Should benefit claimants adopt children...- poll
Thumper
flame war) over the question of whether people on benefits can adopt
children. A couple on the other group have said they are both on benefit and
have just adopted a child to gain more benefits. Myself and a few others
have said we are against what they've done, as did their doctor, but the
majority of the group seem to be wearing rose-tinted specs and have
congratulated the couple for taking the child away from a foster home.
I've said I'm going to poll a neutral group (this one) and report back how
many "yes" or "no" answers I get to the following question:
Should a couple both on social security benefits be allowed to adopt a child
(or children) purely to gain more money from the state (in the form on child
benefit, family allowance etc) ?
Thumper
Andy
Thumper wrote:
> Should a couple both on social security benefits be allowed to adopt a child
> (or children) purely to gain more money from the state (in the form on child
> benefit, family allowance etc) ?
I think they're trolling. Social services are *very* fussy
(understatement) over who gets kids these days. you have to be able to
provide for the child. They can't. My feeling is it's a wind-up.
Queen Of Hearts
> I've said I'm going to poll a neutral group (this one)
there is nothing neutral about my ng.
hth.
DaDemon.
news:9qq1lg$7hm$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> One of my other e-mail addresses is getting into a bit of a argument (not
a
> flame war) over the question of whether people on benefits can adopt
> children.
>
>
simple answer they r not telling truth.....i know the system for fostering
and i know adoption isnt that easy.
although i know a few foster carers that use the kids for money one couple
live right behind us and one of the children sleeps on top bunk with no
cover on his quilt and no curtains at the windows.....
Andy
"DaDemon." wrote:
> simple answer they r not telling truth.....i know the system for fostering
> and i know adoption isnt that easy.
> although i know a few foster carers that use the kids for money one couple
> live right behind us and one of the children sleeps on top bunk with no
> cover on his quilt and no curtains at the windows.....
I worked down t'pit for 425 years and lived in t'shoebox in't middle of
t'road. We were lucky.
Grinch
"Thumper" <thu...@thumper88.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9qq1lg$7hm$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Yeah I agree with the others, you are being trolled you get far more money
if you foster a child and its much easier than adopting.
DaDemon.
news:3BD0958B...@ssdt.org...
>
>> I worked down t'pit for 425 years and lived in t'shoebox in't middle of
> t'road. We were lucky.
Wasn't u just....
but they get paid money for all the stuff these kids ain't gettin and who
pays it ....the peeps that go to work down pits..;-)
--
~~~~~~
Debs.
Andy
Grunt. You agreed with me. Have a word with yourself.
--
There ain't nothing like regret to remind you you're alive.
Andy
"DaDemon." wrote:
> Wasn't u just....
> but they get paid money for all the stuff these kids ain't gettin and who
> pays it ....the peeps that go to work down pits..;-)
I know of genuine couples who are incapable of having kids through no
fault of their own who have found it impossible to adopt within the UK -
despite being more than financially capable of supporting a child. They
didn't/don't want to foster - too easy to get attached to a child. Sad.
Kevin
I too now of a couple of bastards who've been fostering a series of kids
over the years for the money that they receive. You'll find that many
fosterers are serial fosterers, and a minority (a very small minority, I
hope) do it for the money.
Andy
Kevin wrote:
> I too now of a couple of bastards who've been fostering a series of kids
> over the years for the money that they receive. You'll find that many
> fosterers are serial fosterers, and a minority (a very small minority, I
> hope) do it for the money.
I think, when it comes to kids and their welfare, that couple - the
Kilshaws - summed up all that is evil. Dunno about him - he seemed
easily led by his wife (although she was hardly ever going to be Readers
Wife of the Month!), but she is one nasty, evil bitch that shouldn't be
allowed within a mile of children. IMO.
Grinch
"Andy" wrote in message
>
> Grunt. You agreed with me. Have a word with yourself.
>
Andy
Grinch wrote:
> > Grunt. You agreed with me. Have a word with yourself.
> >
> Its not the first time.
It has been noted, but - for the record - yer still a twat.
