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

[jellysandwich]

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).

I did do a semester on the history of medicine, I found it all a bit too gory, despite studying battles and what Columbus and the Pilgrim Fathers did!
I also deal with medics when I'm wearing my other hat as an ASD researcher, most are fine, but I've had the odd student I'd like to throw to the vipers on here!

yes, I enjoyed the history of medicine course the aqa did. the Irish question proced more tricky for the students. always tried to wangle myway into history classes.

haven't been able to in new workplace and role but sat in on a cold war session at A level

not read whole thread. immediate thought springs to mind. actually use info from the census, and don't make primary teachers redundant and close classrooms 5yrs before boom due. left hand, right hand hello?

Dawndonnaagain - marie stopes opened her clinics so women could access birth control and have control over their fertility - i.e CHOOSE to have smaller families and NOT be used as brood mares. it was also to educate women about sexual health. give me an example of where her personal opinions regarding the "feckles poor" were actually carried out......

BellaTheGooseIsDead - You're scraping the barrel there. trying to insult me but not succeeding. i take it you think all care leavers and those living in supported housing are inferior/stupid/ignorant?!!!!!
i helped said girl to fill out her forms so i know for definite utility bills can be subsidized. i take it you've never heard of Social Tariffs?? Go ahead and look into it. me, embarassed? No. you should be though, displaying such a lack of ignorance.

morethanpotatoprints - there is definitely cliquey behavior being displayed here. Specifically by those who keep twisting my words and attributing made up rubbish to me. what exactly about the adoption comments upset you? all i've said throughout is that those who want larger families (but can't afford them out of their own pocket) should be thinking about/encouraged to adopt. if they don't want to do that then they should stick with the kids they've got and not receive any funding for any additional children they give birth to. yes, i'm aware that children in care come with their own issues but tell me - are birth children a guarantee of perfect geniuses who will never be a challenge to bring up and care for? as an adopted child yourself you-more than most-should understand the need for encouraging people to adopt and for providing a lifelong support service to deal with issues that crop up. Go ahead-report away. the fact that you couldn't even understand why the term was used in the context of that sentence just proves you are not worth conversing with so i shan't be bothering with you after this post.

hobnob - i have a life outside of the internet and MN which is where i am when i'm not here.

JakeBullet - take a look at social tarrifs. just because you choose not to apply for them does not mean they do not exist. none of it is a figment of my imagination so no, i am NOT a liar.

to certain others: you're just proving yet again how you either don't read the post or you choose to ignore what is actually said and then twist what i'm saying. i have NOT decided to stop with fostering or adopting-i'm still going ahead. i never said i'd passed the panel because i haven't reached that stage yet (cue comments along the lines of "you won't either"). what i said was (just in acse that particular post has been deleted too) is that i am concentrating on fostering first, then i will be adopting in about 4-5 years time.

there is a big difference between the way someone converses online and the way they converse in real life-especially when dealing with vulnerable children!

my social worker didn't like me using the term in casual non-work related conversation when she was present so i respected her request. if any of you think that i would use that term when children are present you are deluded.

I did read your post DN you said "subsidised fuel" and I pointed out that just getting income support is not normally sufficient for these hardship payments. Not misreading your post at all there, just saying that you need to be certain of your facts before posting. If your acquaintance was getting these hardship payments then it is likely that there were other issues you were unaware of as there is not an infinite amount of money in the pot and fuel companies have strict criteria about who can and cannot apply.

Likewise, the rules regarding income support only changed in the last three years so your acquaintance had no need to have baby after baby to avoid the rules about going back to work. Why she would have said so to you back in 2002 therefore is a mystery to me.

Sorry I haven't read the whole of the last page I worked last night.

Jake can you give me the name of an electricity company that does not offer the fuel discount to those on IS? Because I spoke to a number of them last year and they all said that IS was the main qualifier, a few offered it to those on low income but very few.

Dawndonnaagain. You've only gone and got me interested in Marie Stopes! I never knew all those awful things about her . How easy it is for the history books to be rewritten - or at least leave out a number of awful facts.

The Eugenics stuff is horrible, and her prejudices quite open. In 'control of parenthood' she says that the earth could reach a utopia with racial purification and that the poor and feeble minded should be compulsorily sterilised. Even in her poetry she slags off Jews and promotes racial segregation. It really is quite shocking.

