Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Children trapped in poverty miss out on basics

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
19 June 2007
TWO out of every three children in Craigmillar are being brought up by parents living off benefits and missing out on basics others take for granted, according to a new hard-hitting report.
Save the Children warns 14,190 children across the city are living in households where no adult works.

But the worst problems are in Craigmillar, with 1120 children being brought up by parents who are living solely off income support, jobseeker's
allowance or incapacity benefit.

The charity says that it means that 59.6 per cent of the total number of under-15s who live in Craigmillar will be missing out on things such as play equipment, bikes, play groups and birthday presents. And they say that it can lead to a "vicious circle" of poor educational attainment and low-income jobs in later life.

But community leaders refute the claims, saying Craigmillar is making considerable progress and that even those on benefits can still give their children all they need.


Douglas Hamilton, Save the Children's head of policy in Scotland, said: "I would hope that people will be outraged by the level of worklessness seen in the area.

"Our research shows that worklessness among parents is the main risk factor of children living in severe poverty. It can lead to them missing out on basics that other children take for granted, such as a bike, a football, a warm home, attendance at toddler groups and school trips.

"Nearly half of parents living in severe poverty have no educational qualifications and their children are less likely to achieve in school."

Councillor Ian Perry, the former chairman of Parc Craigmillar, said: "I am surprised that the figure is so high but not surprised that poverty is to be found in Craigmillar given that the regeneration is a 15-year project and we are in year three. Over that time, I am confident Craigmillar will become like any other community in Edinburgh and the wide disparities will disappear."

Although Craigmillar has the highest rate of children dependent on workless parents, the problem exists across the city, with a ward average of 20.8 per cent of children living with parents who do not work. Muirhouse, at 48.4 per cent, was the second-worst ward, followed by Kaimes on 43.9 per cent, Murrayburn on 42.7 per cent and Parkhead on 42.4 per cent.

But it is in the Greater Craigmillar area that the levels are highest. Bingham-based parent Gail Ross, secretary of the Lismore Parents Action Group, said many parents in financial difficulties will still provide for their children.

She said: "I just don't believe that kids in Craigmillar whose parents are on benefits are necessarily missing out. A lot of people out of work will still have a lot of pride, and they won't want to see their laddie missing out so will buy him a bike, even if it means getting in debt."

New SNP councillor for Craigmillar and Portobello Mike Bridgeman said: "There are a lot of good people in Craigmillar and I would hope that new neighbourhood partnerships will allow them to make more of an impact."



'My kids always come first'


Honor, Johanna (left) and Nicole
Honor, Johanna (left) and Nicole

SHE doesn't have a job and has to bring up three children on her own, but Honor Flynn has no doubt what comes first in life. The 40-year-old says her children have never had to miss out because she doesn't work and has always put their needs before her own.

And she has always made sure that college-bound Amy, 20, Nicole, eight, and Johanna, seven, have got all the essentials by her prudent use of the benefits she receives.

Miss Flynn, who says she will return to work for the first time since becoming a mum when Johanna goes to secondary school, said: "If you don't have enough money you just have to save and do without things yourself. It's the kids that make me happy so they always have to come first."



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 June 2007 1:02 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Scottish child poverty
 
1

john 1,

19/06/2007 11:10:56

So what do they think we can do about this? People with jobs think twice about having children. Surely the point is that if rewards are given for doing nothing then what incentive is it for the rest slogging away?

2

,

19/06/2007 11:11:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 720358, Article id was mapped to record!
3

alex paterson,

embra 19/06/2007 11:37:56

God is that the time,Lunch.

4

Darren, Edinburgh,

19/06/2007 11:38:46

Very sad that many (and before you doogooders reply not all) are perfectly capable of having enough cash for their kids, but choose to spend it on expensive takeaways, alcohol, ciggies, and crappy ready made meals. Many are also capable of working but can't be bothered to better themselves and go and find a job (there are plenty out there, our Eastern European friends will confirm this). Many also use the lame excuse of incapacity benefit thus ensuring that genuine claimants are not getting enough cash to live off. It is time this country restricted the amount of time job seekers allowance can be paid to an indvidual over their working life because these folk see it as their right to sponge off the state for their entire working lives.

5

Road Raga,

19/06/2007 11:44:23

No job + no money = no kids.
Simple

6

Taxi driver,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 11:46:27

The above story makes sorry reading. With two jobs for 17 years, I am sick to the back teeth of working and hate reading stories of so many people not working.

