Conservative Conference - BENEFITS

6 Oct 2010

Er that is what I thought as well GNV.

Quote by Neil
Is it wrong that the well off have access to free health care and free schooling for their kids? Poorer tax payers contribute to them too? Is it equally wrong that those who choose not to have kids should contribute to those that do?

The more someone earns, the more they put into the pot. So have just as much right...if not MORE right to have access to those things, than someone who contributes virtually nothing.
Someone who earns 40 grand a year say, his pay packet has far more taken out of it, than someone who earns 10 grand.
The amount someone earns is completely irrelevant as far as getting free health care,and yes people who do not have any kids, do end up contributing to those that do....no other way around it.
I pay a shit load of council tax of which I use nothing, or very little out of my borough....I am also paying for other peoples kids schooling out of that.
Maybe it should all change where you pay for only what you use? I think the more well off out there, would be even better off.
I would like the choice to opt out of the NHS....I would save a fortune every year. I pay for private medical insurance so I would not be a burden on the system if I fell ill. So I pay twice for the same thing, I should like many others who pay twice, be allowed to opt out of the system.
If the millions who have private insurance did do that, the system would be even worse off financially than it already is.
Long live the better off. wink

6 Oct 2010

This is the kind of scrounger I want to see have her benefits capped.

Her benefits are because she has so many sprogs, yet instead of spending her money on them, she ops for a boob job. Also as she is obviously a lazy cow she will need some liposuction...........fucking lovely people the Labour Government have created.
They have created a whole generation of lazy scroungers, who have become baby making machines, purely to get their greedy paws on as much benefit money as they can.
This is no isolated case either.
I am glad that both my Daughters have more pride in themselves in their little toes, than the likes of this so called Mother does in her whole body.
Her benefits need to be curtailed now, and told to spend the money she has saved for her own self satisfaction, on her kids.....how proud her parents must be.
Miss Marshall, 32, receives monthly payments of £870 in housing benefit, £975 in child tax credit, and £303 in child benefit, giving her an income equivalent to a pre-tax salary of £39,000.
On Monday, George Osborne announced plans to prevent families on benefits receiving more than £26,000 a year.
39 grand a year????

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
I would love to be a fly on the wall when that letter pops through her door, saying her benefits have dropped....hurry up and get on with it George!!

6 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
I do see your point, but to me, it is government money, given to them by the tax payer, including poorer tax payers and then handed back to some very well off people... simply wrong in my view

Is it wrong that the well off have access to free health care and free schooling for their kids? Poorer tax payers contribute to them too? Is it equally wrong that those who choose not to have kids should contribute to those that do? Perhaps there are good pro-social arguments in favour of universal benefits that outweigh the saving of a paltry 1 billion?
N x x x ;)
Isn't that called a "welfare state"? dunno

Course it is GnV. I'm just wondering how far Blue's prepared to extend the logic of their own argument? :dunno:
N x x x ;)

6 Oct 2010

Isn't there a difference though Neil... the "handing back" of benefits funded by tax payers in a cash form and the funding of something like the NHS which provides a service free at the point of delivery to all?

6 Oct 2010

Quote by neilinleeds
I do see your point, but to me, it is government money, given to them by the tax payer, including poorer tax payers and then handed back to some very well off people... simply wrong in my view

Is it wrong that the well off have access to free health care and free schooling for their kids? Poorer tax payers contribute to them too? Is it equally wrong that those who choose not to have kids should contribute to those that do? Perhaps there are good pro-social arguments in favour of universal benefits that outweigh the saving of a paltry 1 billion?
N x x x ;)
Good points, never looked at it from that angle before

7 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
1.8? :lol: :lol: Is that British families, or are you including all foreign families in that figure? Ah British families, as eastern European families have a damn site more kids than 1'8!! I read somewhere not long ago that Romanian rates are 2'6
Encourage people? A lot do not need anymore encouragement....do you really believe all this left wing rubbish you read in the Mirror? Really some people are just so gullible.
When the population gets to 70 million, do you really think there will be enough money in the pot to pay for everything? Certainly not enough to pay for peoples retirements!

Wow - we'd better fear all those millions of Romanian families with their birth rate of a whopping 2.6! rotflmao

My big beef with you Kenty is you present everything you read as gospel, without giving any consideration to the overall context. There are people who take the piss out of the benefits system and don't contribute a bean and screw it for all its worth. Just as there are businessmen who dodge tax and don't pay their fair share. But it does not represent the vast, vast majority of benefits claimants - just as it would not be fair to brand all businessmen (like yourself) as crooks. In society there are always people who don't toe the line.
The fact is that the overall birth rate has been dropping for decades. People are choosing to have children later in life, and have fewer of them. We are not in a position that we were 60 years ago where it was common for families to have five or six children. The number of people of working age is getting lower every year. So there are less people paying into the system but more people are going to be dependent on it. We need more people of working age. The population is getting larger because we are living longer and because of economic migration. This works both ways - people come here and hundreds of thousands of Britons go to other countries to work. That's the free market for you. But if people are coming here to work they are at least paying into our system. There was a significant study done a few years ago which concluded it had a net benefit to the economy.

7 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Er that is what I thought as well GNV.
I pay a shit load of council tax of which I use nothing, or very little out of my borough....I am also paying for other peoples kids schooling out of that.
I would like the choice to opt out of the NHS....I would save a fortune every year. I pay for private medical insurance so I would not be a burden on the system if I fell ill. So I pay twice for the same thing, I should like many others who pay twice, be allowed to opt out of the system.
If the millions who have private insurance did do that, the system would be even worse off financially than it already is.
Long live the better off.

I think you have just answered my questions I just asked in another thread. :thumbup:
So you paid to have your children privately schooled too?
You have used the NHS, dustman, roads, transport, police?

7 Oct 2010

Quote by Theladyisaminx
Er that is what I thought as well GNV.
I pay a shit load of council tax of which I use nothing, or very little out of my borough....I am also paying for other peoples kids schooling out of that.
I would like the choice to opt out of the NHS....I would save a fortune every year. I pay for private medical insurance so I would not be a burden on the system if I fell ill. So I pay twice for the same thing, I should like many others who pay twice, be allowed to opt out of the system.
If the millions who have private insurance did do that, the system would be even worse off financially than it already is.
Long live the better off.

I think you have just answered my questions I just asked in another thread. :thumbup:
So you paid to have your children privately schooled too?
You have used the NHS, dustman, roads, transport, police?
YOUR point?

7 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
I would like the choice to opt out of the NHS....I would save a fortune every year. I pay for private medical insurance so I would not be a burden on the system if I fell ill. So I pay twice for the same thing, I should like many others who pay twice, be allowed to opt out of the system.
If the millions who have private insurance did do that, the system would be even worse off financially than it already is.
Long live the better off.

I'm not so sure actually kenty. The last Government put up NIC's at least twice as a way of "not increasing tax" so the amount you pay in class 4 (as I used to) as self employed bears no real relationship to your "actual" contribution to the NHS for the "free at the point of delivery" services you have access to, like it or not.
If there were to be an "opt out" facility, the amount of remission would be far less than you actually pay now in real terms but the amount you would pay in increased contributions to your private medical insurance provider to cover those items you would no longer be entitled to (eg Ambulance Services) would outweigh the benefits as best as I can see. It's not as easy as some might think.
Sorry to differ on this point.

7 Oct 2010

NEARLY 100,000 people living on benefits have four or more children, new figures revealed last night.
The vast "shameless generation" includes more than 900 claimants with EIGHT or more children.
The figures lay bare how Britain's benefits culture has spawned an underclass of kids brought up on welfare.
Imagine for one second how much money is spent on these amounts of people, with their broods.
Of the 97,350 people on benefits who have four or more kids, 7,000 have six; 2,260 seven; and 910 eight or more. More than half of those with four or more - 56,490 - are on single parent benefits.
A further 23,410 claim incapacity benefit. The rest are on Jobseekers' Allowance.
I want to see this kind of mentality stopped, and the Mothers who have untold amounts of kids to take some form of responsibility.....I wonder how many of these people would have had any more than two kids IF there was not the benefits open to them?
I bet the population would shrink somewhat....maybe that is what is needed, a complete look at benefits for people who have a whole long line of kids.

