Tits on the taxpayer

[Gob]

I spoke to a person who shall remain anonymous (ok, it was my sister) last night, who was complaining that they were going to cut back and I quote "my money", as her son had just turned 17.

The idea that it's not her money, and the concept of either her, or her son, actually "getting a job", may as well be an equation in Chinese algebra for all she understands them.

[Jarlaxle]

Hey, I know! Just for you we can have the "all nanny state" where all state benefits are vetted so that no one ever uses them for anything which is junk food, junk literature, or entertainment junk or for things which might be traded for same. Fuck-all the lazy crap heads with back injuries, or paraplegia, who are laying around watching television!.


"Fascism is a dream, sh-boom, sweetheart."


yrs,
rubato

Looks like Rube fell off the wagon and is hitting the bottle.

Again...............

[Scooter]

This woman didn't believe she was saying anything provocative; she honestly believes this is her just due, and she's not the slightest bit embarrassed by it.

Or, given the multitude of ways in which not even the arithmetic in this story adds up (pun intended), perhaps it was a complete put up job intended to suck in precisely the type of reader who appears to have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

[Gob]

She's probably getting "jobseekers allowance" which would make up the very small hole you have found in the accounting there Scoot.

Oh, and even if the sums are very slightly wrong, does that justify her spending the money given to her by the taxpayer in order to support her kids on cosmetic surgery for herself?

Does her attitude to the system not indicate all which is wrong with the UK system?

Is she not s symptom of the problems which the system encourages?

[Scooter]

She's probably getting "jobseekers allowance" which would make up the very small hole you have found in the accounting there Scoot.

I already explained why this could not possibly be the case give the set of "facts" presented.

Oh, and even if the sums are very slightly wrong, does that justify her spending the money given to her by the taxpayer in order to support her kids on cosmetic surgery for herself?

If, as I suspect, the entire piece is a put up job, the question is moot.

Even if it's not, I am prepared to put up with one of her to ensure that 10,000 families who really need the help are not destroyed by mindless cuts.

Does her attitude to the system not indicate all which is wrong with the UK system?

Even if this yarn turned out to be true, the notion that it is in any way typical is absolutely preposterous.

Is she not s symptom of the problems which the system encourages?

I am far more concerned about the problems which would be created for the multitudes of real users of the system who would be hurt by any "solutions" designed to deal with fairy stories like this.

[Gob]

No you gave suppositions why you believe this could not have occurred, you've proven nothing.

I am more concerned about what may happen to genuine claimants if people like her allowed to rip off the system.

[Scooter]

How many weeks can one receive jobseeker's allowance?

How many weeks has it been since this woman allegedly last held a job?

QED.

[Scooter]

I am more concerned about what may happen to genuine claimants if people like her allowed to rip off the system.

Genuine claimants will never be denied benefits because of people like her, unless someone with an agenda to deny them uses stories like this to enact drastic and/or ill-thought out cuts.

[Gob]

Yes, so genuine claimants will be denied benefits if people like her contuinue to abuse the system, giving ammunition to those who wish to get rid of the benefits, so your point was what?

[Scooter]

Yes, so genuine claimants will be denied benefits if people like her contuinue to abuse the system

Not unless "people like her" are used as an excuse to enact "reforms" which will hurt genuine claimants.

so your point was what?

Accept the fact that there are always going to be isolated cases* of those who are able to work within the rules to milk the system, so don't hype them up as if they represent the general case ("all that is wrong with the UK system"), and you won't be giving any ammunition to those who would attempt to use them as an excuse to eliminate the benefits.



*assuming they aren't completely fictional, that is

[Gob]

Ok, as long as you accept that in the UK there are many who abuse the system, and as long as there is a Daily Mail, Daily Star, Sun, Telegraph, Times, Daily Express, and other media, plus their local subsidiaries, who will use these people to push a right wing agenda, then these cases will be used to "highlight" the way the benefits system is being abused.

You also need to accept that in the "celebrity" culture, fostered by Springer/Kyle,/Big Brother etc, these people will gladly parade their abusing the system for 15 minutes of fame and a back-hander of a couple of hundred quid, and fuck the effect they may have on others.

I think you also need to take into account that my knowledge of the UK benefit system is far more detailed and based on the experience of working with people within it for 20+ years.

It's all very well for you to sit there in Canada, nit picking away at fine detail, while the bigger picture is lost. Ask any here from the UK, and they will all tell you the same story.

The UK benefits system is a shambles, abused and incoherent, it has become a major failure. If it continues the way it is, then many will suffer, the MAJORITY of whom do not deserve to do so.

[Sean]

A few points worth noting...

1.) Child Tax Credit is not a universal credit in the UK and is based on earnings (or rather lack thereof).

2.) This woman is on 'jobseekers allowance' of more than £3,100 per annum which fills that hole in the numbers nicely.

