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?

That should obviously always be the case

Even if someone becomes unable to work through disability or caring for a child with a disability?

If I read the title in isolation, I don't actually disagree with that statement. There are too many feckless 'fathers' out there that do not pay for their children and I'd have no problem with their ability to do that, stopped for good.

Elton
November 2017. BBC/IFS

The so called apocalyptic claims we know about in hindsight did cause many, many problems and are still doing so. Perhaps discussing it with people who are losing their homes might give you some perspective.

The fact is that people are suffering due to the benefits system that has been instigated by the Tories. It's supposed to help, it was never intended to be punitive. Until now. The longer you ignore it and bury your head in the sand, the longer people (in the main, women, children and people with disabilities) suffer.

Gilead
With reference to his statement in the OP's post, could you cite precisely which parts you disagree with and why you disagree with them?
I have.

Actually you haven't. You have said you disagree with a variety of stances, but make no link with the original statement at all.

Are you actually able to cite anything in the original statement that you can rationally disagree with? You have made some damning comments about his views, so naturally we'd like to see what it is about his actual views and what he said it is that you object to, and why.

Flowerpot Why me?
Other people have made similar statements?

There is a discussion to be had around whether people should have children when they are not in a position to support them practically, financially or emotionally.

But it is incumbent on public figures to address the issue in a sensible, non emotive manner. Otherwise they give oxygen to the bottom feeders cf Trump and his comments.

These comments were made in 2012. Were they a response to the Philpott case?

Gilead
Flowerpot Why me?
Other people have made similar statements?

Why not you? You've said repeatedly about Bradley and his views in particular, whereas other posters keep vaguely on about positions they don't like which haven't got anything to do with the post. You, at least have shown some relevance in this thread.

But you don't actually say which bits in the OP's thread you disagree with. Which are they?

Flowerpot Why me?
Other people have made similar statements?

Because I stopped engaging with the goadiness @Gilead

People make economic choices that suit them. Unfortunately the introduction of increasing benefits has had the effect of the state taking on the role of breadwinner in many people's lives. The loss of manual work has resulted in many men merely having the role of sperm donor. They have no value in a woman's life: they are not needed to provide, and in fact are a hindrance such that many mothers choose not to disclose the name of any father as it would be a bother to try to pursue maintenance instead of more mainstream payments.

More anecdotal evidence: family member has never worked, and has two dcs. Her boyfriend has never worked either. They have just been given a new-build council house in very desirable south east commuter village, where houses on same estate are selling for £450K. Family member is now considering going to university, and says it will all be free for her plus childcare, and she has no intention of getting a job afterwards so won't have to repay anything. She was laughing at the schmucks who've done things "the right way round" and tried to earn money to buy a house and raise a family. She's got a point.

Okay Flowerpot, I disagree with a eugenics stance, which I have said. Who the hell chooses who gets to have a vasectomy and when?

I also think the point about people choosing to have ten children on benefits is misguided and misleading. There are some families with that many children, there are some in receipt of benefits. It's pretty low overall.
He is pitting people against one another, the modus operandi of this government, the deserving and undeserving poor.

Lady - this makes me so angry. people using the system and the tax payers money for their own ends. My two DS's are paying £9k plus maintenance loans for studying at university.

Your family member should hang their head in shame. Sorry, but this sort of behaviour makes me feel physically sick

Gilead. I don't know why you keep posting irrelevant links. That doesn't mention children being taken into care because their 'child benefit' has been cut. It doesn't actually mention cuts at all, just a freeze. And it doesn't refer to child benefits or children going into care at all.

The housing benefit cap is over £1900 per month in London and £1666.00 outside London if you have children. Comfortably enough to afford a decent 4 bed.

Interesting that you can't find any links to your claim that these 5 year old cuts are making people homeless. Perhaps you could do better than an anecdote?

Another irrelevant link maybe?

Lady maintenance payments are disregarded for benefits so not sure what your point is about women taking mainstream benefits instead of pursuing the fathers.

Fact is too many fathers don't bother paying for their children leaving the mother high and dry. Where is your anger about that?

