Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:48 am**

Also very handy of her to have three kids by three fathers.
Aside from the handy alliteration, she’s conveniently spread the kids among partners the exact right amount to seem careless while still just about plausible. Three kids by two partners? That’s just not feasible for message board point making, it suggests actual people involved. Four kids from four partners? That’s pushing plausibility (hopefully she keeps her knickers on from now, for boardin’ cred)

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:51 am**

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:41 am
George M wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:21 am
Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 9:58 am So the 3 kids should be punished and punished hard for having a mother with alcohol addiction problems and different fathers to each other? That'll help.
I didn’t say that either. Of course not. I was asked to give my example of where some benefits are going. It’s a huge problem and one we can’t afford. Therefore it needs meaningful reform
But that's what will happen if you slash this woman's income. Sounds as if their lives are already traumatic enough without pushing them into poverty as well.

We can afford it. There is enough wealth around to ensure no one is in poverty.

But we can’t afford it. We are in recession. There are no immediate signs that we will bounce back. The economy , as it is , is failing. Something has to change and as a Labour voter , you need to believe that they know what they are doing.

I wouldn’t agree that my friends daughter is worthy of that much support. She has been irresponsible, all her own doing , and you are now having to support her with others losing support because of others like her. It’s a difficult one.

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:52 am**

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:45 am It’s very lucky that George M knows someone where

1: her parents are wealthy enough to buy her a house outright
2: despite this wealthy background, she has been diagnosed with alcohol addiction and her wealthy parents, unable to provide a support network instead reveal this to neighbours
3: that this daughter of wealthy parents bucks every trend by having children relatively early in life, without having the financial or relationship security most people would put in place
4: discloses to her parents exactly how much she gets in benefits each month, even though her parents disapprove of her claiming benefits, so there would be no motivation to make such a disclosure

It’s *almost* as if George M is talking utter, utter poo poo

Keep going with the cretinous responses.

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:53 am**

George M wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 9:32 am
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 9:08 am Why shouldnt the person you know be on benefits?
A daughter of a friend of mine is an alcoholic ( recovering but relapsing ) , she has three children under nine by different fathers , and she receives £2000 a month and has done for at least the last five years. Her parents could afford to keep her and have bought her a house. It’s one example of what we are spending and on whom. It may be that they are targeting groups such as this. I can’t make sense of what they propose to target but , in the grand scheme of things , I doubt it will save much

How do you know they receive £2000? Where do you think this money goes?

Do you believe this vulnerable person AND her innocent children should receive less?

I agree with you that her parents should cough and support their daughter, but then I do not know their relationship or circumstances.

Are these reforms even targetting alcoholics? I thought it was the disabled they were after?

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:59 am**

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:53 am
George M wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 9:32 am
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 9:08 am Why shouldnt the person you know be on benefits?
A daughter of a friend of mine is an alcoholic ( recovering but relapsing ) , she has three children under nine by different fathers , and she receives £2000 a month and has done for at least the last five years. Her parents could afford to keep her and have bought her a house. It’s one example of what we are spending and on whom. It may be that they are targeting groups such as this. I can’t make sense of what they propose to target but , in the grand scheme of things , I doubt it will save much
How do you know they receive £2000? Where do you think this money goes?

Do you believe this vulnerable person AND her innocent children should receive less?

I agree with you that her parents should cough and support their daughter, but then I do not know their relationship or circumstances.

Are these reforms even targetting alcoholics? I thought it was the disabled they were after?

I know because the father talks to me in moments of despair.

I did not comment on how deserving of that amount she is.

They do help also.

I can’t work out what these reforms are targeting but , yes , there probably needs to be a fairer system for all of the current system isn’t one

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:02 am**

“Her parents could afford to keep her but don’t”

Interesting that they disclosed this.
Out of interest, these friends of yours, do they have similar values to you? (Usually important with friends)

Did they say “ha, our daughter, she’s had a right touch - gets £2k a month in benefits. Yeah, yeah it’s great for us, cos we could afford to finance her lifestyle, but luckily the state does it!!! lol!!!”

Or did they say “grrrr, our daughter, she’s on benefits. £2k a month she gets. It’s a stain on our family that she takes advantage like this. We’ve offered to cover her costs, such as they are, and we’ve offered to cover legal fees of getting the fathers of her three definitely real kids to pay up, but she just won’t have it. She’s a hopeless case at this point. It’s just a shame that us buying a house for her outright did not result in the stability one might expect, and instead somehow triggered her to act in a way one might associate with someone who has no security whatsoever”

?

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:09 am**

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:02 am “Her parents could afford to keep her but don’t”

Interesting that they disclosed this.
Out of interest, these friends of yours, do they have similar values to you? (Usually important with friends)

Did they say “ha, our daughter, she’s had a right touch - gets £2k a month in benefits. Yeah, yeah it’s great for us, cos we could afford to finance her lifestyle, but luckily the state does it!!! lol!!!”

Or did they say “grrrr, our daughter, she’s on benefits. £2k a month she gets. It’s a stain on our family that she takes advantage like this. We’ve offered to cover her costs, such as they are, and we’ve offered to cover legal fees of getting the fathers of her three definitely real kids to pay up, but she just won’t have it. She’s a hopeless case at this point. It’s just a shame that us buying a house for her outright did not result in the stability one might expect, and instead somehow triggered her to act in a way one might associate with someone who has no security whatsoever”

?

