Britain’s Most Shameless Mum

[handyjack]

By explaining that there will be no increase in benefit, no child benefit. They then have a choice don't they.

 

[JBR]

Once on benefit, no more kids.

Please explain how you'd make that work.

Obviously, you can't stop people having kids any more than you can stop feral dogs shagging in the streets, but you can stop any further benefits above two children.

I'd go further: for every child over the first two, their total benefits would be reduced by half. That'd make them think again!

 

[EFLImpudence]

That'd make them think again!

That implies they thought in the first place.

You know that's not the case.

 

[JBR]

That'd make them think again!

That implies they thought in the first place.

You know that's not the case.

You're right. It has probably never crossed their minds that sexual intercourse is directly related to dropping sprogs. They are a 'gift from God' or perhaps the stork really does deliver them.

 

[longdogs]

Do I get the impression that some feel claiming any money from the Government is "sponging"?

I certainly don't begrudge anyone with a genuine claim it's the ones that work the system that are the problem. Unfortunately, I have always been too busy working to learn how to do it.

 

[Brigadier]

Once on benefit, no more kids.

Please explain how you'd make that work.

Obviously, you can't stop people having kids any more than you can stop feral dogs shagging in the streets, but you can stop any further benefits above two children.

Not in civilised Britain you can't.
I do get frustrated as much as the next man about this, but schemes like that are just totally unworkable.

 

[JBR]

Once on benefit, no more kids.

Please explain how you'd make that work.

Obviously, you can't stop people having kids any more than you can stop feral dogs shagging in the streets, but you can stop any further benefits above two children.

Not in civilised Britain you can't.
I do get frustrated as much as the next man about this, but schemes like that are just totally unworkable.

Why?

 

[Brigadier]

Do you think any party that implemented starvation of infants would get voted in a second time?
And, bear in mind that your beef is with the feckless mother, not the innocent babies who are as much a victim of this, than you are.

 

[handyjack]

Put babies up for adoption no appeal.

 

[Brigadier]

Probably cost more than paying benefits.
How many social workers does it take to get all the way to adoption?

 

[scubajohn]

i dont normaly post,
But a cap on how many children get benifits is rubish human rights will step in the goverment will find new benifits hard ship etc unfortunatly !

 

[JBR]

Do you think any party that implemented starvation of infants would get voted in a second time?
And, bear in mind that your beef is with the feckless mother, not the innocent babies who are as much a victim of this, than you are.

Yes, you are right and I was wrong.

One way or another, the country is doomed. Doomed, I tell you.

 

[Brigadier]

I have family who are adoptive parents. Here is one for you, that doesn't make a great deal of sense.

There are some baby-factories who are deemed such a risk to any child they have, Social Services are basically wicket-keeping at the birth, ready to whisk the poor mite off into care.

Clearly, sterilisation is an option, albeit a draconian one for someone who may mend their ways / get the help they need.
Why don't the authorities implant some sort of contraceptive device (under the skin, perhaps) that renders the woman infertile for, say, five years? After all, the courts have already imposed a "take any kid off them" order; why not a "render temporarily infertile" order instead / as well?
Then, if they are assessed as being fit for parenthood later on, they can have the implant removed, and crack on?

 

[JBR]

I have family who are adoptive parents. Here is one for you, that doesn't make a great deal of sense.

There are some baby-factories who are deemed such a risk to any child they have, Social Services are basically wicket-keeping at the birth, ready to whisk the poor mite off into care.

Clearly, sterilisation is an option, albeit a draconian one for someone who may mend their ways / get the help they need.
Why don't the authorities implant some sort of contraceptive device (under the skin, perhaps) that renders the woman infertile for, say, five years? After all, the courts have already imposed a "take any kid off them" order; why not a "render temporarily infertile" order instead / as well?
Then, if they are assessed as being fit for parenthood later on, they can have the implant removed, and crack on?

I agree with you, but it will never happen: do-gooders abound.

 

[handyjack]

Do you think any party that implemented starvation of infants would get voted in a second time?
And, bear in mind that your beef is with the feckless mother, not the innocent babies who are as much a victim of this, than you are.

For any child conceived while on benefit, they get food parcels, no money. Paying them extra every time they drop a sprog is just an incentive. If they know they won't get more money I bet some will start thinking contraceptives.