El Cid Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 A mother from Newcastle had 17 children removed from her care by the local authority. It is believed to be the highest number reported in England and Wales. Local authorities are not always very good at looking after children; should we try harder to stop things like this happening? Surely having 17 children, without the pleasure of bringing them up, is not a good situation for the mother? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36477849 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Having 17 children in the first place seems the height of irresponsibility to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 (edited) Having 17 children in the first place seems the height of irresponsibility to me... maybe she loves her husband very much ? Or, more likely, she's been in one abusive relationship after another. Nice to see you overflowing with the milk of human kindness, Anna B Edited June 14, 2016 by The Joker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 No you're right it isn't a good situation for the mother. Having all those children taken away from her must be awful, and will worsen her mental health, if she wasn't struggling already. I'm sure I read a case recently where a woman with profound learning disabilities was sterilised on the say so of a court. The thought of that is horrible, but then the children who are taken into care maybe traumatised. It's a difficult situation, and I don't know what the answer is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Subsidising the poor to have children is an unwanted side effect of liberal "caring" policies. It is the reverse of natural selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Subsidising the poor to have children is an unwanted side effect of liberal "caring" policies. It is the reverse of natural selection. didn't stop you from claiming child benefit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 didn't stop you from claiming child benefit Don't think I claimed anything - I'm fairly sure it was just paid - to Mrs Jeremy. She spent it on shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Why? Why would anyone have 27 children in this day and age? Have you any idea what that can do to a woman's health? Let alone the strain of trying to look after 17 children. The mind boggles. The care system is not up to much, so having them taken into care is not a good situation for the children either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 Why? Why would anyone have 27 children in this day and age? i can only imagine she believed the doom-mongers on this very forum, who claim that due to mass immigration and our lower birth rate, whites in the UK would be in a minority by the year 2050 and she wanted to prevent that. Having 27 children is a great act of patriotism that all women of child bearing age should seek to emulate in order to preserve the white race. Anna B, have you done your bit and birthed 27 babies yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 14, 2016 Share Posted June 14, 2016 i can only imagine she believed the doom-mongers on this very forum, who claim that due to mass immigration and our lower birth rate, whites in the UK would be in a minority by the year 2050 and she wanted to prevent that. Having 27 children is a great act of patriotism that all women of child bearing age should seek to emulate in order to preserve the white race. Anna B, have you done your bit and birthed 27 babies yet? Sorry, typo, I meant 17. I see the babies were taken from her at birth. I can only suppose she kept getting pregnant in hope she would be allowed to keep at least one of them, which is terribly sad for both mother and babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now