Is Katie Price a Scrounger?

I’ve been taking a little break from the internet, but one thing that has caught my eye and drawn me in is the debate over whether Katie Price should be accepting school transport for her disabled son Harvey.

I may be late jumping in, but I feel I have to have my say, and I’m afraid that many are not going to agree with me.

I do not believe that Katie Price is a scrounger. Yes, she may have plenty of money but what she is taking advantage of is a service for her disabled son, which is what he is entitled to. It doesn’t mean that because he is taking it that someone else is missing out, it means that he is entitled to it just as any other child in his position would be whether their mother was rich or not.

So why do some people have to fight for the service?

It’s the way it works, it depends on the area, the school, the budget, the child. My eldest child was entitled to school transport. I was a single working mother, he was 16 years old and offered a place at a special college which was a fair distance from home. At the time it was what was best for him, and the closet available school. I was not made to feel a scrounger for taking the service, it was just like any other service available.

I did not see the discussion between Katie Price and Katie Hopkins on Celebrity Big Brother, but I do not believe that what Katie Price was saying was that the transport provided costs £1000 per day. I think that was her estimate of how much it would cost her to take over from the service. It would be a two way journey twice a day, with medical staff on hand. Of course it would cost a lot more than the service that Harvey actually receives.

When my son first went to his new school it took a couple of weeks for the transport to be arranged and in that time I had to take him in myself. It cost me a small fortune in extra petrol for the journey and I had to take annual leave from work because of the time it took. I was so relieved when the transport took over. I can understand why Katie Price appreciates it too.

I’m not sure which came first, the home in which Katie Price and her family lives or the school that Harvey attends but I gather that there is some distance and it has angered some people that he has to travel so far. These special schools are difficult to find and if a child is settled then it would be a shame to uproot them if moving house. Similarly, it  would be difficult to uproot a child from a home they are settled to move them closer to a school.

So now we get on to the moral question. Is it morally right to take a service offered for free if you have plenty of money? This is what saddens me most. Why is it so wrong to take something that is offered. If you give, then taking is okay too, surely. Pay your taxes, take the services offered. You do it every time you go to the GP or hospital, when you call a fire engine or the police. Or maybe if you have plenty of money you should make sure you pay for each of these services privately too?


  1. February 2, 2015 / 8:28 pm

    I agree with you!
    As far as I'm aware she lived in her house then found the school….I remember it from her reality show.

    • February 2, 2015 / 9:38 pm

      I thought that too Kim, but I'd read somewhere that it was the other way around and got confused. Thanks for agreeing with me, I think we live in a society where taking anything is considered wrong even if you are entitled to it.

  2. February 3, 2015 / 9:29 pm

    Having been at school with her, I actually have a soft spot for Katie Price and although I didn't see the katie vs katie arguement, i would imagine Katie price would look like an angel compared to Katie hopkins!

    • February 4, 2015 / 11:04 am

      haha, seems like a weird thing to say, but I have to agree with you. I really don't get Katie Hopkins at all, she seems to enjoy riling everyone up with her big mouth.

  3. Anonymous
    February 4, 2015 / 7:29 pm

    Hi. Actually, I saw the argument (although you never know how it's been edited), and Katie Price came across v badly, Katie Hopkins, here, v well. Imo. Ms Price basically said she would take the money, she was 'entitled' to it and she'd sooner the Govt spent it on her son rather than on fireworks for the New Years' Eve party. If she'd said, rather than spent it on war, I'd have agreed with her, but as it was … this is a multi-millionairess, sitting there wearing a lot of v. expensive diamonds, saying, in effect, that people a lot poorer than her should sacrifice for her son. This is a woman who's spent millions on her weddings; plastic surgery, etc etc. How about she stops that instead, if it's a choice? This is also a woman who said those on benefits shouldn't smoke, drink, etc. Hypocrisy. As for the question itself: should she pay for her son's transport – it's a hard one. You don't want things to be means tested, in case it all comes down to money. A civilised society should pay for the vulnerable. On the other hand – we live in a time when the Govt is targeting a lot of disabled people; when councils are struggling for money. And Katie Price apparently has a net worth of around £45 million. If she seriously thinks she needs/ is 'entitled' to, financial help for her son, she needs a shrink; not public funding. She's confusing money with security, which means she'll never think she has enough and she'll keep taking. Do I think someone with a net worth of £45 million should pay for her own child and free up some money for a family which is genuinely struggling? Yes, I do. While everyone is 'entitled' to help from the NHS, fire services, etc, a lot of people, even if they pay tax, are grateful for the help, and make the effort to pay something back. Katie Price basically said she was ‘entitled’ to claim whatever she could. Always better to focus on what you can give. Grace and generosity make for a better society for everyone.

    • February 4, 2015 / 10:23 pm

      You make some valid points about Katie Price as a person, but if I'm honest I don't really know that much about her other than she is a working mother with a disabled son. The help is fundamentally provided for her son and it is his entitlement not hers. If she really is that rich then maybe she gives back in other ways, I really don't know, that would probably be the moral thing to do. If she came across so badly during the tv debate then I can understand why so many people have sided with Katie Hopkins instead. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if it had been edited to look that way though because it seems that all you ever see on tv these days is an attack on people who are claiming anything benefit wise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *