[News] Is this for real?

Wardy's twin said:

Where have I mentioned kids names ? Where have I mentioned numbers ?

You might want to re-read what i said but to save you time I wrote Not sure anyone is saying that people should not have a family what they are saying (as you do) is that parent should be primary responsible for the bringing up of their children and that includes financing them.Not sure anyone is saying that people should not have a family what they are saying (as you do) is that parent should be primary responsible for the bringing up of their children and that includes financing them.

But as you raised the question ... I do think 6 is a lot of kids to bring up if you want to give them all care and attention and to be buy them all the bits modern life requires.

And to make it clear I do believe in the welfare state but also believe in the social contract that binds citizens in a society and that means putting into the pot and not just taking. Clearly there are exceptions where some cannot contribute e.g. severely ill but that should not be seen as the norm.
.

Click to expand...

sjamesb3466 said:

At the end of the day I think the quantity of kids is the big sticking point here. Six kids is a lot to support on a big wage but on benefits aged 25 you have to have some personal responsibility to ensure your kids are looked after financially. This isn't a class war about 'can only the rich have kids' but having 6 whilst finances are tight is borderline cruelty to the kids they are spawning. As others have mentioned, my wife and I have just had our second child and that will be it (elastic band/bricks at the ready) as we can't reasonably afford more. To continue to breed with access to free contraception is a choice and therefore you reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

sjamesb3466 said:

At the end of the day I think the quantity of kids is the big sticking point here. Six kids is a lot to support on a big wage but on benefits aged 25 you have to have some personal responsibility to ensure your kids are looked after financially. This isn't a class war about 'can only the rich have kids' but having 6 whilst finances are tight is borderline cruelty to the kids they are spawning. As others have mentioned, my wife and I have just had our second child and that will be it (elastic band/bricks at the ready) as we can't reasonably afford more. To continue to breed with access to free contraception is a choice and therefore you reap what you sow.

Click to expand...

Baldseagull said:

What about the 62 year old gent who was made redundant 2 years ago, who says he can only afford to eat a couple of times a week as it is, can he have a moan?

Click to expand...

rigton70 said:

You can still cook a good meal cheaply and that their lies the problem cook. Most under 35s can't cook. My missus works at Asda and the amount of pre packed meals that they buy their children is quite astounding and they moan they have no money.

Click to expand...

Rogero said:

There are over a million jobs out there at the moment. Companies are begging for staff.

Click to expand...

Baldseagull said:

And the Gods shall visit the sins of the fathers (or mothers) upon the children?

Click to expand...

Fat Boy Fat said:

Are you the offspring of Norman Tebbitt?

You know nothing of the gent in questions circumstances or abilities, just maybe he’s not qualified, fit enough, live in the right area or able to do one of those million jobs “out there”.

I am quite shocked by some of the comments on here and the lack of apparent empathy, if not towards the lady in the post then at least to her children who did nothing wrong but have an irresponsible parent.

Click to expand...

Rogero said:

There are over a million jobs out there at the moment. Companies are begging for staff.

Click to expand...

Fat Boy Fat said:

Which brings you back to the problem - what do you do with those who don’t buy into the social contract idea?

Take their kids away? (Costs a lot of money)!

Sterilise them? (Moral minefield)!

It really is an almost impossible situation, isn’t it?

Click to expand...

Baldseagull said:

You are right, you didn't mention names or numbers, I made the assumption that you would have been a little more sympathetic if she had been a mother of 2, because almost any young woman could find herself in that position.
I apologise if I made an incorrect assumption, and that you feel exactly the same about all parents and their lack of responsibility if they find themselves in need of state benefits to support them.

The names was just me having a dig at Rees-Mogg, who is unlikely to ever need "state support", but does draw a salary he really does not need, and has produced six offspring likely to suck more money out of the state coffers one way or another, with the help of their fathers connections, than this ladies kids will ever see.

Click to expand...

Wardy's twin said:

But that is what the Tories say about increasing the taxes to the super rich i.e. they will leave with their wealth and there will be no people to tax.

It is Pandora's box but I think the concept of the 'social contract' is being undermined by the drive to protect the right's of the individual which ironically would not be there without the 'social contract' . Perhaps the first step would be to allow people to live outside the fabric of the 'social contract' but make it clear once outside don't come back if you have problems (or maybe you have one chance).

Probably too much control for some people's liking , fear of a 'Brave New World' but the same people are happy to have their health & education supplied on tap.

I make a comment earlier in this thread that I can't criticise the wealthy for not paying enough tax without equally criticising those who might be' milking' the welfare system i.e. taking more out than they will put back in. Both are equally bad.

Click to expand...

Fat Boy Fat said:

Agree 100% with your last paragraph, but without wanting to sound too wet "what about the children"...?

I did a quick calculation, using Brighton and Hove fostering rates. If these children lived in Brighton and were taken into care, the minimum it would cost the local authority would be £85,000 a year! Yes £85k.

So, thinking of the children, how do you stop this?

Click to expand...

Wardy's twin said:

If the children are paramount then you need to consider under what conditions you allow people to have them which then takes us back into the 'Keith Joseph' territory which people were/are horrified about though they forget that the state already makes decision about taking children away from parents who they consider are not fit to care for them. You could argue that logic says why take them off them when prevention would be a better course of action.

I don't know enough about the details of the case in particular nor what % of the budgets go on people who basically see it as a way of life/job rather than needing temporary support to tide them over. It's the minority but it would be useful to know. One could argue why give medical help to people who smoke or are about obese.

You mention fostering but last I heard there were not enough kids up for adoption , appreciate there are vastly different circumstances. I know someone who got refused for adoption because they were in the forces and seen as not stable enough, been married now for nearly 50 years and husband was in airforce for 40 years. Both are MBEs for services to charity....

Click to expand...

Fat Boy Fat said:

If you are genuinely interested, this article explains the reasons very well...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/10/adoption-numbers-falling-children-need-care-system

There are currently around 65,000 children in foster care and another 18,000 under other arrangements. As our American friends like to say, you do the math.

Click to expand...

Wardy's twin said:

Interesting article , so it suggests that many potential adopters no longer need to because of IVF and that thinking had changed so that the concept of family was extended to maintain family relationships again reducing adoptions. What the article doesn't cover is how many families live off benefits and done as a way of life. I think i will do some reading.

Click to expand...

I remember the good times said:

As we all sit here laughing at Leicester we should also feel for others. Most here don't worry about money and paying bills. That £5 you spent on a pint you had post match. There are families who could have fed themselves with that £5. Times are very hard for many many people and now the Government are taking away £20. Are we within our right to slam a girl who wants a family? Living off the state for some may be a right but not everyone chooses that route.

Click to expand...

The Middle Ground said:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/pregnant-mum-5-says-family-25006771

Have less kids?

Click to expand...

Biscuit Barrel said:

The only thing that has come unstuck are her legs.

Click to expand...