7 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
NEARLY 100,000 people living on benefits have four or more children, new figures revealed last night.
The vast "shameless generation" includes more than 900 claimants with EIGHT or more children.
The figures lay bare how Britain's benefits culture has spawned an underclass of kids brought up on welfare.
Imagine for one second how much money is spent on these amounts of people, with their broods.
Of the 97,350 people on benefits who have four or more kids, 7,000 have six; 2,260 seven; and 910 eight or more. More than half of those with four or more - 56,490 - are on single parent benefits.
A further 23,410 claim incapacity benefit. The rest are on Jobseekers' Allowance.
I want to see this kind of mentality stopped, and the Mothers who have untold amounts of kids to take some form of responsibility.....I wonder how many of these people would have had any more than two kids IF there was not the benefits open to them?
I bet the population would shrink somewhat....maybe that is what is needed, a complete look at benefits for people who have a whole long line of kids.

And your point is?
Is that why you would rather opt out of the NHS system?
I think someones confused here.

7 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
More than half of those with four or more - 56,490 - are on single parent benefits.
I bet the population would shrink somewhat....maybe that is what is needed, a complete look at benefits for people who have a whole long line of kids.

Oh that would be around % Oh you got me so convinced 777 lol

7 Oct 2010

Quote by Theladyisaminx
NEARLY 100,000 people living on benefits have four or more children, new figures revealed last night.
The vast "shameless generation" includes more than 900 claimants with EIGHT or more children.
The figures lay bare how Britain's benefits culture has spawned an underclass of kids brought up on welfare.
Imagine for one second how much money is spent on these amounts of people, with their broods.
Of the 97,350 people on benefits who have four or more kids, 7,000 have six; 2,260 seven; and 910 eight or more. More than half of those with four or more - 56,490 - are on single parent benefits.
A further 23,410 claim incapacity benefit. The rest are on Jobseekers' Allowance.
I want to see this kind of mentality stopped, and the Mothers who have untold amounts of kids to take some form of responsibility.....I wonder how many of these people would have had any more than two kids IF there was not the benefits open to them?
I bet the population would shrink somewhat....maybe that is what is needed, a complete look at benefits for people who have a whole long line of kids.

And your point is?
Is that why you would rather opt out of the NHS system?
I think someones confused here.
Have you forgotten the thread title Minxy, or what?
It is about benefits....remember? Jeeeeeze.
I was trying to bring the topic back on track, by showing the figures of parents claiming one benefit or another, with a brood of kids.
The cost is staggering and maybe the amount of benefits a person can claim, gets reduced the more children they have?
So someone with say six kids would suffer more than someone claiming for say three kids.
If you cannot afford kids then do not expect others to fecking fund your lifestyle choice!
Parents with multiple kids by usually a multitude of different Fathers, should be first in the line to have their benefits cut.

7 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
NEARLY 100,000 people living on benefits have four or more children, new figures revealed last night.
The vast "shameless generation" includes more than 900 claimants with EIGHT or more children.
The figures lay bare how Britain's benefits culture has spawned an underclass of kids brought up on welfare.
Imagine for one second how much money is spent on these amounts of people, with their broods.
Of the 97,350 people on benefits who have four or more kids, 7,000 have six; 2,260 seven; and 910 eight or more. More than half of those with four or more - 56,490 - are on single parent benefits.
A further 23,410 claim incapacity benefit. The rest are on Jobseekers' Allowance.
I want to see this kind of mentality stopped, and the Mothers who have untold amounts of kids to take some form of responsibility.....I wonder how many of these people would have had any more than two kids IF there was not the benefits open to them?
I bet the population would shrink somewhat....maybe that is what is needed, a complete look at benefits for people who have a whole long line of kids.

And your point is?
Is that why you would rather opt out of the NHS system?
I think someones confused here.
Have you forgotten the thread title Minxy, or what?
It is about benefits....remember? Jeeeeeze.
I was trying to bring the topic back on track, by showing the figures of parents claiming one benefit or another, with a brood of kids.
The cost is staggering and maybe the amount of benefits a person can claim, gets reduced the more children they have?
So someone with say six kids would suffer more than someone claiming for say three kids.
If you cannot afford kids then do not expect others to fecking fund your lifestyle choice!
Parents with multiple kids by usually a multitude of different Fathers, should be first in the line to have their benefits cut.

Quote by kentswingers777
I pay a shit load of council tax of which I use nothing, or very little out of my borough....I am also paying for other peoples kids schooling out of that.
I would like the choice to opt out of the NHS....I would save a fortune every year. I pay for private medical insurance so I would not be a burden on the system if I fell ill. So I pay twice for the same thing, I should like many others who pay twice, be allowed to opt out of the system.

