Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!

POPPYOSCAR

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Though there is clear evidence these two need their hands holding at every stage. They are actually adults, and about time they reached the conclusion of knowing when to stop, of their own accord.

But I'm sure you think you are doing them a favour, by highlighting their own failure to realise when they have had enough.:rotfl:

And so it continues.............................

Percy1983

Deepmistrust wrote: »

No you half-wit. I've already tried to explain that your beliefs mirror that of social-darwinists, of which Hitler himself was one:

Percy1983"Maybe human habits should be more like the animals of this planet, if an animal can't provide for there young they will die, its not down to the other animals to provide for them.

As with most of your quotes you take the exteme examples, in this case I wasn't saying we shoudl live like that, notice the first few words, "should be more like" I was more making the point that people should look after themselves more than expecting the government to do it.

Personally I do think the world would be a better place if people wern't allowed to breed for a living,

We should not be paying people to have children, is this such I bad idea?

and the reasons behind many babies is just wrong and it shouldn't be happening."

This is very true, how many 16 year olds have had babies to get a house, how many so they don't have to go to work? They are the wrong reasons to have children.

or:

"but can you not see that letting some people have children is actually wrong?"

If you can really say that every child is born into a loving environment?, some people really shouldn't be allowed to have children. I can give an example in the real world if you like here. My better halfs uncle has a girl who is adopted, she was taken from a drug addict of a mother (had 7 children taken away in total). Should this women be allowed to have more children? how to police the issue is near impossible I will admit.

I sincerely wish either one of you had a bit of background education to fully understand the implications of your arguments.

So me asking for an ideal that all babies should be born out of love and not financial gain is wrong is it? for me to say one way to reduce the problem would be to make it none profitable to have children is wrong?

Maybe we really are just looking at the same issue from to completely different angles.

You seem to think just throwing money at the babies will solve the problem (you vote labour by any chance?)

What I am trying to drive at is you must see how if you are poor having a baby can be a good income, to which babies will be born for the wrong reason. If it will affect poor people in a negative way financially (much like it will affect the 'none poor') then a baby would be born out of love and not for the money no matter what somebodies income is. Basically whatever your background there should be a level of responsibility and it shouldn't fall to the goverment.

This is too easy.

Lets be honest even you must see that makes you look a bit of a tw..

So maybe I am a new age Nazi which wants every baby to be born into a loving family...

Maybe I haven't been clear in this, or I have been too simple for you demi-god brain to understand.

Can you say there is no legitmate arguements mixed with a good level of logic there?

As I have asked before, you keep saying I am wrong but what is the correct answer?

And you keep claiming to be a professional... I professional what may I ask?

dmg24

Deepmistrust, another polite reminder that links are not allowed in signatures. Please remove, rather than having to put the Abuse Team to inconvenience.

Deepmistrust

Percy1983 wrote: »

Originally Posted by Deepmistrust


As with most of your quotes you take the exteme examples, in this case I wasn't saying we shoudl live like that, notice the first few words, "should be more like" I was more making the point that people should look after themselves more than expecting the government to do it.

Extreme examples? LMAO, no, I took the quotes that I want to counter. I'm at least glad you acknowledge your idea is extreme.


"Personally I do think the world would be a better place if people wern't allowed to breed for a living, "

We should not be paying people to have children, is this such I bad idea?

We don't pay people to breed. Even surrogacy is illegal. You will never ever have an argument that holds any water, when you base it upon ridiculous ideas like this. Supporting families is not paying people to breed.



and the reasons behind many babies is just wrong and it shouldn't be happening."

This is very true, how many 16 year olds have had babies to get a house, how many so they don't have to go to work? They are the wrong reasons to have children.

How many? You tell me? Ah, you have no idea. Thought not.
Probably there are a few, but they are in for a shock if they think their lives are going to be easy then. If any of this minority of 16 year olds actually think that babies are easier than work, then they wouldn't make the same choice second time around. Or perhaps they are naive, there are many reasons that leads to a 16 year falling pregnant.

or:

"but can you not see that letting some people have children is actually wrong?"

If you can really say that every child is born into a loving environment?, some people really shouldn't be allowed to have children. I can give an example in the real world if you like here. My better halfs uncle has a girl who is adopted, she was taken from a drug addict of a mother (had 7 children taken away in total). Should this women be allowed to have more children? how to police the issue is near impossible I will admit.

Tell me truthfully, are you seriously suggesting that people like you should sit in judgement and decide who can or can't have children? As for "how to police the issue" - the answer is you can't, nor should you ever even try. Do you want to live in some kind of totalitarian nightmare?
The case you refer to was dealt with appropriately by social services using Child Protection legislation. The child will be protected from harm, and therefore more than capable of a decent life (or whatever). The point being, who are you to say she should never have been born?


I sincerely wish either one of you had a bit of background education to fully understand the implications of your arguments.

So me asking for an ideal that all babies should be born out of love and not financial gain is wrong is it? for me to say one way to reduce the problem would be to make it none profitable to have children is wrong?

The financial gain argument is a strawman. Firstly people have to be financial better off with children in order for your argument to have any water. And that would only work if they didn't house, cloth or feed their children. As even the most workshy of parents actually do manage not to neglect their children, and do provide for them using whatever means available to them kind of negates your argument before you even get onto the second sentence. This obession about children being born for profit is absurd. I think you are confusing low income families with child traffickers.


Maybe we really are just looking at the same issue from to completely different angles.

