Re: Single parent question.
Robbie
> Can a single parent get assistance with school uniforms? A single mum
> near me has to buy a school uniform and the only help she can get is
> 10GBP per child.
> pete
> --
> http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
It's up to the local council. The Local Education Authority is meant to
provide assistance towards the cost of school uniforms under the
Education Act 1944 in cases of pupils whose parents don't have the funds
to cover the cost, but many either don't or give minimal help.
You can't claim a Social Fund payment for it, as it is an excluded item
- deliberately so because the LEA are meant to meet the cost.
Robbie
keith
>On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:17:20 +0100, Robbie <ngrob...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>tur...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Can a single parent get assistance with school uniforms? A single mum
>>> near me has to buy a school uniform and the only help she can get is
>>> 10GBP per child.
>
>
>>It's up to the local council. The Local Education Authority is meant to
>>provide assistance towards the cost of school uniforms under the
>>Education Act 1944 in cases of pupils whose parents don't have the funds
>>to cover the cost, but many either don't or give minimal help.
>>
>>You can't claim a Social Fund payment for it, as it is an excluded item
>>- deliberately so because the LEA are meant to meet the cost.
>
>Thanks Robbie. I believe there are going to be a few kids on my estate
>who will not be going to their new schools after the holiday then:-(
>pete
Don't the goverment still give clothing store vouchers towards school
uniform?
It used to be granted from the same dept as you applied for the free
school meals.
If you were eligible for free school meals you got the vouchers
automatically 10 ish years ago it was around £40 of vouchers a year
IIRC.
Robbie
That's the local council that does both. They are supposed to help with
the cost of school uniform but many don't.
Robbie
Robbie
> be going to school after the holiday on my estate:-(
> pete
>
> --
> http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
I bet it's only a handful though. Some parents who plead poverty do
wonders when it comes to buying a new mobile, going to the pub, or
buying a widescreen TV! A fortnight in the house will see them buying
their kids a new school uniform...
Robbie
Robbie
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:38:35 +0100, Robbie <ngrob...@hotmail.com>
> some of whom run a car and do all the things you suggest. I still do
> not see why they should be forced to pay for extremely expensive
> clothing when it is a school policy and not a voluntary policy.
> pete
>
> --
> http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
I agree. My sister is on Income Support and she has had to pay just over
£200 for school uniforms for my three nephews. She could only afford to
do that by borrowing from the family. My local council (Sunderland)
stopped giving grants for uniforms in the mid-90s.
There have been legal challenges to the general policies of councils but
this has come to nothing. The Education Act 1944 doesn't compel LEA's to
provide grants, it just gives them the right to provide them if they
wish to do so.
Robbie
Mike
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:36:44 +0100, Robbie <ngrob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> tur...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Yes it is only a handful that I know of and they are single mothers
>>> some of whom run a car and do all the things you suggest. I still do
>>> not see why they should be forced to pay for extremely expensive
>>> clothing when it is a school policy and not a voluntary policy.
>
>> £200 for school uniforms for my three nephews. She could only afford to
>> do that by borrowing from the family. My local council (Sunderland)
>> stopped giving grants for uniforms in the mid-90s.
>>
>> There have been legal challenges to the general policies of councils but
>> this has come to nothing. The Education Act 1944 doesn't compel LEA's to
>> provide grants, it just gives them the right to provide them if they
>> wish to do so.
>
> always agree with single mothers exclamations but where I live they
> cannot be faulted. Many of them go without much in life that would
> make their lives easier in order that their kids get a good start.
> pete
>
> --
> http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
School uniforms are with the exception of a blazer as cheep if not
cheaper than other clothes. I equipped both my son's for the coming
term for less than £30. I will be spending another £60 on school
sweatshirts but that is not compulsory, plain ones are accepted and
common. Even if they had black blazers (and few local schools have
blazers as a compulsory uniform) instead of sweatshirts (2 each) I would
be paying less than £120 for the lot.
Many see it as an expense because they don't want to wear it and it only
gets worn at school, the fact that this is about half the child's waking
hours for most of the year seems to be forgotten. Compared to ordinary
clothes, a school uniform will save money.
Mike
Derek Hornby
> My sister is on Income Support and she has had to pay just over
> £200 for school uniforms for my three nephews.
But that's only an average of £3.84 a week if she had started to save.
>She could only afford to do that by borrowing from the family. My local
> council (Sunderland) stopped giving grants for uniforms in the mid-90s.
>
> There have been legal challenges to the general policies of councils but
> this has come to nothing. The Education Act 1944 doesn't compel LEA's to
> provide grants,
Well why should it?
Why should the state pay for what one could pay for if one budges carefully.
And what's wrong with the idea of a family supporting its own members?
My 2 nieces have just gone away for a 2 weeks holiday and i have given them
money.
I am also helping to build up a fund for when/if they start uni.
Derek
Derek Hornby
> I bet it's only a handful though. Some parents who plead poverty do
> wonders when it comes to buying a new mobile, going to the pub, or
> buying a widescreen TV! A fortnight in the house will see them buying
> their kids a new school uniform...
>
Well that's the point isn't it, why should the state pay for the
school uniforms given that parents are able to afford them,
if they get their priorities right and budget.
Also, it's really irrelevant whether it's a single mother or not.
It's possible for a couple to have a lower standard of living than
a single mother.
And at end of the day non of us can know the *true* financial situation of
those that live on our own street.
It's like saying we can't know the *true* financial situation of a given
named poster on a news group, we can only know what we are told, and then
it's down to what one wants to *believe*
Derek
anthonyberet
<snip>
> Why should the state pay for what one could pay for if one budges carefully.
Because it is the state that is demanding the expenditure?
anthonyberet
This is a group about social security benefits. The question is
perfectly on topic.
