 a day, but apparently if you are on benefits you can afford it if you save throughout the year.

tsimehC

I hate it when benefit recipients slang off other people claiming the same or similar benefits and somehow feel they are more deserving.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

lvader wrote: »

I didn't spend £2k on Xmas presents when I was on £500 a day, but apparently if you are on benefits you can afford it if you save throughout the year.

DING DING DING DING DING

---

We have a winner.

And apparently it's because the kids need the "brand names"....

Anyway, Congratulations.

You win an all expenses paid life in a random town up north. (Terms and Conditions apply*)




















*You must breed at least 5 kids, preferably with multiple partners, and some of them should ideally live with you, although they do not actually need to be yours. Becoming fat, unhealthy or an alcoholic will increase your chances of extra credits. Bonus points available for random use of the word "carer" in an application.

drc

How can these people be called "vulnerable" and "in poverty" when they are getting over £600 per week in benefits! That's over £30k tax free. You'd need to have a job paying £45k to get that as a working person :mad:. Frank Field's review of what is classed as "poverty" in this country can't come soon enough.

leveller2911

If the government had some danglies and stopped the benefits of all the long term dolite workshy scum there may be enough money in the pot so I don't have to work my boll*x off till I drop..........

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

drc wrote: »

How can these people be called "vulnerable" and "in poverty" when they are getting over £600 per week in benefits! That's over £30k tax free. You'd need to have a job paying £45k to get that as a working person :mad:. Frank Field's review of what is classed as "poverty" in this country can't come soon enough.

DING DING DING DING

---

We have another winner.:D

bo_drinker

leveller2911 wrote: »

If the government had some danglies and stopped the benefits of all the long term dolite workshy scum there may be enough money in the pot so I don't have to work my boll*x off till I drop..........

All parties have threatened it but never come up with the goods,Dave and his puppet have been saying the right things recently but they are full of !!!!!! like all the rest. I fkn hate the lot of them.

sKiTz-0

Amen to that

treliac

drc wrote: »

How can these people be called "vulnerable" and "in poverty" when they are getting over £600 per week in benefits! That's over £30k tax free. You'd need to have a job paying £45k to get that as a working person :mad:. Frank Field's review of what is classed as "poverty" in this country can't come soon enough.

And although the outside areas look grim, the interiors of their homes appear to be well furnished, well equipped and well decorated.

A lovely life if you have all they say they have..... and without any responsibility to get up each morning, tear themselves away from their small children to go out to do a long day's work.

And the people in the mid-range income who do face up to taking responsibility for themselves are going to have to pay the major share in addressing the deficit from their earnings because, of course, the 'poor' have nothing, do they?