Like so many of these issues, the problems need to be tackled at the root. Why are unemployed people starting families? It took my wife and I years to create enough financial stability in our own lives, before we felt the time was right to start a family. Govenments need to make it clear that the only way to get on in life is to work hard, instead of handing everything on a plate, to people who will do nothing to help themselves.

7

Road Raga,

19/06/2007 11:56:40

Well said #6. I read a book on Fountainbridge in the 1950s and it makes some very interesting reading, very humbling too. If people did'nt work, they got next to nothing. If they claimed any money, a government inspector would visit the house and make them sell any 'luxury items', like radio, before they would get a penny. I bet most of the people above have cable tv, playstations etc.
These people who 'can work, don't work' should read this book to see what life was like before all this 'freeloader society' started.

8

Jeep,

19/06/2007 12:05:40

So according to most of the readers here children are to be like most things today...a priviledge of the rich. What happens if after you have your family if you lose all your money? Do you give your kids away to a financially better off therefore more "deserving" couple. Mind you, I know a lot of families on benefits and I haven't seen their kids going without birthday presents, bikes etc...

9

Vincent W,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 12:09:23

I got my first bike when I was 13 and it was a hand-me-down from my brother. He'd bought second hand and in a sorry state 8 years earlier, he did a paper round to get the money to do it up.

We couldn't afford a phone until I was 11 and then we had to write down the duration of the calls in a book.

My Dad had three jobs, my Mum walked three miles to and from work every day.

'Holidays' were day trips to the seaside in Dad's works van. We had two pairs of shoes each - one pair for school and a pair of Woolies trainers for home. All four kids shared the same bath water (once a week) to save money heating the water up.

Funny thing is we didn't feel like we were in poverty - in fact we were regarded as middle class, but by today's definitions we were impoverished. As I said elsewhere the biggest issue is poverty of spirit.

10

Road Raga,

19/06/2007 12:19:51

#8 you are an example of where the problem is.
Are you so nieve to believe that all the people on disability benefits, job seekers allowance etc really can't work ?
The lady in the story has no means of supporting herself, let alone a child, yet has 3 of them.
And if I lost my job, I would get of my ar*s and find another one, there are thousands of vacancies in this city. But then not everyone likes the idea of work, but likes the idea of keeping a family at the tax payers expense.

11

Jeep,

19/06/2007 12:32:14

I think its niave to think that all people on benefits are scroungers. A person's situation can change outwith their control...a rich person may not always be rich and vice versa. If we all waited until we could afford it to have kids not very many people would - I know me and most of the people I know would never have been born. Anyhow if no poor people had children who would be this generations factory fodder?

12

Road Raga,

19/06/2007 12:37:15

Being poor is nothing to do with it Jeep, it is all about someone supporting their family. To me there is something far wrong if people have 3 or more kids without any 'proper' income, then read about children living in 'extreme proverty' in 2007.

13

wee willy,

alias, Mary hinge 19/06/2007 13:50:38

Dont know what you lot are moaning about,,, i had a brother who was an only child,,, cause his dad died a year before he was born...


Get of your lazy backsides and get a job,,if our over seas friends can do it with little knowledge of the English language then im sure the people from the above list can and should be made to do...

14

woodentop,

At the broo 19/06/2007 14:12:23

I recall a discussion back in my school days with some other young shavers (early 80's) and there was an opinion that going on the dole was a realistic career option for some; beats working, you get paid for doing nothing etc.

We're now another generation down the road.

Socialism in action, I'm afraid - with all of its repellent side effects.

Perhaps it's time to consider the solution employed by some US states - you get a maximum of (eg) 3 years worth of benefits over a lifetime, and that's your lot chum.

15

Vincent W,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 14:20:49

Dear wee willy,

Problem is, as an employer, would you hire them?

Nobody wants to see children suffer - but I'm not sure of the definition of poverty. I struggle with the view that not having a bike = poverty.

Benefits may not be generous but I was always told they were there as a safety net to provide food, shelter, warmth and clothes to a decent standard while the family found work and could improve their position.

The danger is that poorly educated, workless parents pass the same values on to their kids. By the time the mites get to school the teachers don't stand a chance.