You took it off track making these comments, I was just trying to find out your logic, but seems when asks your logic you avoid answering,
I apologise op for taking the thread off course, I have been told by 777 and shall behave now.

7 Oct 2010

Quote by Theladyisaminx
I apologise op for taking the thread off course, I have been told by 777 and shall behave now.

No apology necessary or required minxy...
(tosses kenty some meat for his tea)

7 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
I apologise op for taking the thread off course, I have been told by 777 and shall behave now.

No apology necessary or required minxy...
(tosses kenty some meat for his tea)

Damn trust me not to be aware who the op was. lol

I know you wouldn't mind my little diversion. wink

So 777 Care to answer my questions, so that I can understand your logic and maybe others too?

7 Oct 2010

Quote by Theladyisaminx
Damn trust me not to be aware who the op was.
I know you wouldn't mind my little diversion.

Typical woman, never looks where she going, nor reads the thread nor listens....
bolt

7 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
NEARLY 100,000 people living on benefits have four or more children, new figures revealed last night.
The vast "shameless generation" includes more than 900 claimants with EIGHT or more children.
The figures lay bare how Britain's benefits culture has spawned an underclass of kids brought up on welfare.
Imagine for one second how much money is spent on these amounts of people, with their broods.
Of the 97,350 people on benefits who have four or more kids, 7,000 have six; 2,260 seven; and 910 eight or more. More than half of those with four or more - 56,490 - are on single parent benefits.
A further 23,410 claim incapacity benefit. The rest are on Jobseekers' Allowance.
I want to see this kind of mentality stopped, and the Mothers who have untold amounts of kids to take some form of responsibility.....I wonder how many of these people would have had any more than two kids IF there was not the benefits open to them?
I bet the population would shrink somewhat....maybe that is what is needed, a complete look at benefits for people who have a whole long line of kids.

of the 56,490 single mother claimants how many of these women actually had a husband who was say in the forces and was killed in combat that before there husband was killed they could afford the number of children they had, or how many of these women were married to husbands in a high earning job who and was tragically killed suddenly in a car crash.......... no Kenty you cant answer that can you, your statistics are just numbers and numbers alone and do not prove why these people are claiming, but hey with a broad sweeping brush like you have who cares?!?!? Oh and before you start mate i know of 2 guys who left behind widows 1 has 4 kids and 1 has 5 and they are not benefit scroungers but victims of a sad circumstance.

7 Oct 2010

Quote by jumptoit
of the 56,490 single mother claimants how many of these women actually had a husband who was say in the forces and was killed in combat that before there husband was killed they could afford the number of children they had, or how many of these women were married to husbands in a high earning job who and was tragically killed suddenly in a car crash.......... no Kenty you cant answer that can you, your statistics are just numbers and numbers alone and do not prove why these people are claiming, but hey with a broad sweeping brush like you have who cares?!?!? Oh and before you start mate i know of 2 guys who left behind widows 1 has 4 kids and 1 has 5 and they are not benefit scroungers but victims of a sad circumstance.

That's actually not a fair way to get back at kenty as he has a son serving in Afghanistan (or about to) so it's a bit below the belt if you don't mind me saying so.
I believe he has already made his point quite well; he is not on about people in the circumstances you mention but about those who do nothing for themselves and expect the State to do everything for them.
Widows of Servicemen killed in action are more deserving of aid and assistance than they currently get. If the ConDem Alliance do as they say, this will be addressed and rightly so!
However, I'm sure kenty will be more than capable of pulling you pieces than I am able :thumbup:

7 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
Damn trust me not to be aware who the op was.
I know you wouldn't mind my little diversion.

Typical woman, never looks where she going, nor reads the thread nor listens....
bolt

oi! Bugger off, one dog one bone flipa

:lol:

7 Oct 2010

:laughabove:

7 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
of the 56,490 single mother claimants how many of these women actually had a husband who was say in the forces and was killed in combat that before there husband was killed they could afford the number of children they had, or how many of these women were married to husbands in a high earning job who and was tragically killed suddenly in a car crash.......... no Kenty you cant answer that can you, your statistics are just numbers and numbers alone and do not prove why these people are claiming, but hey with a broad sweeping brush like you have who cares?!?!? Oh and before you start mate i know of 2 guys who left behind widows 1 has 4 kids and 1 has 5 and they are not benefit scroungers but victims of a sad circumstance.

