Another Family given a 5 bedroom house for lying about being.........................

ILW

Andy347 wrote: »

Post reported to abuse for the post and you the writer being sick digusting racist scum!! :mad::mad::mad:

The sooner all you racist sickso are culled or deported out of this country the better!

Please explain which part of the post was racist.

ninky_2

tomterm8 wrote: »

I really think that she should be expelled from the country once her children reach 16. While this may endanger her life, it is her responsibility to obey British law and if she fails to do so, she should not be surprised when she is deported. She should, of course, be given ample opportunity to seek lawful entry to another country if they will have her.

I think any refuge who commits a crime such as fraud, burglary etc should be expelled from the country as soon as realistically possible.

seriously??? what about the children's right to family life and being able to see their mother? yes she made a mistake but i don't think deportation for every criminal act is right. after all she is looking after her children and providing them with a relatively stable environment (which is more than the father seems to be doing). people do stupid things to improve the lives of their family - even pretending to be catholic to get them into a better school over other children. i agree it is wrong but i disagree it is so wrong that she should be deported.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

seriously??? what about the children's right to family life and being able to see their mother? yes she made a mistake but i don't think deportation for every criminal act is right. after all she is looking after her children and providing them with a relatively stable environment (which is more than the father seems to be doing). people do stupid things to improve the lives of their family - even pretending to be catholic to get them into a better school over other children. i agree it is wrong but i disagree it is so wrong that she should be deported.

She is not looking after her children, taxpayers are being forced to whether they feel they should or not.

The_White_Horse

ninky wrote: »

seriously??? what about the children's right to family life and being able to see their mother? yes she made a mistake but i don't think deportation for every criminal act is right. after all she is looking after her children and providing them with a relatively stable environment (which is more than the father seems to be doing). people do stupid things to improve the lives of their family - even pretending to be catholic to get them into a better school over other children. i agree it is wrong but i disagree it is so wrong that she should be deported.

i think the point is, if your 10 year old did a wee in your own front room, its you that will have to live with the damp wet stink. but if he did it in someone elses house, they would probably ask you to leave.

ninky_2

Malcolm. wrote: »

TWH is very anti benefit claimant, however in practice is more than happy to help contribute towards a regular poster and her disabled children's holiday.

personally i don't find that an adequate justification for venting extreme obnoxious views. many an extremist gives to charity.

ninky_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i think the point is, if your 10 year old did a wee in your own front room, its you that will have to live with the damp wet stink. but if he did it in someone elses house, they would probably ask you to leave.

making an analogy between private homes and nation states is somewhat flawed (i think that is what you are doing?) after all, in this case, the person in question has moved into the house (uk) and is living there as much as the next person. therefore the state of the carpet is as much her concern as the next person. not least because even if she didn't pay for it herself then her children will be the ones looking to buy a new one.

of course, in your book white horse, the children are already written off as benefit scrounging scum.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

making an analogy between private homes and nation states is somewhat flawed (i think that is what you are doing?) after all, in this case, the person in question has moved into the house (uk) and is living there as much as the next person. therefore the state of the carpet is as much her concern as the next person. not least because even if she didn't pay for it herself then her children will be the ones looking to buy a new one.

of course, in your book white horse, the children are already written off as benefit scrounging scum.

If the example the mother has set is that by claiming and commiting fraud you get a nice big house, then I would suggest it is the most likely outcome.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

[/COLOR]

If the example the mother has set is that by claiming and commiting fraud you get a nice big house, then I would suggest it is the most likely outcome.

plenty of very successful people with very successful offspring have committed fraud far worse than this. our own mps for example.

others have lied under oath, done insider trading or evaded taxes.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

plenty of very successful people with very successful offspring have committed fraud far worse than this. our own mps for example.

others have lied under oath, done insider trading or evaded taxes.

So are you now saying that fraud is OK and a legitimate way of life?

ess0two

stonethrower wrote: »

Take a chill out pill

Good idea or perhaps Andy could go on a spending spree with a CC.