Do you know that some children grow up in homes without a single book!!!!!! That's poverty.

Many children are never read to or told a story!!!!!!!!! That's poverty!

Many parents do not go for walks with their children!!!! That's poverty!

How many times do you hear a child asking a question, only to be slapped down by Mummy/Daddy, "Don't ask stupid questions." - You've got it.......that's poverty!

16

P.H.,

Here 19/06/2007 14:39:59

Here is the situation. The government makes it too easy for these parents not to work. Most of the "adults" receiving benefits get money chucked at them left right and centre and they know how to play the system, they are better of than if they worked!! How about, and heres a novel idea, make it easier for these parents to work, thus contributing to society via taxes instead of sucking the state dry and puting up everyone elses taxes!!!!

#16 Agree that parents have to be a role model and have someone to look up to in a positive way.

17

Comerscroft,

19/06/2007 14:54:38

They look well-fed and well-clothed, no doubt have a perfectly good home to live in---all courtesy of the long-suffering taxpayer.

No tatty clothes, no bare feet, no hungry looks---as would have been the case 40 years ago, never mind when my old dad was a boy in the hungry 20s/30s.

What are they whingeing about? Since when did not having a bike equal 'being in poverty'?

I'd be far more concerened about the plight of OAPs living on the basic state pension than I am about this shower of feckless, workshy scroungers.

18

Vincent W,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 15:11:17

At what age do the children of workless, poorly educated parents change from being the victim of circumstances beyond their control to being responsible for their own actions?

19

The Judge,

19/06/2007 15:14:32

#16 Do you know that some children grow up in homes without a single book!!!!!! That's poverty.

Many children are never read to or told a story!!!!!!!!! That's poverty!

Many parents do not go for walks with their children!!!! That's poverty!

How many times do you hear a child asking a question, only to be slapped down by Mummy/Daddy, "Don't ask stupid questions." - You've got it.......that's poverty!

No thats lazy parenting. Because of our benefits system NO child lives in poverty, lazy greedy parents spend the benefits on other things, drink, drugs and fags being the main items.

If you are a parent on benefits part of your benefits should be paid in vouchers that can only be spent on life's essentials not SKYtv and the latest mobile phone.

20

Vincent W,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 15:22:02

#19 - I know it's difficult to judge from a single photo and a few lines in the paper, but rather than condemn Honor Flynn, if she has been able to bring up three girls to be decent, hard working and able to take their place in the world of work, then well done! I'm happy to give folk like that a help.

Perhaps in her case it was best for her to stay at home, until they were old enough for her to work.

There are other cases though.............

21

Martin.,

19/06/2007 15:30:47

I absolutely support the need to have a robust benefits system in place to protect those who are unable to support themselves (be that for a day or a lifetime). A civilised society shoudl be proud of the way in which it looks after those less fortuante.

There will be a multiutude of reasons that people are benefits and we should support those who cannot work and help those less capable into meaningful employment.

I do struggle with the 'lifestyle choice' which appears to be taken by some where living off benefits is a matter of personal choice rather than neccessity. The example above of someone who has not worked for the past 20 years and will 'return to work for the first time since becoming a mum' is not only indulgent, but insulting to the hard working mothers and parents who go out to work as well as bringing up their kids.

22

Dunaskin,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 15:31:31

Some of you obviously haven't read the article, or haven't gotten the gearstick out of neutral before racing off to post messages. The mother in the article says that she intends to go back to work once her littlest is at secondary school. My wife and I have three primary-age sons - paying for after-hours care is a big dent in my wife's part-time professional salary. I don't see how folk on a single low income or benefits can afford child-care. Sad fact is that under this Labour administration the gap between rich and poor has continued to widen.

23

Martin.,

19/06/2007 15:31:55

#20 - An excellent question.

24

Vincent W,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 15:35:30

Judge - As far as the child is concerned; not being allowed to read, not being told stories, not being played with and not being given proper answers is poverty.

As for laziness - well if, as a child, you didn't get these things then you don't know how to parent effectively. You can hardly teach the value of books if you can't read, you can't tell stories if you don't know them, you can't play if you don't know teh games and you can't answer questions if you don't know the answers.

Condemnation of others is often a sentence for yourself.

