Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Firstly Why the hell are they receiving job seekers allowance? Secondly (and I will appear a cruel hearted bugger here) Imo the state should be there to suport those who can either (a) not help themselves (i.e genuinely disabled) or those who have fallen on hard times but have the intention to help themselves (i.e those who have been made redundant or have been unsucsessul in securing employment but do their level best to get work). If you have no intention of contributing in the future and are physically able to then you should be penalised for not working. No cash handouts, give them food vouchers which will allow the purchase of supermarket own brand foods and not cigarettes or alcohol. Clothes vouchers should be given which are sufficient to clothe a family, but not in designer clothes. I bet this family have sky, probably the full package, noticed the Manu and England shirts there. If you are on £33 per week you should not be spending £40 on a t-shirt. Its grotesque. The system should be geared to getting people back into work (I don't know maybe sponsoring a company to take on a job seeker for a year - the company pays NI as if a wage was paid and has to provide full trainging for the role and if the employee is competent after 12 months a fixed contract should be mandatory. The state can pay for the wage and subsidise the training - win win). Rant over How to encourage crime in 3 simple steps. If they commit crimes, prosecute them like you or I. And our taxes will pay for the prison time of half the family. I think it's far more expensive to keep someone in a cell than it is to pay them benefits. I think stories like this bring about an emotive response as to what the parents deserve, rather than a logical response as to what will benefit society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 You're spot on there HF. Luckily most people don't behave like them though otherwise society would have some serious problems. I think they're a disgrace though, I really do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordieboyo 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Firstly Why the hell are they receiving job seekers allowance? Secondly (and I will appear a cruel hearted bugger here) Imo the state should be there to suport those who can either (a) not help themselves (i.e genuinely disabled) or those who have fallen on hard times but have the intention to help themselves (i.e those who have been made redundant or have been unsucsessul in securing employment but do their level best to get work). If you have no intention of contributing in the future and are physically able to then you should be penalised for not working. No cash handouts, give them food vouchers which will allow the purchase of supermarket own brand foods and not cigarettes or alcohol. Clothes vouchers should be given which are sufficient to clothe a family, but not in designer clothes. I bet this family have sky, probably the full package, noticed the Manu and England shirts there. If you are on £33 per week you should not be spending £40 on a t-shirt. Its grotesque. The system should be geared to getting people back into work (I don't know maybe sponsoring a company to take on a job seeker for a year - the company pays NI as if a wage was paid and has to provide full trainging for the role and if the employee is competent after 12 months a fixed contract should be mandatory. The state can pay for the wage and subsidise the training - win win). Rant over How to encourage crime in 3 simple steps. If they commit crimes, prosecute them like you or I. And our taxes will pay for the prison time of half the family. I think it's far more expensive to keep someone in a cell than it is to pay them benefits. I think stories like this bring about an emotive response as to what the parents deserve, rather than a logical response as to what will benefit society. Who mentioned prison! There are plenty of opportunities to use petty criminals for social good. Get them to clean streets after a Saturday night, plenty of public toilets need cleaning. If they have the appropriate backgorund get them working on road repairs or similar Just make sure they wear a shocking pink t-shirt with their crimes splashed over it (acknowledging that this may create a new fashion craze) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 Firstly Why the hell are they receiving job seekers allowance? Secondly (and I will appear a cruel hearted bugger here) Imo the state should be there to suport those who can either (a) not help themselves (i.e genuinely disabled) or those who have fallen on hard times but have the intention to help themselves (i.e those who have been made redundant or have been unsucsessul in securing employment but do their level best to get work). If you have no intention of contributing in the future and are physically able to then you should be penalised for not working. No cash handouts, give them food vouchers which will allow the purchase of supermarket own brand foods and not cigarettes or alcohol. Clothes vouchers should be given which are sufficient to clothe a family, but not in designer clothes. I bet this family have sky, probably the full package, noticed the Manu and England shirts there. If you are on £33 per week you should not be spending £40 on a t-shirt. Its grotesque. The system should be geared to getting people back into work (I don't know maybe sponsoring a company to take on a job seeker for a year - the company pays NI as if a wage was paid and has to provide full trainging for the role and if the employee is competent after 12 months a fixed contract should be mandatory. The state can pay for the wage and subsidise the training - win win). Rant over How to encourage crime in 3 simple steps. If they commit crimes, prosecute them like you or I. And our taxes will pay for the prison time of half the family. I think it's far more expensive to keep someone in a cell than it is to pay them benefits. I think stories like this bring about an emotive response as to what the parents deserve, rather than a logical response as to what will benefit society. This is a prime example, it is more advantageous to sponge off the system than to contribute to it, if you feel this is correct then it explains a lot about society in the UK these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 