Posted on 05/19/2015 9:23:21 AM PDT by pabianice
Mandy Cowie, 49, is given around £22,000-a-year in state handouts
She wants her children to have five babies each so she can be supported
She said: 'Ten kids and full of tattoos mate. So what if I'm on the effing dole mate - don't like it, eff off'
On Channel 5 show her children also brag about milking benefits system
A single mother with ten children from five different fathers has said she wants 50 grandchildren so they can become Britain's biggest benefits family.
Mandy Cowie, 49, who is given around £22,000-a-year in state handouts, believes encouraging her own children to have babies means she will be supported for life.
Ms Cowie, who has used the cash to cover herself in £2,000 of tattoos, has lived on benefits herself for three decades and her own children have been following the same jobless path.
In a TV show set to be broadcast tomorrow, her children proudly describe the intricacies of the system so they can milk as much cash from the state as possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Is that a capital crime?
Do you know of many people at any level of society --- individuals, businesses, organizations, corporations, churches, schools ---who pay more taxes than they are obliged to pay, or who turn down benefits offered to them for which they are legally eligible??
So, stealing from the society at large is now under your definition of “lawful”? Sorry, I have slightly higher standards. Not much higher, but a little bit so.
In light of my tagline, I no longer view what's “legal” as being very meaningful. Allegedly, it's “legal” to kill the innocent. But you seem to support the idea that it is also “legal” to loot cost-free the rest of the society.
That sort of “legality” is without meaning.
sitetest
"But you seem to support the idea that it is also “legal” to loot cost-free the rest of the society"
"Support the idea?" The fact of the matter is, tt IS legal to loot cost-free the rest of the idea. I don't "support" this policy. I oppose it. But the fact remains that it is not only not a capital crime, it is a legal form of behavior followed by everybody who accepts a government subsidy or benefit that they don't "need" --- including Social Security and Medicare, if it comes to that, as well as government schooling and Public Parks & Rec.
The UK government knows that they have put the whole weight of law in favor of degrading, lifelong, intergenerational, infantile irresponsible dependency on the part of what used to be the British Working Class (and we won't even mention the Royals.) They encourage it, they promote it, and they expand it, because they want it to be that way.
Mrs. Cash-cow is acting rationally in economic terms. The costs and benefits work out very much in her favor, because they were designed that way. She has responded to incentives as planned by those who control the policy.
Typo line 4: idea=society.
The woman is just without shame, and that really chaps my hide.
She should not be paid for the fruits of her womb any more, there should be some kind of line drawn somewhere, but where?
Thanks for the defense.
Well done see #65
I should have added you to the comment.
I made right before I sat in the dentists chair.
I was drugged up!
Having dismissed ugly thoughts of Hitler, you’re quite right. There’s a problem.
Skanka Maxima, the subject of this thread, is in England ... it’s their country, they can screw it up any way they like.
In America ...
I see no provision in our Constitution, anywhere, for the Congress to appropriate monies for feeding, clothing, housing or providing medical care for the poor. Nor do I see any provision for operating a Ponzi Scheme disguised as an old-age pension plan.
So on that ground alone, all such programs must be abolished. Every last one of them is a usurpation of power.
Beyond Constitutional arguments, these programs also have the obvious perverse incentive. We’re PAYING people to behave badly. The welfare state creates the very culture of poverty, dependency, and irresponsibility that it purports to cure. As Mrs. Don-o notes, Skanka Maxima and her ilk are behaving rationally ... Big Daddy Gummint is offering them money for nothing, so they take it.
The only real solution is to END the welfare state. Seriously. Abolish the programs, fire the bureaucrats, raze the buildings, sell the land on the open real-estate market. They do enormous harm, and little good.
As for the poor ... we Christians believe that we have a religious duty to help the poor ... but that duty is personal, not something that can be fobbed off on government. Individuals and private benevolent associations would do a far better job of assisting the needy and unfortunate than government could ever hope to.
Where the foundations of law are fundamentally unjust, positive law becomes less valuable. It may be appropriate to revert to something more primitive - a law of necessity, so to speak. Under such a law, I would say it's fair that if you loot, we shoot.
I live just a little south of Baltimore. The fiction of civilization is pretty much worn away. We are now paying the price for our indulgence of the vermin, such as the subject of this article. When we indulge welfare queens, such as this "lady," when we tolerate their sucking off our blood, we encourage the lawlessness that eventuates in Baltimore riots. The solution is to eliminate those who believe they are entitled to suck our blood.
