Note: Please bear in mind that whilst this topic does canvass opinions, it is not a fight club. You may disagree with other posters but we do ask you please to stick to our Talk Guidelines and to be civil. We don't allow personal attacks or troll-hunting. Do please report any. Thanks, MNHQ.

to think that when there is a schools place crisis perhaps the government should think of ways to reduce birth rates?

(648 Posts)

MNHQ have commented on this thread. Read here.

jellysandwich Wed 04-Sep-13 10:27:30

In my area (London) there is already a huge shortfall in places because there has been a baby boom. They are constantly opening new schools or creating bulge classes but this is often at the expense of other children who lose their playing fields and there is just not enough room in London to keep opening new schools and there is already a housing crisis because the country is so overcrowded.

I think perhaps it is time the government thought about limiting child related benefits to 2 children (which is the replacement rate) and those that want to have more can do so but not with taxpayers money. It would go some way to stopping some of the problems that rising birthrates create such as the school places crisis, overcrowding, pollution, increasing struggles for resources such as food and water and in an already overpopulated world I think the government is being negligent in not putting some sort of limit on child related benefits, especially when it seems to be counter-intuitive (if you work you don't get more money each time you have another child).

thecatfromjapan Wed 04-Sep-13 10:32:01

I suggest you do a little research into what is causing the rising birthrate. Quite a lot of it is migration, particularly European migration.

I give you three starts for managing to controvery-up this subject. One of those stars being for the complete novelty of what you have added. You have definite potential showing there.

Might I suggest you try tacking on compulsory migration? Sending proles to the Outer Hebrides? I think you could stitch that in quite easily if you tweak benefits being linked to where people have to live, perhaps?

Have a good day. smile

Pinkpinot Wed 04-Sep-13 10:32:04

Really??
Seriously??

SalaciousBCrumb Wed 04-Sep-13 10:32:31

And how would that help with the baby boom you admit we've already had? Shall we shove them back up inside their mothers' wombs?

MOST people don't have large families. The problem is not caused by lots of large families; it's caused by lots of people having a child or two. How would you propose to deal with that - compulsory Mirenas all round unless you can get a licence to have it removed, only available by applying to your local council who tally it with future school places?

thecatfromjapan Wed 04-Sep-13 10:32:43

"Three stars". Don't know where the random "t" came from.

duchessandscruffy Wed 04-Sep-13 10:33:06

You're gonna get your arse handed to you on a plate on this one......

ginmakesitallok Wed 04-Sep-13 10:35:50

London and the South may be overcrowded, the rest of the country isn't. With an increasingly elderly population we need to increase birth rates to ensure enough people and cash to look after them

gordyslovesheep Wed 04-Sep-13 10:35:50

And how would that help with the baby boom you admit we've already had? Shall we shove them back up inside their mothers' wombs? grin brilliant!

Maybe not allowing house builders to build massive developments without contributing to improving facilities locally may also be an issue

Where I am we get a new estate every year - the town has doubled in size in 10 years - but no new schools - maybe some of their profit could be plowed into building more schools?

angelos02 Wed 04-Sep-13 10:36:43

YANBU. I once suggested giving childless couples money - a sort of rebate for saving the country money on education, NHS etc. I got flamed and no doubt will again. water, ducks, back.

Ev1lEdna Wed 04-Sep-13 10:39:10

Ah quite right OP that'll sort it. Perhaps we could introduce the same sort of sterilization programme they had in 1960s America and target specific 'problem' groups by way of enforcement of your proposals.

Super, all sorted. When are you running for PM?

gordyslovesheep Wed 04-Sep-13 10:40:24

or maybe follow the success of China's amazing one child policy - that worked so well grin

SilverApples Wed 04-Sep-13 10:43:02

What you need is an architectural revolution with new schools designed for the 21st century and radical rethinks as to use of space. Then you need a lot of funding to build them, and you need a lot of excellent teachers to staff them.
But you seem to think of London children as vermin, OP. Which is very mid-19th century thinking.

gordyslovesheep Wed 04-Sep-13 10:44:15

what you mean something like the Building Schools for the future program?

angelos02 Wed 04-Sep-13 10:53:19

Worrying about overcrowding is a very real concern. The world has finite resources. The UK has a small land mass. etc.

yetanotherworry Wed 04-Sep-13 10:53:41

Governments used to do this, didn't they? Wasn't 'family allowance' introduced as a way to encourage people to have more babies? I suspect the phasing out of child benefit has a lot to do with population control as well as money-saving.

Personally I think the size of the population is a problem. When you consider the fact that everywhere is busier than 10 years ago, there are more cars travelling on the roads, trains are busier etc. There has to be a limit to the number of people the UK can support. Its all very well saying we need more housing and more schools but I happen to like green space. I think it would be a shame if the Uk ended up like cities such as Hong Kong which are overbuilt and very polluted (although very green in places).

BTW the baby boom and school crisis is not limited to London. It exists in many parts of the country.

SilverApples Wed 04-Sep-13 10:53:55

Sort of, but I'd like to see schools designed better. Like the wittering on about playing fields which are often not the best use of space and are often unusable for half the year or more.

Fakebook Wed 04-Sep-13 10:56:49

Ok OP. Lets sterilise everyone with 2 children and abort all third babies, and distribute all step children to other families so everyone has 2 children each. Great idea. You should be proud.

hmm.

SilverApples Wed 04-Sep-13 10:58:03

Well, you could export everyone over 70 in the SE. That would leave most of the coast free. Or do a Logan's Run Reality TV show.

Meglet Wed 04-Sep-13 11:06:37

FWIW 2 babies isn't actually the replacement rate. They don't all make it to adulthood. There's a good book on this called 'Peoplequake'. Birth rates are dropping virtually everywhere. IIRC there will be a period of 'peak baby' then the worldwide population will drop. Even in developing countries women are having fewer children than they used to.

And YABU.

angelos02 Wed 04-Sep-13 11:06:55

Lets just ignore the issue then & expect everyone other than the very rich to live in 100 storey high tower blocks.

YoungGirlGrowingOld Wed 04-Sep-13 11:07:57

With an increasingly elderly population we need to increase birth rates to ensure enough people and cash to look after them

Hmmm...afraid I don't buy this Ponzi-scheme argument. More babies = more elderly people to be looked after when their time comes. We are a small island and cannot accomodate ever-increasing numbers of immigrants or births. I think the OP makes a reasonable point - and my DP is a first generation immigrant before anyone starts accusing me of Little-Englander-ness!

KonnieLingus Wed 04-Sep-13 11:16:33

How many children do you have OP?

Benefits are given to those on low or no income to ensure they can live. Are you suggesting that only those who can afford private education can have more than two children? What if I agreed to home school my children,could I then have more than two?

rattlemehearties Wed 04-Sep-13 11:16:43

Do your homework OP. The school places shortages happened in London because schools had been closed despite birth rates rising. The government saw birth rates rising and didn't think 4/5 years ahead and start expanding schools/opening new ones. We need birth rates to rise to create a working population.

rattlemehearties Wed 04-Sep-13 11:19:01

Also no one I know had children to get benefits! Many large families I know have parents who both earn. Your argument is nonsensical.

izchaz Wed 04-Sep-13 11:21:14

Ooh this makes me fizz with rage. If you're going to suggest something as radical and life limiting as trying to control family unit size as a method of population management could you please do some research into what your talking about? Population replacement rates and statistics gleaned from census data are hugely important in terms of charting population trends. Across the Westernised world populations are falling, and there are two reasons for that:
1) emancipation of women and the ability to control their fertility: give a woman a choice about her childbearing years and she will choose what is right for her (coincidentally often in line with what the population needs - see post war/famine/plague baby booms throughout history)
2) education of women. Statistics from WHO and other world population charting agencies show that educating women to a higher standard and for longer slows their birth rate, and in most cases causes them to birth children later in life.

So if you want to slow population growth or maintain a population level DON'T take money out of the pockets of the people, but emancipate and educate the women. We hold the key to our own fertility, and will use it wisely if given the chance. Build more schools, make education more accessible, set up women's funds to help disadvantaged women into education and onto birth control and WATCH as the birth rate magically does what you want it to.

Souredstones Wed 04-Sep-13 11:21:41

I'm in an area where estates are being slapped up at a rate of knots but no amenities to go with them, no schools or shops or adequate roads or public transport...

Why isn't the onus on developers to provide infrastructure? It's all very well meeting housing targets but most areas now can't cope with the influx if people (London overspill for instance). It's getting ridiculous now.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Wed 04-Sep-13 11:25:08

I was going to suggest compulsory sterilization but fakebook beat me to it.

OnTheBottomWithAWomensWeekly Wed 04-Sep-13 11:25:27

Maybe you should just leave London. It's not the capital of the fucking world, despite what most people who live there think.

Souredstones Wed 04-Sep-13 11:27:57

The other issue, at the other end of the scale, is in coastal regions there is a massive influx of elderly people retiring there from out of county and contributing nothing to the county but taking a lot. The elderly are a huge cost to a counties resources.

Resources that could be spent on building schools.

Partly why elderly people should sell up to pay for their care.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Wed 04-Sep-13 11:29:36

The UK fertility rate is 1.96, so under replacement level anyway. YABU, and also short sighted.

The thing that bugs me about the 'first two children' thing is it really means women can have two children. Men can have as many as they please, just so long as they don't go down on the birth cert, and anyway, people don't opt against having a 3rd child for the sake of £13.40 a week.

Callani Wed 04-Sep-13 11:31:37

OP, I think you've raised a real issue but your proposed solution is slightly faulty at best.

The main issue with overcrowded schools in London and the South East has much less to do with the birth rate (which is still holding pretty steady) than it is to do with forced migration.

The key issue is that there are WAY more and a far better variety of jobs in London than elsewhere and so, if you work in some industries, you have no choice but to move to the South East. People who move to London for their career then have kids there and boom, overcrowded schools.

I was very fortunate (for my personal preferences) in that I've managed to escape London and get a good job where I'd prefer to live, but many people don't have that choice. Of my school and uni friends about 80% are now in and around London and a lot of them went there out of necessity.

This causes a talent drain from all other areas, leaves home towns with a disproportionately high percentage of tax dependent people rather than tax payers as well as turning London into an overcrowded monstrosity with ever rising rents.

It'd be best to tackle that issue before you start on anything as drastic as forced birth control.

Callani Wed 04-Sep-13 11:38:58

IThinkOf I've never thought of it like that before - I guess in China where they do control the birth rate they're far more traditional and it's easy enough to limit both of the parents...

Succubi Wed 04-Sep-13 11:42:00

As I understand it, the basis of the Welfare State in this country is about social responsibility. Beveridge recommended to the government of his day that they should find ways of tackling the five giants, being Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. He argued to cure these problems, the government should provide adequate income to people, adequate health care, adequate education, adequate housing and adequate employment. It was proposed that all people of working age should pay a weekly National Insurance contribution. In return, benefits would be paid to people who were sick, unemployed, retired or widowed.

The ideal set out by Beveridge is in many ways simply that an ideal but it is a gem that needs to be preserved.

The reality here is that the welfare pot is limiting and we all have a social responsibility. The welfare state was set up to help people in poverty and hardship. Quite frankly it makes me livid when people get upset when anyone suggests that Child Benefit should be limited to two children.

The welfare state is already under huge strain and matters will only continue to get worse. As far as I can see it is not unreasonable to suggest that help be limited in these circumstances.

I know I have slightly gone off on a tangent but the comments that its not fair that only rich people can have more than two children makes my blood boil. Welcome to the real world. Life is inherently unfair.

YoungGirlGrowingOld Wed 04-Sep-13 11:46:17

Soured I don't disagree with paying for their care, but many elderly people feel they have contributed their whole lives already and believed it would be provided by the NHS. I would be in favour of much greater transparency of what the state will and will not provide, including child benefit, so that people can budget and plan acordingly - purchasing top-up insurance where necessary. Anyway, totally off-topic. :-)

Souredstones Wed 04-Sep-13 11:48:34

But we can't afford it. There is a finite amount in the social care pot and, sorry, but the priority should be children's education.

It riles me knowing a person can live and pay taxes in one county then move and take a large amount in social care from another that they haven't contributed to.

Don't know why. It just does.

Souredstones Wed 04-Sep-13 11:49:07

I agree with a top up insurance and also feel you should have to pay a levy to a new county

VodkaJelly Wed 04-Sep-13 11:49:40

I have just had my 4th DC, I did that soley to get the extra £40 a month in child benefit. The cost of formula, clothes, nappies, nursery fees etc is easily covered by the £40 a month the government gives me. Infact, if they had announced that they were limiting child benefit to 2 children I would have had serious second thoughts about having my 4th child. Really, i would have, really.

jessieagain Wed 04-Sep-13 11:52:44

Maybe a solution to the overcrowded schools issue is too raise the school starting age to 6 or 7 like most of Europe.

turkeyboots Wed 04-Sep-13 11:53:28

Like others above I live in an area which has massive New build estates. And massive post war, 70s, 80s etc etc estates. Families live in the new areas, their parents in the 80s developments and their grannies in the post war ones.

None of the estates had enough schools when they were first built. And once built have a 15 to 20 year lifespan before being closed as there are few children nearby. Planners and developers need to be forced to build schools, and pre schools and community facilities.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 11:59:31

Lol at the ridiculous drama queens ranting about abortion.

In this country, on a low income, you get 80 odd quid a week for each child you have. That is NOT the actions of a government or society who understands the importance of food and air. I don't want a country chocka block full of people who can't get jobs or housing so just keep making more people. It's ludicrous,

Of course it's fair to cut all child related benefits to two children. Learn to feed your brood on 160 a week plus income support/jsa or wage or stop having them.

Fairy1303 Wed 04-Sep-13 12:01:23

Brilliant idea OP.

Whilst we're at it why don't we enforce that all third children in the existing families are shipped abroad.

If we then enforce sterilisation after the birth of the second child and pay those who stick to the rules, we'd be well in.
There are probably lots if ideas from china we could adopt.

I have a step daughter who I look after full time and a small baby, am I allowed another one or do I have to stick to one baby because her mother can't be bothered to look after her?

YABU.

blueberryupsidedown Wed 04-Sep-13 12:02:03

As a temporary emergency solution to part of the problem, all schools in all classes all over the country should take on 31 children instead of 30 and be given budget for more qualitied support staff and TAs. That would solve part of the problem in a temporary way, until more schools are built.

Jan49 Wed 04-Sep-13 12:10:22

I do feel very strongly that people should aim to stop at 2 children, that is, I don't think people should be making the decision to have 3 + children, though obviously there are families with 3+ children who were unplanned or multiple births. We live in a massively overpopulated world and we can't just keep adding to the population and straining the resources as happens now. BTW I've got one child (adult). I don't think whether a person can afford more children or not is relevant. Their children will still be using resources and adding to the number of people on the planet whether their parents get child benefit or other benefits or not.

But I'm not sure it's particularly relevant to the issue of overcrowded London schools. If that's where the jobs are, people will move there and send their children to school there. Perhaps the answer would be for the government to encourage more companies to move away from London to places where housing and rent is cheaper and employees will have a better journey to work, cheaper living conditions, etc.

Pendeen Wed 04-Sep-13 12:13:48

"Maybe not allowing house builders to build massive developments without contributing to improving facilities locally may also be an issue"

This already happens; developers have contributed millions of pounds towards public facilities and infrastructure improvements via so-called Section 106 Agreements however the government is scaling back this system and at the same time easing planning restrictions to encourage growth in house building.

As an Architect, I am torn between my (quite natural) desire to keep my fellow Architects and me in work - although precious few housebuilders actually employ or use qualified Architects - sad and a deep sense of unease about what is likely to be poorly thought out and badly-regulated developments exacerbated by less Section 106 contributions from the housebuilders and their financial backers.

BeCool Wed 04-Sep-13 12:16:42

I am in London and I am struggling to think of more than one family at DD's school who have more than 2 children.

So even if the govt were to implement your "idea" I doubt it would make a dent in the school population.

We've had a huge very posh housing/apartment development built around the corner. When the massive site was first walled off they were advertising that they were also building a new primary school on site. Then that billboard/wall was removed. Now the development is nearly complete and flats are selling for millions - and no school!

ouryve Wed 04-Sep-13 12:17:07

Why don't they just go the whole hog, jellysandwich and sterilise poor people? hmm

Mamatomanymunchkins Wed 04-Sep-13 12:27:01

OMG ~ I've got 5 ~ what shall I do with the surplus 3?!?!

cuckinfunt Wed 04-Sep-13 12:27:02

Is it poor people or is it immigrants who have a culture of large families?

Jan49 Wed 04-Sep-13 12:52:58

OMG ~ I've got 5 ~ what shall I do with the surplus 3?!?!

Obviously no one is suggesting you have to get rid of the ones you have. hmm

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 04-Sep-13 12:57:33

How very silly

KonnieLingus Wed 04-Sep-13 12:59:56

MamaToMany your surplus children will be redistributed amongst those who do not exceed the quota.

This is absolutely a benefit bashing thread.

BrokenSunglasses Wed 04-Sep-13 13:01:05

YANBU, I agree with you. But I don't just think the birth rate should be reduced because of school places, there aren't enough of many thing to go round, like homes or jobs, even spaces in hospitals and prisons.

Apart from any of that, children cost money, and people are aware of that when they choose to conceive them. The taxpayer should not have to fund children that people can't afford, but it would be wrong to try and stop people having children at all. So limiting child related benefits to two children would have a positive effect on many problems.

Mumoftwoyoungkids Wed 04-Sep-13 13:20:48

Why not just improve the standard of telly program's?

(Looks down at 3 month old and remembers that it was rubbish this time last year.)

Seriously though - we have an average birth rate of 1.96 and an aging population. The current baby boom is likely to be temporary. (And allegedly there is one at the moment due to 50 shades of grey.)

Mamatomanymunchkins Wed 04-Sep-13 13:21:09

konnie agree, complete benefit bashing ~ however OP, not everyone with children receives benefits and I don't think benefits are so huge as to encourage people to have more than 2 children anyway x

utreas Wed 04-Sep-13 13:22:13

YABVU Even a superficial look at the demographic structure of the country will tell you why the OP is both wrong and ridiculous

NK493efc93X1277dd3d6d4 Wed 04-Sep-13 13:26:47

YANBU at all just sensible. However there will be lots of people taking offence here as they just cannot help taking it personally.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Wed 04-Sep-13 13:30:03

cuckinfunt British born women have slightly less births than migrants. Something like 1.8 compared to 2.5. It's pretty rare for any women to have 4 or more children, much more common to only have one child. My children go to a large( 2 form entry) Catholic school with a huge migrant population. One family (british) have 4 children, most people have 2, I would guess around a third have 1. My dd has 11 Eastern European children in her class, 10 of them are onlys. They are Y5 so it's quite possible that they will remain onlys.

The birth rate just isn't that high, it's less than 2 so how is trying to bring it 'down' to 2 even remotely helpful?

MortifiedAdams Wed 04-Sep-13 13:31:42

Maybe migrant children should be at the bottom.of the priorities list for places at schools?

SilverApples Wed 04-Sep-13 13:33:38

'OMG ~ I've got 5 ~ what shall I do with the surplus 3?!?!'

They will be bussed to somewhere with falling roles. Possibly Grimsby or somewhere in Dorset. They will double up as house elves to keep the school running and you can come and get them in the holidays.

HeySoulSister Wed 04-Sep-13 13:34:09

Ha ha so where is the op? Wanted a discussion on this.....started one..... And buggered off?

thecatfromjapan Wed 04-Sep-13 13:34:56

I think OP had his mobile 'phone confiscated by one of his teachers. smile

cantdoalgebra Wed 04-Sep-13 13:35:41

Reading these threads, it is obviously better to shout very loudly so that no reasonable discussion can take place about how many people the earth, or our own country, can support and to what level that support might be. Burying heads in sand is, of course, another option.

specialsubject Wed 04-Sep-13 13:36:40

the bizarre thing is that this appears to be a surprise. Every single birth in this country is registered so it should not be difficult to know how many kids will want primary education.

the other half is immigration, which is probably harder to track but still possible.

I don't see all the new housing estates coming equipped with a school, or even a corner shop.

BTW the 'one-child' policy does seem to result in population drop, because in the countries where it has been implemented there has been a mysterious drop in the number of girls born. So a generation later there are far fewer women to have the babies. Not good.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 13:37:51

YABU

The schools round here, a large town in the NW have very small classes many having under 25.
London is busy of course many more people live there.
If there is a shortfall of places there should be more schools. Why should people have fewer children because London is busy.
You could always move up here, we have small classes and lots of school fields. grin

Callani Wed 04-Sep-13 13:44:11

Maybe migrant children should be at the bottom.of the priorities list for places at schools?

Fantastic idea Mortified - does that include me moving my brats from Birmingham to Yorkshire or just immigrants from other countries?

I can think of nothing better than banishing all nasty furrin kids from schools so they never learn English and grow up in sink estates... that's one way to really encourage a positive society \sarcasm

TrueStory Wed 04-Sep-13 13:44:34

Well, OP, you are definitely not being unreasonable. My son also cannot get a school place. Though I think you are a brave lady to raise this on MN!

There is obviously a serious overpopulation crisis, not just in UK (which is a small country at the end of the day), but in the world generally. The housing crisis is massive and it is getting worse every decade.

Our local schools are not full. Move here. They're building new houses nobody wants so you'll get a bargain.

::solves crisis::

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 13:46:50

See I couldn't give a monkeys whether its a 'local gal' or a 'bloody immigrant' having the babies. There are just too many of them!

Limiting benefits for families just means that we spend more on law enforcement and via services, including the prison system and health/SS. It is cheaper and easier to throw a small sum of money to those that need it, the low paid, the disabled than to keep the UK's standard of living as it should be.

Every piece of research shows that migrants are the cause of the UK's rising birth rate, so the world's population isn't getting bigger, people are just moving to where there is a reasonable Welfare system.

It has been shown, by again numerous studies that there is no correlation between benefits and family size.

What we need is Town planning that is "on the ball", but then the politicians would have to admit to what is happening and about to get worse and that certainly will not happen.

It is always lower working class Western women who are told that they must control their fertility, I could imagine the out roar that suggesting that many across Africa, the EU and India etc should be doing their bit to solve this appearant over population of the planet.

Come up North, we don't have any of these problems, we have little employment, but school places and housing are a-plenty.

TrueStory Wed 04-Sep-13 13:57:58

Just to clarify, the world populations is growing, its not just people moving about hmm.

1999 - 6 billion
2011 - 7 billion
2025 - 8 billion
2043 - 9 billion.

(These are UN actual and projected figures).

This obviously creates a massive strain on world resources, both national and international, as well as destroying wildlife freely existing.

There are lots of reasons as to why the planet looks as though it is becoming overcrowded, some are environmental, to many people are being packed into a ever growing smaller area that sustain them.

There is more arable land being dedicated to growing food for cows and coffee/ chocolate etc, trees cut down for "holiday villages" has meant that deserts have formed quicker than they should.

Women giving birth isn't the biggest issue our planet faces.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 14:08:06

Whenever I travel from the North to South I pass lots of green unpopulated areas and beautiful countryside. It seems like the problem really only exists in the South.
I can't believe that sterilisation has been given as a serious solution to the over crowding of the Southern cities and towns.
Its usually at least page 16 before the s word is used. Shame on you and pity your dc, growing up listening to such a vile attitude.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 14:23:06

OP my DCs 2 and 3 are twins. Please let me know how your proposals for a brave new world would have dealt with that situation.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 14:34:46

Well blazin I would suggest you plan to support your own children.

TrueStory Wed 04-Sep-13 14:41:27

Coffee, cows, holiday villages? confused. The main use of arable land in the world is actually growing grains and has been thus since we stopped being hunter-gatherers and became land settlers and had much larger families as a result. Historical fact.

comingalongnicely Wed 04-Sep-13 14:43:37

LOL, have as many as you like - as long as you can afford them.

I totally agree that benefits should only be paid for the first 2.

If you can't afford more than 2 then don't have them. Simples

Sure it's your right to have more, it's my right to expect you to feed & clothe them...

