Latvian Mother of 10 received £34k benefits

redmalc

I read these type of stories and they make my blood boil,i keep thinking would it not be better to restrict ALL type of benefits for two children,if you decide to carry on breeding it will be your responsibility that would save a lot of money and prevent these scrounging leeches milking the system,which i have to say needs completely overhauling.

CKhalvashi

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

About 300 miles South West of the capital city created on a marsh by a former "apprentice" of an English ship yard ?

About 10 years ago I spent a memorable long weekend in Tallin - foot deep snow, every one walking in the middle of the road to avoid the 3ft icicles hanging from the gutters.

Tallinn's beautiful (I got the full tour, as I also work with an Estonian taxi drivers daughter), but it's somewhere I certainly wouldn't want to be in the winter!

CK

CKhalvashi

redmalc wrote: »

I read these type of stories and they make my blood boil,i keep thinking would it not be better to restrict ALL type of benefits for two children,if you decide to carry on breeding it will be your responsibility that would save a lot of money and prevent these scrounging leeches milking the system,which i have to say needs completely overhauling.

No, it wouldn't.

Whilst what I mention on the 1st page should be noted, it's not the childs fault that the parents can't keep their legs/zip closed.

CK

ruggedtoast

CKhalvashi wrote: »

No, it wouldn't.

Whilst what I mention on the 1st page should be noted, it's not the childs fault that the parents can't keep their legs/zip closed.

CK

You won't find a lot of sympathy for vulnerable children, or indeed vulnerable anybody on this board.

A lot of people here have made it quite clear that they would prefer the poor starved to death or were somehow genetically engineered out of existence.

redmalc

I Agree with various comments regarding it is not the childrens fault,but there is a lot of people now using them to obtain a living and accomodation without getting of there ars.s and doing a days work to look after their families.

StevieJ

Sampong wrote: »

il.

But what you are driving at in your post is a question about race. It's nothing to do whether she is Latvian, Polish, Irish, English, whatever...... .

So why is Latvian the main focus in the title of the article?

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You won't find a lot of sympathy for vulnerable children, or indeed vulnerable anybody on this board.

A lot of people here have made it quite clear that they would prefer the poor starved to death or were somehow genetically engineered out of existence.

Sorry, but I would rather the money was spent on vulnerable British children first. When that is sorted we can start sorting out the problems of Latvia.

YoungBusinessman

The mail is a shocking paper. In my own humble opinion. This is where immigration goes wrong.

kabayiri

StevieJ wrote: »

So why is Latvian the main focus in the title of the article?

I don't know come to think. Ostensibly, the story is about a lady who is able to obtain a very generous amount of benefits, primarily through the ability to have plenty of children.

So where does the Latvian angle come in? Is it really a thinly veiled Racially motivated comment? Is it trying to illustrate a benefits system which appears out of control by demonstrating that it is widely accessible?

A._Badger

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't know come to think. Ostensibly, the story is about a lady who is able to obtain a very generous amount of benefits, primarily through the ability to have plenty of children.

So where does the Latvian angle come in? Is it really a thinly veiled Racially motivated comment? Is it trying to illustrate a benefits system which appears out of control by demonstrating that it is widely accessible?

Since when has Latvian been a race?

Really, this is getting beyond parody.

The argument is quite simple and there is no need for the usual suspects to play a tape of stamping jackboots in the background while it is being explored.

Presumably, neither the the woman nor her forebears have contributed to the system frm which she is now drawing substantial benefits.

Fair or unfair?