That's actually not a fair way to get back at kenty as he has a son serving in Afghanistan (or about to) so it's a bit below the belt if you don't mind me saying so.
I believe he has already made his point quite well; he is not about people in the circumstances you mention but about those who do nothing for themselves and expect the State to do everything for them.
Widows of Servicemen killed in action are more deserving of aid and assistance than they currently get. If the ConDem Alliance do as they say, this will be addressed and rightly so!
However, I'm sure kenty will be more than capable of pulling you pieces than I am able :thumbup:
Yep and Kenty also knows what i do for a living been there done that, typical of you though GNV to comment on my post and pour scorn as it as we have a history of you trying to get me banned do we not? No wonder hardly anyone posts on here anymore as it is like the Pinky and Perky show nowadays where either you or Kenty start something, somebody else opposes it and then the other one of you backs the other up, your both no better than school yard bullies in my opinion. Oh and for the soldiers and servicemen serving this country it is a lifestyle choice, nobody made them sign up and they really do know what they are letting themselves in for.

7 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
of the 56,490 single mother claimants how many of these women actually had a husband who was say in the forces and was killed in combat that before there husband was killed they could afford the number of children they had, or how many of these women were married to husbands in a high earning job who and was tragically killed suddenly in a car crash.......... no Kenty you cant answer that can you, your statistics are just numbers and numbers alone and do not prove why these people are claiming, but hey with a broad sweeping brush like you have who cares?!?!? Oh and before you start mate i know of 2 guys who left behind widows 1 has 4 kids and 1 has 5 and they are not benefit scroungers but victims of a sad circumstance.

That's actually not a fair way to get back at kenty as he has a son serving in Afghanistan (or about to) so it's a bit below the belt if you don't mind me saying so.
I believe he has already made his point quite well; he is not about people in the circumstances you mention but about those who do nothing for themselves and expect the State to do everything for them.
Widows of Servicemen killed in action are more deserving of aid and assistance than they currently get. If the ConDem Alliance do as they say, this will be addressed and rightly so!
However, I'm sure kenty will be more than capable of pulling you pieces than I am able :thumbup:
I did watch the conference speech and felt that was genuine, lets hope hey, much needed support both during and after conflicts, I to have a member of my family out there at the moment, I for one know that 777 would not deny the any part of the forces anything.
777 stop generalising it gets you into trouble. wink

7 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
of the 56,490 single mother claimants how many of these women actually had a husband who was say in the forces and was killed in combat that before there husband was killed they could afford the number of children they had, or how many of these women were married to husbands in a high earning job who and was tragically killed suddenly in a car crash.......... no Kenty you cant answer that can you, your statistics are just numbers and numbers alone and do not prove why these people are claiming, but hey with a broad sweeping brush like you have who cares?!?!? Oh and before you start mate i know of 2 guys who left behind widows 1 has 4 kids and 1 has 5 and they are not benefit scroungers but victims of a sad circumstance.

That's actually not a fair way to get back at kenty as he has a son serving in Afghanistan (or about to) so it's a bit below the belt if you don't mind me saying so.
I believe he has already made his point quite well; he is not on about people in the circumstances you mention but about those who do nothing for themselves and expect the State to do everything for them.
Widows of Servicemen killed in action are more deserving of aid and assistance than they currently get. If the ConDem Alliance do as they say, this will be addressed and rightly so!
However, I'm sure kenty will be more than capable of pulling you pieces than I am able :thumbup:
And actually NO if you read Kents post it states all the figures without facts and he classes all the people in the figures mentioned in exactly the same way?!?!?

7 Oct 2010

oh dear, touched a nerve jumpy?
Evidence dear chap that I have tried to get you banned... remember the AUP? but I'm flattered that you think I have the ability to influence these decisions.
in edit:
Oooops, seems you relented and changed your text before I clicked to submit this. Just as well I didn't quote it.
Good man :thumbup:
I can assure you I was not being disrespectful to you in my posting but I do take the point that you don't like me. I'm sure it's been noted on the tally board wink

http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/324334.html
You can always check with Admin to be certain; if they'll tell you of course.