Martin McGowan
without the disability premiums etc, life is very tight, everything
has to be budgeted for. life is generally more expensive as many of
them don't have anything beyond basic bank accounts and have
problems therefore with things like direct debit. They have no
control over when payments go out on a monthly basis and their
income is on a weekly or four weekly basis, so the pay dates move.
and no the service suppliers won't move to four weekly charging and
the DWP won't move to monthly payments. therefore it's very easy to
hit situations where payment comes in day after expenditure goes out
and they are hit by charges.
therefore they go onto card meters. the most expensive tariff
available so their energy costs are proportionally more than those
of us who can use direct debit, but the advantage being you can
budget for it in your weekly/fortnightly/ 4 weekly income schemes.
Then if you're on a weekly benefit you can't buy in bulk and if you
don't have access to private transport, as is often the case, you
have to walk to the shops. for many in the uk there isn't a regular
reliable public transport. so you do your shopping in the corner
shop, a lot more expensive than tesco or aldi.
added to which any "fresh vegetable" in the corner shop is up to a
week old so it's vitamin content has dropped. poor diet leads to
poor mental performance, an escape is needed hence the TV plus the
dream that a handful of scratch-cards will lift them out of poverty
and into a life of luxury.
so to talk about budgeting £3.84 per week is crazy, the DWP levels
are subsistence living, nothing is built in for repairs and
maintenance. yes school uniforms are good quality and will outlast
the child's growth, but it can't really be used for day to day
living. given a chance "mum" will buy a cheap pair of jeans and a
sweatshirt for £10.00 the pair which can also be used after school
and will be cheaply replaced with the next size up when the child
grows. If local education authorities are going to demand expensive
uniforms, ie more than generic grey trousers, white shirt and a
plain sweatshirt, then they should have a duty to help towards the
*extra* costs.
Martin McGowan
Derek Hornby
"anthonyberet" <nos...@me.invalid> wrote
> > Why should the state pay for what one could pay for if one budges
>> carefully.
>
> Because it is the state that is demanding the expenditure?
But the state demands lots of other types of expense, and people are
still expected to pay, and thus budget.
It's surly a case people need to get their priorities right.
Example: Is a visit to the pub more important than saving for school
uniform?
Is owning a car really necessary?
Is having a TV really necessary?
I am not suggesting people give up all the nice things in life,
but rather, just get *priorities* right.
The state can't be expected to fund *everything*
now in the case of school uniforms, I Suggest you may find that
help is available, if people make a good case for such help.
After all, nobody can be *forced* to buy, what they cannot afford to buy.
Derek
Derek Hornby
"Martin McGowan" <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> the problem is that for those on the basic rate of income support,
> without the disability premiums etc, life is very tight, everything
> has to be budgeted for.
ok but this is not a single mother issue *only* that's why I did say
in another post, that it's irrelevant whether it' single mother. It is
possible for a couple to be more hardup, than a one parent family.
For example:
a couple with 6 children. let us suppose the mother is not working,
and the father was on the minimum wage.
Would this family have lower standard of living (when *everything* is
taken into account) compared to a one parent family (not working) on income
support, with say 1 child or 2 children.
Derek
Derek Hornby
> Derek, what are you on about?
> This is a group about social security benefits. The question is
> perfectly on topic.
Well I didn't say it wasn't on topic.
Going by the quoted posts, the OP appears to be suggesting that there are
single mothers on his street that won't be able to afford school uniforms.
I am saying it's irrelevant whether it's a single mother or not.
Because, there are many couples that can be just as, or even more than,
hard up than a single mother.
I also made the point we can't know for sure, a person's true financial
situation, it is down to what we believe.
I mean if you saw a young adult always at home, you can't be sure
are they at home because unable towork, are they at home because
don't want to work, or are they at home because don't need to work.
Derek
Martin McGowan
> "anthonyberet" <nos...@me.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Why should the state pay for what one could pay for if one budges
>>> carefully.
>> Because it is the state that is demanding the expenditure?
>
> now in the case of school uniforms, I Suggest you may find that
> help is available, if people make a good case for such help.
> After all, nobody can be *forced* to buy, what they cannot afford to buy.
>
comes in uniform. Child has not been legally excluded from school so
lea could take parents to school for non attendance and parent could
go to prison. rather an uneven balance, to my way of thinking that
is the use of "force"
Martin McGowan
Martin McGowan
> "Martin McGowan" <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
>> the problem is that for those on the basic rate of income support,
>> without the disability premiums etc, life is very tight, everything
>> has to be budgeted for.
>
> ok but this is not a single mother issue *only* that's why I did say
> in another post, that it's irrelevant whether it' single mother. It is
> possible for a couple to be more hardup, than a one parent family.
My example was not about a single mum, it was about anyone relying
on basic means tested benefits.
> For example:
> a couple with 6 children. let us suppose the mother is not working,
> and the father was on the minimum wage.
> Would this family have lower standard of living (when *everything* is
> taken into account) compared to a one parent family (not working) on income
> support, with say 1 child or 2 children.
> Derek
>
I don't know the answer to this scenario, the added complexities of
working tax credit is beyond me I'm afraid.
Martin McGowan
mogga
Children don't need to be in school. They just need an education.
--
Get away from it all
http://www.travelfreebies.co.uk/thomson-holidays.htm
Late deals, mega cheap flights and bargains
Robbie
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:20:52 GMT, Martin McGowan
> <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Derek Hornby wrote:
>>> "anthonyberet" <nos...@me.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>>>> Why should the state pay for what one could pay for if one budges
>>>>> carefully.
>>>> Because it is the state that is demanding the expenditure?
>>> snip
>>>
>>> now in the case of school uniforms, I Suggest you may find that
>>> help is available, if people make a good case for such help.
