Problem families-common sense at last!!

#2
Whilst it seems to be common sense if the State keeps bunging money at women that have multiple children to supplement their diet of fags and cheap cider, they are not going to stop, limit child benefit to the first 3 children, if families want more children then they are on their own.
 
#3
Whilst it seems to be common sense if the State keeps bunging money at women that have multiple children to supplement their diet of fags and cheap cider, they are not going to stop, limit child benefit to the first 3 children, if families want more children then they are on their own.
Personally I'd limit it to two. And not two per partner either!!!
 
#4
Whilst it seems to be common sense if the State keeps bunging money at women that have multiple children to supplement their diet of fags and cheap cider, they are not going to stop, limit child benefit to the first 3 children, if families want more children then they are on their own.
That's my thoughts exactly.

I work very hard for what I have and at times it can be tough going. We have 2 boys just now and hope to have another baby in the future. At the end of my road they have built new housing, half of which has been given out to benefits ninjas. There is a family there who have 4 kids, the mum is the full time carer for the dad who claims to be disabled, they have a mobility car, the youngest kid has ADHD, and as you would expect they have all the trappings of the benefits culture.

There is no incentive for them to work, and I have overheard the mum in the playground boasting about all the things that she is due to get from the system.

The dad regularly advises all the single mums what to claim for, and knows the system inside out to the point where he is an authority on the department of work and pensions.

As said, if I need something I put in loads of overtime, end up tierd, but it's worth it.
 
#5
Problem families 'have too many children’ - Telegraph

Which obviously means this woman won't last in government-unfortunately!!!

I have a feeling her days may indeed be numbered, ashford!


Apart from the benefit culture feeding the problem, starting with the first fatherless child resulting in a flat, a lonely new mother, hence partners sought for the future resulting in next child and on; instead of "you struggle at home with your parents for support" which would make sense for he real rights of the child and young mother in their rights to a family life...... (a phrase which seems important enough in other circumstances to keep proven crimnals in our country!).......

Child care law says the needs of the child should be prime, and that is very, very clear.

Unfortunately two things then happen - the rights of the mother intrude and because the parent is louder than the child her interests suddenly become prime, and if she chooses to spend her money on widescreen TV and cannabis instead of nappies, social services pick up the slack.

The other thing is that we have generated a breed of wishy washy social workers who simply won't take any risk of confronting people to tell them as it is, which is not surprising as they don't get the back up from their seniors when they do.

Case in point from around fifteen years back- I worked with young people for around twenty years in all, and had gripped a 16 year old to prevent him damaging property. Protest from another member of staff, who felt he should not have been confronted in this manner but, presumably, let him go on with it until he was arrested and ended up with a criminal record.... hence lesser job prospects for him and on, hardly good child care anyway!

Resolution of complaint? After my suspenision from working there, all the senior staff furore up to assistant director level, and many expensive meetings, he was was interviewed and simply said he was totally out of order at the time, had behaved like a total arrse, and was having no part in the complaint, as if he had been me, he would have cracked him one!

As Louise Casey has probably found directly speaking witjh problem clients of social services, those clients can actually be more perceptive and ultimately sensible than many of our modern breed of social workers can even imagine!
 
#6
Personally I'd limit it to two. And not two per partner either!!!
Better build some more childrens homes....I reckon the motorway verges would soon fill up with "useless mouths", I mean... why keep them if they are not paying their way???
 
#7
I didn't know who Louise Casey was until now but I like her already, I bet she'll need an armed guard if she goes campaigning around some of the UK'S more "colourful" estates in the run up to the next election though!
 
#8
Better build some more childrens homes....I reckon the motorway verges would soon fill up with "useless mouths", I mean... why keep them if they are not paying their way???
It doesn't have to be brought in immediatly or retrospectively...

just...

from 01/04/2013 the following applies.

Single mothers. Live with your parents/by your own means or move in to the 'single mum housing facility'. A rather nice two or three bedroom open plan flat, supported by hard but caring 'aunties' who will teach the mothers the art of being a mum. Including education and esteem building for the mother. Day care provided whilst mum is given the chance to better themselves... and lots of work washing sheets for the local hospital.

Child benefit. For two kids (or the product of up two pregnancies in the event of multiple birth) and adopted/fostered kids. Bonus payments for thsoe who get snipped etc.

Dole scrapped.

State employment. Work for the state, get money. Based on minimum wage. Including those who are incarcarated.

There is nothing quite as obscene as paying people to rot in to stagnation, and introduce their children in tothe rotton mess.

ETA, failure to put a good showing in at school or end up on ASBOs/in nick should result in a 'lowering' of assistance until this lacking has been made good... ie extra hard work on the state employment or a return to school in order to achieve a 'green'.
 
#9
She has been around for a good while, and is no stranger to controversy. I haven't always agreed with her pronouncements, especially regarding homelessness, but there is no doubt she is a clever woman, unafraid to speak her mind when it goes against her bosses, and her star has only risen so far. I think, in general, more power to her elbow, and if she gets this message across it can only be good.
 
#11
That's my thoughts exactly.

I work very hard for what I have and at times it can be tough going. We have 2 boys just now and hope to have another baby in the future. At the end of my road they have built new housing, half of which has been given out to benefits ninjas. There is a family there who have 4 kids, the mum is the full time carer for the dad who claims to be disabled, they have a mobility car, the youngest kid has ADHD, and as you would expect they have all the trappings of the benefits culture.

There is no incentive for them to work, and I have overheard the mum in the playground boasting about all the things that she is due to get from the system.