25

Road Raga,

19/06/2007 15:49:24

Sorry, but how can anyone defend a situation where nearly 60% of children are brought up in 'jobless' households ?
I know someone who is 24, never done a days work in her life, has 2 kids to different fathers (and never sees them, surprise surprise) a Council house (poor wee thing, only 2 bedrooms, but she is onto housing wanting a 3 bedroom), sky tv, etc, everything paid for, but she will no doubt be classed as 'poverty ridden'.
This is the reality as far as I am concerned, and this is repeated throughtout the land.
What a way to run a society.

26

Dancing Shoes,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 15:52:12

Its beggers belief reading this article! Why is the Council closing down the very services the people of Craigmillar so desperately need? Childcare Services has been operating successfully doing the very thing Gail Ross, Councillor's Perry and Bridgeman say is needed in the communit and yet they are trying to axe it.....Why?

27

Vincent W,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 15:54:59

Road Raga - I, for one, don't defend the situation, but in order to effectively break the cycle you have to understand what's going on.

The situation you describe is truly awful, but the children must be supported and the mother weaned off this lifestyle.

28

walter,

19/06/2007 16:46:02

There was me thinking that basics meant Food, Clothing, Education, Health and a roof over their heads.
Every thing else is a luxury and if their parents cannot afford these luxuries then these children should be no different from children of workers who cannot afford them and do with out.

29

adogcatcherwearsauniformto,

peoples republic of eastlovia 19/06/2007 17:35:40

#7 I think that after 50 years you can read another book now, go on some of them even have pictures in them for you.

There is a difference between relative poverty and absolute poverty do try to keep up.

When you become a doctor of medicine then you are capable of deciding whether some on is incapacitated not until, or maybe your superman with x-ray vision?

Feel sorry for these poor young girls who's lives are now over before it has even started and they don't even realise it.

To paraphrase his tonyness, education education education. Or for some peoples mothers here sterilisation

30

woodentop,

Staring at the books 19/06/2007 17:53:35

#32 - can we have that again in English please? Ta!

31

Road Raga,

19/06/2007 17:55:11

#32, the book was actually published in 1993, it was about Fountainbridge in the 1950z.

32

Thresa69,

EDINBURGH 19/06/2007 18:08:12

What the article does not say is this mother has volenteered in the community, for years now, she does not sit about all day doing nothing, She is working hard to get a decent CV so she can get a decent job when her girls are at Secondary School.
I do think she is showing her girls that you get what you put into your life, If you do nothing you deserve nothing But in this case, Her daughters are well mannered and respectful, Yes I do know her and I wish her luck for her future employment.
#24. Well said !!

33

Evie,

Back Door Holyrood 19/06/2007 18:20:45

There is no need for poverty. There are lots of jobs in Edinburgh waiting to be filled. It is difficult for women to go back to work because child care providers are not very flexible, particularly if you have to work shifts- I know I have experienced this.
In a two parent family I would be asking the question why is one of the parents ie Dad not working? The simple answer when you look at the figures in the published areas- these are the children who are living with parents who have an addiction- be it drugs or alcohol, therefore they will never escape from poverty.

34

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 18:34:58

There has to be a limit to how much urine people can extract from the state.

These children are not born they are manufactured to order ensuring the benefits keep coming thick, fast and without question. This is not only an abuse of the welfare system and everything it stands for but an abuse of the child, society and all that is human.

It should not be the right only of the rich to bring children into the world, as one poster suggested, but similarly children deserve more than to be pawns in their parents lazy games to avoid being useful to society at all costs!

These pitiful souls are also being used in a larger government game. Single mums on benefits provide lots of jobs for Social and Support Services and keep the ever greedy Unions ranks swelled.

The government (much like their smoking stance) wants to be seen to be 'doing' somthing about the problem but behind closed doors they would be lost without the 'problem'. I have heard from the horses mouth in the Social Service ranks "We can't have them all getting jobs otherwise we'll be out of a job!" - there is the real problem on a plate for those who wish to 'break' the cycle. It does not suit certain factions for the cycle to be broken!

The fact that we have so many unemployed and on benefits and that we have so many employed in 'non-jobs' in the councils and central government means that the workforces ability to support this great slobbbering beast is compromised. Thus leading to the paniced calls for immigration because our population is 'too small' .... Our working population is too small and immigration is the easy answer rather than the government kicking some butts.

