Wednesday 14 April 2010

Benefits Culture Encapsulated…

The eye watering sums of money dished out to the Davey family by the state have been highlighted by the ‘Daily Fail’ and the iniquity of it outlined nicely by Al Jahom, but it’s not their huge collection of possessions – the four-bedroom home, top-of-the-range mod cons and vehicles – that caused the vein in my temple to begin it’s customary throbbing, but the sheer unmitigated, unashamed expectation that this was quite normal and should continue to happen.

No, should expand….
Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits.

Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot.

With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.
And why not? The taxpayer, after all, has furnished them with a nice living so far.

This isn’t someone who never had a job, either. He had one, and gave it up when he realised there was free money available.
The couple met in a pub 13 years ago. A year later, at the age of 17, Mrs Davey gave birth to Jessica, now 12.

She was followed by Jade, ten, Jamie-Anne, eight, Harriet, six, Adele, four, the couple's only son Tie, three, and Mercedes, two.
It appears that giving birth and raising her brood IS Mrs Davey’s job. As it would have been had she been born 100 years ago (although her husband would have been expected to support her and them).

For this, some bird threw herself under the King’s horse?
'It's really hard,' said Mrs Davey…'The price of living is going up but benefits are going down. My carer's allowance is only going up by 80p this year and petrol is so expensive now, I'm worried how we'll cope.
You’re not alone, Mrs Davey. Lots of people are thinking the same thing, about how they’ll cope raising their families.

And, of course, yours

They aren’t even grateful:
'It doesn't bother me that taxpayers are paying for me to have a large family,' added Mrs Davey.

'We couldn't afford to care for our children without benefits, but as long as they have everything they need, I don't think I'm selfish.

'Most of the parents at our kids' school are on benefits.'
So no doubt it seems perfectly normal to her to do this. And this is the entrenched benefits culture that the Tories are going to have to smash, and smash hard.

Because otherwise, little Jade, Jamie-Anne, Harriet, Adele, Tie, and Mercedes are going to grow up just like their brood sow of a mother, expecting to raise their own broods of cuckoos, fed by the dwindling pool of workers.
She added: 'I don't feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I'm just working with the system that's there.

'If the government wants to give me money, I'm happy to take it. We get what we're entitled to. I don't put in anything because I don't pay taxes, but if I could work I would.'
How could you work? What could you do? The only thing is seems you are qualified for can be done by any female mammal. And it doesn’t pay well.
Mrs Davey, who spends £160 a week at Tesco, says she does not intend to stop at eight children. Her target is 14.

And she adds: 'I've always wanted a big family - no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I'm working or not.'
Someone needs to. We can’t afford it. Not anymore.

A start would be to stop handing out actual money. There are three possible ways that they could have amassed those possessions:

a) Very generous relatives or friends,
b) Off the books working, or
c) The benefits are more than they need to eat and clothe themselves

In future, benefits should be in the form of vouchers for food and clothing. No designer gear and no junk food.

Yes, I know it'd need enforcing, but given the alternative...

12 comments:

Uncle Marvo said...

How hot does your blood have to get before it consumes you in a Dantean inferno?

I would HAPPILY shoot these CUNTS and the people that let them get like this. And anyone I find paying TAX, as well. And every LABOUR DRONE I can lay my hands on.

That is the way I feel today. My blog will reveal more, soon. I may top myself.

I will calm down soon and perhaps delete this, unless you do it for me.

JuliaM said...

I know exactly what you mean!

It's the sheer arrogance of these people - they know they are safe from any kind of retribution for their lifestyle, living as they do among like-minded individuals.

I'm beginning to favour the 'Aliens' approach - take off, and nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure...

Roger Thornhill said...

This is when we gave "entitlement". No Friendly Society would put up with this outrage.

Macheath said...

Fact 1) According to votepower, ‘Voters in Ynys Mon have 3.53x more voting power than the UK average.

Fact 2) Mrs Davey [...] says she does not intend to stop at eight children. Her target is 14.

Hypothesis 1) Little Jade, Jamie-Anne, Harriet, Adele, Tie, and Mercedes are going to grow up just like their brood sow of a mother, expecting to raise their own broods of cuckoos.

Hypothesis 2) All of the above will vote Labour out of gratitude and self-interest.

So where's the incentive to cut welfare spending?

patently said...

As I commented at AJ's:

no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I’m working or not

He is, of course, 100% right in this regard. We can, however, tell him that we are not paying for them.

All it needs is a rule saying that no benefits claim can be entertained in respect of a liability acquired after the claimant began claiming.

Rod said...

Now in the dim past, when I was a National Assistance Board officer a rule called the wage stop existed.No one could receive more than they could earn, so the only increase was Family Allowance.This carried over into the 1966 Social security act but with pressure from the usual suspects caused it to be abandoned around 1973. The result of which you can see today of why work.

Antisthenes said...

Shortly tax revenues and the ability to borrow are going to peak and then decline. The only pleasure that the tax payer is going gain out of that as they see their standard of living drop into a great black hole is that people like her will suddenly have to fend for themselves with no hope of an income except by their own efforts. Of course then people like her will start the rioting and looting and vote in the BNP.

RAB said...

Well good to see that one part of his anatomy is working hard, even if the rest of him is bone idle...

JuliaM said...

"So where's the incentive to cut welfare spending?"

Exactly!

"All it needs is a rule saying that no benefits claim can be entertained in respect of a liability acquired after the claimant began claiming."

That would still leave us with a generation raised in this sort of culture, though. And fit for...what?

You can see why immigration is so attractive to business, can't you?

"The result of which you can see today of why work."

Indeed. Several bloggers commented that they weren't to blame, but the system was for allowing it.

I think there's enough blame to go around for both!

"Well good to see that one part of his anatomy is working hard..."

Unless that job too is being done by a hard-working Polish immigrant!

Anonymous said...

You may compain about paying for their progeny but who else will make children for the future.
Certainly not the righteous taxpayer feminist ( and possible mate).

JuliaM said...

"You may compain about paying for their progeny but who else will make children for the future."

She's making children, of that there's no doubt.

But ones fit for the future?

Anonymous said...

In future, benefits should be in the form of vouchers for food and clothing. No designer gear and no junk food.

I don't agree.

The fundamental problem with such people is their lack of responsibility. That there are no consequences that follow from their lack of it is the incentive to continue. We treat them as children because we do not hold them to account.

On top of that you propose that we tell them what they can buy. Surely that exacerbates the problem?

I'd be inclined to say there might be benefit for the first two children, perhaps a reduced amount for a third, but then no more. Thereafter they are free to beg for charity.

At the same time I would pass the "Guardian Reader Act 2010". This would state that any citizen who demanded that the state spend on their pet scheme, would have their income tax doubled and the extra funds placed into a charity for that purpose. In other words we would give them what they want but not bother people who recognise the voluntary nature of such philanthropy.