**MOD NOTE UPDATED**Limerick woman complains about living in 3 bed house with 4 kids

LimGal

The King of Moo wrote: »

Brilliant response, and the rolleyes are the icing on the cake!

Anyway, back to the matter at hand.

Can you link to the facts behind your assertion about a person you don't know?

It dosent take a genius to work out what she is at.You want to ask for facts that we both know are impossible to get....she is hardly going to come out and say she had two kids to get a bigger house but its pretty clear to me and probably most of the other posters on this thread goin by the general outrage what she is at.If you want to bury your head in the sand then be my guest mate:rolleyes:

I chose to live in the real world.;)

token101

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Fair point.
That's the hard bit. Some people are just not amenable to disincentives.

I know of a person who had 7 children and she only managed to hang onto them for a couple of months - every single one was taken into care.

Granted that's probably a rare enough case but still..

But still? It's not a rare case nationally. I know of a similar-ish story, I'd say everyone does. If people knew that regardless of how often you get pregnant your council allocated house won't change would they go ahead and have more kids? Particularly knowing they have an out in abortion? I'd be willing to bet some would think twice. People are missing the point really. You can take away all the vile insults and the bile and what you still have is this: a woman who has the bare essentials, which is fair and right, but what welfare should be in the opinion of most reasonable people. Now she is looking for more because of the choices she made. And that has to be paid for by society. Now the amount is negligible, granted. But the principle is the same as if it was 1 or 100,000. It amounts to people who are already provided for wanting more from those who provide it, and feeling entitled to it. That's the worst part. So whereabouts is the cut off point and why should people have to keep on giving more and more? Now if the house is unsafe, fix it, fair enough, you'll get no arguments from most reasonable people. But an upgrade because she had more kids? No.

Irish Wolf

whatdoicare wrote: »

Well, I do know her personally - I grew up with her. I see her almost weekly. She told me all this herself. She even announced recently that her mother officially adopted one of the children so that she could get an extra carers allowance. She is also planning to be pregnant again by next Christmas at the latest.

Wow, that's ridic... What did the SW say when you reported her?

The King of Moo

whatdoicare wrote: »

In fairness the figures you gave me there previously didn't back you up at all - I actually though the figure would be much lower.

In 2002, there were roughly 30,000 single mothers, out of a population of about 4,000,000.

That's 0.75% of the population, and that's all single mothers, not just dole scroungers.

Do you really think that's so much?

Originally posted by LimGal
It is dosent take a genius to work out what she is at.You want to ask for facts that we both know are impossible to get....she is hardly going to come out and say she had two kids to get bigger house but its pretty clear to me and probably most of the other posters on this thread goin by the general outrage what she is at.If you want to bury your head in the sand then be my guest mate

I chose to live in the real world.

I choose to deal with facts and not make assumptions about people I know nothing about.

token101

Irish Wolf wrote: »

Wow, that's ridic... What did the SW say when you reported her?

I'm going to guess '**** all'?

LimGal

token101 wrote: »

But still? It's not a rare case nationally. I know of a similar-ish story, I'd say everyone does. If people knew that regardless of how often you get pregnant your council allocated house won't change would they go ahead and have more kids? Particularly knowing they have an out in abortion? I'd be willing to bet some would think twice. People are missing the point really. You can take away all the vile insults and the bile and what you still have is this: a woman who has the bare essentials, which is fair and right, but what welfare should be in the opinion of most reasonable people. Now she is looking for more because of the choices she made. And that has to be paid for by society. Now the amount is negligible, granted. But the principle is the same as if it was 1 or 100,000. It amounts to people who are already provided for wanting more from those who provide it, and feeling entitled to it. That's the worst part. So whereabouts is the cut off point and why should people have to keep on giving more and more? Now if the house is unsafe, fix it, fair enough, you'll get no arguments from most reasonable people. But an upgrade because she had more kids? No.

^^this times 100000

token101

The King of Moo wrote: »

In 2002, there were roughly 30,000 single mothers, out of a population of about 4,000,000.

That's 0.75% of the population, and that's all single mothers, not just dole scroungers.

Do you really think that's so much?

But isn't the principle the same regardless?

whatdoicare

Irish Wolf wrote: »

Wow, that's ridic... What did the SW say when you reported her?