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 14:55:39

Filee - the OP was suggesting that CB should not be available after 2 children, presumably to act as a disincentive to conceive additional children. In my circumstance, which is hardly unusual, should I get CB for the third child or not under the OP's policy.
Anyway Filee I'm sure youll be delighted to know that I did and continue to make adequate provision for my children. Thank you for your helpful advice.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 14:57:40

I don't think it really matters does it? Two kids get child related benefits, including tax credits and you learn to adjust for the rest.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:02:09

But it does matter Filee. Is CB to be capped as a disincentive to future conceptions or as a punishment? Parents of twins don't choose to have a multiple birth. So is he proposal a disincentive or a punishment?

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 15:11:02

But some people have accidental pregnancies too, it's simple, gov pays for 2 kids and no more

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:16:13

So your policy is based on punishment and not disincentive. Lovely.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 15:17:13

Nope, it's based on money and sense.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 15:18:05

Only in the uk could giving someone up to 160 quid a week be a 'punishment'

LadyInDisguise Wed 04-Sep-13 15:29:37

Can someone explain me how we have a baby boom if the natality rate is under 2.00??
I mean we are under the number needed to maintain the pillar ion (which us 2.4) so wo immigration, the population of the uk would actually be going down...,

The issue isn't a baby boom, it's an increase of number if children born in a certain area that is higher that the capacity planned by our political leaders.

So my advice is...
Just fire any politician who hasn't been able to plan the increase in children number in his area as they have been failing at their job.
Do you think that would help? wink

jellyandcake Wed 04-Sep-13 15:32:19

So does that mean you feel it is irresponsible to plan a pregnancy unless you can afford for it to be twins?

And on another tangent, what happens in China if you become pregnant with twins under the one-child policy? It seems to me that multiple births are unexpected and you can't plan in advance for it to happen so it doesn't seem fair to punish people for it.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:37:34

Jellyandcake - I've wondered about that too (re China)
Filee appears to believe that a multiple birth is a failure of "sense". As Fillee also believes that a child can net £160 a week for it's parents then I think he/she is living in Daily Express land and I shan't bother to engage with him/her anymore.

LadyInDisguise Wed 04-Sep-13 15:37:49

Btw the increase in the world population is a real issue. But you need to have a look at each individual country.
In Europe, there is a deficit of birth which will create some big issues in the coming years. Not just how do we pay for their pension. But also who is going to look after them, who is going to work in the factories and offices if there is less people around?
Our system is based on constant economical growth so not enough people to work IS an issue.
The answer to that of course is immigration, which we already do to cover shortages in some professions for example. But you are left with other issues on how to integrate the migrants. And issues on managing immigration

None of it is easy and this needs an answer that will take the full

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:40:19

Jellyandcake - just realise you are the OP - what is your answer to my question about CB for the third child where he/she is the second of a multiple birth?

LadyInDisguise Wed 04-Sep-13 15:40:19

Sorry ....
The fil picture into account rather than being vet short sighted and looking at what is happening on a local basis on a specific year.

Eg on our area, 2003 had a high number of baby and school places were far in between. Move on 2 years later, in 2005, there was less babies born than planned do classes are all small for that year.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 15:41:16

No we are talking about benefits for 2 children

Which is 160 a week, 15 odd on cb and the rest on ctc.

Plenty to feed three children on.

jellyandcake Wed 04-Sep-13 15:46:55

Blazin it's on my mind atm as I'm six weeks pregnant and keep thinking 'argh, what if it's twins' (which would make my total three children, completely not what I've planned for!). I wasn't prepared to not have anymore children on the offchance it could be twins but I would struggle financially if it was whereas I can afford a singleton. That's the problem with planning ahead - you can't foresee every eventuality, you just have to do your best to make sensible decisions.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:47:11

You're funny Filee smile smile smile

jellyandcake Wed 04-Sep-13 15:47:50

No I'm not the OP!

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:49:47

So jelly if your second turns out to be twins or more would it be fair that DC3 was denied CB? That seems to be what your are advocating in your original post.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 15:51:07

Sorry jellyandcake! Ignore my last post!

jellyandcake Wed 04-Sep-13 15:52:04

And Blazin I feel the same as you that if you withdraw CB after two then it's unfair to parents of multiple s who couldn'tforesee that happening.

Not sure where the figure of £160 comes from - ctc depends on income so would vary rather than being a fixed sum that everyone gets?

Loa Wed 04-Sep-13 16:11:07

Ten years ago the local area I'm in was closing down several smaller primary schools - as there was an excess of places. They are now/ or have merged secondary schools to reduce places for the same reason.

Currently there are just enough Primary school places but the next few years have even higher numbers of children so places even at undesirable schools are getting harder to get.

I can't help thinking there will be a completely unforeseen crisis of places in 6 -8 years time at secondary level.

While immigration may play a part in some areas - I would image London would be an example and I think Bristol has UK based relocation as issue- some areas like mine don't have a large immigrate population or population movement skewing figure.

After the second world war - birth rate boomed - creating a bulge in population now their children are in their 30s - prime age these days for starting/having families so even though less of the total number of fertile adults have children and often fewer DC there was always going to be a bulge in the children figures.

It's not a new problem - only have to look at Primary school pages to know that - but one that has gotten steadily worse exacerbated no doubt by the recession meaning fewer families scan afford Private schools.

Polices such as Academias and free schools - often not step up in areas of greatest shortages of places - taking the number of places out of LEA control probably haven't helped.

It is a failure of planning for a completely foreseeable event at both national and local levels. To link it to large families and benefits - is at best bizarre.

DuckToWater Wed 04-Sep-13 16:17:04

If we all stopped having babies the human race would die out in 100 years. Who should be 'allowed' to have them?

Loa Wed 04-Sep-13 16:35:03

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

Has a population chart - you can see the post second world war baby boom - then 20 years later slightly smaller boom - then at the bottom 20-30 years later start of third again smaller population budge.

It's not because people are having larger families - it's more people at peak age to start families at certain points in time.

Obviously that nationally and local variations are going to play on top of that.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 16:44:30

That's why I said 'up to' 160 in my original post.

dirtyface Wed 04-Sep-13 16:49:28

i don't live in the south. i live in a large midlands city, and my city is, IMO, very overcrowded

not sure what the solution is TBH :/

FrigginRexManningDay Wed 04-Sep-13 16:52:13

Enough to feed three children on maybe but not enough to lift them out of the poverty trap. Investing in children now means less adults and families to support in the future.

JerseySpud Wed 04-Sep-13 16:59:13

gets the popcorn out and makes herself comfortable

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 17:00:01

@catfromjapan - migration is NOT the msi cause of overpopulation. I think you'll find that 'indiginous' people having large families for benefit purposes is a contributory factor,as is the number of teenage pregnancies and older mothers. Also the fact that we have very good health care and are living longer.

Pisses me off when people try to blame all the social ills in this country on immigrants and 'foreigners'.

SubliminalMassaging Wed 04-Sep-13 17:03:50

Maybe we should give CB for children 1 and 2, nothing for numbers three and four, and then start clawing it back in an 'excess child tax' from 5 onwards.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 17:04:08

Angelos02 - i love ya! :-D i think that child free people should be be given a tax rebate.

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 04-Sep-13 17:04:12

Its a failure of planning and the population growing.

I think capping CB at 2 could cause problems as people would moan re not being able to have x children or a new family with a partner who already has two children. Would be far better to scrap CB and instead plough the money into schools and hospitals etc to cope. People are then free to have children but at their own expense and numbers would reduce themselves as less would have children knowing they didnt come with benefits.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 17:12:18

@konnielingus- unless there had been a recent change,ALL parents are entitled to and recieve child benefit if they apply for it - regardless of their income.

I met quite a few trust fund babies and rich kids whilst living in SW london and they recieved it. It paid for their horse riding/ballet/acting lessons or it went into their savings accounts.

BlazinStoke Wed 04-Sep-13 17:15:03

Excess child tax? Tax rebate for childless adults? And perhaps parents could be given help and support for producing the next generation who will do all the work when the current generation is old and decrepit.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 17:18:17

The problem is not enough schools though. Even in our area where classes are small schools have been closed and then whoops they're needed again. Its National and local gov who need to get their act together where planning is concerned. It isn't a case of family planning.
When your LEA seem surprised by the number of children needing school places in a particular year, there is something fundamentally wrong, irrespective of how many children there are.

dirtyface Wed 04-Sep-13 17:18:49

anyway as for child related benefits such as child benefit and tax credits (ie benefits people get whether they are in work OR unemployed)- IMO the real problem is the extortionate cost of living ie housing / food / petrol / water / gas / electric. if these were affordable on minimum to average wages, there would be no need to pay benefits to people in work.

why are the powers that be not working to sort that out??

bit of a tangent i know but relevant i think

comingalongnicely Wed 04-Sep-13 17:19:41

Ooh, I like "excess child tax", that'd learn 'em!!

@ HappyMummyOfOne "I think capping CB at 2 could cause problems as people would moan re not being able to have x children or a new family with a partner who already has two children."

As long as they can afford to have them without handouts, they can breed away!!

I really can't understand why people think that others should fund their liefstyles. If you were a Paraglider or Horse Racer I wouldn't be expected to fund your Equipment or Horsey - so why, just because you want to surround yourselves with kids, should money be diverted from better uses to allow you to do so?

And in this context, "better uses" is anything from potholes to the NHS - things that benefit us all as a collective.

IneedAsockamnesty Wed 04-Sep-13 17:20:17

Dysfunctionally.

Check your facts CB has changed and is now income based.its been a massive news item for the last 18 months.

And if you can produce one respected study that states people have children for benefit reasons I would be shocked given that the dwp confirms larger families (more than 3 kids) dependant solely on benefits are really quite unusual.

Oblomov Wed 04-Sep-13 17:21:19

Ds2 is just about to start school. He got a place. In this 'baby boom year'. Which is the biggest yet. But has been steadily increasing every year.
So hardly a shock for the council's. And he was born nearly 5 years ago, so they have had 5 years to plan.
But they've done bugger all.
As they did the last 10 years, when birth rates have been steadily increasing.
And there has also been a huge migration.
Immigration is a problem.
but no government wants to deal with it.

= conclusion
= We are totally screwed.
What comforting thought.

Dysfuntionally, the latest statics show that our population is rising, firstly from people living longer and through once fatal illnesses ( dam those cancer etc survivors) and then from immigration.

There is no such thing as "government money", they are the safe keepers and policy makers that ensure we retain and improve the standard of living in the UK that we all should have.

Every country in the EU has to have a Welfare plan and follow a consistent model, our Government cannot, thankfully just pluck a scheme such as this out of thin air and implement it.

Research and previous attempts, doesn't back up that cutting benefits, without a certain level of employment that pays a living wage as a means to save the country money, it creates more problems that it helps( it actually doesn't help at all, as "those sort" of families will be catered for by SS, anyway.

Quangle Wed 04-Sep-13 17:22:10

Government's job is to manage services for the population it has, not engineer the population around the services it has.

FrigginRexManningDay Wed 04-Sep-13 17:22:57

Dysfunctionally have you been living in a cave? Lots of families have lost their CB since the rules changed last year.

SubliminalMassaging Wed 04-Sep-13 17:23:00

It's not just the direct benefits though is it, it's getting more points towards being eligible for a bigger house, and it's deferring being expected to look for a job once your other children are at school.

Oblomov Wed 04-Sep-13 17:23:03

By the way, Op, take comfort in the fact that I will NOT be having any more children. 2 is my lot.
So your Op is irrelevant to Me.
As it is to many people who have already had the said 2 children.

Wuldric Wed 04-Sep-13 17:26:32

Pay as you go pensions are a ponzi scheme - quite literally. That is what we have all subscribed to for years. The basic idea being that the state pension is funded by current taxpayers. We depend upon there being enough current tax payers to fund our elderly people. Therefore we need lots of immigrants because the indigenous population is too niggardly with the number of children they will have. We will end up living in high rise flats with a population the size of china ....

Seriously unless someone stops the ponzi scheme, this is how it will end up ...

Wellwobbly Wed 04-Sep-13 17:30:12

Jelly, birthrates is where the problem is - NOT ENOUGH.

I went to a conference where the speaker was Gavyn Davies when he was still at Goldman Sachs (before New Labour).

He was talking about grey power and how the ratio of old people would one day pass young people etc etc. So, even in the time of Mrs Thatcher they knew they had an increasingly ageing population.

And did absolutely nothing about it.

Now, why did the European Union encourage immigration? I had an interesting conversation with a German once. Watch the differing ideologies:

I said: the EU allowed mass immigration as a response to the declining birth rate of major Western countries.

The German said: no it isn't. It is because of the [post war] refugees act.

"comingalongnicely", most of what the NHS spends its funding on could be eradicated by everyone adopting a healthy lifestyle and abstaining from lots of things that are unnatural, unlike sex which is a human need.

The goverent should of started its inference at a time when we would all expect and demand that employers should pay a living wage, that is what created the problem, not people's natural want to have children.

If benefits are not paid at a liveable rate, then we pick up the bill in health, anti depresents for a start.

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 17:30:52

It's naive to think that the money saved by cutting Cb off at 2 children will be spent on improving the infrastructure of local communities unless it's in some kind of 'look at how we're cheering up the plebs' type of way, with bright colours and catchy phrases on the walls. (Cynical? Me?). When I was at high school many years ago the LA closed every single high school in the area, amalgamated some and reopened them all the following September. The actual figure escapes me but there were significantly less schools in the borough when they had finished. No new schools have been built since despite a population rise and a large number of new housing estates being built in the mean time.
The roads are full of potholes, libraries and Sure Start have had budgets cut to a minimum, the high street in the town is suffering badly and it is constantly featured in documentaries about payday lenders and in articles on the most deprived areas of England.
Despite this though they find the funds to out on a free festival and build a brand spangly new council office block...
If you think that by cutting CB this will change you are, quite frankly a fucking idiot.

Wellwobbly Wed 04-Sep-13 17:31:37

PS the ultimate attack on the family unit, is capitalism. We have declined from the extended family communal system to a poor harried nuclear family, and even that is under strain.

FrigginRexManningDay Wed 04-Sep-13 17:32:37

Have you had a look at what jobs are out there subliminal? I can't gamble my family on zero hours and a pittance wage.

Also under "Every Child Matters" the LA has a duty to take into account the population under 19 and plan so that every child can achieve what is set out, it sounds as though there should be lots of questions asked across some LA's and quite a few sackings.

Oblomov Wed 04-Sep-13 17:42:02

I agree with Wellwobbly.

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 17:45:44

This is no just about cb.

alemci Wed 04-Sep-13 17:47:29

but the people having the dcs will get old so even more people to look after.

I think that the school place shortage is disgraceful but after Tony Blairs open door policy is it surprising.

our school down the road is expanding. when dd attended the 2 forms werent full in 2000. more cars and chaos as I expect some kids may not be that nearby

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 17:49:11

I'm quite suprised at some of the vitriol on this thread. I can understand this is an emotive issue for those with children-but your feelings don't trump everyone elses. Overpopulation is a serious issue and needs to be discussed openly,honestly,maturely and calmly.

In MY opinion,having children is a lifestyle choice (a selfish one in essence), it is not compulsory. I agree that on one level we do need to keep the population growing so humans don't die out-but we need to start being more responsible. Let people have one child of their own (by whatever means) and recieve financial assistance from the gvmnt. If they then want more then they pay for them out of their own pocket. If you want more children but can only afford to do so with gvmnt aid then you should ADOPT! Gvmnt should pay cb etc for each adopted child. (Of course if your first pregnancy results in twins etc then each child should recieve cb).

There are sooooo many children in care who need adopting. How fair is any of this on them? Don't they deserve to be loved and looked after too? Personally,i think it's very selfish to keep breeding when there are other ways to satisfy that desire for a larger family.

This would be far more beneficial to our society.

Of course-i wouldn't expect this to be applied retrospectively (for the benefit of those posters who ask 'should we shove them back in their mothers womb?'

Before you ask-no,i don't have any children of my own. Hopefully one day i will be able to afford to have one as i would love to be a mother. I am,however,training to be a foster carer and will be adopting in the future when i can afford it. This way i'm not only satisfying my desire to be a mum/parent and have someone i can nurture and give my love to,but i'm also providing a home for a child who needs one. Everyone incl society benefits.

Wellwobbly Wed 04-Sep-13 17:53:40

Here is an extract from one of today's editorials, just for you OP!

"Many politicians lie. But few lie so flagrantly as Stephen Twigg did yesterday, speaking about the looming shortage of primary school places. “The root of this,” he claimed, was what Michael Gove and David Cameron “did back in 2010 when they cancelled Labour plans to rebuild and refurbish schools”. No, Mr Twigg. The root of the problem, as you very well know, is the immigration-driven baby boom that has resulted (as of the most recent Office for National Statistics figures) in the highest number of births since 1972.
Not only did Labour open the borders, it then washed its hands of the consequences. As far back as 2004, the ONS pointed out that a growing population would put acute pressure on schools, housing, hospitals and other public services. Reaction came there none. In fact, as education secretary, Ed Balls was keen for schools to cut any surplus places, and actually threatened to remove capital funding if they refused. As for Labour’s vaunted Building Schools for the Future programme, which Mr Gove is accused of vandalising, this is a red herring: it was about refurbishing schools, at vastly excessive expense, rather than providing new places."

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 17:55:49

What you're doing is admirable Dysfunctional and I hope you're successful but if adoption can be a replacement for biological children, for lack of a better way to put it, shouldn't the adoption process be easier? Some friends of mine adopted and were put through the wringer for years before they were judged suitable. Every aspect of their lives was ripped apart and they almost gave up several times. I should should be fairer IMO. I don't think I could go through what they did.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 17:56:00

Dysfunctional

Not everybody meets the requirements to adopt and imo it shouldn't be used to control the population. It wasn't that long ago it was used to control the morals of unmarried women.
As good as your intentions are I disagree with your view entirely.

Good luck with the fostering training and I think you are doing a wonderful thing. grin
I

MortifiedAdams Wed 04-Sep-13 17:57:50

I have one child. Can I give my "second child credit" to a family wanting a third? Wonder how much id get for it on ebay.

comingalongnicely Wed 04-Sep-13 18:10:47

Birdsgottafly - Beer is as much a "human need" for me as "sex" I'm afraid - your round?

My employer does pay a living wage thanks, it's more than ample for me & my family.

The eternal yowling that if we don't pay people to get what they want, we then have to pay to treat their unhappiness doesn't really wash.

I honestly can't see why you have a problem with people taking responsibility for their desire *(not need) to breed.

Dackyduddles Wed 04-Sep-13 18:22:59

Gee op coz the 1 child policy in china has been a resounding success we simply must try a variation on that (ridiculous) theme....

AnneTwacky Wed 04-Sep-13 18:23:54

If it helps you can think of them as future tax payers. wink

LynetteScavo Wed 04-Sep-13 18:29:49

Yeah, because £13.40 CB a week really affected my decision on whether or not to have a third child. hmm

And if you stopped providing benefits for more than 2 children, the result would be that the whole family suffered...including the first two children.

It's all a bit Victorian if you ask me.

I've got a great idea! Maybe state education and free health care should be provided for the first two children only!

filee777 Wed 04-Sep-13 18:33:44

It's not just cb. It's child related benefits which includes tax credits.

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 18:34:30

If those of us with 3 or more decide to home educate will we get a prize of some description then?

HappyMummyOfOne Wed 04-Sep-13 18:35:59

"If it helps you can think of them as future tax payers"

Thats not the case anymore. We already have too many unemployed and non tax payers and a high percentage in work claim far more back in tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit etc than they pay in tax in the first place.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:18:10

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Taxpayers have children.
Benefits claimants breed.

Apparently.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:28:57

@dobbiesmum - totally agree re the adoption process. It def needs to be made easier. This is where we need to speak up and put pressure on the gvmnt via our ward counsellors and mp's and media. I personally find the current adoptive system demoralising and dsgusting. If the gvmnt seriously believe all that red tape and beuracracy is necessary to ensure the welfare of the child- then why is that not the case for every other child that is born? Or does their safety and welfare not matter?

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:30:58

In my opinion 'birthing' offspring is breeding-be that only one child over the course of a lifetime or many.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:31:32

Oh-and regardless of whether parent is employed or not.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:35:09

In a world of trillions of people and open borders i dnt think finding future tax payers is a problem. Creating a sustainable economy and finding employment for future tax payers,however,IS.

BoffinMum Wed 04-Sep-13 19:38:28

Actually, a major contributory factor in London is probably the selling off of London School Board buildings in the early 1990s in Tory controlled boroughs. Thousands of primary school places were lost and the buildings turned into posh apartments.

People have very short memories when it comes to politics.

AintNobodyGotTimeFurThat Wed 04-Sep-13 19:38:52

Right.

Good luck with that.

ubik Wed 04-Sep-13 19:43:13

It's time for The Hunger Games. Winner gets a school place. Sorted. P

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:43:25

Im not trying to offend people with my opinion, so i apologise to those who are feeling offended. I come from a large family myself and i wouldn't want to deny any loving parent that desire. In an ideal world there would be no problem in living our lives exactly as we please ,but we don't live in an ideal world. Unless we sort this out then your children and my nephews n neices (10 of them so far) will be inheriting a far worse future than it needs to be.

filee777 could you please tell me what I should be claiming to get my 160 quid pw benefits. We are on a low income. Ta.

dysfunctionallynormal Wed 04-Sep-13 19:47:37

@dobbiesmum - i'd give you a prize! :-D i would like to homeschool when i adopt or have my own.

maddening Wed 04-Sep-13 19:53:31

Thing is we've spent so much time as a race making time and energy saving things and made so much efficient (eg mass production) that we need less humans full stop - we as a race are unsustainable. Maybr they're hitting us both ways - squeezing benefits for dc and downgrading the nhs - birth rates down and death rates up.

As an aside i also wonder whether the baby boom is also a response to the unsettled atmosphere in global politics/wars - like there was a baby boom after ww2 - maybe an innate survival instinct?

ubik Wed 04-Sep-13 19:58:21

Oh God. Are we back to the feckless poor?

No one on mumsnet ever goes on about the feckless bankers who started all thus nonsense in the first place.

Perhaps we should only give school places to those who can pay fur it?

ILetHimKeep20Quid Wed 04-Sep-13 20:02:47

As the third child, I'm feeling quite unwanted!

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 20:03:14

Dysfunctionally if the same red tape was extended to every potential parent it would solve the problem there and then.... Demoralising was the word I was searching for btw. That is exactly how it seems.

IMO there is no point punishing the children by cutting off CB, which could /should pay for food and clothing purely to punish the parents for their choices, and yes I am aware that some have children for less likeable reasons, I know some. Those in power want to save money? They should have the courage of their convictions and go after all levels of society, not just taking away the safety net at the bottom.
We as a society need to go back to something closer to what wellwobbly touched on, become more community and family minded and self sufficient.

alemci Wed 04-Sep-13 20:05:15

you can't blame bankers for too many kids and our small island being overcrowded.

agree boffin about closing schools. this happened in 80s to local secondaries, no guessing what they put there, more housing then 15 years' later more schools needed.

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 20:07:28

I'd love to home ed, we're giving our eldest one more year and then we'll see. My prize will be wine and chocolate, I'll probably need it grin

SubliminalMassaging Wed 04-Sep-13 20:08:22

No one on mumsnet ever goes on about the feckless bankers who started all thus nonsense in the first place.

Oh please. Seriously, we would have been in much the same mess, banking crisis or no banking crisis where things like birth rate spikes immigration and school places are concerned. And the pension crisis. And probably the housing bubble.

SubliminalMassaging Wed 04-Sep-13 20:08:57

that shourl read 'birth rate spikes, immigration' etc

givemeaboost Wed 04-Sep-13 20:10:03

I think immigrants should not be allowed to live within London/London counties....I believe that would reduce the strain. I also think the universal credit will help the problem as poorer families/those on benefits either have to suck up the shortfall in the money or move out of London to a cheaper area. I know that's not idea many will like but I don't believe you should live in London if you cant afford to biscuit

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 20:13:16

I H. ed so somebody can have my dds place if they want it, and the NW isn't over crowded.
I do receive tax credits and cb though. However, dd has 6/8 more years of education yet.

