Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Benefit Claimant In London Says They Won't Work For Less Than £36,000

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3284363/Mother-six-2million-45-year-shoplifting-career-lives-benefits-claims-wants-job-won-t-work-36-000-year.html

  • Kim Farry, 54, started stealing on London high streets when she was nine
  • At her peak she was earning around £50,000 a year from shoplifting
  • Single mother wants at least £1,000-a-week to consider life off benefits
  • Criminal has been in jail five times and has more than 30 convictions
  • Claims employers ignore her job applications because she is 'too common'

A thief known as Britain's 'shoplifting queen' because she made £2million in 45 years is now purely living on benefits and refuses to get a job unless it pays more than £36,000-a-year.

Single mother-of-six Kim Farry lives rent free in a flat in Fulham and collects up to £250-per-week in cash handouts so believes that finding a normal job would force her to take a pay cut.

The 54-year-old has calculated she needs £4,000-a-month to survive off benefits and claims employers refuse to give her work because she is ‘too common’.

I'm guessing her problem is she has very little skills to offer someone who's willing to pay her £36,000, the benefit trap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is the way to go? We have all been taught that if we are honest, do well at school, climb the career ladder, pay tax etc we will be good, model citizens, yet the people who seem to have the most comfortable lives do the exact opposite - either live all their lives on benefits having lots of children and manipulating the system or they are the rich, politicians and financiers who come from the school of no morals and "do as I say, not as I do". Really isn't much point in being a good person these days. Just end up poor in old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way or another we are all indirectly paying the cost of crime......far more in social and financial cost than benefits/ tax credits. ;)

Edited by winkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one sentence the Mall says she lives rent free but she's then quoted as saying she pays £715 /month rent.

I wouldn't take an 18k job in London either.

Not sure what people like this are actually supposed to do. Does the Mall want her paraded through the streets in sackcloth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps she should apply for a job at Goldman Sachs, where greed & dihonesty are rewarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one sentence the Mall says she lives rent free but she's then quoted as saying she pays £715 /month rent.

I wouldn't take an 18k job in London either.

Not sure what people like this are actually supposed to do. Does the Mall want her paraded through the streets in sackcloth?

I guess it means that someone else (us) pays it.

In ideal system she would have to do workfare for what she gets - and wouldn't live in Fulham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should really start taxing benefits so people are not comparing apples and pears.

To "get" 1k a week you actually need someone to pay you £77,000

No because then, just like public sector workers, these people will convince themselves they are actually tax payers!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one sentence the Mall says she lives rent free but she's then quoted as saying she pays £715 /month rent.

I wouldn't take an 18k job in London either.

Not sure what people like this are actually supposed to do. Does the Mall want her paraded through the streets in sackcloth?

Send her to Redcar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lives in Fulham. I'd like to live there too but can't afford it.

Let's face facts, she makes way more money from benefits and shoplifting than getting an actual job. From her perspective why should she get a job?

The system is broken. There is little punishment for being a criminal, just rewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her best chance would be to go the poacher turned gamekeeper route for a big London store. I bet she is really good at spotting other shoplifters.

I doubt it. She's been jailed 5 times and convicted 30 times (probably multiple offences rolled into each hearing and a spell in jail every sixth prosecution) during her career. So not a very good thief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it. She's been jailed 5 times and convicted 30 times (probably multiple offences rolled into each hearing and a spell in jail every sixth prosecution) during her career. So not a very good thief.

If she was raking in £50k a year as claimed, jail time would be an occupational hazard and once you are known to the store detectives it becomes easier to catch you.

I would say her jail time for a £2m in salary is an exchange many people would make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is being perfectly rational faced with the choices put in front of her. In that sense you cannot blame her for being human.,...using her brain to work out what is best for her. People do it in all walks of life. There is a significant proportion of the population who would take no other factors into account apart from those incentives....i.e. morals do not come into it. I recall dentists filling children's mouths with mercury when they were paid by the filling and it all stopped when the incentive structure was changed. Bankers is another well known group lambasted on this site for behaving like humans, yet there is no evidence to suggest they are any different to any other group of people.

Personally I would give her a Citizens' Income with no housing benefit allowable anywhere in the country. She would then no doubt make the choice to move to a cheaper part of the country if she did not want to work.

Until then, I refuse to join in the condemnation for her acting intelligently.

Instead, I will save my ire for those who design the incentive structures of this country. In fact I think I would rename Parliament to make it clear to the electorate they set the incentives for society so everyone is fully aware of that and know exactly who to blame.

Spot on.

What new name would you choose for Parliament? The Church of Money?

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   35 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.