Single mum bein hounded

Caroline_a

It's a really sad state of affairs that a young woman is considering having another child by persons unknown as a career choice. If this is what she is seriously considering then what sort of message does it send out to her daughter as she grows up? That is't ok not to work (unless you get a job doing what you want to do), that the government will pay for you so long as you keep on breeding? OP, what about some sort of college course that will lead to a career for yourself so that you can come off benefits, and don't have to do work experience in a dog food factory?

margaretclare

Miss_Havisham wrote: »

pardon me if I'm repeating a point already made (not worked my way through all 11 pages).

I'm in my 50's and was brought up to believe that the "welfare state" is there to provide a safety net as a last resort. To help people who through no fault of their own and after exhausting their own efforts and resources are unable to support themselves - temporarily or long-term.

This based on the honesty of the claimants and the willingness of the tax-payers. Lack of honesty leads to unwillingness which is where we are now. How do we wind things back 50 years?

We can't.

I am in the generation before yours and I grew up in poverty because there were no benefits at all for an unmarried mum, my mother. Without the support of her parents and disabled sister she would have had to put me into an orphanage, a course of action which many people strongly advised her to take. My mum did any kind of work from the limited choices available to her in the rural location where we lived. Any kind at all. All her jobs were part-time, mainly domestic work in other women's houses.

There was much wrong with 50 years ago and I would hate for those things to return, especially to the punitive attitudes to an unmarried mother and her child. There was even a nasty word which was used quite freely - nowadays it's a swear word not allowed on this site, and I wonder how many people who use it quite casually really know its true meaning?

However, I do agree that having children unmarried shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, especially not if the intention is just to continue on benefits. And then have another one, and another....

MissPiggy50

Caroline_a wrote: »

It's a really sad state of affairs that a young woman is considering having another child by persons unknown as a career choice. If this is what she is seriously considering then what sort of message does it send out to her daughter as she grows up? That is't ok not to work (unless you get a job doing what you want to do), that the government will pay for you so long as you keep on breeding? OP, what about some sort of college course that will lead to a career for yourself so that you can come off benefits, and don't have to do work experience in a dog food factory?

Ive already said that I was told this by someone. not that I were goin to do it so can everyone stop goin on bout it.
Iwould only think about doin that if I were forced into a job i hated or couldnt see my daughtre a lot.

marybelle01

MissPiggy50 wrote: »

Iwould only think about doin that if I were forced into a job i hated or couldnt see my daughtre a lot.

In other words - you would do it rather than work. You don't get it. People supporting you to stay out of work are working in jobs they hate and that keep them away from their children all day because they have too much pride to be scounging layabouts who have children in order to avoid working. I don't know what sort of morals you were dragged up with, but having a child should NEVER be something that is even considered to avoid working or paying your own way. You are SERIOUSLY suggesting that you love your daughter so much that you would bring another child into the world, unwanted and without a father, just to be with her? That is sick.

midnight_express

Great example of why all child related benefits should be abolished. It's the only way to get rid of the benefit breeders.

FBaby

And then what will you do when that child is 5? Start again? Can't you see that the perfect job you are after is one to earn not one to wait for until it falls in your lap? The job you are after will have fierce competition. Who do you think an employer will choose? Someone with work experience who will have shown to be reliable or someone who has never worked?

You are deluding yourself if you let yourself to believe that strangers care about what you want or is best for you. It doesn't work like that. You will have to prove you have something to give before they give something back to you.

likelyfran

sarahg1969 wrote: »

I certainly appreciate the work ethic that my parents taught me, and I believe my children appreciate that we work hard for them, and will do the same when they grow up. It's not about money, it's about working hard for your family.

And working hard for your family is just about doing a paid job to get money, nothing else at all, in your eyes. Great. Good luck with bringing up well-rounded children.

likelyfran

Dunroamin wrote: »

Far more horrific things happen to children in the hands of family!

To you and the other person who mentioned this - yes, that's true. I wondered whether to put the 'family members' bit in that post. Thinking about that, I reckon that in most cases of something like that happening, the person that's passed the child to the family member is probably not quite right themselves - or else they would know there's a danger there. Point is, you generally know your family members pretty well, and don't know 'carers' outside family or very close friends at all.

likelyfran

Ellejmorgan wrote: »

I think that can be installed into the children in other ways, I'm on benefits claiming ESA among other things, my children have a work ethic, they want to be teachers/nurses/ etc..

Their auntie is a great influence she has just gained her BA hons in social sciences and my daughters will watch her graduate..

I'm the only one in my family that doesn't work and I think each family has it's own merits, my daughters see how I save money, save up for the things I want, yes the state support us but I'm also raising four tax payers, people never seem to remember that when slating claimants.

All the benefit haters should direct their anger at prisioners, and law breakers in general, they cost the state much more money..

Great post Ellejmorgan, very well said, those are points I've been trying to make (but no-one seems to get them :rotfl:)

likelyfran

Face1992 wrote: »

Families that are getting around £800 child tax credits, the parent's money for being on the sick, and the free rent and Council Tax with free school dinners and the free milk are costing the state ( which is funded by the people who get up everyday and go to work) over £1500 a month, which is about £18,000 a year, PER family. That sure is a hefty chunk of free money!!

*sings* 'Money money money...'

- have you not listened to ANYTHING she said? The only thing that matters in the world is money obviously! :rotfl::rotfl: