Deleted

olly300

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You may none of you approve of these parents method of providing for their children, i.e. benefits, but they are entitled to do so and knew they would be able to when they had them.

Read the word I put in bold from your post again and think about it.

The problem with this country now, which you rarely hear from people over 75, is that word.

No one is entitled to anything especially as the government changes it's laws. For example those who went to university before around 2000 where eligible for free education but after that they had to pay tuition fees.

globalds

Quasar wrote: »

As long as we, as a species, keep breeding like rabbits, our living spaces will get smaller and smaller. We'll need more and more land to grow food, and more and more land to build homes. Meanwhile some couples keep having children and can't afford larger homes.

Something has to give and we are beginning to see what that is.

we hit peak soon ...As a Planet
Then it goes down again .

ruggedtoast

olly300 wrote: »

Read the word I put in bold from your post again and think about it.

The problem with this country now, which you rarely hear from people over 75, is that word.

No one is entitled to anything especially as the government changes it's laws. For example those who went to university before around 2000 where eligible for free education but after that they had to pay tuition fees.

No, the definition of the English word 'entitled' is to be given title to something, or:

Adj. 1. entitled - qualified for by right according to law; "we are all entitled to equal protection under the law"
eligible - qualified for or allowed or worthy of being chosen; "eligible to run for office"; "eligible for retirement benefits"; "an eligible bachelor"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entitled

You are confusing this with rights, which is a totally different thing, but actually, people who claim benefits still have a right to; whether you personally approve or not.

Percy1983

Maybe we should stop trying for world peace, a world war does wonders for population reduction.

Ok thats not my serious idea, but really we shouldn't be encouraging people to have children.

Just think workers give birth to workers and chavs give birth to chavs, don't pay chavs to breed and we will have a whole generation of workers growing up soon enough.

olly300

ruggedtoast it's a very bad idea to plan your family on what benefits you can get from the current government at the time you have your children.

As many people have found over the years governments can and will change their policies. This means something you could claim or were eligible for in one year could completely change causing you problems a year later.

BTW I meant "entitled" in the form of "sense of entitlement" which many people have and young people in particular are accused of having. Though of course your English comprehension is better than what you looked up and you are just arguing over the word for the sake of it.

Itismehonest

ruggedtoast wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jul/12/families-overcrowding-spreads

More decent, hard working families forced to live in conditions the previous generation would have balked at.

The previous generation had a population in London higher than today's. If you think there's overcrowding now you should check what it was like in the 50s. Some of us remember the slums & bomb sites which existed into the 60s.

The population of London, both Inner and Outer, has been growing steadily since the 1980s. In 2010, some 7.8 million people lived in London, of which just over 3 million were in Inner London. London's population is now much higher than its 1980s low point, but it is still lower than its 1950s high point. The size of the current population is not unprecedented.

From this article - London Poverty Profile

Sapphire

Quasar wrote: »

As long as we, as a species, keep breeding like rabbits, our living spaces will get smaller and smaller. We'll need more and more land to grow food, and more and more land to build homes. Meanwhile some couples keep having children and can't afford larger homes.

Something has to give and we are beginning to see what that is.

Except, you know, people often used to have much larger families even when they lived in really squalid conditions of the kind the yoof of today cannot imagine. This was before birth control. I know some died even in the wealthiest families, but the families were still generally large and all the members lived on top of one another, often just in a single room (this was the norm in a large proportion of the population not even that long ago).

I'm certainly not advocating such uncontrolled breeding – there are too many humans and we are unthinkingly destroying the planet.

michaels

They are in a heavily subsidised council flat costing 250 a month in an area where a market 2 bed probably costs £1000. Not surprisingly they do not want to move in to private accomodation and instead are hoping for a cheap council 4 bed. Probably there is a peverse incentive for them to have more children as that would increase their priority for rehousing.

Alll caused by good intentions but of course with unintended consequences. It is sad really.

oldvicar

michaels wrote: »

They are in a heavily subsidised council flat costing 250 a month in an area where a market 2 bed probably costs £1000. Not surprisingly they do not want to move in to private accomodation and instead are hoping for a cheap council 4 bed. Probably there is a peverse incentive for them to have more children as that would increase their priority for rehousing.

All caused by good intentions but of course with unintended consequences. It is sad really.

If they are lucky the council 4-bed house will, like their present flat according to the article, overlook a beautiful London common. Exercise the Right to Buy on something like that (my guess in the £1M to £2M bracket at full market value) then as soon as the kids are ready to be housed on their own sell up and live in luxury.

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No, the definition of the English word 'entitled' is to be given title to something, or:



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entitled

You are confusing this with rights, which is a totally different thing, but actually, people who claim benefits still have a right to; whether you personally approve or not.

Is there no sense of pride amongst the benefit classes?
Most men I know would be deeply ashamed at the idea of other people paying to bring up their children.