Can't be bothered Elton, you won't change your mind. You're a tory who thinks that all those on benefits are scroungers.
Interesting that you don't look at any research yourself though...

Gilead

Okay Flowerpot,
Thank you.

I disagree with a eugenics stance
But he didn't call for enforced vasectomies. He's highlighting a way that people could stop having children they cannot afford to raise. It's a way that thousands of men choose every year that is not part of any eugenics programme.

Who the hell chooses who gets to have a vasectomy and when?
The man (and sometimes woman) would, of course. Bradley didn't say anything about enforced vasectomies, which seems to be the point you are arguing against.

I also think the point about people choosing to have ten children on benefits is misguided and misleading.
It is true. There are families who choose to have 10 children on benefit. It is fact. It is not misguided or misleading to point this out.

There are some families with that many children, there are some in receipt of benefits. It's pretty low overall.
He didn't say it was high. He wrote that "there are families out there" which is identical to you saying "there are some families". So surely you are in agreement again with him?

He is pitting people against one another
The people are already against one another on this point. Bradley isn't pitting anybody against anybody. Those who support themselves tend not to appreciate those who do not support themselves and live off the earnings of others, then continue to increase the burden by having more children. This is an entirely reasonable standpoint. Bradley highlights the problems with this, that's all.

the modus operandi of this government, the deserving and undeserving poor.
That's not in his statement at all.

Do you see? It would seem there is nothing in his statement which you could actually disagree with.

Very brave of him to say this n i totally agree

I'm going to go back nd rtft but I don't think the royal family will voluntarily have the vasectomies he was talking about so not sure what we can do about it, they truly are the biggest benefit scroungers in the country

There is everything in his statement I disagree with. But you have your opinion and I have mine. I do believe he would support vasectomies for all.
Oh, and you wanted to pick my argument apart which is why you persisted in asking me to post. Well done. Still disagree with you, but as I said before; I'm disabled and struggling.

It isn't eugenics to encourage people to have a sensible number of children. If you are able to support ten children it's still pretty irresponsible to have them. I know a guy with at least seven children, all in care. No job. No one is saying they should have a vasectomy at 18 and never be allowed to breed.

I think your take on this depends who you know. When I was involved with his family, I'd have considered taking the secateurs to him to slow down his progress through a series of vulnerable young women. The money spent on assessing, accommodating, legal proceedings etc would have kept several disabled families comfortable- and it all comes from the same pot.

Going back to Ben's language- his opinions are not invalid, though I don't agree with them. They are expressed in a typical, hot headed ranting kind of way that reminds me of a bloke in a pub. Not suitable for a politician. Probably not that out of line for a student, though.

Anyway, I'm not his mum, so I'll leave you to it!

Gilead

There is everything in his statement I disagree with.
But all the things you said you disagreed with aren't even in his statement.

But all the things you said you disagreed with aren't even in his statement.
But they are. It depends on how you want to take it apart and whether or not you're in the public eye. Yes we can play silly buggers and say well his statement doesn't actually say that, or 'well you're attributing a meaning not intentioned'. But that's bollocks. He's a politician and stating that he didn't mean that he supported Marie Stopes is a nonsense.

This is not the only thing he has supported that is distasteful, to say the least.
I however have been up for over 24 hours now and have no intention of playing silly games.

But all the things you said you disagreed with aren't even in his statement.
But they are. It depends on how you want to take it apart and whether or not you're in the public eye. Yes we can play silly buggers and say well his statement doesn't actually say that, or 'well you're attributing a meaning not intentioned'. But that's bollocks. He's a politician and stating that he didn't mean that he supported Marie Stopes is a nonsense.

This is not the only thing he has supported that is distasteful, to say the least.
I however have been up for over 24 hours now and have no intention of playing silly games.

No idea why it posted twice. Apologies. As I said, exhausted and not functioning properly.

Many trusts in the NHS no longer fund vasectomies. Anyone see that episode of GPs Behind Closed Doors a couple of weeks ago? That entire trust no longer funds vasectomies. Seems utterly stupid considering men can procreate vastly more than females.