The inquest of Alice Gross

Alice gross was 14 years-old when she was found buried in the river in Hanwell, West London, in September 2014, 7 weeks after she was reported missing.

The inquest into her death was held on the 27th of June 2016 and the court was informed of how the schoolgirl was found with above-normal traces of GHB after what is believed to have been a ‘serious sexual assault’ by her suspected killer, Arnis Zalkalns, a convicted murderer from Latvia.

Zalkalns, who arrived in Britain in 2007, had killed his wife 10 years earlier but slipped under the authorities radar due to EU Laws.As an EU national, he had gone under no background checks- meaning he was completely unknown to the British authorities. He was also arrested in 2009 on suspicion of sexually assaulting a 14 year-old girl just 2 miles away from where Alice was killed. The case was dropped after the alleged victim refused to make a statement.

Alice’s body was badly decomposed when it was found in the slit of the river bed, wrapped in bin liners from Zalkalns’ work-place and weighed down with a bicycle wheel and bricks. Logs about 1m in length- and piled above the towpath from where the council had cleared the undergrowth- had also been rolled into the river and stocked in a pyramid shape above Alice’s body.

Zalkalns’ returned to the scene at least 3 times in the days of Alice’s death and it was stated in court that the police cordon may have precipitated his suicide- he was found hanged from a tree in Boston Manor Park, Hounslow,  4 days later.

So no background checks were done on someone entering Britain and because he was an EU national he was free to come and go as he pleased. Thank god we voted out of the EU, I know it is too later to remedy justice for Alice but hopefully we will be able to put measures in place to make our country a safer environment for British nationals.

Looking the part

The Daily Mail never fails to provide me with materials to have a good rant about, especially when it comes to the articles about the dregs of society making a mockery out of the system. So I was happy to find that the DM hadn’t disappointed me when I found an article about “jobseekers” (I use the term “jobseekers” loosely by the way) turning up and deliberately sabotaging their interviews in order to stay on benefits for as long as possible.

Shaun Drury is the manager of a care home in Devon and claims that benefit claimants he has interviewed have deliberately behaved ridiculously simply because they don’t want to come off benefits and work. He also stated that many of the unemployed people he’s interviewed have turned up in shell suits, given him high-fives and spoken in one-word sentences… Not really making an effort to actually stick to the Jobseekers Agreement then?
The performance of some interviewee’s has been that appalling, Drury has concluded that they are just looking for an excuse to avoid giving up their benefits.

As part of a claimants Jobseeker’s Agreement, they must be actively seeking work and attend any interviews they are offered in order to receive their Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). Failing to look for work or attend interviews can result in claimants getting their benefits sanctioned.However, a lot of the time, a claimant’s performance in an interview is not checked up on, therefore, if a claimant deliberately acts up in an interview they will still receive their benefits even though they jeopardised their chances of employment.

Drury also admitted that on occasions he has heard claimants bragging about going on luxury holidays and using their benefits to buy new cars etc. “All that lounging about is an expensive hobby, at least for the rest of us who pay for it”. I couldn’t agree more.

I think it is a sheer disgrace! Not only are they abusing the system but they are also wasting the time of the employer who has given them the chance at an interview. I mean, should Jobcentre Plus staff not be checking with employers on the performance of a claimant’s behaviour in interviews?   A quick phone call won’t exactly kill them or add an immense amount of work to their day would it? And asking a claimant isn’t exactly going to work is it? No claimant who has purposefully ruined their chances of employment by acting like an idiot in an interview is going to admit that to their JCP adviser, especially when it would result in them having their benefits sanctioned.

But what can be done? There are too many people who want to just sit around and let the hard-working people of society pay for their up-keep. This is the system Labour have created and yet Corbyn wants to issue unlimited benefits? Is he joking?! As if we don’t have enough dregs of society to keep without them getting extra benefits for being work-shy scrounging idiots.

Paedophilia, hebephilia, DSM and excuses that make me sick

Truth Uncensored (.net) posted an article that completely shocked me. The summary of the article read:

‘An academic conference held at the University of Cambridge claimed that paedophilia interest is “natural and normal for males”, and that “at least a sizeable majority of normal males would like to have sex with children, and normal males are aroused by children”… Now is it just me, or does anyone else think that this is a little backward?