It might be different if this “lady” at least mouthed the pieties of attempted personal responsibility. But this “lady” is an aggressive leech, operating within the bounds of what is “legal” only because she does not to personally exert violence to steal from the rest of us. Otherwise, she is no different from any of the other looters. If one were to legally obstruct her looting, there is little question that she would resort to less “legal” means. Shoot the looters.
That is what will be coming soon enough just a little north of me.
sitetest
Cowie did something very like what Kate Middleton does: achieve a pricey taxpayer-paid lifestyle for having children.
Cowie may be old, ugly, and foul-mouthed, but she's doubtless cost the taxpayers a whole lot less than Kate. She's probably never flown in a jet or had a piece of jewelry that cost over $50. And she and her kids do their own d*** dishes.
And--- more relevant --- Kate and her class have a whole lot more power to change state policy than Cowie and her class. These things are set up as they are because the money and power class want it that way.
Just to make it simple: if you knew that taking an available job would mean a precipitous drop in income, food, housing, and every other benefit for you and all your kids --- would you take that job?
Truly, she is an English Rose.
Be alert.
There are at least five extremely desperate men over there...
Possibly in or near Hastings, East Sussex...
If they’d do this there’s no telling what they are apt to do next. ;-)
Your unjustified attack on monarchy betrays a distinctly non-Catholic view of moral theology. Monarchies have their place and add to the stability of societies where they are properly established. Any intelligent analysis of the last few centuries is informed by the knowledge that it is the destruction of monarchies that went hand-in-hand with the destruction of many stable European societies. On the other hand, leeches are leeches, and there is no place for leeches.
As to exterminating Mandy Crowe and her progeny “unto the third generation,” research (conducted right here in Baltimore) indicates that for the most part, it only needs to extend “unto the second generation.” Removal of the third generation to a different environment, and to other families, might spare them the same moral fate as the woman.
“She's probably never flown in a jet or had a piece of jewelry that cost over $50.”
No, she's spent it all on her collection of tattoos, the value of which apparently exceed some thousands of dollars. This human filth has spent more money on her ugly tattoos than any single piece of jewelry I have ever bought for my wife. You evince a belief that this slut is more deserving of adornment than my good, faithful, Catholic wife and mother. That's disgusting.
And spare me the marxist claptrap about how oppressed this person is, and how the Man wants to keep her down. She's “down” because she chooses to be down. Few people started life with less than my father and mother. My father was told he'd never amount to anything because of what he was (Italian) and who is father was (a not very good person, I will say no more). My mother's mother was carted away when she was seven, and otherwise grew up motherless.
My mother and father did not go on welfare. They did not think they were owed a living by those who called them “dago” and “wop.” When my father first went to night schools and was told “your kind of people don't get college degrees,” he didn't go whining and crying. They didn't go on the dole and cry out, “O, there are no opportunities for people like me!”
Rather than go on welfare, my parents worked any available job. At times, even while he was in night school, my father worked two or three jobs to support his family. Without thinking the government owed him a free check.
One of my earliest memories is attending my own father's college graduation. Please don't tell me about this slut's demonic sense of entitlement to loot the taxpayers to feed her own evil face. She should die. She is without justification. Her crimes are capital.
As I said before, there might be some small saving grace if she were to at least mouth the pieties of personal responsibility, if she did not flaunt her satanic behavior and beliefs, if she give some small acknowledgement that she doesn't deserve a damned thing she has, and she has lived her life waywardly. If she would at least offer herself as a warning of what not to become, the bad example by which others can learn the good. But this horrible pagan slut glories in its vomit, celebrates its depravity, and wishes to pass down its inheritance of devil worship. She chooses to be what she is, and that is evil. To rebuild the moral capital of society she should be eliminated.
sitetest
"You evince a belief that this slut is more deserving of adornment than my good, faithful, Catholic wife and mother. That's disgusting."
I never said that this slut (well-chosen word) was deserving of adornment, nor that your wife is not. I said, meant, and implied nothing of the kind. I was comparing Ms Cowie's bling to the Crown Jewels, neither of which are justly earned or justly awarded. I realize it's probably a mere misunderstanding rooted in wrath, but you owe me an apology for that one.
