Are the Radford's massive piss takers?

I certainly can't speak personally to that but, through tracing my family tree I am definitely aware of ancestors of mine who had in the mid teens (eg 15 or 16) children.

Although this was typically spread out over 20-25 years eg from the age of 20 to the age of 45.

Today, doctors talk about "geriatric" mothers at the age of 36-37, but looking at my family tree there were certainly quite a proportion of my female ancestors who were giving birth into their 40s.

Perhaps something's changed in recent years?

Although on a much lesser scale, my paternal grandmother had ten children from the age of 21 to the age of 40.

I think we have to be very careful throwing accusations of paedophilia around.

It means being attracted to someone who is pre-pubescent. And being interested in predatory power and sex; not long relationships generally.

I am not advocating 13 year olds being sexually active. Or that 17/18 year olds have sex with 13 year olds btw!

They had their first child when Sue was 14 and Noel was 18. Not ideal by any means. But teens do sometimes have sex at that age unfortunately.

And their relationship has lasted many years; it’s not that unusual to have a four year gap between a wife and husband! It’s the fact it started so young that’s unusual but they are both adopted so that could explain it to a certain extent. It certainly explains why they chose to keep their first babies as teens.

I don't care what they do but I do care that folk forget that he was technically a pedophile she was about 14/15 and he was 18 when first child born .why do folk celebrate this .because they eventually married .sorry no way would I celebrate them the older kids basically look after younger while they going on having children for profit

Exploiting your own children’s privacy for cash is abusive

These family instagrammers get more desperate for likes so start to divulge more and more of their kids every moments

Two dads in London started out being advocates of same sex adoptive parents but now think nothing of plastering their kids faces and educational and medical details to their millions of followers.

Joe Wicks could just post about exercise but constantly used his kids - the other day he even shamed his little girl on camera by making her admit she was in her baby brothers baby grow as she had wet herself. I mean FFS.

and the holy grail of exploiting kids- the Saccone Joly family. How they evaded social services I do not know.

Do their own their 10 bedroom home or is it a council home?

I think over the years they have probably had a lot of money in child benefit. I expect as they have been together so long they are mortgage free, plus having their own business.

I doubt he’s making £18,500 a week otherwise everyone would be opening pie shops!

How come they’re still getting child benefit?

Tax credit was basically £100 a week per child. And then if they were in Nursery, you could claim an additional £300 up to 2 children. Per week.
It would’ve been an extraordinary amount

They definitely used to claim tax credits because they said so at the time.

They have had an absolute fortune in child benefit over the years.

There have been 22 births. A birth with no problems costs the NHS around £10,000 so add that up plus I think some of the births have been caesareans which, obviously, are a higher cost to the NHS.

Schooling for that many children, doctor appointments, dentist appointments etc.

They have cost this country a fortune

I think they used to say something along the lines of 'we don't get anything we're not entitled to' but yes did actively avoid any questions about TC. In the early days the TC system was very generous, so they would have been entitled to a significant amount.

I also remember in the early days there was another family featured who had a similiar size brood but the portrayal of the two families was very different. The Radford's were this wonderful wholesome family who could do no wrong and were fully supporting the family with the magic pie shop, the other family were total scroungers as they claimed TC, despite both parents working full-time.

I have no idea how they managed to get such a positive spin on their life.

I remember one of the older ones attempting to go to university and they couldn't handle it. Sue wasn't very encouraging and almost gleeful when they quit

It’s not racism to point out that there is a difference in how some large families are perceived compared to others

I'd love to know if the children are getting paid? I'd very much doubt it as the oldest lot are all in council housing. Bet Sue thinks endless Disney holidays are payment enough 🤷‍♀️

Hardly

as soon as the girls reach 18 they have their own babies

I used to watch it but far too scripted now. I don't believe they didn't claim tax credits. They would have been raking it in.

Between the two companies, Mr and Mrs Radford appear to have taken out over £90,000 as "Director's Loans" during the course of just one year.

Women who have that many children are mentally ill and don't ever consider the impact on the children. I've read a little about her and it sounds like she had a messed up childhood and craved love. Didn't he get her pregnant under age?

Exactly, cop on @Oioisavaloy27

@TaylorSwish

They probably see this as the norm and probably their only way of escaping and being housed.

I sometimes wish that I hadn't heard of them...

No, there is no excusing that sort of behaviour but there’s also no excusing racism either. Also far from normal behaviour. What is wrong with you, do you literally have no shame or decency? Trying to chalk this up to being about race - twice? Absolute thicko.

The who?

even if he did, I highly doubt his net income is anywhere close to 18k a week.

You actually think he bakes and sells 4000 pies a week?