|
|
Post by ratcliff on Nov 12, 2022 19:21:28 GMT
What is extremely telling is that the vast majority of comments on this story are focussed on the amount of benefits theses people were getting and the failings of checks and balances to prevent it, while little thought or concern seems to shown for the 7 children and how it was possible that they've been allowed to suffer for so long without checks and balances to prevent it. The case dealt with criminal neglect of children (up to the age of 21) by the parents who were jailed by the court. They were home schooled - obviously no checks whatsoever to assess learning or proper curriculum being followed were made on them by the appropriate authority - children couldn't read/wash/use cutlery etc . As part of the evidence used in this criminal case it was established (via the appropriate authorities responsible for providing correct information to the courts and checked ), that the mother was being paid the small fortune of £7000 a month in benefits directly to her bank account. Don't these people have allocated social/support/health workers to keep a check on them - or were they not doing their job? A normal taxpaying worker would need to be earning in the region of £140000 a year to equal this There was no suggestion of any fraud involved . That hackneyed phrase Lessons will be learned will probably be making an appearance shortly . |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 12, 2022 19:34:01 GMT
I do t believe a bloody word of it.
My youngest, now married off at long last is one of those who has to check underneath her car every morning lest some shitbag has fitted it with an improvised device. Because it is her job to be the person at the DWP that decides who gets what.
The largest amounts of ‘benefits’ are the housing ‘benefits’ paid mostly to people IN WORK to pay their landlord(s).
When I was her age (actually when I was ten years younger) there were no such ‘benefits’ because council and private landlords had their rent controlled by rent tribunals and this ensured even the least well paid could afford their rent out of their TAKE HOME PAY. Few in our street paid tax as most did not earn enough to breach the tax threshold.
This of course all changed. Today it is illegal for someone working a 40 hour week to be paid less than the tax threshold, and almost all such receive rent subsidies that go straight to their party donating landlord….
|
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Nov 19, 2022 1:34:00 GMT
The woman was probably suffering from MAD (Mixed amxiety depression) ... people who let their living environment become chaotic usually are. Attempts by others to tidy up their environment whilst in their presence often results in a panic response. Everything that is not as it should be came to be as a consequence of an anxiety governed thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 19, 2022 16:01:56 GMT
What is extremely telling is that the vast majority of comments on this story are focussed on the amount of benefits theses people were getting and the failings of checks and balances to prevent it, while little thought or concern seems to shown for the 7 children and how it was possible that they've been allowed to suffer for so long without checks and balances to prevent it. The case dealt with criminal neglect of children (up to the age of 21) by the parents who were jailed by the court. They were home schooled - obviously no checks whatsoever to assess learning or proper curriculum being followed were made on them by the appropriate authority - children couldn't read/wash/use cutlery etc . As part of the evidence used in this criminal case it was established (via the appropriate authorities responsible for providing correct information to the courts and checked ), that the mother was being paid the small fortune of £7000 a month in benefits directly to her bank account. Don't these people have allocated social/support/health workers to keep a check on them - or were they not doing their job? A normal taxpaying worker would need to be earning in the region of £140000 a year to equal this There was no suggestion of any fraud involved . That hackneyed phrase Lessons will be learned will probably be making an appearance shortly . I agree with both of you why was this not discovered by Social or Welfare Officers or the Education Department, long before the Police discovered the neglect the children had been the victims of for a long time when they attended and investigated a Domestic Incident involving the mother and her boyfriend, if the Officers had not gone inside the house and seen the children it could still be ongoing. The reason the Police and CPS included in their evidence to the Court the amount in benefits the so-called mother received each month to look after her children would have been put before the Judge and Jury if the mother and or the boyfriend had pleaded " Not Guilty" to prove to the Jury the mother had sufficient funds to look after the children properly. In addition to that included in the evidence against them would be the eyewitness reports of the arresting Officers, IMO the Officers who investigated the neglect would have taken lots of pictures of the inside of the house, the state it was in the filth and squalor, if there was any food in the kitchen, the amount of clothing the kids had or lack of, the physical state of the kids all damming evidence. On top of that the Medical Examinations of the children both physical and mental capacity would also have played a major part in the Crown evidence, which IMHO was overwhelming, that is why they both pleaded guilty probably on the advice of their Defence Team, how could they mount any viable defence to the Jury with so much evidence stacked against them, plead guilty and get a shorter sentence if you go not guilty you will lose and go to prison for longer. |
|