I never knew and I'm really shocked that the Clinics still bear her name (although as she was against abortion I suppose it is a way of sticking two fingers up at her)

Home management expert Wilena Hitching was into the whole eugenics thing too, I understand. The idea of creating the perfect 'national child' was fairly universal at that time. Sounds shocking now, doesn't it?

DN.

You havent quite grasped the point of social tariffs.

They have never been about subsidised fuel and they do not result in subsidised fuel ever, they were introduced to stop huge additional costs being put on prepayment meter use,

All they do is drop the price of the power to the same as that companies 'best' deal available to none prepayment customers and add the direct debit discount before the charges for having a meter are added on.

It still means prepayment meter customers pay more than billed customers but stops it being more than double the cost (as that's what most of the energy customers did when the meters became more usual because they added the charges and also started with the fuel being much more expensive.

So no person on a social tarrif will ever recive fuel cheaper than someone who does not qualify for the tarrif it just starts off at the same price. No energy supplier who does not or did not start off with the fuel unit price for prepayment meters on a massive hike compared to billed customers was ever obliged to provide a social tarrif other than the direct debit discount aspect of it. And they have been being phased out for quite a while now.

I expect you also fall into the section of people who think water is free if your on benefits that's also make believe but water companies do have to have a social tarrif but its got very little to do with out of work benefits to qualify you need a household member who has certain (actually named) disability or illness that requires higher water use and your water bill for the year gets set at the average for your area you do have to be on a meter but you won't get charged more than the area average for it.

Your acquaintance with the 5 kids she only needed 2/3 when she had her first child she wouldn't have had to activly seek work until the dc was 16 about 3 possibly 4 years ago it changed to 11 so for 15 years she only needed 1 straight away she would have needed an under 11 so that's 2 but she would have been perfectly safe for the next 5 years minimum.

As when they first changed it from 11 it dropped to 7 quite quickly after the 11 change and then again quite quickly it dropped again to 5.

She started in the early 90's so she would have needed to time another one for last year.

So perhaps she had them for other reasons like ohhh she wanted them.

jake it may be worth you looking into the water social tarrif as if your child also has problems cleaning him selfs after using the loo and it requires extra baths then if you can get medical evidence then you will qualify.

It won't help you if you use less than about £400/450 a year in water but it will if you do.

Filee.

If you spoke to them last year they would have told you that the social tarrifs for fuel started phase out 2 years ago in favour of the warm homes discount, They would have also told you that you didn't have to be on benefits to qualify you just had to prove that more than 10% of your income went on fuel and your income was not huge. And they would have also told you that if you could afford to be a billed customer and could manage a dd payment then it would be pointless applying for it as it would cost you more money

I remember in the early 2000s say about 2003 I went back to work when my DS was 6. I think if I hadn't that year my N.I. stamp wouldn't have been paid in the same way and i would have lost out.

It just doesn't seem joined up.

I know in the 70's alot of women lost out on pension contributions because of being at home with dc.

Thats weird pension contributions are tied into CB and CA and since the tie in started its never been less than 12 years worth of associated contributions that could be carried over. But off the top of my head I cannot remember when the link started.

Alemci was your ds a second child?

Oh and a few other benefits

Talking of "social tariffs" I would like to take this moment to advertise Ebico, an energy supplier with principles.

The Poor don't get free energy, but they don't get overcharged either. I'm not on a meter, but I use Ebico out of principle.

Everyone pays a fair price per unit with Ebico. www.ebico.org.uk/

Jessie,

Utilita also do the same thing

I'll add them to my white list then!

Lmao at someone lecturing a History lecturer on history.

Made me laugh too, particulary as I have quoted primary sources as has LtEve

Sockpixie you are wrong, my friend got a £190 subsidy last winter to help with her fuel. Based on the fact she was in receipt of IS. It was paid between November and march.

I think you might be confusing it with something else? It is also avaliable this year but needed to be applied for between March and I think December. Definitely avaliable from British gas for people earning below 17,000 or in receipt of IS or DLA and from N power for people in recipe of IS or DLA but not for people earning under 17,000.

No 3rd DC Sock Pixie. anyway I was glad to be in work even though I had done some pin money things before then IYSWIM.

the fuel costs are horrendous for all of us I think. I will be going around in a thick jumper again and trying to be sensible with the heating but it so over priced. never used to think about it.