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.
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).
thanks to the info on Marie stopes, had absolutely no idea about her interests in eugenics.really shocked
"bleating"????? and you think you're fit to be a parent and around children??????
actually i just came onto MN today since i last responded and saw her post - so i chose to reply. i already have a life. sounds like you're the ones who need one!
yy, please do. Something which doesn't involve children.
Are you still bleating on about this 10 days after the thread came to a end?
MrsD: "Oh dear DN.
I am not the first person to have said that to you on MN am I?
Or the second
Or the third
Thankyou for confirming my earlier statement - that you and your chums were behaving in a very cliquey manner :-) You are referring to another thread where a similar conversation was taking place. It is natural to have people agree or disagree with someone's opinion, and for you to "dig out" and focus on those that disagree with my opinion is very childish.
i don't know what it's like where you live but in my city, foster agencies and the LA tend to vet people very well before deciding to use their resources on training them as foster carers. My LA and foster agency don't have a problem with my "views" or "opinions" or my suitability to be a foster carer- probably because they actually LISTENED to what i was saying and where i was coming from and KNOW me, instead of getting in a huff and distorting my words because they might have a different opinion.
just so we're clear - they also have no issue with me choosing to be a lifelong foster carer (until ill health or retirement age kick in) AND adopting a child in 5 years time. i don't know why you think that is a problem.
also, i don't have right wing views. I asked you about your stance on abortion because of your comments re Marie Stopes and "women are forced to have late abortions". It's just that you come across as someone who takes an instant dislike to people who don't share your opinions....
MrsD: As usual you are putting your own spin on things, i don't know what you get out of it but it's very sad. "You using the phrase 'selfish breeders' and talking blithely about overseas adoption and your plan to foster for a few years, adopt and then foster again are all red flags".....
...."selfish breeders" is my OPINION re those who choose to keep having children they CANNOT afford - whether that is simply because they want them or because the total benefits they will recieve enable them to live a work-shy lifestyle (as in the example i gave you).
"You cannot present your extreme views, your obvious dislike and your narrow perspective on the very families whose children you would be fostering and NOT expect SS to take them very seriously" .....
....how very broadminded of you to assume that ALL foster children come from the EXACT same background! So my saying that people should be more responsible when it comes to having children are extreme?!!!
"I have remained pretty calm on this thread despite your posts directed at me which have lurched between hysterical, insulting and snide"....
....there you go again exaggerating - you and your chums jumped on ME for daring to voice an opinion that differs to yours!
"Foster carers, adopters, adoptees and social care workers have tried to reason with you but you will just not listen"....
...no, i tend NOT to take seriously the opinions of those who choose to ignore/twist my words and declare themselves as the ultimate authority - ESPECIALLY seeing as i have discussed everything in depth with my foster agency and SW and their opinion vastly differs from yours.
Ok so I haven't read the whole thread, apologies if I repeat anything. A few questions to pose: If we're talking economics and what we can afford, why is the automatic focus on children and tax credits/benefits? What about zeroing in on large multinationals that make megabucks but pay bugger all in taxes? I live in NZ and it was reported that last year Google and FB paid less than 2% income tax on their revenue here. Given the starting personal tax rate at 19% and GST at 15%, how the heck is the average family on tax credits more of a liability? Do these companies pay tax anywhere? One of our biggest national companies is owned by SDAs and is somehow listed as a charitable organization with huge tax write-offs - WTF? Again I wonder why the extreme focus on child benefits to 'fix' the economy - seriously? More like a distraction from the real problem of free-market gone very, very wrong.
As far as overpopulation is concerned, as a PP said, focus on the emancipation & education of women - that will go a long way to world birth rates reducing, as will long-term poverty alleviation - it will do far more than somehow trying to curtail rights to reproduction. China is not an example we should follow, for obvious well-documented reasons. However for those prone to extremes, how about we look at curtailing the age the general population lives to? Perhaps state-paid medical care should be hospice-type care only over a certain age, to discourage rising life expectancy. In purely biological terms a younger, stronger population is a better use of resources. Just a few thoughts to weigh in the overpopulation discussion.
missymayhemsmum, I think a lot of people who actually live in rural areas would be delighted by this!
Our school had a playing field in July before school broke up for the summer holidays. We've come back now this week and there's only half a one as portacabin type classrooms have sprung up out of nowhere.
Children can't play football while all the work goes on, and there's the monstrosities everywhere.
