Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
awaytogo

Single Mothers Lose Legal Challenge To Benefit Cap

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-24818747

Lawyers acting for three mothers and one child from each family, all from the London area, said the "cruel and arbitrary" measure was "reminiscent of the days of the workhouse", and the women feared it would leave them destitute.

These Lawyers are just a joke making comments like that

Leave the lawyers destitute in other words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrible news if those factories shut their doors forever. Baby-making is one of Britain's last remaining growth industries.

Hopes of backdoor citizenship, 4 minutes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do what the yanks do. Get the payments off the absent baby daddies. If they dont come up with the dosh, send them to the labour camp.

The Americans are amazingly tough - they actually send people to jail for not paying civil debts, ie child support. Inability to pay is no defence and there are cases where paternity has been disproved by DNA but the "father" still has to pay or go to jail because he signed the birth certificate years ago (never dreaming the mother had been "playing away".)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Americans are amazingly tough - they actually send people to jail for not paying civil debts, ie child support. Inability to pay is no defence and there are cases where paternity has been disproved by DNA but the "father" still has to pay or go to jail because he signed the birth certificate years ago (never dreaming the mother had been "playing away".)

Yup. I think one of those was detailed in the OT forum.

Id probably add a get out clause for non biological/adopted children...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are very harsh.

You do realise such protection as there is against state interference with rights belongs to you as well, and when it's gone it's gone.

In this case it wasn't a case of rights, but lawfulness. As with benefits, if you want your taxation capped, vote accordingly. UKIP and Tories are therefore not an option - they'll cap benefits for the poor while making you pay more for benefits for the wealthy. Crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24818747

Lawyers acting for three mothers and one child from each family, all from the London area, said the "cruel and arbitrary" measure was "reminiscent of the days of the workhouse", and the women feared it would leave them destitute.

These Lawyers are just a joke making comments like that

As a taxpayer, do I really want to pay for other peoples kids? No I don't. The £500 per week cap is a lot more than I earn, therefore the cap needs to be a lot lower. It is not Reminiscent of a workhouse, I doubt they have ever been to one. This is just making a mockery of hard working single taxpayers like me making do.

X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are very harsh.

You do realise such protection as there is against state interference with rights belongs to you as well, and when it's gone it's gone.

In this case it wasn't a case of rights, but lawfulness. As with benefits, if you want your taxation capped, vote accordingly. UKIP and Tories are therefore not an option - they'll cap benefits for the poor while making you pay more for benefits for the wealthy. Crazy.

£500pw is equivalent to a salary of £34000.

Someone with a salary of £34000 is not poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are very harsh.

You do realise such protection as there is against state interference with rights belongs to you as well, and when it's gone it's gone.

In this case it wasn't a case of rights, but lawfulness. As with benefits, if you want your taxation capped, vote accordingly. UKIP and Tories are therefore not an option - they'll cap benefits for the poor while making you pay more for benefits for the wealthy. Crazy.

Yes it should be remembered that capping benefits for single mums isn't to save money and won't result in a single cut in taxation for most of us. Its more money for our feudal overlords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are so out of touch, have you any idea how much fags, cider, 50 inch plasmas and sky TV costs these days and you can hardly get a decent take-away delivered for less than £20.

You forgot designer trainers and iPads

Apart from that spot on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are so out of touch, have you any idea how much fags, cider, 50 inch plasmas and sky TV costs these days and you can hardly get a decent take-away delivered for less than £20.

Yes a lot of those hard working landlords of single mums will be upset at having to let all that go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a taxpayer, do I really want to pay for other peoples kids? No I don't. The £500 per week cap is a lot more than I earn, therefore the cap needs to be a lot lower. It is not Reminiscent of a workhouse, I doubt they have ever been to one. This is just making a mockery of hard working single taxpayers like me making do.

X

......out of that £500 how much of it goes towards rent and CT?....and where are the fathers in all this, surely they should have some responsibility towards the children they brought into this world. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopes of backdoor citizenship, 4 minutes in.

Poor buggers.

I doubt they want to come to London to scavenge through bins for old clothes to sell but the numbers are compelling. By doing it he's earning significantly more than a doctor in his own homeland.

This whole issue is just symptomatic of failings on behalf of the Romanian government and E.U for not creating better services and a chance of a better life for these people in their homeland. No running water, no sanitation, no electricity!

I'd leave too.

Sending them back to Romania without making what they're going back to something worth staying for is just pointless. It simply amounts to a free ticket home and like he said he'll always return to London. Rinse and repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much more on the families in question here.

Maria and her children have been in temporary accommodation for five years, after they became homeless in 2008. Her youngest is one year old and there’s four of them now crammed into a flat in London.

So, she recently had another child, despite being in temporary accommodation for five years...

Maria is a refugee, having fled Poland to England after suffering persecution for being Roma and Roman Catholic. She was denied schooling as a child due to the widespread discrimination against the Roma community and is now unable to read or write. Maria’s husband has left her, living nearby with their fourth child, their 12 year old daughter, and she is heavily reliant on her church and relatives who live locally. She has no choice but to remain in London.

I want to stay near the children’s father, my daughter, and the boy’s schools if at all possible,” Maria says. “I’ve been trying to get cheaper accommodation for many years but without success.”

Methinks "no choice" is somewhat subjective.

Before the judicial review was issued and her housing association reduced her rent, she was paying £525 per week.

Nice charitable housing association rent there.

Much more at the link. I can't help but think they should move somewhere cheaper. Nobody needs to stay in central London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending them back to Romania without making what they're going back to something worth staying for is just pointless. It simply amounts to a free ticket home and like he said he'll always return to London. Rinse and repeat.

Aah but he probably owns his own house (or rather shack)

But I know people in the States that do, one bought while a student for a few thousand dollars, but now locked in a semi rural poverty.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much more on the families in question here.

So, she recently had another child, despite being in temporary accommodation for five years...

Methinks "no choice" is somewhat subjective.

Nice charitable housing association rent there.

Much more at the link. I can't help but think they should move somewhere cheaper. Nobody needs to stay in central London.

Why.....Central London you can become anonymous, there are more easy pickings, more waste, more people with much more than in other places.....why not central London, does it make the place look dirty or something? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why.....Central London you can become anonymous, there are more easy pickings, more waste, more people with much more than in other places.....why not central London, does it make the place look dirty or something? :unsure:

Cutting your coat according to your cloth.

I can't afford to live in central London at the sort of rental prices quoted. So, I don't.

It's not a human right to live somewhere insanely expensive on the assumption someone else will pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cutting your coat according to your cloth.

I can't afford to live in central London at the sort of rental prices quoted. So, I don't.

It's not a human right to live somewhere insanely expensive on the assumption someone else will pay for it.

...you don't pay if you sleep on the streets....

I can't afford to live in Central London not that I want to....but I reserve the right of the people who have lived there most or all of their life to continue living there, close to their support networks........but newcomers demanding state funded accommodation without paying anything for it is another matter. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

......out of that £500 how much of it goes towards rent and CT?....and where are the fathers in all this, surely they should have some responsibility towards the children they brought into this world. :unsure:

From what i have heard the latest fiddle is for the mother to say she does not know who the Farther is, so benefits are paid straight away and there may be a little bit of cash in hand from the father.

SICK in my thoughts, but some people will do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.