£7k a month benefits?!?

[IT Minion]

No sensible person would say it's not a complex multi-faceted issue, for example the scenario you give of people that might be in work e.g. with 5 kids and then lose their jobs. However that's distinctly different from people that are already on benefits, perhaps not working at all, who make a conscious decision to have another child, then another, and perhaps another.

So mandatory adoption for third children whose parents aren't currently employed and don't have savings.

 

[ajohn]

which a simple maximum limit would address

Enforced contraceptive depot injections maybe or what China did for a while - more than 2 kids is against the law. Whoops it was 1 child for a while.

It was enforced by the National Health and Family Planning Commission, with a system of fines for violators and often forced abortions.

 

[JohnD]

So mandatory adoption for third children whose parents aren't currently employed and don't have savings.

He might prefer forced abortions and state infanticide.

 

[ajohn]

He might prefer forced abortions and state infanticide.

May me more not thinking about problems with his solution. Or maybe not.

 

[^woody^]

The apologist is strong in this one.

Not too long ago, large families were common and the dad went out and worked and the mom stayed home to bring up the kids, and when the kids were old enough they got part time jobs and then full time jobs.

None of this can't afford childcare nonsense, none of this living off the state and backs of others, none of this free rent and free lifestyle.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

So mandatory adoption for third children whose parents aren't currently employed and don't have savings.

Are you turning into Pat Ex?!? Show me, as in actually show me, where I stated mandatory adoptions are the way to go. I said this ...

No sensible person would say it's not a complex multi-faceted issue

Whilst I don't pretend to have the answers, I personally don't think it's right for families essentially living off the tax payer to pop out more than 2-3 kids. If you don't see an issue with these families having 4,5,6 plus kids then fine, you're entitled to your opinion. However don't make assertions about my views with nothing to back it up other than making Pat Ex esque type assumptions.

 

[^woody^]

No sensible person would say it's not a complex multi-faceted issue

It's a lifestyle choice, plain and simple.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

It's a lifestyle choice, plain and simple.

I'm sitting here waiting on IT Minion showing me where I asserted mandatory adoption was the order of the day. Not sure how long I'll have to wait ...

 

[IT Minion]

Are you turning into Pat Ex?!? Show me, as in actually show me, where I stated mandatory adoptions are the way to go. I said this ...

No sensible person would say it's not a complex multi-faceted issue

Whilst I don't pretend to have the answers, I personally don't think it's right for families essentially living off the tax payer to pop out more than 2-3 kids. If you don't see an issue with these families having 4,5,6 plus kids then fine, you're entitled to your opinion. However don't make assertions about my views with nothing to back it up other than making Pat Ex esque type assumptions.

Oh get over yourself.

There really aren't many options here. Either sterilisation or mandatory contraceptives or forced adoption. Everything else we already do.

Either you stop people having more children or you don't. If you don't then you either support third+ children, via their parents, or you don't.

That much is simple.

 

[Justin Passing]

If the parents can't afford the kids such that the kids are suffering, then yes, take a kid off the parents, in the kid's interest.
There are plenty of people wanting to adopt.
Tough.
There's no reason why everyone else should have to support some unlimited number of kids.

In other words, if you're on long term benefit and get pregnant, you're going to have it taken off you unless you organise more income. That is because benefits should not be enough to support more kids than you have. If you're on benefits, you should be able to just manage, no more. Even if you have to learn, shock horror, how to cook, rather than buy take-aways.

If the breadwinner becomes unemployed, then savings may fill a temporary gap. You get reviewed...
Kids should be removed from any parent who can't cope such that the child suffers, regardless of how much money they get. Starting at One.

 

[Dork Lard]

Has anyone stopped long enuff to ask themselve's the question of how this MSM (& I use the term loosely) news outlet knows that this family were on £7k a month benefits ???

 

[ajohn]

take a kid off the parents, in the kid's interest.

They do but in this case no one was looking. They have now.

 

[Justin Passing]

They do but in this case no one was looking. They have now.

Having both parents in nick, is something even soc services understand.
They're understaffed of course, but they do know how many kids people have as soon as they're on benefits. EVen if it's 3 different mothers and 4 different fathers.

 

[Justin Passing]

Couple paid £7,000 a month in benefits left children living in filth with 35 dogs

Gemma Brogan and Christopher Bennett jailed for six years each following ‘dreadful example of child neglect’ during lockdown

www.telegraph.co.uk

I think they count as MSM.

 

[ajohn]

Having both parents in nick, is something even soc services understand.

Because the system looks after that.

but they do know how many kids people have as soon as they're on benefits. EVen if it's 3 different mothers and 4 different fathers.

So they get the info and can also go and check all? Clearly not in the case that has been posted.