Large families

I am not responsible for other people's posts and I am sure it was not said seriously.

And that really is my last comment!

POGs . most certinly . this is two nights in a row gratnan has read Private Eye , must be a totally gripping , or she is a slow reader .;

I am a speed reader myself.

Who suggested you were responsible for other people's posts, Greatnan?
None of us is.
I was just pointing out that sweeping generalisations are not the prerogative of any one opinion group.

{wink] [wink ]

in fact i have to laugh Anna . x

And it's Ana

Ana I don't think someone did if you look back. Or maybe you are not talking about my posts – in which case, sorry.

movedalot I don't recall saying anything about encouraging people to have large families. I responded to Sel 's suggestion that benefits be restricted to the first three children. I suggested that such a huge drop in family income would inevitably affect children from a large family (whilst they might not actually starve, I suspect they would end up seriously malnourished).

I said that, given everybody was emphatic that children should not go without food or clothing and therefore the suggestion about restricting benefit was not viable, then other measures would be needed to prevent the long term unemployed from having more children. Nobody has commented on the desirability of such measures or made any other suggestions that do not involve punishing children for their parents' actions.

I think there's a danger that the children themselves are being overlooked in all this. Whatever their family circumstances, whether they be born into the Philpott family (God help them) or a large family in which the parents support their family without the help of benefits, it isn't their fault! And all children should have whatever help they can to achieve as much as they can. I think this should be the starting point and only after making sure that the kids are alright should the sins of the parents be addressed

Absent earlier this afternoon I asked you to justify this post - I copied and pasted your post when denied you had said any such thing and I was being silly.

I'll ask again and again, quote your post:

absent Fri 05-Apr-13 10:47:01

Greatnan I'm not so sure you're right. Reading letters in various newspapers and even some of the posts on Gransnet, I think that there are people who would leave the children of existing large families on welfare to starve. They would shake their heads and say how sad it is but the parents have been so irresponsible.

Living on benefits as a life-style choice should not be tolerated. And the way the system works encourages some to produce 'extra' children to support that life-style.

That's what David Cameron's said!i was just going to post that.
But how can you do it, and still protect the vulnerable?

Sel, you're banging your head against a brick wall.

absent said that after reading letters in various papers and even some of the posts on Gransnet, she thinks there are people who would leave the children of existing large families on welfare (her word) to starve.

Of course there are no specific posts on Gransnet to validate her opinion, but the implication is there, nonetheless.

Yes Ana, I may go to sleep waiting

Galen people ought to be made to earn their benefits.

Orca How would you wish to deal with it without affecting the children?

Ana I think some of the comments made on this thread and on others, as well as in some letters to newspapers indicate a heartlessness that I find appalling. If, as some advocate, benefit payments don't take into consideration all the children in a family but only a "permissible number", then all children in that family will suffer. Presumably, therefore, advocates of this policy don't care what happens to the affected children.

Sel I hadn't realised that I was keeping you up by not replying further to your comment. I told you that I hadn't said anything of the sort and I hadn't. You know I hadn't as you specifically referred to my post. I didn't think there was anything to add. I should have thought you had something much more interesting to do than wait for me to repeat what I had already said. I certainly had.

I had got the same impression too. No-one has suggested how to keep the extra children fed and warm if what keeps them alive is withdrawn, or never provided. Back to Victorian poverty? That's what happens when society doesn't look after its poorest and its failures. Every society will have failures – people who are too reckless, too thick, or just too unlucky to cope without help. Civilised societies help their children.

Eloe by monitoring the families through society and Social Services. The notion that children will starve is ridiculous nonsense. There is sufficient money given to families to cover their need not their greed. If the parents are responsible in their parental duties then they should put the needs to their children before their own. So luxuries such as expensive TV's, cigarettes and alcohol should be just that. If they are the sort if parents who put themselves and their life style before their children then steps can and should be taken.
The children in these minority of families are already being 'harmed' inasmuch as their views on what is normal and acceptable are being slanted and their own chances of growing up to be productive members of society are reduced.
I'm only talking about those who choose not to work and who prefer to stay at home all day living off society and contributing nothing. When I say they must earn their benefit there are plenty of volunteering opportunities, charities who need help, environmental schemes, etc., which not only teach transferable skills but can offer a path into paid employment.
Then there's always compulsory vasectomy!

Now, just remind me. Who was it who felt that the unfit should not be allowed to 'breed'?

Compulsory sterilisation, however desirable in a handful of cases, is an abominable option is reality. The laws required to bring it into effect would be outrageous, dangerous, and totalitarian. NOT an option!

To talk of starvation might be something of an exaggeration although who knows where the actions being taken and those planned by George Osborne vis-à-vis the welfare system will lead in the future? I was very distressed to learn this weekend that a food bank is being established not far from where I live. The UK is somewhere about the sixth or seventh richest nation in the world and this is the twenty-first century. Oh Charles Dickens – where are you when we need you?

Roger Rabbit?

?

The remark about the compulsory sterilisation was not meant to be taken literally...I'd at least offer a bribe incentive