My God, A One-Man Fertility Bomb

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by RAMC_Medic, Jul 3, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. complusory newtering
     
  2. Perhaps after the first child he should be given a warning and then have an appendage removed for every subsequent child, or we just shoot him.

    I think turning him into a newt may be a bit harsh though...
     
  3. I really object to the state supporting children produced by these kind of losers.
    I know it’s not the child’s fault, but why should the hard working tax payer have to support chav-parasitic-vermin who are nothing but a drain on society.

    At the very least this man should be forced into work and his wages used to support his children.
     
  4. Thats the problem these days. It's too easy to father as many kids with as many women as you want and allow the taxpayer to pick up the tab with not an ounce of accountability. Where I grew up this happens all the time and it's seen as a 'kudos' to have so many kids knocking about the place. It's something that needs to be changed in the mentality of the young and it really doesn't help when all his mother has to say is "

    "My mum's not happy about all these kids.

    "She tells me to pack it in and keep it in my trousers."

    Keep up the great parenting skills love. The only saving grace there is she isn't like the 12yo Scottish girls mum who is "proud" of her for getting up the duff.
     
  5. I can remember the same bloke being on the news after baby no6 boasting that he didn't financially support his kids, nor bother seeing them. I dont lay the blame squarely at his door, but also at the door of these bints who are stupid enough to become pregnant to him. This cretin has got 6 previous kids who he neither see's nor supports, yet there was a girl dumb enough to think she could 'change him' and go on to get pregnant. He doesn't just need neutering, he needs to be locked in a room with his 7 kids for a few months.
     
  6. total agreament!
    this little chav twa# needs to be given the snip I reckon, before he makes any more kids that us tax payers will have to support.
    hes had is share of kids, so snip the little f###er!

    dosen't he know about condoms? but then again, it sounds as if he does not care.
    little w###er! :evil:

    force feed him bromide!
     
  7. His argument will be that he doesn't like the feel of condoms!! Think about it... he is 21, first at 13 so that means he has had 0.875 kids every year since being 13 (for arguments sake!). At that rate he will have had, should his current un-neutered trend continue, a total of 14.875 children (potentially) by time he hits 30. Imagine his benefits! Securicor may even get the contract to deliver it.
     
  8. If he doesn't like the feel of condoms and sleeps with anything that moves then the next set of bills the taxpayer will have to pay will be for treatment of his sexually transmitted diseases.
     
  9. May be there is someone out there who will give him a free vasectomy and then he wont have any more children he should be made to go out and support his children and also make the mothers go out to work part time to pay for there children too .
    Why should taxpayers have to support other people’s children?
     
  10. Vasectomies are free.

    If you're going to let a bloke go at you sans rubber, you've got to be at least partly responsible for the consequences. After all, you're going to be the one stuck with the kid, when he's run away and has started catching some more STDs.
     
  11. I just read the article in The Sun and he reckons that whilst he was with the mother of his 6th child he vowed to have one more (bless him) with her and then have the snip. He goes on to boast he has had 39 women from being 13 and here is the 'would be funny if it wasn't so serious' bit of "It's not my fault. I do use condoms but they never work properly."

    TRY TAKING THEM OUT OF THE PACKET YOU W@NKER!!!
     
  12. A bit late for that isn't it?

    It might be cheaper for the taxpayer to buy the condoms rather than pay to raise the children. This approach is seen as "liberalism" here in America but it's the only cost effective measure I've seen to date unless we sanction state mandated vasectomies.
     
  13. Two bricks , verycheap , very effective
     
  14. Yeah, but the amount of blood loss and subsequent NHS cost to fix it ...