Like I said before, my cousin works for social services. She knows all about her but she is still entitled to everything. What she's doing is not against the law - no man is living there, she doesn't have an extra income etc. etc. They can't prove she did or didn't plan anything.

lividduck

whatdoicare wrote: »

Well, I do know her personally - I grew up with her. I see her almost weekly. She told me all this herself. She even announced recently that her mother officially adopted one of the children so that she could get an extra carers allowance. She is also planning to be pregnant again by next Christmas at the latest.

reports says she is married, a married couple cannot have their children adopted!

Temptamperu

The King of Moo wrote: »

In 2002, there were roughly 30,000 single mothers, out of a population of about 4,000,000.

That's 0.75% of the population, and that's all single mothers, not just dole scroungers.

Do you really think that's so much?



I choose to deal with facts and not make assumptions about people I know nothing about.

in holy catholic Ireland far too much considering their views. :pac:

mikom

Maximilian Flaky Nose wrote: »

i am not conviced that giving this woman a house fit to live in is a worse use of my taxes than the 125,000 carpet cork county council just put in their offices.

Both involved quite a lot of underlay, that's for certain.

Daisy M

lividduck wrote: »

reports says she is married, a married couple cannot have their children adopted!

Whatdoicare was speaking about a woman she knows not serinna.

banie01

lividduck wrote: »

reports says she is married, a married couple cannot have their children adopted!

Whatdoicare is talking about another totally seperate person they know.

whatdoicare

nevermind - read that wrong

gurramok

Maximilian Flaky Nose wrote: »

The statistics on this forum show how much of a small minority she actually is the general anger towards her would again in imo be better directed at the actual scum ( the bankers are morally corrupt polictitions) who have got us into this mess in the first place .

The careerists on welfare were always there before the other lot of scum(bankers) torpedoed us. The welfare scroungers cost money and it really irks hard working people to see this section of society not work a day in their lives and yet get free housing just because they have kids.

Notice the similarity between the scroungers and the Killiney landlord couple? Both have that sense of entitlement they they are above everyone else, expecting freebies without working for it.

And before the extreme leftist Occupy Dame St brigade rows in defending these types, on welfare i'm talking about the minority of those on welfare, not those who are genuinely seeking work.

The King of Moo

token101 wrote: »

But isn't the principle the same regardless?

It's the disproportionate reactions I take issue with.

Saying "I think people shouldn't have a sense of entitlement and expect the state to provide them with a very comfortable life, but luckily there's very few people like that" seems reasonable.

Poster after poster calling for a woman to be sterilised, have her vagina sewn up and to be banned from having any more children is ridiculous.

It just strongly suggests to me that people prefer to make up extreme cases to get angry about, because the real issues are more difficult and complex.

I also fear that people prefer to go after vulnerable targets without any social or political power, or any kind of platform.

Chuck Stone

token101 wrote: »

If people knew that regardless of how often you get pregnant your council allocated house won't change would they go ahead and have more kids?

I'm not sure tbh. I suggested in another thread that council houses should probably only be three bedrooms and no more (except maybe for exceptional circumstances like disabled kids or caring for ill parents) but I'm not sure how effective that would be.

Now she is looking for more because of the choices she made. And that has to be paid for by society.

I don't think anyone is denying that there are people who have a distorted sense of entitlement

Now if the house is unsafe, fix it, fair enough, you'll get no arguments from most reasonable people. But an upgrade because she had more kids? No.

Is that not just a product of the system we have currently though? That's why I was wondering if there are any good solutions that don't punish the most innocent in the equation i.e. the nippers.

whatdoicare

The King of Moo wrote: »

In 2002, there were roughly 30,000 single mothers, out of a population of about 4,000,000.

You originally quoted me 78,031 single mothers. Yes that's too much.

Irish Wolf

whatdoicare wrote: »

Like I said before, my cousin works for social services. She knows all about her but she is still entitled to everything. What she's doing is not against the law - no man is living there, she doesn't have an extra income etc. etc. They can't prove she did or didn't plan anything.

Wow, I would have at least thought SW would have interviewed you to get everything on record, after you reported her.

lividduck

Daisy M wrote: »

Whatdoicare was speaking about a woman she knows not serinna.

apoligies:o

Daisy M

The King of Moo wrote: »

I choose to deal with facts and not make assumptions about people I know nothing about.

