Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

I wish this was fake

Jobless mum 'I’m splashing £2k of my benefits on Christmas gifts!’ Tuesday 11 December 2012

While many families are fretting over how to pay for Christmas this year, 20-year-old single mum-of-two Leanna Broderick isn’t concerned – because she’s got a £2k stash put aside to make it the best Christmas ever.

Leanna, from Croydon, south London – who’s never worked – claims £15,480 a year in benefits, including £111 housing benefit a week, which pays for her two-bed council flat.

She says she’d be a fool to give up her handouts and get a job, as it would actually leave her worse off.

And this way she has enough cash to buy designer clothes and expensive gifts for her daughters Zelekah, two, and Zakirah, one.

Speaking as new figures reveal around 1.6 million Brits in working families are now classed as poor – while the UK benefits bill has soared to a new high of £2bn this year  – Leanna says: “Last year, I saved £2,500 and my kids had 50 presents each, including Burberry and Ralph Lauren clothes and dolls, DVDs and CDs.

This year, I’ve saved £2k and they’ll get 20 presents each, including iPads and a new Disney-themed bedroom to share, with designer wall art and bed linen. I’ll get gold earrings for Zelekah – she already has pierced ears. I’ll save £300 for the Boxing Day sales, too.

“I don’t want my girls to be teased for not having the best.”

Leanna adds: “I don’t care if people get annoyed. It makes me mad when people think they can tell me what to buy with my benefits. I don’t take advantage, I just choose to save – it’s smart. I don’t think I get too much.

I go to the Job Centre every six months, as it’s government policy, but there’s no point earning less than I get in benefits and forking out for childcare. I feel trapped in the system.”

Leanna, who left school at 16 with no GCSEs, explains: “I never showed up at school. I didn’t take it seriously. Mum was furious, we rowed a lot. So I moved into a hostel and started claiming benefits.”

The following year, Leanna accidentally fell pregnant by her on/off 23-year-old boyfriend.

She recalls: “We’d been seeing each other for a year and didn’t always use protection. I considered a termination, but I wanted my baby.”

Leanna was then allocated a temporary three-bed council home.

When Zelekah was eight months old, she considered working – but accidentally fell pregnant again by the same boyfriend.

She says: “I thought about doing care work, so started volunteering to get experience. But when I had Zakirah, it all stopped. I didn’t want to miss out on my kids’ childhoods or have someone else raise them.

“I’m not one of those girls who gets pregnant for the benefits, though – both my pregnancies were accidents. People may say I should have been more careful, but I think it’s better to be a young mum – you have more energy. The benefits are for my kids, not me.”

Leanna, who split with the girls’ father, was given a new council flat with two bedrooms and a garden, and having two kids meant her benefits increased.

She now claims £1,290 a month, including £430 in child tax credits, £132 child benefit, £444 in rent, £80 to cover council tax and single parent benefit of £180 a month – plus £24 worth of vouchers for free milk and fruit.

Leanna adds: “The people at the Job Centre have actually told me I’m better off on benefits than in a minimum-wage job. It’s the system’s fault. My kids would suffer if I worked. This way, taxpayers know I’m raising two well-brought-up kids.”

Leanna says she has enough money to regularly splash out on her children.

by Anonymousreply 4601/12/2013

Could this Closer publication be linked to the French gossip rag that published the royal titties?

by Anonymousreply 112/11/2012

Anyone who thinks this woman is not entitled to her lifestyle is a freeper fucktard heartless republithug.

by Anonymousreply 212/11/2012

This sounds like something from the Daily Mail. What's the old saying? Give a man a meal, he'll keep coming back for more, teach a man to sell his body, he'll eat well until 35, at least.

by Anonymousreply 312/11/2012

If he's cute and has a big dick, until he's 45!

No, I just saw this on ZeroHedge and had to read the whole thing, and look at the site to make sure it wasn't some parody. Fucked up.

by Anonymousreply 412/11/2012

there is always someone ready to be the worst stereotype, and always some rag that will print it

by Anonymousreply 512/11/2012

Another article from the same mag (rag) and I like it. It's about a "dumpster diver" who gets most her food from bins outside markets. It's sick that they throw this good food away, and that regulations prevent them from donating it to charity.


Natasha is what’s known as a “Freegan” – an anti-consumerist who disagrees with society throwing away useable items.

