The scouse Cash family.

RasTa

They have hit their go fund me target anyway.

Feel sorry for the kids, should be taken away and put in care.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/family-nine-surviving-just-480-21049281

McMurphy

Get It Fixed wrote: »

Why do poor people always have stupidly large families?

Riding as a pastime is cheap.

dpofloinn

Cant feed them don't breed them, to quote Twink zip up your mickey

Wanderer78

Get It Fixed wrote:

Why do poor people always have stupidly large families?

Possibly to improve the chances of social success, poverty doesn't follow the rules of logic

antix80

RasTa wrote: »

Feel sorry for the kids, should be taken away and put in care.

Workshy people with too many kids deserve to live in near-poverty.

When the kids grow up they'll say "i had a feckless dad and we never had anything, so i won't repeat his mistakes"

Wanderer78

antix80 wrote:

When the kids grow up they'll say "i had a feckless dad and we never had anything, so i won't repeat his mistakes"

Or maybe they'll do the exact same thing

Atlantic Dawn

No worries about their carbon footprint anyways.

RasTa

RasTa wrote: »

They have hit their go fund me target anyway.

Feel sorry for the kids, should be taken away and put in care.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/family-nine-surviving-just-480-21049281

I'm far from a bleeding heart, but that's a fairly rotten declaration to base on hardly any information at all.

Can you imagine having no job with 7 children including two sets of twins, all under 7 years of age to look after? I've not kids and even I know that's going to be a massive burden on ANYONE. Even on an average industrial wage, they'd struggle and when something goes wrong it'll go wrong really quickly.

They're trying to get by and it's not as though he's never worked a day in his life. They have some problems (and no doubt there's complexity there) but lumping them in with the likes of Cash is needlessly unkind.

Guy:Incognito

JayZeus wrote: »

I'm far from a bleeding heart, but that's a fairly rotten declaration to base on hardly any information at all.

Can you imagine having no job with 7 children including two sets of twins, all under 7 years of age to look after? I've not kids and even I know that's going to be a massive burden on ANYONE. Even on an average industrial wage, they'd struggle and when something goes wrong it'll go wrong really quickly.

They're trying to get by and it's not as though he's never worked a day in his life. They have some problems (and no doubt there's complexity there) but lumping them in with the likes of Cash is needlessly unkind.

Presumably one or both of them had jobs while they were having 7 kids and only became unemployed afterwards, yeah?


Btw, it was a rhetorical question. I've read the article. They were never in a position to afford to have 7 kids.

No poster on this thread is in my ignore list.

I know single parents with one baby and they cannot care for them.

howamidifferent

It's well overdue this country bringing in similar benefit caps to discourage sitting on your arse all day and taking hard earned money from others to pay for your lifestyle. This country has become a socialist utopia for the scrounging class.

howamidifferent

howamidifferent wrote: »

It's well overdue this country bringing in similar benefit caps to discourage sitting on your arse all day and taking hard earned money from others to pay for your lifestyle. This country has become a socialist utopia for the scrounging class.

Yeah - I never actually heard of welfare caps. That seems such an obvious and genius idea. I'm sure it'll wake a few people up when they realise they can't just squeeze out kids indefinitely.


Hopefully similar will be put in place over here. Can't see why it won't be a resounding success.

splinter65

JayZeus wrote: »

I'm far from a bleeding heart, but that's a fairly rotten declaration to base on hardly any information at all.

Can you imagine having no job with 7 children including two sets of twins, all under 7 years of age to look after? I've not kids and even I know that's going to be a massive burden on ANYONE. Even on an average industrial wage, they'd struggle and when something goes wrong it'll go wrong really quickly.

They're trying to get by and it's not as though he's never worked a day in his life. They have some problems (and no doubt there's complexity there) but lumping them in with the likes of Cash is needlessly unkind.

All he has to do (or she) is get a job for a minimum of 16 hours per week and their benefits will be returned to normal. It’s so sad to see those kids sitting on that sofa with both parents with their hands out for free money when neither parent appears to have any physical impairment to them working.

Skylinehead

Deleted User wrote: »

Hopefully similar will be put in place over here. Can't see why it won't be a resounding success.

Because it's a resounding disaster in Britain?

seenitall

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah - I never actually heard of welfare caps. That seems such an obvious and genius idea. I'm sure it'll wake a few people up when they realise they can't just squeeze out kids indefinitely.


Hopefully similar will be put in place over here. Can't see why it won't be a resounding success.

I can't figure out if this post is sarcastic or not, but anyway, I grew up in a relatively poor country with minimal welfare handouts. And lo and behold, pretty much everyone managed to limit themselves to having only the number of children they could afford (which usually meant two). And when I say pretty much everyone, I mean that. No cushy safety net, no parenting as a career choice, no bringing more mouths to feed than you are able to, into this world. Kinda teaches responsibility. So yeah, I think a safety net somewhat less entitled and cushy would probably work wonders in certain quarters, on all fronts in fact.