There is a difference between making presumptions and forming an opinion on the facts presented. This woman choose to do an interview to highlight what she deems to be her plight. It was her business to make sure she was fairly represented and her story told in the manner she wanted it to be.

whatdoicare

Irish Wolf wrote: »

Wow, I would have at least thought SW would have interviewed you to get everything on record, after you reported her.

Why would they? What she's doing isn't against the rules.

Irish Wolf

whatdoicare wrote: »

Why would they? What she's doing isn't against the rules.

Ah sure, that's grand so.

Remind me what your point was in bringing her into the discussion?

howamidifferent

The King of Moo wrote: »

I also fear that people prefer to go after vulnerable targets without any social or political power, or any kind of platform.

Your taking the p1ss right?
These are the people with all the power...
What day goes by when we don't hear some politician shouting about "the most vulnerable" , whether it be OAPs or people on social walfare....:mad:

whatdoicare

Irish Wolf wrote: »

Ah sure, that's grand so.

Remind me what your point was in bringing her into the discussion?

Sure if you read back there through the pages that'll save me having to type it all out again for you.

munstergirl

Hope the council fix the problems in her house.

Easy way for government to stop 'career' living on welfare. Stop childrens allowance at child number 2. Stop child benefit at child number 2. Have as many kids as you want but pay for them yourself.

We are living in a country where the more kids you have the more money you get, have 1 kid get a flat, have 2, get a house, have more demand a bigger house.

For last 5 weeks an unemployed father of 8 in limerick was picketing council office to demand bigger house.
Council met him last week.

arse..biscuits

up for anything wrote: »

arse..biscuits wrote: »

I went to work there thinking I would feel good for helping people but I left after a few months because of the attitude of the people there.

Probably the worst and most naive reason for doing voluntary work. Most people don't use voluntary work to make themselves feel good. They do it because they want to help people and not to prop up their self-esteem. :rolleyes:

s.

And how do you feel when you help people?

Normally when you help someone, they thank you and you come away feeling like you have done some good.

Prop up my self asteem? Get a grip of yourself

The King of Moo

whatdoicare wrote: »

You originally quoted me 78,031 single mothers. Yes that's too much.

I didn't. That number refers to claimants of One Parent Family Allowance, including divorced couples and spouses of prisoners.

There were 30,000 single mothers back then, some of whom were claiming, some of whom weren't; some of whom were working, some of whom weren't.

Is that still too many?

Would one single mother be too many?

Daisy M wrote: »

There is a difference between making presumptions and forming an opinion on the facts presented. This woman choose to do an interview to highlight what she deems to be her plight. It was her business to make sure she was fairly represented and her story told in the manner she wanted it to be.

What facts are people forming an opinion on?

LimGal, for example, asserts that she deliberately had two children simply to be moved to a larger house.

Can you quote me the part of the article upon which he based this assertion?

Originally posted by howamidifferent
Your taking the p1ss right?
These are the people with all the power...
What day goes by when we don't hear some politician shouting about "the most vulnerable" , whether it be OAPs or people on social walfare....

And what day goes by when anything substantial is done for such people?
The One Parent Family Allowance has been severely cut, and single parents suffer disproportionately from poverty.

LimGal

The King of Moo wrote: »

It's the disproportionate reactions I take issue with.

Saying "I think people shouldn't have a sense of entitlement and expect the state to provide them with a very comfortable life, but luckily there's very few people like that" seems reasonable.

Poster after poster calling for a woman to be sterilised, have her vagina sewn up and to be banned from having any more children is ridiculous.

It just strongly suggests to me that people prefer to make up extreme cases to get angry about, because the real issues are more difficult and complex.

I also fear that people prefer to go after vulnerable targets without any social or political power, or any kind of platform.

Jaysus now she is vulnerable.I would like to think that the homeless,abuse victims,orphans etc are the vulnerable type in our society.Not the type with this sense of entitlement that is pretty sickening and very out of touch with the times we are living in.She is lucky to have a home unlike some people who have lost theirs in the last few years.

token101

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm not sure tbh. I suggested in another thread that council houses should probably only be three bedrooms and no more (except maybe for exceptional circumstances like disabled kids or caring for ill parents) but I'm not sure how effective that would be.

