Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Single mum-of-eight Marie Buchan is facing eviction from her new home after being taken to court over £4,000 in unpaid rentBut the 33-year-old has blamed the government’s benefits cap for her situation, saying she cannot cope on the maximum annual £20,000 hand-outs.

    Thoughts?

    Personally i dont understand why she is complaining about benefit cuts, she has 8 children and has basically ruined the lives of 8 kids. In addition i hate people who think they have a ENTITLEMENT to tax payers money. The tax payer did not ask you too have 8 kids and why exactly do you have 8 kids when you cant even get a job.Also she claims she works 21 hour days looking after the kids, so cant work. Another excuse to add to her pathetic trail.

    I feel no sympathy for her, it was her choice to have kids, 1 is understandable as circumstances change 2 is also fine. But having EIGHT when you never had a job is the kind of scum which needs to be punished. Her eviction should teach her a lesson, otherwise number 9 will also be on the tax payer.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I agree, but what happens to the children then? The actions of their mother shouldn't be the kids' cross to bear.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    She popped the little ****ers out
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spv)
    I agree, but what happens to the children then? The actions of their mother shouldn't be the kids' cross to bear.
    Sell them for medical experiments.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spv)
    I agree, but what happens to the children then? The actions of their mother shouldn't be the kids' cross to bear.
    Well like i said, the mother has ruined the lives of 8 kids. However i could see them being taken into state custody (social services) and being separated. Very unfortunate and selfish to bring kids into the world when you cannot financially support them. Personally i think she has had them just to get the benefits i see no other logical explanation as why you would have 8 kids when you have no financial stability.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    But what does this have to do with Islam?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No sympathy.

    What does she think kids are - pokemon? is she trying to collect all 150 of them?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Well like i said, the mother has ruined the lives of 8 kids. However i could see them being taken into state custody (social services) and being separated. Very unfortunate and selfish to bring kids into the world when you cannot financially support them. Personally i think she has had them just to get the benefits i see no other logical explanation as why you would have 8 kids when you have no financial stability.
    The sins of the father should not be visited unto the son.

    The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

    To punish the child for the actions of the parent is disgusting. The children have done nothing wrong. They should remain together and live with their mother. The children should be cared for.

    Your solution is to allow children to be neglected because you won't allow their parents enough money to properly take care of them.

    The reason their mother had those children is utterly irrelevant. They have been born and therefore they need properly caring for. That means that their mother needs enough money to do so.

    In London, £20,000 would scarcely cover the rent on a two bedroom house.

    There is a massive shortage of foster carers in the UK. Forcing large, poor families to put their children into care is utterly unrealistic.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    To punish the child for the actions of the parent is disgusting. The children have done nothing wrong. They should remain together and live with their mother. The children should be cared for.

    Your solution is to allow children to be neglected because you won't allow their parents enough money to properly take care of them.

    The reason their mother had those children is utterly irrelevant. They have been born and therefore they need properly caring for. That means that their mother needs enough money to do so.

    In London, £20,000 would scarcely cover the rent on a two bedroom house.

    There is a massive shortage of foster carers in the UK. Forcing large, poor families to put their children into care is utterly unrealistic.
    The people with your views are the ones who are paying little to no tax and therefore just dont care. Your point is actually comical that we should let others like her open her legs and breed like their is no tomorrow and expect tax payers to pay with their earnt money. In addition this isnt in London it is in Birmingham, so that sob story isnt going to wash. Furthermore no one is forcing "poor" families, this lady is just scrounging on benefits and has done several interviews saying she doesnt need to work and she gets enough from the welfare state.

    To say that the tax payers should keep funding this parasite is quite comical as the kids would receive much better care and quality of life if their useless mother was taken out of the equation. And no the reason why their mother has so many kids is NOT irrelevant as otherwise whats stopping every woman on the planet having 10 kids and putting their hands out to the government to give them some more money.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Poor people are just easy targets. Media (and you) mistakenly think that benefits are freely given out to workshy dishonest buzzards who just spend it on drink, drugs and partying. Far from the truth. Yes, I acknowledge there will be some who will milk the system but such people are really quantitatively irrelevant.

    If benefits enables the poor and the stupids to live in a lesser subpar setting I'm happily supporting it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TaintedLight)
    Poor people are just easy targets. Media (and you) mistakenly think that benefits are freely given out to workshy dishonest buzzards who just spend it on drink, drugs and partying. Far from the truth. Yes, I acknowledge there will be some who will milk the system but such people are really quantitatively irrelevant.

    If benefits enables the poor and the stupids to live in a lesser subpar setting I'm happily supporting it.
    Again, no one is attacking the poor. I dont understand your argument it has nothing to do with this lady CHOOSING to have 8 children when she cant afford them. Im not mistaken, i know she is is a "workshy dishonest buzzard" who chose the life she is living. I find it repulsive how she is making her kids suffer for her stupidity. I think before you jump to conclusion you should probably read what the thread is about.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Again, no one is attacking the poor. I dont understand your argument it has nothing to do with this lady CHOOSING to have 8 children when she cant afford them. Im not mistaken, i know she is is a "workshy dishonest buzzard" who chose the life she is living. I find it repulsive how she is making her kids suffer for her stupidity. I think before you jump to conclusion you should probably read what the thread is about.
    Calm down. She is not in any means well off either. I'm gonna continue to assume she is poor and lack the required literacy levels to look after herself.

