Single mum bein hounded

likelyfran

paddedjohn wrote: »

Be careful what you post folks, I made a comment on this very thread which was thanked by at least a dozen of you so must have been correct but the post police have decided in their own wisdom to censor it and removed it because they didn't agree with it. What happened to freedom to express ones opinions?

...so must have been wearing jackboots. :rotfl:

likelyfran

princessdon wrote: »

Lets get a sense of perspective here.

Anyone entrusted with children who abuses that trust is in the papers the next day. There are very few stories, very very few.

If Social Services posted data every day on parents/relatives/friends who "harmed" a child, there would be no space for other news.

The data between the two are incomparable as the difference is so vast.

It is a huge insult to teachers, childminders and nurseries to infer that leaving children with them isn't safe.

It's like comparing modes of travel. A plane crashes and makes the news worldwide. When it happens it is devastating and newsworthy. Yet the amount of people killed in air travel V road travel isn't comparable.

You completely forgetting about the nursery !!!!!phile (female) case recently that was all over the news??
And that was in a nursery, not a single childminder left alone with a child in a home.
Something like that happening just once is enough to put me off.

likelyfran

Tankrizzo wrote: »

You are utterly deluded (and paranoid, it would seem), as well as hugely insulting towards carers.

Look around you when you're out on your street next. Your working neighbours are the people who are paying for you to sit at home with your children, not some anonymous blob called "The State".

Happily, as the OP is finding out, the days of people "choosing" to stay at home with their offspring, fully funded by the hard work of those around them for years on end, are coming to a close.

Me with my children? What are you talking about? How do you know whether I work or not or if I have children or not?

clearingout

MissPiggy50 wrote: »

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.

what on earth is wrong with you?! I am normally pretty much on side of single parents as I appreciate how difficult it can be and understand that few single parents set out to be single parents. But...

I don't see my children half as much as I would like. This evening I was with them approximately 90 minutes before I put them to bed and saw them for an hour this morning. I'm 42 so there is no chance of me having more children now to keep me on benefits (my youngest is 3 so I could have remained on Income Support for a couple more years rather than re-training as I did last year). Can you imagine getting to my age with....at least 5 children by several fathers...never having worked? what do you think would happen? what kind of life would you have given your children?

I suspect if people are honest, a good percentage are doing jobs they'd rather not do and that a significant number would tell you they hated their jobs. But they do those jobs to pay mortgages, put food on the table, clothes on the backs of their children, have a holiday. Is another child by a.n.other worth it to keep on benefits?

likelyfran

I'm horrified at the majority consensus on this thread!
The consensus is that mothers of young children should NOT LOOK AFTER THEM THEMSELVES.
Very much part of this 'consensus' is the fact that when anyone helpful - like ......helpfulperson - actually offers any helpful, constructive, advice, ie. saying to OP that they can communicate and work with DWP to get a job (what you all want, yes?) that fits around also caring for their child (caring for one's old child, in person, physically, being there, also good, yes?), they get one or two thanks votes.
..While anyone judgementally sinking the boot in and saying that mothers should not care for their own children - properly, like they did in the 'old days'! - will definitely have frenzied pressings of the thanks button!!
Amazing!

Credit-Crunched

likelyfran wrote: »

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

UK Prison population - Annual cost last year £304,000,000

UK Benefits Bill last year - £150,000,000,000 that's 150 billion

Now I know that people like to feel better about benefits being a small blight on this country, however they are far more of a problem than the bailed out banks, prison population combined by a factor of 10!

So before you start spouting about how benefits are not costing that much, take stock of the numbers and realise that THEY HAVE TO BE CUT OR WE THE TAX PAYER WILL DROWN!

likelyfran

skibadee wrote: »

I actually find this post very insulting, I am a Nursery Nurse and have been so for 18.5 years, in that time NO-BODY that I have worked with or myself have ever done anything ''horrific'' ......I think you need to get into the real world....in an ideal world all mums would be able to be SAHM's if they wanted to be...in the REAL WORLD many can not afford to be.....and a fair number are fortunate enough to have found a job that gives them a work/child comprimise.

Anyway I think we are all diverting from the OP's question....I think that has probably been answered a number of pages back and we are now just bickering amongst ourselves.

Maybe the thread should now be closed.

Diddums. Post 239. Real world?

likelyfran

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

UK Prison population - Annual cost last year £304,000,000

UK Benefits Bill last year - £150,000,000,000 that's 150 billion

Now I know that people like to feel better about benefits being a small blight on this country, however they are far more of a problem than the bailed out banks, prison population combined by a factor of 10!

So before you start spouting about how benefits are not costing that much, take stock of the numbers and realise that THEY HAVE TO BE CUT OR WE THE TAX PAYER WILL DROWN!

Classic.
Factored in 'defence' costs yet? Or the cost of keeping politicians in very expensive bottles of wine and the rest?
Thought not.

marybelle01

likelyfran wrote: »

The consensus is that mothers of young children should NOT LOOK AFTER THEM THEMSELVES.

My eyesight is not failing, thank you, and screaming does not make you any more credible. But in case you have missed the point of these many pages of posts:

Everybody thinks that mothers of young children should look after them themselves. The problem is that the OP thinks I and others here should pay for this, and THEY AREN'T OUR KIDS! I looked after my children and paid for them myself, whilst my husband and I both worked, and had no benefits or credits for them - it was down to us. And not a single complaint there because they were our children, we loved tham and wanted the best for them - and were ready to pay for that!

Why should any of the rest of us pay for the OP to produce one child after another because the perfect job - which appears to be one that will enable her to stay at home all day - has not appeared?

FBaby

So who gets to stay home with the kids and who gets to work and pay for the others to stay at home? What if fathers decide that staying home with their kids is also much better for the children? Where does it stops? Someone has to work to pay for the others not to.

That's not even mentioning that the there is no clear evidence that children whose mothers stayed at home rather than work fare better than the children of working mothers.