Interview under caution twice?

Face1992

Chrissiew wrote: »

I don't think I would go as far as saying social services should be involved and she is an unfit mother, yes fraud is bad, very bad, but that doesn't mean someone is an unfit mother

She STOLE money for four months, therefore she is an unfit mother. If she can't act legally, what kind of morals is she passing on to her kids?

marybelle01

Face1992 wrote: »

She STOLE money for four months, therefore she is an unfit mother. If she can't act legally, what kind of morals is she passing on to her kids?

Oh !!!!!!, nobody is suggesting that it is right to commit benefit fraud or theft, and yes, if she has done so (which it appears she has for 4 months) then she should have to pay it back. But it does not make her an unfit mother, and if every parent who commits a crime had their children taken off them as being unfit, then the country would be even more bankrupt because every one of those children placed in care would cost the state (i.e. you) about £7k a week!

I don't like benefit fraud and I don't like being expected to support people who then effectively thieve from me either - but this moralistic high horse that anyone who has committed any sort of crime should have their children removed lest they teach them the wrong morals is ridiculous. You've never, ever, watched a pirate DVD, downloaded music or a book for free and avoided paying for it, or something similar? Because I struggle to find someone who hasn't done this sort of thing. They're crimes. When you do it you commit a crime. So maybe that makes all those people unfit parents?

FBaby

it still doesn't make sense... who gets married but think the relationship might not work out, they are likely to be single again anytime so keep a single claim open. Ridiculous...

Also, where is the 'husband' now? Has he moved with the neighbour together? Is he living elsewhere, or is he....back with the wife?..

Face1992

marybelle01 wrote: »

Oh !!!!!!, nobody is suggesting that it is right to commit benefit fraud or theft, and yes, if she has done so (which it appears she has for 4 months) then she should have to pay it back. But it does not make her an unfit mother, and if every parent who commits a crime had their children taken off them as being unfit, then the country would be even more bankrupt because every one of those children placed in care would cost the state (i.e. you) about £7k a week!

I don't like benefit fraud and I don't like being expected to support people who then effectively thieve from me either - but this moralistic high horse that anyone who has committed any sort of crime should have their children removed lest they teach them the wrong morals is ridiculous. You've never, ever, watched a pirate DVD, downloaded music or a book for free and avoided paying for it, or something similar? Because I struggle to find someone who hasn't done this sort of thing. They're crimes. When you do it you commit a crime. So maybe that makes all those people unfit parents?

Who said she should have her kids taken off her?

I certainly didn't. I said social services should be told that the woman is a thief and if she can't tell right from wrong, what kind of dodgy morals is she teaching her kids.

marybelle01

Face1992 wrote: »

Who said she should have her kids taken off her?

I certainly didn't. I said social services should be told that the woman is a thief and if she can't tell right from wrong, what kind of dodgy morals is she teaching her kids.

Social Services are not the guardians of the countrys morals and are not responsible for telling parents what is right or what is wrong and insisting that they teach their kids this moral code (presumably written by you?). It is none of Social Services business whether she is a thief or not.

And I notice you didn't answer my question. You have NEVER committed any form of crime, such as watching a pirated movie or downloading pirated content from the internet? No? Thought not. Nobody ever has, have they?

Face1992

marybelle01 wrote: »

Social Services are not the guardians of the countrys morals and are not responsible for telling parents what is right or what is wrong and insisting that they teach their kids this moral code (presumably written by you?). It is none of Social Services business whether she is a thief or not.

And I notice you didn't answer my question. You have NEVER committed any form of crime, such as watching a pirated movie or downloading pirated content from the internet? No? Thought not. Nobody ever has, have they?

The moral code is not written by me.

However far, far too many people get away with committing serious crimes, ie stealing money for 4 months, then use their kids as a reason for doing so and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Whose business is it then if the mother is a thief? The police maybe? Then the police should inform the social services.

marybelle01

Face1992 wrote: »

The moral code is not written by me.

However far, far too many people get away with committing serious crimes, ie stealing money for 4 months, then use their kids as a reason for doing so and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Whose business is it then if the mother is a thief? The police maybe? Then the police should inform the social services.

The police will not inform social services because (a) it would be a crime to disclose such information, (b) it is none of social services business, and (c) it may have escaped your attention but she has neither been prosecuted for a criminal act nor convicted of one.

And you still haven't answered my question - you have never committed a crime of any sort whatsoever? You have never broken the law in any way at all?

princessdon

Whose name is the house in?

Eg is it in the wife's name only or is a joint tennancy etc?

Not that I imagine it makes a whole load of difference - you've pretty much admitted that for 4 mos at least they committed fraud - but if the husband "owns" the flat for Eg they can't stop them coming in etc.

SuziQ

Face, having worked in Child Protection for over 30 years, your post did amuse me. Social services departments can't cope as it is- dealing with genuine neglect and abuse cases. How on earth would they cope if they had to be involved in every family where dishonesty or immorality was present?

Even amongst my own family and friends, lies are often told, despite the fact the parents are great and the kids thriving and happy. You should read the stats of what happens to kids taken into care- often the kids would have been better off left with pretty hopeless parents than being in the care system!

I agree that it is wrong to scam the benefit system, however your suggestion would effectively punish the children!

Face1992

SuziQ wrote: »

Face, having worked in Child Protection for over 30 years, your post did amuse me. Social services departments can't cope as it is- dealing with genuine neglect and abuse cases. How on earth would they cope if they had to be involved in every family where dishonesty or immorality was present?

Even amongst my own family and friends, lies are often told, despite the fact the parents are great and the kids thriving and happy. You should read the stats of what happens to kids taken into care- often the kids would have been better off left with pretty hopeless parents than being in the care system!

I agree that it is wrong to scam the benefit system, however your suggestion would effectively punish the children!

Saying SS should be told and saying SS should take her kids are two different scenarios entirely. I never mentioned her having her kids taken off her.