MrsDeVere Wed 04-Sep-13 20:15:10

You shouldn't live in London if you can't afford to?

No.words.for.that.stupidity.

Well apart from those ones obviously.

The short-termism of government is a problem here too - because any bumper birth year only affects school places 4-5 and 11-12 years later, ie at least one election away. Governments do little that won't have an effect during the parliamentary term, and practically nothing that will have a negative effect during this parliamentary term with a positive benefit in the term after.

twistyfeet Wed 04-Sep-13 20:20:56

so how come people in poor countries without benefits have lots of kids? Methinks there isnt actually a link between benefits and numbers of children.
CTC didnt exist when I had no's 3 and 4 btw and I certainly didnt have them to get Child Benefit.

twistyfeet Wed 04-Sep-13 20:24:08

'but I don't believe you should live in London if you cant afford to'

Wave goodbye to shop assistants, bus drivers, nusrses, teachers, road sweepers, cleaners, midwives and all those others on below 30K. Probably to most people on below 50K.

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 20:26:25

Has anyone mentioned education? Why don't we educate young people about the realities of day to day life with a family, financial planning, budgeting etc?

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Wed 04-Sep-13 20:29:34

"I think immigrants should not be allowed to live within London/London counties"

I'm an immigrant and I turn over close to £1000000 a year and employ 28 people, 26 of whom are British born. I'll live where I want which happens to be not in London

Jenny70 Wed 04-Sep-13 20:38:26

Doesn't the govt want more children to be working/paying tax when the population ages? One child will make an imbalanced population, with lots more pensioners and noone actually working?

They need to make more places with smart building programs asap.

Mumoftwoyoungkids Wed 04-Sep-13 20:40:59

A measure of a humane society is how they treat their most vulnerable. A child with parents who are not able to support them - whether through illness, death, redundancy, disability, bad luck or just plain fecklessness - is incredibly vulnerable.

I'm a higher rate tax payer - have been for nearly a decade now. Would I prefer to pay less tax - yes. Would I prefer it if people could support their own children - yes. Would I prefer it if people made their family planning decisions sensibly - errrr obviously!

But you can't "punish" the parents without punishing the children. And leaving British children in severe poverty - to me - is unacceptable.

Dobbiesmum Wed 04-Sep-13 20:43:06

Ithinkofhappy but you're a GOOD immigrant, not one of those nasty feckless ones coming over here and stealing our jobs, benefits and Wimmin all at the same time! You may live where you want. wink
givemeaboost who would clean the streets or serve you coffee if only the rich lived in London?

BoffinMum Wed 04-Sep-13 20:45:28

I am pretty egalitarian by nature, but the root is probably self-interest. Societies that abandon their vulnerable 1. End up being aggressive, unpleasant and crime ridden places to live in, and 2. Might abandon me if I suffer misfortune.

LtEveDallas Wed 04-Sep-13 20:51:27

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

LadyMacbethWasMisunderstood Wed 04-Sep-13 20:58:22

I do not think that YABU to want to debate these issues.

But I do think that YABU to think things are so straightforward.

When we had DC3 it was not with a thought as to what benefits were available. He was a much longed for baby and no amount of 'disincentive'' would have made us cease to want him.

JaquelineHyde Wed 04-Sep-13 21:09:35

BINGO!

I have 4 DC, my husband is an immigrant and we are poor and in receipt of means tested benefits <hides the flat screen tv>.

Quick take me outside for 50 lashings and run the children to the workhouse.

givemeaboost Wed 04-Sep-13 21:31:33

to clarify, I don't meaning working poor I mean the unemployed :-p

MrsDeVere Wed 04-Sep-13 21:35:18

If everyone restricted to only having one child
where would all the children for adoption come from? confused

And people who blithely talk about adopting as a simple alternative to having birth children know fuck all about adoption.

BrownSauceSandwich Wed 04-Sep-13 21:40:47

How about we deport the surplus kids to the bleak northeast?

Dahlen Wed 04-Sep-13 22:21:57

I disagree strongly with the statement that children are a lifestyle choice. The urge to procreate is hard wired into our species as a means of perpetuating it. Granted, we have conscious intelligence, free will and (in the UK) contraception. Also, human nature is diverse enough that some people will not feel that urge at all or choose to ignore it. But most don't. Across westernised countries with adequate access to contraception the percentage of those who become parents is consistently about 80% - regardless of welfare provision. To equate having children with choosing to take up horse riding is a fallacy.

Lifestyle choices come into it in terms of
how many and when, but that's about it .

If we want to look at ways of discouraging people from having more than one we have to ensure it's not done in a way that discriminates against women. We also need to question the assumption that people have children to get benefits. I know several women for whom benefits have meant that an unplanned pregnancy is not considered that big a deal but I know none that deliberately chose to get pregnant to get benefits. Scrapping benefits may make them a bit more careful about contraception but we should be asking ourselves why they aren't doing that in the first place. Where is their aspiration? How has society failed them so badly that a career was never an option and motherhood understandably is viewed as a better alternative to an abortion and a dead end job with no guaranteed hours and a pittance to live on. And what about the fathers in all this? Why aren't they insisting that more effective contraception is used?

The trouble with any attempt to control reproduction is that it always affects women unfavourably.

morethanpotatoprints Wed 04-Sep-13 22:27:49

MrsDeVere

Oh you are so right.
I left the thread a while ago because of the posts on adoption.
For once words actually fail me and I find it difficult to understand why any civilised person could even contemplate the suggestion. shock angry sad

Anniegetyourgun Wed 04-Sep-13 22:35:17

CBA to read 8 pages of this, has anyone suggested mincing the surplus offspring into rissoles and giving them out in food banks? Killing two birds with one stone, innit.

caramelwaffle Wed 04-Sep-13 22:37:23

Is it 90% of Britain that has not been built on?

Or 80% with 10% developed for farming...?

skyeskyeskye Wed 04-Sep-13 22:39:40

Ive only got one DD so if anybody has got a spare going let me know grin

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsKoala Thu 05-Sep-13 00:32:48

i fucking hate Malthusians. I really do. For some reason i hate their opinions more than any other. I think it's because it's spouted by 'liberals' under the quise of being good for the planet blahblah bullshit. But what it really boils down to is only 'people like me' deserve to live and brown people and poor people are somehow less deserving than me and i've had my children so i'm alright Jack (i wonder how they feel about their relatives/dc adding to the population boom?). If people are so bothered about it, when they spout off earnestly i suggest; if over crowding and being a burden on the environment bothers them so much, they could consider taking one for the team. Funnily enough they don't agree with that point.

The answer to the worlds problems lies within human innovation. If anything, we need more of us not less. The issue is distribution (of wealth and resources) not the amount of people using them.

ShadowSummer Thu 05-Sep-13 00:39:34

Given that families where one parent earns over £60k don't get child benefit any more, I wonder if birth rates are starting to fall yet among that section of the population? hmm

I'm also very skeptical about the notion that child related benefits are a major factor in most parents with more than 2 DC having decided to have DC3 or more.

Mimishimi Thu 05-Sep-13 01:05:13

We, and the Western world generally, actually has a problem with declining birthrates. Jonathan Last's "What to Expect When Noone's Expecting" is a good book to read on this. I do agree with WellWobbly that mass immigration has been the proposed solution for this for those who want to try and keep the numbers looking good to prove their theories that survival of the fittest is the best economic policy even if the evidence is that families are cracking and their offspring are choosing, or are forced, not to reproduce.

It's silly to blame immigrants when so many have better jobs/education/capital than us. I hardly know any who rely on welfare although undoubtedly there might be somPr

Mimishimi Thu 05-Sep-13 01:13:08

We, and the Western world generally, actually has a problem with declining birthrates. Jonathan Last's "What to Expect When Noone's Expecting" is a good book to read on this. I do agree with WellWobbly that mass immigration has been the proposed solution for this for those who want to try and keep the numbers looking good to prove their theories that survival of the fittest is the best economic policy even if the evidence is that families are cracking and their offspring are choosing, or are forced, not to reproduce. The book has a failing in that it doesn't make a connection between the policy of perpetual warfare and people choosing to give up ... mainly because he seems to agree with that proposition.

It's silly to blame immigrants when so many have better jobs/education/capital than us. I married one and he is one of the hardest working people I know as are many of his friends. Many immigrants create new businesses which generate new jobs. Personally I hardly know any who rely on welfare although undoubtedly there might be somPr

Mimishimi Thu 05-Sep-13 01:20:57

Sorry for the multiple posts. Kept getting an error message that the server did not understand my browser requesPr

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 02:16:16

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 02:24:16

Dahlen - the urge to procreate may be hardwired into our biology, however, that does NOT mean our wombs should be dedicated to endlessly producing children.

By the way - horse riding is a hobby (and i did not say anything of the sort) so you may want to pick a different analogy.....

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 02:30:26

morethanpotatoprints - exactly what is it about the adoption comments that offends you and leaves you lost for words? I'd really like to know.

Those children DESERVE to be loved and looked after. They NEED parents and to belong to a family. Why should they not have that?

Perhaps you were referring to the person who asked where any future adoptees would come from? I'm not even going to dignify that comment with a reply.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 06:02:25

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 06:22:41

You may find the following interesting/enlightening Welfare Britain especially the part where it points out that only 8% of everyone claiming some sort of benefit (that includes pensioners - our biggest welfare claimants) have 3 or more children. The lady you claim to know...she will be one of them, then.

Loeri Thu 05-Sep-13 07:17:35

I think having a children is definitely a lifestyle choice nowadays. Women with good jobs tend to have fewer (or no) children while women with crap jobs or no job tend to have more. It's very worrying for the future IMO. Especially when you hear about children being sent to school still in nappies/not being able to read/sit up unaided/eat with cutlery. Or even knowing their own name in some cases. sad

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 07:26:48

"tickets for the outrage bus"....I love that @ fiftieslosttheplot

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 07:32:59

Loori, I agree with you about the children missing out on basics. Yet there is another thread going on at the moment with people expressing outrage because those very children are being sought for 15 hours of free childcare at 2yrs. This is about giving them the chance of a level playing field with their more fortunate peers when they reach reception.

Sadly on the thread there are lots of people saying "it's not fair" and seemingly not able to see that this is a scheme to try and benefit those children. ....not the parents.

So yes I agree that there are children out there born simply because their parents have no hope or aspiration to do anything else. The sad thing is that if you ask the average 7 year old girl what she wants to do when she grows up then you are highly unlikely to get "I want to be a Mum and have lots of children". Seven year olds have ambition and hope.......I wonder when that dies or is knocked out of them? sad

Loeri Thu 05-Sep-13 07:41:32

So having children IS a lifestyle choice then?

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 07:56:15

Like I said
Knows fuck all about adoption.

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 07:59:41

I think sadly in some cases it is.....except I don't think there is much conscious choice. Rather I think that young women with few skills (for whatever reason) are more likely to fall into the lifestyle of having a baby, and then another one and another one. As a midwife I was interested to see just how many babies were unplanned (across all sections of society).....and it is was almost two thirds. Not planned but happy about the pregnancy in most cases.

The saddest case I ever came across was as a HV several yeArs ago. I saw a young Mum on her 21st Birthday .....I was doing the initial visit to her and her new baby......and it was her fourth child. I can e member saying to her "Oh K it's your 21st Birthday" (I did know her pretty well by this time) and her eyes filling up as she said "I'm 21 and I've got four kids".

I think that is an issue.....no real planning....no real hope and life just happens.

That 21 year old actually wanted to be a hairdresser, it took a lot of work to hep her see that her life wasn't over. ...that she COULD still be a hairdresser.

Needless to say her childhood had been horrific and she had ongoing issues as a result.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 08:08:27

What about devout Catholics who do not use contraception? Are they not allowed practice their religion? What about children of rape?

You are suggesting control of women and their biological function. If you want to control your body that's fine,but do not even think about controlling mine.

Loeri Thu 05-Sep-13 08:11:22

Controlling womens body is wrong but on the other hand, women have to take responsibility for what they do. Having loads of children that you can't afford because you don't use contraception is wrong, whatever relgiion you bleive in.

MidniteScribbler Thu 05-Sep-13 08:12:41

It's not a problem of people having too many children. It's a problem of governments lacking the simple logic of saying "hey there were x children born last year, so in four years time we're going to need x school places" and to start planning accordingly.

Dahlen Thu 05-Sep-13 08:25:06

loeri the choice comes into it only in terms of when and how many. Not if, IMO.

Career women may have reproduce less and later but very few have no children at all and for many that was unintentional rather than deliberate. The same as how the young woman in JakeBullet's example didn't exercise conscious choice about becoming a mother of four. Fertility 'choices' run much deeper than that. Even those of us who plan pregnancies do so off the back of a primeval urge to have a child. No amount of rationally thinking "ok, got the husband, house, career and car, I'll have the baby now," would tempt you to have a baby if you didn't want one. Conversely, lots of people feel compelled to have children in less than ideal circumstances. The biological clock is a powerful thing. You can manipulate it but not choose to switch it on or off. You either want children or you don't. Most do.

And while I agree that people should exercise personal responsibility towards reproductive choices, let's not forget that it takes two to make a baby yet discussions like these always focus on women's choices. In many cases they don't have any. You cannot talk about penalising people for irresponsible reproduction unless you include plans to hold men equally accountable.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 08:38:04

I think they focus on women mostly because contraception focuses on woman and the RP is more than often the woman.

Personally I think the only way a system where by more than two children were not state funded, would be if the neglect laws were changed to cover financial neglect.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 08:41:48

(if you work you don't get more money each time you have another child).
Oh, be still my beating heart, yet another benefits bashing thread.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 08:43:23

I have at no point said people should not recieve benefits,what i have said is that child benefit should be limited. People who choose to keep breeding and expecting the rest of society to pick up the tab ARE selfish. Are you telling me that you would teach your daughter to do exactly as she pleases with no regard for anyone else or the consequences?!!!!

I lack of knowledge of current affairs? Why-because i didn't pay attention to one particular topic that didn't really concern me? Lmao!

My daily mail attitude?!! :-D what is that exactly? Im not an avid reader of that rag but you seem to very au fait with it so go ahead and explain.

I have been paying my tax since i was 18 and i have no problem with some of it going towards a persons first child. However,i disagree with it being used to fund every child that they choose to have.

I also never said anything about not giving people financial aid if they need it in the circumstances you describe above. So why try and attribute that to me? If you would like to know my opinion on that-i would like to see my taxes helping those who are in need or in dire straits. Nice try but you can't lie and twist my words to fit the daily mail lover image in your head.

As for my age....my my aren't we getting desperate for more stones to throw :-D

Good job you're not an expert in judging who is fit to be a carer. Incidentally,my foster agency and social worker know me pretty well and they wouldn't agree with you. In fact they don't!!

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 08:56:58

MrsDeVere -you know fuck all about me and what i know. I already know how the adoption system works hence why i've chosen not to go down that route just yet.

Loeri Thu 05-Sep-13 08:59:44

There's nothing wrong with "benefits bashing" when it's justified. Having multitudes of children when you can't even afford to raise the first one IS justified.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 09:14:16

Leori - I agree. Men should be held equally accountable but unless more women press that issue it won't happen. I recall having a discussion (amongst the ladies) re the need for more choice in male contraception when the male pill was in the news . It didn't go down half as well as i thought it would. The majority consensus was that men can't be trusted to use it. Yet when i asked my male friends they were all for it,their main reason being the fear of being trapped into fatherhood when either they weren't ready or didn't want to be dads.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 09:17:21

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 09:21:14

I think what we are seeing here IS women bashing though. Why are we reserving our bashing for the woman who has been left behind and IS caring for the child. WHY are we not raising hell about the men who have walked away?

I am constantly amazed by the number of men out there who can walk away from women and children, conceal their income or otherwise avoid paying for their children. THEY are the ones we SHOULD be shouting about and bashing. Not the poor mother left behind.

And lets not forget some of these men (not all) earn well....but are quite happy for the taxpayer to pick up the tab when they move on. Why are we reserving our vitriol for the woman who has been left behind? I think that is sad sad

MrsK. I hate Malthusians too. They make me want to throw stuff (and tell them to get off the guardian website the Internet, and recognise the irony of their sitting on their arses using up all manner of resources to complain about how there are too many people using up too many resources). Practice what you preach.

It's also fascinating how children have been constructed as a social evil in these debates, just by their mere existence. (And all those who are so anti-children will be glad other people had some when they're old and need someone else's children to take care of them).

I think the thing that most annoys me is that it all seems to be about locating 'the problem' in other people, so that one doesn't have to examine one's own behaviour. The major source of world population growth is among people who actually use very little in the way of resources, but smug fuckers in the west get to sit there congratulating themselves on how environmentally conscious they are for not having children.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 09:37:17

I agree with you there JakeBullet. I have a friend with a large family. She is a SAHM, her husband was a high earner. He was tragically killed when his youngest was only 3 months old. My friend had to go on benefits for the first time in her life (3 children under school age, 2 older at the time of his death), and for her it was soul destroying. The attitudes she has come up against are disgusting, people assuming that she had multitudes of children when you can't even afford to raise the first one would have killed her off I think.

I have another friend with 3 children, the father of whom suddenly fucked off to Canada and hasn't been seen since. Should she be demonised for having 'too many children'? Of course not. Each and every one of us are only a divorce, a death, a disability from relying on the state. Something we should all do well to remember.

Hopasholic Thu 05-Sep-13 09:38:43

Couldn't agree more jake I've lost count of the number of times I've had to say to my MIL 'Its absent Fathers, not lone parents who society should be ashamed of' it make my blood boil angry

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 09:42:04

Why are we having smaller families

In 1996 - the earliest year that the data is available for - there were 7.4m families, but they tended to be bigger. The percentage of families with only one child has gone up - to 47%. Those with three or more kids is now 14%, down from 17%

Family size is decreasing and yet this thread is trying to link a current shortage of school places to larger families. Leading to large family bashing.

offcie for National stastics

•Married couples had a higher average number of dependent children in their family than other family types, at 1.8 children per family compared with 1.7 on average

Perhaps a campaign against marriage is in order - as clearly marriage is leading to a shortage of school places hmm.

maddening
As an aside i also wonder whether the baby boom is also a response to the unsettled atmosphere in global politics/wars - like there was a baby boom after ww2 - maybe an innate survival instinct?

I think it is the Grandchildren of the baby boomers being born - along with the previous cohorts delayed birthd due to later motherhood - but the Guardian article above suggests economics is playing a role.

It shows poorer area have higher numbers of bigger families - however we have 3 DC and live in a poorer areas - with good primary - than perhaps expeced from our income/background as we wanted a bigger house for the money we had because of number DC wanted and we are not alone in that.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 09:44:52

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 09:46:14

Still waiting find out where these adoptable children will come from if people stop, erm, having children...

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 09:52:37

Who said anything about STOPPING having children alltogether? Where are they coming from at the moment?
Even if the UK adoptive registers were down to zero there is a whole world outside our shores.

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 09:53:28

I agree about the absent fathers comments. I have heard this so many times from different people. Dads who could pay deliberately not and pretending they have no income etc.

However, i do think that there is a lack of aspiration in some circles and young people should try and get a job first and some ability to earn and pay for themselves then think about a family further down the line rather than being pregnant in their teens and needing the taxpayer to fund this.

Oh good idea. No one in the UK should have babies and we'll just import children from the majority world in the same way that we import, say, bananas and coffee. hmm

Indeed, the schools place issue could really be alleviated if we insisted that people could only import children of secondary school age.

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 10:04:44

Dads who could pay deliberately not and pretending they have no income etc.

I know many woman who have parnters like this - one case guy gave up a good well paying job just so to spite ex-wife and his own DC.

I've know cases where when increases have occured through child support agency and the reponse is to punish the DC by stopping contact.

In my DN case father pays nothing but DSis doesn't persue it as she is so worried it will mean he'll be even more of an awkward bastard than he is at the minute. Our parents subside and support her and she works bloody hard as well. He now has a second DC with another woman. She has been told she is lucky he is still around and showing a spordic interest.

ubik Thu 05-Sep-13 10:05:46

Move to Scotland! We need immigration.

Only difficulty is that all the jobs are...oh look, they're in the over populated, wealthy south east...

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 10:06:20

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:13:13

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 10:13:36

Career women may have reproduce less and later but very few have no children at all and for many that was unintentional rather than deliberate

I would love to see your evidence for this claim.

The statistics point to the fact that the more educated the woman is the less likely she is to have children. It would seem that promoting education and giving women life options is the best way of tackling the massive problem of overpopulation.

And I fundamentally disagree that men and women have a 'right' to as many children as they like - social responsibility has to kick in somewhere.

ubik Thu 05-Sep-13 10:14:10

That dysfunctionallynormal poster has a very individualistic attitude to the way our society should function.

We all have a responsibility for the next generation whether we have children or not. We need each other - children included - otherwise we will fall apart and we all have a responsibility to ensure the next generation is educated, healthy and happy.

I raise my children to be socially responsible, I hope they have jobs which give something back in the future. Most families are doing their best, some parents are terrible,

I know a few childless couples who also cost the state a fortune through alcoholism, prescription drug addiction, unemployment...

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:15:54

Sorry arbitrary
That post was obviously NOT meant for you!

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Thu 05-Sep-13 10:17:03

"Even if the UK adoptive registers were down to zero there is a whole world outside our shores."

shock

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:17:12

Yes I am an adoptive mother.
What exactly is your experience?

MrsDeVere: I was trying to take the piss out of the argument about there being 'the whole rest of the world' to source adoptive children. I don't actually think it's in any way a good idea. Indeed, I think it's laughably awful.

Ah, I was worried that my attempts at mockery came across as serious.

It's a horrible children as nothing more than commodities argument, and it makes me feel a bit nauseous.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:19:26

I know I know I know.
Have grovelled accordingly grin

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 10:19:57

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsBucketxx Thu 05-Sep-13 10:21:38

Not read the whole thread but its not about big families or immigration.

After the war massive baby boom, I, e parents of 30 somethings now, who are now having normal amounts of children.

Stopping cb wont stop this, more schools are needed end of.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 10:21:39

I know a few childless couples who also cost the state a fortune through alcoholism, prescription drug addiction, unemployment...

Oh yes - there are positively millions of these kinds of families....

I agree that individualistic outlooks are very silly. Arguments about how childless people should be reimbursed for saving money in not having to educate their children (etc) completely miss the point that educating all children and ensuring that they are healthy is good for society as a whole and everyone benefits. Even those who don't actually see children as people or care about anyone but themselves should be able to see that other people's children are important to society.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 10:26:36

A vast majority of children in the foster care system are damaged emotionally. They are wonderful lovable children but need so much more than a lot of people can give. They won't suddenly turn into model children with a strict bedtime and 5 portions of fruit. They have seen and experienced things that people should never. A lot of them are available for adoption. I don't see people lining the streets to take them. Throwing adoption around like its the same as browsing the pet shop for a goldfish is sickening. These children deserve a home because they are wanted not because it fills some one biological child ideal.
Ask yourself why people see having children as their only option. Why their situation,lives and prospects are so bleak?.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:32:47

If dysfunctional is open and honest during her assessment.
It is unlikely she will be approved to adopt.

But people who see adoption and fostering in the way she does are very easily put off when they face the reality.

I don't happen to agree that adoption should be made easier.

It shouldn't be unnecessarily bureaucratic but it shouldn't be easy.

It would not be doing the adoptive parents any favours and it certainly would be doing the children any.

Look at this way, if something happened to you, would you want your children 'easily' adopted or would you want them adopted by a family who had gone through stringent assessments and checks?
Who were as aware as they could be of what they were entering in to?

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 10:37:26

And I fundamentally disagree that men and women have a 'right' to as many children as they like - social responsibility has to kick in somewhere.

