Unemployed mother-of-11 is keeping horse

[Elraine Figarette]

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

The house I can somewhat defend—she's got eleven kids fer chrissakes. .

Three of whom are adults and can support themselves.

That still leaves eight…also a significant number of dependents. That's not even counting that those three adults are college aged and, in the States at least, could still be considered dependents if they pursued higher education.

Two per bedroom means a five-bedroom house for the nine of them (including the skank.) IDK what the rules are in the UK, but in college or not, a person over 18 is not considered a dependent like a minor child is.

Keep in mind that her "super-council house" is/will be six bedrooms. That's two kids to a room, plus the mom and a guest room, or no guest room and two kids get rooms to themselves--all assuming the older three have moved out, which it sounds like they may not have.

She does not need a guest bedroom, the kids do not need separate bedrooms, and the eldest three should not be included as residents of this household as they are not minors and not entitled to support as such.

It's one bedroom.

[TemperamentalGoddess]

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

That still leaves eight…also a significant number of dependents. That's not even counting that those three adults are college aged and, in the States at least, could still be considered dependents if they pursued higher education.

Two per bedroom means a five-bedroom house for the nine of them (including the skank.) IDK what the rules are in the UK, but in college or not, a person over 18 is not considered a dependent like a minor child is.

Keep in mind that her "super-council house" is/will be six bedrooms. That's two kids to a room, plus the mom and a guest room, or no guest room and two kids get rooms to themselves--all assuming the older three have moved out, which it sounds like they may not have.

She does not need a guest bedroom, the kids do not need separate bedrooms, and the eldest three should not be included as residents of this household as they are not minors and not entitled to support as such.

It's one bedroom.

The council have been kicking people out of houses for just "one bedroom"

[Ratttking]

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

That still leaves eight…also a significant number of dependents. That's not even counting that those three adults are college aged and, in the States at least, could still be considered dependents if they pursued higher education.

Two per bedroom means a five-bedroom house for the nine of them (including the skank.) IDK what the rules are in the UK, but in college or not, a person over 18 is not considered a dependent like a minor child is.

Keep in mind that her "super-council house" is/will be six bedrooms. That's two kids to a room, plus the mom and a guest room, or no guest room and two kids get rooms to themselves--all assuming the older three have moved out, which it sounds like they may not have.

She does not need a guest bedroom, the kids do not need separate bedrooms, and the eldest three should not be included as residents of this household as they are not minors and not entitled to support as such.

It's one bedroom.

One extra, unnecessary bedroom that is a waste of UK taxpayers' money.

[Elraine Figarette]

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Two per bedroom means a five-bedroom house for the nine of them (including the skank.) IDK what the rules are in the UK, but in college or not, a person over 18 is not considered a dependent like a minor child is.

Keep in mind that her "super-council house" is/will be six bedrooms. That's two kids to a room, plus the mom and a guest room, or no guest room and two kids get rooms to themselves--all assuming the older three have moved out, which it sounds like they may not have.

She does not need a guest bedroom, the kids do not need separate bedrooms, and the eldest three should not be included as residents of this household as they are not minors and not entitled to support as such.

It's one bedroom.

One extra, unnecessary bedroom that is a waste of UK taxpayers' money.

All I'm saying is that it's not actually that far outside what you yourself stated was necessary living space. Not to mention that it actually saves money to have the extra adults living in the house, even if they're not working, because they're not having to find their own living quarters--which the government could well have to pay for if their financial situations are similar to their mother's.

Skaterneogirl

The council have been kicking people out of houses for just "one bedroom"

Didn't realize. That does beg the question of why the family is being given it, though if they're killing two birds with one stone having the oldest three kids in with the rest that might explain it.

[Ratttking]

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Keep in mind that her "super-council house" is/will be six bedrooms. That's two kids to a room, plus the mom and a guest room, or no guest room and two kids get rooms to themselves--all assuming the older three have moved out, which it sounds like they may not have.

She does not need a guest bedroom, the kids do not need separate bedrooms, and the eldest three should not be included as residents of this household as they are not minors and not entitled to support as such.