7 Oct 2010

Jump...................out of the figures I supplied can you say any of those are forces wives?
No you cannot.
I will not go into small talk about what I believe armed forces personnel and their families should get.....I have made my points on that very clear over a long period of time.
You obviously do not know that as other wise you would not be making ridiculous assumptions about me or my motives.
" of the 56,490 single mother claimants how many of these women actually had a husband who was say in the forces and was killed in combat that before there husband was killed they could afford the number of children they had, or how many of these women were married to husbands in a high earning job who and was tragically killed suddenly in a car crash.......... no Kenty you cant answer that can you, your statistics are just numbers and numbers alone and do not prove why these people are claiming, but hey with a broad sweeping brush like you have who cares?!?!? Oh and before you start mate i know of 2 guys who left behind widows 1 has 4 kids and 1 has 5 and they are not benefit scroungers but victims of a sad circumstance ".
Valid points I suppose BUT and here is the but....are you ready? Can you tell me how many of these women are exactly like the Karen Mathews of this world??

The figures are there for all to see. They do not separate a deserving Mother or a Mother like Mathews in their figures, these kinds of figures generally do not.
You could use your analogy about every set of figures that ever came out....they are showing how many people who have over four kids are claiming benefits.....even you must be able to work that one out on your own?
Yes I know what you do for a living matey, and you should also know what I think of the armed forces.....I understand your anger there then, and on that note will just let your comments ride on, as I know what I think.

7 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
oh dear, touched a nerve jumpy?
Evidence dear chap that I have tried to get you banned... remember the AUP? but I'm flattered that you think I have the ability to influence these decisions.
in edit:
Oooops, seems you relented and changed your text before I clicked to submit this. Just as well I didn't quote it.
Good man :thumbup:
I can assure you I was not being disrespectful to you in my posting but I do take the point that you don't like me. I'm sure it's been noted on the tally board
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/324334.html
You can always check with Admin to be certain; if they'll tell you of course.

if you look at my post you will see i have changed nothing and edited nothing so go ahead and press submit??? you can assure me of nothing in my opinion you were being disrespectful to me, and please do tell me what your submitting about??? Is it the fact that i can spot a bully in a school yard?

7 Oct 2010

next time jumpy, I will quote all your text so there can be no doubt.
You know what you wrote and it was accusatory. You changed the text before my post so there is now no evidence of what you wrote or what you edited in your post but I saw it. A typical cowards response.
You accused me of trying to get you banned, relented and changed your text.
Deny it as much as you like but I know what I saw.
Maybe Admin saw it and changed it to save you a "strike"?
Some people are too clever for their own good and soooo shallow.

7 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Jump...................out of the figures I supplied can you say any of those are forces wives?
No you cannot.
I will not go into small talk about what I believe armed forces personnel and their families should get.....I have made my points on that very clear over a long period of time.
You obviously do not know that as other wise you would not be making ridiculous assumptions about me or my motives.
" of the 56,490 single mother claimants how many of these women actually had a husband who was say in the forces and was killed in combat that before there husband was killed they could afford the number of children they had, or how many of these women were married to husbands in a high earning job who and was tragically killed suddenly in a car crash.......... no Kenty you cant answer that can you, your statistics are just numbers and numbers alone and do not prove why these people are claiming, but hey with a broad sweeping brush like you have who cares?!?!? Oh and before you start mate i know of 2 guys who left behind widows 1 has 4 kids and 1 has 5 and they are not benefit scroungers but victims of a sad circumstance ".
Valid points I suppose BUT and here is the but....are you ready? Can you tell me how many of these women are exactly like the Karen Mathews of this world??

The figures are there for all to see. They do not separate a deserving Mother or a Mother like Mathews in their figures, these kinds of figures generally do not.
You could use your analogy about every set of figures that ever came out....they are showing how many people who have over four kids are claiming benefits.....even you must be able to work that one out on your own?
Yes I know what you do for a living matey, and you should also know what I think of the armed forces.....I understand your anger there then, and on that note will just let your comments ride on, as I know what I think.

Very lame Kenty answering my question with my own point, but you always do that when you dont have an answer i have noticed.
Using your idea of taking child benefit off everyone with 4 or more kids does not take into account everyones circumstances and you are as usual classing everyone as the same..... how can you.... not evryone is the same or has the same circumstances.
How many of the people in the numbers you quote are catholic and dont use contraception for religious reasons, the numbers add up and yes are factual unfortunately you can read them how you want to to class everyone in the same boat.... wrong so very very wrong and so very Victor Meldrew!!!