“It’s not disgusting to eat food from bins,” says the 27-year-old art student, who lives in a shared house with four friends. “It’s disgusting that supermarkets and people are wasting stuff.”

by Anonymousreply 612/11/2012

This is really depressing. I live well below the poverty level and have been looking for full time work for two years. I have a part time, seasonal job that pays the majority of my bills if I live super frugaly -that is, 8 months out of the year. I actually love my job and would like to be hired full time. No benefits, of course. If I have 10 extra to buy honey or something I need in a week, I consider myself lucky.

by Anonymousreply 712/11/2012


That's depressing. These idiots that say "we need more welfare" don't bat an eye when the president says "we need to spend more money on the military" or rake their senator over the coals for voting for bank bailouts or corporate welfare, or leave congress and take 7 figure jobs lobbying for MORE corporate welfare.

Imagine this-

Washington DC is neutered. All the taxes we pay...gone. All the welfare, warfare, social programs...all were returned to each state. Doesn't that sound better?

That's why I HOPE Texas secedes...and that the rest of the states follow.

by Anonymousreply 812/11/2012

If those states could truly think of what succeed actually means for them they wouldn't even try.The confederacy has been romanticized so much, they think they could do without the US.

by Anonymousreply 912/11/2012

I mean all federal taxes are paid to each state, obviously.

by Anonymousreply 1012/11/2012


Why do you think that? There are many "administrative costs" that make the Federal government less efficient than just giving the money to Atlanta, or Birmingham. Look at how much they would save from not subsidizing the banks, or the big businesses, or the wars? Look at how more effective social programs would be if they were administered by people in your hometown?

Look at how much harder it would be for GM, or ADM, or BOA to strong arm a local or state politician than it is in DC.

Decentralization (and the reduced administrative costs) would be in ALL states best interest!

by Anonymousreply 1112/11/2012

I am a believer in welfare to a degree, but this is sick and in the end if benefits nobody. It confirms what people from the UK have been telling me for years.

by Anonymousreply 1212/11/2012


Don't mention the health care in the UK. People here thinks it is wonderful, but never hear the horror stories. And have you seen the teeth?

by Anonymousreply 1312/11/2012

I rather have horrible insurance then not at all.

by Anonymousreply 1412/11/2012

I also don't begrudge anyone that might need assistance, but I really do believe that there are many instances where people can/should either "work" to earn it or be required to get some training/education. (if they obviously don't have disabilities, etc that make it impossible, etc)

Call it $ 20 an hour and say if they get $ 500 a month in assistance, they need to spend 25 hours a month training or going to school. Or 25 hours helping out the elderly or handicapped at nursing homes or something.

by Anonymousreply 1512/11/2012

Something tells me she's getting more than what she's saying - either by selling drugs or other illegal activity. Or her parents are helping as well.

These singular cases distort the awful truth of the 99.9% of the rest on benefits.

Get rid of welfare fraud - absolutely. Get rid of welfare? No.

by Anonymousreply 1612/11/2012

I set money aside each month so I have money at Christmas too. Smart girl.

by Anonymousreply 1712/11/2012

Do welfare recepients in England REALLY live this well? This story sounds like something a very right wing publication would dream up. And would any welfare queen really blab about the luxury she was living in? Wouldn't she want to keep it under wraps so there would be no repercussions? Anyway, the story is highly suspect. It's so over the top it really does seem like a parody of the lazy welfare queen who is rich due to all the wonderful welfare benefits she gets.

by Anonymousreply 1812/11/2012

I actually admire her ability to put cash away for a goal. But I do fault her for perpetuating the idea that your value is determined by the brands you purchase. Her kids should be taught better. Especially since they have the luxury of a stay-at-home mom.

by Anonymousreply 1912/11/2012

I doubt they live that well, but I've been told that the way the system is it's more lucrative for someone, especially a single mother to be on welfare in the UK. The wages suck -plus she will need to pay for childcare. There's not much pressure to get off either.

by Anonymousreply 2012/11/2012

The "Welfare Queen" lives!

This is nothing more than a naked attempt to prime public opinion so they'll accept more austerity cuts in the UK.

by Anonymousreply 2112/11/2012

Luckily, this IS fake!

by Anonymousreply 2212/11/2012

Why do you think it's fake, R22?

by Anonymousreply 2312/11/2012

The math just doesn't add up. This has to be fake.

