Latvian Mother of 10 received £34k benefits

kabayiri

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

...
2. It is an equal outrage, I believe, to pay the same benefits to voluntary migrants who have never been part of the UK system. Freedom to live and work in another EEC country is fine. But it should come with NIL entitlement to benefits until such time you have built up qualifying years in the new country.
...

I firmly believe in the idea of a large European market where you can ply your skills. I can't imagine anyone against this. That sort of flexibility actually helps overcome short term skill shortages, and makes countries better off economically.

But this must be anchored in some sort of reality. You have to be able to offer skills which the destination country requires.

How did it become some sort of free for all ?

Political ideology gone mad if you ask me.

N1AK

The point Hamish, Gracchus and others are trying to highlight is that the issue isn't that she is Latvian; the issue is that she hasn't done anything to deserve the help.

I'd be equally annoyed if she was a UK citizen. Change the rules to require more from heavy/long-term benefit claimants and/or cap benefits and you'll see less of this from both UK nationals and immigrants.

Yes, you could solve a sub-section of the problem by leaving the EU but given that we can solve the whole thing without doing that it seems a little like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

N1AK

kabayiri wrote: »

You have to be able to offer skills which the destination country requires.

Surely we should expect everyone to offer skills of use, or take steps to acquire them, regardless of whether they are from the UK, EU or the rest of the world?

Change the benefit system to stop rewarding destructive behaviour and you solve the problem by stopping both Latvian Ajia's and British Aimee's from seeing benefits as a lifestyle choice.

ruggedtoast

I had a look at the link that went to this contemptible "newspaper". As well as a lot of unsubstantiated slanderous gossip from probably imaginary neighbours who 'refused to give their names', it includes surveillance shots of the lady with her children.

Some human slime has even leaned over her wall and taken photos of her back garden.

Regardless of how you feel about benefits, targetting individuals who are claiming them legally and in accordance with the laws of the land in this way is vile.

Gracchus_Babeuf

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I had a look at the link that went to this contemptible "newspaper". As well as a lot of unsubstantiated slanderous gossip from probably imaginary neighbours who 'refused to give their names', it includes surveillance shots of the lady with her children.

Some human slime has even leaned over her wall and taken photos of her back garden.

Regardless of how you feel about benefits, targetting individuals who are claiming them legally and in accordance with the laws of the land in this way is vile.

Well, the Mail and the Express are probably the two vilest rags on sale these days. Even the Sun seems better now.
The level of anti-EU hysteria from these papers has reached psychopathic levels.

Sampong

ruggedtoast wrote: »

it includes surveillance shots of the lady with her children.

Some human slime has even leaned over her wall and taken photos of her back garden.

Yeah, when the story was reported in the Sun there was another "surveillance photo" taken by human slime. It's one hell of a talented snoopy slimeball though to catch them in this pose.......

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4547280/Give-me-a-bigger-house-says-Latvian-mum-of-10-who-gets-34k-benefits.html

It looks like she sold her story to me.

ILW

I wonder how many British nationals are receiving tens of thousands from teh Latvian taxpayer?

purch

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Some human slime has even leaned over her wall and taken photos of her back garden.

I think you will probably find she invited them in.

This woman appears to want the publicity, and no doubt thinks it will assist in her quest for a larger property.

PasturesNew

Make all benefits beyond 2 kids come SOLELY from a NEW tax paid by those on over £100k/year ...... that includes the increase in rent from, say, a 3-bed to a 4-bed house .... and the cost of healthcare/policing/social services/schooling .... the LOT. One pot for the money in and out ... just for this purpose.

Then see how it's sorted out when those who it doesn't affect start to become directly affected in the pocket. If they're happy to pay then all's well...

The_White_Horse

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

You completely miss the point. She can claim because of a common agreement between EU nations that the right to claim benefits is essential to labour mobility. Just as a Scottish person can claim benefits in England and viceversa. Indeed, a UK national can claim benefits in France or Germany of they wish to settle there. If you remove the right to claim benefits you would also harm UK citizens who wish to work in the EU.

It's 'horses for courses'. But the scummy tabloid press turns the issue into an immigration one, which it certainly isn't - it's a EU legislation issue.

I don't miss the point at all. I am well aware of it - I am saying it MUST be changed.

It is all very well having reciprocal agreements when the parties are equal, but not when they are not.

It is like the Ritz or the Dorchester having a deal with a rat infested !!!! hole in Latvia.

How many single UK mothers want to emigrate to Latvia and live off their benefit system? NONE. So the agreement is pointless and worthless - and immensely costly to the UK taxpayer.