I don't think anyone is denying that there are people who have a distorted sense of entitlement

To be fair when you read stories like this, it's indisputable. A three bedroomed house is fine for 99% of families. And fair enough, I'd say give it to them. but for instance, if say you had a mother and one child, 2 bedrooms is enough. Lots of people, me included, shared rooms as kids. 3 to a room? Cramped, but that's welfare. It's not meant to be a lifestyle. How many families have more than 6 kids before they enter SW housing? Not an awful lot. You have more kids after that? Do what everyone does, build on with your own money or move. But pay for it yourself either way. You don't get upgrades for more children. That creates entitlement.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Is that not just a product of the system we have currently though? That's why I was wondering if there are any good solutions that don't punish the most innocent in the equation i.e. the nippers.

Well I wouldn't want to be part of a society that willingly allows children to stay somewhere totally and utterly unsafe. I know it happens, but I'd say, or hope at least, it's not willingly done. But I equally don't want to be part of any society that decides that just because she has more children she gets privileges in welfare. It sets a bad precedent and, more importantly, I think it's a slap in the face to responsible people who make rational, informed choices. And for me there's a wide gulf between these two situations. Fix her house so it's inhabitable, but a new house with more bedrooms? F*** off now in fairness.

LimGal

The King of Moo wrote: »

In 2002, there were roughly 30,000 single mothers, out of a population of about 4,000,000.

That's 0.75% of the population, and that's all single mothers, not just dole scroungers.

Do you really think that's so much?



I choose to deal with facts and not make assumptions about people I know nothing about.

Let me know what its like living with your head in the sand.

whatdoicare

The King of Moo wrote: »

I didn't. That number refers to claimants of One Parent Family Allowance, including divorced couples and spouses of prisoners.

There were 30,000 single mothers back then, some of whom were claiming, some of whom weren't; some of whom were working, some of whom weren't.

Is that still too many?

Would one single mother be too many?

What are the figures for 2011/2012? Why are you giving me numbers from 2002? You originally quoted me those numbers to prove that there are very few numbers with five children - I told you that it was very high, much higher than I had originally thought - it still is - 30,000 is a high number of single parents if they are claiming social housing, 78,000 is also way too much.

token101

The King of Moo wrote: »

It's the disproportionate reactions I take issue with.

Saying "I think people shouldn't have a sense of entitlement and expect the state to provide them with a very comfortable life, but luckily there's very few people like that" seems reasonable.

Poster after poster calling for a woman to be sterilised, have her vagina sewn up and to be banned from having any more children is ridiculous.

It just strongly suggests to me that people prefer to make up extreme cases to get angry about, because the real issues are more difficult and complex.

I also fear that people prefer to go after vulnerable targets without any social or political power, or any kind of platform.

It shouldn't matter how many there are. If there's one person who feels they are entitled to things that most know are irrational, it should be highlighted and stamped out. Leaving it go sets precedents and creates a wider sense of entitlement. The real issue isn't very complex, and people see that. This woman has the basics and wants more. And th reason she wants more is because of choices she made. And people feel the answer should be no. That's quite simple. You can dress it up with circumstances, but ultimately all of that should be irrelevant if it's an equal society we're after.

As for being attacked and somehow being a victim in this? Well, this woman chose to do this interview, much she largely chose these circumstances. I doubt she needed much coaxing for the article. She probably felt it would highlight her case. Which just goes to show the inflated sense of entitlement.

The King of Moo

LimGal wrote: »

Jaysus now she is vulnerable.I would like to think that the homeless,abuse victims,orphans etc are the vulnerable type in our society.Not the type with this sense of entitlement that is pretty sickening and very out of touch with the times we are living in.She is lucky to have a home unlike some people who have lost theirs in the last few years.

I said all single parents suffer disproportionately from poverty, not one particular single mother. I don't know about her situation. I just know she seems to be living in substandard housing.

So, are you saying that all single parents are dole scroungers?
That no single parents live in poverty?

LimGal wrote: »

Let me know what its like living with your head in the sand.

This place has really gone to the dogs when the people who provide facts and figures, and don't jump to conclusions about situations they have little knowledge of, have their heads in their sands.

But obviously I'm wrong, despite my figures.
Your expert use of the rolleyes smiley has shown me that.

But tell me, you're better informed about this issue than I am: can you give me a rough idea of how many dole-scrounging single mothers there are in this country? To the nearest 5,000 would be satisfactory.
Please also explain to me what you're basing your number on.

Logical Fallacy

Daisy M wrote: »

Well she has a facebook page promoting her cause surely she would have put them up? The naievity of some posters astounds me, everything about the interview points to this woman been a scrounger who is trying to further her cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

Questioning something is not naievity, it's questioning something.