My parents were as poor as yours, my grandparents on the L. side conceivably poorer--- and you're right, they did not go on Welfare, which they judged was for those who were unable to work. They were among the Earth's true nobility. That is not the scenario I was talking about.
I was talking about a person right now whose living consists of public benefits, and who, if they accepted a job, would experience an immediate and precipitous loss of income and home. It's frankly unreasonable to expect a person to do this voluntarily.
It might be imposed on them by a just change in public policy, which I would approve.
But for a person to voluntarily walk away from a life of ease to take up a life of struggle and labor for themselves and their children, is something it is unreasonable to expect of anyone but the rare mystic/saint. The last time thins kind of thing happened on an appreciable scale was probably during the Crusades of the 14th century.
"To rebuild the moral capital of society she should be eliminated."
You're not even going to offer her the "re-education through labor" camp? Good old laodong gaizao? In principle, your "final solution" is less enlightened than that of Mao Zedong in 1949.
I understand you're probably talking through wrath. Would you like to try again, and come up with something like a way, a policy, a path for Mandy and her children to a just society?
Or is feeling angry about it, and wishing their prompt demise, enough?
Individual monarchs come and go. Some good, some less so. The British haven't had a bad run recently. Within their constitutional form of government, the monarchs have led their country through terrible war and economic distress. Without the destabilization that occurred in Germany, France, or Italy. As you often do, you make the perfect the enemy of the good.
I owe you no apology, but you owe the royals one. They are not leeches. Cowe is. They may occasionally wear state jewels, but that's about the same as criticizing the Vatican for ownership of works of art. Get back to me when any of these folks claim the crown jewels as theirs to hock down at the local pawn shop. In the meantime, the cow Cowe has destroyed thousands of dollars of income permanently disfiguring herself.
“But for a person to voluntarily walk away from a life of ease to take up a life of struggle and labor for themselves and their children, is something it is unreasonable to expect of anyone but the rare mystic/saint.”
What about to refuse it in the first place?
I own my own businesses. There are good years and there are bad years. For a small businessman, a “bad year” often means actually losing money, and living off savings. I have had such years. I would have qualified for some form of welfare. Didn't take it. If I ever needed to, I wouldn't tell the world to "eff off." I'd fall to my knees to thank my benefactors, and then get on my own two feet and see what I had to do to regain my dignity and independence. And if I didn't, I'd be a looter. And I'd expect to be shot.
“less enlightened than that of Mao Zedong in 1949.”
Thank you. But flattery will get you nowhere.
The time for enlightenment is over. The time for payment is here.
“I understand you're probably talking through wrath.”
Although wrath, in this case is legitimate, that's not quite it.
It's what Flannery O'Connor said about the deaf and the loud, the neaarly-blind and the brightly-painted.
My son is a conservative. In some ways, he's more conservative than I am. But he likes Ross Doubthat. I don't blame him. Ross went to Harvard and edited the conservative magazine there. My son did the same for a couple of semesters. He feels a certain affinity to this very intelligent, very reasonable, fellow Crimson Catholic conservative.
But I tease my son. I call him a “Ross Doubthat conservative.” It isn't that they're not conservative enough. Or Catholic enough. It is that they are reasonable. And the enemy is not.
The left has shown how far one can go by refusing to be reasonable. It is unreasonable people - or at least, those who are perceived as unreasonable - who accomplish things. It is Ronald Reagan on the right, it is the anti-Christ Obama on the left, who advance their causes. Reasonable people argue about the shape of the negotiating table. Unreasonable people change the shape of society.
In a time when we still had some margin of safety in our social surplus, we might try to re-educate this common slut. We might try to rehabilitate it. If it showed any will to improve itself, perhaps in a better time there might be the opportunity.
But the barbarians are overrunning the city. There is nothing to do but to shoot them. It is not with wrath that I write that, but with sadness. As a society, we have failed. We have collectively failed to transmit our values to scum like this, we have failed to transmit any sort of basic civilizational decency to this creature and those like it. Now, the piper must be paid.
Right now, it's notional. Not much support for eliminating this filth just yet. But that is coming. The sooner it begins, the less blood there will be. The longer we wait, the deeper will be the excision of the cancer. And society will either excise the cancer, or the cancer will kill the west altogether, and the night that falls will make what I'm talking about look like a day at the beach.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.