It's one bedroom.

One extra, unnecessary bedroom that is a waste of UK taxpayers' money.

All I'm saying is that it's not actually that far outside what you yourself stated was necessary living space. Not to mention that it actually saves money to have the extra adults living in the house, even if they're not working, because they're not having to find their own living quarters--which the government could well have to pay for if their financial situations are similar to their mother's.

Skaterneogirl

The council have been kicking people out of houses for just "one bedroom"

Didn't realize. That does beg the question of why the family is being given it, though if they're killing two birds with one stone having the oldest three kids in with the rest that might explain it.

Pardon me for confusing things, but I myself think that more than two can share a bedroom. I was going by certain rules here in the US stating that you may not house more than two children per bedroom, usually if you are trying to adopt or foster children. I'm sure the govt can find single rooms elsewhere for these adult offspring without needing to build an extra-large house to accommodate them.

I'm beginning to think that the old concept of the workhouse might not have been a bad thing for people like this.

[Elraine Figarette]

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

She does not need a guest bedroom, the kids do not need separate bedrooms, and the eldest three should not be included as residents of this household as they are not minors and not entitled to support as such.

It's one bedroom.

One extra, unnecessary bedroom that is a waste of UK taxpayers' money.

All I'm saying is that it's not actually that far outside what you yourself stated was necessary living space. Not to mention that it actually saves money to have the extra adults living in the house, even if they're not working, because they're not having to find their own living quarters--which the government could well have to pay for if their financial situations are similar to their mother's.

Skaterneogirl

The council have been kicking people out of houses for just "one bedroom"

Didn't realize. That does beg the question of why the family is being given it, though if they're killing two birds with one stone having the oldest three kids in with the rest that might explain it.

Pardon me for confusing things, but I myself think that more than two can share a bedroom. I was going by certain rules here in the US stating that you may not house more than two children per bedroom, usually if you are trying to adopt or foster children. I'm sure the govt can find single rooms elsewhere for these adult offspring without needing to build an extra-large house to accommodate them.

I'm beginning to think that the old concept of the workhouse might not have been a bad thing for people like this.

The number of people to a room would depend a lot on the size of the room. I mean, sure, the government *could* find them all separate living arrangements, by why should it? Those living quarters would all have to have their own toilets and kitchens, but look! They're all willing to live together, and here's this house they're building with just the one extra room... People save money by grouping up. Historically it's a big reason why people got married. Share the work, share the space, save money.

The workhouse concept is certainly interesting, and I think it could work provided modern workers' rights policies were followed. You don't want to turn it into something like a coal mining town, where the people are essentially free labor even with a union in place. Daycare might get interesting.

[Ratttking]

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

It's one bedroom.

One extra, unnecessary bedroom that is a waste of UK taxpayers' money.

All I'm saying is that it's not actually that far outside what you yourself stated was necessary living space. Not to mention that it actually saves money to have the extra adults living in the house, even if they're not working, because they're not having to find their own living quarters--which the government could well have to pay for if their financial situations are similar to their mother's.

Skaterneogirl

The council have been kicking people out of houses for just "one bedroom"

Didn't realize. That does beg the question of why the family is being given it, though if they're killing two birds with one stone having the oldest three kids in with the rest that might explain it.

Pardon me for confusing things, but I myself think that more than two can share a bedroom. I was going by certain rules here in the US stating that you may not house more than two children per bedroom, usually if you are trying to adopt or foster children. I'm sure the govt can find single rooms elsewhere for these adult offspring without needing to build an extra-large house to accommodate them.

I'm beginning to think that the old concept of the workhouse might not have been a bad thing for people like this.

The number of people to a room would depend a lot on the size of the room. I mean, sure, the government *could* find them all separate living arrangements, by why should it? Those living quarters would all have to have their own toilets and kitchens, but look! They're all willing to live together, and here's this house they're building with just the one extra room... People save money by grouping up. Historically it's a big reason why people got married. Share the work, share the space, save money.

The workhouse concept is certainly interesting, and I think it could work provided modern workers' rights policies were followed. You don't want to turn it into something like a coal mining town, where the people are essentially free labor even with a union in place. Daycare might get interesting.

