dozen it make you sick....

M

mangaman74

Akatsuki
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... ngers.html

An idle benefit scrounger whose partner is having her 12th child bragged yesterday: "We have enough for a football team."

Jobless Gary Bateman and Joanne Sheppard have even been given a free five-bedroom house to raise their brood in.

Soon after moving into the new property mum-of-11 Joanne, 36, was pregnant again. She is to give birth at the end of the year.

The £1,200-a-month rent on their imposing detached home comes out of more than £30,000 a year they claim from the State.

Fiona McEvoy, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: "It's disgraceful that this family is being given more than taxpayers earn. Our benefits system needs real reform."

But Bateman, 46, whined: "People should mind their own business. We're not doing anyone any harm.

"It's a nice place. We outgrew the last house. It was a bit of a nightmare being on top of each other."

He joked of Joanne's pregnancy: "It was an accident. Something happened that wasn't supposed to. We've enough for a football team."

The Sun told last year how shameless Bateman claimed for a bad back - despite taking part in the off-road biking sport of motocross. Nearly 18 months later he still has no job and rakes in a weekly £89.80 long-term incapacity payout, while driving his family around in a van.

Joanne first got pregnant at 17 and has not worked since. She has children by three men. Her offspring with Bateman range from a son of 17 to a baby of eight months.

Child benefit alone brings in hundreds of pounds a month.

They can claim £20.30 a week for the oldest child at home and £13.40 for others up to the age of 18.

They could also be eligible for a Guardian's Allowance of £14.30 a week per child.

Until January the couple were in a three-bed council house in Yate, near Bristol.

But South Gloucestershire District Council has moved them to a spacious privately-rented home in suburban Staple Hill.

Bateman, who has also fathered children with other women, admits he could not remember when he last had a job.

He said last year of his biking hobby: "I have to keep myself occupied."

The grasping pair first made news in 2006, boasting of a £1,500 Christmas spending spree on taxpayers.
Click to expand...
 
Mangaman, no offence but do you wanna stop before AUKN's Random becomes an exact copy of The Sun's own forum?
 
30k a year of which 1.2k a month comes out of that for rent. That means after rent they have about 14k a year to spend on themselves and 12 kids to clothe and feed. These idiots are hardly living the big life The Sun and The Mail would have you beleive.

Having said that, the fact they get rent paid for them does really nark me off.
 
Not a day goes by where The Sun doesn't report yet another story of benefit chasers. Yes, people get stupid amounts of benefits. We get it. Now how about reporting real news, The Sun?
 
I get news like this from the random papers that are left in the staffroom where I work... And this is another I found within them.
I was reading it and with some other colleges, I muttered, "For Pete's sake..."
I explained the story out loud to them and said, "They do this on purpose, just to get the money..."
"Then what would you do with them?" a male college then asked me. I replied:
"I dunno, ship them all out to different countries..."
He looked a little amused and shocked, but I still stick with my opinion.

I just dont get the whole idea of making a huge family and getting into a situation that would usually send them into deep poverty. But they get away with it because of the benefits they recieve. What happened to having a family of a size that you know the children will get attention, fed by yourself, taught and grow a bond with? There is no positive aspect of this except a lazy/easy life of ignorance - Something a parent should never be representing of.

I'd like to see what would happen if one of their own was badly hurt/killed in an incident, and then look at their reactions... I'll wait for the tears to fall before I believe they're a real family.
 
It's a tough one. You can cut off benefits to adults who should be able to take care of themselves (as long as they don't fake disabilities) but you can't really do that to children. Well, you can, but it would seem a bit heartless given the fact that the result would probably be a massive increase in the child mortality rate.

Probably the state should just take the kids people can't afford to look after into care, then intensively train them to play the financial markets for the national coffers. They could be paid an average wage for doing so, albeit heavily taxed to pay back what it cost to raise them; kind of like the way student loans work.

...

I'm an awful, awful person, aren't I?
 
ayase said:
It's a tough one. You can cut off benefits to adults who should be able to take care of themselves (as long as they don't fake disabilities) but you can't really do that to children. Well, you can, but it would seem a bit heartless given the fact that the result would probably be a massive increase in the child mortality rate.