The conference, which was titled “Classifying Sex: Debating DSM-5”, was held in 2014 in order to discuss the classification of sexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the standard international psychiatric manual used within the legal system. The conference featured numerous speakers who spoke in favour of sex with children… Because they’re really normal aren’t they?!

The American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produced the study and debate, had been locked in a battle over whether hebephilia should be included as a mental disorder.

So what exactly is hebephilia? Well the APA claims that hebephilia is ‘the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11-14 years-old.’ The proposal for the disorder was being discussed because children are going though puberty at a younger age and the current definiation of paedophilia is ‘the attraction to pre-pubescent children’.

One of the attendees and enthusiastic participant, Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender and a long term campaigner of the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange…

Sorry. I can’t stand writing anymore about the people who are debating paedophilia like they would debate the weather. And as for Tom O’Carroll, he just needs put down! How can he be deemed safe to be amongst the public? He’s a multiple child sex offender and has campaigned for the legalisation of sex with children! I mean who finds it “normal” to be aroused by children? It’s not “normal” and shouldn’t be given a mental diagnosis as an excuse! It is an outrage!

Paedophiles, hebephiles, whatever you want to call them, should be shot. No excuses, no second chances, just put them down so they can’t ruin another child’s life. After all rope and bullets are a lot more cost effective than keeping these sick scumbags alive and in prison for years on end.

Anonymous broadcasts bullshit

So there is a video currently doing the rounds on Facebook posed by educateinspirechange.org (link to video https://youtu.be/4TmliW_F2Kw)

The video consists of the following statement:
Greetings citizens of the world, we are anonymous.
Government of the United Kingdom, It has come to our attention, that despite our continued warnings, you have decided to disregard our requests to assist the people of this country, and have persisted in running a system which only benefits yourselves and the giant corporate bodies operating here.
We have asked politely on many occasions that you change your attitude towards leadership, that you serve the country rather than control it, that you maintain the rights and freedoms of citizens. Instead, you have decided to impose worsening austerity measures upon the people of the UK, increasing taxes for citizens and small businesses, making cuts to our National Health Service, education system, pensions and police force…

Well for a kick off the police services are paid for via council tax not actual income tax. Secondly, attacking the rich is going to make no difference to the way the benefit cuts are imposed. Thirdly, governments don’t respond well to extremists who make threats to go after them… I mean isn’t that technically the same as terrorism?

Personally I think the idiots who made the video should be sentenced to a term in prison. After all, Guy Fawkes was sentenced to death was he not? We no longer have the death penalty, unfortunately, so a prison sentence would have to suffice.

Sadly there are people all over the country agreeing with these idiots.

Death by benefit cuts

With the numerous rumours being published about more benefit cuts after the elections, I decided to research into the impact the last cuts made on the people who were mainly hit by them. I managed to find an article dated the 23rd of December 2014 on the Independent’s website which states that benefit cuts are already being blamed for the death of so many vulnerable people.

According to the article, disability rights groups are claiming that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the government have covered-up a series of benefit claimants’ deaths. Cases (apparently) include:

1) D. Clapton, a diabetic who was found dead from a lack of insulin after his benefits were stopped. He had no food in his flat and had just £3.44 in his bank account. Clapton was an ex-soldier who had been deemed not to be taking his job searches seriously enough, even thought there was a pile of CV’s in his flat… One thing they are not pointing out is that he could have always gone to a local food bank if he was that desperate for food. And with him being a diabetic the DWP would have directed him to organisations where he could get food easily. And can I also just add that a pile of CV’s in ones flat doesn’t mean they are actively seeking work, the DWP need evidence and a pile of CV’s isn’t sufficient enough. Now I know the DWP are a bit OTT when it comes to imposing sanctions, however, there are a number of idiots who spoil it for everyone by claiming they’re actively seeking work when they aren’t, therefore the DWP have to have strict guidelines in order to make sure people aren’t just saying they applied for work just to get their benefits… Blame the scum of society for this, not the DWP or government.

2) M. Wood, a 44 year-old man who suffered from complex mental health issues. He reportedly starved to death after he was deemed fit for work after attending a ATOS Healthcare assessment. He had his benefits stopped and he was forced to live on just £40 a week… So why did he not appeal the ATOS decision? Or he could have just signed on to Jobsekers Allowance (JSA) and looked for a job, which wouldn’t have resulted in his benefits being stopped. Yes he had complex mental issues, however, they may not have been severe enough to stop him being in employment.

