convert Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 You cannot just remove children from their families unless there are issues of child protection, which are not mentioned in the article. It's time that someone thought about what's good for society as a whole, not just the rights of the individual. Especially when the individual in question has questionable morals. What kind of an example is she setting for her Children? Are the needs best served if they are with her, or if they are placed in an environment that shows them how to be productive members of society, rather than just a drain on resources? With rights comes responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 It's time that someone thought about what's good for society as a whole, not just the rights of the individual. Especially when the individual in question has questionable morals. What kind of an example is she setting for her Children? Are the needs best served if they are with her, or if they are placed in an environment that shows them how to be productive members of society, rather than just a drain on resources? With rights comes responsibility. Firstly, why does she have questionable morals? Are you advocating some kind of workhouse scheme? There is nothing in that article to suggest that she is not a loving mother. If she were holding down 3 jobs to try and make anywhere near the money she gets in benefits, people would be criticising her for having them in wrap around childcare. I personally find it irresponsible for anyone to have so many children when they are not in a position to support them, however, unless the children are at risk they are better off with their parents and siblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul2412 Posted October 6, 2010 Author Share Posted October 6, 2010 Firstly, why does she have questionable morals? Are you advocating some kind of workhouse scheme? There is nothing in that article to suggest that she is not a loving mother. If she were holding down 3 jobs to try and make anywhere near the money she gets in benefits, people would be criticising her for having them in wrap around childcare. I personally find it irresponsible for anyone to have so many children when they are not in a position to support them, however, unless the children are at risk they are better off with their parents and siblings. The mother is setting an example to the kids in the respect that she is saying it's fine not to work and that our government will pay them instead. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see these kids with a few ASBO's later on in their life. Why? They have no morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Firstly, why does she have questionable morals? Sponging off the state with 13 kids and having no intention of working isn't questionable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Firstly, why does she have questionable morals? Are you advocating some kind of workhouse scheme? There is nothing in that article to suggest that she is not a loving mother. If she were holding down 3 jobs to try and make anywhere near the money she gets in benefits, people would be criticising her for having them in wrap around childcare. I personally find it irresponsible for anyone to have so many children when they are not in a position to support them, however, unless the children are at risk they are better off with their parents and siblings. How many children? to how many fathers? Using benefits to pay for a boob job? So you'd say that they were examples of good morals? I'm not advocating a workhouse, just trying to point out that her children might be better off with someone to set them a good example. If she was working and contributing to society, rather than taking from it I wouldn't question her choice of childcare. She isn't though is she, so we'll drop the straw man. As for your last point I do agree, but we have to break this viscious circle of benefit lifestyles. Perhaps it's better that we continue to pay benefits for existing children, but cap benefits for future births to a maximum of 2 per household. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatman Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 me too. Makes me so bloody cross that I work my ass off to get the things that I want in life and I would be better off on the dole but I have my pride and i chose to work. PS......Nice tattoos btw - look really good Thanks:) I do like my ink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 How many children? to how many fathers? Using benefits to pay for a boob job? So you'd say that they were examples of good morals? I'm not advocating a workhouse, just trying to point out that her children might be better off with someone to set them a good example. If she was working and contributing to society, rather than taking from it I wouldn't question her choice of childcare. She isn't though is she, so we'll drop the straw man. As for your last point I do agree, but we have to break this viscious circle of benefit lifestyles. Perhaps it's better that we continue to pay benefits for existing children, but cap benefits for future births to a maximum of 2 per household. Apparently, she also has £10,000 worth of debt. How can someone not in employment get credit like that? I agree, she is irresponsible and the article portrays her in the worst possible light. I wonder if any of these fathers contribute, they must do as I can't see how she can maintain that lifestyle on that amount of money. Her kids, on the basis of the article, seem very spoilt, each with a TV in their room?! Perhaps we should move towards some kind of voucher system, in lieu of money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Apparently, she also has £10,000 worth of debt. How can someone not in employment get credit like that? I agree, she is irresponsible and the article portrays her in the worst possible light. I wonder if any of these fathers contribute, they must do as I can't see how she can maintain that lifestyle on that amount of money. Her kids, on the basis of the article, seem very spoilt, each with a TV in their room?! Perhaps we should move towards some kind of voucher system, in lieu of money? HUMAN RIGHTS!!! You cant expect people to use vouchers:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Bang on the money. It's time to: Limit Child Benefit payments to 2 Children (aged 16 or under and / or in full time education) Pay ALL benefits on a voucher / card system; with limits as to what they can be used for - no 60" Plasmas or 36DD hooters. Apparently, she also has £10,000 worth of debt. How can someone not in employment get credit like that? I agree, she is irresponsible and the article portrays her in the worst possible light. I wonder if any of these fathers contribute, they must do as I can't see how she can maintain that lifestyle on that amount of money. Her kids, on the basis of the article, seem very spoilt, each with a TV in their room?! Perhaps we should move towards some kind of voucher system, in lieu of money? Can I refer you to my earlier post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 HUMAN RIGHTS!!! You cant expect people to use vouchers:hihi: Let them eat cake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.