In fairness, I'd prefer to have a bird with nice bangers, than well fed kids. Of course this is why I don't have kids.

What should be done, well how about properly funded social services and child protection officers.

It's not more or less of a problem. Both should be tackled regardless of the numbers, because no one should be allowed to take the piss. Personally however I'm inclined to use the above as a more pertinent example of unfairness, because it's extremely likely the person next door could be working 50 hour weeks to live a worse life. Or they could be disabled, and it's ultimately her taking money from them. I think it's more rational to view it as coming from a particular pool of money which could be distributed more fairly than start looking to re-write the whole budget from a left wing perspective.

There's still an ethos of work being optional. You could close every tax loophole going but if you're happy for those additional funds to be distributed to the likes of this woman then you're making the problem worse. I'm not really sure why no one can condemn this misuse of money and accept that this is absolutely not what the welfare state is about. Rather, the suggestion is that there should be enough money anyway, taken from the rich. Stinks of communism. According to Diane Abbot it's humiliating to have to go to a food bank. What's more humiliating is having to work to achieve the same as someone who doesn't. Isolated case or not, the message is that you can live happily entirely off handouts. If you can't get a job or are physically incapable then it should be an option but then without the free boob jobs.

It's hard to find an objective account of exactly what is being deducted from disabled people. It all gets very political and you end up reading accounts of people killing themselves because of the bedroom tax. It's clearly unfair if anyone is suffering but it was previously a very sweet deal for fakers compared to the dole. Again they're taking directly from the genuine cases. But then so did the ATOS assessments.

It's tough but ultimately we need a sensible and efficient system, not one that will only ever be polarised example of fairness. Miliband would've said pretty much anything the week before the election but still it says a lot that even Labour were proposing a fair old cut to benefits.

So back to the OP, the fags iPhone and Sky thing is a massive cliche, but we all know those people and yet it's apparently not a real issue. Perhaps there are social problems associated with such deprivation but there's a bigger reward to society in breaking people out of it rather than funding that lifestyle.

Edited by johnfirewall (22 Jun 2015 12.45am)

I agree. Just don't think it's that easy
easy.

Is this womwn abusing the system? What I mean is, can you legally tell someone want to spend there benefits on? Does that encroach some human right somewhere?

Personally, I think we should move to food coupons or something along those lines.

Edited by JL85 (22 Jun 2015 1.31am)

Easy, stop all benefits for people who are clearly a abusing the system on a case by case basis and leave them to find there own means. If we could have a cut off point for people were we can say you are no longer deserving of society's money all these people would be forced to sort themselves out. Continuing to give them money to squander is just enabling them.