ITV, now, 9pm - 7 Days on the Breadline

Shakethedisease

I know of a number of people who take the option of a life style choice of having kids, it`s a deliberate act, and getting state hand outs. yes and before anyone flames me this experience is in my extended family.

Well, do tell then ! What is your experience ?

Did they all decide at 16 that they'd be benefit scroungers as a 'lifestyle choice/career' ? Were they spending money on ovulation kits finding just the 'right weekend' to find a suitable 'victim' to take home just for the night ? When it comes down to it.. planned pregnancy ( see any baby/fertility site, there are LOADS ).. is quite hard to do really. Sure it'll happen eventually, usually within 18 months if one does the deed regularly round about one's fertile time ( 2 days a month). But that assumes it's with the same person ? Those who are single have to trawl bars and follow the song 'All That She Wants' to the letter.. Unlikely.

Or were they just let down by the men in their life ? You're not seriously telling me that they conciously decided, early on in life, that having children was a some sort of passport to a life of luxury ?

I give up anyway. As you were...

PasturesNew

As I see it, this isn't about dole bashing. It's about scum bashing. There is a difference. There are plenty of good people on the dole, for years, who keep an orderly household .... this lot don't.

The_White_Horse

Shakethedisease wrote: »

What a horrible thing to say.

Some on here are so up themselves and their 'decentness' they can't see they're only a heart attack or an accident away from being in the same position... and I'll tell you, it doesn't take long to start relying on the Provvy man for Xmas, smoking roll-ups to save money and drinking to blank out the crappy existence you've found yourself in.

Being 'decent' is only a p45 away for most of us.

The kids she's had. Are 'decent' people any more sure that their partner won't !!!!!! off when there's a younger woman/bored/feels 'trapped'/wants to 'find himself/didn't want to be a father anyway.. and the multitude of other reasons relationships break up. Why is it assumed that women of a lower 'class' just simply shag about aimlessly and have no concept of thinking that the relationship might last ? They're just as suseptible and hopeful as everyone else ( Sadie Frost, Jerry Hall, Jennifer Aniston) to thinking that the man they are with, might possibly stay and see life through with them. Kids included.

Things just don't work out for a lot of people. no kids, 2 kids, 6 kids.

That kids from these relationships shouldn't be valued or treated with the same respect as those with more money ..or indeed.. sneered at and on boards like this actually spoken about in terms of 'starved' or drowned at birth like unwanted kittens. Is just soooo bad to read. And, part of the problem if you ask me.

Said my piece. I'm franky shocked at the callousness here. You must know the programme is simply an excerise in raising viewing figures, nothing more. They chose these families for a reason..:rolleyes:

its people like you that are a massive part of the problem. If you believe that this woman was ever a decent person working away, or had a husband and father of the six kids, that had a heart attack that meant they could no longer pay the mortgage, you are VERY much mistaken.

These people are scum. This woman has never worked, and I would estimate at least 5, and maybe the full 6 kids will continue in her glorious image.

They don't work and they expect to be kept, and they are kept! thanks to bleeding hearts like you, this hateful family are ENTITLED to a 5 bedroom house. How come I work every day, pay tax and i am entitled to a big fat nothing???

Also, I have taken out various insurance policies to make sure that if I suffer from an illness, or death, my family are well looked after. That is called taking responsibility. It costs a few pounds a month and I have to go without things to pay for it. That is life.

If some of these people would go without their staffie (i have no dog as can't afford it) or their booze, or their fags, or their luxuries like Sky TV, iPhone etc then they could have safety.

The point is, they won't give anything up and expect everything on a plate.

Lets live in your world, where we all have 6 kids and don't work. Lets see how far we get.

These people should be left to starve. And that is being kind. You are the one being cruel.

olly300

The_White_Horse wrote: »

If some of these people would go without their staffie (i have no dog as can't afford it) or their booze, or their fags, or their luxuries like Sky TV, iPhone etc then they could have safety.

The point is, they won't give anything up and expect everything on a plate.

Lets live in your world, where we all have 6 kids and don't work. Lets see how far we get.

These people should be left to starve. And that is being kind. You are the one being cruel.

The children should never be allowed to starve. They didn't asked to be brought into the world.

The mother now is a different matter.