Plumbthedepths

Benefits cap sounds like a great idea tbh . Although I can hear the howls of outrage already.

Inquitus

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Benefits cap sounds like a great idea tbh . Although I can hear the howls of outrage already.

It would need to involve some sort of Grandfathering for existing claimants though, we can't just gut welfare to families that already have lots of kids overnight, that will cause all sorts of problems.

That said if it was introduced going forwards then it would make sure these families make some practical decisions about how many kids they can afford to have on welfare, we certainly shouldn't be incentivising having loads of kids due to an ever scaling payment structure that encourages popping out as many as you can, rewarding you with ever increasing benefit payments.

elperello

What purpose is this thread supposed to be serving?

Is it -
A To draw attention to the problems of the poor in the UK.
B To raise the matter of the Cash family again.
C To discuss real ideas about welfare reform.
or
D None of the above.

nullzero

One of the chisslers is called "Laysie".

They should go one further and adopt that as their family name.

suicide_circus

Rodgers by name, rodgers by nature

Grimes by name, grimes by nature

Plumbthedepths

elperello wrote: »

What purpose is this thread supposed to be serving?

Is it -
A To draw attention to the problems of the poor in the UK.
B To raise the matter of the Cash family again.
C To discuss real ideas about welfare reform.
or
D None of the above.

I wasn't aware that the UK has a benefit cap. I personally think it's a great idea, it would certainly improve the work participation rates of certain groups in society. Generational welfare would not be as attractive.

TheValeyard

Kids are expensive. I've a hell of a lot of respect for single parents. Even with a partner raising a kid is tough, stressful, 24/7 job. Yes it's also awesome and wouldnt trade it for anything. But I'd be very hesitant to cap funding for single/lone parents. But large families benefits should probably be curtailed there in someway. It's not a simple issue really. But there should be some measure in place to stop people taking the piss.

X111111111111

Bad idea. It's been an utter disaster in the UK.

Plumbthedepths

TheValeyard wrote: »

Kids are expensive. I've a hell of a lot of respect for single parents. Even with a partner raising a kid is tough, stressful, 24/7 job. Yes it's also awesome and wouldnt trade it for anything. But I'd be very hesitant to cap funding for single/lone parents. But large families benefits should probably be curtailed there in someway. It's not a simple issue really. But there should be some measure in place to stop people taking the piss.

Unless the other parent is dead or it was through AI. There is no such thing as a single parent. The other parent exists and should contribute to the costs of raising their child.

Abba987

X111111111111 wrote: »

Bad idea. It's been an utter disaster in the UK.

In what way? I never knew it existed before this thread.

bunderoon

elperello wrote: »

What purpose is this thread supposed to be serving?

Is it -
A To draw attention to the problems of the poor in the UK.
B To raise the matter of the Cash family again.
C To discuss real ideas about welfare reform.
or
D None of the above.

E) Draw attention to the Irish Tax payer that there may be hope for us yet. To those of us who work and only have the number of kids that we can afford. Every euro we can keep in the pot helps us all. Bad enough when we have wasters at the top and at the bottom.

TheValeyard

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Unless the other parent is dead or it was through AI. There is no such thing as a single parent. The other parent exists and should contribute to the costs of raising their child.

One night stands, random encounters, etc lone parents exist.

suicide_circus

splinter65 wrote: »

All he has to do (or she) is get a job for a minimum of 16 hours per week and their benefits will be returned to normal.

if thats true then they are both an utter disgrace to parenthood.

sdanseo

X111111111111 wrote: »

Bad idea. It's been an utter disaster in the UK.

On the off chance you're not trolling, do you genuinely think it is a good idea to hand out free money to people who couldn't be bothered working?

suicide_circus

sdanseo wrote: »

On the off chance you're not trolling, do you genuinely think it is a good idea to hand out unlimited free money to people who couldn't be bothered working?

i've made a slight change to your post there if i may

jmreire

TheValeyard wrote: »

One night stands, random encounters, etc lone parents exist.

Sure they do, and so does DNA testing...and the task of leaving all the heavy lifting of rearing the child, should not be left with the mother alone.

Plumbthedepths

TheValeyard wrote: »

One night stands, random encounters, etc lone parents exist.

There is still another parent who bares responsibility for the child. Regardless of the relationship between the parents. The taxpayer should not be the primary source. Certainly as a top-up payment but not as I said making the taxpayer the primary source.

RasTa

A DWP spokesperson said: “The benefit cap was introduced to encourage people to seek work by ensuring their maximum income on benefits does not exceed that of a household in work.”

You can't disagree with that. Cap is good.

Doubt the Christmas bonus exists over here either.

DaveyDave

"We feel really ashamed to have to do this as we've never had to do anything like this before."

