ChatterBank1 min ago
AB Have Your Say Survey - badly worded again
22 Answers
This couple have NOT been given an 8 bedroom house. It is not theirs and never will be.
They are being accommodated in the house only. The question is impossible to answer.
They are being accommodated in the house only. The question is impossible to answer.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ethel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The couple are being housed in this eight bedroom home for nothing, whether they will ever own this property is irrelevant. It is no concern of theirs whether they own this property. They are aware that the UK's benefit system will ensure that them and their 12 children are never homeless - whether they work or not!
And altought they may 'only' be accomodated in this house for the meantime they will be given another (large) house for nothing when the time is right.
The point is, is that this family do not work, receive �44,000 a year in benefits yet have the luxury of being able to raise their children full-time. They are very aware of the benefits they receive for being jobless with children.
The poll had options for those who think our system is fair and unfair.
And altought they may 'only' be accomodated in this house for the meantime they will be given another (large) house for nothing when the time is right.
The point is, is that this family do not work, receive �44,000 a year in benefits yet have the luxury of being able to raise their children full-time. They are very aware of the benefits they receive for being jobless with children.
The poll had options for those who think our system is fair and unfair.
I would say AB are being impartial, they are stating FACTS, giving an opinion and yet a per usual people just pick fault.
The questions are written to obtain peoples opinions on the content of the post, NOT the way it is written.
Ethel - you say 'badly worded again' what other surveys have been badly worded?...appears a bit of a sweeping statement.
The questions are written to obtain peoples opinions on the content of the post, NOT the way it is written.
Ethel - you say 'badly worded again' what other surveys have been badly worded?...appears a bit of a sweeping statement.
This family get no more and no less than other large families living off the state - Liz Bardsley was getting �44000 in benefits a year or two ago.
However, I still believe that the statement in the survey 'given an 8 bedroom detached house for nothing' is factually wrong and is merely trying to provoke in the best Daily Mail style.
Any family with 12 children receive �7600 per annum in child benefit alone regardless of their income, by the way.
However, I still believe that the statement in the survey 'given an 8 bedroom detached house for nothing' is factually wrong and is merely trying to provoke in the best Daily Mail style.
Any family with 12 children receive �7600 per annum in child benefit alone regardless of their income, by the way.
I disagree, its not factually wrong the family have been given the house whether its for 2 days 2 weeks or 2 years they have still been given it.
I think the point that we seem to be avoiding and maybe that�s so we can all be seen to be politically correct...I don�t know...But these people don�t work and clearly have no intention to work.
The husband quit his job before he even started, prior to that he used to work as a salesman. Now people who work in sales work for the commission, right? Not the basic salary, he should have surely been motivated by the fact he had 15 mouths to feed, children to clothe and has the responsibility to put a roof over their head, that�s not the states responsibility otherwise no one would work.
He had the chance to work his ar*e off and didn't instead he quit the job, took the easy option out and now relies on tax payers to fund his family.
If people want to have a ridiculous number of children that�s their business, fine. But don�t bring kids into the world if you can�t afford to care for them and don�t expect everyone else to pay,
The parents should be responsible and yet without government intervention and handouts their children wouldn't have a roof over their head so they would be homeless. They wouldn�t have clothes to wear nor would they have food on the table so they would starve....that�s some what irresponsible I'd say and surely child cruelty and a case for the NSPCC?
The Mother claims she was born to have and look after children and lives for her kids. I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who feel like that but aren't irresponsible enough to take that path without planning for a family of 15...
I think the point that we seem to be avoiding and maybe that�s so we can all be seen to be politically correct...I don�t know...But these people don�t work and clearly have no intention to work.
The husband quit his job before he even started, prior to that he used to work as a salesman. Now people who work in sales work for the commission, right? Not the basic salary, he should have surely been motivated by the fact he had 15 mouths to feed, children to clothe and has the responsibility to put a roof over their head, that�s not the states responsibility otherwise no one would work.
He had the chance to work his ar*e off and didn't instead he quit the job, took the easy option out and now relies on tax payers to fund his family.
If people want to have a ridiculous number of children that�s their business, fine. But don�t bring kids into the world if you can�t afford to care for them and don�t expect everyone else to pay,
The parents should be responsible and yet without government intervention and handouts their children wouldn't have a roof over their head so they would be homeless. They wouldn�t have clothes to wear nor would they have food on the table so they would starve....that�s some what irresponsible I'd say and surely child cruelty and a case for the NSPCC?
The Mother claims she was born to have and look after children and lives for her kids. I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who feel like that but aren't irresponsible enough to take that path without planning for a family of 15...
continued...
I think it�s a disgrace and I can�t believe anyone would condone their behaviour. The government should be slowly weaning people like this off the benefits system and make them start to pay for themselves, that�s fairer all round wouldn�t you say?
Put it this way I�m in a good job, went to university, trying to better myself and my future and yet I�m paying off what seems like an endless amount of debt from uni � which I�m proud to say I funded 100% myself. However I can�t afford to move out, I can�t afford my own car yet what do people like myself get from the state? Nothing that�s what, even as a student I was paying tax, financially struggling was only entitled to the lowest student loan going. I had 3 jobs and studied full time and I didn�t get a single penny from the state that I don�t have to pay back.
Maybe I should have dropped out of uni, got myself pregnant, got myself a house and ponced off the state�the government seems to prefer it this way.
O and it was one of their children who burnt their previous house, he was playing with a cigarette lighter�responsible parents? Worth the tax payers money?...thought not.
I think it�s a disgrace and I can�t believe anyone would condone their behaviour. The government should be slowly weaning people like this off the benefits system and make them start to pay for themselves, that�s fairer all round wouldn�t you say?
Put it this way I�m in a good job, went to university, trying to better myself and my future and yet I�m paying off what seems like an endless amount of debt from uni � which I�m proud to say I funded 100% myself. However I can�t afford to move out, I can�t afford my own car yet what do people like myself get from the state? Nothing that�s what, even as a student I was paying tax, financially struggling was only entitled to the lowest student loan going. I had 3 jobs and studied full time and I didn�t get a single penny from the state that I don�t have to pay back.
Maybe I should have dropped out of uni, got myself pregnant, got myself a house and ponced off the state�the government seems to prefer it this way.
O and it was one of their children who burnt their previous house, he was playing with a cigarette lighter�responsible parents? Worth the tax payers money?...thought not.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.