mr contrite Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 What on earth are you wingeing on about now? You're not making any sense at all. Get a grip StarSparkle Not whingeing, GTG= got to go, didnt want you thinking i was leaving the debate because of your posts:hihi:simply had football duty with one of my boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr contrite Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 now personally as a member of a council estate childhood, i never directly associate benefit cheats with any estate. i have known as many benefit scroungers in "owned" properties as council tennants. similarly i have know justifiable unemployed claimants in both areas. Agreed, i think that it was Nick2 who was linking estate dwellers with being inferior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr contrite Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 I'm not a fascist, I believe that when people are at the bottom of the barrel they should not be able to reproduce until they are are able to look after their chilldren properly. That's simply being responsible. And it is only while they are claiming benefits - please stop trying to make me out to be some Nazi, it's a fact that the people at the bottom are the ones most likely to have babies they are in no posution to care for. And once they are in that trap they are least likely to get out again. If people think taxpayers' money should be doled out with conditions, the primary condition should be that they sort themselves out before starting a family, or making the existing family bigger. It shouldn't be any surprise at all that I believe in making contraception a condition for receiving benefits. I believe in reproductive responsibility - my commitment to stamping out child neglect, cruelty and abuse is absolute, but the accepted credo is that every human has the right to breed, even if they are incapable of looking after the children they produce. If their circumstances are so serious that they rely on benefits, they shouldn't be indulging in producing children at that moment in time. I think that's only sensible and fair. I notice on the thread Nick2 referred to someone wanting to sterilise people. I can't see anyone suggesting that, and if he meant me in referrence to my post mentioning contraception, I would like an apology as it is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. He might not agree with what I said, but at least have the decency to disagree with what I said, not some distorted misquote of it. Certain states in America had a system whereby if a girl (or woman) got pregnant, she was given a flat, or property, deemed sufficient for a mother and child, and told that whilst claiming benefits if she had another child she would not be given a bigger property, or extra money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr contrite Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 Maybe if you want to post comments about what people who are unfortunate enough to be on benefits in Sheffield get for free you should first ask your friends in the Sheffield branch of the NF, BNP, or NNP. Which party are you are a member of now? I stay in Oxford sometimes, and life is very different there than here. Please don't post about things in a city you know nothing about. I was talking about Oxford, another poster brought up what is available for free in Sheffield. In what way are things different in Sheffield, compared to Oxford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr contrite Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 I agree Joe, you should think responsibly! It is not ideal at all to bring children into the world if you can't afford them. I don't think anyone would disagree that it's not an ideal. However, I totally and utterly disagree with the State exercising legal control over people's individual reproductive systems! It's one of the marks of Totalitarianism and it's a despicable idea. People who work for a living, and have mortgages are forced into delaying having children because of the loss of income that goes with raising children, a situation that does not arise with the benefits class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 People who work for a living, and have mortgages are forced into delaying having children because of the loss of income that goes with raising children, a situation that does not arise with the benefits class. They aren't 'forced' into delaying having children. They make a free choice whether to have children or not, this applies equally to people in receipt of benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr contrite Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 They aren't 'forced' into delaying having children. They make a free choice whether to have children or not, this applies equally to people in receipt of benefits. Really? working couple, mortgage, want a family, fall behind on mortgage due to loss of income, evicted. Benefits couple, Rent paid by state, want a family, get larger property and more money. Try harder Halibut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Really? working couple, mortgage, want a family, fall behind on mortgage due to loss of income, evicted. Benefits couple, Rent paid by state, want a family, get larger property and more money. Try harder Halibut. Wanting a family doesn't cause anyone to default on a mortgage. It just doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr contrite Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 Wanting a family doesn't cause anyone to default on a mortgage. It just doesn't. You are correct, wanting a family does not cause anyone to default on a mortgage, but the working couple who WANT to start a family have to discuss whether they can afford to take the step from wanting to actually having a family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr contrite Posted July 21, 2007 Author Share Posted July 21, 2007 They aren't 'forced' into delaying having children. They make a free choice whether to have children or not, this applies equally to people in receipt of benefits. People in the UK are delaying starting a family because they are unable to get on the property ladder, new research has shown. According to Purely Mortgages, almost three million have had to postpone having children. Additionally, to help save for a house some four million people or ten per cent of the UK population have taken on, or plan to take on an extra job. The same number said they were in jobs they hated just because it was the only way to get the money they needed to pay for property. The chief executive of Purely Mortgages, Mark Chilton, commented: "First time buyers are certainly resilient. Their passion for owning their own home has not diminished despite the huge stretch between income levels and the cost of property in the UK." However he added: "It is a worrying social trend for Britain if more and more people are putting off having a family and stretching themselves to such extremes just to afford their first home." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.