quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by Mazzystar:
Not when you have kids.
I know men who have no option but to remain in their marital home because they don't earn enough to support their children AND pay rent for single accomodation.Let alone being able to rent a property where they can have their kids to stay at weekends.

Oh I see what you mean.

And,of course it's paradoxical.The greater the dual incomes purchasing power,the more they inflate the economy,the less freedom they actually have.Unless,of course,they are above a certain celing and have a family home worth about £600k.

Some interesting comments on this programme here, including one from Emma Harrison, herself.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefit-busters

quote:

Originally posted by BBea:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by BBea:
Maybe I’m just a soft touch but I think your Mum was entitled to a decent quality of life with her kids - and working every morning, afternoon and evening wouldn’t have been allowing her that.

Why entitled? I mean philosophically. On what is that entitlement based? We're a modern capitalist society which is predicated on the idea that people sell their labour for wages, or amass enough money not to have to work, or employ people to generate wealth from their labour for you.

Entitle in the allow sense (and purely from a basic humane ‘one to another’ perspective).

We'd have to collectively agree for the state to pay men or women with kids to stay at home with a decent quality of life, whatever decent means, from the taxes of people and organisations who generate wealth. That would surely encourage people to have children simply to avoid having to work, and why not if it's an entitlement to do so? As a childless man, I have to work to have a decent quality of life for myself. Of course, my work also pays for schools, universal child benefits, and so on for people who choose to have children. I don't begrudge that as it has benefits for all of us but it's a quite a socialist thing to extend that much more so that having children is an economic activity in itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Mazzystar:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
Oh I see what you mean.

And,of course it's paradoxical.The greater the dual incomes purchasing power,the more they inflate the economy,the less freedom they actually have.Unless,of course,they are above a certain celing and have a family home worth about £600k.

Well, until the kids all reach 16/18 I suppose.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by Mazzystar:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
Oh I see what you mean.

And,of course it's paradoxical.The greater the dual incomes purchasing power,the more they inflate the economy,the less freedom they actually have.Unless,of course,they are above a certain celing and have a family home worth about £600k.

Well, until the kids all reach 16/18 I suppose.

At least.
Its virtually impossible for a kid to become economically active at 16(insurance).Economic independence would still be a way off until the housing market becomes accessible for young people.My neighbours daughters still live at home at an age when I was already on the property ladder.

quote:

Originally posted by charmer:

quote:

Originally posted by luxor:

quote:

Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though

After my father buggered off my Mum worked days, evenings and weekends to feed and clothe us, as she believed it was her responsibility not the taxpayers.
The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net not a way of life. If somebody on benefits is able to afford a oversized flat screen TV then they are being given to much.

they probably get the big tv from 'britehouse' or places like that, where you pay loads over the normal price
you know the place i mean?
its like a glorified legal loan shark shop

yeah my OH used to work for a company like that, they pay for a plasma tv by putting £1 every so often into a meter until the tv is paid for (or washing machines or dvd players etc). problem is they end up paying much much more than it's worth.

do people honestly think people on benefits get enough money to just go to currys and buy a plasma TV stright away??? even if they did they would have had to save up VERY hard for it (near impossible on the money given tbh) or they are cheating the system.

quote:

Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:
The woman on that show were not offered training places, further education etc, all that could make a massive difference in their employability they were just told you HAVE to work any where, why shouldnt they have expectations, did anyone ask what THEY really wanted to do and told well we will help you get there NO, it was just there is a job take it.

Thats exactly the attitude I encountered when I was searching for a job out of uni... they have this sneering looking down on you attitude cos they have a job and you dont, and you should be grateful for whatever they suggest God, I hated going to that place

quote:

Originally posted by BBea:
It’s amazing how much attitudes have changed in the past 20 or 30 years. I’m 35 and my Mum didn’t work when we were kids, she looked after us and was there each day when we got home from school – which I think is far preferable to being put in a crèche or sent to a child minder.
There seems to be a culture nowadays where women are frowned upon for NOT leaving their kids, the muppet running the class referred to their kids as an ‘excuse’!

quote:

Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:

quote:

Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though

I dont think anyone is being snobby about these places of work, traditionally macdonalds kfc et al have all been places that students work, nothing wrong with that. BUT to go on a six week course and to be TOLD they should be queing up outside these places is a disgrace. The woman on that show were not offered training places, further education etc, all that could make a massive difference in their employability they were just told you HAVE to work any where, why shouldnt they have expectations, did anyone ask what THEY really wanted to do and told well we will help you get there NO, it was just there is a job take it.