About 4 altogether. We're in the North, so nowhere near London.
I haven't read all the replies, as there's 26 pages and it's already 11pm, I'll be here all night and I'm tired!
Although I do think the OP, although goady, has a point re: the child benefit capping. NOT at children who are already here, obviously, but effective from now.
Something needs to be done,
Stop people having second homes in villages, then maybe families could afford to move out of the shitty cities into somewhere decent and we could stop closing rural schools?
But agreed- no planning permission for new homes unless there are surplus school places.
DeVere - how predictable! if all else fails then accuse me of the above! ha!
as though my personal opinion re the state of the world/country/peoples personal choices are so terrible that my social worker etc would deem me a "bad person" and try to change them!!!! next you will be telling me only married heterosexual couples of the christian faith are good enough to adopt!!! you never did answer my earlier question re the Marie Stopes comment you made - are you anti abortion or pro-choice? That viewpoint would not stop you from adopting....
Childless people should absolutely get a discount.
Once they have refunded all the money that was spent on them by the state when they were children themselves.
I once suggested giving childless couples money - a sort of rebate for saving the country money on education, NHS etc.
Aren't they usually better off with more disposable income. Teenagers bleed you dry!
Anyway, I think a lot of people would like to have more children, but don't because of economic reasons. This is a biggie in bringing birth rates down.
I've also seen a huge influx of Eastern Eauropeans to my area over recent years. Many of whom have had children. Clearly they have every right to be here and have children. The fact is that lots of people come to live here and that means more children.
Forcing people to stop at two is a bit eugenicsy.
Buying them or starting them and then selling them very soon afterwards for profit, over and over again. No real interest in long term of business, not something I approve of. And they only pay something like 18% tax on profits.
Poor child, If that isn't over stepping the mark. The fall out can follow you throughout life and many people have no idea.
My life was blessed, with wonderful parents and I was only a few months old when adopted. Anybody would think what on earth do you have to complain about, especially when so many people have experienced awful situations through being adopted or fostered.
I am so glad your son has the stability of a loving parent (s) now, and know that you are all blessed with each other.
My one passion is the hatred of the society who treated my bm so badly, the only thing she did was to become pregnant. I think they were barbaric and the thought that even one person feels such disdain towards a young pregnant woman in this age really sickens me to the stomach.
My son was institutionalised for the first year of his life. Would be very happy to have a discussion with anyone about the supposed benefits of children's homes (though I agree there is a limited place for them).
It was a lovely home with lovely women who cared for him. he left just after he was one and at 8 we still deal with the fall out.
I am. I'm bloody marvellous.
But if you are financially responsible your child is safe (for now... just don;t get pregnant accidentally or get made redundant 'cos I'll be watching yoooooooo......)
I used to work for a homeless womens hostel which started in victorian times as a family hostel. They were one of the few enlightened hostels which kept families together (albeit in separate sex dormitories). But to get in you had to be interviewed by a panel to ensure you were deserving poor and not through "moral turpitude" I think was the phrase.
Maybe we could bring that back. Chidlren separated for their family unless they can prove they deserve to keep them. "Peoples Panels" (that has a ring to it) kind of like the reverse of adoption panels - peoples panels decide who gets taken away and adoption panels decide who gets whom.
Otherwise we're going to have to do it on a strict first in first out rota.
How about people who mistreat their children but can afford to keep them without benefits I think we should be consistent - children should either stay in families who can take care of them emotionally and physically regardless of their financial position or we should leave any children in families who can afford them regardless of how they're treated.
Bugger - think we might need some more social workers. Oooh job creation scheme! Double benefit - I'm on a roll here.
Please stop with the "child catcher" comments, you are scaring me. You can't have my dd, I won't let you.
I think you must be a wonderful person and fantastic mum btw
You sum up pretty well imo, and it is me this time saying I couldn't have put it better.
I find it exasperating and so far removed from how I have always believed adoptive parents thought. Tbh, it has been a bit of an eye opener.
I know I am not a professional but have tried to keep up with modern day practice because it interests me so much. There have been times when I have had to know a little bit even by just helping out at nursery when dc were little, or as a TA at school.
I too would like to know where all the children would come from and believe it was the assumption that the "financial abuse" comments would entail children being removed from parents who couldn't raise them without state support. If this is the case then obviously there would be thousands of children in the care system because most families receive some kind of support working or not.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.