That much is obvious. I see no reason why they could not then be housed bunkhouse or barracks style, and there is no need for more than one bathroom or kitchen in the dwelling whether or not they live with their mother and their half-siblings or in a spare room in another person's house. But, they still don't need an extra room.

Don't get me started on unions. They have become the problem they initially sought to solve.

[Elraine Figarette]

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

One extra, unnecessary bedroom that is a waste of UK taxpayers' money.

All I'm saying is that it's not actually that far outside what you yourself stated was necessary living space. Not to mention that it actually saves money to have the extra adults living in the house, even if they're not working, because they're not having to find their own living quarters--which the government could well have to pay for if their financial situations are similar to their mother's.

Skaterneogirl

The council have been kicking people out of houses for just "one bedroom"

Didn't realize. That does beg the question of why the family is being given it, though if they're killing two birds with one stone having the oldest three kids in with the rest that might explain it.

Pardon me for confusing things, but I myself think that more than two can share a bedroom. I was going by certain rules here in the US stating that you may not house more than two children per bedroom, usually if you are trying to adopt or foster children. I'm sure the govt can find single rooms elsewhere for these adult offspring without needing to build an extra-large house to accommodate them.

I'm beginning to think that the old concept of the workhouse might not have been a bad thing for people like this.

The number of people to a room would depend a lot on the size of the room. I mean, sure, the government *could* find them all separate living arrangements, by why should it? Those living quarters would all have to have their own toilets and kitchens, but look! They're all willing to live together, and here's this house they're building with just the one extra room... People save money by grouping up. Historically it's a big reason why people got married. Share the work, share the space, save money.

The workhouse concept is certainly interesting, and I think it could work provided modern workers' rights policies were followed. You don't want to turn it into something like a coal mining town, where the people are essentially free labor even with a union in place. Daycare might get interesting.

That much is obvious. I see no reason why they could not then be housed bunkhouse or barracks style, and there is no need for more than one bathroom or kitchen in the dwelling whether or not they live with their mother and their half-siblings or in a spare room in another person's house. But, they still don't need an extra room.

Don't get me started on unions. They have become the problem they initially sought to solve.

The point I was making is that the room wouldn't be extra with the three extra adults. I'm a little confused, also--what is the difference between them living in the new house with their family and living in someone else's extra room? I was under the impression that you wanted them off in their own apartments, in which case you'd need separate facilities for each.

[Ratttking]

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

All I'm saying is that it's not actually that far outside what you yourself stated was necessary living space. Not to mention that it actually saves money to have the extra adults living in the house, even if they're not working, because they're not having to find their own living quarters--which the government could well have to pay for if their financial situations are similar to their mother's.

Didn't realize. That does beg the question of why the family is being given it, though if they're killing two birds with one stone having the oldest three kids in with the rest that might explain it.

Pardon me for confusing things, but I myself think that more than two can share a bedroom. I was going by certain rules here in the US stating that you may not house more than two children per bedroom, usually if you are trying to adopt or foster children. I'm sure the govt can find single rooms elsewhere for these adult offspring without needing to build an extra-large house to accommodate them.

I'm beginning to think that the old concept of the workhouse might not have been a bad thing for people like this.

The number of people to a room would depend a lot on the size of the room. I mean, sure, the government *could* find them all separate living arrangements, by why should it? Those living quarters would all have to have their own toilets and kitchens, but look! They're all willing to live together, and here's this house they're building with just the one extra room... People save money by grouping up. Historically it's a big reason why people got married. Share the work, share the space, save money.

The workhouse concept is certainly interesting, and I think it could work provided modern workers' rights policies were followed. You don't want to turn it into something like a coal mining town, where the people are essentially free labor even with a union in place. Daycare might get interesting.

That much is obvious. I see no reason why they could not then be housed bunkhouse or barracks style, and there is no need for more than one bathroom or kitchen in the dwelling whether or not they live with their mother and their half-siblings or in a spare room in another person's house. But, they still don't need an extra room.

Don't get me started on unions. They have become the problem they initially sought to solve.