I don't disagree with that - though most parents I know with more than 3 DC have at least one parent working if not both - second part time - but how do you stop people without giving the state the right to decide who can have DC or by punishing the DC born to such families or accounting for drastic and unforeseeable changes in circumstances that can occur?

Even the problem families that have DC taken from them I believe often go on to have more DC who are also often taken from them. What do you do with them – forced sterilisation ? cause historically such programs end up with massive abuse of them.

If you fine these families with more than allowed DC – as I believe china does – that means more DC living in poverty limiting life chances of those DC and if you deny service such as state education who then have a subpopulation who may end up uneducated and much less employable in later life adversly affecting the economy.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 10:39:28

MrsD is correct if views like that were expressed or picked up on during an assessment then problems would occur with adoption, I'm also very surprised if formal fostering is happening how it is because it would also raise quite a few red flags.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 10:42:25

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Thu 05-Sep-13 10:43:26

"It's a horrible children as nothing more than commodities argument, and it makes me feel a bit nauseous."

I think we're slipping backwards into the industrial revolution, or maybe not that far, maybe just the '80s when greed was good and the whole population were viewed for how much money they make as if there isn't more to life than money. Little cogs in the big machine, but the machine is broken. Everything has become about money, what you make and what you take and we multiply it and stockpile it until, fuck me, it's gone. Did it ever exist? People can't afford their own homes anymore, they can't afford food, if they're lucky enough to have a job they'll be working until they drop, hardly being able to afford a pension because they've been paying off their student loans. What happens to us when we are so desperate to accumulate that we can no longer help anyone except the firstborn? The little prince and his siblings, the little scroungers. Value on birth order? Is that what we want?

Bloody pointless argument, given the low birthrate anyway.

Dahlen Thu 05-Sep-13 10:47:53

littlemog - I don't recall saying that having as many children as you want was a right. hmm

My argument about reproductive rates is based on the Office for National Statistics report, the largest survey of its kind into this (although still based on a comparatively tiny sample size of less than 13,000).

There has been a 7% increase in women choosing not to have children. There is a definite correlation between educational and career status of these women, which I'm not going to deny, but overwhelmingly the main correlation remains "lack of a cohabiting partner".

Furthermore, the study can be criticised for not examining motive. Among those career women who have chosen not to have children, there is also a correlation with them having male partners who earn less than they do, making the woman the breadwinner. Anecdotally the evidence is that some of these women regret being in that position. More work needs to be done on this to determine a more accurate picture.

Not once in this have I rejected the claim that there is a trend for better educated/higher earning women to have fewer children. But it remains the case that only a small number of high-flying career women choose to remain childless completely.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 10:49:54

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 10:52:06

Bloody hell filee

Out.of.order.

BangOn Thu 05-Sep-13 10:52:49

Yy, start by sterilising the poor, & or separating couples in reopened workhouses . If that doesn't work yoi could always try starting ww3. All tried & tested methods of getting the population down. Obviously i'm being very sarcastic.

MidniteScribbler Thu 05-Sep-13 11:02:07

However, i do think that there is a lack of aspiration in some circles and young people should try and get a job first and some ability to earn and pay for themselves then think about a family further down the line rather than being pregnant in their teens and needing the taxpayer to fund this.

This sort of attitude change comes from access to better quality equitable education.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:04:18

No more out of order than the Lt's rash and quick dismissal of another poster for thinking differently. And what have I 'failed' at exactly?

The point is that there are many different types of people in the country with different view points, telling someone they can't be a decent foster carer because they don't match your view point is absurd.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 11:04:45

Unbelievable

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 11:06:55

This sort of attitude change comes from access to better quality equitable education.

True and planning enough Primary school places to ensure a good start on the education path way would be a good place to start with this.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 11:07:56

Filee,

Having such strong view points against the very children you would be adopting and the type of financial backgrounds they come from is a huge huge problem.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:10:17

Pp didn't give any viewpoints about children. She said that adults shouldn't be given financial incentive to breed, which might be unpalatable for some to hear but is a perfectly valid point and certainly doesn't prevent someone from being a good and loving foster carer

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 11:19:10

She is spouting nonsense about adoption. The stuff she is spouting shows a total lack of understanding about the dynamics and purpose of adoption.

Adoption is meant to meet the needs of adults.
The children she is talking about as if they were interchangeable with birth children, come from the very families she is so unpleasant about.

It would be like a racist adopting a black child.

e.g. Not a Good Idea.

TheQuietCricket Thu 05-Sep-13 11:19:40

jellysandwich

Perhaps I'm being a tad thick here but how does a reducing birth rates solve a schools place crisis ?

Crisis is now, Yes ?

Reduced birth rates in say 1 years time once the government has supposedly come up with a way to incentivise and therefore achieve lower birth rate. Reduced numbers needing a school place in 6 years time is no help to the current crisis.

Unfortunately we have a previous government to blame for the ostrich like mentality about the knock on effect on schools/hospitals of their slack immigration policies.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 11:21:03

That should be 'NOT meant to meet the needs of adults'

It is a lovely by product of adoption that adults get to welcome children into their families.

The primary focus is finding a family for the child.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:22:04

She's not 'spouting' anything about families though, she has mentioned that she doesn't think people should be given financial incentive to breed, that is a political standpoint. I can't see how in any way shape or form it affects someone's ability to be a caring parent or Foster carer.

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 11:23:27

rattlemeheaties, there are people who have kids just to get benefits and choose not to work, an ex neighbour was proud of the fact that i was indirectly working and paying taxes so she could fund yet another kid with another scummy partner who disappeared before the baby arrived. 7 kids by five different fathers? how the hell can you defend that behaviour? she has never worked a day in her life - so she told me - and didn't intend to if she was better off on benefits, makes me spit, feel sorry for the decent families who draw benefits for the right reason and at least try to look after their own kids without relying on every other poor sod to do it for them, full respect to them always.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:25:56

MrsDeVere She doesn't know the reality of what she's saying. Holding these sorts of views makes me uncomfortable about children placed in her care. Vulnerable children.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:26:57

Indeed there is a lack of foster carers and adoptive parents, it shouldn't matter whether someone wishes to give a child a decent home because they can't have children, or because they feel compelled to, we should encourage anyone who can give a child a loving home to do so. Not shun them.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:29:36

mrsfuzzy So a handful of people take advantage (although I have to wonder what has happened in her life to lead her to that mindset) so therefore everyone must be punished.

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 11:30:31

Perhaps I'm being a tad thick here but how does a reducing birth rates solve a schools place crisis ?

Cause then the Gov and LEAs could prevaricate for another 4 years - and these DC could go throughout the school life being catered for in bulge classes as short term mesaure and there could be an unforeseen crisis when they reach secondary?

It could be the OP is worried about/ or hasn't got a place at local schools or any school because the places have been taken by siblings of DC already at those schools who come up higher in admission criteria? Hence the larger families being an issue for OP.

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 11:31:21

I whd say the families that do that consciously mrsfuzzy are rare.

And what about the scummy bugger who has sodded off leaving her holding the baby. She is at least providing care for them far more cheaply than than the care system could.

No it isn't right but what is the alternative?

Shove the baby back up?
Leave her and te children to starve?
Remove the children if she has no means to support them?

Sadly the cheapest option will always be to give her some benefits to support them in the knowledge that once they are 16-18 she is on her own with no benefits and a poor old age.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:32:23

You just don't get it filee not everyone with a home to give is suitable to be a foster carer or adoptive parent.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 11:32:33

I wouldn't shun anyone who was able to give a child a loving home.

I wouldn't want someone adopting a child who thinks they can be packaged up and posted to someone in place of a birth child.

Or someone who whose views about a child's background and birth family would cause them to feel that they came from 'bad blood' and should be ashamed.

Or someone who thinks that taking a child from a different continent is an easy option if we run out of home grown ones.

Or thinks that rigorous assessments are PC gorn mad.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:34:14

Push people into poverty and then punish them for being poor.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 11:35:56

As soon as you gain any awareness of adoption and fostering (they are two VERY different things by the way) you also become aware that love is not enough to make a placement sustainable.

It is a vital and amazing part of the process but if you think being loving will get you through days where a child with RAD is telling SS that you have abused them, is trying to kill the cat or when your toddler manages to disclose just what 'daddy' did to them

you have not quite 'got it' yet.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 11:36:37

Copied from my previous post www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

This makes very interesting reading. Some posters seem to want to spread the myth that many women have children just for the benefits, popping out babies left right and centre with their hands held out "gimmee gimmee gimmee" whereas in reality less than 8% of ALL benefits claimants (including pensioners) have 3 or more children.

A direct quote from the article: Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 11:38:34

yes but people are making themselves poor by bad family planning and not taking responsibility.

what happened to working, saving, meeting a decent reliable partner (not a boy) then having a family.

I agree with giving some benefits but someone said earlier in the thread about women who keep having children with unreliable partners and timing it so they can remain on benefits. I know this is probably not the norm.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:38:44

I don't know that anyone has said anything about 'bad blood' and in any case, I might (for example) foster a child whose mother was a serious drug addict, my hatred of drugs would not mean I made that child 'feel ashamed' or felt they came from 'bad blood'

Some people have a true wish to be maternal and if adoption fulfils that, As well as offering a child a loving home out of the children's home environments that I know well, then that's a good thing, not a bad.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:39:22

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 11:40:03

That link does not include tax credits, which are a huge part of this debate.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 11:41:07

As an adopted person some of the comments here have really upset me and I am not usually an overly emotional person.
The attitudes of some people towards adoption and fostering are disgusting.
It is the child who is supposed to come first, the best interests of the child.
This does not involve growing up in the knowledge that you were adopted because society saw it as a way of controlling the population.
Can you not see that attitudes evolve and the next thing would be to suggest that children whose parents couldn't afford to raise them had them adopted.
As a society we have been here before when unmarried mothers were forced to give up their children.
The attitudes of some here are just the beginning.
I have flash backs quite regularly now because as an adult I know what I witnessed as a child. It wasn't abuse or anything bad really.
I went with my parents to a children's home, it was a huge building with lots of dormitories full of babies, many hundreds, very stark and noisy, all only weeks old. I didn't know at the time what it was, but it is so vivid in my memory.
My life has been good compared to children in the system now, but the thought of my beginnings and the reason for my adoption is baggage enough.
I never got to meet my birth mother, she died very young and never did get over it.
Can we as a society even begin to think along these lines again.
Finally, as an adopted person I was recently asked to sit on panels for prospective adopters. I have been debating whether I would be good enough to give justice to the many nice parents wanting to adopt, and worried if I made a mistake of the consequences.
The attitudes here have given me the confidence in my ability to do a good job here, because under no circumstances could I agree with some of the comments here.

MrsDeVere, I salute you. You sound a lovely person thanks

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 11:49:41

frigging and jake, whatever a persons background, contraception has been invented, there are so many types available nowadays what is the excuse? she told me that by having regular pregnancies she would keep her benefits going for years upon years, as someone said these feckle types are not very common but they are having the next generation who are being introduced to the world owns me a living types, who if they don't break the pattern the cycle will repeat itself.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 11:51:08

People are making themselves poor? Really? Poor people do not have much choice about their children's education or where they live. More likely to end up on sink estates with a less than adequate education,everything around them bleak. So they have children,often young because that's all they see around them. Generations doing the same things because instead of improving things around them as children's they were told to have ambition without any examples.
I think a lot of people grew up away from tower blocks and beans on toast for dinner and getting dressed for school under the covers cause you could see your breath. It kills your spirit.

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 11:53:13

unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children

That what I see around me - socially deprived area with mix of claimers, lower wage earners and some middle class families - yet no one on here ever believes that.

I just don't get all this talk of DC being cash cows - they seriously cost us and have a good income.

www.cpag.org.uk/content/cpag-publish-cost-child-2013
A new report published today by Child Poverty Action Group, with co-funding from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has found that the minimum costs needed for a decent childhood have risen 4% in the last year.

This compares with rises of just 1.8% for the minimum wage, 1.5% for average earnings, 1% for tax credits and 0% for child benefit.

Childhood poverty impacts health and as we have an NHS that means more health costs funded by taxation and lower education levels - which will eventually impact the county economy.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 12:13:01

morethan I am a proper hardarse and your post made me well up.

You have said what I was trying to say and you said it so much better than I could have.
Thank you.

I am not at all lovely to be honest. I struggle to find the right way to do things.

I don't get it right all the time and I don't think adoptive parents should be perfect.

But they need to at least try to understand and that is what I see lacking in some of these posts.

Please do go for the panel place. They really, really need the views of adopted people on them. I am sure you would be brilliant.

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 12:18:25

Frigging isn't that a bit defeatist. I think people can break the cycle. My parents were both 'poor' and my dad grew up on a dodgy estate in the 50's. It depends on the parents I suppose.

my maternal grandmother was very pro education and she worked as a nurse when alot of married woman didn't. I know this was another era.

alot of immigrants started off poor but became successful and prosperous.

Dackyduddles Thu 05-Sep-13 12:21:42

Thus far every suggestion appears to intimate that WOMEN find the answer or are in fact the answer on as much as contraception/stopping benefits/lack of adoption.

Why has none of the more robust posters mentioned men? Shall we chop the balls off every second boy in multiple boy families? Cull boys at foetus stage? Any other ideas? Take all money off feckless dads of multiple mothers?

It's quite funny to read but what's rather scary is this thread are voting too! Lordy! Last one off the island please turn out the lights.....

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 12:22:27

No one said it is a bad thing filee

And you miss the point.

We are not talking about a hatred of drugs. We are talking about a questionable attitude to the undeserving poor. You take on a child you take on their history. It is part of them and should never be denied. You have to find something to celebrate, however hard that might seem.

My analogy of a racist caring for a black child is nearer the mark.

How can someone who has a fundamental dislike and distrust of a section of society offer a home to a child who comes from that background?

Being able to fulfill your maternal longings is lovely and a wonderful part of being a parent whatever route you take but 'offering a child a loving home' can NOT be an 'as well as'. It has to be the core, the very point, not an add on.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 12:31:26

littlemog - I don't recall saying that having as many children as you want was a right
Dahlen I didn't say that you did - not sure why you have picked me up on that. It's just my viewpoint.

But it remains the case that only a small number of high-flying career women choose to remain childless completely
I prefer the term childfree as childless implies that I am somehow lacking in something.

And I was adopted at 6 weeks old and none of the stuff posted on here about adoption has upset me a jot. People have their opinions and they are entitled to express them robustly.

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 12:32:17

dacky, men are able to use contraception just as much as women are it 's just some choose not to but it is women who get pregnant not men so as modern women we are more than capable of sorting it out for ourselves if we do not want children.

Loa Thu 05-Sep-13 12:41:52

Thus far every suggestion appears to intimate that WOMEN find the answer or are in fact the answer on as much as contraception/stopping benefits/lack of adoption.

The birth rate isn't above the 2.1 replacement level and the slight increase in the birth rate - foreseeable as the grandchildren of baby boomers get created - occurred 4/5 years ago giving those years to plan to create more school places.

The only women who needed to find the answers - were the ones in local and national government who along with their male colleagues should have done their jobs and done the planning of services for the population.

It's not a case of too many DC - it's a case of too few school places mainly because in the proceeding decade the was a drop in DC numbers and to save money the excess places were got rid of. No one has then done the spending of money subsequently to get back to the proceeding school place numbers.

This is not parents fault - but they and the DC are the ones having to deal with the conquences.

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 12:47:37

As an adoptive mum, I couldn't agree more with MrsDV and more There's nothing more I can say that hasn't been so eloquently said by them

My eldest child (whom I adopted) has just had her second child, and I know that she and her (working) husband are going to have more in future. Her experience of being fostered and adopted and in the process split up from all her siblings is a big driving force for her in wanting a big family. And her husband comes from a big family and a culture of bigger families as well. I am very happy and supportive of them, but Goodness knows what our relationship would be like if I was so stupid and rude as to sit there casting judgement on her family choices, which are largely influenced by adoption and not having lots of biological relatives around, and also by her experiences before adoption. That would be a humungous wedge in our lovely relationship. What a good thing I didn't adopt in order to save the planet! Otherwise I'd be questionning what the point of doing that is

Anyway...when it comes to the statistics, I was under the impression that less women are having children and that overall the fertility rate is under replacement rate right now. Staying that way means that in the future we will have not enough workforce to support the number of retired people. So then what's the answer - trying to encourage a very large immigrant workforce in is probably the only way round it, but you've just taken that workforce away from somewhere else. Also as shown by other posters, it's a myth that people on benefits are more likely to have a massive family

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 12:50:21

filee

Its like this I think.
Unless the child has been removed from their parents at birth. i.e a known drug addict, the child will have an attachment with their parent(s)
To deny this child their background is wrong, to have conceived ideas about their parents will not be a positive influence on them when they have contact with their parent.
Just because you are adopted doesn't mean you have no contact with your birth parents, especially in this day and age where most children in the system have lived with their parents, sometimes for a considerable amount of time.
How could you positively prepare a child when you despise their parents so much. If you are incapable of empathy and keeping an open mind imo you shouldn't be approved for adoption.
This isn't personal to you, I am sure a sw would tell you this.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 12:52:11

* Staying that way means that in the future we will have not enough workforce to support the number of retired people*
Pretty sure that this is nonsense.

And I think that that the statistics show that fewer educated women are having children - not just fewer women.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 12:57:09

Its not defeatist,I am in no way condemning people to such a life. Many people come from poverty and prosper. When we start cutting benefits for an example family of a mother of three,parenting alone. Three children,less money. Less food,less heat,less electricity. Children miss school because their uniform is not clean. They go to school hungry. They leave school early to get a job. Lack of qualifications mean a minimum wage job. Its the cycle. The poverty trap.
Another baby is not such a travesty because life is bleak and a baby brings joy. Being a mother is sometimes all the girls and women know. Being a mother gives them purpose. I can't explain it properly,I lived and continue to live it. I'm in HA housing,teenage mother,now married,husband on low industrial wage,me no qualifications,sparse education.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 12:59:26

Well that's no reason to bring a baby in to the world though is it? Because it cheers up someone who has a hard life? It IS a travesty in that situation.

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 13:00:04

seriously look at the state of the world, who wants to think about the potential problems that our children and their kids could face in the future, possible high unemployment, lack of housing, world problems etc the list goes on, things have changed dramatically over the years and not always for the best.

littlemog Thu 05-Sep-13 13:03:34

This is one of the many reasons we chose not to have children. The planet is pretty fucked tbh and overpopulation is the biggest issue.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 13:06:00

Where did I say that people have babies to cheer themselves up? What I said is they bring joy. Or should poor people live miserable joyless,one child lives.

Dahlen Thu 05-Sep-13 13:10:00

I have fostered. I 'disapproved' of the mother's lifestyle enormously. I also felt a great deal of compassion towards her. The bad choices she made didn't take place in a vacuum. She was a hurt human being who was expressing that hurt in a completely dysfunctional way that was in turn hurting her child. Hence my involvement.

That child was too young for me to need to explain about her mother. However, I had it all prepared in readiness because it is vital that you can explain without judgement. It's not that dissimilar to when parents split up and they have to explain why that has happened without making the child think it's their fault.

Every child, perhaps moreso if adopted/fostered, wants to know where they come from. If you badmouth the parent, you are, essentially, encouraging a child to think that they are the same, since they are a product of that parent.

It is far better to remain neutral, or, if at all possible, find something positive about that parent's personality/abilities, even if in some harrowing cases it's just that they had a good sense of humour or were good at drawing. You talk about the parent's dysfunctional lifestyles or poor parenting in terms of choices (so that the child doesn't feel it is inevitable that they will be the same) but explain how those choices can be affected by experience (e.g. brought up by abusive parents) and sometimes just sheer random bad luck (e.g. accident or illness).

I think the best analogy for this is like making a cake. Sometimes the ingredients (intelligence, wit, sense of fun, ability at drawing, etc) can be of the highest quality. But if the recipe (life) isn't put together well, you can sometimes end up with a mess.

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 13:12:12

thank you littlemog, i sometimes think i'm a lone voice in the wilderness on the subject of the future, it's all very well taking the attitude ' it won't happen and who cares if it does, i won't be here to see it' but that's so wrong things are happening, we are racing forwards to god knows what, i find that terrifying that my dc and millions of others are going to inherit this shit. people ignore these things and hope they will never happen, it might help if i believed in a here after but i don't.

Hedgehogparty Thu 05-Sep-13 13:32:13

The schools place crisis is only one aspect of this issue.
Last year the Uk population increased by around 400,000 by natural increase and net migration.

Putting the benefits issue to one side, does anyone here seriously think we need or ought to be increasing our population further?

Where I live, you can see the effect of population growth everywhere.
More houses-but still nowhere near enough. Green fields disappearing, losing crop growing areas and places to enjoy. Constant traffic congestion.More pollution.

I want my DCs to have a decent standard and quality of life.
We should be addressing this issue.

forevergreek Thu 05-Sep-13 13:42:07

Actually the one child policy in china does have many good points to it. However the main problem there is that they chose 1 not 2 children, meaning people preferring boys to girls as only one baby allowed. This wouldn't be the case with 2. The one child policy is also only in cities, in the country it's 2, so they could theretically move I the countryside if they wanted 2. Multiples and certain religions are exempt. Even in china you can hae 8 children if you like but then you simply jave no support, so a choice is still there.I'm not saying it doesn't have faults but things the did are:

- huge incentives for first child. Ie childcare costing say £100 a month instead of £1000. So have one child, only pay £100. The thing is if you choose I have 2 you also have to pay back all the difference with first child. So £900 per month that you didn't pay the last 3 years would then need paying. Ie ( 900x12) x3. Plus from then on £2000 a month for both children.

The same applies to Heath care, etc etc

If the uk had a similar scheme for 2. In that with 2 children you get reduced childcare, good packages for 2 ie swim tickets/ clothing/ education etc then it really would be an incentive. People could choose to pay £200 each child for childcare with 2, or £1000 per child if 3.

It's harsh, life is. But people can't simply choose what they always want without Thought of others now and in the future.

We work, have 2 children. And can afford 2 children. We couldn't afford to have 3 and live the same life. So even if we wanted more we wouldn't.

With 2 children households there would be more money to help people when needed. So you work and have 2 children then lawr loose your job, then the government can afford to really help you find work/ provide money and support. If people have more this is only going to decrease and make the problem worse as everyone will end up below poverty line

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 13:42:26

I totally agree hedge.

its not going to get any better in 2014. the successive governments don't listen or care.

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 13:55:03

I have no answers, I just know that Govt's tend to go for the cheapest option. Maybe THIS is the cheapest option, I don't know.

I would like to see much more in the way of mentoring and voluntary work going on with difficult families who will accept it.

Surprisingly many do, I volunteer with a local education charity which works with families.....you would be surprised by the ones who DO ask for support.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 13:57:02

Women are forced into late abortions.
Forced to be sterilised and people are fined for having more than one child.
Parents have resorted to tying their daughters up whilst they work to try and prevent them being kidnapped as prospective wives.

It does NOT have good points.

That is like saying 'well the Nazis DID make the trains run on time'

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 14:07:17

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 14:11:40

the China thing is awful. I remember working with a y7 class looking at in geography and studying an article about a dead baby girl 'rag doll on roadside'' type headline.sad sad

Loeri Thu 05-Sep-13 14:20:22

One child is strange. People will not only have no siblings, but no uncles, aunties, nephews, nieces etc. All the family attention from two sets of grandparents and two parents will be on one child. It would certainly change society as we know it.

mrsfuzzy Thu 05-Sep-13 14:29:58

as an only child i had all the pressure on me to do well, be successful etc, it was and still is very stressful, with an ailing mum to care for, no one to help out. i sometimes feels envious when people talk about their siblings, but then again there is no sibling rivalry and the like.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 14:45:09

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

vile just vile.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 14:53:48

Sockret - my strong views relate to selfish ADULTS-where have i said anything negative about the children?! This is very typical-make up your own rubbish and then try and attribute it to me!

Tell me-do you think it's fair or civilised to ignore the needs of children in care and focus soley on your own selfish desires?