>>> After all, nobody can be *forced* to buy, what they cannot afford to buy.
>>>
>> unfortunately if parents don't buy uniform, child is sent home until
>> comes in uniform. Child has not been legally excluded from school so
>> lea could take parents to school for non attendance and parent could
>> go to prison. rather an uneven balance, to my way of thinking that
>> is the use of "force"
>> Martin McGowan
>
> Children don't need to be in school. They just need an education.
The chances are, the more the need for a grant towards the cost of a
school uniform, the more likely the parent(s) will be unable to afford
or otherwise to educate the child at home. As such, the child will more
than likely need a school uniform. The clause in the Education Act, 1944
is there for a good reason. The Government of the day recognised that
some parents simply couldn't afford to clothe children for both in and
out of school, and as being in education is a legal requirement ensured
that there was provision for children to receive a school uniform if the
family was classed as poor.
The Government continued to recognise this need in 1988 when the Social
Fund was introduced, by disallowing a SF loan or grant for a school
uniform, as it reinforced that councils have a responsibility to provide
these items.
Robbie
m...@privacy.net
>Can a single parent get assistance with school uniforms? A single mum
>near me has to buy a school uniform and the only help she can get is
>10GBP per child.
>pete
I understand that Ipswich Council have decided that they can no longer
afford to issue clothing grants as they are spending too much money on
fighting off nutters and time wasters telling them how to do their job
with regards to public places and access.
(And why the fuck should I and other Ipswich rate payers have to pay
to bring up somebody else's brats on a sink council house estate. If
they'd asked if I would have contributed to a compulsory sterilisation
program, then that would have been a different matter)
Just Another Legal Fan
m...@privacy.net wrote:
> (And why the fuck should I and other Ipswich rate payers have to pay
> to bring up somebody else's brats on a sink council house estate.
I sincerely hope that if you have any children that you or your partner
had the courage of your convictions to refuse to acept a child benefit
book just like your parents did (They did refuse one didn't they?).
m...@privacy.net
<smellyf...@aol.com> wrote:
No - they bought Premium Bonds with it - won fifty grand and never
looked back.
Mike
Though I take your point, a pedantic person might point out that 'rates'
(know known as council tax for the OP, unless you meant water rates?)
don't contribute to child benefit.
I might also add that receiving child benefit (as do I) and working hard
to support your family and pay ever increasing tax bills (as I do), is
hardly comparable to moaning about being unable to afford a school
uniform whilst shaking the ash of your sixth fag of the day. I'm sure
I'm not the only one whose council tax has gone up by over 50% in 10
years who feels a little aggrieved that some people have the gall to
complain about buying a school uniform and expect the council tax payer
to pick up the bill.
Hey this ranting and stereotyping thing is fun, no wonder so many people
do it.
Mike
Robert Ratcliffe
"Mike" <diespam...@kiwifanboyssuck.com> wrote in message
news:SkMBg.10334$t%.9466@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
I have been trying to reduce the amount of single parents in my area for
sometime now. Thing is not all girls are willing to swallow
Derek Hornby
> The chances are, the more the need for a grant towards the cost of a
> school uniform, the more likely the parent(s) will be unable to afford
> or otherwise to educate the child at home. As such, the child will more
> than likely need a school uniform. The clause in the Education Act, 1944
> is there for a good reason. The Government of the day recognised that
> some parents simply couldn't afford to clothe children for both in and
> out of school, and as being in education is a legal requirement ensured
> that there was provision for children to receive a school uniform if the
> family was classed as poor.
>
> The Government continued to recognise this need in 1988 when the Social
> Fund was introduced, by disallowing a SF loan or grant for a school
> uniform, as it reinforced that councils have a responsibility to provide
> these items.
Actually close look at social fund rules would suggest help is available:
Look under: "Budgeting loans"
"Budgeting loans can help with essential lump sum expenses which are difficult
to budget for when you are living on means-tested benefits. Budgeting loans
have to be paid back to the social fund, but they are interest-free. This
means you only have to pay back the amount you are awarded. You won't get a
budgeting loan just because you are eligible to apply. The decision will be
made following a review of your circumstances."
http://tinyurl.co.uk/ltdz
Derek
W Marsh
<smellyf...@aol.com> wrote:
I don't quite agree with the way he made the point, but in a
depressing area with such a large lower class population girls have
nothing to do BUT breed. I left secondary school 6 years ago, and
almost every time I see a girl from my year now she is pushing a pram,
hand in hand with her baseball-capped, furrow-brow thugman.
We probably shouldn't be encouraging people who fit into the "trash"
stereotype to keep making babies. It's a drain on other people and
contributes to over-population.
It's not just a problem in the lower classes - a lot of girls feel
that they have real prospects and choose getting pregnant as a career
choice. Housewifery pays well in an unconventional sense.
Of course, this isn't a comment on all single mothers and young
parents - it's just a related thought.
W Marsh
wrote:
> choose getting pregnant as a career
>choice.
"Choose as a choice". There's a good reason why I don't write very
much.
Robbie
There used to be a set of Directions which specifically excluded the
following 4 education-related items:
# Educational or training needs including clothing and tools
# Distinctive school uniform or sports clothes or equipment
# Travelling expenses to or from school
# School meals and meals taken during school holidays by children who
are entitled to free school meals
But whilst they are still in the parts that relate to Crisis Loans and
Community Care Grants I can't find them in the part relating to
Budgeting Loans (they did used to be there!, presumably they have been
removed). However, since 1999 applications for Budgeting Loans no longer
need to list each item the applicant wishes to have (this is still a
requirement for Crisis Loans and Community care Grants). perhaps the
thinking was, as the person is no longer asked what they want the money
for then there's no point in having exempt categories? The Budgeting
Loan form only asks the applicant how much they want and to tick a box,
or boxes, to indicate broadly what category the applicant wants the
money for - eg clothing, furniture, expenses on seeking or starting work.