The point I was making is that the room wouldn't be extra with the three extra adults. I'm a little confused, also--what is the difference between them living in the new house with their family and living in someone else's extra room? I was under the impression that you wanted them off in their own apartments, in which case you'd need separate facilities for each.

Moving the three adults elsewhere would mean they could use a smaller house for the remaining brats. If the govt and taxpayers are being forced to pay for their upkeep, put them up in a privately-owned house so that someone besides that deadbeat babymaker can benefit, i.e. the owner of said house will receive payment for renting a room that she otherwise had no use for, and will pay back a portion of that income as taxes. I said nothing about getting them their own apts, I said rooms outside of the "super-council house." I take it you've never been in a rooming house? The ones I've been to had one bathroom per floor if you were lucky, and some had a kitchen that was shared by all residents. Some did not have a kitchen at all.

[Elraine Figarette]

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

All I'm saying is that it's not actually that far outside what you yourself stated was necessary living space. Not to mention that it actually saves money to have the extra adults living in the house, even if they're not working, because they're not having to find their own living quarters--which the government could well have to pay for if their financial situations are similar to their mother's.

Didn't realize. That does beg the question of why the family is being given it, though if they're killing two birds with one stone having the oldest three kids in with the rest that might explain it.

Pardon me for confusing things, but I myself think that more than two can share a bedroom. I was going by certain rules here in the US stating that you may not house more than two children per bedroom, usually if you are trying to adopt or foster children. I'm sure the govt can find single rooms elsewhere for these adult offspring without needing to build an extra-large house to accommodate them.

I'm beginning to think that the old concept of the workhouse might not have been a bad thing for people like this.

The number of people to a room would depend a lot on the size of the room. I mean, sure, the government *could* find them all separate living arrangements, by why should it? Those living quarters would all have to have their own toilets and kitchens, but look! They're all willing to live together, and here's this house they're building with just the one extra room... People save money by grouping up. Historically it's a big reason why people got married. Share the work, share the space, save money.

The workhouse concept is certainly interesting, and I think it could work provided modern workers' rights policies were followed. You don't want to turn it into something like a coal mining town, where the people are essentially free labor even with a union in place. Daycare might get interesting.

That much is obvious. I see no reason why they could not then be housed bunkhouse or barracks style, and there is no need for more than one bathroom or kitchen in the dwelling whether or not they live with their mother and their half-siblings or in a spare room in another person's house. But, they still don't need an extra room.

Don't get me started on unions. They have become the problem they initially sought to solve.

The point I was making is that the room wouldn't be extra with the three extra adults. I'm a little confused, also--what is the difference between them living in the new house with their family and living in someone else's extra room? I was under the impression that you wanted them off in their own apartments, in which case you'd need separate facilities for each.

Moving the three adults elsewhere would mean they could use a smaller house for the remaining brats. If the govt and taxpayers are being forced to pay for their upkeep, put them up in a privately-owned house so that someone besides that deadbeat babymaker can benefit, i.e. the owner of said house will receive payment for renting a room that she otherwise had no use for, and will pay back a portion of that income as taxes. I said nothing about getting them their own apts, I said rooms outside of the "super-council house." I take it you've never been in a rooming house? The ones I've been to had one bathroom per floor if you were lucky, and some had a kitchen that was shared by all residents. Some did not have a kitchen at all.

All right, I get you now. And you're right about my never being in a rooming house. Doesn't seem quite legal for them to have no kitchen at all, though, considering people generally require more than cold foods to sustain themselves for any length of time.

[Ratttking]

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

The number of people to a room would depend a lot on the size of the room. I mean, sure, the government *could* find them all separate living arrangements, by why should it? Those living quarters would all have to have their own toilets and kitchens, but look! They're all willing to live together, and here's this house they're building with just the one extra room... People save money by grouping up. Historically it's a big reason why people got married. Share the work, share the space, save money.

The workhouse concept is certainly interesting, and I think it could work provided modern workers' rights policies were followed. You don't want to turn it into something like a coal mining town, where the people are essentially free labor even with a union in place. Daycare might get interesting.