DuckToWater Thu 05-Sep-13 14:54:08

seriously look at the state of the world, who wants to think about the potential problems that our children and their kids could face in the future, possible high unemployment, lack of housing, world problems etc the list goes on, things have changed dramatically over the years and not always for the best.

They will face different challenges than we've had, that's all. Or did I miss the period of human history when there was world peace and harmony?

I wonder what my parents were thinking in the 1970s with widespread famine, war in Vietnam, Middle East and Northern Ireland, an economic crisis and a oil crisis. I wonder what baby boomers' parents were thinking having children just after a war involving most of the planet and almost embarking on WW3 (a nuclear holocaust).

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 14:55:49

oh calm down.

You talk bollocks you get called on it.

Deal with it.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 14:57:21

And a tip

you really should be making up your mind whether you are going to adopt OR foster.

They are two totally different things.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Thu 05-Sep-13 14:59:00

well, this thread is a bit mad but it has reminded me to book a blood donation appointment

Mrsfuzzy: you do know that no form of contraception is 100% reliable, don't you?

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 15:01:21

The desire to adopt has to be a SELFISH desire! You shouldn't adopt if you don't want a child of your own very very deeply. Adopting a child is a selfish action - as it should be, because the children need to be loved and wanted very much. Adopting purely from some 'selfless' motive to help a child will not suffice - if you aren't selfishly desperate to have a child then how will you keep the adoption going if your adoptive child has many troubles, and how would the adoptive child feel? Adopting purely to save a child (and NO I'm not accusing ANYONE here of doing that, before anyone leaps on me) is a surefire way to wind up with a child who is miserable and thinks they have to be grateful for something they have no contol over, and is also a great way to wind up with a disrupted adoption.

I adopted primarily to fulfil my selfish desire to be a mother. I was hoping the adoption would make a real difference to my childs life - and it has - but adopting to have a child is selfish. That's a good thing, for reasons of see above.

Having a baby = meeting your selfish desires
Adopting a child = meeting your selfish desires

There's no difference in that respect

The increased population is the urban south east isn't all due to immigration. There's a lot of migration from within this country because that's where all the jobs are. So one of the issues is that there isn't enough housing in the places where people need to live.

Another issue is that household types have changed. There are far more single-person households, for example, which means we need more housing. 4 people living alone need more housing than 4 people living together.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 15:13:50

You are right Lilka
It was not my intention to suggest that adoption should be about rescuing children (ugh!), quite the opposite.

My point was more that that wanting a child and being maternal and a good person is not always going to be enough with the children who are in the system. The ones it was suggested should be a replacement for someone who wants to have more than two birth children.

The motivations for giving birth, adopting may be the same but the situations are very different.

I am not trying to explain that to you btw, it was a point I was trying to make.

I cannot abide the way adoption is thrown onto fertility threads (for example) as if it is a simple alternative to having a birth child.

RowanMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 05-Sep-13 15:16:06

Hello there

Please remember our Talk Guidelines, especially the bits about personal attacks.

Thanks.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 15:16:31

Devere- you were asking where adoptees would come from if the UK 'ran out' of them. I gave you an answer. The same places they are currently being adopted from. I don't believe the UK will ever be short on adoptees.

It is laughable that you think i would 'punish' a child because of their parents decisions. As for not being aware of the reality-LMAO!

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 15:21:00

dysfunctional

If you share the view that it is ok to disrespect and show no empathy towards a birth mother who is a drug addict/alcoholic or any other unsavoury personality you can add, then yes you would be punishing a child because of their parents, by definition.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 15:23:27

Friggin-how patronising of you and Devere - i am under no illusions whatsoever. I am fully aware and prepared to meet those kind of challenges.

JaquelineHyde Thu 05-Sep-13 15:28:34

dysfunctional Could you please give me an example of what you consider a 'selfish adult'. Can you explain the circumstances surrounding this 'selfish adult' as I am slightly confused as to who you think is selfish.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 15:30:47

dysfunctional

I have no reason to dislike you I don't know you, but does the fact that you have upset several people not tell you that it may be your attitude that needs to change.
Please do look at your reasons for wanting to adopt or foster and please listen to those who are experienced in being an adoptive parent. Above all please open your mind and understand when you say you are prepared to meet challenges that begins now with your attitude and views.

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 15:40:53

you were asking where adoptees would come from if the UK 'ran out' of them. I gave you an answer. The same places they are currently being adopted from. I don't believe the UK will ever be short on adoptees

But the problem with that is that is that children from other countries should only be adopted into the UK if there is no adoptive home for them in their own country. Just saying 'oh we'll go get children from other countries if there aren't any here' is such an entitled attitude. It's also not considering the needs of the children. It's just treating the children as importable objects. Worldwide, we need to be working towards enabling every child to find an adoptive home in their own country. We need to be aiming for international adoptions to reach nearly 0 exept for relative adoptions because ALL the children have been found homes in their country.

International adoption is very rare in the UK, because it's hard, there are more steps to it, because it's expensive and because the system very much discourages it. There are less than 200 international adoptions a year, and maybe no more than 100 - compared to 5000 domestic adoptions. Children are barely being adopted from anywhere. Worldwide, the tend is that international adoption is dropping and dropping.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 15:56:22

I also think saying adopt from other countries doesn't really look at long term consequences either.
So all these other countries hear about how we will adopt their children which in turn could cause immoral adoptions. People having children to be paid, especially if they are from under developed countries.
Children are not objects to be used to solve the problems of the world.

Lilka Is so right and along with MrsDeVere the most level headed people talking about adoption on this thread. smile

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 15:57:15

Adoption on its own is hard in the uk, very few people get through the process and lots and lots of children spend their childhoods in less than adequate care homes.

We should be encouraging people to adopt, not discouraging.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 16:05:19

Care homes?

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 16:06:42

Yes, care homes for children, you know, like foster homes where they care for children. I used to work in one, a good one by comparison to some of them but still not anywhere near as good as a home environment would be.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 16:11:12

I encourage people to adopt.

But I encourage them to be realistic.
Because something like 1:3 adoptions breakdown in the early stages.

Painful for the parents and disastrous for the children.

My issue is not with people wanting to adopt, it is with people suggesting that it is an alternative to people having a birth child.

People should come to adoption willingly (albeit regretful that they have not been able to have a birth child due to fertility issues). They should not be told 'adopt instead'.
Because it does not work like that. It is not a straight swap.

International adoption is grueling and stressful. I am amazed by those who stick it out and are successful. The international adopters I know are bloody incredible (I could think of a few who would poke me in the eye for calling them that)

It is hardly a quick fix hmm

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 16:12:51

Most LAC are with foster carers, not in care homes though aren't they?

I don't think its helpful to perpetuate the myth of care homes busting with young children.

IME it is teenagers in small group homes and children with complex needs in residential settings.

In other words, those least likely to be adopted or be free for adoption.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 16:13:43

I don't think you have encouraged people to adopt on this thread, I think you have shunned people who don't do it for the same reasons as you and possibly made future, very good, adoptive parents think they shouldn't bother.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 16:16:56

filee777

I couldn't disagree more.
We should not discourage but certainly not encourage.
Yes there are children's homes that could be improved and yes there is a lot of red tape and bureaucracy that should be minimised.
The whole system of children in care could do with an over haul, but to suggest children should be with any parent rather than the system is ridiculous.
There is a reason it takes so long to be approved for adopting and imo it shouldn't be made any easier or rushed at all. My parents went through long agonising waits, 3 court appearances each for me and my adopted sisters, because our welfare was what mattered most.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 16:20:53

I have never said children should be with 'any parent' rather than in the system! Where have I said that??

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 16:21:42

morethanpotatoprints - at no point have i said that adoption should be used as a means of population control. please read my posts instead of relying on the comments of people like Devere who are seem to be enjoying twisting my words (when they are not making them up).

what i said was that i believe it is inherently selfish for people to keep having children and expecting the taxpayer to fund it-esp when other vital services are struggling due to a lack of funding. i believe that everyone should be allowed one child of their own and receive child benefit for that child but not for any additional children they choose to give birth to. That is it as far as population control goes.

what i have said about adoption is this - there are thousands of children in care and on the adoption registers who need loving homes. those who want more than one child should be encouraged to adopt after they've had their first. i also believe that child benefit should be paid for each adopted child. that way the parents desire for a larger family is fulfilled and the child gets loving parents and home. i also believe the whole red tape around adoptions need to be adjusted, the same checks and criteria for suitability can be done in a more efficient manner. the current process is too long winded and demoralizing and puts off more than it attracts. Devere seems to think i want to risk of the safety and welfare of the child by asking for this - she couldn't be more wrong.

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 16:22:22

To be fair, in my experience the vast majority of the prepared who've researched and are determined do make it through the adoption process

I've talked at two prep groups and talked quite a bit to the social workers who handle initial information calls (and info evenings etc). My council do turn a lot of people down from the first phone call, but these arent people you would want to adopt or they can't legally/practically adopt at this point in time - people who start by asking how much you get paid to adopt, they make it rudely clear that they only want a newborn baby with no problematic background issues at all, they are under 21, they want an older child but they have 2 small birth children, or they are currently undergoing fertility treatment and want to adopt whilst having IVF. Etc - that's all genuinely true. Those people will all either get turned down flat or advised that they can apply in future once xyz has happened

If you've actually researched the requirements and policies and what adoption entails and who the children are in the 21st century...then you are highly likely to get invited to an evening and to have an initial visit. More people drop out then, not because SS told them they couldn't but because they realised that they aren't ready to adopt yet - eg. they realise they need one more round of fertility treatment before they are emotionally ready to move on.

I know adopters who have had significant mental health issues in the past, who have conditions like cystic fibrosis, who are single or gay like me, who have past criminal records, who are middle class, working class, white, black, asian. All of them made it through because they were prepared and stable and ready to discuss it all through

Certainly some people are turned down when they shouldn't be, but at least where I live they really aren't finding excuses to turn people down. Can't speak for other councils or agencies

Also the process to approval is now supposed to be concluded in 6 months and most agencies have now implemented it from July 2013, so it's not too long now either. The wait will come when you are seeking a good match

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 16:25:21

Have implemented the new process i mean. At ALL the adoption agencies near me, the new process is 4-6 months from start to approval. That is not too long at all. It needs to remain very thorough

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 16:33:25

what i said was that i believe it is inherently selfish for people to keep having children and expecting the taxpayer to fund it

I'll ask you again dysfunctionallynormal (look how easy it is to actually use a posters full name rather than using a PA abbreviation). Where are ALL these people that are selfishly having babies and expecting the taxpayer to fund them?

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation couldn't find them, can you?

twistyfeet Thu 05-Sep-13 16:35:13

There are loads of disabled children waiting in care homes and foster places to be adopted. Funnily enough people arent queueing up.
Or maybe dysfuntionally is?

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 16:41:34

those who want more than one child should be encouraged to adopt after they've had their first. i also believe that child benefit should be paid for each adopted child

I do agree that all adoptive parents should get child benefit for each child they've adopted - even if they've adopted 6+

However I disagree with the other sentence. Adoption is very very different from having a birth child. Because of that, whilst we should aim to raise adoption awareness, we shouldn't be encouraging or telling people to adopt in place of having a birth child.

Personally, I have never ever said to someone 'you should adopt' or 'it would be better to adopt' because that's, well, not true. Adoption is not a better route to parenthood than giving birth, it's a different one, crucially it requires a different mindset.

- To adopt, you need to be very comfortable with the idea of not sharing your genes with your child

- You need to be comfortable with having missed some of your childs life

- You need to be able to deal with your childs past, which might include a
anything from drugs exposure and domestic violence through to being raped and witnessing murder

- You need to understand that traumatised children need to be parented in a certain way, which might be very different to how you parent your secure birth children

- You need to be comfortable with the idea that your child is also somebody else's child, you usually need to be comfortable with having soke form of contact with the 'other mother' (or any other birth family)

A LOT of people who want more than one children just would not ever want to adopt, or can't deal with the reality of adoption. There's no point at all encouraging those people to adopt. Adoption will never fulfil their needs

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 16:42:39

I think more funding should be provided to help people who want to give a home to a disabled child. There should also be more focus on providing home like environments for disabled children. Unfortunately funding is being cut left right and centre. Personally I would rather reduce the tax credit and welfare budget by removing benefits for more than 2 children, and improve those services.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 16:48:42

So, you would not allow child benefit for a contraceptive accident, but you would for further adoption, eg:adopting a second or subsequent child. Bit daft really, there will be many contraceptive accidents put up for adoption and many more unsuitable prospective parents clogging the system.
I've been out most of the day, home now, and I've read the whole of the thread. Sorry, dysfunctional you're wrong, as well as being in the wrong, you seem unable to show empirical evidence for your facts. An alarming lack of self awareness is also demonstrated in your attacks on Mrs Devere somebody who has, unlike you, a greater experience of the system.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 16:55:45

filee do you know what 'shunned' means? confused

And I think it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest I have deterred anyone who is determined to adopt from doing so.

Anyone put off by any of my posts is hardly committed to adoption ffs.

btw wrt your early vile little post directed at LtEve, do you realise that the armed forces have their very own adoption agency?

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 17:00:51

Personally I would rather reduce the tax credit and welfare budget by removing benefits for more than 2 children, and improve those services. So which of my three disabled children shouldn't be getting welfare benefits?

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 17:01:33

Ohhhh so are we only talking about over population and more than 1/2 children in lower income families?

That's good then I'm ok with my kids and can have even more of them because I'm not using nor have I ever used any income related benefits

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 17:03:33

This is weird.
Remove financial support from birth families potentially causing family breakdown and more children in care.
Give more money to people who want to have children to adopt instead.

How does that make sense?

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 17:07:29

It doesn't MrsDeVere I said up there ^ tis bloody nonsense!

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 17:08:23

I don't think we should be removing support from birth families by the way! Sorry if I gave that impression

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 17:13:44

I know dawn I was responding to the original idea from another poster and it took me a while to formulate my response grin

lilka you didn't give that impression. I am just trying to work out how another poster's ideas will work in reality.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 17:19:55

If people are getting offended it is because they are not actually understanding what it is that i have said and are instead relying on certain other people's twisted version of what i have said. certain posters seem to think it is ok for them to attack me and then report me when i reply to their attacks explaining what it is that i meant.

you can have any opinion you want of me, i don't care. none of you know me but you're quick to assume that i have no understanding of what it means to care for fostered or adopted children. well, my foster agency and social worker know me and know that i am right kind of person to be adopting/fostering.

yes, Devere, i am well aware the two are different. i am beginning with fostering and then hoping to adopt after 4-5 years. i will always continue to foster. this is what i have wanted to do since i was 14 years old. it is also why i made sure that i have always used appropriate contraception and have had no "accidental pregnancies". It is also why i have not only done my research but have also made sure that i am receiving the training and experience that i need to meet the challenges that i will be facing.

to reiterate: i have already given you an example of what i consider to be a selfish breeder - the kind of person who chooses to have more children because it allows them to stay at home and have their lifestyle paid for by others.

i have strong opinions and i am not afraid to voice them - even when people start ganging upon me!

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 17:25:13

Lilka - everything you have said in that post i am already aware of and have no issue with. i've had since the age of 14 to think about this and for me adopting is all about giving my love, nurturing and being a parent. plus i've already discussed all this and more thoroughly with my social worker. i am not blinkered in the slightest. what i am is very determined and prepared.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 17:26:21

Asking for empirical evidence of your assumptions is not ganging up on you, and yet you still haven't provided it.
I have strong opinions, if I place them on a public forum, I usually have facts to back my assertions, I'll make an allowance, I am not sure anyone who uses the term 'selfish breeders' should be allowed to foster or adopt. I'll make another assertion, I bet you've never used that term in front of your social worker.

Your ideas, by the way, are ill informed and unworkable.
You are not helping yourself by using the term Devere.
Anywhere that has a longstanding personality who has always posted in a relatively calm, even handed and well informed manner is going to gather to protect that poster from attack when they perceive a threat, eg. somebody being rude and actually, a little preposterous.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 17:27:54

Dysfunction just don't get it MrsDeVere. My mother fostered children for years. Lots of people try and fail at fostering.

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 17:28:22

That's good - and I wasn't suggesting that you didn't know any of that. I was saying that a large majority of families with one birth child (who want more children) wouldn't be comfortable with what adoption means - therefore we shouldn't be telling families who want more than one child to adopt. It's too different from giving birth to a second child

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 17:29:48

Just for the record.
I certainly haven't reported anyone.

Why is it that those who make the nastiest posts are the ones that call bully the most often?

If you are strong enough to stand by your opinions you shouldn't need to resort to passive aggression to win an argument.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 17:36:05

I also haven't reported anybody and would have the courage to say if I had.
I also know that nobody said a child was better with any parent than in the system, but to suggest that because there are children to adopt we should be encouraging more parents to adopt imo suggests this.
Sometimes if the right parents can't be found a child is better off in the system.

FrigginRexManningDay Thu 05-Sep-13 17:36:57

No reporting from me.

Lilka Thu 05-Sep-13 17:37:45

I haven't reported anyone either

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 17:41:46

to reiterate: i have already given you an example of what i consider to be a selfish breeder - the kind of person who chooses to have more children because it allows them to stay at home and have their lifestyle paid for by others

Good job in that case that there is only a miniscule amount of those "selfish breeders" actually in existence then isn't it - and actually, taking their benefits away would be a drop in the ocean, wouldn't make any difference to the welfare bill, and only the actual children would suffer. Good job.

Have you told your SW your views?

no reports from me either.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 17:45:33

I think it is really sad that people can't see past the end of their own nose.

It is quite possible to have a political stance that society and the economy is not able to continually fund more and more children and not be a terrible person. Adopting and fostering takes dedicated and compassionate people who cannot be pigeon holed on an Internet forum based upon one persons view, blinkered or otherwise.

It is quite possible to have a discussion about this stuff but not while people are purposefully misreading posts or stamping their feet rather than actually discussing something.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 17:47:10

Again Lt, your 'studies' only show out of work benefits, not income based benefits. There are lots of people who have children with the knowledge that tax credits will support them and make no moves towards a better or well paid career because they simply don't need to.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 17:50:28

Filee777, out of work benefits are what dysfunctionallynormal was talking about when she posted about "all the selfish breeders having babies so they didn't have to work" which is why I have posted about, erm, out of work benefits.

Hth

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 17:52:25

reading back through the posts i can see why people have misunderstood what i'm saying. certain individuals have removed their verbal attacks that i was responding to - and it seems then reported me so that my posts explaining what i mean and where i'm coming from are not visible for others to read and make their own informed judgement. no wonder they are now deliberately twisting my words (and making some up) in order to character assassinate me! lmao! Very mature!

erm paranoid much???

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 17:57:44

Dysfunctional

This is so ironic. I believe I am one of the selfish breeders you refer to and have just realised this.
I have just started working for the first time since the birth of my ds who is 22. We have had cb and tax credits since 1995 in one form or another.
We have 3 dc and only my dh works and up till now whenever I have had a job briefly I have had to quit.
The reason for this is because I am adopted and have silly stupid bloody mental issue that I found it hard to leave my dc.
I have sought help for this over the years and usually keep it in check before it borders real mh issues.
You see I have tremendous guilt because my birth mum died and I was born in the first place. Adopted people have issues that can carry on throughout their lives and there is only one attitude towards adoption that is right and I hear this from MrsDeVere
It isn't a case of disagreeing with somebodies opinion it is having the right attitude.
So as a selfish breeder what do you think should have happened to my dc when I refused to go out to work?
Please don't tell me I should have sucked it up because you don't know the horror, panic and stupid stuff I went through to get out of the door.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 17:59:18

dysfunctional Use a valid argument, dear. I've explained what the problems are, stop crying bully and misrepresentation and use a valid argument backed up with research and facts. That is what empirical evidence is.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 18:02:13

We are discussing our points of view on an Internet forum, not writing a peer referenced essay. The 'evidence' from the other side has consisted of a guardian article for fucks sake.

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 18:04:16

morethan your dh has been working so fair enough claiming tax credits etc. wish you well with your new job.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 18:04:19

Disfunctionallynormal. Posts are removed by MNHQ for being personal attacks or goading, both of which are against the MN guidelines. All the posts on this thread that have been removed, including yours and including mine, were personal attacks or goads against other posters. No posts can be removed by posters, only by MNHQ.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 18:05:52

LtEveDallas - i was NOT referring to out of work benefits - i was ONLY referring to CHILD BENEFIT in cases where a parent has more than 1 oe 2 children already(that is NOT an out of work benefit!). i also made it very clear that i did not expect for it to applied retrospectively; i also made it clear that in situations concerning multiple births/failed contraception should be judged on an individual basis. Of course people would be able to read that for themselves had my posts not been removed......

also, just wondering, why did you remove your original post in which you verbally attacked me? i notice some of your other posts have been removed by MN but that particular one was removed by you.....

i told you before i'm not a nasty person. i have strong opinions and i'm not afraid to voice them nor am i afraid to stand by them. perhaps if you had grown up where i did and seen what lengths some people will go to in order to live a work-free, funded life and the damage caused to the kids and communities, then you would understand why i feel so strongly about this.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 18:07:49

twistyfeet - i have no problem fostering/adopting a child with special needs or disabilities - provided i have received the right training and support to manage it.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 18:07:50

Fileee, it was a guardian article that referenced the Joseph Rowntree Foundations Study, the full study was also there to be read if you didn't like the abridged version. I linked to the article rather than the study as it perfectly referenced, in one simple paragraph, the truth behind the myth regarding women having numerous babies simply for the benefits.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 18:09:59

LtEveDallas - i was NOT referring to out of work benefits - i was ONLY referring to CHILD BENEFIT in cases where a parent has more than 1 oe 2 children already(that is NOT an out of work benefit!)

Way to backtrack. If that was true, why did you refer to the 'girl you know' who has 5 children, had her first at 19 and her second as soon as the first wa as school age, because she "didn't want to work"

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 18:11:06

You appear to be the only one talking about out of work benefits alone Lt, as I've stated at least three times now.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 18:11:36

speak for yourself hobnob!

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 18:14:54

alemci

It isn't out of the house, I am working for dh but its better than nothing.
Don't get me wrong it hasn't been too bad, I just wanted to point out that the attitude of society now can affect the lives of people in years to come.

It is ok for some people to say well its just a different opinion but unless we stop and think about our attitudes now we could end up with the same old in 30 years time.
I really don't think the answer to a shortage of schools has anything to do with children being adopted or even the increase in the population. It just isn't a solution imo.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 18:19:09

No filee, I have just posted consistently, referencing what a previous poster has said. I have not backtracked, lied, or tried to confuse the issue. I have also not reported any of dysfunctionallynormal's posts (although I did report one of yours for goading).

Strangely, one of your first posts says "this is not just about cb". So I was led to assume that you were also talking about other benefits.

merrymouse Thu 05-Sep-13 18:19:18

I am sure that somebody has said this before, but I don't think the rise in demand for school places has been caused by people on benefits having large families.

The population fluctuates and schools close and re-open. In the bit of London that I lived in until recently, bulge classes were blamed on people not acting according to predicted patterns, e.g. families staying in flats and small houses, whereas in past decades they (apparently) moved out of London. Probably the main causes are lack of housing mobility over the past decade and concentration of jobs in certain areas.

The problem could have been predicted earlier - these children didn't suddenly appear from no where like the Midwich Cuckoos. It's a 'crisis' when provision is left to the last minute.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 18:21:22

multiple births/failed contraception should be judged on an individual basis.
And who is to judge? More importantly, who has the right to judge?

alemci Thu 05-Sep-13 18:21:35

potato sounds very positive and if it works for you. I didn't comment on the adopting/fostering debate. find it trying enough withmy own dc and like my freedom now they are older.

I think it is great that people want to adopt and foster to help dc and I wish them well.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 18:32:30

LtEveDallas - i am NOT backtracking. That girl is a"selfish breeder". i stopped contact with her a couple of years ago so i don't know what her situation is today. maybe she is now working - who knows?

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 18:34:09

Stop using the term selfish breeder, unless your name is Marie Stopes. You have no idea regarding the circumstances of others, you are rude and boorish.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 18:34:19

DN I think Lt is just focusing on the part of your post that she wishes too, it seems we can't discuss any other part of the problem for some reason..

