amateur Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Apparently there is no appropriate school close to where she lives (the article implied "government cuts"), so, as Vince Green, above, writes, Ms Price's council is obliged to transport Master Price, whatever the family circumstance Edited January 30, 2015 by amateur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaymo Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Although it can be argued that as she has a personal wealth thst far exceeds ours I do beleive that Harvey is entitled to this service being offered. But it would be nice if she refused the assistance Like bus passes for senior citizens and the winter fuel payments etc- why should these be means tested- an opt out clause should be provided for those who feel they dont need it Jay ( not a multi millionaire) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Not saying I agree, but that's the government and benefits policy of this country, free nhs etc etc ALL disabled children are entitled to this, shall we start discriminating against another group of individuals?? Tbh who cares? Atb Flynny +1 especially who cares - she has no moral hangups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbietherimmer Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 It's been bantered around the tabloids the last couple of days so what do you think folks, apart from her being a total waste of space. Should someone who's worth over 40 million be funded by the tax payer to have her son taken to school every day at the cost of a grand a day I believe? why not - she`ll pay millions in taxes and the poor lad is deserving as it as a kid from a pair of spongers who pay no taxes/NI and claim for housing/food etc etc. like her or hate her; I admire her for amassing such a fortune and her don't give a **** attitude. If folk didn't buy The Sun or The Star then she`d soon disappear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 She has done well to amass her personal fortune and I can't see that she has caused any harm to anyone whilst doing so. Despite the hysterical outrage of some, I also think that her "moral failings" have hurt no one. She is only claiming her legal entitlement and there is no doubt she has paid vast sums of tax (and still is), which is more than some on benefits have. Does the argument that she can afford it and therefore shouldn't claim extend to all those that can afford not to claim their allowances ? Like childrens allowance, old age pension, cold weather allowance, etc . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Everyone pays tax, so should be entitled to the same services from the state as any other tax payer. If she was a non-dom tax dodger, i'd agree, she should pay. As far as I know, she isn't. This idea that because you have more money, and pay more tax, that you should less entitled to get anything back for you tax or become a lesser citizen is ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 It's been bantered around the tabloids the last couple of days so what do you think folks, apart from her being a total waste of space. Should someone who's worth over 40 million be funded by the tax payer to have her son taken to school every day at the cost of a grand a day I believe? A local GP and his wife, whom is also a GP but not in our practice, have 5 children and claim everything they're entitled to for them, simply because they are entitled. They pay into the system which allows this, so why not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) A local GP and his wife, whom is also a GP but not in our practice, have 5 children and claim everything they're entitled to for them, simply because they are entitled. They pay into the system which allows this, so why not. That infuriates me far, far less than someone leeching the system whilst not paying a dot of tax. Edited January 30, 2015 by kyska Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
100milesaway Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Apparently the childs original school was only three quarters of an hour away from her home but this has now been closed down ,by which ever council ran it and the nearest next one to her house is 2 hours drive away.I'm not on her side but she still remains entitled to it. from Auntie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Shes coughed up a fair bit of wedge for the UK coffers over the years. I have to respect her for that much like Cowell (who i am not a fan of by any means). Were I in her position i would claim every penny too. HMRC has multiple bites of the same apple over the lifetime of a tax payer, its nice if you can grab a bit back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Why doesn't she get her whams out any more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjh Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 this issue would be best settled by Frankie Boyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Shes coughed up a fair bit of wedge for the UK coffers over the years. I have to respect her for that much like Cowell (who i am not a fan of by any means). Were I in her position i would claim every penny too. HMRC has multiple bites of the same apple over the lifetime of a tax payer, its nice if you can grab a bit back. Agree The inheritance tax on a worth of £45,000,000 alone is more than most will pay in many lifetimes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Thinking about this, the normal 'benefit hounds' that get onto these threads make me laugh. A rich person claiming benefit for her child, outrageous, non workers claiming benefits, outrageous, so only the middle class are allowed to claim, what a wonky philosophy. Thinking deeper, being a philosopher diploma holder (get me), I reckon that the transport her lad gets is probably part of his life, that he is also picked up with his peers, and it's part of his social web. No matter what people say, I don't doubt for a minute that Ms Price has helped her boys school out an awful amount, I may be wrong, and if I am, she's a complete bitch, and I'll send my diploma back to the OU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Why doesn't she get her whams out any more?Did she ever? I thought they were always restrained. I remember finding out Jo Guest did full nude in a mag about 20 years ago, I still have physiotherapy for the furiously self inflicted injuries now. Edited January 30, 2015 by kyska Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ack-ack Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Did she ever? I thought they were always restrained. . Hell yeah!! I was admitted for chronic RSI after she appeared in loaded in 95. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Not got a lot of time for her, but she dotes on the lad. She pays a fair bit of tax and claims what she is entitled to do. Don't blame her for the rules. She probably pays more into the public purse than the professional Scot - Sean Connery, but he seems to have achieved Sainthood, whereas she gets slated. Total double standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Hell yeah!! I was admitted for chronic RSI after she appeared in loaded in 95. I'm going to google this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moose man Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Say what you want of the girl , but the amount she pays in tax entitles her to the same treatment as every one else , not to mention the fact she earns her money here , pays her tax here & continues to live here instead of moving to a cheaper tax destination .The girl made a fabulous living from what she had , no sponging of a fella .Recon her tax bill pays for loads of taxis for those in need .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Not got a lot of time for her, but she dotes on the lad. She pays a fair bit of tax and claims what she is entitled to do. Don't blame her for the rules. She probably pays more into the public purse than the professional Scot - Sean Connery, but he seems to have achieved Sainthood, whereas she gets slated. Total double standards. is the right answer KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeds chimp Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Many of the forum members on here seem to like and be big fans of 'Dave' and his policies who is constantly telling is all how benefit claimants are the cause of all this countries problems yet with an estimated personal wealth of £30,000,000 and 6 homes not to mention his taxpayer funded chauffeur driven Jaguars and armed police bodyguards he also claimed the same Disability Living allowance benefit for his son as Katie Price does, now that's Tory hypocrisy at its very best for you Dare i say "Vile man" ? To echo Fisherman Mikes view of Jordan? exactly :good: Councils have a legal responsibility to transport all disabled kids and special needs kids to and from school. They have to do it, there is no leeway for negotiation. In some cases its totally appropriate, in other cases its an unbelieveable waste of money. Its the law, nothing to do with how much money the parents have or haven't got. I would rather my tax goes to him that some benefit dosser spending it on 20 B&H and 2 litres of white lighting ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scobydog Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 is the right answer KW +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddy Galore! Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 i'll take the kid to school for her, it won't cost anyone a penny, she can pay me in kind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuji Shooter Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 I would imagine a large portion of that cost might be extra security. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88b Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Did she ever? I thought they were always restrained. I remember finding out Jo Guest did full nude in a mag about 20 years ago, I still have physiotherapy for the furiously self inflicted injuries now. I've still got I think July 98 of some Calendar with Jo Guest on it hanging in my garage. Apart from the picture of Ms Guest I keep it because my supervisor threw it in the bin, then HR made him retrieve it and hand it to me . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.