Anyone should be able to draw benefits for about 18 months during their entire working lives. After that, unless their ribs are showing (which may be another 18 months given the size of the average Chav) there is no more. Something like National Service should be compulsory for habitual benefi

35

Road Raga,

19/06/2007 18:50:26

Too right #37. I know of a family on benefits who loooove labour as the other parties (might) end their gravy train.
What is scary tho is that using the above table, it is a fact that if you take a sample of 100 houses in Craigmillar, 40 will be working households, 60 will be non working. Do the 60 non working not have any shame? 40 of their fellow hard working neighbours are out working to keep them on benefits.
Well the way things are going, the number of people working in the UK will be outnumbered by the benefit scroungers, and then we will go bankrupt.
It will all end in tears I tell you !

36

JG,

Fife 19/06/2007 19:06:25

So, where have all the daddies gone?

37

,

19/06/2007 19:13:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 721845, Article id was mapped to record!
38

john from the brig,

coatbridge /los angeles 19/06/2007 19:14:33

many of the above comments are confusing" needs "versus "wants". as a boy growing up in coatbridge in the 50`s 60`s i vividly remember , my parents needs were housing , feeding . clothing, socialising with what they could afford.
their wants , were also in keeping with what they could afford, hence it was easier to sleep at night rather than have the tic men (debt collectors) hounding on our doors. todays "wants" far outstretch their needs and will have far reaching consequences further down this slippery road . when i got a teamball or a new pair of gutties my eyes lit up, my appreciation of material goods from this early forming period has stood me in great stead and all i hope for, is that the current generation with and without families will look at the team ball they can afford, versus the illusive debt ridden teamball they cant!. rest assured!! the debt collectors are better equipped today to monitor your "wants" and in getting their money, will be oblivious to your needs.

39

woodentop,

Staring at the sand 19/06/2007 19:22:10

#40 - that's the spirit!

Absence of reasoning - check.

Poor spelling - check.

Name calling - check.

Congratulations! Well done! Erm...

40

Tuxedo Junction,

19/06/2007 19:47:34

39

far far away?

41

JG,

Fife 19/06/2007 20:00:29

#43 Tux.
Cue for a song?

42

babyboos,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 20:10:15

ho are they missing out on play groups - most we go to are a run on a free or contribution basis towards the tea and coffee. At an average of 50p a go - they pay out daily £6 for a packet of cigarettes = 12 weeks attendance!

43

Bar g,

Edinburgh 19/06/2007 20:12:46

So if their is so much poverty in the area how are threre so many brand new football strips about ( usually Celtic for some reason )?

Three strikes and your out !

ie. three job interviews/placements and the benefits stop - end of story.

march , march , march or die !

44

Paula,

19/06/2007 20:35:17

I wish I had the luxury of being able to wait until my boys were at secondary school before having to go out and work. Have to say that had I been a single mum I would have been out working my backside off to provide for them not relying on benefits, it is about more than money, it is about self-esteem and dignity (in saying you bought something, it is yours, you didn't buy it with handouts.)

People on benefits forget one, or rather two, things.

They do not need to worry about rent.

They do not need to worry about council tax.

There are plenty of people out there working themselves to an early grave just to pay the basics. And the basics are: rent/mortgage, council tax, bills. Not holidays etc. You want a bike, there are plenty second hand for as little as £10! Funny how people on benefits are the ones who populate the bookies, smoke, drink etc. Everyone else can't afford to!

Sorry, I am sick and tired of being surrounded by people who think it is their right to sit around, from the moment they leave school, while living off taxpayers who work.

It doesn't cost a fortune to feed your children properly, it doesn't cost a fortune to give your children the most important thing - love. I've not gone soppy but if children are brought up in a stable environment it doesn't matter what they have or don't have.

You want poverty then go back to our parents and grandparents generations and stop complaining.

45

The Fly Fifer,

fife 19/06/2007 20:58:39

Well done Honor twenty years without work and you raised three bairns, was it on the bru? was it with help from the missing fathers? was it onm inherited wealth?

Whatever it was looks like you all eat plenty! lots of food in your home plenty chipper suppers maybe.........