Grinch
"Andy" wrote in message
>
> > > Grunt. You agreed with me. Have a word with yourself.
> > >
> > Its not the first time.
>
> It has been noted, but - for the record - yer still a twat.
>
Amanda
"Thumper" <thu...@thumper88.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9qq1lg$7hm$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Hello Joyce
Amanda
Baz
Thumper <thu...@thumper88.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9qq1lg$7hm$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Should a couple both on social security benefits be allowed to adopt a
child
> (or children) purely to gain more money from the state (in the form on
child
> benefit, family allowance etc) ?
>
> Thumper
>
>
No, certainly not if it purely for financial gain. If they would have
adopted anyway even if they had jobs, then that is different. There's no
reason why being on benefits should exclude suitable couples from adopting,
as long as they are subject to the same clearances and checks that everyone
would be.
Peter Boulding
Previous comments from
ken/joyce/thumper/tom/i...@thumper88.freeserve.co.uk ...
>I've just read on another newsgroup that a good troll only posts once and
>watches the chaos unfold. They never make any replies.
>The closest I ever come to trolling is by starting threads that will get
>lots of replies and seeing how long it can keep going without me resorting
>to dirty tricks.
>The people on newsgroups that I hate the most are those that try to advise
>others in a thread to "look at some of his/her previous postings. Then you
>will see why you should also be against him/her".
>
>My view is that whatever someone has posted in the past, no matter how bad
>it may have been, it has absolutely nothing to do with a current thread.
>When I've been accused of trolling it's been because I've started an
>on-topic thread and it's kept going because my views have not been the same
>as "the regulars who think they own the group". I get accused of trolling
>simply because I won't fall into line like all the other sheep-like users of
>the group.
____________________
Do not feed the jerk.
--
Regards Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal gallery: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
Fractal music: http://www.pjbmusic2.freeserve.co.uk/
Jaybee
apply to adopt in order to gain more benefits. The couple in question are a
disabled person and partner, who do receive benefit. They originally posted
about the attitudes they met when trying to adopt (they couldn't have their
own children).
Joyce is a grade A troublemaker/troll over on uk.people.disability, and this
"poll" she is conducting is not on behalf of that newsgroup.
Jaybee
Elsa Scammell
Yes: I agree. I found this newsgroup, courtesy of another poster, and I had no idea that this tasteless discussion was
being continued, under another name, by the person mentioned above by Jaybee.. At least, I, for one, keep to one
e-mail address and then people can know with whom they are dealing.
I said before, to this person, "Get a life", instead of winding people up to get a "reaction." (sic).
Elsa
Thumper
I think they are trolling too, as they came out with this statement in the
middle of a thread my mum started about something completely different.
Of course mum's being accused of trolling herself simply because she is
arguing against them, for the same reasons as you would be.
This reply is just to prove this is not a troll, well not intentionally ;-)
Thumper
Thumper
"Queen Of Hearts" <stoleso...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.163aa48a9...@news.freeserve.net...
> Thumper said:
>
> > I've said I'm going to poll a neutral group (this one)
>
> there is nothing neutral about my ng.
>
views of it's readers would not be influenced by those of the other
newsgroup.
Thumper
Thumper
"Amanda" <ama...@cave64.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9qr7t5$or5$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Joyce is my mum BTW. I hope you are noticing that out of the first 14
replies, 13 of them have at least hinted their single word answer to my poll
would be "no". I expect you would be a "yes".
Thumper
Thumper
"Peter Boulding" <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3qp2tt8be98adajg6...@4ax.com...
>
The current score is 14 no votes, 1 yes vote. That includes e-mails
received.
Not sure which way Peter would have voted as he just copied something I
wrote in another thread also on this newsgroup for some unknown reason. It
was about trolling but, so what.
Thumper
Ronald Leslie
Jaybee wrote:
I suspect that this newsgroup are already aware Joyce/Thumpers credentials
Jaybee!
Thanks again! And a big hello to everyone one this NG.
Ron & Sharon.xxx
( The couple formerly known as the couple whom ( allegedly) adopted a child to
gain more benefit )
Amanda
Hello Thumper,
What are you talking about? So your "mum" is one of your other e-mail
addresses. You cannot even get your facts right.