You seem to think just throwing money at the babies will solve the problem (you vote labour by any chance?)

Who on earth suggested throwing money at babies? If you actually read anything I wrote on this thread, given the thread is about the Child Trust Fund - which I do not indeed support. Why on earth would I support Labour with my views? As you've spent so some time on here, you must have at least noticed my signature quote, which kind of gives an inkling that I do not support state-capitalism (Labour) or any form of authoritarian state. You really do need to expand your thinking. Not everything is limited to Con-Dem or Labour.


What I am trying to drive at is you must see how if you are poor having a baby can be a good income, Getting a job is a far better one involving far less work, it's quite apparent you have no children.to which babies will be born for the wrong reason again meaningless rhetoric - you are coming up with wild ideas and running around with them as if most low income WTC/etc recipients are all secret child-traffickers. If it will affect poor people in a negative way financially (much like it will affect the 'none poor') then a baby would be born out of love and not for the money no matter what somebodies income is. Basically whatever your background there should be a level of responsibility and it shouldn't fall to the goverment. You really have no idea as to the reasons that most people have children. Even those born as an 'accident' are mostly all equally loved by their parent/s. The fact they are poor and need financial assistance is neither here nor their as to their feelings for their children.

I wouldn't mind if you were some middle-class well-off flash dude thinking he knows it all. Instead your words just attack the poorest people in society by stating they shouldn't have children, as when they do it's for "profit".

This is too easy.

Lets be honest even you must see that makes you look a bit of a tw..

But it's actually true. If that hurts, then there you go.

So maybe I am a new age Nazi which wants every baby to be born into a loving family...

Maybe I haven't been clear in this, or I have been too simple for you demi-god brain to understand.

Can you say there is no legitmate arguements mixed with a good level of logic there?

Very little logic at all. It would help if you actually took your beliefs (assuming they were implemented as policy) to their logical conclusion - but alas - I've done that for you now. And you still can't see the wrong in it.


As I have asked before, you keep saying I am wrong but what is the correct answer?

Strawmen. There is no 'answer' because there is no question. You cannot implement a policy to stop poor people breeding. Well, not without being in breach of every international law going.


And you keep claiming to be a professional... I professional what may I ask?

No, I said my knowledge on the topic at the time is professional.

Deepmistrust

dmg24 wrote: »

Deepmistrust, another polite reminder that links are not allowed in signatures. Please remove, rather than having to put the Abuse Team to inconvenience.

Get a life, and stop being a virtual curtain twitcher.
Report bomb away till your hearts content.

dmg24

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Get a life, and stop being a virtual curtain twitcher.
Report bomb away till your hearts content.

Fair enough! Reported to Abuse.

JPS29

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPS29
Good old Tories.

Smacks of Thatcherism. She was the milk snatcher and this lot are now removing CTF's. We're in for a great 5 years...........



I've just been watching the evening news and guess who Cameron was smiling with as he showed her into No.10.....

Like I said, the start of a return to Thatcherism, with the milk snatcher herself being paraded infront of the cameras going into No 10 like its something to be proud of.

Percy1983

Yet again you are taking me out of context, I am not saying we should stop the poor having children. I am saying we should stop babies being born for the wrong reasons which generally fall on the poor but Ia m not saying all poor people have them for the wrong reasons.

As for 16 year olds having babies for houses, come and visit me in sunny Oldham and you will understand what I mean.

OK, I am going to put what I would propose down, and instead of saying its wrong tell me what you would do differently, sound fair?#

-Child related benefits are only applicable on the first 3 children.

-Benefits should be changed so you NEVER have more money than some who works and is in the same situation. You should have enough for warn accommodation, food and water, anything else should be earned.

-Child trust funds are stopped (already done thank god)

-In poor families expecting a baby if they need help with afford needed items they will be given the items which will be a standard setup of basic but functional items, no money passed over.

-WTC's can stay to help those on lower incomes but are still doing there bit.

-All able bodied unemployed people should do at least 8 hours of community service/charity work a week, failure to do so without good reason results in a 50% reduction in that weeks benefits.

-All EMA is scrapped, you should be in higher education because you want to be, not as a stop gap of money until you are 18 and collect a proper dole.

Feel free to use your far superior brain to tell me its all wrong but in doing so what would you do differently and why?

As you may see form the above as much as you keep saying I am attacking the poor, I actually attacking the none workers amongst us, I am more then up for helping the poor who do something.

POPPYOSCAR

To quote Deepmistrust earlier "Surragacy is illegal"

Well it isn't according to the Surragacy Uk Website, and I quote

"Surragacy is not illegal in the UK but restricted by various legal rules"

But I suppose with all your superior knowledge you know better than them as you do everyone else.

I suggest you get on to Surragacy UK and tell them of their big mistake.

liam8282

Percy1983 wrote: »

So maybe I am a new age Nazi which wants every baby to be born into a loving family...

Maybe I haven't been clear in this, or I have been too simple for you demi-god brain to understand.

Can you say there is no legitmate arguements mixed with a good level of logic there?

As I have asked before, you keep saying I am wrong but what is the correct answer?

And you keep claiming to be a professional... I professional what may I ask?

There is no right or wrong answer to the points covered in this thread, only the matter of perspective that different people look at it from.

However, deepmistrust failure to accept any other persons opinion other than their own, is most certainly wrong.

I can see where deepmistrust argument stems from, the people I have been talking about aren't doing anything illegal and are claiming what they are "entitled" to. But does that make it right?

From my perspective no.