Until you lose the instant need to mildly discredit anyone you don't perceive as instantly agreeing with you you shall be speaking to the converted, which is a small audience in any AH thread tbh.

mikom

Anyone got a link to her facebook campaign page?
The limerick leader, the fine chip wrapper that it is, forgot to add it.
They don't even give her surname.

LimGal

The King of Moo wrote: »

I said all single parents suffer disproportionately from poverty, not one particular single mother. I don't know about her situation. I just know she seems to be living in substandard housing.

So, are you saying that all single parents are dole scroungers?
That no single parents live in poverty?




This place has really gone to the dogs when the people who provide facts and figures, and don't jump to conclusions about situations they have little knowledge of, have their heads in their sands.

But obviously I'm wrong, despite my figures.
Your expert use of the rolleyes smiley has shown me that.

But tell me, you're better informed about this issue than I am: can you give me a rough idea of how many dole-scrounging single mothers there are in this country? To the nearest 5,000 would be satisfactory.
Please also explain to me what you're basing your number on.

I think whatdoicare already called you out on stats you produced earlier.;):rolleyes:

The King of Moo

whatdoicare wrote: »

What are the figures for 2011/2012? Why are you giving me numbers from 2002? You originally quoted me those numbers to prove that there are very few numbers with five children - I told you that it was very high, much higher than I had originally thought - it still is - 30,000 is a high number of single parents if they are claiming social housing, 78,000 is also way too much.

So please tell me what to do to reduce that number. Reduce divorce numbers somehow? Replace custodial sentences with community service so fewer parents are sent to prison?

I already explained that the figures from the latest census are due in september, but the preliminary figures don't show any major change.

Finally, I never said all those 30,000 single mothers were claiming social housing.
That number is the entire population of single mothers in Ireland at the time, including plenty of people who were renting or owned their own houses.

Originally posted by LimGal
I think whatdoicare already called you out on stats you produced earlier.

She didn't.

Now come on, give me an estimate, and show your work.

Dan133269

cloud493 wrote: »

If there was smoke coming into the kids bedrooms, and a danger of carbon monoxide poisoning, why the **** did she stay anyway?!

I'm pretty sure she's full of **** on that point too. If there was a real danger of carbon monoxide poisoning, I'm sure her ilk would have no hesitation taking the corporation to court for negligence and a nice pay day for her.

golden lane

putting thing into proper perspective........the goverment/eu may pass laws/ rules, saying that she is entitled to be kept, and the father/s of her children are allowed to pay nothing..............

what laws should make working people take food etc out of their own childrens/families mouth's to pay for it........against their wishes.......that law can only be classed as archaic and draconion....

whatdoicare

The King of Moo wrote: »

So please tell me what to do to reduce that number. Reduce divorce numbers somehow? Replace custodial sentences with community service so fewer parents are sent to prison?

I already explained that the figures from the latest census are due in september, but the preliminary figures don't show any major change.

Finally, I never said all those 30,000 single mothers were claiming social housing.
That number is the entire population of single mothers in Ireland at the time, including plenty of people who were renting or owned their own houses.

Your figures are going around in circles and the meanings change to suit yourself - I think you know you're talking nonsense and now you're trying to justify it by pretending that the numbers are insignificant.

Like I said earlier - you're clutching at straws.

The King of Moo

whatdoicare wrote: »

Your figures are going around in circles and the meanings change to suit yourself - I think you know you're talking nonsense and now you're trying to justify it by pretending that the numbers are insignificant.

Like I said earlier - you're clutching at straws.

They're not. They're entirely consistent.

You're misappropriating them, either deliberately, or through not remembering them correctly.

I suspect you don't like the fact that the facts don't agree with your opinion.

Irish Wolf

whatdoicare wrote: »

Sure if you read back there through the pages that'll save me having to type it all out again for you.

Ah yeah, I read the thread, granted I might have skimmed a few posts.

Sure, if the woman you, your SW working cousin, and the SW officers you reported her to (presuming you did report her), who imo is defrauding the system, is doing nothing against the rules according to the SW officers, I don't see what the problem is with the woman referred to in the OP - sure she's not doing anything against the rules. Unless there's some fresh news.

The rage might be better directed at the system.

whatdoicare

Irish Wolf wrote: »

Ah yeah, I read the thread, granted I might have skimmed a few posts.