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 18:39:38

i have no issue with anybody disagreeing with my opinion. speak to me with respect and you will get it back. i wasn't the one who verbally attacked individuals on this thread - that was started by someone else....they could have easily stated they disagreed with my opinion and NOT resorted to attacking me personally.

also, i'm a newbie to MN so i don't know any of you or your histories. i will call it as i see it and i still believe that some people are exhibiting very cliquey behavior.

obviously with the cb changes those "selfish breeders" are now going to have to take personal responsibility.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 18:42:08

Which part?

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 18:47:56

i know Filee777 :-D

to those who asked, yes i have been very open and honest with my social worker. yes, i have used the term "selfish breeders" with her. She didn't like it and didn't agree but after having discussed things thoroughly she actually does understand why i use that term. by the way, she told me she doesn't like me using that term in front of her so i don't.

Dawndonnaagain - ignore me then if you think i'm rude and boorish. I'm merely exercising my right to free speech, however, if you find that particular term offensive then all you have to do is say so.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 18:48:49

by the way Marie Stopes don't use that term......

BellaTheGooseIsDead Thu 05-Sep-13 18:51:17

dysfunctionallynormal I'm interested in your example. You said this "girl" you know has five children five years apart because that's the age the government says you need to seek work from. You said she followed the five-year pattern.

That would make her about forty four and the age limit for income support with a child was definitely sixteen when I had DD thirteen years ago. It changed to five quite recently. Probably around the time that the well-publicised change to Child Benefit came in.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 18:54:19

You haven't been 'attacked'
You have been disagreed with.
You have had a lot of post deleted.
Because you have made lots of posts that have attacked other people.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 19:05:03

I suggest you google Marie Stopes.
Yes I do find the term extremely offensive and the fact that having been asked, politely to stop using it, you have continued. I'd call that being a goady fucker.

BellaTheGooseIsDead Thu 05-Sep-13 19:08:59

Income Support to Jobseekers for a child aged five was just last year apparently.

It's nice when people who hold extreme views keep up to date with current affairs in order to back them up.

Not everyone does this, sadly. Some just believe everything they read in the Daily Mail.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 19:10:35

There should be some sort of Godwin's law relating to the daily mail.

BellaTheGooseIsDead Thu 05-Sep-13 19:20:46

grin actually that's the first thing you have posted that I agree with.

It's a lazy analogy.

But a helpful one if you happen to be busy and don't wish to be deleted.

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 19:22:56

Yep it was last year that IS changed...before that it was until the youngest child was 7 (think that was only a year) and prior to that it was 16yrs.

My DS is 10 and I get IS as my child is disabled...this is the only reason they will pay it after 5 now. I only started claiming it 18 months ago though.

So anyone who thinks people timed their children to avoid going back to work prior to two years ago has their facts wrong.

Personally £66 a week would not be enough to persuade me to go back to sleepless nights grin, Id want a lot more than that. Then again I am too old anyway <useless point>

eineschlampa Thu 05-Sep-13 19:23:24

Well things are changing for the better and for the future of our children I am relieved as we can not keep reproducing the way we are.

There are always threads on here about housing shortages, lack of resources,lack of jobs etc and with everyone thinking they're entitled to have as many children as they like the situation is only going to get worse.

There is always going to be a massive sense of entitlement on here and everyone will always just think of themselves and their family and with all the benefit cuts and CB for only the first 2 children coming in hopefully the masses will be able to engage their brains and think about whether they can really afford to have as many children as they think is their right!

oh gawd the goady fuckers are out in force tonight.....

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 19:39:05

Have you read the thread einschlampa? Birth rates have FALLEN, families are SMALLER - oh and the CB cap on 2 children is a Tory proposal that hasn't had the support they were hoping for.

Sheesh.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 19:43:49

hobnobs

They have been pretty constant throughout the thread grin
Oh hum.

just when one vanishes another appears.
((sigh))

eineschlampa Thu 05-Sep-13 19:47:09

Is that from your google links? Oh and hobnob you deem someone who has a different viewpoint from you as goady?

The thing is on mumsnet even if you have first hand experience of these things you will not be believed unless you have a googled statistic or graph to show it which is pathetic tbh and a typical lefty trait.

Everyone knows this country is overpopulated (Well apart from mn) and people keep burying their heads in the sand. I fully support the tory policies and I really hope they come into into fruition as it will get people thinking twice before they decide to have more children that they KNOW they cannot afford to look after

no I love a debate and am happy to learn.
goaders ....well they just....goad.
HTH
smile

eineschlampa Thu 05-Sep-13 19:48:54

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

my usual tacti....really....okay...

eineschlampa Thu 05-Sep-13 19:50:16

So is your idea of a debate just throwing some google links around and passing them off as real then?

could you link me to some examples of that "tactic"?

Loopylala7 Thu 05-Sep-13 19:53:09

This made me laugh out loud, I'm imagining government officers coming round lecturing couples who look like they might just be at it the ways of abstinence and handing out condoms in case the urge should backfire!

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 19:54:02

I think its amusing that so many of you know one of these never worked 3+ kids families who love solely on benefits yet the dwp doesn't.

And filee the foundation that conducted the study comparing amount of children in in work families to out of work ones did use data provided by tax credits.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 19:54:26

Erm hobnobs has been on the thread for some time now and there has been quite a lot of goadiness, if you read.
I don't know if I agreed with hobnobs views but he/she is right about the goadiness.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 20:00:41

I don't know about 'google links' (why exactly is that a bad thing btw?), but I believe statistics from ONS. Why is wanting proof a bad thing? Why would you believe an anon poster on an Internet forum over verified data?

If I said that the moon was made of green cheese, would you believe me over NASA?

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 20:09:08

Eine Schlampa = The Bitch. But you're not a goady fucker. ok.

expatinscotland Thu 05-Sep-13 20:28:36

What a disgusting thread.

twistyfeet Thu 05-Sep-13 20:43:56

It's a ridiculous thread. As if anyone actually has a baby to get £13 a week.

merrymouse Thu 05-Sep-13 20:47:22

You can't have first hand experience of the country being overpopulated, (unless maybe you are some kind of all seeing, omni present celestial being). The only way to verify that kind of information is through statistics.

Fairy1303 Thu 05-Sep-13 21:00:49

This thread is disgusting. I can't believe what I'm reading. I think the genuine 'chinas one child policy is good' post was the cherry on the cake for me.

Has anyone noticed that the OP has not come back?

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 21:02:10

FFS you get MORE THAN £13 A WEEK

If you are on a low income or unemployed you get up to £80 per week per child.

I seriously think some people are living in a completely different country to me!

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 21:17:09

80 quid, per child. I don't think so. For crying out loud, my children are disabled and I didn't get that much when I was on benefits.

ubik Thu 05-Sep-13 21:18:48

This thread is shocking

On a slightly lighter note I remember when London councils started "reorganising" closing all the primary schools due to a dip in the birth rate, about 15 years ago. We seemed able to accommodate and educate all these children then.

We also seemed to find places for ordinary people to live in central London (my own family had a Georgian terrace in Camberwell in the 1940's, a working class family!) and raise children.

We managed to do this in the past - i don't understand why it's so difficult now.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 21:19:22

a list
I don't think any single parent with a child is living the life of riley on this, do you?

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 21:20:13

Filee, if you think being on benefits even in work ones is so great and they provide such a lavish lifestyle why don't you quit your job and do 16 hours pw at the nmw and enjoy the luxury you think tax credits provide.

I know I wouldn't want to try it.

BlazinStoke Thu 05-Sep-13 21:21:29

Is it against MN rules to start a thread in one name then change to another to contribute to the answers because I think that has happened hers.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 21:23:31

Child Benefit: Eldest or only child £20.30 per week. Subsequent children £13.40 per week.

Or Filee, are you NOW talking about other benefits?

BlazinStoke Thu 05-Sep-13 21:24:46

Filee we are all living in the real world - you are living in Daily Express world. Unless you can provide a breakdown of his £80 per week per child?

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 21:28:17

I've always been talking about all child related benefits, as the OP has!

How many times have I said 'this is not just about child benefit'

FFS

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 21:29:19

First child - £20 a week cb
Child tax credits - 62.50 per week

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 21:33:25

So would you be happy to live on that? And have more than one child?

biscuit

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 21:38:05

The basic amount of CTC is £545 a year, or just over £10 per week.

The maximum amount for non-disabled children is £2720 a year, or about £52.00 a week.

The amount for severely disabled children is £3015 a year or £60 a week, which can be topped up with up to another £1000.

I really don't see mother having severely disabled children just for the extra tax credits, do you?

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 21:38:38

It's not hard to see that in a low economy, that having a second or third child and adding an extra £80 a week in income is a viable option for some people.

It's much easier to feed 2 children with £160 than it is one child with £80.

I know that doesn't include fuel but it also doesn't include income support of £72.

If people really don't see that people have second and third children while reliant on tax credits then I don't know what to say really!

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 21:40:07

Filee

So what exactly is your point here?
Do you think that by reducing benefit there will be fewer children? Do you think that people are motivated by benefit to produce children?
If your figures above are correct then £82.50 is not enough to encourage people not to work, even an extra child at £13 whatever is still not enough.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 21:41:08

But their second or third children would have to be severely disabled Filee. Do you really believe that? really?

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 21:43:39

I think reducing benefits to 2 children per household will give a clear message that people should not have more than 2 children unless they can afford to.

As I said for it to work, the neglect laws would need to change to cover financial neglect. But yes, I think it would have a big affect on the welfare budget and on the population.

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 21:49:50

But Filee, birth rates are FALLING. So why take away the benefits from that area? It would be a drop in the ocean compared to what is paid out, for example, on Pensions. Why not say that pensioners have had all their lives to save up and provide for themselves once they have retired, so pensions should be stopped? Children will become taxpayers eventually, whereas pensioners contribute nothing but cost us the most.

Can you see how horrible that is? Can you see how wrong that is? But it actually makes more financial sense than what you propose.

(Disclaimer. I obviously don't mean that. I'm not a complete wanker)

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 21:55:53

filee

Who has the right to give a clear message that people should only have 2 dc?
Wtf happens to your third or fourth. OMG financial neglect? What laws would they be then and what happens if you break this imaginary law of yours.
You don't half sound dim and a bit unhinged.

<disclaimer, I know I'm bonkers>

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou Thu 05-Sep-13 21:57:43

How do you define 2 children per household? If your 2 children's Dad fathers an additional two children in another household with another women are they all OK? The man has 4 children but the women only 2 each. He can, after all simply not go on the birth cert for his youngest two. If you have a 3rd child with a partner who is only the father to that child and not your older two, can he claim CB for his PFB even if all three children live in the same house. The mother, of course can't not go on the birth cert so I suspect she would lose CB for her youngest whereas men can father children up and down the country with no CB consequence.

The birthrate is already less than two. Where are all these families?

What do we do with families who are in poverty and have more than two children? Let them starve. People aren't just going to starve their younger children. The whole family suffers. The DWP have been accused of blocking access to food banks. Is this the sort of society we want? Aggressively individualistic to the point that people are literally starving.

Wannabestepfordwife Thu 05-Sep-13 22:10:58

I don't understand how benefits are affecting the lack of school places surely its poor planning from successive governments and councils. Birth rates have always gone up in peaks and troughs.

I don't understand why councils could not hire out school buildings as conference centres or offices when they are not needed and then be reinstated as schools when the need arises.

I'm originally from a deprived area and a fair few girls I grew up with have multiple children to multiple fathers and with the girls I know this is more down to a scewed outlook on relationships not benefits. I think more focus needs to be on relationships in sex education.

By 15 I could normally tell which girls would have children young and have a large brood so schools should be investing more in giving these girls confidence and aspirations it would save money in the long run.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:17:41

I would suggest a period of change where by in a years time benefits began to be withdrawn. I would say that pensioners already survive on very little where as £160 a week is plenty to feed a third child.

It's not 'telling' anyone not to have more children, it's making it clear how many the state are willing to fund.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:18:36

In reference to neglect laws, I would suggest that if a parent were found to be financially neglecting their child they would be accountable by law. Same as you would for neglecting them in any other way.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 22:18:51

You do know that not all large families lack aspiration don't you?

Some high earners with very decent jobs are quite keen on having a large family

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:20:25

If people can afford to have kids they should carry on. It's the political stance I am interested in, not the personal one.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 22:21:21

Filee 2children is about £114 in tax credits not £160

Wannabestepfordwife Thu 05-Sep-13 22:23:00

If that was directed at me sock I'm fully aware of that I was just responding to the posters who were saying people on benefits have large broods for benefits where in my maybe some what limited experience that isn't the case

BlazinStoke Thu 05-Sep-13 22:23:03

Filee - you have not shown where this magical £80 comes from - please tell us where you get this from - otherwise your argument is groundless.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:23:16

Plus CB... And the family rate @ £10

LtEveDallas Thu 05-Sep-13 22:23:40

Doesn't Xenia have 5 children sock? (And an island grin)

Filee, I'd suggest that a severely disabled third child would cost an awful lot more.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:23:53

Yes, I have. I broke it down earlier but you can do it for yourself if you prefer on entitled to.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 22:24:25

If people can afford to have kids they should carry on. It's the political stance I am interested in, not the personal one

That's not quite true is it, your apparent sole interest in the subject is poor people and benefits and how bad it is that lower income families have children.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:25:23

We aren't talking about disabled benefits. Neither is the op. if you want to talk about disability benefits by all means start a thread on it ( or even a conversation in this thread about it) but if its not part of the current conversation... Well it's not part of the current conversation!

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:27:24

Rubbish. My thoughts are with what the government is offering to all people.

Its to do with the cost of benefits/tax credits and the fact that by giving more benefits to more children it is encouraging more children in an already overcrowded world/country.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 22:28:04

You can only get tax credits if you are working 16 hours per week or more. If you are on Income Support or an equivalent, Child Benefit is taken off the amount you receive, it is counted as 'money you already have coming in'.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:29:25

No, you only get working tax credits if you work 16hrs a week or more.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:31:09

To be honest I am amazed how few people are aware of what the benefits actually are.

You get ctc if you have children
You get wtc if you work
You don't have to get one to get the other.

BlazinStoke Thu 05-Sep-13 22:32:30

Filee said "Add message | Report | Message poster filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:23:53
Yes, I have. I broke it down earlier but you can do it for yourself if you prefer on entitled to."
I didn't see your previous breakdown - this thread has moved on very fast. Would you care to repeat it or tell me the time you posted it?
Also, I don't understand the second part of what you said. Could you exPlain please?

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 22:33:06

Filee

Throughout this thread your comments along with another posters comments have been utterly disgusting.
I can't think of another word to sum up your posts than vile.
Looking back through the pages I am glad that your views are not shared by many and pity those who think like you.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:33:18

Search for entitled to on google, you'll be able to see for yourself.

BlazinStoke Thu 05-Sep-13 22:37:57

But that doesn't explain the second part of your post
And I am entitled to very little by way of benefits - please do not assume that only those who receive benefits support thir existence.
Again - where does your figure of £80 come from?

YABU

Plenty of people who can afford children, do so and contribute to the issue of population growth. Nowhere have I seen stories that the shortfall in school places is due to poor people claiming benefits.

In my area (London) there is a shortfall - partly because there are too many family homes and not enough schools. Plus people cannot afford private anymore so more going for state.

The idea in the OP is simplistic and quite frankly a bit stupid.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 22:38:43

laws to cover financial neglect?
no need to change the laws
we can just dredge up the ones from the last century.

When children could be removed and taken into 'orphanages' by the welfare lady.

When I say the last century I mean 1960.

Have you ever seen Cathy Come Home?

As it goes, I work 10 hours and we get wtc.

and as others have already pointed out, you dont technically get CB if you are on income support.

But as you think that hundreds of children are spending their childhoods in care homes you seem to have a fairly tenuous grasp on what constitutes a fact.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 22:39:15

Yes she does LT she does indeed.

I have more than 5 did briefly contemplate an island but decided against it mainly because I'm not especially keen on sunshine and outdoors, and the ones not in the sun seam a bit pointless really.

And I know that a disabled child costs way more as 5 of my kids are disabled and shock horror not all my kids have the same dad.

And I would rather be buggered sideways with a rusty pitch fork than live on an income even vaguely close to benefit level no matter how lavish some people think it is.

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:41:26

I think it's late and people are struggling to read.

That's really the only explanation of it.

MrsD you've just spouted a load of stuff I didn't say.

And I really can't be arsed to pick it apart because its just not relevant to my point of view or anything I have said.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 22:41:58

Sorry. However, under your rules all families on benefits would be done for financial neglect because it's not really enough to live on. Although the government says you need this much to live on, this new government has fiddled the figures. You see it used to be worked out on a basket of shopping that was an average taken from the big three supermarkets. It's now done on a basket of shopping from Aldi. If you live rurally you may not have access to an Aldi.
Apart from that, even with tax credits etc totally an approximate 132 quid a week, by the time meters have been filled, shopping done, etc. there isn't a lot left. It certainly still isn't the life of Riley and I can't think for the life of me why you would think it is.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 22:44:48

I think it's late and people are struggling to comprehend the sheer awfulness of your posts filee

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 22:46:11

Right well you have two choices in a debate, you either refuse to acknowledge that the other side has a point of view, stick your fingers in your ears and make stuff up, or you.. You know, debate.
There's been a lot of the former and not much of the latter on this thread.

Talkinpeace Thu 05-Sep-13 22:48:45

If they changed the law today (in whatever way selected) the impact on primary schools would not be felt for at least 6 years and on secondary schools for at least 12 years

12 years ago school rolls were falling across most city centres and schools were closing ...

who can honestly say that in seven years the UK will not be such an economic backwater that the schools will be half empty again

and then people will be moaning at the cost of maintaining empty buildings

BellaTheGooseIsDead Thu 05-Sep-13 22:53:59

this was the biggest story on the BBC all day and even if taken at face-value, the subtext is that Ian Duncan Shit is wasting taxpayers money in order to punish the poor and is an incompetent and lying fucker.

On the very same day this report comes out which demonises the poor and the parents of disabled children which was sponsored by IDS and his cronies.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 22:56:19

Yes, on your part. We could start with you not accepting the report from the Rowntree Foundation, a well established and highly respected organisation. Where are your facts and figures? According to you the world is full of lazy scroungers living the life of Riley on benefits. You have ignored the FACT that child benefit is removed when other out of work benefits are in place. You have stated categorically that accidents are not allowed to happen. You feel that (the erroneous) figure of £160 per week is enough on which to feed three children, but have forgotten gas/electric/water/telephone and other essentials.

eineschlampa Thu 05-Sep-13 22:57:45

You're always going to be on a hiding to nothing on these threads on mn as there are a lot of Women here who know they are about to lose out on a lot of money they think they are entitled to, so they are going to call anyone who agrees with these changes heartless, say they have a lack of empathy etc.

While in truth these changes couldn't happen sooner tbh and I can't bloody wait and yes if people struggle then so be it! Future generations will unfortunately for you lot will have to control themselves.

HappyMummyOfOne Thu 05-Sep-13 22:58:04

"You can only get tax credits if you are working 16 hours per week or more. If you are on Income Support or an equivalent, Child Benefit is taken off the amount you receive, it is counted as 'money you already have coming in"

Thats not true, CTC is paid to non workers and child benefit is not deducted from income support. A single parent would get IS, CTC and CB.

Filee, i agree benefits encourage peole to have children them cannot afford but you wont find many on MN that do. Most believe its a human right to have as many children as you fancy and that it doesnt matter who pays for them. Benefits are seen as an entitlement as they may have worked a few days in the past or do a few now.

It would be interesting to see the difference in birth rates if benefits stopped completely, our teen pregnancy rate would certainly drop. Never understood why they go up with every child, workers dont get a payrise for reproducing from their company.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 22:58:29

I think most people are struggling to work out what you are trying to say.
But I have only responded to the words you have used.

If you can't work out what they mean I am not sure how you expect anyone else to.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 23:00:02

CB is counted as money you have coming in.
It is then deducted from IS.

So you may get it but it is then taken away.

LisaMed Thu 05-Sep-13 23:01:33

Benefits are a red herring. I would say that comparatively and acknowledging the difference in real numbers but accepting the comparison with resources available, the UK was far more overpopulated in 1347, before the Black Death. Or even @ 1315-17 when there were some horrific famine conditions. There were too many people in England (not sure about rest of UK) for the available food. And there wasn't any child benefit I will resist pontificating about the population density then and now, but England (again not sure about rest of UK) has always been comparatively densely populated. Even so it took some areas five hundred years to get back to the population density of pre 1347

btw Population has been falling in Western Europe since 19th century and was one of the drives of Ceaucescu (sp - Romanian dictator) trying to get Romanian women to produce as many children as possible.

School numbers are because there was a dip in the birth rate, so the local councils closed a load of schools and haven't got up to speed building new ones. Now that parents have a better chance of choosing schools and league tables are published, there will be migration between boroughs and waiting lists that will bugger up such planning as there was.

That's my opinion after a stronger than usual orange brandy.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 23:04:46

HappyMummy Try reading the thread, I did state I'd got one part wrong. However, child benefit is taken from Income Support. It is counted as (and I quote) 'money you already have coming in'.

BellaTheGooseIsDead Thu 05-Sep-13 23:05:09

Mrs DeVere I applaud you for stating that Child Benefit has always been means-tested for the poorest in society despite the richest thinking it was a Universal benefit.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 23:05:22

eine How does that explain the rich fuckers like me, then?

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 23:05:25

You only get WTC if you are doing 16 hrs or more.

Personally it wasn't on my radar when I reduced my hours. I was too stressed at that point.

Lots of people can get CTC though.

CTC tops up the meagre wages people get in the UK. If you lived in other parts of Europe you would get a living wage for your work and the Gpvt wouldn't need to top them up so you could afford to live.

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 23:07:14

Dawndonna is correct......they also deduct for Carers Allowance.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 23:11:30

MrsDeVere - my first post is still on here. go back and read it. then tell me whether Lt's first response was justified and appropriate.

Lt's first response to mine was "people like (me) shouldn't be allowed to foster/adopt/be a parent" - and all because she disagreed with my opinion. in the same post she also said that i would "spew bile to a child" and it wasn't safe to allow me to care for vulnerable children - that is a personal attack. This post of hers was the first to be deleted. i responded to this post and from there on both our posts started to get deleted - along with a few other peoples. So you see, i didn't start the personal attacks.

having read my responses and knowing the posts had been deleted, she then went on to twist my words and make up rubbish regarding out of work benefits/disability/contraceptive failures - and tried attributing that to me! i never mentioned those things at all. however, i did respond to her trying to put that on me.

i don't need to google Marie Stopes. There is no way they would be allowed to use the term "selfish breeders" as a professional organisation and be allowed to get away with it. tell me, are you pro-choice or anti abortion? because i'm sensing an undercurrent of something else here.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 23:13:32

They do indeed jake. They leave you with something called an under laying entitlement so whilst you get the letter saying your entitled to use carer as a description you will not receive an actual payment.

BuntCadger Thu 05-Sep-13 23:15:06

I never realised cb was deducted from income support. That's fucking disgusting, sad

Re OP, I think Yabu as this isn't the cure all for the situation.

BuntCadger Thu 05-Sep-13 23:16:20

What? And for carers allowance shock I'm stunned

BellaTheGooseIsDead Thu 05-Sep-13 23:17:31

Oh hello again dysfunctionallynormal.

You have mentioned having a social worker several times on this thread.

May I ask why this is?

filee777 Thu 05-Sep-13 23:18:01

To be honest DN I think she's just trying to be as passive agressive as absolutely possible whilst always missing the point just a little bit (so you know she understands it but has chosen not to) becuse real debate and discussion is not on the table.

As far as certain people are concerned, people should have as many kids as they want regardless of whether they can actually afford them or not and the social should pick up the tab. Anything else is awful and vile and etc etc.

It's tedious to say the least.