After her housing is excluded, her benefit is a little under 10,000 pounds a year. Subtract her supposed Christmas, New Years, and birthday parties and you're at 7,000 pounds. She parties with friends 26 times a year spending 100 pounds a night. Now you're down to 4,400 pounds a year. Subtract her annual trip to Canada and you're down to 3,000 pounds a year. Subtract a trip to Tenerife and you're down to 2,000 pounds...

2000 pounds. And you haven't purchased food or clothing let alone the supposed Burberry and designer outfits they wear, or the designer furnishings they have.

This doesn't pass the smell test.

by Anonymousreply 2412/11/2012

The long list of goods and services bought by Members of Parliament as shown during the expenses scandal makes interesting copy too.

by Anonymousreply 2512/11/2012

Most people in the UK who are on benefits are in genuine dire need, and are still struggling to make ends meet. But there are people who play the system and sometimes commit benefit fraud on a massive scale.

The issue of saving up is something else. Legally you are not allowed to have savings over a certain amount, or you lose your benefits. So by saving up this amount, she is committing benefit fraud.

Perhaps I'll be attacked for this, but I have personal experience. I had to go on disability benefits right after I started my final year of post-graduate school, after I was diagnosed with MS. I was forced to drop out (not because of the illness, I was physically capable of completing my course, but the benefits agency made me drop out because you aren't allowed to be in full-time education while receiving benefits, and I really couldn't pay my rent once I wasn't able to work anymore hence having to make that choice). I saved up my benefits money for three years, in order to fund repeating the final year as a part-time student. And yes I did keep the fact I was saving a secret which is technically fraud. But I lived extremely frugally to do so.

So it is possible to save a fair amount of money when you're on benefits, but overall this story seems fairly dubious.

by Anonymousreply 2612/12/2012

[quote]I am a believer in welfare to a degree, but this is sick and in the end if benefits nobody. It confirms what people from the UK have been telling me for years.

Open your eyes: how do you think we have rung up $1.6 trillion in dedbt every year? Welfare is part of it, "disability" another (some get up to 2k a month for "anxiety"), and, as our population ages, those ridiculous pension and retirement promises made to past generations are now an albatross, with many who receive those entitlements taking in more cash than a newly-minted college graduate can even earn at a job, assuming s/he can even get one. All that dead weight will destroy a nation.

{quote]I doubt they live that well, but I've been told that the way the system is it's more lucrative for someone, especially a single mother to be on welfare in the UK.

Ah, but fathers and two-parent households are not necessary! Just a single mother and a government check is all any "modern family" needs. You want that FREEEPER Rick Santorum to gain traction with his silly family-values platform? Come on. Keep those welfare checks coming.

Romney was right: sooner or later, the "makers" in this society are going to cut off the gravy train for the "takers," and to those who talk about military spending, I would include them as well as what we waste on higher education for those idiots who made it impossible for the smart kids (us) to learn in school.

It costs a lot of money to prop up the fallacy that the most popular kid in class is also the smartest one in the room.

by Anonymousreply 2712/12/2012

There is a period of time where, with children under three, you need full time childcare. In this case it is probably better that you are on benefits if you can only earn minimum wage. The minimum wage for under 21s is less than if you are older. Once you get free nursery places then working with top up from tax credits is definitely an option. This woman is a combination of very young with very young children. After the rent is paid she is left with around £200 per week which isn't a lot by the time utilities and food are bought. She will be living very frugally or is operating in the black economy if she is managing to save what she does.

by Anonymousreply 2812/12/2012


I can live just fine on 200 pounds a week (about $300).

When I hear people talking like it's impossible to do this, I realize why America is going bankrupt. I see unionized teachers who earn 51k a year with a summer vacation saying with a straight face that they couldn't survive a 25 percent pay cut. What will they do when the REAL crisis hits?

The only difference is that I was forced to learn how to live on low money becuase I was a blacklisted whistleblower, not becuase the economy crashed, so I had a twenty-year head start on "austerity." I still remember all the advice I got from the arrogant "99 percent" who at the time were what we now call the "one percent."

Ironicially, by being forced off the poisoned economic grid years ago, I began building a much mnore financially stable existence, in a way people now are only beginning to understand needs to be done for themselves. They had no problem when it was me who did htis, so they should do it for themselves.

