Humans breeding out of control

[difflock]

Unfortunately no matter how much of our money the state throws at the problem, the children will still suffer as the feckless parents get the cash and spend it on booze carry out food gambling and ciggys.

There is NO control on how the cash is spent.

Even the rent money now gets paid to the claimant and not direct to the landlord ffs.

Their childrens basic needs appear to be quite low down on these parents list of priorities.

Every child should get free school meals for a start

[Rich2484]

I do agree, however the only other option is to sterilise undesirable would-be parents, thus preventing the suffering of children in the first place. You are then into the marvelously controversial topic area of eugenics!

 

Or human rights ?

[RobArb]

but its not just this country with a population boom, its everywhere, especially the asian countries, and we have no control over them

[Rich2484]

Ah, but is it not a basic human right for a child to expect reasonable parenting?

 

True but you know how the system works.

 

They go tell some "undesirable" that they are going to be neutered and they should brace themselves while the doc gets the bricks out, and they will down to see a duty solicitor before the doc can turn around.

[Perkins]

Haven't the Chinese had a 'one child per couple' rule for like 3 decades?

[RobArb]

yes but at a population of 83.7gazillion, even having 1 child each would out number us brits having 5-7 each:001_rolleyes:

[felixthelogchopper]

Haven't the Chinese had a 'one child per couple' rule for like 3 decades?

 

I take you aren't confusing China with a democracy?

[Mycoman]

I don't know, and I don't know if the stats even exist to prove this, but I reckon that for every 25-year-old-mum-of-7-by-7-different-dads there will be a kid from a high-rise estate who's managed to become a regimental sergeant-major, say, or got to uni to read medicine, or owns a string of car dealerships, or is Mo Farah (Somali immigrant). The net economic effect will at worst be neutral because we did not leave them to rot.

 

It can't be easy or nice trying to live on benefits. Your enormous telly and games consoles give you a) a bit of escapism (but with constant reminders of stuff you can't afford and places you'll never see) and b) a chance to know the kids are in and safe, instead of letting them take their chances on the street corner or in the stairwell. It must be horrible getting to the checkout in Lidl and having to put back 'non-essentials', like jam or squash. If it seems that there's an attitude problem among the non-working class, it could be that this bravado is a Rizla-thin veneer that keeps them from breakdown. In short, I don't believe it's anybody's real, look-themselves-in-the-mirror choice to live on benefits.

 

I'm not a pinko Trot: I strongly believe that work ethic, shrewd financial sense and the profit motive are the bedrock of the economy and that most people on here are truly blessed to have these attributes - the choices that gives us and our children make us society's winners. I also strongly believe that the economy isn't a zero-sum game: to have winners, there don't have to be losers (see, this is where Marx was wrong), in fact, everyone wins. One manifestation of this is that we all get more, better stuff, cheaper - warm homes, mobile phones, huge tellies, kidney dialysis machines - thanks to all the people, from whatever background, who make the economy work in its mysterious way through their supplies and demands.

 

So it's not just civilised, it's probably pretty sound sense, not to cut adrift people who can't, at this time, manage for themselves. Neanderthal remains have shown that even those proto-human societies looked after their disabled fellows and while I realise that hanging my argument on the peg of the actions of a species we drove to extinction is a little shoogly, I think the Welfare State is up there with the Falklands War and Bitter as things Britain got right.

[skyhuck]

In short, I don't believe it's anybody's real, look-themselves-in-the-mirror choice to live on benefits.

 

 

Thats incredibly naive.

 

There are unfortunately huge numbers of people who will only work if they are going to get considerably more from working than benefits and in reality once a family gets fully "into the befits system", getting rent, council tax, etc, paid, find a job that makes them better off is very difficult.

 

I was briefly on benefits, after a back injury. The job I took after my recovery made us £7.50 per week worse off, plus I would need to run a car. But I took the job, because I felt it was my responsibility to pay my own way and felt ashamed of the "free money".

[Dean Lofthouse]

Any thing that is open to abuse will be abused, that's human nature.

 

The welfare system is there for the less fortunate, it's just a shame that some think that because they only have one car, they are less fortunate than others.

 

I had a very poor up bringing, we didn't have a tele, I used to get bullied at school because we couldn't afford the latest fashionable clothing and had to stand in the free school meal queue. My mother managed to bring us up on her own with the help of handouts from neighbours and friends.

 

We couldn't afford Hugg boots, plasmas etc etc etc