Jump to content

Jobless couple with 12 kids are given a £500,000 home


Recommended Posts

It's the type of highly-desirable family home that is well beyond the reach of many middle-class professionals.

 

A detached period house, with eight bedrooms, a garden, its own driveway and all set in a leafy residential area of well-to-do Newbury, Berkshire.

 

But Carl and Samantha Gillespie - together with their 12 children - have been able to move in without paying the slightest heed to Britain's sky-rocketing house prices.

 

It has been revealed that the couple - neither of whom work and who receive an astonishing £44,000 in benefits a year - have been housed in the £500,000 property by their local council.

 

West Berkshire County Council gave them the keys after their previous council home burnt down in a blaze sparked by one of the couple's children.

 

The decision was greeted with anger and incredulity by the couple's new neighbours, many of whom have spent years working hard to struggle up the property ladder.

 

The Gillespies have been dubbed 'Britain's biggest scroungers' and are the most notorious example of people taking advantage of our generous benefits system.

 

They receive the equivalent of £44,000 a year in benefits, a figure made up of £1,500 a month housing benefit; £1,200 a month child tax credit; £560 a month child benefits; £280 job seeker's allowance and £1,600 a year in council tax.

 

Former book-keeper Samantha, 35, had five children from a previous relationship when she married Carl, who used to work as a door-to-door salesman. They are Craig, 16, Adam, 14, Jack, 13, Rebekah, 11, and Harry, nine.

 

The couple then had seven of their own: twins Parris-Jordan and Kesla Blu, eight; twins Mason and Peaches, six; Logan, four, and the three-year-old twins Skye and Kalifornya.

 

When asked why they don't work, the couple say that looking after their children is a full time job. And they claim they would earn less working than they do claiming the dole.

 

Mr Gillespie has revealed that he quit a job at stacking shelves at Asda before he had even started, when he realised the £300 a week he would earn would result in a £400 benefits cut.

 

He said: "Some people may think we're a bunch of spongers, but it's not true." His wife added: "I was born to have children, it's what I am here for."

 

However, their MP, Labour's Martin Salter, has said "There is no excuse for any able-bodied person to be long-term unemployed in Reading, where jobs are plentiful.

 

"People who have large families should accept financial responsibility for that decision."

 

Prior to their latest home, the Gillespies were housed in a five-bedroom property in Purley-on-Thames, Berkshire.

 

However, in June last year the property burnt down when one of the family's youngest twins played with a cigarette lighter.

 

Following that they lived in temporary council accommodation and the children were ferried to and from school in a minibus, paid for by the council.

 

Their latest home, formerly a hotel, is estimated to have cost £350,000 to buy and a further £150,000 to renovate with double-glazing, carpets, central heating and furniture.

 

Mr and Mrs Gillespie claim that they want to go out to work but would lose more than they gain.

 

The family said when they were offered an eight-bedroom £500,000 house from the council they had no choice but to take it as previous accommodation had been totally unsuitable.

 

Despite this, neighbours said the family were the 'wrong sort' and shouldn't be there.

 

Mr Gillespie, 34, said: "We're not scroungers and if it was economical for me to work then I would do.

 

"We can just about survive on the money we've got but I can't give my kids nice things that other parents could like days out, and if I were working I could afford them.

 

"The last job I had was in 2000 or 2001 when I was working at ASDA earning £300 to £350 a month.

 

"I did this for ten weeks and at that time my housing benefit was cut from £1600 to £800 a month so it just didn't make sense for me to carry on working."

 

Mrs Gillespie, 36, added: "All our kids are in school and they want to make something of themselves and not just scrounge and live off the dole.

 

"My oldest son Craig joined the army last week and we're doing our best to make sure the others have careers as well.

 

"If we were scroungers we'd be telling them to either have babies or get straight on the dole, but we're not.

 

"Before we were offered this house we lived in a three-bedroom house which was temporary accommodation.

 

"There were seven boys in one bedroom and five girls in another. In the boys bedroom we had three sets of bunk beds lined up next to each other and you could hardly move".

 

The house itself is a three storey modern brick detached farmhouse style home in a quiet residential street in Newbury.

 

It has its own gate and is set back from the road by a gravel driveway on which are a Fiat Bravo, a Ford Escort, two bicycles, a broken pushchair and a washing machine.

 

Neighbour Betty Giles, 80, said: "It's not right for them to be in there. I live with my son and he's mortgaged up to his eyeballs so it's pretty stiff for him to see them move into such a nice house."

 

Another female neighbour in her sixties, who declined to be named for fear of retribution, said: "They're the wrong sort of people for round here.

 

"Most people on the street are elderly and I think there's only one other family in the vicinity, but nowhere near as big as theirs.