3.) Because she is a lone carer she will not be expected to actually seek a job and her benefits will continue unhindered until she no longer has children under the age of 18. There is no limit of 26 weeks or otherwise for somebody in her position.

4.) Her housing benefit would easily cover the cost of a house in Falmouth. In fact she would probably pocket some of this after covering her rent.

5.) While this is not 'typical' of the UK system it is far from isolated.

6.) She would be well aware that speaking out like this would not endanger her benefits and would in fact earn her a few grand from the magazine which originally ran the story.

7.) Her real name is not used in the article (it's Kelly Hannin for anybody who wants to hunt her down... ).

8.) There is no level to which the Cornish will not stoop.

[Sean]

Boob Job On Benefits Mum Named 'Entrepreneur Of The Year

Young single mum, Kelly Marshall from Cornwall, who has five kids by four different fathers and has never worked a day in her life was today named 'Entrepreneur Of The Year' by Sir Alan Saccharine.

Kelly, who funded breast augmentation surgery out of her benefit payments also announced that she intends to have liposuction, a tummy tuck, a nose job, and tattooed eyebrows - all on benefits.

Sir Alan said she was a shining example of enterprise culture, and added that anyone who has a flat screen TV in every room and a lovely pair of big plastic tits on benefits can't be all bad.

The tabloids ripped into Kelly, describing her as a shameless scrounger, and an old boiler, but we spoke to some local men who know Kelly and they were delighted for her.

"She's a lovely lassie," one man told us. "She's a good mum, and very smart with money. When she walks down the street in town wearing a low cut top and flashing all that lovely cleavage, she raises the temperature a bit I can tell you. And although I haven't been there yet, me mate Dave tells me she sucks like a Dyson on full power in the car park of the Bull and Butcher."

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm? ... 83866#this

[Scooter]

1.) Child Tax Credit is not a universal credit in the UK and is based on earnings (or rather lack thereof).

The point was that child tax credit is not dependent on being on social assistance, and so should not be painted as such for the purpose of this discussion.

2.) This woman is on 'jobseekers allowance' of more than £3,100 per annum which fills that hole in the numbers nicely.

Everyone keeps saying this, and yet the article makes no mention of it. Strange that they should omit this fact, particularly since someone on jobseeker's allowance is supposed to be "actively looking for work", and she clearly is not, and this fact could have been used to paint her even more negatively.

3.) Because she is a lone carer she will not be expected to actually seek a job and her benefits will continue unhindered until she no longer has children under the age of 18. There is no limit of 26 weeks or otherwise for somebody in her position.

Nothing I have seen on any government website says anything like this. If you have a source that does I would be obliged if you were to point it out.

4.) Her housing benefit would easily cover the cost of a house in Falmouth. In fact she would probably pocket some of this after covering her rent.

Again, I would be very surprised to see any documentation that would permit someone to pocket the difference between their housing benefit and their actual housing costs, if the latter is less than the former.

5.) While this is not 'typical' of the UK system it is far from isolated.

Then perhaps one of those other cases should have been used as an example as the "facts" might have held together better.

7.) Her real name is not used in the article

So the whole thing could have been completely made up and no one can be held to account if the facts don't correspond to an actual case.

8.) There is no level to which the Cornish will not stoop.

Nor the Daily Mail, apparently, who have held this Ms. X to be a real person when they have falsified her name without disclosing the fact (which they easily could have done if their reason was to protect her identity). Not having done so makes this smell all the more like a put up job.

[Gob]

In particular, when we introduced the lone parent obligations in 2008 we strengthened the flexibilities specifically for lone parents claiming jobseeker's allowance. These flexibilities allow lone parents to limit their availability for work, in discussion with an adviser, to a minimum of 16 hours a week in order to take account of their childcare responsibilities and to allow them to refuse a job or leave employment if this childcare is not available.

http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/p ... N150029641

[Scooter]

So she would have to agree to be available for work for 16 hours per week (which she has not).

Or she would have to be able to prove that child care is not available for one below school age child (which would be complete crap).

Thanks for making my point for me.

btw - none of that addresses the issue of whether she would have been subject to a maximum number of weeks collecting the allowance, which she would have long since exceeded if it is the case (as yet unrefuted)

[Gob]

Well now, isn't it about time you brought some evidence to the table, instead of just claiming not to believe what others have posted is true?

[Sean]

1.) Child Tax Credit is not a universal credit in the UK and is based on earnings (or rather lack thereof).

The point was that child tax credit is not dependent on being on social assistance, and so should not be painted as such for the purpose of this discussion.

Point be damned! I was correcting your uninformed and incorrect statement that Child Tax Credit was universal in the UK.

2.) This woman is on 'jobseekers allowance' of more than £3,100 per annum which fills that hole in the numbers nicely.