If after her first child the rest where not allowed to live with her unless their fathers paid for their up keep then she would soon learn it's not worth it.

Unfortunately like the Director of Barbados has pointed out their is a problem in society and those we trust to look after those families i.e. social workers, where it's acceptable at all costs to keep families together.

In addition like a previous poster has pointed out there is a much bigger problem - "hy is it acceptable in our society for fathers to f*** off and not pay for their children?

I know and have met single mothers from Scandinavian countries, and regardless of whether the father actually lives in the country or not they always pay towards their children's up keep. How are we, as a society, going to tell people that if you have a child you have to pay for them yourselves not the state otherwise you are scrum?

lostinrates

I don't really ''get'' this starve business, why not just forced to work, or at least forced to provide a clean, safe home.

I think the job of being a parent is a pretty important one, for society. A fulltime ACTIVELY parnting- single mother, could, in theory, be better for the country, spending time ensure her kids do their home work and extra studying, are fed and exercised well for physical and emotional health and have some fun. This would produce hardworking, useful contributors to society.

The problem is, can (and how could) we make any judgement on this? We have to allow that people do have bad times/days/weeks and that to err is human: and in its own way good for children.

The_White_Horse

how many middle class people do you know, with a nice house, etc etc that have 6 kids? Not many. and if they do, they pay for them. most normal households will have 1 or 2 kids. a few will have 3 or 4.

However, if you look at the majority of families with more than 5 kids, i bet they are all working class/dole class/ chav class.

There is a reason for this.

You have to be cruel to be kind to these people. they have to know they will get no money. they will get no house. if they want loads of kids, good for them, but let them pay.

Long term, if you cut these people off, they will stop having so many kids. You have to be cruel to be kind. Think of these people as a cancer on society, and the cutting of their benefits like chemo. It may have immediate bad effects, but long term, it may kill the cancer.

treliac

TWH, You may have some good points .... if they are carefully unpicked and examined. There's a lot in there that many of us could start to make sense of.

Sadly, though, your virulent attitude and language towards other humans entirely blots out reasoned debate.

Whatever we think of the parents and their motives we should be trying to break the cycle for the benefit of their children. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up for a future with vastly greater problems than we already have.

How to do this though? It's an enormous task - now that the horse (no pun intended) has bolted thus far.

Blackpool_Saver

The_White_Horse wrote: »

Think of these people as a cancer on society, and the cutting of their benefits like chemo. It may have immediate bad effects, but long term, it may kill the cancer.

That is disgusting.

Pobby

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Well, do tell then ! What is your experience ?

Did they all decide at 16 that they'd be benefit scroungers as a 'lifestyle choice/career' ? Were they spending money on ovulation kits finding just the 'right weekend' to find a suitable 'victim' to take home just for the night ? When it comes down to it.. planned pregnancy ( see any baby/fertility site, there are LOADS ).. is quite hard to do really. Sure it'll happen eventually, usually within 18 months if one does the deed regularly round about one's fertile time ( 2 days a month). But that assumes it's with the same person ? Those who are single have to trawl bars and follow the song 'All That She Wants' to the letter.. Unlikely.

Or were they just let down by the men in their life ? You're not seriously telling me that they conciously decided, early on in life, that having children was a some sort of passport to a life of luxury ?

I give up anyway. As you were...

More than happy to explain how this is a life style, state funded choice. Fist child 14 years ago in a relation ship. Split up and got a HA flat. Decided 5 years ago that she wanted another child and the previous partner donated. A couple of years back she thought she would like a daughter and same feller was called in for duty. As it happened she had a another boy.

Don`t get me wrong, she is a good mother to the kids but just pointing out how easily it is to select a benefit funded way of life.

The_White_Horse

Blackpool_Saver wrote: »

That is disgusting.

no it isn't. it is true. these people are like a festering tumour. over the generations it will grow (at 6 kids a time) and then eventually take over and kill us all.

if that family continues as it, in 6 generations time they will be 46,656 in number.

meanwhile the working family with one or two children in 6 generations will be 64 strong.

Do the maths people. 64 workers supporting 46,656. just doesn't work does it.

The trouble with lefts and dogooders is they only think of now, and that the poor chav kid is eating aturkey twizzler instead of an artichoke heart. This long term. This CANNOT go on!!!!