There are links featured in the article which apparently list over 60 cases of death by benefit cuts, however, rather conveniently, they either don’t load when you try to open them or you get directed to a 404 error page. So where is the evidence?

I also found a piece on welfareweekly.com from February this year, of a pensioner who set himself on fire after his benefits were cut.
M.Burge was 66 years-old and owed £809.79 in rent and council tax as a result of his housing benefit and council tax benefit being cut by the government welfare reforms. His entitlement to housing benefit was reduced from £89.39 to £44.79 a week and due to a back log by his local council, he ended up paying over his reduced entitlement for 6 months. His local council sent him 10 letters demanding the payment of the arrears but Burge was apparently unaware that his benefits had been reduces. So why, when he first started receiving the letters, did he not question the council as to why he owed the money? Surely if he had no idea that the benefit had been reduced then he would wonder how he was in debt? The letters would have included the reason as to why he owed the money and he could have easily set up a payment plan with the council to pay back the money owed in monthly instalments. That would have been more beneficial to himself and his family than him setting fire to himself in his car. The article stated that a group of teenagers tried to save him but he later died in hospital from 2nd degree burns. What psychological damage has he caused to these kids? He couldn’t have just committed suicide at home or somewhere where it wouldn’t have an impact on anyone witnessing it?

And typically the council ignored the letters from Burge claiming he was stressed, depressed and suicidal. And surprise surprise, blame the error on the pressures of the government funding cuts. They also admitted that Burge was confused and that his case was closed without response… So who was to blame? The council for not being competent enough to inform Burge of his case being closed? The government for introducing the cuts in the first place? Or Burge for not seeking a rational solution to the problem?

Of course people are going to blame the government, but something had to be done about the welfare state. If that means cutting people’s benefits then so be it, if Labour hadn’t made the welfare system so easy to abuse then maybe the cuts wouldn’t of had to be enforced.
The council should have also trained their staff better so that they could deal with the changes the cuts were going to make. They also could have put in a system for vulnerable elderly people like Burge.

This shows that people will take no responsibility for their own welfare and it doesn’t matter what help organisations offer them, they will always blame someone else over their failings to remedy problems. No one could do the job searches for Clapton, no one could appeal for Wood and no one could have sorted Burge’s arrears, only they could do something about it but chose not to seek further help for whatever reasons.

The cuts needed to be enforced, so if you really need to blame anyone, then blame Labour for the financial mess they left the country in.

Political arguments on Facebook all because David Cameron visited Alnwick

I was looking on Facebook yesterday when I saw a post on a group page stating that David Cameron was in Alnwick for the day as part of his visit of the Berwick Constituency. Of course, most people on the group page had their views on the visit and a harmless post soon turned into a political argument.

One comment made by a woman, really boiled my blood. She wrote (and I must add the grammatical errors were all part of her post); ‘But now more difficult for folk who don’t have large deposit to buy [property]… Tories are literally killing poor people off, have incited racial and disability hatred again, hugely destroyed NHS and education ie selling schools by the back door… So tell me, when is it ok for the 6TH RICHEST COUNTRY to need food banks? Zero hour contracts stuff up EVERYONES career opportunities, low pay only benefits business leaders, who often don’t pay corporate tax and if tories get in wave bye bye to child benefit and working tax credit so many families rely on… Think about our whole society, end capitalism and start caring about each other again DIVIDE AND RULE IS WINNING’

Nothing like being on your soap box love, eh? Obviously, I couldn’t resist commenting back to her over-the-top post so I wrote the following comment;
‘1. The only reason people go to food banks is because if they can get something for nothing, they will… And if chavs can go to food banks then they have more money to spend on crap tattoos and cheap cider.
2. It’s probably a good thing that welfare is cut considering how much it costs the country to keep people who refuse to get a job and who just pop kids out for a living… Prime example, I know someone who is easily on £26k a year in benefits. That’s a disgrace!
3. I have no problem with immigrants who come to the UK to actually WORK, the ones I have a problem with are the ones who come over to abuse the benefits system and commit crimes. [This point was in response to another comment she made to another member of the group].
4. Zero hour contracts only screw you over if your employer has that policy, not everywhere has zero hour contracts.
5. Overseas aid should be stopped, I don’t see the point in sending money to other countries when our own is in financial crisis. [Again, in response to another members comment].
6. Don’t even get me started on the EU- waste of time and money.’

I then got a notification informing me that the woman on her soapbox had commented back to me. This time she wrote; ‘Clearly you have never fallen on hard times ie illness, redundancy and had no family to help. And Btw people don’t get money, the landlord gets housing benefit. If one has worked, got credit card etc then is made redundant £74 or whatever it is is not enough and EU stated that our benefits are too low, much lower than other countries. EU has helped us trade, protected human and workers rights etc etc… Compassion and a caring society would stop all of this I’m alright jack attitude.’

By now she was really starting to annoy me with her socialist bullshit so I responded by stating; ‘Our benefits are too low?! For who? The people doing sod all, whinging about having to look after their kids but not complaining about the money that’s coming in? Oh and by the way Housing Benefit only amounts up to £6k of that £26k the person receives so what about the other £20k she has left to do what she wants with? Or does that not matter? If you’re made redundant and have credit cards etc then an agreement can always be made with the companies you owe the money to, but then again redundancy is no ones fault, the benefit system should be there for the people who actually need it, it shouldn’t be there to be abused by the lazy scroungers who only have kids to get out of getting a job. Everyone should stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for their own lives, end of the day if you don’t work and have kids you shouldn’t expect the taxpayers to foot the bill, especially when the majority of taxpayers have children of their own to feed and clothe.’

Funnily enough she didn’t respond back to me after the above comment. But I did get 5 likes on each of my comments so its nice to see that some people agree with me.

I decided to research into what she had said about other EU member states having a higher benefit rate than the UK, this is what I found on the Telegraph’s website:

 Country Health care Child benefit Unemployment benefit Housing benefit
Austria Available immediately, but only if you pay ‘social insurance’ Immediate payment of £89 per month Only available to people who have paid social insurance No equivalent scheme
Belgium Available after a year £115 per month, available immediately Have to have previously worked in Belgium No national scheme; amounts vary regionally
Bulgaria Free emergency care immediately; other treatments only available if you pay social insurance Targeted schemes restricted to Bulgarian citizens Minimum of nine months of working in the country required to qualify Immediate monthly allowance but only if you have a local authority home already
Cyprus Free, available immediately Immediate yearly payment of £444 Six months of work in Cyprus required to qualify Immediately available, limited to £506 per month
Czech Republic Available immediately but cash charges apple £23 per month available immediately 12 month minimum qualifying period Available immediately
Denmark Free, available immediately Up to £161 a month available after 12 months Minimum of one year’s work required to qualify No equivalent scheme
Estonia Available immediately but cash payments required for some treatments £16 per month available immediately £12.50 per week available immediately No equivalent scheme
Finland Public health service charging flat-rate fees. Available immediately £88 per month available immediately Basic weekly unemployment allowance available after two months Up to 80% of housing costs available immediately but system varies regionally
France Only available with a card proving entitlement, issued to residents Immediate payments, but only for parents with more than one child Four month qualifying period Immediate; scheme based on house size and local factors
Germany Only available with a health insurance card £155 per month available immediately Immediate means-tested allowance for jobseekers who have made “intensive efforts” to find work Full amount of housing costs available immediately
Greece 100 days of work required to qualify No equivalent scheme Minimum of six months of work required to qualify No equivalent scheme
Hungary Not immediately available £40.60 per month available immediately Minimum qualifying period of 360 days No equivalent scheme
Ireland Free after living in Ireland for three consecutive years, but free immediately to UK citizens £110 per month available immediately £160 per week available immediately Immediate rent supplement providing short-term support
Italy Free, available immediately No equivalent scheme Qualifying period of three months No national scheme; varies according to region
Latvia Public health service with fees for GP and hospital visits, available immediately Immediate monthly payment of £9.30 One year qualifying period Varies locally
Lithuania Three months qualifying period but “urgent care” free immediately Immediate monthly payment of £24 18 month qualifying period No equivalent scheme
Luxembourg Not available immediately, as insurance-based £157.10 per month available immediately Minimum of six months of work required to qualify Immediate rent allowance of up to £104.90
Malta Free, available immediately Immediate payment of up to £81.55 per month Immediate means-tested benefit of up to £16 per day No equivalent scheme
Poland Free, available immediately Immediate payment of up to £54 per month Qualifying period of one year No equivalent scheme
Portugal Free, available immediately Monthly payment of up to £40 Qualifying period of 180 days No equivalent scheme
Romania Six month qualifying period, except for emergencies Monthly payment of up to £20 Minimum qualifying period of 12 months No equivalent scheme
Slovakia Immediately available; nominal cash payment treatments Immediate monthly payment of £19 Minimum two year qualifying period No equivalent scheme
Slovenia Available immediately but required to pay minimum of 10% of some treatment costs Immediate payment of up to £97 per month Minimum contribution of nine months Only available if you already have social housing
Spain Only available with a card proving entitlement Immediate payment of up to £20 per month Immediate payment available based on a variable proportion of average wages No equivalent scheme
Sweden Available immediately; basic fees for care Immediate monthly payment of £101 Six month qualifying period Immediate monthly allowance of up to £125
Holland Only available with a certificate proving entitlement Immediate payment of £943 per year Six month qualifying period Means-tested, available immediately
UNITED KINGDOM Available immediately and free of charge under the National Health Service Paid immediately if the child is under 16, or 16-19 and in education or training, and the claimant has an individual income of less than £50,000. Amount is £20.30 a week for the eldest or only child, £13.40 per additional child Immediate payments of £71.70 a week in Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) after proving you are actively seeking work. EU migrants have to pass the “right-to-reside” test to show they are “economically active”. The European Commission wants to abolish this test. There is also contribution-based additional JSA which is only available after working for at least two years. Available immediately if you are on a low income, whether you are working or unemployed. How much depends on individual circumstances, but amount cannot normally exceed £250 per week for a one bedroom property, or up to £400 a week for four bedrooms or more.
Sources: European Commission guides to social security and health care in member states, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Department for Work and Pensions.