That much is obvious. I see no reason why they could not then be housed bunkhouse or barracks style, and there is no need for more than one bathroom or kitchen in the dwelling whether or not they live with their mother and their half-siblings or in a spare room in another person's house. But, they still don't need an extra room.

Don't get me started on unions. They have become the problem they initially sought to solve.

The point I was making is that the room wouldn't be extra with the three extra adults. I'm a little confused, also--what is the difference between them living in the new house with their family and living in someone else's extra room? I was under the impression that you wanted them off in their own apartments, in which case you'd need separate facilities for each.

Moving the three adults elsewhere would mean they could use a smaller house for the remaining brats. If the govt and taxpayers are being forced to pay for their upkeep, put them up in a privately-owned house so that someone besides that deadbeat babymaker can benefit, i.e. the owner of said house will receive payment for renting a room that she otherwise had no use for, and will pay back a portion of that income as taxes. I said nothing about getting them their own apts, I said rooms outside of the "super-council house." I take it you've never been in a rooming house? The ones I've been to had one bathroom per floor if you were lucky, and some had a kitchen that was shared by all residents. Some did not have a kitchen at all.

All right, I get you now. And you're right about my never being in a rooming house. Doesn't seem quite legal for them to have no kitchen at all, though, considering people generally require more than cold foods to sustain themselves for any length of time.

The last time I was there (it had belonged to a friend's mom but she sold it) the new owners had turned the kitchen itself into several tiny rooms. (Seriously, I had a bigger closet than those rooms in at least 2 places I've lived.) I don't know if it was even legal for them to have 20-30 people living in a single-family dwelling, but I also don't think the tenants were legally here. Very little legal went on in that place. Pity, it had so many good memories from when my friend was renting it from her mom.

[Elraine Figarette]

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

The number of people to a room would depend a lot on the size of the room. I mean, sure, the government *could* find them all separate living arrangements, by why should it? Those living quarters would all have to have their own toilets and kitchens, but look! They're all willing to live together, and here's this house they're building with just the one extra room... People save money by grouping up. Historically it's a big reason why people got married. Share the work, share the space, save money.

The workhouse concept is certainly interesting, and I think it could work provided modern workers' rights policies were followed. You don't want to turn it into something like a coal mining town, where the people are essentially free labor even with a union in place. Daycare might get interesting.

That much is obvious. I see no reason why they could not then be housed bunkhouse or barracks style, and there is no need for more than one bathroom or kitchen in the dwelling whether or not they live with their mother and their half-siblings or in a spare room in another person's house. But, they still don't need an extra room.

Don't get me started on unions. They have become the problem they initially sought to solve.

The point I was making is that the room wouldn't be extra with the three extra adults. I'm a little confused, also--what is the difference between them living in the new house with their family and living in someone else's extra room? I was under the impression that you wanted them off in their own apartments, in which case you'd need separate facilities for each.

Moving the three adults elsewhere would mean they could use a smaller house for the remaining brats. If the govt and taxpayers are being forced to pay for their upkeep, put them up in a privately-owned house so that someone besides that deadbeat babymaker can benefit, i.e. the owner of said house will receive payment for renting a room that she otherwise had no use for, and will pay back a portion of that income as taxes. I said nothing about getting them their own apts, I said rooms outside of the "super-council house." I take it you've never been in a rooming house? The ones I've been to had one bathroom per floor if you were lucky, and some had a kitchen that was shared by all residents. Some did not have a kitchen at all.

All right, I get you now. And you're right about my never being in a rooming house. Doesn't seem quite legal for them to have no kitchen at all, though, considering people generally require more than cold foods to sustain themselves for any length of time.

The last time I was there (it had belonged to a friend's mom but she sold it) the new owners had turned the kitchen itself into several tiny rooms. (Seriously, I had a bigger closet than those rooms in at least 2 places I've lived.) I don't know if it was even legal for them to have 20-30 people living in a single-family dwelling, but I also don't think the tenants were legally here. Very little legal went on in that place. Pity, it had so many good memories from when my friend was renting it from her mom.