    For all I care, she could have been raped or is raising a disabled child or had a failed relationship built on some melodrama. It doesn't make a difference.

    rather people be just stupid than stupid and poor.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TaintedLight)
    Calm down. She is not in any means well off either. I'm gonna continue to assume she is poor and lack the required literacy levels to look after herself.

    For all I care, she could have been raped or is raising a disabled child or had a failed relationship built on some melodrama. It doesn't make a difference.

    rather people be just stupid than stupid and poor.
    No she isnt but she is destroying kids lives for the sake of the free money. You are probably again one of those people who pay no tax or on the lower tax bands and therefore it makes no difference to you. Dont be so stupid i dont think she was raped 8 different times, neither is she raising 8 disabled kids and if she was its all the more the reason to NOT have anymore than you can afford, and it says in the article they have different fathers. It does make a difference as you are implying people should be allowed to scrounge benefits whilst others work for them. Communism <
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Single mum-of-eight Marie Buchan is facing eviction from her new home after being taken to court over £4,000 in unpaid rentBut the 33-year-old has blamed the government’s benefits cap for her situation, saying she cannot cope on the maximum annual £20,000 hand-outs.

    Thoughts?

    Personally i dont understand why she is complaining about benefit cuts, she has 8 children and has basically ruined the lives of 8 kids. In addition i hate people who think they have a ENTITLEMENT to tax payers money. The tax payer did not ask you too have 8 kids and why exactly do you have 8 kids when you cant even get a job.Also she claims she works 21 hour days looking after the kids, so cant work. Another excuse to add to her pathetic trail.

    I feel no sympathy for her, it was her choice to have kids, 1 is understandable as circumstances change 2 is also fine. But having EIGHT when you never had a job is the kind of scum which needs to be punished. Her eviction should teach her a lesson, otherwise number 9 will also be on the tax payer.
    If its the Lady with the mixed race kids- I have an idea of what has happened, she had 8 Kids and the Dad to the children ran away and has not provided any financial support. I personally would have put the children into adoption, this way the children would have been brought up with families with better fiscal health then a single mom. She should be forced to do some temping if she has no experience. I also think the Father of the children should be held to account and foot atleast half of that £20,000 bill. You don't have kids with someone, then run off and offer no financial support. But i think adoption will be the best case for the children as they will go to families who can actually afford them and it cuts the welfare bill, all be it very slightly
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Katty3)
    The sins of the father should not be visited unto the son.

    The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

    To punish the child for the actions of the parent is disgusting. The children have done nothing wrong. They should remain together and live with their mother. The children should be cared for.

    Your solution is to allow children to be neglected because you won't allow their parents enough money to properly take care of them.

    The reason their mother had those children is utterly irrelevant. They have been born and therefore they need properly caring for. That means that their mother needs enough money to do so.

    In London, £20,000 would scarcely cover the rent on a two bedroom house.

    There is a massive shortage of foster carers in the UK. Forcing large, poor families to put their children into care is utterly unrealistic.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So what do you propose?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't feel sympathy for HER but her kids don't deserve eviction or being put into care
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blondie987)
    I don't feel sympathy for HER but her kids don't deserve eviction or being put into care
    No 100% but in all honesty i think her kids would be miles better off in care atleast they will be away from the parasite. Its absolutely disgusting how she has had kid after kid KNOWING she cant afford to look after them. Who knows how many more scum are like are breeding and rinsing the welfare state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Personally i dont understand why she is complaining about benefit cuts, she has 8 children and has basically ruined the lives of 8 kids. In addition i hate people who think they have a ENTITLEMENT to tax payers money. The tax payer did not ask you too have 8 kids and why exactly do you have 8 kids when you cant even get a job.Also she claims she works 21 hour days looking after the kids, so cant work. Another excuse to add to her pathetic trail.

    I feel no sympathy for her, it was her choice to have kids, 1 is understandable as circumstances change 2 is also fine. But having EIGHT when you never had a job is the kind of scum which needs to be punished. Her eviction should teach her a lesson, otherwise number 9 will also be on the tax payer.
    I couldn't agree with you more.


    Childbirth is a privilege, not a right. Why would she have so many children that she can't afford to look after without resorting to state hand-outs? Disgusting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Christ Redeems)
    I couldn't agree with you more.


    Childbirth is a privilege, not a right. Why would she have so many children that she can't afford to look after without resorting to state hand-outs? Disgusting.
    I think if the families financial circumstances changed then yes they should get help, but if you are popping out kids KNOWING you cant afford them is ridiculous. I think it is horrendous how many people know they cant afford to have a kid yet have one and just expect the tax payer to look after them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    I think if the families financial circumstances changed then yes they should get help, but if you are popping out kids KNOWING you cant afford them is ridiculous. I think it is horrendous how many people know they cant afford to have a kid yet have one and just expect the tax payer to look after them.
    Agreed, again.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.