Probably the state should just take the kids people can't afford to look after into care, then intensively train them to play the financial markets for the national coffers. They could be paid an average wage for doing so, albeit heavily taxed to pay back what it cost to raise them; kind of like the way student loans work.

...

I'm an awful, awful person, aren't I?
Click to expand...
You'd get my vote for PM.
 
The Sun...all credibility is lost when you link to it or quote it.

and if we wanna talk benefit "scroungers", we should remember that 99% of people on benefits are not commiting fraud, they actualy need the support.

and the biggest scroungers of all?

the ones that get £40m+ per anum and dont even have to prove they need it, or look for work, or do much of anything really, I speak of course, of the Monarchy (AKA the publicly funded and endorsed aristocracy)
 
But then why should people who are perfectly capable of working need the support of the state? Lack of jobs. Why are there no jobs? Because our country cannot compete on an international level. Why can our country not compete on an international level? Because the cost of living (therefore wages) is so high. Why is the cost of living so high? Due primarily to the cost of housing and food. Why do these things cost so much? Because Britain has a lot of people, and not a lot of land. Why are there so many people? Because the state supports them no matter what. With money it doesn't even have.

This is all going to end one of three ways. Option one; we accept that the wealth of our country has basically been borrowed on credit cards we'll never be able to pay off, and we scrap most benefits along with the minimum wage and just become another economy on the China / India model where most people are paid very little and lead very basic existences. This is the most sensible but the least likely.

Option two; we keep on borrowing to sustain our lifestyles, until everything including our government is really owned by China, who can then do what the hell they like.

Option three; the whole thing f*cking collapses and we end up in a country run by a genocidal dictator whose answer to the overcrowding problem and lack of jobs is, shall we say, a little more... basic. This, I think, is the most likely scenario.

/soapbox
 
well option 3 is out, since our political and legal system can't actually sustain dictators

option 1 won't happen because of human rights

option 2 seems to be the only likely one
 
ayase said:
But then why should people who are perfectly capable of working need the support of the state? Lack of jobs. Why are there no jobs? Because our country cannot compete on an international level. Why can our country not compete on an international level? Because the cost of living (therefore wages) is so high. Why is the cost of living so high? Due primarily to the cost of housing and food. Why do these things cost so much? Because Britain has a lot of people, and not a lot of land. Why are there so many people? Because the state supports them no matter what. With money it doesn't even have.

This is all going to end one of three ways. Option one; we accept that the wealth of our country has basically been borrowed on credit cards we'll never be able to pay off, and we scrap most benefits along with the minimum wage and just become another economy on the China / India model where most people are paid very little and lead very basic existences. This is the most sensible but the least likely.

Option two; we keep on borrowing to sustain our lifestyles, until everything including our government is really owned by China, who can then do what the hell they like.

Option three; the whole thing f*cking collapses and we end up in a country run by a genocidal dictator whose answer to the overcrowding problem and lack of jobs is, shall we say, a little more... basic. This, I think, is the most likely scenario.

/soapbox
Click to expand...
Which is why I said throw them out. They cant support themselves, they dont even try and it's the taxes/our money that is paying for them. But that's not unlimited, so we'd suffer more and more, with money getting tighter and less people able to keep up.
So that'll mean more benefits, more money needed, higher tazes again... It's not going to settle itself out.

I dont want to see people butchered because of money, nor do I agree with living on borrowed money and borrowed time. So out of the 3, I'd scrap benefits. Maybe once people know there's no "lifeline" to save them, they'd think more about working harder and suriving on their own more.
 
I don't think that's *really* why people come here; that's just another tabloid rage story for the angry mob. They come here because of the high wages and the good standard of living... Which we only have because we're able to borrow / create huge quantities of money. If we weren't we would be in a worse state than Bangladesh or Ethiopia, so useless is the majority of our population at actually doing anything productive. and I include myself and any other service sector employee in that. We push paper and inflate prices, that's all we're good for.
 
Back
Top