The limitations are that a Budgeting Loan is limited, depending on the
maximum a family unit can have, as determined by a complex Social Fund
calculation (it is called a "credit limit"!), how much they already owe,
and how much they want - loans of less than Ł100 are no longer made. In
addition, the applicant needs to have been in receipt of certain
means-tested benefits for 26 weeks - if they are 1 pence over the means
tested limit then there is no help available.
But, assuming they fulfill all those categories, well an application
could be made and the box for "clothing" just ticked. As it is
repayable, it will come out of weekly benefit.
Robbie
Derek Hornby
"W Marsh" <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote
> We probably shouldn't be encouraging people who fit into the "trash"
> stereotype to keep making babies. It's a drain on other people and
> contributes to over-population.
And how would you suggest society *discourages* girls from having babies
at a a time they cannot afford them?
Do you think we should follow the example of China?
http://www.tibet.com/Women/twwomb.html
Did you know that The primary methods of birth control employed in Tibet are
surgical: abortion and sterilisation (although infanticide is widely
practised as well). Contrary to CEDAW as well as other UN documents, Chinese
authorities make no attempt to educate Tibetan women regarding alternative
and less drastic methods of contraception, and in fact no evidence exists
that the Chinese have attempted any form of population control other than
surgical procedure. In addition, poor facilities and low medical standards
make contraceptive methods such as the IUD (also known as "the coil")
dangerous and ineffective, and use of this device frequently results in
infection.
In China it is legal to inject women up to nine months pregnant to induce
abortion and if the baby is "delivered alive, the foetus is also injected so
it will die". A mother will often hear her baby cry once and will then be
told the infant is dead.
Now here in the UK (or even in the US) people have far better access
to information, education, and yet they often make appalling use of that
education and information.
The attitude over here e is often:
Get pregnant, then sate will take responsibility cradle to gravpe!
W Marsh
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>"W Marsh" <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> We probably shouldn't be encouraging people who fit into the "trash"
>> stereotype to keep making babies. It's a drain on other people and
>> contributes to over-population.
>
>
>And how would you suggest society *discourages* girls from having babies
>at a a time they cannot afford them?
>Do you think we should follow the example of China?
>http://www.tibet.com/Women/twwomb.html
>Did you know that The primary methods of birth control employed in Tibet are
>surgical: abortion and sterilisation (although infanticide is widely
>practised as well). Contrary to CEDAW as well as other UN documents, Chinese
>authorities make no attempt to educate Tibetan women regarding alternative
>and less drastic methods of contraception, and in fact no evidence exists
>that the Chinese have attempted any form of population control other than
>surgical procedure. In addition, poor facilities and low medical standards
>make contraceptive methods such as the IUD (also known as "the coil")
>dangerous and ineffective, and use of this device frequently results in
>infection.
>
Well, that's all a bit extreme, and not particularly relevant to state
benefits. I was only suggesting that there shouldn't be so many
benefits - they shouldn't be /encouraged/ for what is essentially
"fucking up". You've made quite a leap here...
>The attitude over here e is often:
>Get pregnant, then sate will take responsibility cradle to gravpe!
Exactly.
Just Another Legal Fan
W Marsh wrote:
>
> Of course, this isn't a comment on all single mothers and young
> parents - it's just a related thought.
Not at all. Understand perfectly what you mean
old bean. All girls who come from a council estate
are a drain on society and trash...
Certainly hope YOU don't breed Fuckwit.
W Marsh
<smellyf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>W Marsh wrote:
>>
>> Of course, this isn't a comment on all single mothers and young
>> parents - it's just a related thought.
>
>Not at all. Understand perfectly what you mean
>old bean. All girls who come from a council estate
>are a drain on society and trash...
Funnily enough, you didn't quote the part where I said that. Because I
didn't!
>
>Certainly hope YOU don't breed Fuckwit.
No, I couldn't find a Fuckwit stud in my price range, and nobody wants
Fuckwit meat these days.
Mudstomper
"W Marsh" <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nkbfd21sqa4c7bppm...@4ax.com...
Why am I just waiting for some wit to apply that to Smicker?
Alan Hope
>We probably shouldn't be encouraging people who fit into the "trash"
>stereotype to keep making babies. It's a drain on other people and
>contributes to over-population.
There's no over-population in Britain.
--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com
Derek Hornby
"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote
> There's no over-population in Britain.
So why then the need to restrict how many people can come to the UK to
live?
And:
Why are there so many people on benefit not working that could work?
Why so many single mothers not working?
Why are there people living on the street?
And lastly how come birth control is free on NHS, (free condoms, free pill
etc) what ii the reason?
After all, what does it matter if Get my GF pregnant the state
will pick up the bill yes!
Derek
Derek Hornby
> Well, that's all a bit extreme, and not particularly relevant to state
> benefits. I was only suggesting that there shouldn't be so many
> benefits - they shouldn't be /encouraged/ for what is essentially
> "fucking up". You've made quite a leap here...
The point is though, in the UK we have freedom of choice,
but then we expect the state to take responsibility for our mistakes.
We have free contraception ono NHS and yet this policy fails,
fails because the state will pick up the bill when baby arrives.
>
> >The attitude over here e is often:
> >Get pregnant, then sate will take responsibility cradle to gravpe!
>
> Exactly.
But in China they go about it another way.
The aim is, to stop (or control)) over-population.
In UK all we seem to do is offer free contraception, and free information
about contraception, and then it's "freedom of choice"
but such "freedom of choice" should come with accepting responsibility.
Derek
Will Barrow
>
> It's not just a problem in the lower classes - a lot of girls feel
> that they have real prospects and choose getting pregnant as a career
> choice. Housewifery pays well in an unconventional sense.