Frankly the replies to your question don't mean a thing apart from the fact
that you never told them the full story in the first place. You're just
sorry you were sussed out and now everyone knows about it.
Ha ha ha.
Amanda
Jaybee
> Jaybee!
> Thanks again! And a big hello to everyone one this NG.
> Ron & Sharon.xxx
> ( The couple formerly known as the couple whom ( allegedly) adopted a
child to
> gain more benefit )
>
Hi Ron and Sharon!
Jaybee
Queen Of Hearts
> I suspect that this newsgroup are already aware Joyce/Thumpers credentials
> Jaybee!
I doubt that because my ng really couldn't care less about your petty
off-ng squabbles.
hth.
Ronald Leslie
Queen Of Hearts wrote:
But you must care about cross ng trolling?
Ron.xxx
Queen Of Hearts
> But you must care about cross ng trolling?
why? livens things up a treat if you ask me.
D.martins
> Ronald Leslie said:
>
> > But you must care about cross ng trolling?
>
> why? livens things up a treat if you ask me.
You little troll you! ;)
Barbara Thomson
We have two adopted children and the Social services went into our finances
very carefully to ensure that we were able to support another child.
Occasionally with a child with particular special needs an Adoption
allowance is granted in order to help provide for equipment but this is very
discretionary.news:9qq1lg$7hm$2...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Thumper
"Ronald Leslie" <ron...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3BD2999B...@btinternet.com...
>
>
> Queen Of Hearts wrote:
>
> > I doubt that because my ng really couldn't care less about your petty
> > off-ng squabbles.
> >
> > hth.
> >
> > --
> > www.fredaswebsite.fsnet.co.uk/fish.html
>
> But you must care about cross ng trolling?
> Ron.xxx
>
read the original post knows that I am going back at the end of the thread
to upd to report the results of this poll. At no time am I going to cross
post.
Thumper
Thumper
>
> What are you talking about? So your "mum" is one of your other e-mail
> addresses. You cannot even get your facts right.
> Frankly the replies to your question don't mean a thing apart from the
fact
> that you never told them the full story in the first place. You're just
> sorry you were sussed out and now everyone knows about it.
>
e-mail address works. As many people as you like can have an e-mail address
on your "account". As well as my mum and myself, I also use my real name, my
dad has one, as have both my sisters. I have even created one recently for
my nephew. So you get your facts right.
I told the users of this group what they needed to know.
There's nothing to "suss out" so why should I be sorry.
In fact I am happy because I have just won something on win365.com
Thumper
Thumper
"D.martins" <d.ma...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:100367353...@eos.uk.clara.net...
No 16
Yes 8
The gap has closed mainly because of those that have come over from upd with
the intention of doing exactly what they have accused my mum of doing
whenever she says something disagreeable: that is trolling.
Thumper
Ronald Leslie
Barbara Thomson wrote:
> I am surprised people are able to adopt a child just to get more benefits.
> We have two adopted children and the Social services went into our finances
> very carefully to ensure that we were able to support another child.
> Occasionally with a child with particular special needs an Adoption
> allowance is granted in order to help provide for equipment but this is very
> discretionary.
Its only possible in Joyce/Thumpers warped imagination. Its impossible to adopt
for personal profit. Treat His/Her comments as attention seeking behaviour and
act accordingly.
Ron & Sharon.xxx
Thumper
"Barbara Thomson" <bar...@ptsols.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9r666v$jjq$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I am surprised people are able to adopt a child just to get more benefits.
> We have two adopted children and the Social services went into our
finances
> very carefully to ensure that we were able to support another child.
> Occasionally with a child with particular special needs an Adoption
> allowance is granted in order to help provide for equipment but this is
very
> discretionary.
I was surprised how many people on upd congratulated the couple involved.
I've never questioned they would provide love and affection for their child,
but did question how they would cope financially. It turns out they have
income over and above their social security benefits. But I'm not making
accusations about cheating the system.
Latest score is no 18 yes 9
Thumper