www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24818747 Good. The old rules encouraged feckless behaviour; and there was something terribly wrong with the idea that people could get more in benefit payments than the average household earns. No doubt there will now be endless appeals...all funded by legal aid.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24818747 Good. The old rules encouraged feckless behaviour; and there was something terribly wrong with the idea that people could get more in benefit payments than the average household earns. No doubt there will now be endless appeals...all funded by legal aid.

Couldn't agree more.

Legal, right and popular.

£500 per week is still more than a lot of people get!

It might be legal but its only right with people to thick to understand real problems and only popular with the ignorant.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24834558Abolition of living fun – illegal[/url.

So what do you suppose they do? In the example you provide above. Three single mothers of young children. What do they do now?

Well yes, poor people do have the right to legal representation. Its called justice for all.

Given the proposed restrictions to legal aid and judicial reviews, you have to wonder how much longer justice will be available to those who cannot afford it?

You really should sort your own spelling and grammar, before calling other people out as thick.

Take the cut like everyone else is going to have to.

People are going to have to start living responsibly, within their own means, and not just using the state as a cash-cow.

You would have to earn somewhere in the region of £35K before you can put £500 p/w in your pocket as net income. One of these mothers has 6 (yes, 6) kids. Benefits should be there to support the most needy, not to encourage people to turn themselves into baby-making factories.



Increasingly, you will find they don't. Legal Aid has pretty much gone for everything except crime, dental negligence (bizarrely) and matters of public policy (like this one).

Quote The Video Ref="The Video Ref"Take the cut like everyone else is going to have to. People are going to have to start living responsibly, within their own means, and not just using the state as a cash-cow. You would have to earn somewhere in the region of £35K before you can put £500 p/w in your pocket as net income. One of these mothers has 6 (yes, 6) kids. Benefits should be there to support the most needy, not to encourage people to turn themselves into baby-making factories. Increasingly, you will find they don't. Legal Aid has pretty much gone for everything except crime, dental negligence (bizarrely) and matters of public policy (like this one).'" You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

Quote The Video Ref="The Video Ref"Take the cut like everyone else is going to have to. People are going to have to start living responsibly, within their own means, and not just using the state as a cash-cow. You would have to earn somewhere in the region of £35K before you can put £500 p/w in your pocket as net income. One of these mothers has 6 (yes, 6) kids. Benefits should be there to support the most needy, not to encourage people to turn themselves into baby-making factories. Increasingly, you will find they don't. Legal Aid has pretty much gone for everything except crime, dental negligence (bizarrely) and matters of public policy (like this one).'" You need to stop reading the DM and start reading this:- www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... acts-myths

Daily Mail Editorial alert!

How many of the kids did she have befeore having to go on benefits?

How much of a "cut" are you taking if "everyone" has to?

Not sure...the one with 6 kids is from Romania, apparently.



If you really want to make this personal:

A substantial one. I work for HMG and our pension scheme has just been entirely rewritten. I am probably going to have to work for 3 years longer than I had planned, and I will receive far less when I eventually do retire.

"Everyone" isn't.



Will that mean the state is going to stop subsidising big business, then?