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 23:18:23

Its correct badger and its not just IS its deducted from

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 23:21:29

eineschlampa - i think some people on here enjoy forming a clique, attributing their own rubbish to other people, get the clique to mass attack those people and then accuse those people of goading.....and they think their behavior isn't obvious! lmao!

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 23:23:53

They dont take it all...you get the standard IS, plus an amount on top because a child is disabled then they deduct for income. Carers Allowance is counted as income...as is CB.

So IS might be say £90 a week (figure off top of head) and then it is minus so much for CB and so much gor Carers etc. It usually reduces it by half.

I only have one child, I manage well but it must be hard for families with more than one child.

JakeBullet Thu 05-Sep-13 23:27:14

I think dysfuntionally is going down the adoption/fostering route Bella.

Dawndonnaagain Thu 05-Sep-13 23:27:29

MArie Stopes introduced her clinics to stop the 'feckless poor' from breeding. See, you did need to google.
Now that you have come back and so clearly demonstrated your arrogance, I can hie me away to get the four disabled people in this house to bed for at least some of the night.

dysfunctionallynormal Thu 05-Sep-13 23:29:22

BellaTheGooseIsDead - have you read my previous posts? it is explained in there.

the girl i was referring to was 19 when i met her in 2002. she told me she didn't want to go out to work - or volunteer in the community - and that the gvmnt could not "make" her if she had a child under full time school age. so she made she always another child to replace the one who was starting school full time so she would never have to go on JSA and look for paid employment. her rent/ct/prescriptions etc was all paid for. she was given money to pay for the (subsidised) gas and electric bills, food, clothes,gadgets etc. She had a pretty cushy lifestyle - one that she would not be able to afford if she went out to work and had to pay for these things out of her own pocket. last i knew she had 5 children. that is the kind of person who i think is a "selfish breeder".

twistyfeet Thu 05-Sep-13 23:30:02

I remember people blithering on about 'the poor' having children for benefits waaaaaaaaaaaay before CTC came in in 2003. I'd had my 4 back then too. Was judged for it too despite DH working.

BellaTheGooseIsDead Thu 05-Sep-13 23:31:35

Thank you Jake. For some reason I thought that perhaps dysfuntionally was incredibly young and a care-leaver herself based on her comments.

Or someone who is in supported living.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 23:32:43

Hello Dysfunctional.

I think you are a bit paranoid. there is no clique that I am aware of in fact I am pretty sure there are several threads where I have strongly disagreed with many of those I have agreed with and supported on this thread.
It was your comments on adoption that got many peoples backs up as they were so at odds with other people who have experienced life as an adopted parent. You upset me and that takes some doing.
There have been several goady comments here, but I think you know this already.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 23:34:56

Was it you DN or Filee who said how shocked they were that I had been approved to adopt due to me being so awful?

I forget.

I know it was filee who said she wouldn't want LtEve to adopt because she would kill people.

And filee do try to use people's nn when you are referring to them. SHE is just rude and passive aggressive.

BellaTheGooseIsDead Thu 05-Sep-13 23:35:06

Subsidised gas and electricity bills? That's a new one and completely untrue.

ODFOD.

You are embarrassing yourself now.

MrsDeVere Thu 05-Sep-13 23:37:20

DN gas and electric is not subsidised for people on benefits.
In fact if you are on a key or card metre it is considerably more expensive.

Why was this particular woman getting subsidised utilities?

IneedAsockamnesty Thu 05-Sep-13 23:42:28

eineschlampa - i think some people on here enjoy forming a clique, attributing their own rubbish to other people, get the clique to mass attack those people and then accuse those people of goading.....and they think their behavior isn't obvious! lmao!

That's quite a paranoid stance to take.

Perhaps you haven't understood the impact a lot of what you have posted has on people perhaps its just a poor choice of words but either unintentionally or intentionally they have resulted in making other people's skin crawl and think WTF.

BellaTheGooseIsDead Thu 05-Sep-13 23:44:25

Wow, it's like talking to my Dad who owns his own house free and clear and has taken out every penny in equity and more and moans about being impoverished on his state and two private pensions.

He thinks that if you live in social housing (as I do) fuel bills are free but he is seventy and has been looking at retirement flats where if you have a significant asset then yes you can pay nothing in utilities for the rest of your life!

morethanpotatoprints Thu 05-Sep-13 23:59:08

Hello MrsDeVere,

Thank you for suggesting "Cathy Come Home" I am somewhat an authority on this production, having studied it for bloody years. I have a copy unsurprisingly and it certainly isn't easy viewing.
The irony is when it first showed the BBC switchboard was jammed with complaints about how disgusting it was. This was the society that had condemned Cathy and her children.
When I got mine I paid a fortune as it was out of print but for anybody who is interested the library will get you a copy for a small fee, or you could youtube maybe.

I often wonder if people would show a little more compassion after watching this?

morethanpotatoprints Fri 06-Sep-13 00:07:43

Dysfunctional

I have reported your last post as you have been asked a number of times not to use the term you used in your last post. It is offensive and upsets people. I am not bothered what you say, but it is a vile term expression.

BellaTheGooseIsDead Fri 06-Sep-13 00:22:32

Cathy Come Home should be compulsory viewing.

I was adopted as a six week baby. The records say that, "baby is very plain, blonde hair and blue eyes." That was nice to read as an adult and that is all I have. That I was a plain baby. How can a baby be described as ugly?

My adoptive parents were toxic and left me open to abuse from cousins and uncles because I should stop having big breasts and being pretty confused

merrymouse Fri 06-Sep-13 06:33:30

I imagine it's been suggested that 'the poor' have babies for benefits ever since benefits were introduced. I suspect there were people complaining that the foundling hospital only encouraged people to have babies 100's of years ago.

JakeBullet Fri 06-Sep-13 06:35:38

God Bella. That is awful sad

Dysfunctional. the rules on benefits (specifically Income Support) didn't change until two years ago so your acquaintance in 2002 was wrong if she thought she needed to go back to work the moment a child hit five. ....if it was NOW she would be, but not then.

Gas and electric bills are NOT subsidised if you are on benefits. I can tell you that as I am ON benefits and I pay the same as everyone else for my fuel.

I get free prescriptions etc. but last time I checked there was no "money for gadgets" included in my benefits.

Your acquaintance was SO wrong on a number of things that I cannot help wondering if she is a figment of your imagination.

BoffinMum Fri 06-Sep-13 07:08:01

Dysfunction, how is that 2002 character really any different from the middle class woman who refuses to work, stays at home and sponges off blokes for an income, for example via alimony/child support, etc? Because I saw many of them driving around in 4 x 4s during my days as a private school teacher, using their kids as meal tickets, and not always being the best of parents either

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 07:09:38

I said I would not want someone in the army to adopt or foster a child of mine, I went on to say that some would be happy with it but I would not.

Please stop picking and choosing which things you choose to quote MrsD because it is very unrepresentative of what's actually been said and in the case of deleted posts is not allowed.

Loeri Fri 06-Sep-13 07:17:42

Why would you not want someone in the army to foster or adopt, Filee?

ubik Fri 06-Sep-13 07:32:13

You mean you didn't get the plasma screen TV allowance Jake? shock grin

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 07:34:31

That wasn't my point.

A pp had mentioned that another poster shouldn't adopt because they had a different political viewpoint to them. My point was that I would feel exactly that way about someone in the army (trained to kill when told, go into conflicts without thought as long as orders were given) there is a lot about the training of the armed forces that would mean I would be uncomfortable with my child growing up in that environment. But I went on to say that many would be very pleased to have an army member adopt, my point was that different people have different stances and view points and it is not up to a person on an Internet forum to decide whether or not they are able to foster or adopt a child. I thought it was judgemental at best and at worse it would have made potential foster carers wonder if they would be 'allowed to' if they weren't woolly liberals, which is simply not the case!

JakeBullet Fri 06-Sep-13 07:35:33

Nah....bastards grin

And I thought benefits came with such gadgets too.

I do have an iPad but someone gave DS that to help him with school work so it doesn't count.

Plus I now have a brown leather sofa which someone gave me last week. A off to report myself in the MN style crimes thread.....it is awfully comfortable though AND I can wipe it clean.

LtEveDallas Fri 06-Sep-13 07:44:09

Filee, don't you get embarrassed when you have to LIE to put your point across. That isn't what you said AT ALL, and you know it.

I would be mortified to be that disingenuous. You know you've LOST te arguement when you have to resort to lies. How very sad.

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 07:47:34

That's exactly what I said, you reported it and it was deleted, we shouldn't even be talking about it anymore

My exact words were

'I wouldn't want a Lt adopting or fostering one of my children because they are prepared to kill under orders'

I then said that many people would be very comfortable with people in the armed forces adopting but it's something that makes me uneasy. Different strokes for different folks so its impossible to judge based on political stance whether someone will be a good foster parent or not.

That is what I said. And I stand by it, I don't have to lie and because I don't feel the need to ask to remove posts I don't like, I would have been able to find it and repost it if needed.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 07:49:12

filee your disingenuous stance really doesn't fit with your posting style.
All though this thread you and DN have accused people of twisting your words. Easy to say when so many of the posts have been deleted.
Even though they have been deleted for being attacking or offensive.

Its one of the reasons I prefer posts to stand actually. If they disappear its easy for the poster to tell everyone how misunderstood they are.

You made a gratuitously nasty post against LtEve. It was an out of the blue attack obviously based on some beef you had with her pre this thread.

I cannot abide grown women whinging about being mistreated and ganged up on whilst they spout misinformation and bile.

All this guff about having strong opinions and not being afraid to express them and then accusing people who don't agree with you of everything from lying to killing people.

You both keep making claims that are untrue and refuse to address them when challenged.

Care homes full of young children and subsidised electricity indeed hmm

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 07:51:00

Yes the key is 'a Lt adopting'

It was a pointed and nasty remark about ONE poster in your usual passive aggressive style.

Like your use of 'she' and 'certain posters'.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 07:51:41

'exact words'

hardly hmm

LtEveDallas Fri 06-Sep-13 07:53:22

I said I hoped that Dysfunctionallynormal would not be able to foster after her fifth post where she posted about 'selfish breeders' and demonised the fictional girl she knew who had 5 children just to get benefits. It was nothing to do with politics. It was the language she used, the mistruths she posted about out of work benefits (that she is now denying) and the rudeness she displayed to MrsDeVere.

I made personal attacks, yes, I admit it. I didn't call her a cunt or anything, but I did say certain things about her attitude and language (that of course I cannot repeat or I will be deleted again).

I don't need to lie to put my point across. I still believe I was justified in saying what I did, but I accept that I shouldn't have said it in the way I did. Sometimes the red mist gets the better of me, generally when a poster is being rude about someone I like.

I don't like the re-writing of history and backtracking. It makes debates such as this one worthless when people have to lie. Better to tell the truth and have your view changed than to lie just to pretend you are correct.

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 07:57:39

I believe I was justified in saying what I did, you believe people with her opinions shouldn't adopt, I believe people with your job shouldn't adopt.

I haven't said anything about people ganging up on me or subsidised electric (?) again MrsD you are putting words in my mouth that I just haven't said, or alluded to.

I think you must just be getting a bit confused. Only one of my posts has been deleted. I thought it was quite acceptable to point out that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, indeed your personal inability to read a debate correctly, stick to the topic being discussed or accept a different viewpoint would make me question your abilities as a foster carer, but I don't make those decisions and would never pretend to.

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 08:00:17

I haven't back tracked, or lied. Another poster brought up a deleted post and I explained it ( again) that would be easier if the post were still here. I actually think you read the first paragraph of it (being that I wouldn't agree with a child of mine being raised by someone in the army) and ignored the rest of the post (where I said many people would be happy with that but I would prefer a different political stance so we shouldn't be deciding who can/can't adopt) because you were too busy throwing your arms in the air, attacking another poster and hiting report.

Shame really.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 06-Sep-13 08:17:44

Filee, I believe I was one of the posters who said that she probaly wouldn't be allowed to adopt and it was nothing to do with politics,

It was because of the intentional use of very hateful negative language and view points directed predominantly towards the circles that most children waiting to be adopted come from.

When you adopt a child you have a duty towards that child to not further damage them with your own use of language and opinions as well as not using them for your own needs.it is one of those situations where a neutral approach to social backgrounds is required.

LtEveDallas Fri 06-Sep-13 08:26:17

Filee, because I am NOT a nob, I think it is worth me pointing out that when you get into a dialogue with MNHQ about deleted posts the posts are repeated in the email trails. Something worth thinking about.

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 08:26:45

She already has a social worker who is aware of her views, she IS adopting, so you are wrong SP.

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 08:27:36

Well then feel free to repost it Lt.

If you are so sure, do be sure to post the whole post though, not just the bit of it you chose to quote in the first instance.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 08:30:25

OFFS please STOP with the passive aggression. It is very hard to concentrate on what you are trying to say amid the forest of 'I think you are getting confused' etc.

I didn't say you mentioned subsidised electricity. DN did that, you were the one telling us about all the children spending their childhood in (mythical) care homes.

A bit of emotive tossery that you then attempted to change into a wide eyed 'yes, care homes, foster care homes'

I saw that post about LtEve. I know what it said.

LtEve is not a poster known for flying off the handle.

What has happened is that you and DN have waded into a thread thinking you are going to tell us all about adoption and fostering because you have done a course.

Experienced fosterers and adopters and adoptees have challenged your view and you still insist you are right.

Its not a personal attack to express my concern that either of you will be somehow manage to get through panel.

Your rigidity of thinking, your unwillingness to look at other people's views and listen to their considerable experience is a worry.

I don't like the idea of crusading foster carers sorting out these wishy washy liberals.

And who WAS it who made that personal attack about me not being fit to adopt? Neither of you have admitted to that yet. Unless its hidden in all that passive aggressive tripe and hyperbole.

IneedAsockamnesty Fri 06-Sep-13 08:31:33

I'm pretty sure she's said she's not going down that road because she's decided not to.

I'm also pretty sure she said the social worker is not happy with her use of language and has challenged her on it so she no longer uses phrases like that around the sw.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 08:31:42

filee I have missed the post that said she is going to adopt.

Where does it say she has passed panel?

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 08:33:05

Again, a bunch of stuff I haven't said. Where have I tried to tell you about adoption? I have always talked of the political stance in reference to big families and benefits.

Again, you are confused. I haven't said anything about you being unfit to adopt because (as I said to Lt originally and have done many times since) it is not my or your place to say that.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 08:37:18

I am not confused.

Tell us all about the care homes

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 08:37:55

And where she has been approved at panel

alemci Fri 06-Sep-13 08:38:50

Dawn Donna not sure about your take on Marie Stopes. When I was supporting a student doing GCSE RS we studied MS from the C of E and catholic point of view on procreation in the 20 century. It tied in with sex before marriage debate

In some ways she was helping poor people who didn't want to keep on having yearly pregnancy and was offering contraceptive advice. there were no benefits or mod cons so things would have been awful for the very poor and at least they would have some control over not being continually pregnant. She did not support abortion and in some ways she was forward thinking and radical in those times.

Dawndonnaagain Fri 06-Sep-13 09:09:14

Alemci
I'm a history lecturer.

JakeBullet Fri 06-Sep-13 09:18:50

Yes it was DN who mentioned "subsidised electricity", the thing is that if you are going to post such comments at least make sure they are correct.

People on benefits do NOT get subsidised fuel......SOME can ask for a grant towards their winter fuel bill from the fuel companies but you have to fulfil certain criteria.."...not everyone can have it....and certainly "I am on income support" isn't enough for most companies. You need to have an additional thing like a disability as well.

I DO fulfil the criteria but have never applied as I manage my payments monthly so don't feel the need for it and would rather someone in greater need got it.

I can't comment on fostering or adopting as I have never gone down that route but am sad that DN might potentially alienate her adopted child by referring to his/her birth mother as "a selfish breeder" in his/her hearing. It is a horrible horrible term and has no place in a civilised debate. Children DO listen and they DO pick things up, it must be awful to think your caregiver is so dismissive and snotty about your origins.

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 09:22:58

I worked at a care home in my home city for children who could not be placed into foster care, they were not disabled.

It's not rare, care homes for children. That's why we need more foster carers.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 09:30:40

Yes they are. 9% of LAC are in residential homes.
They tend to be 14+ and/or with complex needs.

9% = rare.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 09:31:39

MS was a eugenicist wasn't she?

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 09:34:37

The care home I worked in had a number of children younger than 14, many if them had been to a number if foster homes which had not worked out. One girl was there, on and off, from the age of 8 when her grandfather had died. I am still in touch with her. 10% is not rare when the objective should be that all children are in a home environment and also considering those children who are disabled and not included in the figures.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 09:37:30

You are now trying to convince people that 9% is not rare?

Also, not every child wants a family environment, in fact for some children it is the last thing they want.

Well run care homes have a place in our system.

Dawndonnaagain Fri 06-Sep-13 09:41:06

Mrs De Vere
Nah, she was only mucking about when she joined the Eugenics Society at its very first meeting. Same when she said she wanted unfit parents (the poor and the jewish in her delightful mind) to be compusorily sterilised.
If I recall, she left her money to the Eugenics Society.

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 09:47:05

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just having a conversation.

It's like saying one in 10 women getting breast cancer make it a rare disease. Which it doesn't, of course.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 09:53:10

You have a shakey grasp of statistics

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 10:00:47

Rare is not a mathematical term.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 10:10:27

You really cannot admit that you got it wrong can you?

You used an emotive term, you were wrong.

Yet you still persist.

Children do not spend their childhoods in care homes.

A small amount of children spend short periods in care homes.

The vast majority do not.

Care homes can be the best option for some children.

If they cannot be with their birth families.

Dawndonnaagain Fri 06-Sep-13 10:12:53

filee You still haven't actually answered any of the questions put to you. Your figures with regard to benefits are inaccurate and you haven't clearly stated how to resolve the problems created with your punishment regime.

filee777 Fri 06-Sep-13 10:55:37

I have broken down the figures regarding benefits. I have suggested people look up the online calculator 'entitled too'

So that they can have a look for themselves.

I have explained that £160 a week is enough money to feed more than 2 children.

I've answered all your questions actually.

MrsD once again you are putting words in my mouth, I said nothing about children spending their whole childhoods in care homes. I have not used any emotive language you are just struggling to read, again.

It's tedious.

Dawndonnaagain Fri 06-Sep-13 11:05:41

No you haven't. I looked up your figures and queried them. You haven't acknowledged that child benefit is removed from your figures. You haven't worked out how to feed, for example four children and one adult on the monies you suggest and then how to budget for utilities and other essentials on said monies. It simply is not enough to include the price of food alone.
You have not answered how to police your financial neglect plans, or even what would constitute financial neglect. You haven't discussed the possibility of children with disabilities and how they should be financed.
You haven't addressed the moral question regarding children being punished for being born outside of rules that you have decreed.
Bugger all, in fact.

alemci Fri 06-Sep-13 11:37:37

yes I see (I only looked briefly on wiki)*Dawn Donna*, I agree the eugenics side is horrible and I don't agree with that.

OOH the things I talked about were good for women in the early 20th century not wanting to have children every year do you not think? Especially in the 30's depression.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 11:37:56

Yes you have.
You said that there are many children spending their childhoods in care homes.
In the context of adoption.
Because you thought it would help you make your point.

It didn't because it isn't true.

If you stripped your posts of the PA, the assumptions and the made up bits, there would be nothing left.

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 11:39:43

alemci you are not alone tbh.
For a long time I saw MS as an early advocate for women's rights and a champion of the poor.
Because, lets face it, that is how she has been portrayed.

The stuff about not wanting poor people to be selfish breeders was not put in the school history books.

alemci Fri 06-Sep-13 11:50:28

Mrs De Vere you are right that is how she is portrayed. The Jewish and the disabled element is horrible and she was probably quite snobbish and classist I should imagine as alot of people were then.

I think though if I was a poor mother in that era I would have welcomed some form of contraception. It must have been very hard on your body to keep on being pregnant and then naturally wanting to have a relationship with your DH but dreading the result if you knew that you could hardly make ends meet etc. Plus the day to day grind of washing, feeling nauseous, housework etc.

I know my grandfather was one of 12 born in the Great war era.

morethanpotatoprints Fri 06-Sep-13 11:52:41

Filee

Are you ready to admit you are spouting utter rubbish yet or are you going to continue, because it would be good to see this thread progress to reasonable suggestions and ideas about the shortage of school places and over population, 2 different subjects really.

last night I read that one suggestion would be to stagger school attendance including evenings, this seemed like a Gove suggestion but not entirely sure. Perhaps this sounds as stupid as some of the suggestions so far grin

Dawndonnaagain Fri 06-Sep-13 12:28:28

alemci Taken within the context of the times, initially Stopes looks good. Yes, contraception for all women, regardless of income would have been good. However, Stopes a) concentrated on the poor and in her magazine Birth Control news, ranted about sterilisation for those too poor to have children. One of my biggest problems is that she didn't die until 1958, a point at which eugenics had long since gone out of fashion due to having seen the obvious consequences of it, and yet she still left her money to the Eugenics Society. Her views did not change despite having witnessed and comprehended the full effects of the holocaust. Her admiration for Hitler did not wane.

BellaTheGooseIsDead Fri 06-Sep-13 12:28:46

flowers Jake.

That was just my experience of being adopted in 1970.

I am very glad that social workers do not get to write such things about the child and that checks are more vigorous r.e prospective parents.

alemci Fri 06-Sep-13 12:33:47

Dawn Donna that is totally scary. I don't understand how someone would support Hitler afterwards in GB when everyone was aware of the atrocities.

Interested in your history lecturer position. Do you specialise in modern history? love anything to do with history smile

Dawndonnaagain Fri 06-Sep-13 12:39:21

Actually no, that just happens to be a pet peave. grin
Specialise in English Civil War also cover the demise of the Native American. Two totally different but equally fascinating strands.

alemci Fri 06-Sep-13 12:41:33

sounds great Dawn Donna and it would fascinate mesmile

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 12:52:16

My favourite is the History of Medicine.
I was studying when DD got ill and I have never gone back to it.
I drag my DCs round the Wellcome Galleries for fun though grin
They are SHUT atm sad

Dawndonnaagain Fri 06-Sep-13 12:55:35

I did do a semester on the history of medicine, I found it all a bit too gory, despite studying battles and what Columbus and the Pilgrim Fathers did!
I also deal with medics when I'm wearing my other hat as an ASD researcher, most are fine, but I've had the odd student I'd like to throw to the vipers on here! grin

MrsDeVere Fri 06-Sep-13 13:05:15

I loved it!
When I was doing my other courses I would get happily bogged down in the historical stuff (workhouses, social views on disability etc) and get horribly behind on anything contemporary grin

alemci Fri 06-Sep-13 13:55:43

yes, I enjoyed the history of medicine course the aqa did. the Irish question proced more tricky for the students. smile always tried to wangle myway into history classes.

haven't been able to in new workplace and role but sat in on a cold war session at A level

pixiegumboot Fri 06-Sep-13 20:41:08

not read whole thread. immediate thought springs to mind. actually use info from the census, and don't make primary teachers redundant and close classrooms 5yrs before boom due. left hand, right hand hello?

dysfunctionallynormal Fri 06-Sep-13 23:57:12

Dawndonnaagain - marie stopes opened her clinics so women could access birth control and have control over their fertility - i.e CHOOSE to have smaller families and NOT be used as brood mares. it was also to educate women about sexual health. give me an example of where her personal opinions regarding the "feckles poor" were actually carried out......