It pays well too. Spawn a couple of kids, get a free three bedroom council
house plus £13,000 a year in benefits, rent and council tax.
After a few years claim your 'right to buy' get a 60 percent discount on
market value for your council house. Buy it with a low interest loan set up
for 'right to buy' clients, live there for three years, sell it at 100
percent market value and move on, or continue to live in your own property
and be as well off as someone who has worked for the last fifteen years
whilst paying off a mortgage. Bob's your uncle.
Will Barrow
> that they have real prospects and choose getting pregnant as a career
> choice. Housewifery pays well in an unconventional sense.
It pays well too. Spawn a couple of kids, get a free three bedroom council
Robert Ratcliffe
"Will Barrow" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:44d850fb$1$17996$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
HAVE YOU GOT A STUTTER
Martin McGowan
for details.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/286/YourRighttoBuyYourHome_id1151286.pdf
the discount of a maximum of 70% after 40 years is capped at varying
levels from £16,000 to £32,000. the reality does not make such
exciting reading, it would take 30 years to reach the 60% discount.
but the real discount is probably nearer 10 or 20% depending on
house prices and the area cap.
Martin McGowan
bag...@hotmail.com.invalid
shit. You know fuck all about the real world implications of teenage
pregnancy despite what you might think. Try listening less to urban
myths and a little bit more to people who've been there. My daughter
became pregnant through contraceptive failure at 17, she is unable to
claim fuck all as far as housing is concerned. We are having to help
her out with private rental and stumping up a good proportion of the
weekly costs of running her home. When she has to give up work and her
money drops, fuck knows what we are going to do, we cannot afford to
subsidise her to any greater degeree than we do now. We've done all we
can so I'm just hoping she can benefit from all the money I've paid
into the State in the last 30 years without taking anything back in
return.
W Marsh
OF COURSE there is no hard and fast rule that says all teenage
pregnancies are for a certain reason, and there's no label that
applies to everyone in that situation. HOWEVER, that doesn't change
the FACT that there are is a large population who DO use the system,
ARE eligible for excessive benefits and WILL encourage this sort of
behaviour.
Your daughter doesn't have to be one of these people for it to remain
true.
Cynic
<bag...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>The majority of you lot spouting forth in this thread are so full of
>shit. You know fuck all about the real world implications of teenage
>pregnancy despite what you might think. Try listening less to urban
>myths and a little bit more to people who've been there. My daughter
>became pregnant through contraceptive failure at 17, she is unable to
>claim fuck all as far as housing is concerned.
Uh-huh. The most common type of contraceptive failure is that of not
using any.
But you are wrong about not getting any benefits. I know a 17 year
old whose mother decided to sell the house and move in with her (the
mother's) boyfriend and leave the girl to fend for herself.
The most the girl was offered by social services/benefits was a rather
unsavoury B&B that was out of commuting distance from the place she
worked.
So she quite deliberately got herself pregnant and gave up work. Two
months later she was in a nice 1 bedroom flat in a reasonable part of
town, and has been told to furnish the flat from the Argos catalogue,
and everything will be paid for, and she is getting more money to live
on than she was being paid whilst working. So long as she doesn't do
anything stupid such as getting another job or losing the baby, she'll
be reasonably comfortable for the foreseeable future - and that's
before needing to think yet about milking the 15 year old father if &
when he starts earning.
--
Cynic
Will Barrow
"Martin McGowan" <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c_0Cg.1789$v4....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
You really need to read the Right To Buy leaflet too, and discover that
their table is flawed.
It states that a 70% discount is available on a flat after fifteen years, in
reality this is not the case.
After two years a as a tenant you get a 44% reduction then 2% per year, to
reach 70% this would take ten years.
I know a lot of people who have taken advantage of the RTB and having bought
their property a few years ago for between £9-12,000 are now sitting on
equity worth in excess of £100,000. Who says council tenants are all stupid?
Admittedly, buying a house is not as profitable as a flat buy, but the
massive discounts are still worth taking advantage of.
Mike
Keep trying, all hardworking taxpayers (PAYE not VAT!)will be rooting
for you.
Mike
Mike
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:57:15 GMT, "bag...@hotmail.com"
> <bag...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The majority of you lot spouting forth in this thread are so full of
>> shit. You know fuck all about the real world implications of teenage
>> pregnancy despite what you might think. Try listening less to urban
>> myths and a little bit more to people who've been there. My daughter
>> became pregnant through contraceptive failure at 17, she is unable to
>> claim fuck all as far as housing is concerned.
>
> Uh-huh. The most common type of contraceptive failure is that of not
> using any.
>
affect the pill."
Mike
Cynic
<diespam...@kiwifanboyssuck.com> wrote:
>> Uh-huh. The most common type of contraceptive failure is that of not
>> using any.
>Second is "I was on anti biotics and the doctor didn't tell me it would
>affect the pill."
The one used by the 17 year old I know to her boyfriend was, "Yes, I
*was* on the pill, but that was *months* ago, and I stopped taking it
because it gave me headaches. I'm sure I told you at the time, but
you never listen to me properly."
--
Cynic
Just Another Legal Fan
> OF COURSE there is no hard and fast rule that says all teenage
> pregnancies are for a certain reason, and there's no label that
> applies to everyone in that situation.
You would certainly think so from some of the bollocks
posted in this thread....
Alan
"bag...@hotmail.com" <bag...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ljchd2p43oo8vmetr...@4ax.com...
a carefree teenager and not had to rely on handouts
Will Barrow
"Just Another Legal Fan" <smellyf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1155059380....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
A bit close to the bone is it?