The funny thing is they are a product of our education system and the whole circle will continue with their kids......and on and on, until such time as the education system in this country changes. WHY should those who are well off be able to BUY the best education in the country, every child in this country should be given exactly the same education regardless of their wealth, race etc

If the state education system was better then there would be no call for private schools.
Spending money on their childs education should be applauded. I would rather they did that than waste it on useless trinkets.
Next we will be slagging people off for going to Egypt or the USA for their holidays because not everybody can afford to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by luxor:

quote:

Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:

quote:

Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though

I dont think anyone is being snobby about these places of work, traditionally macdonalds kfc et al have all been places that students work, nothing wrong with that. BUT to go on a six week course and to be TOLD they should be queing up outside these places is a disgrace. The woman on that show were not offered training places, further education etc, all that could make a massive difference in their employability they were just told you HAVE to work any where, why shouldnt they have expectations, did anyone ask what THEY really wanted to do and told well we will help you get there NO, it was just there is a job take it.


The funny thing is they are a product of our education system and the whole circle will continue with their kids......and on and on, until such time as the education system in this country changes. WHY should those who are well off be able to BUY the best education in the country, every child in this country should be given exactly the same education regardless of their wealth, race etc

If the state education system was better then there would be no call for private schools.
Spending money on their childs education should be applauded. I would rather they did that than waste it on useless trinkets.
Next we will be slagging people off for going to Egypt or the USA for their holidays because not everybody can afford to do so.

Actually your first sentence was the whole meaning of my post, not criticising what the wealthy spend their money on or where they holiday

quote:

Originally posted by BBea:

quote:

Originally posted by Cagney:
Why do people keep going on about places like Poundland, McDonalds, Burger King etc being dead end jobs? Somebody has to work there. I bet a fair few here shop or eat in these places. So it's good enough to go to but not good enough to work in? That's a very snobbish attitude. A jobs a job. My mother was a cleaner in the mornings, worked in a corner shop in the afternoon and the chippy in the evening when we were little just so she wouldn't have to claim benefits. She didn't make a fortune but she felt her money was well earned. If benefits are gonna pay for luxuries like Sky TV and a plasma telly then yeah they probably are better off not working though

And of course it's the attitude of other people which made your Mother view benefit as a dirty word, which I think is a shame.

I don’t look at the top line of my pay slip, as someone else has already said taxes are inevitable – guilt tripping people off of benefit won’t benefit any of us!
I actually cringe when I hear the pompous “my taxes” line because it’s never in reference to genuine government squander; it’s always having a go at your fellow man.
Maybe I’m just a soft touch but I think your Mum was entitled to a decent quality of life with her kids - and working every morning, afternoon and evening wouldn’t have been allowing her that.

She didn't view it as a dirty word. Her view was she brought us into the world so she'll provide for us. There were jobs available and yeah they weren't all glitz and glamour but she did them.

She had a decent life too. She loved her jobs. It was very sociable for her. Even now she talks about how she loved it. She was always there when we were too. This was all after we'd gone to school and once we'd had our dinner and stuff. We never felt we missed out either. We'd go along and blether to her and she'd come home on her breaks.

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:
That careers woman...shades of Pauline-League of Gentleman about her, I hope no one nicks her pens

"Think about a butterfly, its egg, a caterpillar is ugly"

Its egg? And she is patronising as heck, talking to them like they're bairns.

I thought she was Pauline come to life as well! Lol

quote:

Originally posted by Cagney:
She didn't view benefit as a dirty word. Her view was she brought us into the world so she'll provide for us. There were jobs available and yeah they weren't all glitz and glamour but she did them.

She had a decent life too. She loved her jobs. It was very sociable for her. Even now she talks about how she loved it. She was always there when we were too. This was all after we'd gone to school and once we'd had our dinner and stuff. We never felt we missed out either. We'd go along and blether to her and she'd come home on her breaks.