 

"The general mood is that they're not wanted." The family moved in on May 14th.

 

Mrs Gillespie showed me her annual income support form which was £19,775.74 but this does not include housing benefit.

 

Paul and Samantha have eight children together and she has four from a previous relationship, making 12 in total.

 

The children they have had together are Harry 10, Parris Jordan 8, Kesla 8, Mason 7, Peaches 7, Logan 5, Skye 3 and Californya 3.

 

Samantha's children from her previous relationship are Craig 17, Adam 16, Jack 14 and Rebekah 13.

 

West Berkshire Council was unavailable for comment.

 

 

gillespiefamilyins468x3yo8.jpg

 

gillespiehouseins468x71dy0.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

First off - it says the house was bought for an 'estimated' £350,000.

 

Secondly - the house is not theirs. They are tennants.

 

Thirdly - the problem is the legislation that allows this to happen, not the family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First off - it says the house was bought for an 'estimated' £350,000.

 

Secondly - the house is not theirs. They are tennants.

 

Thirdly - the problem is the legislation that allows this to happen, not the family.

 

 

I don't disagree, but it's just all so very wrong.

 

And people moan about immigrants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that from the Daily Mail?

 

A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay!

 

A non-story imo.

 

 

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them.

 

I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Should be culled tbh, just look at the kids names, Parris-Jordan, Kesla Blu and Kalifornya FFS!

 

When people advocate the death penalty for murdering rapist paedophiles I understand where they're coming from without necessarily agreeing, I think it's going a bit far suggesting it should be applied arbitrarily to large families though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that from the Daily Mail?

 

A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay!

 

A non-story imo.

 

 

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them.

 

I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

 

 

To be fair he did give that working lark a try for 10 weeks but decided it wasn't worth it, bless him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that from the Daily Mail?

 

A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay!

 

A non-story imo.

 

 

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them.

 

I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

 

Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that from the Daily Mail?

 

A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay!

 

A non-story imo.

 

 

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them.

 

I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

 

Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though.

 

So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever, infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
First off - it says the house was bought for an 'estimated' £350,000.

 

Secondly - the house is not theirs. They are tennants.

 

Thirdly - the problem is the legislation that allows this to happen, not the family.

 

 

I don't disagree, but it's just all so very wrong.

 

And people moan about immigrants.

 

Yep. I'am all for helping out the most vunerable members of society (no matter where they come from) but they must also help themselves as best they can.

 

There should be some sort of incentive not to have over say 6 children.

 

Maybe the answer here is to put the emphasis on the bairns futures instead of the present circumstances of the parents. give the kids the best education and the best start in life so that they can contribute something back into society when they are older.

 

I just work in the benefits system, i dunno how to sort it out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway - i dont normally get involved in these sort of posts so i'm outahere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First off - it says the house was bought for an 'estimated' £350,000.

 

Secondly - the house is not theirs. They are tennants.

 

Thirdly - the problem is the legislation that allows this to happen, not the family.

 

 

I don't disagree, but it's just all so very wrong.

 

And people moan about immigrants.

 

Yep. I'am all for helping out the most vunerable members of society (no matter where they come from) but they must also help themselves as best they can.

 

There should be some sort of incentive not to have over say 6 children.

 

Maybe the answer here is to put the emphasis on the bairns futures instead of the present circumstances of the parents. give the kids the best education and the best start in life so that they can contribute something back into society when they are older.

 

I just work in the benefits system, i dunno how to sort it out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway - i dont normally get involved in these sort of posts so i'm outahere.

 

 

Exactly, the system is fucked if it becomes more financially advantageous to have more kids than to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that from the Daily Mail?

 

A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay!

 

A non-story imo.

 

 

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them.

 

I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

 

Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though.

 

So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ?

 

I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system.

 

I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids.

 

People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that from the Daily Mail?

 

A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay!

 

A non-story imo.

 

 

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them.

 

I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

 

Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though.

 

So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ?

 

I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system.

 

I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids.

 

People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works.

 

 

In my view the system is all wrong, I have three kids and earn what I consider a very generous wage, yet I still collect around £200 a month for having my beloved little ones, do I send the money back ? of course not, but I do concede that that benifit system is wrong, I should not get the money I collect from the state, I had my children because I could afford them and it was my decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that from the Daily Mail?

 

A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay!

 

A non-story imo.

 

 

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them.

 

I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

 

Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though.

 

So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ?

 

I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system.

 

I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids.

 

People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works.

 

 

In my view the system is all wrong, I have three kids and earn what I consider a very generous wage, yet I still collect around £200 a month for having my beloved little ones, do I send the money back ? of course not, but I do concede that that benifit system is wrong, I should not get the money I collect from the state, I had my children because I could afford them and it was my decision.

