Large families

absent no more a hobby than yours of misinterpreting others peoples' views - or, as you put it, extrapolating posts and then coming to a totally erroneous conclusion which you interpret as fact. You can hardly be surprised if that offends people.

I've interpreted some news articles and some gransnetter posts in the same way as absent did. At least, it often looks as if some people lean that way, which is how I interpreted absent's remark too. You can't go on and on about how awful benefit scroungers are and say benefits must be reduced or not be available after child number x and then think such an interpretation unreasonable.

It's not an unreasonable interpretation of posts and articles which mainly moan but have no real solutions (has anyone?) to the idiosyncracies and frailties of humanity.

Orca, can you please expand on your solution of '"monitoring families through society and social services". I have no idea what that means in pratical terms.
Other than that, the only proposals put forward appear to be cutting off child benefit for more than two children at some time in the future. Do people really think that will stop people having children?
As to contraception, most of the popular methods are not 100% reliable. My friend's daughter got pregnant when taking the pill because she had the vomiting virus and did not realise that she should take additional precautions. And what about people whose religion forbids contraception?

We have given the statistics - this is not a major problem - but people will not accept them if they do not fit their own political agenda.

Interesting article, Grannylin, although wholly predictable in its content, of course - The Sun: "It's all Gordon Brown's fault." The Guardian: "It's all George Osborne's fault."

And yet another example of a meaningless statistic thrown in to give weight to a flimsy claim, this time by Polly Toynbee -' “Work capability” tests are now so severe that last year more than 1,700 people died within weeks of being declared “fit for work”, official figures show.'

What percentage does that figure represent? How did these people die? She's implying that all 1,700 of them died as a result of being 'forced' to work beyond their capabilities - which is of course rubbish.

And some people are just intolerant. God help them if they're ever in a hungry fix.

Surely the state will step in, Bags, not God!

Sel I've no idea why you are offended or are you acting as spokesperson for others who are offended?

Once more, in words of one syllable:

If you say it is right to pay state hand-outs for just one, two or three kids, then if there are more kids, they will all have a bad time. So it seems to me that you say it is all right for these kids to have a bad time.

Who are all these 'offended' people? I haven't seen any posts claiming offence at any of your posts, absent. Non-comprehension of the 'let 'em starve' claim possibly.

In every school I've taught, the sex education course makes all methods very clear, and their possible failures. Every single course taught in schools for the past 20 years makes it very clear that the pill can fail if one has a stomach upset with vomitting and/or diarrhohea, and that other precautions have to be taken for that month.

And accidents do not happen again and again, and again and some more - most pregnancies do not happen due to lack of information.

Ana Only Sel's (12:43:11).

Granjura - people forget much of what they are taught at school!

Does anybody really think that vast numbers of women are having multiple pregnancies just to get the benefits?

If it is ever proved that child benefit 'encourages' large families then maybe it would be better to have a significantly larger payment for child no.1 and reducing for subsequent children , going to £0 at the 5th child. I do know people have more than 4 kids..but nobody needs that many

I know of absolutely no evidence that large numbers of people are encouraged to have large families simply because of the Child Benefit.
It fits a certain agenda to suggest it and some people seem to lap it up.

ana re your post at 1312, I thought some people were objecting to the state stepping in to help. I was, if course, taking the piss with my remark about god helping them because he, she or it manifestly doesn't.

Does anyone need any children, ej? Depends how you define need, I suppose.

But we humans are very peculiar limiting our offspring. In evolutiionary terms, and for all other animals and plant life forms, the idea is to produce as many offspring as possible.

Given that, we're actually doing quite well as a species, just getting used to such a weird idea and acting on it.

In a relatively short space of time too

As I have said before I don't think people have children to gain more benefits (except the likes of Philpott and fortunately there are not too many like him around), the idea put forward of limiting future payments to 2 or 3 children would, one would hope, encourage people to take responsibility for their own children.

And if it didn't?

Why woudn't it? Or do you consider anyone in receipt of benefits as not being able to accept responsibility for their actions?

Obviously, some are not. Their children would still need to be fed.

If they didn't take their responsibilities seriously then that would be neglect and a case for social services.

How would having more than an 'appropriate' number of children be neglect? Many big families are happy and healthy. The objection to them seems to be that they cost the taxpayer money.

I didn't say having more than an appropriate number of children was neglect, I said if they didn't take their responsibilities seriously that would be neglect.

I agree many big families are happy and healthy. I have no objection to people having however many children they want, all I am saying is that they should take responsibility for ensuring they are able to take care of those children. The vast majority do this and limiting child benefit to 2 or 3 children would not cause them problems.

We are at cross purposes. I took it you meant that having 'too many' children was not taking their responsibilities seriously.

I hate having to explain the obvious but here goes. Society monitors its children through contact with the wider family, neighbours, schools, police, etc. These people come into contact with children and their families on a regular basis and signs of deprivation are usually picked up here first and then referred on to Social Services, Education Welfare, CAMS, etc.
It is obvious that my posts have not been read thoroughly. When unemployment is a life-style choice such families need more formal monitoring.