BellaTheGooseIsDead - You're scraping the barrel there. trying to insult me but not succeeding. i take it you think all care leavers and those living in supported housing are inferior/stupid/ignorant?!!!!!
i helped said girl to fill out her forms so i know for definite utility bills can be subsidized. i take it you've never heard of Social Tariffs?? Go ahead and look into it. me, embarassed? No. you should be though, displaying such a lack of ignorance.

morethanpotatoprints - there is definitely cliquey behavior being displayed here. Specifically by those who keep twisting my words and attributing made up rubbish to me. what exactly about the adoption comments upset you? all i've said throughout is that those who want larger families (but can't afford them out of their own pocket) should be thinking about/encouraged to adopt. if they don't want to do that then they should stick with the kids they've got and not receive any funding for any additional children they give birth to. yes, i'm aware that children in care come with their own issues but tell me - are birth children a guarantee of perfect geniuses who will never be a challenge to bring up and care for? as an adopted child yourself you-more than most-should understand the need for encouraging people to adopt and for providing a lifelong support service to deal with issues that crop up. Go ahead-report away. the fact that you couldn't even understand why the term was used in the context of that sentence just proves you are not worth conversing with so i shan't be bothering with you after this post.

hobnob - i have a life outside of the internet and MN which is where i am when i'm not here.

dysfunctionallynormal Sat 07-Sep-13 00:36:12

JakeBullet - take a look at social tarrifs. just because you choose not to apply for them does not mean they do not exist. none of it is a figment of my imagination so no, i am NOT a liar.

to certain others: you're just proving yet again how you either don't read the post or you choose to ignore what is actually said and then twist what i'm saying. i have NOT decided to stop with fostering or adopting-i'm still going ahead. i never said i'd passed the panel because i haven't reached that stage yet (cue comments along the lines of "you won't either"). what i said was (just in acse that particular post has been deleted too) is that i am concentrating on fostering first, then i will be adopting in about 4-5 years time.

there is a big difference between the way someone converses online and the way they converse in real life-especially when dealing with vulnerable children!

my social worker didn't like me using the term in casual non-work related conversation when she was present so i respected her request. if any of you think that i would use that term when children are present you are deluded.

JakeBullet Sat 07-Sep-13 06:05:33

I did read your post DN you said "subsidised fuel" and I pointed out that just getting income support is not normally sufficient for these hardship payments. Not misreading your post at all there, just saying that you need to be certain of your facts before posting. If your acquaintance was getting these hardship payments then it is likely that there were other issues you were unaware of as there is not an infinite amount of money in the pot and fuel companies have strict criteria about who can and cannot apply.

Likewise, the rules regarding income support only changed in the last three years so your acquaintance had no need to have baby after baby to avoid the rules about going back to work. Why she would have said so to you back in 2002 therefore is a mystery to me.

filee777 Sat 07-Sep-13 07:08:29

Sorry I haven't read the whole of the last page I worked last night.

Jake can you give me the name of an electricity company that does not offer the fuel discount to those on IS? Because I spoke to a number of them last year and they all said that IS was the main qualifier, a few offered it to those on low income but very few.

LtEveDallas Sat 07-Sep-13 07:11:50

Dawndonnaagain. You've only gone and got me interested in Marie Stopes! I never knew all those awful things about her shock. How easy it is for the history books to be rewritten - or at least leave out a number of awful facts.

The Eugenics stuff is horrible, and her prejudices quite open. In 'control of parenthood' she says that the earth could reach a utopia with racial purification shock and that the poor and feeble minded should be compulsorily sterilised. Even in her poetry she slags off Jews and promotes racial segregation. It really is quite shocking.

I never knew and I'm really shocked that the Clinics still bear her name (although as she was against abortion I suppose it is a way of sticking two fingers up at her)

BoffinMum Sat 07-Sep-13 08:09:14

Home management expert Wilena Hitching was into the whole eugenics thing too, I understand. The idea of creating the perfect 'national child' was fairly universal at that time. Sounds shocking now, doesn't it?

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 09:28:02

DN.

You havent quite grasped the point of social tariffs.

They have never been about subsidised fuel and they do not result in subsidised fuel ever, they were introduced to stop huge additional costs being put on prepayment meter use,

All they do is drop the price of the power to the same as that companies 'best' deal available to none prepayment customers and add the direct debit discount before the charges for having a meter are added on.

It still means prepayment meter customers pay more than billed customers but stops it being more than double the cost (as that's what most of the energy customers did when the meters became more usual because they added the charges and also started with the fuel being much more expensive.

So no person on a social tarrif will ever recive fuel cheaper than someone who does not qualify for the tarrif it just starts off at the same price. No energy supplier who does not or did not start off with the fuel unit price for prepayment meters on a massive hike compared to billed customers was ever obliged to provide a social tarrif other than the direct debit discount aspect of it. And they have been being phased out for quite a while now.

I expect you also fall into the section of people who think water is free if your on benefits that's also make believe but water companies do have to have a social tarrif but its got very little to do with out of work benefits to qualify you need a household member who has certain (actually named) disability or illness that requires higher water use and your water bill for the year gets set at the average for your area you do have to be on a meter but you won't get charged more than the area average for it.

Your acquaintance with the 5 kids she only needed 2/3 when she had her first child she wouldn't have had to activly seek work until the dc was 16 about 3 possibly 4 years ago it changed to 11 so for 15 years she only needed 1 straight away she would have needed an under 11 so that's 2 but she would have been perfectly safe for the next 5 years minimum.

As when they first changed it from 11 it dropped to 7 quite quickly after the 11 change and then again quite quickly it dropped again to 5.

She started in the early 90's so she would have needed to time another one for last year.

So perhaps she had them for other reasons like ohhh she wanted them.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 09:32:37

jake it may be worth you looking into the water social tarrif as if your child also has problems cleaning him selfs after using the loo and it requires extra baths then if you can get medical evidence then you will qualify.

It won't help you if you use less than about £400/450 a year in water but it will if you do.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 09:38:39

Filee.

If you spoke to them last year they would have told you that the social tarrifs for fuel started phase out 2 years ago in favour of the warm homes discount, They would have also told you that you didn't have to be on benefits to qualify you just had to prove that more than 10% of your income went on fuel and your income was not huge. And they would have also told you that if you could afford to be a billed customer and could manage a dd payment then it would be pointless applying for it as it would cost you more money

alemci Sat 07-Sep-13 09:44:16

I remember in the early 2000s say about 2003 I went back to work when my DS was 6. I think if I hadn't that year my N.I. stamp wouldn't have been paid in the same way and i would have lost out.

It just doesn't seem joined up.

I know in the 70's alot of women lost out on pension contributions because of being at home with dc.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 10:01:02

Thats weird pension contributions are tied into CB and CA and since the tie in started its never been less than 12 years worth of associated contributions that could be carried over. But off the top of my head I cannot remember when the link started.

Alemci was your ds a second child?

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 10:06:15

Oh and a few other benefits

MrsDeVere Sat 07-Sep-13 10:10:41

Lmao at someone lecturing a History lecturer on history.

And the cheap gas and electric.

It won't make a difference. These guys just know they are right.

FYI DN, your SW will have had to put your views on The Poor and the language you use to describe them in your assessment notes.

It doesn't all go away because you don't say it anymore. If your SW has requested that you stop using a term that is pretty serious. Your insistence that you will be fostering for 4/5 years and then moving on to adoption will be a big red flag as well.

But I am sure you know better than me about all that.

TheBigJessie Sat 07-Sep-13 10:36:23

Talking of "social tariffs" I would like to take this moment to advertise Ebico, an energy supplier with principles.

The Poor don't get free energy, but they don't get overcharged either. I'm not on a meter, but I use Ebico out of principle.

Everyone pays a fair price per unit with Ebico. https://www.ebico.org.uk/

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 10:37:35

Jessie,

Utilita also do the same thing

TheBigJessie Sat 07-Sep-13 10:38:16

I'll add them to my white list then! grin

Dawndonnaagain Sat 07-Sep-13 10:48:23

Lmao at someone lecturing a History lecturer on history.

Made me laugh too, particulary as I have quoted primary sources as has LtEve
<waves at LtEve Good to know I'm not boring for England here!> grin

filee777 Sat 07-Sep-13 11:01:08

Sockpixie you are wrong, my friend got a £190 subsidy last winter to help with her fuel. Based on the fact she was in receipt of IS. It was paid between November and march.

I think you might be confusing it with something else? It is also avaliable this year but needed to be applied for between March and I think December. Definitely avaliable from British gas for people earning below 17,000 or in receipt of IS or DLA and from N power for people in recipe of IS or DLA but not for people earning under 17,000.

alemci Sat 07-Sep-13 11:06:56

No 3rd DC Sock Pixie. anyway I was glad to be in work even though I had done some pin money things before then IYSWIM.

alemci Sat 07-Sep-13 11:10:20

the fuel costs are horrendous for all of us I think. I will be going around in a thick jumper again and trying to be sensible with the heating but it so over priced. never used to think about it.

TheBigJessie Sat 07-Sep-13 11:26:14

filee why don't you give us links to application forms and leaflets about this scheme?

Surely you can see that "my friend got... because..." doesn't sound very reliable.

Arnie123 Sat 07-Sep-13 11:27:15

Stop child benefits after the third child

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 11:34:32

Filee, no I'm not.

You are talking about the warm homes discount ( currently the only income related reduction available offered by BG)

But in your usual format you have grossly exaggerated the correct figures given that this years highest rebate possible is £135 per year and it has never been higher.

The reason why it is also only offered to pay as you go customers is because it is not a subsidy it is to bring the original cost of the fuel back down to being on a par with none prepayment customers hence you have to evidence the temp you keep your house at and the income % your fuel costs its to prevent people who don't use the difference in prepayment and none prepayment price differences from claiming.

filee777 Sat 07-Sep-13 11:36:02

This is the citizens advice page on it http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_energy_and_water_supply_e/consumer_energy_supply_e/consumer_help_if_youre_older_disabled_or_on_a_low_income_e/warm_home_discount_scheme.htm but I got the most information for it by phoning the individual companies offering the scheme.

Different companies have different qualifiers but all three that I spoke to offered it to those on IS.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 11:36:23

That's why then alemci because you would have already used your 12 years available to you by then

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 11:38:16

More to the point filee why don't you go and read some of the links on the scheme then you may actually learn something

TheBigJessie Sat 07-Sep-13 11:40:21

Personally, I am very distrustful of other people's thoughts on third parties' entitlements.

I used to have a council flat. When I got it, I got an allocation for 15 tins of council paint, which I had to collect from an out-of-town depot (i.e. I had to get a taxi back). I had no complaints about that, and I thought it was very generous.

However, to this day, my mother insists I got given a CASH grant of THOUSANDS to buy paint! And that she -saw- it.

Meanwhile my father-in-law has two children, my husband and his elder sister. Years ago, my father-in-law must have decided his daughter was the sensible one, and he makes stuff/twists reality up to support that idea. She isn't awful with money, but she certainly didn't save up and pay off her student loan within a year of graduating!

She saved up, yes. But it was for a mega-holiday to celebrate years of hard work!

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 11:46:24

The qualifying criteria they have to use by law

Core group automatically qualify solely on income

Over 75's and pensioners who are under 75 if they recive a certain pension top up.

Broader group tied into certain benefits if income is below 16190 and also if earns income is below that BUT also use more than 10% of income on fuel when keeping one room at 21 and the rest at 18 degrees. Some companies will also consider different income groups if other vulnerabilities are an issue.

Its the law that these tarrifs are offered but using the same law no company who charges the same amount for prepayment and billed customers with no direct debit discount has to offer the scheme.

alemci Sat 07-Sep-13 11:51:29

Sock Pixie still a bit confused. i stopped working formally for about 10 year's I suppose but not 12. I worked as an SMSA from about 2001 for a while for the dc's primary school for my sanity but I don't think i made NI contributions at that point but paid into a pension.

but why is it different for me in comparison to other people who don't seem to go to work like the lady another poster alluded to seemingly having dc to prevent her working but i don't think i would want to be in her position anyway. would she get any pension in the same way?

morethanpotatoprints Sat 07-Sep-13 12:23:26

I think alemci has solved the problem of any future over population and coined a new form of contraception. grin

Big warm Woolley jumpers. Too cold to take them off to dtd and not exactly the most sexy of clothing.
So that's it turn the heating off.

alemci Sat 07-Sep-13 12:26:10

grin or those awful zip up blankets sold in old people's catalogues.

and keep your pants on in bed. I remember my 10 year old self saying that to my mum. thought the sperm swam across the bed.

LtEveDallas Sat 07-Sep-13 12:52:36

For no other reason but to give you a giggle - you should see the state of me in our caravan in March/October. Fluffy pyjamas (is it brushed cotton?), bed socks, thermal vest, fleece cardigan and a wooly hat!

It's not really surprising that DD is an only grin

morethanpotatoprints Sat 07-Sep-13 13:04:29

LtEv and Alemci

I'm sure that why onsies, and flannelette material was invented.
My mum had nighties, hair in curlers and a net.
No wonder I was adopted.
Oh, I know that's not nice really, they were lovely parents but quite old fashioned.
grin at sperm swimming across the bed. I used to think if you were kissed 3 times, even on the cheek you would have a baby. I was shock every time a male relation gave me a peck.

MrsDeVere Sat 07-Sep-13 14:38:37

Metered electric and gas is much more expensive than the other kind.
So this 'subsidised' rate is actually an attempt to bring it into line with normal prices?

Is that right?

So it isn't people on benefits getting cheaper gas and electric than people not on benefits?

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 18:41:20

Yes mrsD that's exactly what it is. Its the sole reason for the gov getting involved in the situation.

So if we are going to get all high and mighty about it poor old jake upthread is actually subsidising the likes of filee by paying more for her fuel than than none prepayment cost of fuel.

alemci I reckon that in addition to your sahm years at some time perhaps not all in one hit after you were 18 you had 2 years where you didnt earn enough to pay ni and someone with a bit of sense worked out that to get your full pension you have to have paid for 38/40 years before a certain age (I'm guessing as pensions are not my thing at all) so that's why it was in your interests to do so but pensions are completely beyond me.

MrsDeVere Sat 07-Sep-13 19:26:21

I used to be on a meter

When I moved into my flat there was one waiting for me. When I had viewed the flat there was not one there. Whoever decided to put one in snuck in and installed one.

And they charged me for it.

When I called to ask why they told me that I must be in debt (no true) and if I wanted it removed I would have to pay for that too.

So before I had even started using gas/electric I already owed them money. So for every five quid I put in the would take some out.
AND the gas/electric was more expensive.

So I was paying quite a bit more than people who were not on a meter and I had to walk around for bloody ages to find somewhere to top up my keys.

Loads of places did it at the beginning but they soon realised it was not worth the hassle and they stopped bothering in the first year.

I lived in central london but sometimes had to walk across the borough to get the sodding thing topped up.

I believe its lot easier these days (thank goodness) but it made my life that little bit harder at the time.

Because I lived in a council flat?

LtEveDallas Sat 07-Sep-13 19:43:12

DNeice is on a meter. I said on the Jamie Oliver webchat that she has £54.00 a week for her and DGreatNeice. The very first thing she does when she gets her money is top up her card. It doesn't leave much does it sad. The trouble she's had with that card as well - money not registering, the 'emergency' credit not registering, the card having to be replaced numerous times - it's a bloody shambles.

I once tried to put money on it without her knowing. I'd wanted to put £200 on, but it wouldn't accept it. The max it would take was £50. I don't know if that is normal? Is there a max or was it just the crappy corner shop?

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 20:13:33

lt most of the time the £50 limit is imposed by the top up shop because to do a transaction above that requires a supervisor card and code it takes a bit longer they have lost the card ect.

But a few its not the shop its the company.

There is 1 company I know of off the top of my head who will allow you to top up something like £150 on the gas and electric each at a time and that's utilita.

MrsD its not that uncommon for people to move out of rented houses not tell anyone they have moved having just had a huge bill debt transferred to prepayment meter,its also not uncommon for the utility company to make up a debt wack it on the meter and count on nobody realising (been on watchdog shit loads)

VaultFullOfTwizzlers Sat 07-Sep-13 20:16:09

If you use the on-line service there is a maximum of £49 which can be put on per transaction confused

VaultFullOfTwizzlers Sat 07-Sep-13 20:19:49

And yes, Sock, the previous tenant neglected to tell us there was a huge debt on the meter so whatever we put on ran out extremely quickly! It had to be reset.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 20:26:03

Vault that used to be the limit but I've just checked you can do between £10 and £175 on utilita with the online thingy on both gas and electric

JakeBullet Sat 07-Sep-13 20:42:09

When I moved into my current home the previous tenant had "doctored" the electricity key meter so all her electricity was free! shock

It took the electricity people a month to come out and sort it because it was Christmas time so I had a few weeks of free fuel grin

I got the gas meter replaced because it was also a key one and on the ground in the front garden Have never bothered with the electricity one.

Electricity is about £45 a month and Gas (which does my heating, hot water etc) is around £80 a month. Fuel is/was my biggest expense after rent although as a Carer I am currently getting housing benefit.

Key meters are known to be the most expensive way of buying fuel as you cant get the best deals available to other customers.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 20:49:27

Whose your supplier jake?

VaultFullOfTwizzlers Sat 07-Sep-13 20:50:47

I don't believe the electricity meter is costing me any more than my old credit meter despite British Gas telling me this about the new-style ones and me trusting them as far as I can throw them hmm

I dislike direct debits for fuel because they are bastards with their estimated readings and putting the amount up when you are actually in credit so won't take advantage of the discount for that anyway.

The new ones are only expensive if you need to use the emergency credit and I never do, or as has been said, if there is a debt - then they rob you blind.

But I am going to look into Utilia thanks

VaultFullOfTwizzlers Sat 07-Sep-13 20:53:33

yy Jake, the best deals involve having the meter(s) replaced and if you're in debt you've got no chance. But they also work out better for switching both and having a direct debit.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 21:06:08

The reason why smart meters are touted as being cheaper is due to the ability to see your usage monitor it and reduce accordingly bugger all to do with the cost per unit

VaultFullOfTwizzlers Sat 07-Sep-13 21:15:02

That's very true. I might ask them for a bill showing this. They don't send them, do they?

Still, totally agree that "subsidised utility bills" isn't quite the case and is an emotive and sweeping exaggeration. Not the first time I've seen it on here sadly and yy to "free water", Sock. Seems to be a common assumption by people who have no clue.

BoffinMum Sat 07-Sep-13 21:43:39

I lived in a flat once where they had wired up the wrong meters to the wrong flats and I had to pay my neighbours rather excessive bill for a while, until I did the calculations of actual use and challenged the Electricity Board about this. I did get it refunded in the end but imagine if I had not known how to calculate wattage and so on?

deakymom Sat 07-Sep-13 21:47:43

some of the biggest family's i know come from working parents not parents on benefits in fact its rare to find a huge family without at least one working parent where do people get the idea it is easy living on benefits (oh yes the government?)

VaultFullOfTwizzlers Sat 07-Sep-13 22:07:18

I think it's about fifty-fifty. XH's ex has nine DC from five sorry excuses for men sad but I also know a family of seven DC with parents who work very long hours.

Large families did used to be almost unheard of when I was growing up in the seventies and the exceptions would nearly always be Tory councillors / local MP. This was long before expenses were queried and there would be much speculation as to how they could afford their lifestyles!

BoffinMum Sat 07-Sep-13 22:13:26

I know a fair few big families and the money either comes via wealthy grandparents or flipping businesses for profit, when you ask people. Certainly not salaried work.

IneedAsockamnesty Sat 07-Sep-13 23:17:14

I've never heard the term flipping businesses, what does it mean?

alemci Sat 07-Sep-13 23:34:12

I did have one year out to go back to college Sock Pixie so that could be it. thanks

VaultFullOfTwizzlers Sun 08-Sep-13 00:24:09

I've heard about flipping homes but not businesses which was bad enough. What scam is this?

LtEveDallas Sun 08-Sep-13 06:34:24

Thanks for the answers all. I think I am going to look into Utilita with DNeice when I see her this week. Always worried she'll think I'm sticking my nose in, but tbh I don't think she'll know about them - she is pretty sheltered IYKWIM. On line top-up would work really well for her now she is poorly, and maybe I could help more too (we live over an hour away).

dysfunctionallynormal Sun 08-Sep-13 14:02:49

Devere-i suggest you read my posts properly and try to retain some of the information-im spending 4-5 concentrating purely on fostering,then adopt but also carry on with fostering

MrsDeVere Sun 08-Sep-13 14:46:57

I have read them.
I understood.
That is why I wrote what I did.
HTH.

Kewcumber Sun 08-Sep-13 15:29:05

I adopted from another country
I have no birth children

Do I get to decide the policy as I am the only person on this thread not contributing to the populaiton explosion that is going to bring this country to its knees apparently hmm

On the other hand, I am a single parent and have at some point since having DS received CTC, WTC, free prescriptions and free school meals.

Oh god the internal conflict going on in my head - it may explode.

Then which of you would adopt DS? Can I choose?

MrsDeVere Sun 08-Sep-13 15:30:54

ooooh kew I am glad you popped up.
Go on, tell us how easy it was to adopt your DS.

<all ears>

MrsDeVere Sun 08-Sep-13 15:32:17

Just in case you have not RTFT

It has been put forward as a simple alternative to domestic adoption.

Kewcumber Sun 08-Sep-13 15:57:44

Oh yes. Piece of cake. I am saving the world one child at a time. I am a saint.

There is the little matter of the Hague convention to negotiate:

Every child has the right to a family life in pretty much the following order:

With birth family in home country
With adoptive family in home country
With adoptive family in any country.

Going to need a lot of lobbying to persuade them that taking children away from birth families who love and care for them to give to other families as their reward for being more financial responsible. But I don't see why we shouldn't get started on the campaign now.

In fact we should take children away from financially irresponsible families and give them to adoptive families in other countries - even saves the UK being financially burdened with them. No need to be racist and assume that UK should be a receiving country - especially as we are so poor and all. We should be sending our children abroad. God that's such a brilliant idea - I may run for government under that single issue solution.

"Send children of feckless families to be adopted overseas" I'm sure we've never tried that before...

Personally I'd euthanise the over 70's they're a much bidder drain and lets be honest they don;t have much financial value do they?

Kewcumber Sun 08-Sep-13 16:03:32

I'd love to adopt again. If anyone would like to offer their youngest child I'd be happy to consider them. Of course you will need to make a full pitch with character references, school reports etc as I am a sought after prospective parent - only one child, financially relatively stable, experienced at dealing with adoption issues including (but not limited to) bonding attachment sleep and feeding, culture and identity issues.

But I'm not taking any hoi polloi - only the best will get through the screening process the feckless ones will have to go to untried parents. I have standards to maintain. But I will accept applications from Naice People - only the deserving poor need apply.

MrsDeVere Sun 08-Sep-13 16:30:17

<falls in love with Kew>

Dawndonnaagain Sun 08-Sep-13 20:17:05

Is it bad that I'm sniggering like a school girl, in fact there may even have been a snort!
Nicely done, Kew

Dawndonnaagain Sun 08-Sep-13 20:17:56

dysfunctional you're living up to the first half of your name and the passive aggressive crap is boring now.
Go away and grow up.

dysfunctionallynormal Mon 09-Sep-13 15:03:30

Devere- i did not put it forward as a 'simple alternative to domestic adoption'! (Can you point out exactly wjere i said that?!) Perhaps you should stop with the passive aggressive crap of deliberately twisting my words and making up rubbish. I questioned why people feel they are entitled to have as many 'birth' children as they want when they can't support them,if it's a bigger family you want then you can still have and more should be done to encourage people to adopt. We need to value the lives already here- YOU asked the crass question 'where will future adoptees come from?',as though we will 'run out'!!!

dysfunctionallynormal Mon 09-Sep-13 15:05:37

Grow up? And you accuse me of being passive aggressive?!!! :-D

MrsDeVere Mon 09-Sep-13 15:19:09

Yes
Where would all the prospective adopted children come from if people stopped having more children?

Apart from your suggestion of abroad?

You never did answer that.

Why is it a crass question?

I am utterly amazed (in a totally no passive aggressive way) they you have apparently a lot of experience in adoption yet you continue have the views you have expressed on this thread.

Most people once they dip a toe into adoption are disabused of these notions pretty damn quickly.

Yet you cling rigidly to your ideas

This can only lead me to three possible conclusions.
A. you are exaggerating your experience/knowledge
B. you are not listening to a word your social worker and prep group are telling you.
C. You find it pathologically difficult to have your views challenged in any way and refuse to compromise regardless of the evidence put in front of you.