Deleted

ILW

pqrdef wrote: »

Very. People seem to think this Mona Nelson should have had her last child at 26. Victorians would have been scandalised at a married woman giving up when she had another 20 years of productive life left.

Age is irrelevent. She should have had her last child at the point where herself and her partner were unable to support any more.

pqrdef

ILW wrote: »

Most men I know would be deeply ashamed at the idea of other people paying to bring up their children.

Quite, though I don't know why you limit it to men.

We just need to ensure that the minimum wage is enough to cover the medical bills and school fees for the approved family size.

Or perhaps the begetting of children should be restricted to the better off?

coastline

pqrdef wrote: »

Very. People seem to think this Mona Nelson should have had her last child at 26. Victorians would have been scandalised at a married woman giving up when she had another 20 years of productive life left.

I've just spoken to my father on this subject and he says it was very common for families to have 6 or 7 members ..
There were around 30 people living in the block where he was..
His mother had a little business something to do with hat making...so the didnt starve and they all had a mobile phone each for school..;)

ruggedtoast

This thread appears to be populated by a troupe of right wing cretins. You should all move to Lubbock as that would just about suit your levels of political and cultural development.

It must be terribly disappointing for you all, desperately wishing for a world where unwanted children were left to starve, the poor weren't allowed to procreate, and there were no benefit system apart from for yourselves.

But then every morning you wake up and leave your houses and there you are, back in the UK. Tragic really. I would almost pity you.

antrobus

Fella wrote: »

So that's a teaching assistant living with a civil servant on benefits & so far they're at four kids & counting...

No, the teaching assistant that lives with a civil servant in Christchurch only have three kids - they're a different couple from the garage worker who lives with the business student in Southwark who have managed four so far.

Fella wrote: »

...
And just to get this right, it's THEM who're complaining? Not the taxpayers who appear to be funding 100% of their existence?

Of course they're complaining! Don't you understand that adequate housing is a basic human right, and these people's rights are being grossly violated?

Fella wrote: »

...Rather than whine about it perhaps they could have considered holding off on maybe the 4th child until they could, er, afford to pay for it themselves?

No, it's from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Clearly the more children you have, the greater your needs, irrespective of your ability.

Fella wrote: »

...
Free houses in Dorset sound great. Can we all have one?

Come the revolution we shall all have free houses in Dorset! I'm sure it's in the manifesto somewhere.

antrobus

ruggedtoast wrote: »

This thread appears to be populated by a troupe of right wing cretins. ....

Don't worry comrade, come the revolution we shall have them all shot. Unless they've already fled to Lubbock, Texas, of course.

Percy1983

antrobus wrote: »

Don't worry comrade, come the revolution we shall have them all shot. Unless they've already fled to Lubbock, Texas, of course.

You do know you are literally saying chavism (as I call it) is the best way.

ILW

ruggedtoast wrote: »

This thread appears to be populated by a troupe of right wing cretins. You should all move to Lubbock as that would just about suit your levels of political and cultural development.

It must be terribly disappointing for you all, desperately wishing for a world where unwanted children were left to starve, the poor weren't allowed to procreate, and there were no benefit system apart from for yourselves.

But then every morning you wake up and leave your houses and there you are, back in the UK. Tragic really. I would almost pity you.

There is a difference between supporting the offspring of the poor, and actually encouraging them to breed faster than the better off. It would tend to reduce the quality of the population over a period of time.

michaels

So there is a basic human right to something which over the world population as a whole probably can't be supported by the world's income (where adequate housing is at the level you appear to be suggesting). SO how does that work, every citizen of the world has a right to something the world collectively can not provide?

Does this mean that you voluntarily give up all your income beyond what you consider the minimum standard of living to the govt ensure as many other people as possible can exercise their right?

antrobus wrote: »

Of course they're complaining! Don't you understand that adequate housing is a basic human right, and these people's rights are being grossly violated?

chewmylegoff

antrobus wrote: »

No, the teaching assistant that lives with a civil servant in Christchurch only have three kids - they're a different couple from the garage worker who lives with the business student in Southwark who have managed four so far.



Of course they're complaining! Don't you understand that adequate housing is a basic human right, and these people's rights are being grossly violated?

No, it's from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Clearly the more children you have, the greater your needs, irrespective of your ability.

Come the revolution we shall all have free houses in Dorset! I'm sure it's in the manifesto somewhere.

I don't really agree that adequate housing is a basic human right, but in any case they have "adequate" housing already, and if they didn't stubbornly insist on staying in inner London then they could have more bedrooms. Their rights aren't being violated, government doesn't have any responsibility to provide people with a bedroom each in the London borough of their choice. They are choosing to remain in an overcrowded situation, clearly the inconvenient is something they are prepared to put up with (hence housing must be adequate or they wouldn't stay).