LOL, the kids are not disabled, believe me. Assuming they "won" a car is very wishful thinking. Now YOU are assuming things!

As for six kids brought up on benefits...well, I'm of the opinion that if you can't afford to have them, don't have them. I'll probably never afford to purchase my own house, yet if you spawn six darling children you get handed a 5-bedroom house for nothing.

I'm not assuming she won it I believe I said she could have won it amongst other options as you dont know!

How on earth do you know if her children are disabled or not? So you have prejudices against disabilities do you? Your only disabled if you see it?

I have a friend who is disabled and has a disabled parking pass and a motibility car. It is not kept on display unless he feels the need (I.e. disabled parking space) and you cant see his disability. So is he now a scrounger too?

and I'm not sure why you refer to you buying a house V's them 'being handed a house' as I VERY much doubt that any council is handing over the missives...

And pigs might fly too!!


Maybe not in your area it isn`t!


Mmmm......yet it seems to happen everywhere.

Really?

Hmm all the people I know on benefits who have several children are in 3 bedroom houses and there are at least 3 children to a room!

Lots of things SEEM to happen, but that is because people add 2 + 2 and make 5, they jump to conclusions because they do not know all the facts.

It make them feel better!

But lots of people do know the fact too, your not the only one in the know , you know!

exactly!! Thanks for the quote though JB is on my ignore due to her ignorance, insulting comments, arrogance, predjudices, 'facts' that arent facts and of course her poor adding up

Notice no one on the thread has taken up the sugggestion to just go ahead and give up all their worldy goods and money to go on the dole though

but its definately not you!

(now, now, that was enough peeking lol)

Yep you are right, there are a LOT of people who know the FACTS eg:

Claims that immigrants are given priority access to social housing have been dismissed as a myth by the equalities watchdog.

A study for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) found that only 1.8% of social tenants are immigrants who had moved to the UK in the past five years.


Some 87.8% were UK-born. Foreigners who had been living in Britain for more than five years made up 10% of social housing.

The study, based on previously published figures from the 2007 Labour Force Survey, was conducted by the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank.

Its report, commissioned by the EHRC, comes amid heightened concern about gains in recent elections by the British National party (BNP).

The far-right party spread rumours in target seats that immigrants were given precedence in the queue for social housing accommodation.


The IPPR found no evidence of queue-jumping or abuse of the system by immigrants, but warned that those perceptions were widespread in certain areas.

Trevor Phillips, EHRC's chairman, said: "We have to recognise that people's perceptions are powerful, so it's vital that social housing providers and policymakers work to foster understanding about what is really happening on the ground.


John Healey, the housing minister, said the belief that immigrants were favoured in the allocation of council homes was "largely a problem of perception".

"At present, those people with the most serious housing needs get priority. We are not changing that," Healey told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"But there is more we can do to give local authorities freedom and scope to give more preference. In some areas, they may want to give people who have waited the longest preference. In some areas, they may want to give preference to people who have moved to take up work.

"They may want, in rural areas, to give preference to those with local connections or their preference may be to reduce overcrowding or attract skilled workers. I am not going to change the rules that mean new migrants don't have a right to sign up to council housing. I am not going to remove the requirement to give priority to those in most serious need.

"But there is more that we can do and more leeway we can give local authorities to be able to respond to particular pressures they face in their area or allow them to give more priority and preference – after they have dealt with the most serious housing need – to those that they want to support."

Healey added: "All of this is no substitute for building more homes."

oppps!

& here, sad really