Well that's great if that's exactly how it was for you and your mother and your family, but not everyone's experience is the same. And just because OTHERS are on benefits, that doesn't make your mother - or other mothers who worked; superior to them, just because they 'worked' (and 'worked three jobs to boot!') I know you haven't said this, but IMO, it's how it's coming across in your posts...

As BeaB said, it's the attitude of some that make it a problem for people to claim benefits. And this stupid woman on tv last night, making out that the mums were using their children as an 'excuse' to not work, was a disgrace. If women choose to stay at home with the kids, and the best financial alternative is for them to do that, (whilst their children are school age,) then they can hardly be blamed for doing that can they?

And no-one is being snobby about jobs at poundland or mcdonalds. The point is that the vile woman on that programme, simply wanted to offload these women into the first minimum wage job that was available, no matter if the job offered prospects and training, or if it suited the person, or if they would fit in round their family life and childrens' needs. As long as they got a JOB, that is all that old hag on that show cared about. It could have been cleaning public loos with a toothbrush for a pound an hour as long as she got her bonuses for getting the 'lazy workshy dole dossers' off benefits!! THAT is the point that I and many others on here were trying to convey...

When I was looking for work about 7 years ago, (when my daughter was 7,) The DSS kept offering me interviews for shop jobs, and I refused them because they were ALL working weekends, and I had no intention of taking any job that would deprive me of seeing my daughter at the weekend. She was at school all week from 9 til 3pm, and I was damned if I was going to spend weekends away from her too!

Also, the job centre kept fishing out jobs that were 1pm til 7pm, again, I refused, as I would rarely see my daughter. She went to bed at 7.30pm then! In the end, I took a week-only job doing 9 til 3. Monday to Thursday.

Even though I stood my ground; I actually only claimed benefits for 8 weeks! If it had been up to them though, I would have been working in a clothes shop (which would have been BORING to me,) and working hours and days I did not want to work for MINIMUM WAGE! I stood my ground and got a far more interesting AND better paid job, with hours that suited me.

Quite how your mother managed to 'work 3 jobs' and still manage to be there for you all the time, eludes me to be honest. I just don't know anyone who could manage that. That is why many women prefer to stay at home with the kids because they KNOW having a job would take them away. And if she had THREE jobs, I am struggling to get my head round how she could possibly have managed to spend a decent amount of quality time with her kids.

You say that your mother saw you 'in between jobs,' and was still there for you and did your meals and spent time with you. How on earth did she manage that, whilst doing THREE jobs? And you say she did three jobs, so she didnt have to claim benefits? But what would have been WRONG with claiming them anyway?

As I said (and it's just my opinion your attitude makes it sound a little like you look down on women/mothers/people who claim benefits. Some people HAVE to, and yes, some people WANT to for a short while, (so they can spend time with their kids.)

And not EVERYone is lucky enough to have a job (or three!) where they can pop home in their breaks and socialise with their kids and ask them about their day and so on and so on. Most people aren't even allowed out of the workplace at break, and most people wouldn't live close enough to their jobs to enable them to pop home to have a chinwag and a blather with their kids/family on their breaks.

If everything you are saying is true/correct, then your mother is a rare case. Not only having three jobs that are so relaxed that she can keep popping home in her breaks, but also that she had three jobs that were so enjoyable and amazing, that she talks about them to this day...

But people who don't/can't conform to what she did shouldn't be vilified because THEY have to claim benefits, or choose to stay on them whilst their kids are young.

Blimey.

Indeed

So, is it okay to plan to have kids without the means to support them on the basis that the state (tax-payers in other words) will pay out-of-work benefits?

Are people entitled to do that?

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
So, is it okay to plan to have kids without the means to support them on the basis that the state (tax-payers in other words) will pay out-of-work benefits?

To be fair I don't think most single parents set out to become that....it ends up that way through death/divorce/relationship break ups.

I'll reply properly later but for now I'll say I think my mother and others like her had a fantastic attitude to work and kids.

I think your analysing my post waaaay too much. You're seeing problems where there are none...not in my post anyway. IMO

quote:

Originally posted by FGG Aka Crocodile Rock:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
So, is it okay to plan to have kids without the means to support them on the basis that the state (tax-payers in other words) will pay out-of-work benefits?

