If you're an unemployed waster then you should have a vasectomy!!!

[sirlee66]

Ben Bradley, an MP, wrote in a blogpost, 6 years ago, that the country would be soon “drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters” if workless families had four or five children while others limited themselves to one or two.
This is what he said:

''It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.

There are hundreds of families in the UK who earn over £60,000 in benefits without lifting a finger because they have so many kids (and for the rest of us that’s a wage of over £90,000 before tax!).

People have to take responsibility for their own lives, and if they are struggling but working hard to help themselves then they should get help. But if they choose to have 10 kids they should take responsibility for that choice and look after them, not expect everyone else to foot the bill!

Families who have never worked a day in their lives having 4 or 5 kids and the rest of us having 1 or 2 means it’s not long before we’re drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters that we pay to keep!''

So What to do you think? Do you agree with Ben Bradley or do you think he is being unreasonable?

He's also not averse to misusing public funds himself

www.hucknalldispatch.co.uk/news/sherwood-mp-slammed-by-watchdog-for-gaining-undue-advantage-with-tax-payer-resources-1-8511735

I don't think state ordered contraception or sterilisation is the way forward at all but I do agree people shouldn't have children if they alone can't afford to support them whether they work or not.

Many have to weigh up how many they can afford and limit their families to the size of their salaries, it's always been highly unfair that others don't have to and are rewarded for not being responsible for their child's financial costs.

Broadly agree. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. Too many people see children as their "right".

Bishop, now they're all out here, blinking in the moonshine, "Set phasers tae Malky!"

Again, birthrates fall as education levels rise and poverty decreases.

We have the answers.

There are some who abuse the system but it's not right to penalise genuine cases because of it. It's not just families with children either, the same goes for disability benefits. But sadly many would rather condemn genuine people to poverty than risk having a few abusing the system.

I think it's the first place to start to not support anyone who chose to have children that cannot support themselves or the children. Should be a loop hole for when people's lives take an uncontrollable change so that they get support to take back control. Then maybe people would be a bit more responsible about the new lives they are bringing into the world.

I think it's the first place to start to not support anyone who chose to have children that cannot support themselves or the children

Victorian techniques did not work very well.

Again, it is not a particularly intellectually challenging situation; birthrates naturally decrease with education and poverty reduction.

This conversation is superfluous, we have the answers.

No one should have more than two children in this over human populated world. I never understand why anyone would want more with all the hard work, costs etc.

The man being critized is correct.

I think it's the first place to start to not support anyone who chose to have children that cannot support themselves or the children

Do you realise with that statement that you’re advocating leaving innocent children to starve? Their parents may well be feckless (yes, some are) but when we start punishing children for the behaviour of their parents we hurtle towards a very hard hearted and negligent society.

I don't see that the size of Cabinet members' families has anything to do with it. They are not expecting the taxpayer to fund them.

As far as I'm concerned people can have as many children as they like - provided they can afford to feed, clothe and house them.

The MP in question was referring to,people who have children they already know they can't even begin to afford to support; who look on it as their right to have large families at the taxpayers' expense.

They may be a small minority, but IMO that doesn't make it something to condone.

Oh where do Cabinet members salaries come from then if not the tax payer?

I don't see that the size of Cabinet members' families has anything to do with it. They are not expecting the taxpayer to fund them

Are you aware of the irony of that statement? Their expenses alone will dwarf the amount claimed by anyone on benefits. Politicians don’t expect to be taxpayer funded? I’m actually crying laughing.

Yay more swivel eyed loons! 😂

Case in point - Jacob Rees Mogg.
Is it 6 or 7 kids now?
Whilst he has great personal wealth he's still claimed over a grand in expenses in the last six months alone, as well as drawing his taxpayer funded MP salary. He also benefits from taxpayer funded subsidised restaurant and bar prices in the HoC.

Oh and repairs to the ancestral pile in which they live has been subsided by taxpayer funded grants.

He said this six years ago, when vasectomies were more easily available and he was a mere 23.

He's actually a really nice guy, who cares deeply about individuals and the people at the bottom of the heap. He has a strong social conscience and wants to address all the problems of poverty.

I don't agree with him about everything- I've argued with him about lots of things. He definitely needs a crash course in feminism.

He isn't my MP but I have worked with him.

And as for him being all about self promotion and not actually doing anything- what can a new young MP achieve in 6 months? They aren't issued with wands, you know. All they can do is publicise issues, raise awareness and campaign.

When you agree with this abominable statement do you actually think about what you are agreeing with? Do you really think that poor people should be prevented from having children? Do you really think that some people should be forced to have vasectomies? Do you think about how the parameters of such enforcement would change over time? Where would it stop? People with mental health problems? People with disabilities? People on zero hour contracts because the law has decreed they'll never be able to afford children?
Do you ever do any real research into just how many of these families there are? I mean real research, empirical evidence, or is it just what the government, via the press would have you believe.
Are you aware that your policies would leave and are leaving people with very real needs worse off and in many cases dead?
Do you care or is your knee jerk reaction to benefit scrounging scum (e.g. your principles) more important?

Actually I'm wondering when all the rich people run out of nannies, cleaners, refuse operatives, cleaners and gardeners will the poor be 'allowed to breed again?

He was young and inexperienced and naive, yet still opinionated, like many 23yr olds. He's been around a bit more now, and mellowed.

I bet many many other mps said far worse at that age.

Ivymaud
The statements in the OP make him sound rather dim.

Which statements? What did he say that is factually incorrect?

He's actually a really nice guy, who cares deeply about individuals and the people at the bottom of the heap.
In which case why is he supporting a regime that is making life impossible for those with disabilities?