You'd be gutted if they moved in next to you like. I bet they're a fucking nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? How many families are into their third generation of benefits claimants now? Some kids will have never seen anyone go out to work in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Having said all that I have, them mad old women that have 478 cats in a 1 bedroom flat have the animals removed and are prosecuted for cruelty. I pity those people and their desparation for love and picture a couple that have as many kids as these have in a similar vein. Maybe they should have their kids put into care, but I don't think I could stretch the analogy that far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordieboyo 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Having said all that I have, them mad old women that have 478 cats in a 1 bedroom flat have the animals removed and are prosecuted for cruelty. I pity those people and their desparation for love and picture a couple that have as many kids as these have in a similar vein. Maybe they should have their kids put into care, but I don't think I could stretch the analogy that far. Well if a 16 yr old lad and 14 yr old girl had a kid I'd be all for the child to be adopted (give the child a better chance of a good life) and remedial action to be taken on the male with the female put in an education programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 "The couple then had seven of their own: twins Parris-Jordan and Kesla Blu, eight; twins Mason and Peaches, six; Logan, four, and the three-year-old twins Skye and Kalifornya." Apart from the abortions they have for names. Two sets of twins? Bit odd that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordieboyo 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 "The couple then had seven of their own: twins Parris-Jordan and Kesla Blu, eight; twins Mason and Peaches, six; Logan, four, and the three-year-old twins Skye and Kalifornya."Apart from the abortions they have for names. Two sets of twins? Bit odd that. Shes just too lazy to go through 12 pregnancies so took the easy way out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 "The couple then had seven of their own: twins Parris-Jordan and Kesla Blu, eight; twins Mason and Peaches, six; Logan, four, and the three-year-old twins Skye and Kalifornya."Apart from the abortions they have for names. Two sets of twins? Bit odd that. Shes just too lazy to go through 12 pregnancies so took the easy way out I was thinking fertility treatment but surely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 "The couple then had seven of their own: twins Parris-Jordan and Kesla Blu, eight; twins Mason and Peaches, six; Logan, four, and the three-year-old twins Skye and Kalifornya."Apart from the abortions they have for names. Two sets of twins? Bit odd that. Three sets of twins. Or am I reading it wrong?, It's late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 "The couple then had seven of their own: twins Parris-Jordan and Kesla Blu, eight; twins Mason and Peaches, six; Logan, four, and the three-year-old twins Skye and Kalifornya."Apart from the abortions they have for names. Two sets of twins? Bit odd that. Three sets of twins. Or am I reading it wrong?, It's late. No, you're right, even more odd then. I'm the one who read it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26118 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 "The couple then had seven of their own: twins Parris-Jordan and Kesla Blu, eight; twins Mason and Peaches, six; Logan, four, and the three-year-old twins Skye and Kalifornya."Apart from the abortions they have for names. Two sets of twins? Bit odd that. Three sets of twins. Or am I reading it wrong?, It's late. No, you're right, even more odd then. I'm the one who read it wrong. There are certain women who are more susceptible to carrying multiple children in one pregnancy, somethining to do with the release of their eggs or some other such bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26118 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 "People who have large families should accept financial responsibility for that decision." Their MP is exactly right with that statement, anyone with half a brain will try and plan their children and consider how they're going to pay for them, of course mistakes can be made but 12 is just fucking careless. What gets me is the attitude that it's society's duty to pay for these kids, the whole "I was born to have children" shit. I've said it before and Thatcher was right when she said individuals need to start taking more responsibility for their own actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Just reading back, she must have been pregnant solidly for about four years or so. Mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordieboyo 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Just reading back, she must have been pregnant solidly for about four years or so. Mental. Bet he no longer touches the sides lifes punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Just reading back, she must have been pregnant solidly for about four years or so. Mental. Flange like a welly top tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26118 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Just reading back, she must have been pregnant solidly for about four years or so. Mental. Bet he no longer touches the sides lifes punishment? Surprised he did anyway, she'd already had 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. That's not what he was saying though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Bung them in a boarding school. Is that a serious suggestion btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26118 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 (edited) To sum up my point: Why concentrate on getting the parents back into work? Thats just 2 taxpayers (assuming youd get them both back to work). Why not concentrate instead on the 12 potential future taxpayers? The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. I'm not suggesting a solution to the situation, just pointing out the problems. Though in the long term clearly it shouldn't be as financially advantageous to have so many kids. Edited July 24, 2007 by ewerk 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