To be fair I don't think most single parents set out to become that....it ends up that way through death/divorce/relationship break ups.

but some don't choose to see this

quote:

Originally posted by FGG Aka Crocodile Rock:
To be fair I don't think most single parents set out to become that....it ends up that way through death/divorce/relationship break ups.

Oh, I'm not saying they do. But for me, that's the point where safety net becomes lifestyle choice. I think an argument can be made that it is okay ... but that's not the philosophy behind our system at the moment. Perhaps it ought to be. Or perhaps not.

There's a similar point when people have the option to continue having children when out of work, even though they can't support them financially themselves, on the basis that they're at home anyway and on state benefits.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
So, is it okay to plan to have kids without the means to support them on the basis that the state (tax-payers in other words) will pay out-of-work benefits?

Are people entitled to do that?

I just don't think that people should be vilified for being in a position where they have to claim benefits. If Cagney's mother was able to work three jobs that she loved, and still manage to be there for her kids, then that's great, but if this IS true, then she is a very rare case indeed IMO. I am not saying Cagney DID attack people who are on benefits, but it's how it came across to me. That people claiming benefits were somehow inferior to those who work, and should be ashamed of themselves.

And I am sick of people being vilified for claiming benefits and looked down upon by people who are lucky enough to be in a position where they can work and are BETTER OFF working. Their attitudes often come across as a bit pious sometimes, and I hope they never find THEMSELVES in a position of having to claim benefits.

And of course I don't approve of people deliberately having kids without means to support them Daniel, OR staying on benefits permanently, all of their lives.... but are you suggesting that most women who have children and are on benefits, are deliberately getting pregnant to stay on benefits, so they can live at the taxpayers expense? Or have I misunderstood your post?

quote:

Originally posted by Cagney:
I'll reply properly later but for now I'll say I think my mother and others like her had a fantastic attitude to work and kids.

I think your analysing my post waaaay too much. You're seeing problems where there are none...not in my post anyway. IMO

Just repsonding and replying to what you posted Cagney.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
And of course I don't approve of people deliberately having kids without means to support them Daniel, OR staying on benefits permanently, all of their lives.... but are you suggesting that most women who have children and are on benefits, are deliberately getting pregnant to stay on benefits, so they can live at the taxpayers expense? Or have I misunderstood your post?

They're just questions. Almost rhetorical questions, really.

I'm trying to identify underlying assumptions about any sense of entitlement.

Edit: ah, reading that post of mine it sounds a bit confrontational. Sorry, it was just a general question to the thread as I was thinking. I wasn't trying to challenge you there.

cheeky, unfortunately there are some whom tend to use the system as a lifestyle choice as well documented, please don't take this personally as I do understand and know how it feels, but Daniel also has a point to his posts.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
And of course I don't approve of people deliberately having kids without means to support them Daniel, OR staying on benefits permanently, all of their lives.... but are you suggesting that most women who have children and are on benefits, are deliberately getting pregnant to stay on benefits, so they can live at the taxpayers expense? Or have I misunderstood your post?

They're just questions. Almost rhetorical questions, really.

I'm trying to identify underlying assumptions about any sense of entitlement.

Well I think I answered your question. No people shouldn't be entitled to use living on benefits as a life choice and they should be there only when you need them, but the attitude of some, who have fortunately never had to claim them, saddens me. The 'my dad worked 18 hours a day down t'pit,' and 'mutha worked 7 jobs, 19 hours a day and never claimed a penny in beneifts,' is all well and good, but it't the attitude towards people who have no choice other than to claim benefits, as some kind of losers/ failures/scroungers who are inferior, that upsets me. If someone has NEVER had to claim, then that's fabulous. Just don't look down your nose at people who have had to claim or who are on long term benefits. Some people may not mean to do this, but this does happen. Here but by the Grace of God go I.

quote:

Originally posted by love greek sunsets:
cheeky, unfortunately there are some whom tend to use the system as a lifestyle choice as well documented, please don't take this personally as I do understand and know how it feels, but Daniel also has a point to his posts.

I know LGS. Some people do use it as a lifestyle choice and I said I disagree with that, but I said it's sad and unfair to look down on people who are ON benefits, just because your mum/dad/gran whatever worked 3 or 4 jobs and never claimed benefits. It's not fair to judge like that. Some have no choice.

