No More Children Please

That Mick Philpott who set fire to his house killing six of his 11 children clearly got what he deserved when he was given a life sentence.

But the argument today seems to be whether the "benefit culture" enjoyed by many is the reason Philpott did what he did. He wanted to burn down the house so the council would give him a bigger one.

George Osborne questioned whether it was right for the state to "subsidise" people with Philpott's lifestyle and I quite agree. I cannot believe that in 2013 a man can have 11 children and the state will provide benefits for them all.

Surely the state should only pay for one or two children, if you want more you should damn well have to cough up the cash yourself.

This is crazy. Deep down everyone knows that people don't need three children and that those that have multipe kids are arseholes. So why doesn't the government simply say enough is enough and cut benefit for child number 3 onwards?

No one needs more than two children.

People will still have loads of kids though.

Will the government just not support them ?

scottjames30 wrote:People will still have loads of kids though.

Will the government just not support them ?

I think if government cut funding for kid 3 onwards a lot of people would think twice.

I can't imagine any country saying "here you go, have as many kids as you like and we'll pay for 'em all".

Natasha Whittam wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:People will still have loads of kids though.

Will the government just not support them ?

I think if government cut funding for kid 3 onwards a lot of people would think twice.

I can't imagine any country saying "here you go, have as many kids as you like and we'll pay for 'em all".

It wont happen though,16,17,18 year olds don't give a fuck.

The Jeremy kyle people will still be banging out 6 or 7 kids.

The government wont let them kids starve will they ?

scottjames30 wrote:

The government wont let them kids starve will they ?

No, but rather than hand out benefits they should take the kids off the chavs. It'll take time, but in a few years people would realise that having a kid isn't the way to feed/house yourself.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:

The government wont let them kids starve will they ?

No, but rather than hand out benefits they should take the kids off the chavs. It'll take time, but in a few years people would realise that having a kid isn't the way to feed/house yourself.

That would cost more.

scottjames30 wrote:

That would cost more.

Not in the long-term. But this isn't about money so much, it's about people standing on their own two feet. People have become way too dependent on the state.

If the current population had been around 100 years ago half would have been dead inside a week.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:

That would cost more.

Not in the long-term. But this isn't about money so much, it's about people standing on their own two feet. People have become way too dependent on the state.

If the current population had been around 100 years ago half would have been dead inside a week.

Who's faults that then ?

Its the governments fault for putting it in place .

They won't go back on there word now anyway.

The Chinese 1 child policy was an interesting experiment. Kept the population down to a billion for now, but caused the murder of countless baby girls as traditionally they want sons to look after them in their old age. A generation of single child spoiled brats. Now boys outnumber girls 2 to 1 so that's going to be interesting, especially for the girls.

wanderlust wrote:The Chinese 1 child policy was an interesting experiment. Kept the population down to a billion for now, but caused the murder of countless baby girls as traditionally they want sons to look after them in their old age. A generation of single child spoiled brats. Now boys outnumber girls 2 to 1 so that's going to be interesting, especially for the girls.

I would adopt the Chinese policy today if I could. It's harsh of course, but the way things are going we'll all be starving in 30 years and fighting over the last Haribo cola bottle.

That's the thing though, the government wont do that because they won't get the chav vote.

It's nothing to do with the benefits culture.

It's like saying because one banker kills his wife capitalism leads people to murder.

The guy was obviously mentally unstable and should have been in care.

something to be said of him not being flagged up by certain agencies and being allowed to care for children, he was incapable of doing so clearly.

Attitudes towards the number of kids you have varies across cultures and religions and Britain is and always has been a melting pot so it's a political minefield unless you have the totalitarian might of the Red Army to impose it. Would Catholics be offended whilst the party line on contraception remains as it is? Nigerians have 8 or 9 kids traditionally (although this was insurance against a high infant mortality rate) - a lot of Afrobrits would need convincing about a restraint policy.
It would have to be presented as follows:
Everyone has the right to have as many kids as they wish.
The taxpayer (as the financier) has the right to extend welfare benefits as far as they wish and in this case it stops at 2.
But all that would happen is that "additional" kids would tap into the child poverty funding.

I don't think everyone should have the right to have as many kids as they wish anymore - surely even the dumbest of people can see that the country cannot cope with the yearly rise of people in the UK.

It's a recipe for disaster...more people, less food, increased prices.

I'm glad I'm not being born in 2013, the future is bleak until someone makes a stand for future generations.

Surly its better now than 20-30 years ago ?

scottjames30 wrote:Surly its better now than 20-30 years ago ?

Trust me it isn't.

Triumph wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:Surly its better now than 20-30 years ago ?

Trust me it isn't.

I'm 30 so can't comment.

But why ?

30 my Arse you relic.

scottjames30 wrote:Surly its better now than 20-30 years ago ?

It's easier now but people are totally unprepared.

If the electricty went off tomorrow 99% of people would die within the week. People have lost the ability to think for themselves.

Mr Magoo wrote:30 my Arse you relic.

relic ?