| 2 May 09, 8:41 AM Scorchio 7 yrs |
Totally agree with everything you've said. It makes my blood boil that people sit around on benefits and continue to have more and more children. I think there should be some kind of cap on it...after the first three children you don't get any more help, it's for you to decide whether or not you can afford more kids. I work bloody hard, and resent paying high taxes just to provide bone idle scroungers with a free meal ticket for the rest of their lives.
| |||
| 2 May 09, 8:52 AM Max_Bedroom 5 yrs |
I agree. But what do bankers have to do with it? | |||
| 2 May 09, 11:21 AM Chariots_Rise 3 yrs |
There were an awful lot of assumptions, pre-conceived notions and criticisms made by the OP who it would seem had nothing better to do than watch what other people were doing. I saw nothing in the OP which proved that the criticisms (dole-scrounging, good for nothing, uncontrolled breeder etc) were anything more than subjective assumptions. And we appear to have the Sugar Police now. i'm down upon my knees, i see a ray of hope - Starsailor | |||
| 2 May 09, 1:17 PM Skyhook 7 yrs |
So what if three children were born into a loving marriage, a marriage or relationship that after a few years breaks down, or one partner dies. You now have a single parent with three children and vastly reduced income and time/resources to look after them. Do you now consider her children "accidents"? Perhaps we should have them put down. Regarding the O.P., yes taking that amount of sugar rankles, but that's a bit of shopping budget saved (admittedly I don't know where the money for a hotel stay came from!) Personally I'd be more concered if the mother had been happy to cram all her kids into a pokey house. She may be loud, 'common' and 'thick', but at least she wants the best for her children. I'm no do-gooder or bleeding heart liberal, but I hate the predudice in sweeping generalisations like the O.P. I hold a good job but still struggle to support my family. Of course I'd like to be able to nominate where my taxes go, a lot of things make me very angry. But life isn't fair. If for some horrible reason I was left a single parent tomorrow what would I do? Keep my job - and pay a lot of tax on my earnings; I'd have to employ a childmider and work longer hours to pay for one. I'd have to pay her wages - which are also taxed. Double whammy for the Government then. No wonder they want to get single parents back to work. I accept the arguement that if I was unemployed I should think very hard about how I could support any children I planned to have - but it's rarely black and white. And back to the O.P. - your experience may have been annoying, but think yourself lucky that you weren't in a hotel with a load of 'businessmen'; I can assure you that the sheer ignorance on display is worse than any pikey family. And yes, that's a sweeping generalisation, but one I've found true for me. Still, back to happy, single, childless life for the O.P. Have a pat on the head.
"Me? I'm all about the hugs. | |||
| 2 May 09, 3:00 PM fawn4n UK, 8 yrs |
Ouch people seem to have got quite steamed up about this blog.
My little three pennorth is that my uncle is one of 11, all 11 along with his parents lived in a 3 bed house, not a big house either. His mam still lives there with one sister and her hubby.
He had a happy, wonderful home life, yes with challenges but the size of a home doesnt indicate the quality of life at home. All 11 finished school, hold down jobs and are nice normal people. fawn xxxx | |||
| 2 May 09, 5:25 PM Max_Bedroom 5 yrs |
quietsoul - I do take your point. Welfare systems are there primarily to assist people who find themselves in time of difficulty. It is a noble thing, and is an illustration of one of the positive ways that Western societies have developed in the last sixty years or so. However, the people that you speak of, the people that abuse the system - they are often poorly educated, with few prospects and little ambition. See, to me, I find it tremendously sad that a girl of 16 (or 17 or 15 or whatever) will allow herself to become pregnant because she feels her best option is to get a dingy flat and barely enough to live on. Is she then concludes that if she has several children, she may get a bigger place, well I find this sad too. How can you draw a line, and say, well three (or whatever) is enough? If at four, benefits are not extended, or even cut, who will pay the price for this? It is her children that will pay. I appreciate the frustration of people who bemoan those that exploit the system, but rather than condemn and criticise a 16 (or whatever) year old who has been failed by society, I think we need to look at how she found herself drawing the conclusion that being a single mum is her best option. I didn't have a clue about life at 16. Not sure I do now at 39, but I was fortunate to come from a good family who instilled certain attitudes and standards that have had a profound effect on how I have attempted to live my life. Many, many people do not get this, and so, they end up making poorly thought out, selfish decisions. I just think that there are other people who are fully aware of what they are doing, and are clever enough to work the system in far more insidious manner. Those in charge of hedge funds. Bankers. These people know what they are doing, and do it anyway. And have much more than a three bedroomed semi for their efforts. And who is paying for it? I really do get why you should disapprove of a 20 year old with five kids trying to exploit the system. But is it not possible that the system has failed her as well?
| |||
| 2 May 09, 5:53 PM electricfog UK, 7 yrs |
Thank you. Although I was unemployed for some time due to my disability, I have been working full time for the last 14 or so years. I claim NO benefits and I certainly do NOT steal. | |||
| 2 May 09, 6:03 PM Skyhook 7 yrs |
I don't think I took your quote out of context; the line I quoted was quite clear. Now I know more about your situation - and I applaud you! - you will see why I reacted to what you wrote. Off on a slight tangent - these 'people' who seem to think having multiple children is a route to a big house and better life - it doesn't work like that. And critisising them doesn't work either. We can mock or be angry at the parents, but what about the children? This surely is all about education, breaking this cycle. We can rant and moan about our taxes being 'wasted', but I'd much prefer mine being used to support those families we seem to have written off. By that I mean having a structure to give every child the chance to 'better' themselves, to grow and contribute to our society.
"Me? I'm all about the hugs. | |||
| 2 May 09, 6:09 PM Skyhook 7 yrs |
Welcome. I didn't realise you were disabled. I don't remember saying you claimed benefits or stealed either though.
"Me? I'm all about the hugs. | |||
| 2 May 09, 9:46 PM electricfog UK, 7 yrs |
Quietsoul, if you stand for parliament, you'll get my vote for sure. Children who have never been taught to behave correctly are producing babies who haven't a hope in hell of becoming decent human beings. There is NO penalty for uncontrolled breeding, and NO encouragement to become a productive and decent member of society. |