General Chat

Hi Ginny, Exactly. that's why I said 'allowed' in ' '. Responsible people only have as many children as they can provide for. There is no reason for the rest of us to pay for the children of those who do not control their fertility. Gwynne

aaahhhh so now i know the trick to get moved.... not to bigger house just away from here...only another ten kids to go :-(

If you were tracing that family in 100 years time imagine : A whole page taken up on the census, If in Stoke on Trent the father's occupation would be Sponger ( a job in the local pottery industry) and can you imagine forking out for all those certificates!

May be that's why girlfriend moved in with him instead of him leaving with her as wife would get to much money off him lol

Perhaps he should be shown the vasectomy thread!!

well if this thread gets deleted we will know we have offended him

He's probably on here as a secret looker. Not a paid member of course.

he obviously cant afford to work then as the CSA would take most of it so maybe thats why he has so many kids cos he is at home bored all day. Probably cant afford tv licence either

His name isn't Dick, by any chance? I'm with the majority on this one, if you have kids you support them. I wonder how much the CSA would be asking him for if he wasn't living with them?

It is not about being 'allowed' to have a certain number of children. It is about taking responsibility - something that is being rapidly eroded away by this nanny state in which we live. Having children is not a right, it is a priviledge and with that priviledge comes (or should!) responsibility.

Ginny - well said! Julie - good one! x

I think it is in china that you get help for your first one but anymore after that and you are then penalised

I do believe that in the USA the state only pays child benefit for the first child.

I think there are several countries where you only get family allowance for the first 2 children, after that you're on your own. What a good idea. Also in some states in the US you are only 'allowed' to have one child when on benefits. No extra money if you have another. Maybe that would stop people having children they cannot afford. Gwynne

ROFLMAO Julie anne!!!!! maybe these two women he lives with should wise up, and chuck him out!!!!

.......................If you want that number of children you have got to be prepared to PROVIDE...and that means appropriate accommodation - why should tha state (aka tax payers provide it?)

maybe he hasnt realised whats causing it,

No need for sterilization Jim - just stop the benefits! I think that I can safely say that for many having a multitude of children in this state is a career move!

I'm with Ginny on this. The State should only have to pay for a limited number of children. But that would be impossible to implement without having to sterilise one or other of the couple. We wouldn't be able to do it without their consent. And if they did have any more children and couldn't afford to keep them they would still land on the Taxpayers shoulders. Maybe it's time for a new Law against 'Taking the Pi**'. Then he could be locked up and not be able to keep churning them out.

It wont be worth him working! It is you and I that are keeping them!