Sue Radford is pregnant....

[MadameFoner]

Just seen a post on Facebook...

I reckon if I got pregnant everytime I pined for my DD's baby days i'd have loads too (not as many as S.R as I didn't start at 13). I think lots of people would be the same but you have to stop at some point, enjoy the kids you have and start looking to the future.

I think it's because she has never been just 'Sue', always 'mummy'. She has no pre-baby days to look back on fondly like most do. The freedom to do as you please, spend your money how you like, time with your partner,travelling, getting roaring drunk on a Saturday night then having a lie in and bacon buttties on the Sunday. She has nothing to 'go back to'. It probably terrifies her.

Sue is very infantile isn't she? She seems stuck at 13.

I was adopted as a baby, I have absolutely no desire to have 22 children. Because you are adopted is not an excuse for this.

It's the knock on effect for the children too? Did anyone see the episode where one of the daughters moved away to uni and then came back? It was heartbreaking. Almost as if she had been such a mum figure to the younger ones she couldn't leave them behind!

I am adopted from a baby and I can really understand this, I'm glad I'm not as bad as this. I stopped at 3, but it wasn't a decision, I thought maybe 6 after the first.
There are lots of different attachment issues that can raise their ugly heads when you least expect them. That's not so hard to live with, once you understand.
But to be like they are is so sad for them as well as their children. It looks and sounds quite complex to me but I'm no expert. I think they need help and for society to stop either vilifying them or encouraging them.

I've met women like Sue who are infantile and have a babyish voice and most of them have or have had eating disorders. Not saying she has, in fact i don't think she has. But it's something to do with control and puberty isn't it?

I said earlier I've never seen the programme this family were in. I am going to try to find it now, this thread has piqued my interest.

This thread is exactly what gives MN it’s nasty reputation.

A whole load of supposition and bitchiness from adults who should really know better about people who, if you actually bothered to engage your brains, probably need support and understanding.

A lot of people on this thread really need to get a life of their own as they’re very over invested and opinionated about something they have seen a few times in the media (you do know that’s not often the whole story don’t you?). Sad really.

I feel for her existing children - they must be so gutted each time she announces a pregnancy.

We are all aware that the risk of Downs Syndrome is higher the older a woman is. God help them if they have a high needs baby.

Does this thread (and the other one) serve any real purpose?

Perhaps whichever television company it is that makes the documentaries contacts them every year to ask if she can please try for another one! Pay per pregnancy!

@Dorsetdays the truth is that this woman is pregnant again with her 20+th baby, having started with her first at 13 (getting pg)

That is not 'normal' behaviour, it is not right or fair for her, or her children.

I see no way anyone can judge them. They pay their way.

But they don't. They have claimed child benefit and tax credits, and are also taking a fortune out of the state in terms of health care and free education. Your reference to one couple taking £16K a month out of a chain of bakeries is utterly irrelevant.

I have nothing but utter contempt for this pair.

ca ching
Can't believe that companies and tv are all over them he was 18 when he had got 14 year old child pregnant.

She was 13 when she got pregnant and 14 when she gave birth. Grim.

Princess. It’s not normal for you.

But a) what gives you the right to judge without knowing these people personally and therefore knowing all the facts (not just what you read in the media) and b) why do you even care?

And it’s not the comments about benefits that I have an issue with (although I don’t agree with those) it’s the personal comments about the state of her body, what terrible parents they must be etc etc that I have issue with.

But they don't. They have claimed child benefit and tax credits, and are also taking a fortune out of the state in terms of health care and free education.

Why don't you focus on the real problems this country has like tax evasion? In the scheme of things the Radfords haven't single handedly bled the state dry.

What concerns me is, what will happen to Sue when she can't have babies any more? What will happen to her relationship etc? She must have spent almost her entire life being pregnant. She clearly is a vulnerable person and is her husband going to support her when this finally happens?

Is that you Sue?

Its deeply concerning. There is absolutely no need to keep having babies.

I agree with moomin i don't care about the benefits (or not) or resources. I don't think Noel is her abuser, he seems infantile too. There's just something wrong with both of them and it's very exploitative to make a show out of them.

Fair play that their house isn't chaos and they're churning out meals for 24 every day though, i couldn't do it. They must have a cleaner.

I assume the older children do most of the chores round the house, well the girls anyway.

Why don't you focus on the real problems this country has like tax evasion? In the scheme of things the Radfords haven't single handedly bled the state dry.

Because it's not a competition. 'Real problems' can be tax evasion and the Radfords take.

@Dorsetdays

Princess. It’s not normal for you.

And most of the rest of the country?

normal - adjective
1. conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
"it's quite normal for puppies to bolt their food"

How many families do you know who have 20+ dc? Youd probably struggle to know anyone with half the amount