So apparently the benefit rates in other EU Member States are higher than the benefit rates in the UK… Not according to the above table. I might have to copy the link to this blog post to the woman who seems to believe that the UK has low benefit rates.

And all of this stemmed from David Cameron paying a visit to the Northumbrian town of Alnwick. Oh and I think I shall keep it brief about the socialist with the ukulele who sang “fuck off back to Eton” to the PM, I mean clearly the guy doesn’t have a job because if he did he would be there rather than making a nuisance and a complete tit of himself on the streets of Alnwick.

4 Simple ways the country could save millions

Seen as there are so many stories flying around about how the country is in a financial mess, I thought I would put across 4 simple ways in which the country could save millions;

1) Anyone convicted of an indictable offence such as rape, murder, paedophilia, or manslaughter, where the evidence is higher than 90% should be shot. Save the country paying to keep them in prison.

2) Anyone who is on benefits for more than 2 years must be made to take up voluntary work for a charity in order to claim their benefits, if they refuse then they get nothing. Simple. And if they are unable to gain employment after the 2 years voluntary they will automatically be enrolled into the Forces. They need to have some purpose in life so if they aren’t going to get a job they might as well fight for queen and country. 

3) Single mothers who get stupid amounts of benefits just for having kids would have their benefits cut and their children taken into care until they got a job to pay for the upkeep of their children. Can’t afford to have kids? Don’t have them. After their second child, if they still have no desire to gain employment they should be sterilised. Not going to pay for your kids then don’t have any. 

4) MP’s would be paid £25,000 a year and wouldn’t be able to claim expenses. They get too much money for sitting around debating what laws need changing and how they can shaft the country even more. They can do that for a lot less than what they’re on at the moment, I reckon. 

I think that could work. Would certainly save the country money on prison cells, benefits and wages which could be spent on far more important things like duelling the A1 in Northumberland, building flood defences in villages that are repeatedly affected and paying to give Berwick back to Scotland (little Northumberland joke there). See everyone is a winner.

C.S.A- The single mothers dream.

Having to deal with C.S.A (Child Support Agency) can be a nightmare, especially if you’re the parent who is working and having to fork out a fortune for your ex to basically take a percentage of your wages.

My partner has two children with his ex. He never sees the kids due to her being a complete waste of time and space and also because if he didn’t see the kids then she would get more money out of him (according to the incompetent staff at C.S.A).