The other nice thing about having to rebuild is that once times got good again, I wasn't fooled by those who preteneded to be decent, and wanted me (back) in their lives. That's a lesson most who read this may never learn, or if they do, will learn when it's too late.

by Anonymousreply 2912/12/2012

[quote]When I hear people talking like it's impossible to do this, I realize why America is going bankrupt.

You also get additional stuff with your 200 quid. Like a functioning universal health care system (problems or no, I'd trade our system for yours in a heartbeat), a transportation system that doesn't necessarily require ownership of a car, a lack of crippling student debt...

by Anonymousreply 3012/12/2012

R29 is Da vi da - Ro ch el le, right? Paranoid delusions about being a blacklisted whistle blower.

by Anonymousreply 3112/12/2012

[quote]I wish this was fake

Oh, the subjunctive, dear.

by Anonymousreply 3212/12/2012

OP, the U.K. Is the dirty, un-wiped asshole of the world. Literally two-thirds are on the public dole. At least in the States they've had welfare reform and even France has tightened up their system. Once again, the UK is going backwards while everyone else moves ahead.

by Anonymousreply 3312/12/2012

Let us look at the real problem. Wages so low that one cannot afford both rent and food.

...and the real solution: UNIONS.

by Anonymousreply 3412/12/2012

I think we need more welfare. We've automated so much that most jobs are pointless and unnecessary. People should be given enough food to eat and a warm place to live with electricity and running water and a few new clothes each season and have plenty of time to make art.

by Anonymousreply 3512/12/2012

And of course the deranged anti-Brit troll pops up.

No, dear, "literally" two thirds of Brits are not on the dole. There are currently 1.6 million people in Britain claiming unemployment benefit (the dole), per official figures released in February of this year. Considering the UK population is 62 million, that's hardly close to two thirds of the population.

by Anonymousreply 3612/12/2012

I see no reason why people who are on government benefits (anywhere) shouldn't be required to work and depending on their work income receive a reduced monthly benefit. A minimum level of income should be set for each household. Clearly if a job pays them less than they're getting in government benefits they should still receive some amount of government payments. But if their after tax work income meets the minimum set for their particular family makeup they should be removed from benefits.

by Anonymousreply 3712/12/2012

I agree that the main problem is low wages and this goes for North America too.

by Anonymousreply 3812/12/2012

[quote]her daughters Zelekah, two, and Zakirah, one.


by Anonymousreply 3912/12/2012

Sounds like the British version of Reagan's American welfare queen lie.

by Anonymousreply 4012/12/2012

I'm surprised she doesn't have a Cadillac. Or I guess an Evoque.

by Anonymousreply 4112/12/2012


Who pays for that health care? Not her, but productive members of society.

by Anonymousreply 4212/12/2012

Yes, let's cut off her head and parade it on a stick! She is what is costing the economy!

Meanwhile, unbridled capitalism hoarded all the money in offshore accounts.

by Anonymousreply 4312/13/2012

R31, interesting thought.

by Anonymousreply 4412/13/2012

R43, she is an example of what happens when "welfare" becomes a way of life.

by Anonymousreply 4512/13/2012

Credit expansion is the governments foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."

This first stage of the inflationary process may last for many years. While it lasts, the prices of many goods and services are not yet adjusted to the altered money relation. There are still people in the country who have not yet become aware of the fact that they are confronted with a price revolution which will finally result in a considerable rise of all prices, although the extent of this rise will not be the same in the various commodities and services. These people still believe that prices one day will drop. Waiting for this day, they restrict their purchases and concomitantly increase their cash holdings. As long as such ideas are still held by public opinion, it is not yet too late for the government to abandon its inflationary policy.

But then, finally, the masses wake up. They become suddenly aware of the fact that inflation is a deliberate policy and will go on endlessly. A breakdown occurs. The crack-up boom appears. Everybody is anxious to swap his money against 'real' goods, no matter whether he needs them or not, no matter how much money he has to pay for them. Within a very short time, within a few weeks or even days, the things which were used as money are no longer used as media of exchange. They become scrap paper. Nobody wants to give away anything against them.

It was this that happened with the Continental currency in America in 1781, with the French mandats territoriaux in 1796, and with the German mark in 1923. It will happen again whenever the same conditions appear. If a thing has to be used as a medium of exchange, public opinion must not believe that the quantity of this thing will increase beyond all bounds. Inflation is a policy that cannot last.

by Anonymousreply 4601/12/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!