Sue Radford is pregnant....

[MadameFoner]

Just seen a post on Facebook...

One of my relatives has 10 children. They are the closest, most loving people I've ever had the pleasure to know. Yes, the older girls looked after the younger children, each older child (including the boys) had one younger one they were responsible for, etc. They have all grown up and are having their own children - in some cases having grandchildren!

All contributing positively to society, not just financially but in all sorts of other ways, they each make their own little bit of the world a better place.

It doesn't matter what money they earn and use to provide their kids with. The fact is that each child needs a school place, uses roads, libraries, water, electricity etc so the toll to the government and the environment is high.
And lets not forget that the last TWO kids she said we're her last. The fact she is pregnant again just shows she has serious issues. Addicted to having children.

Don't agree about the CB argument being outdated. The law changed in 2013, I don't suppose anyone is seriously suggesting they didnt claim before then. It is extremely hypocritical for someone to slag off benefits claimants whilst having been happy to trouser their family's share, to the tune of nearly 5 figures annually when eligible and by my calculations not far south of 6 figures in their lifetime, stopping only when the law prevented it. That is a dick move.

Sorry that was hinch/ kondo (as in Marie) empire

For me it isn't the benefits side, everyone is so quick to say they don't claim them but 22 kids, how much does every pregnancy cost the NHS? Every kids jabs, every funded nursery place, every school place. They are a bigger drain on tax payers than a unemployed single mum with 2 kids and we all know who gets more grief.

Oh they are a big strain on the taxpayer. But that’s really not The worst thing about being a family of 22

Nope. Irritated as I am by the hypocrisy, I think it's much worse that the older girls are co-opted into unpaid nannying.

People fawn over them saying she's a supermum etc but the very obvious truth is that she has a whole host of helpers in the form of her daughters behind her, she certainly isn't parenting alone. Chloe once was explaining to her next-in-line what she would have to do when she went to uni and it was cooking, washing up, bathing/feeding children, putting them to bed, babysitting. Chloe used to even do night feeds for the recent babies and they would sleep in her bed with her. It's a massive disservice to the older girls to say that Sue is doing it all by herself.

*“I think Sue either has some sort of attachment disorder and/or learning difficulties, there is something so immature and child like about her. With her experience she could be some sort of parenting guru, but she just sits and giggles like a young teen at everything. I don't think they have a lot of patience, it's more they cannot see the whole picture.”
*
This

Jux
Large families can work well but the Radfords have more than double the number of children of your relative. As I said upthread DH is one of 12 and none of his siblings have chosen to have 12 children.

MN inconsistent deletion habits strike again.

I would really love to know how suggesting sue radford has learning difficulties is fine but suggesting having a baby at 14 is traumatic isn’t ok. MNHQ have banned me for questioning the inconsistency here. They’ve told me they are watching the thread and I’ve pointed out loads of speculation (which is apparently why my post was deleted) yet it all remains and my post removed. I posted it again to prove a point- that they had actually seen the other comments and chosen to leave them. lo and behold my post is removed, I’m banned and yet other far worse posts remain.

I don’t get it. I’ve asked via email and they’re refusing to respond. Of course they’ll just delete this post and ban this account rather than actually admit they’re not applying the rules consistently.

They've had lots of help from both sets of grandparents too. I don't think either of them is particularly blessed in the braincell department.

It's particularly depressing that the only reason they've had the last half-dozen babies is for the fame and associated cash/freebies. If only they'd dedicated as much time to parenting as they do to their various self-publication activities.

I'd love to know what the local schoolteachers think of the children, some of them must've had a Radford child in the class for the last 20-odd years.

I mean likening them to the turpins is fine??? But saying having a child at 14 is traumatic isn’t fine?

Speculation about their motives for having so many children, speculation about their finances, speculations about sues body, people saying they’re neglectful- all fine. Saying child birth at 14 is traumatic = not fine and a bannable offence!

ImJoxer MN inconsistent deletion? And in other news, the Pope is catholic

@Imjoxer I would assume that the Radford's are most concerned about the underage aspect being talked about therefore your post/s have been deleted. Last time a MNHQ warning statement told us that the thread was 'being watched' and we were all responsible for what we said.

Yeah it’s nothing new, except I’ve now been banned for questioning it. That’s new.

Cardamom the reason I was given for the deletion was that it was speculation which MN don’t allow. Which is fine- except there is a LOT of speculation on this thread that has been pointed out to MNHQ and still remains. So clearly speculation isn’t the reason. In which case give the right reason!

The one's I reported have all been deleted, it wasn't ImJoxer though, I don't think.
The one's I reported weren't speculation, but downright nasty.

I’ve no problem with my posts being deleted for speculation. As long as ALL speculation is deleted. As it stands there are some pretty grim posts being left to stand on the thread making it look like I’ve posted something absolutely horrific for it to be bad enough to be deleted. And I really have a problem with posters being banned for questioning deletion policy.

ImJoxer

I have just reported one for speculation, and another accusing them of neglect. I'll let you know It is unfair of MNHQ to allow some to speculate and accuse and yet others allowed to stand.

Thanks drabarni

OMG not again.

DeRigeurMortice (your username gives me the shudders!).

In contemporary times if one is going to ensure their children are exposed to a wide range of quality extra-curricular activities and further, absolutely ensure their children get into highly selective grammar schools and top professional courses at Russell Group Universities in the very least, then one child constitutes a medium sized family, two children constitute a large family, everything else is insanity. And zero children constitute a small family.

This may not be true if you have millions and millions of pounds in the bank, which I certainly do not have.