We worked out how much C.S.A would take off him in a number of different circumstances;

1) If he was on benefits they’d take £5.00 a week from his benefit

2) If he worked 24 hours a week on National Minimum Wage, C.S.A would take £86.67 a month from his wages.

3) If he worked 37.5 hours a week on National Minimum Wage, C.S.A. would take £182.00 a month. A full time minimum wage job would mean he would have £768.53 a month left over to pay his rent, bills etc after C.S.A took their cut and after tax and national insurance.

And finally we calculated if he worked for £20,000 a year then C.S.A would take £268.67 a month. So the more he earns the more she gets for doing absolutely nothing. And before you say she looks after the kids, I wouldn’t even say she does that, as she leaves that up to her new partner.

But don’t think the monthly amount that gets deducted from his wages goes straight to the ex, no, C.S.A take a cut for administration fees so his ex would get less than the figure they deduct (not much less though).

The other thing that really annoys me is that they worked his C.S.A payments out on his wages before tax. So by the time he was actually paid, he was working a week for nothing. How is that fair?

Now a little background about the ex… She doesn’t work, she claims benefits and is also claiming D.L.A (Disability Living Allowance) as the oldest child has type one diabetes, she has a new partner who is also claiming D.L.A due to him being epileptic, they don’t pay their rent as they are getting housing benefit, they only have to pay for their mobiles, gas, electric and food. So she basically has more to live on than we do.She also bragged to my partner at one point, that after all her bills are paid she had over £700 a month left to do whatever she wanted with, resulting in her having more money than what my partner was earning.

Now, say her and the new partner split, due to her having a child with him as well as two to my partner, between the two fathers she would get £286.00 a month. £286.00 a month for basically lying on her back and getting pregnant. And, of course, that is before she receives her benefits, so after receipt of benefits she’s easily getting £676.70 a month for doing nothing. Isn’t life fabulous? And the government wonder why the country is in such a mess?

And you’d think C.S.A would take into account living expenses of the paying party. Well they don’t. They leave you with just enough to live on and if you have any other financial commitments such as loan repayments etc then that is just tough. It is a useless and unfair system and it really isn’t surprising that people feel the need not to work or allow their children to see their fathers. Why would they want to share custody when clearly they’d get more money being a single parent and cutting the father out of the children’s lives?

No wonder the lazy cow doesn’t want to work, she’s getting everything handed to her on a plate and probably gets more money for doing sod all than what she’d get if she was actually working. It isn’t my partners choice not to see his children, he tries to arrange visits all the time but she always comes up with some excuse as to why she can’t make it. Last excuse was because she was moving her new partner into her house. At a weekend when the kids are off nursery? Would it not have made more sense to move while the kids were at nursery? And its not like her and her new partner have to work around employment commitments because they don’t work. No, she wants her new little family and still get money from my partner but without my partner having contact with his kids.

The system needs a major reform, starting with the closure of C.S.A for those who are in receipt of more than £250 a month and by also closing benefit claims for single mothers who have been unemployed for more than 2 years. If you’re not willing to put into the state then why should you be entitled to take anything out?

But of course this will never happen because the country is full of socialists claiming that “being a mother is a full time job” not when the kids are in nursery five days a week it’s not. If people can’t afford to have kids then they shouldn’t have them. Sounds harsh but in fairness the people who work shouldn’t have to pay for the slags who just spend their lives on their backs to get out of getting a job.

We actually did a calculation on entitledto.co.uk to findout just how much his ex would receive in benefits. The results were shocking! She’d recieve a total of £25,604.10 a year, that’s £2133.39 a month (£491.39 a week). If you minus the housing benefit and council tax credit the amount she actually gets becomes £20,261.28 a year/£1688.41 a month/£389.64 a week. Take off the bills she has to pay such as gas, electric, food and her mobile phone bill and the total becomes £18,041.28 a year/£1503.44 a month/£346.94 a week to do what ever she wants with. And that’s not including the CSA payments she gets, the above figures are only what she receives in benefits. Add the CSA figures stated earlier and the total becomes sickening. No wonder the lazy cow doesn’t want to get a job! There’s no way she’d earn what she is getting at the moment if she was working.

Its a bloody disgrace!