Are There Any Restrictions On...
ChatterBank0 min ago
Jobless couple given �500,000 home
A detached eight bedroom house with its own garden and driveway has been given to a jobless couple with 12 children. It is a house that many dream of being able to afford but this family have not had to pay a penny. They were given the house after their former home was burnt down in a fire. Neither of the parents has a job � claiming they would earn less if they worked. The couple receive an astonishing �44,000 a year in benefits. What do you think? Are these people lazy scroungers? Or are they working an unfair system to their own benefit � something we should all think of doing?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by AB Asks. 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.
How many of the people on here condemning them would work if they'd lose money as a result?
I think the condemnation is because they keep spawning children that they expect the rest of us to support. They don't need to keep breeding - it's their choice.
Look at it this way, I'd like that house because I would like a house with a library and a dedicated home cinema room. Would the people defending this family be as happy to pay for what I want?
I think the condemnation is because they keep spawning children that they expect the rest of us to support. They don't need to keep breeding - it's their choice.
Look at it this way, I'd like that house because I would like a house with a library and a dedicated home cinema room. Would the people defending this family be as happy to pay for what I want?
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 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?
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 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?
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.