For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume I know more about this case than you. I have explained her case . Use it as you choose

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:10 am**

Did they buy the house for her outright before the kids were born?
Bit weird to start a lifetime secure in the knowledge that whatever happens, you have a home, by having three babies by three fathers. Almost unprecedented, I would say. At best, it’s a situation so utterly unique that this story if true could not function as an example of the sort of thing that happens.

Or did they buy the house *after* the alcoholism and babies started happening? In which case, bit irresponsible of the parents to buy her a house at a time when her lifestyle and addictions make it a significant risk that she might end up losing it. Careless parenting when they could have bought the house themselves, and provided security for her but with an expectation that she uses the parents’ (as we know exists as they could fund her lifestyle) support to access addiction treatment, therapy, counselling etc, and where that would mean that she would have a tangible reason to try to work through her issues.

Hopefully the friend mentioned some of that in a moment of despair too

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:10 am**

“For the sake of this discussion, I’m not going to discuss this” is definitely one way to make yourself credible

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:12 am**

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:10 am “For the sake of this discussion, I’m not going to discuss this” is definitely one way to make yourself credible

Once again a cretinous response. You have nothing to add to what is a serious national issue.

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:14 am**

I’m not talking about the national issue. I’m saying that you are clearly lying.

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:16 am**

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:14 am I’m not talking about the national issue. I’m saying that you are clearly lying.

I will pass your message onto her. I am sure she will be heartened by your support

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:18 am**

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 10:48 am Also very handy of her to have three kids by three fathers.
Aside from the handy alliteration, she’s conveniently spread the kids among partners the exact right amount to seem careless while still just about plausible. Three kids by two partners? That’s just not feasible for message board point making, it suggests actual people involved. Four kids from four partners? That’s pushing plausibility (hopefully she keeps her knickers on from now, for boardin’ cred)

Inspector Gaylord back to his very best.

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:24 am**

I thought it was her parents you were in contact with?

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:27 am**

Maybe her parents rent the house to her, pocketing all that lovely housing benefit?

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:30 am**

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:27 am Maybe her parents rent the house to her, pocketing all that lovely housing benefit?

Only thing against that is that George M has been at pains to demonstrate that the girls parents are in despair. If these real parents were real, and were renting it out, these parents would be rubbing their hands in glee, pound signs visible in their real eyes

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:31 am**

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:27 am Maybe her parents rent the house to her, pocketing all that lovely housing benefit?

Great. Now you are siding with the other two morons. I had higher opinions of you

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:32 am**

George mate Im sorry for asking something so cretinous but can you just clear up how old the daughter was when the parents bought her the house outright, whether they did so before alcohol addiction emerged, whether they did so before she had kids (or how many she had when they bought it for her) and what the thinking was when they gifted her the house?

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:36 am**

More to the point, this drunken floozy of whom you speak, is she a looker?

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:41 am**

Things like this wouldn’t happen if Jeremy Kyle hadn’t been cancelled

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:45 am**

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:32 am George mate Im sorry for asking something so cretinous but can you just clear up how old the daughter was when the parents bought her the house outright, whether they did so before alcohol addiction emerged, whether they did so before she had kids (or how many she had when they bought it for her) and what the thinking was when they gifted her the house?

For what purpose would that help. You don’t believe that benefits such as this , or the circumstances that lead to it , exist. Not sure why you are posting in this subject. If you don’t believe that situations like this exist , jog on

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:45 am**

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:36 am More to the point, this drunken floozy of whom you speak, is she a looker?

I wouldn’t

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:49 am**

George M wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:45 am
CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:32 am George mate Im sorry for asking something so cretinous but can you just clear up how old the daughter was when the parents bought her the house outright, whether they did so before alcohol addiction emerged, whether they did so before she had kids (or how many she had when they bought it for her) and what the thinking was when they gifted her the house?
For what purpose would that help. You don’t believe that benefits such as this , or the circumstances that lead to it , exist. Not sure why you are posting in this subject. If you don’t believe that situations like this exist , jog on

Well, it’d make your point more convincing. So come on.

To clarify though - you haven’t said what benefits she receives, so how can I dispute their existence. Tell me what benefits she gets and we can work out if it’s credible that she gets them.

“Situations like this” - well I think situations of home owning, mortgage free recovering/relapsing alcoholic women with a strong family support network and wealthy parents, who have three children by three parents and whose parents despair because their financially secure daughter is in receipt of benefits that they could cover but choose not to, is probably *quite* rare, tbh

Because so far, it looks like you’ve just dug yourself a hole by telling an obvious lie that fails a credibility test both in the numbers (2k benefits per month for someone who owns a home outright) and the details as you’ve given them.
Go on, be honest: you’ve made this up as what you initially intended to be an example of the type of thing you’re referring to, but the specific example you’ve given is made up. We all know it, you might as well just say “OK, yes I made it up, but my point is that I believe benefits go to undeserving people”

Go on, you can do it. Fess up.

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:49 am**

George M wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:45 am
Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:36 am More to the point, this drunken floozy of whom you speak, is she a looker?
I wouldn’t

Damn. Things were looking bad enough, but this news may just break her.

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:51 am**

Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:49 am
George M wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:45 am
Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Mar 27, 2025 11:36 am More to the point, this drunken floozy of whom you speak, is she a looker?
I wouldn’t
Damn. Things were looking bad enough, but this news may just break her.

Luckily she is not an Os fan so it’s not all bad

Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch

Re: Labour Watch