Leaving school - is this true?

Takeaway_Addict

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Whilst I generally agree with the comments above, is it not wrong that a family is expected to either support this girl ad infinitum or expell her from the family home & make her stand on her own 2 feet?
As I understand it, JSA may be an option until she can get more work than 4 hours.
AS OPPOSED TO being funded by benefits (not family) like her friends with children. Who do NOT have to be supported by their parents.
I too disagree with the State funding her ....... or her family, for that matter.
BUT I do disagree with a system which makes her peers and/or friends who decided they couldn't say "No" ( or be careful, despite an abundance of readily-available resources on the matter ) financially better-off.
Thoughts?

There's only been 18 years to prepare her for this...

KiKi

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Whilst I generally agree with the comments above, is it not wrong that a family is expected to either support this girl ad infinitum or expell her from the family home & make her stand on her own 2 feet?
As I understand it, JSA may be an option until she can get more work than 4 hours.
AS OPPOSED TO being funded by benefits (not family) like her friends with children. Who do NOT have to be supported by their parents.
I too disagree with the State funding her ....... or her family, for that matter.
BUT I do disagree with a system which makes her peers and/or friends who decided they couldn't say "No" ( or be careful, despite an abundance of readily-available resources on the matter ) financially better-off.
Thoughts?

Oh, the irony.

Poppie68

The_Last_Username wrote: »

At last!
My thoughts entirely! :T

It's obviously not the way you feel though is it ?..Otherwise why come on here moaning because your pals gravy train is running dry?

Poppie68

Im calling it folks....Bridge dweller...

silvercar

The "child" jobseeker will be able to claim JSA in her own right, so that is £71 a week. Up to family negotiations how much of that she needs to pass to the family for her "keep".

The_Last_Username

Ah Poppie68, thank you so much for your kind words.
Sadly so typical of a growing number of forumites.
Most (un) helpful.

I was prompted to post FYI following the story of £400 payments to help stop pregnant smokers from smoking.
Along similar lines, I thought.

Far from being a

Bridge dweller

it seems that I have inadvertently stirred up a bit of a hornets' nest? :rotfl:

Oh, and encouraged greater response than that thread on this forum too.

sulkisu

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Whilst I generally agree with the comments above, is it not wrong that a family is expected to either support this girl ad infinitum or expell her from the family home & make her stand on her own 2 feet?
As I understand it, JSA may be an option until she can get more work than 4 hours.
AS OPPOSED TO being funded by benefits (not family) like her friends with children. Who do NOT have to be supported by their parents.
I too disagree with the State funding her ....... or her family, for that matter.
BUT I do disagree with a system which makes her peers and/or friends who decided they couldn't say "No" ( or be careful, despite an abundance of readily-available resources on the matter ) financially better-off.
Thoughts?

Better off for now perhaps, just as your friends were at one time. But in years to come when their children no longer qualify for child related benefits, they will be in the same boat.


My thoughts....if there are no jobs for mum and daughter, then there are no jobs for the girls that you are referring to. Secondly, SAHM (and daughter) need to get out to work, even if it means travelling, working unsociable hours or doing something hard - for example carers are always needed virtually everywhere in the country. I always struggle with the 'there are no jobs anywhere' line.
Nobody is saying that they should support their daughter forever, but are they really surprised or upset that as parents they are expected to make some contribution to her upkeep. The State has done it for a number of years and now they are miffed that they might actually have to suck up some child related expenses for a few years themselves....really?


Thirdly, you should post this on DT (you really will hear some 'thoughts') on the subject.

sulkisu

The_Last_Username wrote: »

At last!
My thoughts entirely! :T

Bet you didn't say that to your 'friend' though did you?

somethingcorporate

Is this a bit of jealousy at the other teenage mothers getting taken care of?

I guess it's a bit of a wakeup call for the real world - a single 12 year old of school age does not require a SAHM so if they want more money they should go out and earn it like the rest of us or do without.

FBaby

Your post makes no sense. You are expressing sympathy for a woman who has made the choice to have children yet relying on benefits to support them rather than getting a job to do so even though she could easily do so now. How is it any different to those girls you seem to have such strong negative feelings for? I can't see many people feeling sorry for such families unless they find themselves in the same situation.