Everyone keeps saying this, and yet the article makes no mention of it. Strange that they should omit this fact, particularly since someone on jobseeker's allowance is supposed to be "actively looking for work", and she clearly is not, and this fact could have been used to paint her even more negatively.

Looks like I she's not on Jobseeker's Allowance but Income Support.

From another article on the same person here...

Kelly, who first fell pregnant at 15 with her first son Land (sic) dropped out of school, claims £870 a month in housing benefit, £975 in child tax credit, £260 in income support and £303 in child benefits, giving her a income of £29,000 a year, the equivalent of a £35,000 plus job.

From Directgov

Who can get Income Support
It's for people who all the following apply to:

•are between age 16 and the age they can get Pension Credit
•have a low income
•work less than 16 hours a week
•aren't in full-time study (but there are some exceptions)
•don't get Jobseeker's Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance
•don't have savings above £16,000
•live in Great Britain

Guess what? She doesn't have to be available for work to claim Income Support.

From the same article as above...

Kelly Marshall, who is known locally under the surname Fannin, appeared on the front page of the Daily Star beside the headline “sponger’s £4,500 boob job on benefits”, after a story appeared in Closer magazine.

Not so much protecting her identity as her using a different surname... The Daily Mail have not falsified her name. I'm betting that she is legally entitled to use either.

4.) Her housing benefit would easily cover the cost of a house in Falmouth. In fact she would probably pocket some of this after covering her rent.

Again, I would be very surprised to see any documentation that would permit someone to pocket the difference between their housing benefit and their actual housing costs, if the latter is less than the former.

There would be no such documentation but since when does something have to be permissable in order to be done? It is common practice in the UK for the benefit to be paid to the claimant rather than straight to the landlord. I have known many people there who were receiving benefit greater than the cost of their rent.

5.) While this is not 'typical' of the UK system it is far from isolated.

Then perhaps one of those other cases should have been used as an example as the "facts" might have held together better.

The facts hold together quite well Scoot. It's just that you refuse to accept this. There really is no shame in admitting that some of us might know the benefits system in the UK better than you do...

[Gob]

It's not like she's incapable of working, when she puts her mind to it...

The brassy babe rakes in £29,000 a year in benefits but she has still been nicked for pinching from B&Q, Superdrug and Asda. We told yesterday how Kelly, 32, collects wads of taxpayers’ cash thanks to her five children by four different men. She spent £4,500 on a pair of 34DD boobs.

But her spiralling shoplifting addiction led to an appearance in crown court last year where she was slapped with a year’s curfew. An ex-boyfriend said: “It was almost like an addiction for her, she’d do it five or six days a week. She’d shoplift all sorts of things from perfume to clothes. She was caught numerous times.”

When we tracked down the moaning mum from Pentryn, Cornwall, she said: “I have never done it. I’ve got five kids to think of.”
But a police insider said: “She’s not one of our worst but she had a history of shoplifting.”

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/15 ... op-nicker/

Her new role is poster girl for the UK dole culture, even the left wing "Grauniad" is talking about her..

Would Beveridge have been as outraged as Littlejohn purports to be over Kelly Marshall, whose 34DD breast augmentation surgery (reported this week) was funded out of savings from her £29,000-a-year career as a benefits mum with serial-but-absent fathers?

Almost certainly yes, though he might have noted that the boob job and the foreign holidays suggested lurking entrepreneurial talents in Marshall which should be nurtured and channelled into productive uses rather than condemned outright. Britain needs more small businesses.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/blog/ ... s-children

[Scooter]

Looks like I she's not on Jobseeker's Allowance but Income Support.

Thank you Sean. And it only took, what, about five rounds of posters insisting she was on jobseeker's allowance, and me insisting that could not be, until you were the one who took the time to prove them wrong.

4.) Her housing benefit would easily cover the cost of a house in Falmouth. In fact she would probably pocket some of this after covering her rent.

Again, I would be very surprised to see any documentation that would permit someone to pocket the difference between their housing benefit and their actual housing costs, if the latter is less than the former.

There would be no such documentation but since when does something have to be permissable in order to be done?

If she is defrauding the system that is quite another matter and she will have been caught out now, won't she?

There really is no shame in admitting that some of us might know the benefits system in the UK better than you do.

I have absolutely no shame in admitting precisely that. Strange, though, that it took me to keep pointing out over and over again that certain things did not make sense, and the "locals" insisting that it did, until you demonstrated that their version turned out to be bollocks. Thanks again, btw.

Well now, isn't it about time you brought some evidence to the table, instead of just claiming not to believe what others have posted is true?

No need. Sean just proved that you were wrong, and I was right to keep pointing out that you weren't posting sense, since eventually he managed to find out what the real story was. Thanks again Sean.