Sure, if the woman you, your SW working cousin, and the SW officers you reported her to (presuming you did report her), who imo is defrauding the system, is doing nothing against the rules according to the SW officers, I don't see what the problem is with the woman referred to in the OP - sure she's not doing anything against the rules. Unless there's some fresh news.

The rage might be better directed at the system.

I am angry at the system - if you read my posts you would understand that! I even said it in my original post.

The King of Moo

token101 wrote: »

It shouldn't matter how many there are. If there's one person who feels they are entitled to things that most know are irrational, it should be highlighted and stamped out. Leaving it go sets precedents and creates a wider sense of entitlement. The real issue isn't very complex, and people see that. This woman has the basics and wants more. And th reason she wants more is because of choices she made. And people feel the answer should be no. That's quite simple. You can dress it up with circumstances, but ultimately all of that should be irrelevant if it's an equal society we're after.

As for being attacked and somehow being a victim in this? Well, this woman chose to do this interview, much she largely chose these circumstances. I doubt she needed much coaxing for the article. She probably felt it would highlight her case. Which just goes to show the inflated sense of entitlement.

Like I said, I do think the numbers matter when the reaction is so disproportionate and hate-filled.

It's wrong that people treat the system so, but not many people do and it doesn't cost us all much.

As for choosing to do the interview; that's true.

As for her having a sense of entitlement: we don't know it that's true.

So either she does just greedily want a bigger house, or else she is genuinely trying to draw attention to the issue of substandard housing in the area.

I don't have all the facts about her so I can't say for sure which she's doing.

redarmy

mikom wrote: »

Anyone got a link to her facebook campaign page?
The limerick leader, the fine chip wrapper that it is, forgot to add it.
They don't even give her surname.

its there

LimGal

The King of Moo wrote: »

So please tell me what to do to reduce that number. Reduce divorce numbers somehow? Replace custodial sentences with community service so fewer parents are sent to prison?

I already explained that the figures from the latest census are due in september, but the preliminary figures don't show any major change.

Finally, I never said all those 30,000 single mothers were claiming social housing.
That number is the entire population of single mothers in Ireland at the time, including plenty of people who were renting or owned their own houses.



He didn't.

Now come one, give me an estimate, and show your work.

Please show my post where I said I had ''work'' as you put it regarding single mothers??

I called it as I saw it and still see it regarding this person in the article.

If you want to go off and be some white knight on a crusade for all the poor single mothers that receive houses and benefits off you go mate.

I never claimed to be an authority on SW and single mothers but I have been around long enough to see the lenghts quite alot of them will go to get everything they feel they are entitled to ie having more kids to get bigger and better accomadation.

You might think you are doing society a favour for standing up for people like her but you are not.

mikom

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikom
Anyone got a link to her facebook campaign page?
The limerick leader, the fine chip wrapper that it is, forgot to add it.
They don't even give her surname.

redarmy wrote: »

its there

Maybe I'm going blind but I don't see either of them.....
Don't leave me hangin'

solerina

stoneill wrote: »

The house is not habitable - it should be.

My brother works for our local council....and I can guarantee you that before any tenant moves into a local authority house that the house is habitable....so if she has problems with the house its because she caused those problems.
She is exactly whats wrong with our country, expecting to be given everything for free.

The King of Moo

LimGal wrote: »

Please show my post where I said I had ''work'' as you put it regarding single mothers??

I called it as I saw it and still see it regarding this person in the article.

If you want to go off and be some white knight on a crusade for all the poor single mothers that receive houses and benefits off you go mate.

I never claimed to be an authority on SW and single mothers but I have been around long enough to see the lenghts quite alot of them will go to get everything they feel they are entitled to ie having more kids to get bigger and better accomadation.

You might think you are doing society a favour for standing up for people like her but you are not.

You're making assumptions. I'm not on a crusade. I don't like unfounded accusations against people, and I don't like horrible insults levelled at people.
I also hate when people get ridiculously angry about imaginary problems.

So I look to the facts, to see if they match what the majority are saying about single mothers. I find that they do not. So I post them as they're relevant, surely, to a "discussion" about single mothers.

I don't really see that as a crusade, except perhaps one for common sense and critical thinking.

And I'm always going to put more stock in official facts and figures than in someone who admits to not being an authority on either single mothers or social welfare.
That seems like such basic common sense I feel it ought hardly need to be stated.