Judge Stephen Mooney said that the couple, who were jailed for six years each, had “frittered away £7,000 a month which should have been spent on the children”.
The couple, who were recorded spending £1,600 a month in mortgage repayments, would have received £84,000 a year in benefits.
That’s actually the average income of the top 10% of households…..from benefits.
But it seems neither of them earned a lifetime prohibition on government benefits, so I imagine they will resurrect this little scheme somewhere down the road. Possibly with new partners; a nice sociological example of a nuclear fission reaction.
Isn’t there a £20k benefit cap? How did they get £84k?
The benefits number looks highly suspect, the article says 7k a number of times but never gives a breakdown, and I can’t figure out any way they could get that high. Suspect this is a case of journalists and numbers
Should the £7k be grossed up for tax to give notional salary equivalent figure? Should we assume only one parent earned the “salary” as the other would be the “caregiver”, so one high-rate taxpayer rather than two on half each?
@dcardno: or a suitable spell in jail or a lifetime ban on keeping animals.
It makes you wonder what sort of neighbourhood it was, that no one complained about the noise and smell from all the dog. Or diD they complain and no one listened?
Were the children not in school? Did their teachers not raise alarms?
Why are we paying eye watering taxes for a ‘social safety net’ that’s more holes than actual net?
Could be journalists and numbers, but the story includes a direct quote from the judge:
Judge Stephen Mooney said that the couple, who were jailed for six years each, had “frittered away £7,000 a month which should have been spent on the children”.
Why are we paying eye watering taxes for a ‘social safety net’ that’s more holes than actual net?
Isn’t that a feature of all nets?
They’re basically a bunch of holes tied together with string.
Well, it’s £7k a month take-home, so closer to £12k a month for a salaried household. I’ve been away a long time but I would imagine that would put you well above the tenth percentile for household income. Surely within spitting distance, or perhaps even within, the first percentile.
Sorry, just read your comment again more carefully. Caffeine deficit.
“Were the children not in school? Did their teachers not raise alarms?”
Probably not; look at the stats post-Covid. Thousands upon thousands have just disappeared from the system completely.
Of course, in a remotely competent setup this would be impossible – records would exist etc etc – but you know, government and all that.
JuliaM – It makes you wonder what sort of neighbourhood it was, that no one complained about the noise and smell from all the dog. Or diD they complain and no one listened?
Almost certainly the latter, Julia.
The have been numerous reports of recent arrivals and their extended families being housed in extremely desirable areas of London. Areas us mere taxpayers can only dream about.
If you were to calculate the market rent of such properties it wouldn’t fall far short of the figures quoted here. In other words as far as benefits are concerned this is not an isolated case.
“Isn’t there a £20k benefit cap? How did they get £84k?”
Presumably they fell into one of the categories where the benefits cap does not apply:
https://www.gov.uk/benefit-cap/when-youre-not-affected
Reading that lot there’s probably hardly any chav in the country who the benefits cap applies to. If you can get yourself or just one of the kids on to some sort of disability benefit then the cap disappears.
Still waste not want not. For the next 6 years let’s use the house for not less than 6 cross-channel arrivals. It will be a whole lot cheaper than a hotel.
@Peter MacFarlane
Being able to evade surveillance from the state is going to be a feature not a bug, as the roll out of compulsory injections and gender propaganda for children becomes the norm.
Getting the money AND the avoidance is a bit much though.
Don’t think you even need to qualify for disability benefit, think it’s enough to say that a kid is disabled (possibly in a minor way that doesn’t meet the threshold for benefits) and that you’re a “carer for someone with a disability”. Not sure if this accurate (it’s one of the criteria on that page but not sure how disability is defined in this case) but I’ve certainly known unemployed single mums go to considerable lengths to argue a kid is disabled to unlock greater benefits.
“I’ve certainly known unemployed single mums go to considerable lengths to argue a kid is disabled to unlock greater benefits.”
Friend of mine is a teacher at a State comprehensive, he says every single mother parent of the kids he teaches is trying desperately to get their child ‘statemented’ as having some sort of ‘learning disability’ because that immediately unlocks extra £££ from the benefit system.
@ Jim
The article says that Bennett (the male) “had a low IQ”, so perhaps he qualified as “disabled”.
Despite his low IQ and her presumably adequate one (former dance teacher) he got a harsher sentence for animal neglect – why?
“Despite his low IQ and her presumably adequate one (former dance teacher) he got a harsher sentence for animal neglect – why?”
The Pussy Pass. The male in a Bonny and Clyde duo will always get a harsher sentence than his female accomplice. He forced he into it of course, poor woman what could she do????
A woman of my acquaintance invested massive effort in getting her daughter classed as dyslexic and her son ADHD.
The daughter became pregnant at 16 and dropped out of education. On her 17th birthday she posted on Facebook “I’ve retired even tho I’ve never had a job lol”.