Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

to think that when there is a schools place crisis perhaps the government should think of ways to reduce birth rates?

647 replies

jellysandwich · 04/09/2013 10:27

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).

OP posts:
BoffinMum · 06/09/2013 07:08

Dysfunction, how is that 2002 character really any different from the middle class woman who refuses to work, stays at home and sponges off blokes for an income, for example via alimony/child support, etc? Because I saw many of them driving around in 4 x 4s during my days as a private school teacher, using their kids as meal tickets, and not always being the best of parents either

filee777 · 06/09/2013 07:09

I said I would not want someone in the army to adopt or foster a child of mine, I went on to say that some would be happy with it but I would not.

Please stop picking and choosing which things you choose to quote MrsD because it is very unrepresentative of what's actually been said and in the case of deleted posts is not allowed.

Loeri · 06/09/2013 07:17

Why would you not want someone in the army to foster or adopt, Filee?

ubik · 06/09/2013 07:32

You mean you didn't get the plasma screen TV allowance Jake? Shock Grin

filee777 · 06/09/2013 07:34

That wasn't my point.

A pp had mentioned that another poster shouldn't adopt because they had a different political viewpoint to them. My point was that I would feel exactly that way about someone in the army (trained to kill when told, go into conflicts without thought as long as orders were given) there is a lot about the training of the armed forces that would mean I would be uncomfortable with my child growing up in that environment. But I went on to say that many would be very pleased to have an army member adopt, my point was that different people have different stances and view points and it is not up to a person on an Internet forum to decide whether or not they are able to foster or adopt a child. I thought it was judgemental at best and at worse it would have made potential foster carers wonder if they would be 'allowed to' if they weren't woolly liberals, which is simply not the case!

JakeBullet · 06/09/2013 07:35

Nah....bastards Grin

And I thought benefits came with such gadgets too.

I do have an iPad but someone gave DS that to help him with school work so it doesn't count.

Plus I now have a brown leather sofa which someone gave me last week. A off to report myself in the MN style crimes thread.....it is awfully comfortable though AND I can wipe it clean.

LtEveDallas · 06/09/2013 07:44

Filee, don't you get embarrassed when you have to LIE to put your point across. That isn't what you said AT ALL, and you know it.

I would be mortified to be that disingenuous. You know you've LOST te arguement when you have to resort to lies. How very sad.

filee777 · 06/09/2013 07:47

That's exactly what I said, you reported it and it was deleted, we shouldn't even be talking about it anymore

My exact words were

'I wouldn't want a Lt adopting or fostering one of my children because they are prepared to kill under orders'

I then said that many people would be very comfortable with people in the armed forces adopting but it's something that makes me uneasy. Different strokes for different folks so its impossible to judge based on political stance whether someone will be a good foster parent or not.

That is what I said. And I stand by it, I don't have to lie and because I don't feel the need to ask to remove posts I don't like, I would have been able to find it and repost it if needed.

MrsDeVere · 06/09/2013 07:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsDeVere · 06/09/2013 07:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsDeVere · 06/09/2013 07:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LtEveDallas · 06/09/2013 07:53

I said I hoped that Dysfunctionallynormal would not be able to foster after her fifth post where she posted about 'selfish breeders' and demonised the fictional girl she knew who had 5 children just to get benefits. It was nothing to do with politics. It was the language she used, the mistruths she posted about out of work benefits (that she is now denying) and the rudeness she displayed to MrsDeVere.

I made personal attacks, yes, I admit it. I didn't call her a cunt or anything, but I did say certain things about her attitude and language (that of course I cannot repeat or I will be deleted again).

I don't need to lie to put my point across. I still believe I was justified in saying what I did, but I accept that I shouldn't have said it in the way I did. Sometimes the red mist gets the better of me, generally when a poster is being rude about someone I like.

I don't like the re-writing of history and backtracking. It makes debates such as this one worthless when people have to lie. Better to tell the truth and have your view changed than to lie just to pretend you are correct.

filee777 · 06/09/2013 07:57

I believe I was justified in saying what I did, you believe people with her opinions shouldn't adopt, I believe people with your job shouldn't adopt.

I haven't said anything about people ganging up on me or subsidised electric (?) again MrsD you are putting words in my mouth that I just haven't said, or alluded to.

I think you must just be getting a bit confused. Only one of my posts has been deleted. I thought it was quite acceptable to point out that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, indeed your personal inability to read a debate correctly, stick to the topic being discussed or accept a different viewpoint would make me question your abilities as a foster carer, but I don't make those decisions and would never pretend to.

filee777 · 06/09/2013 08:00

I haven't back tracked, or lied. Another poster brought up a deleted post and I explained it ( again) that would be easier if the post were still here. I actually think you read the first paragraph of it (being that I wouldn't agree with a child of mine being raised by someone in the army) and ignored the rest of the post (where I said many people would be happy with that but I would prefer a different political stance so we shouldn't be deciding who can/can't adopt) because you were too busy throwing your arms in the air, attacking another poster and hiting report.

Shame really.

IneedAsockamnesty · 06/09/2013 08:17

Filee, I believe I was one of the posters who said that she probaly wouldn't be allowed to adopt and it was nothing to do with politics,

It was because of the intentional use of very hateful negative language and view points directed predominantly towards the circles that most children waiting to be adopted come from.

When you adopt a child you have a duty towards that child to not further damage them with your own use of language and opinions as well as not using them for your own needs.it is one of those situations where a neutral approach to social backgrounds is required.

LtEveDallas · 06/09/2013 08:26

Filee, because I am NOT a nob, I think it is worth me pointing out that when you get into a dialogue with MNHQ about deleted posts the posts are repeated in the email trails. Something worth thinking about.

filee777 · 06/09/2013 08:26

She already has a social worker who is aware of her views, she IS adopting, so you are wrong SP.

filee777 · 06/09/2013 08:27

Well then feel free to repost it Lt.

If you are so sure, do be sure to post the whole post though, not just the bit of it you chose to quote in the first instance.

MrsDeVere · 06/09/2013 08:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

IneedAsockamnesty · 06/09/2013 08:31

I'm pretty sure she's said she's not going down that road because she's decided not to.

I'm also pretty sure she said the social worker is not happy with her use of language and has challenged her on it so she no longer uses phrases like that around the sw.

MrsDeVere · 06/09/2013 08:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

filee777 · 06/09/2013 08:33

Again, a bunch of stuff I haven't said. Where have I tried to tell you about adoption? I have always talked of the political stance in reference to big families and benefits.

Again, you are confused. I haven't said anything about you being unfit to adopt because (as I said to Lt originally and have done many times since) it is not my or your place to say that.

MrsDeVere · 06/09/2013 08:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsDeVere · 06/09/2013 08:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

alemci · 06/09/2013 08:38

Dawn Donna not sure about your take on Marie Stopes. When I was supporting a student doing GCSE RS we studied MS from the C of E and catholic point of view on procreation in the 20 century. It tied in with sex before marriage debate

In some ways she was helping poor people who didn't want to keep on having yearly pregnancy and was offering contraceptive advice. there were no benefits or mod cons so things would have been awful for the very poor and at least they would have some control over not being continually pregnant. She did not support abortion and in some ways she was forward thinking and radical in those times.