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).

The reason why smart meters are touted as being cheaper is due to the ability to see your usage monitor it and reduce accordingly bugger all to do with the cost per unit

That's very true. I might ask them for a bill showing this. They don't send them, do they?

Still, totally agree that "subsidised utility bills" isn't quite the case and is an emotive and sweeping exaggeration. Not the first time I've seen it on here sadly and yy to "free water", Sock. Seems to be a common assumption by people who have no clue.

I lived in a flat once where they had wired up the wrong meters to the wrong flats and I had to pay my neighbours rather excessive bill for a while, until I did the calculations of actual use and challenged the Electricity Board about this. I did get it refunded in the end but imagine if I had not known how to calculate wattage and so on?

some of the biggest family's i know come from working parents not parents on benefits in fact its rare to find a huge family without at least one working parent where do people get the idea it is easy living on benefits (oh yes the government?)

I think it's about fifty-fifty. XH's ex has nine DC from five sorry excuses for men but I also know a family of seven DC with parents who work very long hours.

Large families did used to be almost unheard of when I was growing up in the seventies and the exceptions would nearly always be Tory councillors / local MP. This was long before expenses were queried and there would be much speculation as to how they could afford their lifestyles!

I know a fair few big families and the money either comes via wealthy grandparents or flipping businesses for profit, when you ask people. Certainly not salaried work.

I've never heard the term flipping businesses, what does it mean?

I did have one year out to go back to college Sock Pixie so that could be it. thanks

I've heard about flipping homes but not businesses which was bad enough. What scam is this?

Thanks for the answers all. I think I am going to look into Utilita with DNeice when I see her this week. Always worried she'll think I'm sticking my nose in, but tbh I don't think she'll know about them - she is pretty sheltered IYKWIM. On line top-up would work really well for her now she is poorly, and maybe I could help more too (we live over an hour away).

Devere-i suggest you read my posts properly and try to retain some of the information-im spending 4-5 concentrating purely on fostering,then adopt but also carry on with fostering

I adopted from another country
I have no birth children

Do I get to decide the policy as I am the only person on this thread not contributing to the populaiton explosion that is going to bring this country to its knees apparently

On the other hand, I am a single parent and have at some point since having DS received CTC, WTC, free prescriptions and free school meals.

Oh god the internal conflict going on in my head - it may explode.

Then which of you would adopt DS? Can I choose?

Oh yes. Piece of cake. I am saving the world one child at a time. I am a saint.

There is the little matter of the Hague convention to negotiate:

Every child has the right to a family life in pretty much the following order:

With birth family in home country
With adoptive family in home country
With adoptive family in any country.

Going to need a lot of lobbying to persuade them that taking children away from birth families who love and care for them to give to other families as their reward for being more financial responsible. But I don't see why we shouldn't get started on the campaign now.

In fact we should take children away from financially irresponsible families and give them to adoptive families in other countries - even saves the UK being financially burdened with them. No need to be racist and assume that UK should be a receiving country - especially as we are so poor and all. We should be sending our children abroad. God that's such a brilliant idea - I may run for government under that single issue solution.

"Send children of feckless families to be adopted overseas" I'm sure we've never tried that before...

Personally I'd euthanise the over 70's they're a much bidder drain and lets be honest they don;t have much financial value do they?

I'd love to adopt again. If anyone would like to offer their youngest child I'd be happy to consider them. Of course you will need to make a full pitch with character references, school reports etc as I am a sought after prospective parent - only one child, financially relatively stable, experienced at dealing with adoption issues including (but not limited to) bonding attachment sleep and feeding, culture and identity issues.

But I'm not taking any hoi polloi - only the best will get through the screening process the feckless ones will have to go to untried parents. I have standards to maintain. But I will accept applications from Naice People - only the deserving poor need apply.

Is it bad that I'm sniggering like a school girl, in fact there may even have been a snort!

Nicely done, Kew

dysfunctional you're living up to the first half of your name and the passive aggressive crap is boring now.
Go away and grow up.

Devere- i did not put it forward as a 'simple alternative to domestic adoption'! (Can you point out exactly wjere i said that?!) Perhaps you should stop with the passive aggressive crap of deliberately twisting my words and making up rubbish. I questioned why people feel they are entitled to have as many 'birth' children as they want when they can't support them,if it's a bigger family you want then you can still have and more should be done to encourage people to adopt. We need to value the lives already here- YOU asked the crass question 'where will future adoptees come from?',as though we will 'run out'!!!

Grow up? And you accuse me of being passive aggressive?!!! :-D

MrsDeVere.

You sum up pretty well imo, and it is me this time saying I couldn't have put it better.

I find it exasperating and so far removed from how I have always believed adoptive parents thought. Tbh, it has been a bit of an eye opener.
I know I am not a professional but have tried to keep up with modern day practice because it interests me so much. There have been times when I have had to know a little bit even by just helping out at nursery when dc were little, or as a TA at school.

I too would like to know where all the children would come from and believe it was the assumption that the "financial abuse" comments would entail children being removed from parents who couldn't raise them without state support. If this is the case then obviously there would be thousands of children in the care system because most families receive some kind of support working or not.

Kew

Please stop with the "child catcher" comments, you are scaring me. You can't have my dd, I won't let you.
I think you must be a wonderful person and fantastic mum btw