📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Single mum bein hounded

Options
12122232527

Comments

  • likelyfran
    likelyfran Posts: 1,818 Forumite
    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?

    So you're more credible by screaming bolder. Ok.
    You're obviously another person who doesn't fully understand what happens to your taxes and where they go. Small fish/big fish. OPEN YOUR EYES.
    *Look for advice, not 'advise'*
    *Could/should/would HAVE please!*

    :starmod:
    “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” ~ Krishnamurti. :starmod:
    :dance:
  • likelyfran wrote: »
    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!

    In the interests of retaining perspective- people are discussing a parent of a school age child working. Unless someone is home schooling there's only so much 'being there' a standard working week could impact on.
  • likelyfran wrote: »
    So you're more credible by screaming bolder. Ok.
    You're obviously another person who doesn't fully understand what happens to your taxes and where they go. Small fish/big fish. OPEN YOUR EYES.

    I understand perfectly well and better than you do. I am fully in support of any parent (not mother - that would be discrimination) staying at home to care for their child. And I support absolutely their right to support themselves to do that. That is the purpose of the family unit. This young woman is proposing to find a man - any man - to get another child that is not wanted by either of them, to avoid having to take a job that isn't "right" for her. You are the one who needs to open their eyes.
  • Darlyd
    Darlyd Posts: 1,337 Forumite
    edited 10 September 2012 at 10:44PM
    OP you obviously have a stroppy moo as an advisor!

    May I suggest next time you go down there, grow some balls and tell her exactly what hours you are available for, I am sure by law you only have to look for work around your children due to child care issues BUT bare in mind if your daughters school have a breakfast club and an after school club it would be worth it for a few days a week, you need at least 16 hours.

    Why don't you pop to your daughters school and ask if they need volunteers? Schools often desperate for volunteers and maybe they could offer you training and maybe a paid position there.

    I work 12.5 hour shifts few days a week so on those days I only see my kids for an hr in the morning before dropping youngest off at a child minder for 6.30 am, they are in bed when I get home.

    I mop up sick, wash dirty bums and other bits and bobs that is gruesome BUT someone has to do it. Without sounding harsh, you need to get a grip.
  • Without shouting, I brought up 3 children and worked and paid for them mostly on my own. Lots of the jobs I have done over the years were not my 'ideal' jobs, they were jobs I took to put food on the table and to pay for a roof over our heads.

    Initially I stayed at home for the first few years, but when my marriage broke down I realised it was work or be on benefits. Even though I stayed at home until my oldest was 7, none of the children can now remember me being fulltime at home with them. However, they have all grown up into independent, successful women who have amazing work ethics. That to me is bringing up children well - showing them how to survive in the real world.

    OP - what is the job you would choose? Because at some stage you will have to find it, so are you qualified for it, and is your experience relevant? Because if not, now is the time to start working on that.
  • likelyfran wrote: »
    Classic.
    Factored in 'defence' costs yet? Or the cost of keeping politicians in very expensive bottles of wine and the rest?
    Thought not.

    Excellent well thought out, quantified and substantiated come back there. Tres Bien

    Still a few billion to account for
  • 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!

    Again, for perspective- 41.65% of the benefits bill goes to pensioners (I'm waiting for the headlines accusing them of birth certificate fraud...)

    http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf
  • Again, for perspective- 41.65% of the benefits bill goes to pensioners (I'm waiting for the headlines accusing them of birth certificate fraud...)

    http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf

    Now I welcome a researched and substantiated come back, interesting numbers but even leaving 50% of the bill equates to 75 billion on a creaking system abused by many
  • Now I welcome a researched and substantiated come back, interesting numbers but even leaving 50% of the bill equates to 75 billion on a creaking system abused by many

    But the figures and what it get spends on does raise the question of how to balance the books. Fraud is a tiny fraction of the spend, the rest goes where we intended it to. So now we are being told there's no money (another debate) who do we want to abandon in the gutter? Or should we be bringing in more to meet the bill from the tax avoiders?
  • likelyfran wrote: »
    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.


    In that case it is a good job you are clearly not a parent. The vast majority of abuse is in the house!
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.