W Marsh
wrote:
>perhaps if she wasn't so free with her body at 17 she would have grown up as
>a carefree teenager and not had to rely on handouts
>
Hmm - I'm not sure I agree there. Sex is fine at any age as long as
the participant are mature enough not to fuck up.
bag...@hotmail.com.invalid
Another know fuck-all who has no real world knowledge.
Pat P
> <smellyf...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>> (And why the fuck should I and other Ipswich rate payers have to pay
>>> to bring up somebody else's brats on a sink council house estate.
>>
>>I sincerely hope that if you have any children that you or your partner
>>had the courage of your convictions to refuse to acept a child benefit
>>book just like your parents did (They did refuse one didn't they?).
>
> depressing area with such a large lower class population girls have
> nothing to do BUT breed. I left secondary school 6 years ago, and
> almost every time I see a girl from my year now she is pushing a pram,
> hand in hand with her baseball-capped, furrow-brow thugman.
>
> We probably shouldn't be encouraging people who fit into the "trash"
> stereotype to keep making babies. It's a drain on other people and
> contributes to over-population.
>
> that they have real prospects and choose getting pregnant as a career
> choice. Housewifery pays well in an unconventional sense.
>
> parents - it's just a related thought.
Well, that way they know they`ll get Benefits and housing - and we poor
suckers foot the bill.
Pat P
Pat P
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 09:40:57 +0100, "Derek Hornby"
> <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>"W Marsh" <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>> Well, that's all a bit extreme, and not particularly relevant to state
>>> benefits. I was only suggesting that there shouldn't be so many
>>> benefits - they shouldn't be /encouraged/ for what is essentially
>>> "fucking up". You've made quite a leap here...
>>
>>The point is though, in the UK we have freedom of choice,
>>but then we expect the state to take responsibility for our mistakes.
>>We have free contraception ono NHS and yet this policy fails,
>>fails because the state will pick up the bill when baby arrives.
>>
>>>
>>> >The attitude over here e is often:
>>> >Get pregnant, then sate will take responsibility cradle to gravpe!
>>>
>>> Exactly.
One mistake may, perhaps, be yolerated. Twice, and it should mean mandatory
sterilisation - for both parties!
Pat P
Cynic
<eaxstit...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>One mistake may, perhaps, be yolerated. Twice, and it should mean mandatory
>sterilisation - for both parties!
Who gets to decide what is a "mistake" and what is not?
--
Cynic
W Marsh
<eaxstit...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
And that's where it just gets scary and wrong. Not encouraging what is
usually unhealthy behaviour is one thing, but simple-minded vigilance
is just terrible.
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote
>> There's no over-population in Britain.
>So why then the need to restrict how many people can come to the UK to
>live?
Jobs. And racism.
>And:
>Why are there so many people on benefit not working that could work?
>Why so many single mothers not working?
>Why are there people living on the street?
>And lastly how come birth control is free on NHS, (free condoms, free pill
>etc) what ii the reason?
Not relevant, any of it.
>After all, what does it matter if Get my GF pregnant the state
>will pick up the bill yes!
You haven't got a GF Dezza, and even your dreams find the notion
preposterous.
--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com
m...@privacy.net
wrote:
I'm sure Mr Pervert Turtill will be along in a minute with his view on
"if their bodies tell them it's ok................................"
Derek Hornby
> >And lastly how come birth control is free on NHS, (free condoms, free pill
> >etc) what ii the reason?
>
> Not relevant, any of it.
So you don't know the reasons!
> >After all, what does it matter if Get my GF pregnant the state
> >will pick up the bill yes!
>
> You haven't got a GF
Well that's what you think, but can you show proof?
There is difference between what one *thinks* and what one *knows*
knowledge is not same as opinion.
If a poster says they're married, or has a job, unless I know the poster
personally I can't know for sure either way, so would not dispute it.
So as i do not know *you* I do not dispute anything you say about yourself.
> Dezza, and even your dreams find the notion > preposterous.
Are you suggesting that people that are deafblind can't be, won't ever be,
married, have children, etc.
The truth is Alan, you do not know me personally, nor do you know my
*true* situation, just as I do not know your *true* situation.
It is very sad, but not unusual, when some people have misconceptions on
deafblindness.
Derek
m...@privacy.net
Oh, you mean like yours: " My daughter
became pregnant through contraceptive failure at 17, she is unable to
claim fuck all as far as housing is concerned."
(Are you the guy Turtill told us about who goes dogging with him?)
Derek Hornby
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> Who gets to decide what is a "mistake" and what is not?
Good question!
"mum I am pregnant"
says the 14 year old girl.
"Do you want to end the pregnancy or do you want to adopt the baby?"
says mum.
"I will keep the baby I can always go to the social and get some hand outs"
And that's the crux of the problem, the 14 year ol doesn't see it as
a *mistake* that she has made, getting pregnant, and then expecting the
tax payers to pick up the bill.
Derek
Derek Hornby
"Pat P" <eaxstit...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> One mistake may, perhaps, be yolerated. Twice, and it should mean mandatory
> sterilisation - for both parties!
But both parties may not be equally to blame for the *mistake*
What if the woman has few sexual relationships with different men.
What if man says: "I will just put condom on"
and woman says:
"don't be stupid and silly, I won't get pregnant first time"
Derek
Cynic
The problem is not with the 14 year old. She didn't make the rules.
She is simply playing by the rules that the government has made.
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with someone using the rules to their
advantage - in fact it is an extremely sensible and intelligent thing
to do.
If you think that what she is doing is not right, don't have a go at
*her*. Argue agaist the rules and try to get them changed.
--
Cynic
Robbie
You're a bloke - what would you do?
Robbie
Robbie
How many handouts do you think a 14 year old gets?
You seem to know what a 14 year old can go to the DWP and get.
Answer by the way is NONE.
Her parents have to support both her and the baby.
Robbie
Pat P
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j8phd2lch1jdcorob...@4ax.com...