How come you can bring up three children and not work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

46

Claire12345,

Edin 19/06/2007 21:31:49

This really makes me mad - a mother who won't work until her youngest is at secondary school. What a joke!! I am a working Mum. I can only just comment on this at 10.00pm as I have been working all day. My child is 7 years old (I can only afford one!). Each day, I drop him at school, then go to work. I take a really late lunch, then collect him from school, drop him at child-care, return to work until 5.30pm then collect him from child-care and start the journey home. I arrive home at 6.30pm and then the household tasks begin along with my son's homework, playing with him, bathing him, reading stories at bedtime, etc....... The reason I do all this, is for self-respect and dignity. My husband and I have worked all our adult lives (sometimes 2 jobs each), struggled to pay the mortgage and gone without all sorts but I would never have it said that someone else was keeping me.

We don't smoke, as we can't afford it We don't go out much, as we can't afford it, and we scrimp and save to buy what we need. I don't receive family tax credit, free prescriptions, free dental treatment, free school meals, free milk tokens, free this and free that. I pay for everything and as long as I am able, always will.

I am sick to the back teeth of contributing through my tax and national insurance to keeping the free-loaders in our society. If free-loaders out there don't want to work....fine....BUT DON'T SPONGE OFF THE REST OF US AND LOOK SO SMUG ABOUT IT.

47

woodentop,

Staring at the barbed wire 19/06/2007 22:22:00

#49 - top stuff. Just a shame no political parties are advocating anything like you suggest (ie a drastic reduction in the welfare state - too many supplicants now I suppose).

#50 - a variation on this idea has been tried and it didn't go down terribly well, I have to report. Why not Google 'lebensunwertes leben' (life unworthy of life) for a bit of a laugh? The trouble with it is that some complete eejit gets to be in charge, and they might decide you (or me!) are next up for the good news.

48

Checkpoint Charlie,

19/06/2007 23:43:52

It really irks me when 'poverty' and Scotland are linked. Come to the Far East and see poverty and it's effect. In Scotland there is a huge hand held out to help people out of poverty - it's called free education. How many of these so called poverty families are encouraging their kids to study hard and break the chain?
And for goodness sake how can not having a bike as a kid =poverty? It's embarrassing when real poverty is so life threatening for people around the world. Wake up and use the resources on offer.....imagine claiming poverty withe the support system there is. Save The Children have just gone right down in my eyes.

49

weechico,

20/06/2007 04:57:17

Road Raga, Are you by any chance from the USA and a Bush supporter? You sound like one!
Jeep #8 Your comment is more balanced than most.
fresian #50 Who rattled your cage or should I say swastica?

50

,

20/06/2007 04:58:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 722408, Article id was mapped to record!
51

wee willy,

city chambers 20/06/2007 07:09:27

elaine 12345,,, I could not have expressed it better myself,,, Have you ever thought about running for your local council,people like you are needed out there, but at least when you and hubbie go to bed at night as myself, you sleep peacefully,,,

Stop the dole and put them all in a big hole,,end off..

52

spoc,

20/06/2007 10:28:45

What is more concerning is that the respectful, hard working, ambitious and contributing sector are having LESS children whilst the unemployable, undeserving and ill-mannered greedy are multiplying in droves AND at no cost to themselves. What does the future hold??

53

witchy_poo,

Edinburgh 20/06/2007 13:03:12

When I was growing up I never got everything that I wanted because my parents simply could not afford to waste money. My father worked his bum off as a gravedigger in Edinburgh he never had a lot of money, he was poor with a wife and 4 children to feed, and feed us he did! I remember christmas many a time with no presents because my parents simply never had the money! My poor dad died of cancer in 1990 and now my mother is disabled I look after my mum and my handicapped brother I used to work and do this at the same time but it took its toll on me, I now have health problems and I am on benefits, but believe me when I say I am anything but a SCROUNGER ON THE DOLE!

54

The Fly Fifer,

fife 20/06/2007 13:20:12

# 58 its folks like you who deserve every help possible, I don't think anyone here would disagree.

Its the lazy, drunk, ciggie smoking junkie skanks and slobs that are the problem.

They enjoy life (loose term) while others work to pay for it.

55

Paula,

20/06/2007 16:34:52

#58, you are in no way a scrounger at all. You have a job, you are a carer for your mum and brother and don't you forget it that would never make you a scrounger.

There is no one here who would say someone like you was a scrounger, caring for disabled people is a 24/7 as you won't need me to tell you.

That wifey who think that she can spend 25 years living off of people is the one with the problem.

56

elayne,

28/11/2008 19:03:43
simple soultion-chavs shouldnt breed

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.