That's what they're ashamed about? Having to ask strangers for GoFundMe money? Not ashamed about having 7 kids at 25? SEVEN??? Not ashamed to be so reckless you bring more and more children into your miserable sponge life?

dartboardio

It sickens me to see people that have never had a job, and have no disability yet no intention to work, willingly having 3/4 kids then living in a hotel for example, and willingly having another child again. It's an absolute disgrace..

fritzelly

Limiting benefits to the same as those in work - don't see what's wrong with that
Two young able bodied people not being able to find work but no problem popping out kid after kid - no sympathy from me

suicide_circus

DaveyDave wrote: »

"We feel really ashamed to have to do this as we've never had to do anything like this before."

That's what they're ashamed about? Having to ask strangers for GoFundMe money? Not ashamed about having 7 kids at 25? SEVEN??? Not ashamed to be so reckless you bring more and more children into your miserable sponge life?

if only that shame had kicked in a little sooner

splinter65

RasTa wrote: »

You can't disagree with that. Cap is good.

Doubt the Christmas bonus exists over here either.

Yes it does. Only for pensioners though. Oh, and it’s a whole £10.

Guy:Incognito

elperello wrote: »

What purpose is this thread supposed to be serving?
.

What purpose does any thread on boards serve?

seenitall

seenitall wrote: »

I can't figure out if this post is sarcastic or not

No, I was being serious.

Skylinehead wrote: »

Because it's a resounding disaster in Britain?

How so? I can't imagine how a cap on welfare could in any way shape or form be a 'disaster'? Like most things, you just start it from X date, so it only affects people born on a certain date. That way the current people are okay, and can't moan, but the next generation have to cop themselves on a little.

splinter65

Skylinehead wrote: »

Because it's a resounding disaster in Britain?

Lol! For whom is it a resounding disaster? The first cap was such a success they lowered it within 12 months.
It’s quite literally saving people from themselves.
It should be introduced here but neither of the main parties have the guts to do it.

Skylinehead

Deleted User wrote: »

No, I was being serious.







How so? I can't imagine how a cap on welfare could in any way shape or form be a 'disaster'? Like most things, you just start it from X date, so it only affects people born on a certain date. That way the current people are okay, and can't moan, but the next generation have to cop themselves on a little.

As far as I know that's exactly what they didn't do.

I'm not saying benefit caps are bad, and this family are a pile of eejits (although you can mitigate for 2 by having two sets of twins, having 5 kids in their situation is stupid), but the UK rollout has been plagued with issues. Money going away entirely, IT issues, it was supposed to reduce fraud yet only increased it, and in some cases it actually disincentives work due to implementation oddities. The UK is absolutely not the role model to follow here.

elperello

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What purpose does any thread on boards serve?

An excellent question.

Some posters feelings must be delicate because they haven't been thanked. Awww.

I've rated this thread as Excellent and suggest others do likewise

Millionaire only not

Would they just not move to Ireland - Leo has plenty to give away
He’s off funding the fai already , let them sort out there own sorry mess . And what ever bank gave them money let them piss off !

osarusan

Interesting to see whether a cap actually has an effect on the size of such families, or an effect on the % who find employment. Or whether they just plough on regardless and charity (or nixers or crime) makes up the shortfall.

X111111111111

sdanseo wrote: »

On the off chance you're not trolling, do you genuinely think it is a good idea to hand out free money to people who couldn't be bothered working?

Yes

X111111111111

X111111111111 wrote: »

Yes

Do you believe in the "Money Tree"?

I don't

antix80

X111111111111 wrote: »

Yes

Some people actually believe income redistribution by taxing workers and giving it to dole recipients to spend in the local economy (pubs, cafes, tat from Dealz) is good for the economy. Maybe it is. Bit it's not fair and it doesn't improve the lives of workers or the social situation of scroungers.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Some posters feelings must be delicate because they haven't been thanked. Awww.

Is that how it works too? The delicate feelings? Must be the same when someone posts videos to a YouTube channel and gets no views and no likes, or when they live stream, but nobody's there to actually watch the stream. :rolleyes:


To take pleasure from seeing a family clearly struggling, to see 7 young children living in poverty and to blame it all on their parents, jumping by default to the conclusion that they're nothing but lazy wasters - informed only by a piece in the UK red-tops alone, well that's a pretty mean spirited sort of way to look at that young family.

I can make a lot of assumptions about the mother and father also, indeed I do, and they're not all kind by any stretch of the imagination. But if the words printed are as he spoke them, I can accept that there's some shame involved. They have their problems and it's far from clear that they've had any help getting the root issues sorted. Punitive policies that don't account for the fact they've 7 little kids to take care of shouldn't be one of them, but that appears to be exactly what's happening here.

fritzelly

^^^
The stork didn't bring the babies every year