Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Another Radford

344 replies

triedandtestedteacher · 08/04/2020 10:08

Is it me or are the Radfords a bit selfish? Loads of people congratulating them on social media about the new baby. I'm crippled with morning sickness at the moment and I know I'm not giving my dd 100 percent on this homeschooling as a result. How are they all getting homeschooled? How can they possibly attend to all the emotional, mental, physical and educational needs of those children? I caught one episode of their programme that showed her in hospital unable to attend her own son's birthday party because she was having yet another child. I know they say they're self sufficient with the bakery etc but they still use NHS and education resources. Her having that baby at this time is adding to the strain of the NHS. I just don't get how people can congratulate them

OP posts:
SleepingStandingUp · 08/04/2020 16:41

Having a baby specifically at this time isn't a fair thing to beat her with. Nine of us knew this was coming, certainly not 9 months ago. Anyone having babies right now are adding to the pressure on the NHS, could catch Clovid19, might miss a child's birthday

triedandtestedteacher · 08/04/2020 16:43

@SleepingStandingUp you've got much more chance of missing your child's birthday if there's 22 of them! I said that because it's symptomatic of the fact that her children suffer from her compulsion to reproduce

OP posts:
JonHammIsMyJamm · 08/04/2020 16:52

@Slychomping, I told you what would happen today in my post of 15:31.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

JonHammIsMyJamm · 08/04/2020 16:58

The 17 year old would be prosecuted for sexual activity with a child unless they could reasonably demonstrate that they believed the victim was 16+ year old.

So for Noel & Sue’s scenario, he would not be able to demonstrate this as he lived in close proximity to her and knew her through childhood. He would be prosecuted if it got to court.

Slychomping · 08/04/2020 17:57

I"m not disputing or avoiding that fact JonHamissismyjamm.

I am NOT defending sex with a 13 yr old. As I said earlier, it is indefensible.

TheArchSorcererofContwaraburg · 08/04/2020 17:59

Life is complicated. And of course the possibility of love (in the genuine sense) is rarely mentioned on Mnsnet!

She was THIRTEEN, FFS! THIRTEEN! I used to be in love with Robert Smith from The Cure when I was 13.

Slychomping · 08/04/2020 18:02

If you read my post properly TheArchSorcererofContwaraburg you will see that I was referring to my parents and to quote directly, I said

"I'm not saying that is the case with the Radford's by the way. I don't know them."

But go ahead, skew my words!

TheArchSorcererofContwaraburg · 08/04/2020 18:17

Oh, don't flatter yourself, Sly. People are perfectly capable of reading all your posts and find them a load of hot air and whatabouts.

Laaf80 · 08/04/2020 18:30

@Slychomping if I remember correctly she had her first child just after she turned 14 meaning that she was not long past 13 when she got pregnant.

Assuming she didn’t conceive quickly its quite possible that she was younger than 13 he first started having ‘sex’ with her.

Are you still comfortable with that?

TerribleCustomerCervix · 08/04/2020 18:45

Genuine question- because Sue has spent so much of her life pregnant (17 years or something), does that mean she likely still has a decent amount of eggs in reserve? Would it mean she was fertile for longer than a woman with a normal sized family?

notsureneversure · 08/04/2020 18:49

No I don’t believe it works like that.

gingerbreadslice · 08/04/2020 18:52

I read somewhere before as she probably doesn't have that many periods she isn't loosing eggs each month like a normal person would so her fertility is probably higher than someone who has a period each month especially seeing as she's never been on contraception.

MadamShazam · 08/04/2020 18:58

I can't stand them. Its bordering, if not fully blown insanity to actually want this many children. They cannot possibly attend to the emotional needs of all their kids.

oohnicevase · 08/04/2020 19:00

I don't understand why she has none with special needs , the odds are very much stacked against her! Especially now she is older !

ChocolateDove · 08/04/2020 19:03

@ChandlerIsTheBestFriend

What you said, and I think it's a bit of fear of abandonment.

Whatever it is, she is going to react badly when she can no longer get pregnant. Sad

PleaseStopCrying · 08/04/2020 19:11

I don't understand why she has none with special needs , the odds are very much stacked against her! Especially now she is older !