Im sure the woman in charge, with the short hair was an extra from a Victoria Wood sketch!

I edited my post up there to add a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
And of course I don't approve of people deliberately having kids without means to support them Daniel, OR staying on benefits permanently, all of their lives.... but are you suggesting that most women who have children and are on benefits, are deliberately getting pregnant to stay on benefits, so they can live at the taxpayers expense? Or have I misunderstood your post?

They're just questions. Almost rhetorical questions, really.

I'm trying to identify underlying assumptions about any sense of entitlement.

Edit: ah, reading that post of mine it sounds a bit confrontational. Sorry, it was just a general question to the thread as I was thinking. I wasn't trying to challenge you there.

Awww, it's OK Daniel. Don't apologise. I put a long ranty post challenging someone's views and expected someone to challenge it. For what it's worth; I do see your point honestly. I am just saddened when I see people looked down on for being on benefits. I guess Cagney may not have intended this, and I apologise to Cagney for my rant, it's just how it came across; that her mom was somehow better than mothers who have to claim benefits. Sorry Cagney

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:

quote:

Originally posted by love greek sunsets:
cheeky, unfortunately there are some whom tend to use the system as a lifestyle choice as well documented, please don't take this personally as I do understand and know how it feels, but Daniel also has a point to his posts.

I know LGS. Some people do use it as a lifestyle choice and I said I disagree with that, but I said it's sad and unfair to look down on people who are ON benefits, just because your mum/dad/gran whatever worked 3 or 4 jobs and never claimed benefits. It's not fair to judge like that. Some have no choice.

it can also be said there aren't 3/4 jobs available as my dad says he feels sorry for our generation as theirs could walk into any job they wanted because of our industrial background, but that all seems to have gone now

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
Here but by the Grace of God go I.

I've been made redundant twice. The first time really shocked my world as it happened during the telecoms crash of 2001 and there were very few jobs around in my sort of software. Scared the life out of me as I suddenly saw myself, a single man, in the situation of earning £5 an hour for the rest of my life with little means to retrain to something else. It got even worse when I tried to get an interim job and even places like B&Q wouldn't have me for £5 an hour because I was over-skilled! Luckily, I got a suitable job (in another part of the country so I had to work away during the week) within 6 weeks but it certainly changed my view of things.

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
The 'my dad worked 18 hours a day down t'pit,' and 'mutha worked 7 jobs, 19 hours a day and never claimed a penny in beneifts,' is all well and good

And quite right too, I am very proud of my dad for bringing up the 5 kids who were still at home on his small pension when me ma kippered it. He sold the house, we moved into a smaller one, kipped on fold up beds (no room for owt else) and he found work around our school hours when he could.

There are MANY women I know who DO see having kids as an excuse not to work. One woman I know, a talented musician, could easily give piano and violin lessons around her kids' school hours and make good money, but, in her words, she 'couldn't be arsed' when she's claiming benefits for doing nowt.

quote:

Some have no choice.

And many DO. I know some of them

quote:

Originally posted by fracas:

quote:

Some have no choice.

And many DO. I know some of them

it is easy to pick certain quotes from peoples posts and make what you will, CP has said she knows some do that is not her point.

quote:

Originally posted by fracas:

quote:

Originally posted by Cheeky-Pixie:
The 'my dad worked 18 hours a day down t'pit,' and 'mutha worked 7 jobs, 19 hours a day and never claimed a penny in beneifts,' is all well and good

And quite right too, I am very proud of my dad for bringing up the 5 kids who were still at home on his small pension when me ma kippered it. He sold the house, we moved into a smaller one, kipped on fold up beds (no room for owt else) and he found work around our school hours when he could.

There are MANY women I know who DO see having kids as an excuse not to work. One woman I know, a talented musician, could easily give piano and violin lessons around her kids' school hours and make good money, but, in her words, she 'couldn't be arsed' when she's claiming benefits for doing nowt.

Well yes I am sure some people DID work all the hours God sends, but not everyone has the opportunity to do that these days, and it's very unfair for people to be looked down on, or thought of as freeloaders because they have to claim benefits. It was a different world then Fracas. As Daniel said in his post above.... MY dad never claimed benefits in 50 years, but he never rubbed my nose in it when *I* had to claim, or when my hubby was on benefits for 4 months 5 years ago.

quote:

it is easy to pick certain quotes from peoples posts and make what you will, CP has said she knows some do that is not her point.