The dad regularly advises all the single mums what to claim for, and knows the system inside out to the point where he is an authority on the department of work and pensions.

As said, if I need something I put in loads of overtime, end up tierd, but it's worth it.
Hmm, depressing isn't it!

With hindsight I'd have happily cashed in my very modest life savings and bought the whole family tickets for the Premier of the new Batman movie, in a 'holiday of a lifetime' experience in Denver USA. The midnight screening I think would have been best. Oh well, missed the boat there, so I'll just have scratch my nuts and type nonsense on the internet for another day & a half before returning to work on Monday so my taxes can help upgrade the lazy bastard's Motability car to a bigger people carrier to cope with their burgeoning family (and waistbands).
 
#12
Which obviously means this woman won't last in government-unfortunately!!!
I didn't know who Louise Casey was until now but I like her already, I bet she'll need an armed guard if she goes campaigning around some of the UK'S more "colourful" estates in the run up to the next election though!
She is a dole clerk "made good", and has done very nicely thank you very much out of charity as an institution.

She is not an elected representative, and has served under different governments for more than a decade, appointed by both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and now David Cameron.

So, no election campaigning then.

In summary, a serial job-hopper with a large mouth and the usual cynical populist lowest common denominator agenda dressed up as pragmatism.

Its all been done before.
 
#13
She told The Daily Telegraph that the Government must not be a “soft touch” but instead be prepared to “get stuck in”, challenge taboos and change lives.
No wonder she's going down well in the Home Counties, she's encapsulated their philosophy in a nutshell: "The government should be as small as possible and not interfere in the private lives of the individual. Except everybody else."

Policy formulation by curtain-twitching. Oh, joy.
 
#14
As popular as the pursuit of welfare witches driving Cadillacs is less breeding probably means much more immigration at some point. The UK is barely breeding at replacement rate, it's immigration that is topping the population up. This is what's happened in Switzerland, though their incentives for childbearing are lavish compared with the UK they still don't breed and import foreigners at a far greater rate than the UK to keep the economy going, I put it down to laziness.
 
#15
As popular as the pursuit of welfare witches driving Cadillacs is less breeding probably means much more immigration at some point. The UK is barely breeding at replacement rate, it's immigration that is topping the population up. This is what's happened in Switzerland, though their incentives for childbearing are lavish compared with the UK they still don't breed and import foreigners at a far greater rate than the UK to keep the economy going, I put it down to laziness.
We don't increase landmass or resources year by year (that used to be achieved by warfare and pillage) why on earth should our population?

Sky rocketting populations to financially support the old generatons is just a Ponzi scheme waitng to cascade us into a dystopian horror.

World Development Indicators and Global Development Finance - Google Public Data Explorer

1961 - 3 billion in the world (give or take)

2011 - 7 billion in the world.

I can see this all ending well.
 
#16
Problem families 'have too many children’ - Telegraph

Which obviously means this woman won't last in government-unfortunately!!!
In other Breaking News: Bears Defecate in Woods.

Sound and fury, signifying nothing. Politicians can talk a good fight, but they don't have the bottle to take meaningful action. Although in fairness, the Welfare State is so****ed up that any plan that did not include the words, "Final Solution" and "Zyklon B" would most likely be doomed to failure anyway.:twisted:
 
#17
The Welfare State is now too big an 'employer' to be dismantled.
9m votes of the non employed are a powerful.constituancy
 
#18
If a "family" have 2 kids when they fall on hard times then we pay just for 2, if they have any more then the state doesn't pick up the tab.
No government has the balls to truly tackle this problem, circa 9m votes is a lot of clout. A 6th of the population according to the last census.
Someone I know has had the burgeoning[sp] family since becoming disabled.
Him suffering from PTSD, bad knees and back requiring a walking stick.
Her never done a days meaning full work in her life, except on her back.
5 kids, 2 or 3 with ADHD, yeah right.
Brand new 5 bed HA town house.
£450 a week in benefits (so I'm told) No rent, council tax, free prescriptions, dental, school meals, after school clubs, school trips and school uniform vouchers.
DLA both with care and mobility, due a replacement car soon, and he will get a crisis loan to cover the deposit.

Me £500 a week take home for working 65/70 hours a week and only seeing the family at the weekend.

My question is, who's the mug.

CG
 
#19
If a "family" have 2 kids when they fall on hard times then we pay just for 2, if they have any more then the state doesn't pick up the tab.
No government has the balls to truly tackle this problem, circa 9m votes is a lot of clout. A 6th of the population according to the last census.
Someone I know has had the burgeoning[sp] family since becoming disabled.
Him suffering from PTSD, bad knees and back requiring a walking stick.
Her never done a days meaning full work in her life, except on her back.
5 kids, 2 or 3 with ADHD, yeah right.
Brand new 5 bed HA town house.
£450 a week in benefits (so I'm told) No rent, council tax, free prescriptions, dental, school meals, after school clubs, school trips and school uniform vouchers.
DLA both with care and mobility, due a replacement car soon, and he will get a crisis loan to cover the deposit.

Me £500 a week take home for working 65/70 hours a week and only seeing the family at the weekend.

My question is, who's the mug.

CG
I'd say you are. Better work on that limp!
 
#20
I personally know women who have lied about not knowing the identity of the father of their children in order to maximise the rewards the state confers upon them.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Jip Travolta ARRSE: Site Issues 1
PartTimePongo The Intelligence Cell 3
I ARRSE: Site Issues 26

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top