Several of her children will inevitably have some form of additional needs, such as dyslexia, eye sight problems, ADHD etc but they spend so little time with their parents attention focused on them as individuals that Sue and Noel have probably never noticed.

notsureneversure · 08/04/2020 19:15

Do they seriously have daughters called Bonnie, Ellie, Hallie, Aimee, Millie and Tillie?!? Please tell me I've got that wrong.

TerribleCustomerCervix · 08/04/2020 19:18

Imagine trying to find 22 baby names that you LOVED.

I’d have lost inspiration after child 8 and just started giving them numbers tbh.

Slychomping · 08/04/2020 19:21

TheArchSorcererofContwaraburg

Oh, don't flatter yourself, Sly. People are perfectly capable of reading all your posts and find them a load of hot air and whatabouts.

I'm not flattering myself. I am entitled to my opinion thank you. And my opinion is that we shouldn't all collectively judge the Radfords negatively when we don't know them. The law is clear but unfortunately, lots of teens have underage sex and sex with those who are underage. Are they all sex abusers? You could argue yes they are all. But do none of them grow and grow up to be responsible parents? You could possibly argue some of them do? I don't know for sure. What I am saying is that it is an uncomfortable subject and an uncomfortable thing to discuss...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it.

And no I am not comfortable with it at all Laaf80 . I am not trying to defend it. I simply came on here because I hate these threads who sneer at the Radfords who come across to me as a decent family. I don't know them from adam though and nor do many of the people posting here.

Even law lords have debates on this subject. Lady Hale said when judging the case of a 15 yr old boy in 2008 who had had sex with a 13 year old girl (different to the Radfords case I know)

"the law has disabled children under 13 from giving their consent. So there was no consent. In view of all the dangers resulting from under-age sexual activity, it cannot be wrong for the law to apply that label even if it cannot be proved that the child was in fact unwilling."

All of the judges agreed there were good policy reasons for a clear law which conveys the message, not only to adults but also to children, that sexual activity with a child under 16 is an offence. This is to protect children from themselves as well as from each other and from adults who may prey upon them. They acknowledged, however, that there will be large variations in the blameworthiness of behaviour which is caught by one of the child sex offences in the 2003 act, and that the age of the perpetrator is a highly relevant factor in this. Baroness Hale observed:

"Both prosecutors and sentencers will have to make careful judgments about who should be prosecuted and what punishment, if any, is appropriate. In many cases, there will be no reason to take any official action at all. In others, protective action by the children's services, whether in respect of the perpetrator or the victim or both, may be more appropriate."

triedandtestedteacher · 08/04/2020 19:28

@TerribleCustomerCervix my mum and I are both terrible at choosing names. My mum is particularly bad and only liked two girls names and so my sister and I have the same names in reverse. Think Sarah Jane and Jane Sarah. Embarrassing. So on that note I couldn't slate Sue

OP posts:
TheArchSorcererofContwaraburg · 08/04/2020 19:30

Oh, god, yes entitled. Hmm This wasn't a 13 and a 15-year-old but a 17-year-old. It's thick as pig swill, selfish and ignorant to have 22 bloody kids in a place where contraception is free, having more kids than you have time or a life for is irresponsible. They're irresponsible. They were known to lock the kids in their bedrooms at night, with Noel leering around, he needed nooky, couldn't be arsed parenting kids at night. That's child abuse and a fire hazard. It's quite apparent from watching that she has some serious psychological problems but rather than address them she just continues to pop out babies. But oh, those meanies just shouldn't judge Hmm.

I expect we'll hear much more from them now now the magic pie shop is shut, they'll be needing dosh. Probably have to move off tax credits due to income circumstance change, can you imagine UC for them?

MintyMabel · 08/04/2020 19:32

kids are always vying for attention from their mum especially the younger ones

I have a ten year old who is way more attended to than her peers (because of her disability) She still will want my attention any time she doesn’t have it.

maddiemookins16mum · 08/04/2020 19:35

I’m not a fan at all but some of these children are now fully grown adults with their own families, there aren’t 22 toddlers/babies.
That said, they give me the irrits.

TheFutureMrsHardy · 08/04/2020 19:47

The Radfords aren't the problem.

The problem is every single person that follows them on Instagram/Facebook. They have a captive audience for companies to bung them freebies in exchange for reviews/publicity and so the vicious cycle continues. They've been addicted to their notoriety, and until that worm turns, this will continue.

It's become a monster that I don't even think The Radfords have any control over anymore. 6 months time, she'll be pregnant again.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.