Well, common sense tells you that one child of a single parent is a mistake
in anyone`s book!
Pat P
>
Alan Hope
>Are you suggesting that people that are deafblind can't be, won't ever be,
>married, have children, etc.
Not at all. Just you.
--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com
m...@privacy.net
wrote:
>Derek Hornby goes:
>
>>Are you suggesting that people that are deafblind can't be, won't ever be,
>>married, have children, etc.
>
>Not at all. Just you.
You're a nasty piece of work - are you related to Shit-heap Turtill?
Derek Hornby
"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote
> >Are you suggesting that people that are deafblind can't be, won't ever be,
> >married, have children, etc.
>
> Not at all. Just you.
And your reason is?
Do you believe I am deafblind, if yes why, how do you know it's true?
So you simply believe what you want to believe as you have *never*
met me, nor havee you met anyone tha has.
Are you married?
If not do you have bf or GF
Whatever answer is, how do we know if it's true or false?
So you see it's same other wy round believe whatever.
Are you one of Turtil's socks?
Derek Hornby
"Pat UP" <eaxstit...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> Well, common sense tells you that one child of a single parent is a mistake
> in anyone`s book!
No, not always!
What if the girl's partner walks out a few months or even a few years
after the birth of the child.
this is fine if he is paying towards cost of bringing the child up, but
what if he is not.
Should the child be adopted in this situation.
Derek
Cynic
<eaxstit...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>One mistake may, perhaps, be yolerated. Twice, and it should mean
>>>mandatory
>>>sterilisation - for both parties!
>> Who gets to decide what is a "mistake" and what is not?
>Well, common sense tells you that one child of a single parent is a mistake
>in anyone`s book!
So you believe that people should be *compelled* to get married before
starting a family?
--
Cynic
Derek Hornby
> You're a bloke - what would you do?
Well I would *never* get a girl pregnant if she didn't want to have
a baby.
Both partners must share same view whether or not to bring a child into
this world, it's a joint responsibility that is my view.
So yes of course I would use condom, depending on the relationship
and trust.
After all it's not just about birth control it's also safety and that's,
where the *trust* comes in and the sort or relationship.
Derek
Alex Heney
<eaxstit...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:j8phd2lch1jdcorob...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:18:30 GMT, "Pat P"
>> <eaxstit...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>One mistake may, perhaps, be yolerated. Twice, and it should mean
>>>mandatory
>>>sterilisation - for both parties!
>>
>> Who gets to decide what is a "mistake" and what is not?
>>
>
>Well, common sense tells you that one child of a single parent is a mistake
>in anyone`s book!
What does "common sense" have to do with it?
And there are quite a few women around who want children, but don't
want a permanent partner.
Not a huge proportion, but enough that you can't say it is "a mistake
in anyone's book".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Jealousy is all the fun you think they have.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Derek Hornby
> So you believe that people should be *compelled* to get married before
> starting a family?
No but they should take equal responsibility for the cost of
bringing up the child.
Boy and girl have fun behind bake shed.
Girl gets pregnant.
Boy then clears off saying to girl: "nothing to do with me you
can take the responsibility"
Girl then says: "fine I go to the social, get some hand outs no problem,
they will give me all i need even a free washing machine"
Now should we be encouraging that sort of attitude.
Derek
The Natural Philosopher
on contraception and the facts of life, a free appointment with a health
clinic to get on the pill, and every boy should get the same plus three
packs of condoms minus the pill ;-).
It would cost a lot less.
Cynic
<derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> So you believe that people should be *compelled* to get married before
>> starting a family?
> No but they should take equal responsibility for the cost of
> bringing up the child.
Are you unaware that the father has a *legal* responsibility to share
the cost of the child? And there is an entire organisation devoted to
the task of ensuring that they do?
What more do you expect the government do (except make the
organisation a tad more efficient)?
--
Cynic
Cynic
wrote:
>Nope The state should give every girl on her 13th birthday a free book
>on contraception and the facts of life, a free appointment with a health
>clinic to get on the pill, and every boy should get the same plus three
>packs of condoms minus the pill ;-).
>
>It would cost a lot less.
That is more or less done. There are mobile family planning clinics
that give out free condoms to any child who asks. You can tell when
they have just visited by all the long balloons lying around
everywhere and the water-bomb fights taking place amongst the kids. I
doubt there are many 13 year old girls who *don't* know what
contraception options are available, and they can get the pill from
their GP or a FP clinic without telling their parents. They can also
get a "morning after" pill or even an abortion without anyone needing
to know.
--
Cynic
Pat P
"Martin McGowan" <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c_0Cg.1789$v4....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> Will Barrow wrote:
>> "W Marsh" <wayne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:r26fd2pd39ieb4r09...@4ax.com...
>>> It's not just a problem in the lower classes - a lot of girls feel
>>> that they have real prospects and choose getting pregnant as a career
>>> choice. Housewifery pays well in an unconventional sense.
>>
>> It pays well too. Spawn a couple of kids, get a free three bedroom
>> council house plus £13,000 a year in benefits, rent and council tax.
>> After a few years claim your 'right to buy' get a 60 percent discount on
>> market value for your council house. Buy it with a low interest loan set
>> up for 'right to buy' clients, live there for three years, sell it at 100
>> percent market value and move on, or continue to live in your own
>> property and be as well off as someone who has worked for the last
>> fifteen years whilst paying off a mortgage. Bob's your uncle.
> you really do need to read the right to buy leaflet. Pages 9 and 10 for
> details.
> http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/286/YourRighttoBuyYourHome_id1151286.pdf
> the discount of a maximum of 70% after 40 years is capped at varying
> levels from £16,000 to £32,000. the reality does not make such exciting
> reading, it would take 30 years to reach the 60% discount. but the real
> discount is probably nearer 10 or 20% depending on house prices and the
> area cap.