That does sound like a whole other issue.

[David2074]

Reading between the lines there are probably lots of problems here.
11 kids - implies a mental dependency to have kids like my ex wife has. She has 10. I know there can be other reasons like some Mormon / Catholic families who believe in lots of kids and no birth control but -
Apparently no husband and no job
Bought the current horse 8 months ago, probably well after she was already on assistance. I don't know how it is in the UK but in the US there is usually a waiting list for those programs that help you build a house or get one cheap. That implies she qualified / applied some time ago.
The horse she bought is old (nag) and needs lots of medical attention in addition to boarding fees.
Was apparently planning to purchase two more horses even though she is on welfare.

Add that up and it suggests a severe lack of responsibility and/or some other mental issues going on.

[Ratttking]

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

The point I was making is that the room wouldn't be extra with the three extra adults. I'm a little confused, also--what is the difference between them living in the new house with their family and living in someone else's extra room? I was under the impression that you wanted them off in their own apartments, in which case you'd need separate facilities for each.

Moving the three adults elsewhere would mean they could use a smaller house for the remaining brats. If the govt and taxpayers are being forced to pay for their upkeep, put them up in a privately-owned house so that someone besides that deadbeat babymaker can benefit, i.e. the owner of said house will receive payment for renting a room that she otherwise had no use for, and will pay back a portion of that income as taxes. I said nothing about getting them their own apts, I said rooms outside of the "super-council house." I take it you've never been in a rooming house? The ones I've been to had one bathroom per floor if you were lucky, and some had a kitchen that was shared by all residents. Some did not have a kitchen at all.

All right, I get you now. And you're right about my never being in a rooming house. Doesn't seem quite legal for them to have no kitchen at all, though, considering people generally require more than cold foods to sustain themselves for any length of time.

The last time I was there (it had belonged to a friend's mom but she sold it) the new owners had turned the kitchen itself into several tiny rooms. (Seriously, I had a bigger closet than those rooms in at least 2 places I've lived.) I don't know if it was even legal for them to have 20-30 people living in a single-family dwelling, but I also don't think the tenants were legally here. Very little legal went on in that place. Pity, it had so many good memories from when my friend was renting it from her mom.

That does sound like a whole other issue.

Yeah, you're right. I still miss hanging out there, though. Sorry to go OT reminiscing.

[Elraine Figarette]

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

Ratttking

Elraine Figarette

The point I was making is that the room wouldn't be extra with the three extra adults. I'm a little confused, also--what is the difference between them living in the new house with their family and living in someone else's extra room? I was under the impression that you wanted them off in their own apartments, in which case you'd need separate facilities for each.

Moving the three adults elsewhere would mean they could use a smaller house for the remaining brats. If the govt and taxpayers are being forced to pay for their upkeep, put them up in a privately-owned house so that someone besides that deadbeat babymaker can benefit, i.e. the owner of said house will receive payment for renting a room that she otherwise had no use for, and will pay back a portion of that income as taxes. I said nothing about getting them their own apts, I said rooms outside of the "super-council house." I take it you've never been in a rooming house? The ones I've been to had one bathroom per floor if you were lucky, and some had a kitchen that was shared by all residents. Some did not have a kitchen at all.

All right, I get you now. And you're right about my never being in a rooming house. Doesn't seem quite legal for them to have no kitchen at all, though, considering people generally require more than cold foods to sustain themselves for any length of time.

The last time I was there (it had belonged to a friend's mom but she sold it) the new owners had turned the kitchen itself into several tiny rooms. (Seriously, I had a bigger closet than those rooms in at least 2 places I've lived.) I don't know if it was even legal for them to have 20-30 people living in a single-family dwelling, but I also don't think the tenants were legally here. Very little legal went on in that place. Pity, it had so many good memories from when my friend was renting it from her mom.

That does sound like a whole other issue.

Yeah, you're right. I still miss hanging out there, though. Sorry to go OT reminiscing.

It's all good. It was a new perspective for me, at least. I admit I've been fairly sheltered.

Just for the record, though, I wasn't really trying to justify this lady. She clearly has issues.