Large families

No, Ana, nobody should be able to choose not to work if work is available.

I don't wish to speak for Orca but I would think that if the parenting is inadequate there would be help available to help the parents improve, I wouldn't want to see children removed from parents unless there was deliberate neglect or the children were in danger. Locally, and I believe nationally, there have been parenting classes for parents whose parenting skills are not very good and these I understand have proved to be very successful.

I think the figure of those totally dependent on benefits is quite low. Of those who are dependent I expect it is still a minority who are doing so by choice. Others will be seeking work or disabled/ill.

That is why all the recent scare-mongering headlines are irresponsible.

Recent changes to benefits are not because millions of people are sitting at home choosing to live on benefits alone. There are some and these need to know it cannot continue BUT there have to be jobs for people to do.

What is the alternative for a long term unemployed person if there are no available jobs within a reasonable & cost effective travel distance? Everyone cannot move to the SE!

Orca I still don't understand how such "monitoring" addresses the issue of decreasing welfare payments. Are you suggesting that if the parents are judged to be inadequate, then the children will be moved into care? As I've said before, that would be infinitely more expensive and the outcomes for children in care are not that great either.

Why? We all know the figure is small, but surely parents of any families, large or not, shouldn't be able to choose not working as a lifestyle.

Do you have any figures to show how many parents of large families choose not working as a lifestyle choice?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

And if it didn't?

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.

In a relatively short space of time too

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.