> Martin McGowan
But don`t forget that the time any close relatives have rented council
houses can be added on to the time you have rented one yourself. At least
that was the case a few years ago.
Pat P
Pat P
"bag...@hotmail.com" <bag...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ljchd2p43oo8vmetr...@4ax.com...
> The majority of you lot spouting forth in this thread are so full of
> shit. You know fuck all about the real world implications of teenage
> pregnancy despite what you might think. Try listening less to urban
> myths and a little bit more to people who've been there. My daughter
> became pregnant through contraceptive failure at 17, she is unable to
> her out with private rental and stumping up a good proportion of the
> weekly costs of running her home. When she has to give up work and her
> money drops, fuck knows what we are going to do, we cannot afford to
> subsidise her to any greater degeree than we do now. We've done all we
> can so I'm just hoping she can benefit from all the money I've paid
> into the State in the last 30 years without taking anything back in
> return.
We`d all have been better off if you`d brought her up properly in the first
place. Mind you you must have been dragged up yourself, judging by your
language.
Pat P
Derek Hornby
<m...@privacy.net> wrote
> You're a nasty piece of work - are you related to Shit-heap Turtill?
lol
Maybe Alan is one of Turtill's socks.
They certainly fit the same foot!
Derek
Derek Hornby
> How many handouts do you think a 14 year old gets?
>
> You seem to know what a 14 year old can go to the DWP and get.
>
> Answer by the way is NONE.
That depends!
> Her parents have to support both her and the baby.
Well no, they do not have to, there is only legal requirement for parents
to support their own children.
There is no legal requirement to support grandchildren.
So in this example, if the 14 year old girl wanted to keep her baby,
what would happen if her parents said:
"no we won't help"
Derek
Robbie
> "Robbie" <ngrob...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> How many handouts do you think a 14 year old gets?
>>
>> You seem to know what a 14 year old can go to the DWP and get.
>>
>> Answer by the way is NONE.
>
> That depends!
On what? The fact is there are no benefits a 14 year old can get.
>
>> Her parents have to support both her and the baby.
>
> Well no, they do not have to, there is only legal requirement for parents
> to support their own children.
> There is no legal requirement to support grandchildren.
> So in this example, if the 14 year old girl wanted to keep her baby,
> what would happen if her parents said:
> "no we won't help"
> Derek
>
She'd have to go into care or give up her baby.
Robbie
Alan
"Pat P" <eaxstit...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:pukCg.104$s4...@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
Mike
<snip>
> We've done all we
> can so I'm just hoping she can benefit from all the money I've paid
> into the State in the last 30 years without taking anything back in
> return.
So you've had no benefit what so ever from your tax?
Child benefit is a starting point but I'm sure at some point you've used
a motorway or trains, was your daughter born in a barn and have neither
you nor your availed themselves of any NHS service? Local councils are
subsidised by central government and of course your dustbins have been
collected at some point in the last 30 years. I shan't go on listing
all the other things (most virtually invisible) your taxes have paid for
in the last 30 years over and above the benefits system.
Finally if your daughter & her sprog become burdens on the taxpayer,
will the taxes you've paid over the last 30 years come anywhere near
covering her benefits, tax credits and housing?
Of course it's the gov fault, if they weren't so eager to support
feckless teenagers you can bet there would be a darn sight fewer of them.
Mike
Alan
"Mike" <diespam...@kiwifanboyssuck.com> wrote in message
news:VFpCg.16831$N64....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
Derek Hornby
"Robbie" <ngrob...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > That depends!
>
> On what? The fact is there are no benefits a 14 year old can get.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5217634.stm
With teenage girls now choosing pregnancy as a "career option", according
to a leading charity, three young mothers talk about how they dealt with the
experience.
Britain has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe and they cost
the country about £63m a year.
73 million pounds a year!
So please explain where this money is going?
And, what of this matter that some girls choose pregnancy, as a "career option",
Rather than take the low paid jobs.
Derek
Pat P
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:12:48 GMT, Mike
> <diespam...@kiwifanboyssuck.com> wrote:
>
>>> Uh-huh. The most common type of contraceptive failure is that of not
>>> using any.
>
>>Second is "I was on anti biotics and the doctor didn't tell me it would
>>affect the pill."
>
> The one used by the 17 year old I know to her boyfriend was, "Yes, I
> *was* on the pill, but that was *months* ago, and I stopped taking it
> because it gave me headaches. I'm sure I told you at the time, but
> you never listen to me properly."
>
> --
> Cynic
Mind you, I have a sneaking sympathy for that one - men RARELY listen
properly. Either that or just swear blind that you never told them
something when you known darned well that you did!
Pat P
Pat P
"Derek Hornby" <derek.h...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:wKOdnUc7J_4...@bt.com...
I was still thinking in terms of the original discussion regarding those
youngsters who get pregnant knowing that "The State will provide!" If the
parent is left by the partner after a few years, then at least she can then
get a job to maintain it and herself. Many do just that. In many cases,
anyway, it would be far better for the child if it WAS put up for adoption
or fostering.
My own cousin was the result of such a "mistake" and was firstly in
Barnardo's, and then fostered (in those days they didn`t get the grants they
do now, and it was very much more frowned upon to be a single mother in any
case!) Her mother (my aunt) got herself a job, AND kept in touch with her
child, who made the most of her education and grew up to have a good job.
Neither of them was a drain on the taxpayer - in fact they paid their fair
share of taxes.
Now you see them with two or three kids, queueing up for their Benefit money
each week. They OBVIOUSLY make a careeer out of it!
Pat P
Alan Hope
><m...@privacy.net> wrote
You and Turtill are as bad as each other.
--
AH
http://sour-grapes.blogsource.com