I'm posting on the hop, only got 10 minutes. Forgive me. Sheesh.

quote:

Originally posted by love greek sunsets:

quote:

Originally posted by fracas:

quote:

Some have no choice.

And many DO. I know some of them

it is easy to pick certain quotes from peoples posts and make what you will, CP has said she knows some do that is not her point.

Thanks LGS I know SOME do claim continually and have it as a lifestyle choice, and to be fair, we all know someone that does that LOL, but not everyone who claims is a lazy freeloader and as has been mentioned already, there is no WAY that anyone could work 10 hours a day, six days a week for 40 years now! There used to be jobs for life when we were kids; not any longer! God forbid these people judging people on benefits, ever have to ever claim themselves...

I'll do it now.

At no point did I say my mother thought she was superior to those claiming benefits. I said she didn't want to claim. I didn't think I had to put our whole family history on here but if it's necessary then ok...

We are talking 20-30 years ago here. Not yesterday. Times change. She'd been working since she was 15 and enjoyed it. When she got married and had kids she didn't want to stop working so she didn't. Benefits were available but she didn't see why she had to claim if she could work. Friends of hers did claim. No big deal. Why is her attitude frowned upon because she worked? IMO that's how your post comes across to me

She managed to work 3 jobs just fine. Sometimes she had one, sometimes 2 depending on what was going on at home. Like I said this was 20-30 years ago and things are different now. Yeah she probably wouldn't have gotten a job so close to home or popped home for breaks or been allowed to have us in for a blether now but back then it was ok. OK where we lived which was a housing estate in Glasgow with little shops and everyone knew each other and grew up together.

Whether you struggle with it or not she was there for us. You're presuming from my post that she worked loads of hours in each job. Again if you want the full history then here it is. She worked a couple of hours at each. 2 while we were at school and one about 7pm when we were settled in the house. She never worked weekends, she was lucky that way. 2 whole days with us. She was glad when Monday came round again and she got back to work

Money wasn't the issue with her. If it was then yeah she would have been better off on benefits. She WANTED to work. She LIKED working. Some of the people she worked with were her best friends, thier kids my best friends. THAT'S why she did it...not because she looked down her nose at those on benefits or saw it as a dirty word. Also as I said...she brought us into the world and wanted to provide for us...even if it wasn't much. I think that should be applauded Luckily my dad worked too. He was a skip lorry driver and back then that was well paid.

We were brought up the same. We cooked and cleaned. Not because my mum and dad were working but because there were 5 of us and we made an almighty mess. 3 of us enjoyed cooking so we did most of that. I wanted to be a chef so I took over the kitchen most nights. I wasn't forced to do it coz she was working, had no time, was too tired etc

She didn't work while we were pre-school but also never claimed benefits. Dad worked. Her opinion was that there were others who needed it more. Again I applaud her

My mum was NOT a rare case. Note the past tense. Again it was 20-30 years ago.

I don't look down my nose at anyone who claims benefits. I have the same attitude as my mum. There are people who do need it more than me. I do look down my nose at scroungers though. That's a whole other story

Also she doesn't talk about it all the time. She talks..OMG does she talk but believe it or not she has other things to talk about 20-30 years later. She looks back fondly when we are talking about work etc. She doesn't bang on about it 24/7 like you seem to be thinking.

Your last sentence. "people who don't/can't conform to what she did shouldn't be vilified" WTF? Where did I say she wanted anyone to conform? You took my post and dissected it word by word and came to your own inaccurate conclusion.

Now would you like my work history and how I treat my children?

During Thatcher's time in office, we seemed to switch to a system where what used to be called social security became a bare essentials safety net. I'm somewhere between those two views but I can't sort out in my head what to do about the culture of dependency something above bare essentials benefits tends to create. I'd be inclined to just accept it but I think it damages the people in it as well as the country as a whole.

I've enjoyed reading this thread, it's great to see an intelligent and considered debate about a contentious issue.

However I still cannot rid myself of the urge to shove 'What Not To Wear' in the part of that woman's anatomy that she speaks out of.

And it isn't her fat gob.