 

Well there you go, maybe the system should change so that well off individuals don't receive benefits they don't require. But the fact that this unemployed family are getting by on £60 a week each doesn't seem excessive to me. I couldn't live on £60 a week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that from the Daily Mail?

 

A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay!

 

A non-story imo.

 

 

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them.

 

I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

 

Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though.

 

So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ?

 

I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system.

 

I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids.

 

People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works.

 

 

In my view the system is all wrong, I have three kids and earn what I consider a very generous wage, yet I still collect around £200 a month for having my beloved little ones, do I send the money back ? of course not, but I do concede that that benifit system is wrong, I should not get the money I collect from the state, I had my children because I could afford them and it was my decision.

 

Well there you go, maybe the system should change so that well off individuals don't receive benefits they don't require. But the fact that this unemployed family are getting by on £60 a week each doesn't seem excessive to me. I couldn't live on £60 a week.

 

Is that £60 each with little or no bills to pay? I reckon I could survive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that from the Daily Mail?

 

A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay!

 

A non-story imo.

 

 

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them.

 

I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

 

Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though.

 

So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ?

 

I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system.

 

I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids.

 

People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works.

 

 

In my view the system is all wrong, I have three kids and earn what I consider a very generous wage, yet I still collect around £200 a month for having my beloved little ones, do I send the money back ? of course not, but I do concede that that benifit system is wrong, I should not get the money I collect from the state, I had my children because I could afford them and it was my decision.

 

Well there you go, maybe the system should change so that well off individuals don't receive benefits they don't require. But the fact that this unemployed family are getting by on £60 a week each doesn't seem excessive to me. I couldn't live on £60 a week.

 

 

Regardless of circumstance, when it becomes more advantageous to take from society than to contribute, I believe it to be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that from the Daily Mail?

 

A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay!

 

A non-story imo.

 

 

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them.

 

I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

 

Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though.

 

So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ?

 

I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system.

 

I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids.

 

People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works.

 

 

In my view the system is all wrong, I have three kids and earn what I consider a very generous wage, yet I still collect around £200 a month for having my beloved little ones, do I send the money back ? of course not, but I do concede that that benifit system is wrong, I should not get the money I collect from the state, I had my children because I could afford them and it was my decision.

 

Well there you go, maybe the system should change so that well off individuals don't receive benefits they don't require. But the fact that this unemployed family are getting by on £60 a week each doesn't seem excessive to me. I couldn't live on £60 a week.

 

Is that £60 each with little or no bills to pay? I reckon I could survive.

 

Well it says...

 

They receive the equivalent of £44,000 a year in benefits, a figure made up of £1,500 a month housing benefit; £1,200 a month child tax credit; £560 a month child benefits; £280 job seeker's allowance and £1,600 a year in council tax.

 

So (if I understand how these benefits work, but I AM guessing) the £44k is not what they get, but covers some of their costs (Housing and council tax) and what's left goes to them.

 

They actually receive

 

1200 + 560 + 280 = 2040 a month which is £24,480 a year.

 

Between 14 of them that's less than £2k a year each.

 

£33 a week

 

A pittance tbh

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that from the Daily Mail?

 

A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay!

 

A non-story imo.

 

 

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them.

 

I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system.

 

Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though.

 

 

 

So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ?

 

I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system.

 

I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids.

 

People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works.

 

 

In my view the system is all wrong, I have three kids and earn what I consider a very generous wage, yet I still collect around £200 a month for having my beloved little ones, do I send the money back ? of course not, but I do concede that that benifit system is wrong, I should not get the money I collect from the state, I had my children because I could afford them and it was my decision.

 

Well there you go, maybe the system should change so that well off individuals don't receive benefits they don't require. But the fact that this unemployed family are getting by on £60 a week each doesn't seem excessive to me. I couldn't live on £60 a week.

 

Is that £60 each with little or no bills to pay? I reckon I could survive.

 

Well it says...

 

They receive the equivalent of £44,000 a year in benefits, a figure made up of £1,500 a month housing benefit; £1,200 a month child tax credit; £560 a month child benefits; £280 job seeker's allowance and £1,600 a year in council tax.

 

So (if I understand how these benefits work, but I AM guessing) the £44k is not what they get, but covers some of their costs (Housing and council tax) and what's left goes to them.

 

They actually receive

 

1200 + 560 + 280 = 2040 a month which is £24,480 a year.

 

Between 14 of them that's less than £2k a year each.

 

£33 a week

 

A pittance tbh

 

 

If you can't live on £24k a year don't have 12 kids ! simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...