Hello survivors,

For the last few days I have read a number of editorials and listened intently to the news and found myself absoulutely enraged, about Mr Michael Philpott and his 14 children, one wife, one mistress, and three other Ex's.

I'm not saying that the benefit figure of 26.000 inclusive of one part time salary a year, between two adults and there immediate offspring of 7 children is a lot of money. I'm enraged at the fact that he feels the country has let him down by not giving him more money and a bigger house, to house him and his brood.

What disgusts me here is his lack of responsibility, and that of the women in question who must surely have realised that the state is not responsible for the errors of family planning.

What exactly is brewing here is that his children will likewise grow up, without any sense of responsibility - who will no doubt follow in there parents footsteps thinking that this is a normal lifestyle, whose existence will be state dependent. This is a sad scenario but futuristically it means the tax payer will be funding this man and his ever growing brood for eternity. Come 10 years down the line and the next brood will arrive from the then teenagers becoming pregnant. The family will become extended by a further conservative or liberal estimate of say 5 or 6 and so on and so on.

Should the state step in, or this a serious infringement upon poor peoples rights to have children?

I am being serious here there are couples who want children, who simply can't afford repetitive IVF treatments, who would love a child to become part of there family. Who can give a great deal of love and a decent family life to an adopted baby as if it were there own son or daughter, without relying on the state.

How many children should the state support or does this sound to rigid a ruling, Britain is not China?

Should people be means tested as to whether they can afford to have a child or not?

Maureen
Northern angel.

How many children should the state support?

Well, in an ideal world none.:mellow:

These families aspire to be Chavs do they not?!

In all seriousness families like this exist. It's unfortnante but they do. I think that the state should have some involvement but I think it should be capped. eg Council housing should be available to all. This would include the likes of the above but I think that payouts and funding should be based upon a limited timescale and diminish over a period of time. Screw human rights. If the parents cannot provide for the children take the children into care until such time as the parents can show that they are responsible enough to provide the children with their basic human rights.

The trouble is there are always loopholes in these systems and these people will find a way through it.

What sickens is that we work for 20 years paying taxes and then get, through no fault of our own, made redundant but because we have savings in place for our children and hard worked for assets we are entitled to nothing until thats all but been spent



By the way.......which way did the hunt go??

These people should get off their fat ars-es and get a job! what really annoys me is they complain about not having enough money to live on but they are not short of their fags and booze.
I Hate Spongers !!!!!!!

My Sister in law has 7 kids and as much as i dislike the cow, i have to commend her she works part time as well as looking after all her brood.

Well, in an ideal world none.:mellow:

Hello Groucho,

I love your succinct approach to debateble questions. I'd also love to live in an ideal world unfortunately we don't. Still I'm intrigued by slippers view of gradual withdrawal of support on a sliding scale to make people more responsive to the ideas of work.

I also find myself in agreeance to removing the children into environments where they will be cared for by people who really want children, not institutional care but foster care and in some cases adoption. A child should not be thought of as a meal ticket to increased benefits for dependents and child allowances. After all, once these children become teens, they become more costly again and if you couldn't afford them in the first place, they will be at a disadvantage in there own educational peer group and for work opportunities.

Maureen
Northern angel.

Hello Slipper,

I find myself in agreeance with what you say, but I am also worried that maybe we are being too judgemental. Sometimes I don't think we see what the social reality is in a run down neighbourhood. Some folks would love to have jobs but feel that it they should earn something in excess of what there allowances are. The allowances are set at base level, so if wages are too low than those jobs are obviously not worth doing. Having pride does not mean selling yourself to short. Some part time jobs are so low they do not even have a National Insurance payment attached - this would have to be credited to them, let alone income tax.

Some people caught in this level of being below the decent income strata or that 4th class which I mentioned somewhere in a thread, can only exist in the black market economy because it is where they feel pushed. By the growing numbers of working and middle classes in jobs with relatively high incomes. That a them and us scenario becomes evident in contrasting neighbourhoods.

I have actually heard conversations from such people that they feel that if one person does a job and earns the equivalent of two incomes for doing it, not only are they being overpaid but they are denying someone else a job. In addition to denying someone else an opportunity in life to actually become part of the social strata rather than to just exist at the bottom.Research also exists which tells us that there isn't enough jobs for all of us to be working at the same time, with the majority of the unemployed in this pool of labour being the unskilled and most poorly educated.

In relation to your latter point, I to, am annoyed that if you have over a certain amount as savings and you find yourself out of work at any given point in your career, you may not be entitled to claim any benefits, when you have paid into the scheme of things.Hence, you must spend it to support yourself and your kin.

Mr Philpot obviously fits in this scenario above, with all his brood. But in taking a closer look at the neighbourhood it is lacking in terms of life enhancing prospects and of a decent living standard. A satalite dish a old knackered caravan and a tent is not conducive of a decent home or suggestive of a comfortable standard of living. More reticent of gypsies on the road or victorian standards of overcrowding, kipping out where possible or sleeping in shifts.

This case highlights issues that need resolving.

Maureen
Northern angel.

I still think you should have to sit a test at 14 (since they start so young these days) and if you fail it you're neutered! :pimp:

If someone approached you this week, and asked you; "Would you be willing to swop for one week only, your lifestyle for someone else's, would you do it?"

Late last night a programme came on TV called POOR LITTLE RICH GIRL, it showed a lovely healthy slim blond girl the daughter of a millionaire from a 10 roomed spacious and luxuriously furnished and decorated home, who apparently had no other job - but to function as a footballers wife, with a habit of shopping for expensive designer goods etc.Also living at home were her sisters and her mum.

Another girl was highlighted for this swop, she was a size or two bigger than the blond, who was a student on a performing arts course, holding down two part time jobs and a voluntary post. Her jobs were a taxi company telephone bookings operator, and a waitress come barmaid in a theme bar. Her voluntary post involved serving meals to the homeless.Also living at home were her 2 brothers and younger sister and her mum. They lived in a two bedroomed tenement council flat and given the fact that the eldest daughter works, her mum claims benefits to enable looking after the family.

So they swopped.
The first difference noted was the lack of space in one and an excess of it in another.
Second, furnishings luxurious and apt for the home V furnishings worn, cheap, second hand in the other
Thrid, clutter or untidiness in one, and orderly in another,
Fouth cutlery, crockery old non matching cracked, V perfect sets in the other.
Fifth, bathroom WC and other utilities together in one cramped space, old and too far gone for cleaning, V a spacious bathroom modern fittings plus additional washing facilities.
Sixth, Communal entrance to tenements badly lit and bleak, V private driveway and garages to hold several cars.
Public transport reliance for work with one , V no work own car with the other.
Clothing difference cheap and serviceable in one,V expensive and serviceable in the other.
the list could go on, but the most major difference noted;- One worked for everything she has, V the other has inherited it


The programme made no mention of education, but I suspect one was comprehensive + college, the other a private school maybe University to follow.

At the end the swopping of gifts was a testament to there backgrounds small inexpensive ones came from the household with the least income and expensive pan sets from the one with the most. Both appreciated the thought, although none more so - than the rich family who felt guilty as the cost of the gifts would have to have come from a limited income source.

What was really lovely about this programme was the fact that whilst they both came from distinctly different backgrounds. They both became friends, had a greater understanding of what living meant for both of them, and neither condemning the other on the basis of background. The rich girl in fact had a great deal of admiration for the girl from the tenement and the poor girl was given a taster which had the affect of raising her goals in life. A gem of a programme.

Maybe this is something we need to experience ourselves.

Maureen
Northern angel.

I'm sure this is all very interesting - but the posts are too long for me to read at the moment - sorry !!