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?

I as a party girl before I had kids and kids helped me get off my bum and work. My ex was hard working but decided to live off me, so no one knows how they’ll react when they hav kids. My daughter hates her dad for being so lazy and now goes to college while holding down two jobs. I see the logic in what this man is saying but it’s an awful thing to say, maybe The Tories should look at the education system and parts of the country where hardly anyone has a job to solve the real issues.

And no other payment for travel between clients. Only when with the client. So ends up being less than MW so they don't get people able to do the job and who is going to run up miles on what is probably their banger for 37p/mile? Especially when the price of fuel is higher out here

Aye DPs job is the same, doesn’t get paid for travel time. The difference is it’s worth it in his case. The example you give is criminal, or it should be!

Agree OP!

people on benefits ... who get sanctions removing their ability to pay rent, food etc . Would it not solve this by ensuring that rent and utilities were paid directly and food/ clothing was paid in vouchers (a card which could not be used against tobacco or alcohol ) extra money to spend on non essentials could be earned by voluntary work or attending education courses. This would only apply to those fit to work not on disability. Surely this would mean that all would be cared for but not used as a lifestyle choice. Education and work experience would increase employability

Some interesting ideas right there. No doubt you'll be told they're all akin to the slaughter of the firstborn, but perhaps some might at least be worth considering?

remember the couple who let stood outside while their benefits earning children burned to death?
Benefits are evil - they create monsters.
Eh?

Another one raised on benefits here on and off when my dad was between jobs...myself and my sisters all work fulltime in professional jobs so hardly a drain on society.

monstie I imagine you're thinking of Mick and Mairead Philpott and their pal Paul Mosley?

I know some benefit claimants can stoop pretty low, but it's fortunate that very few ever get to the level of those particular pieces of filth

people on benefits ... who get sanctions removing their ability to pay rent, food etc . Would it not solve this by ensuring that rent and utilities were paid directly and food/ clothing was paid in vouchers (a card which could not be used against tobacco or alcohol ) extra money to spend on non essentials could be earned by voluntary work or attending education courses. This would only apply to those fit to work not on disability. Surely this would mean that all would be cared for but not used as a lifestyle choice. Education and work experience would increase employability

The US use food vouchers so that the state is only paying for essentials. It would have two fold benefits, the cards could be heavily restricted so people can only buy the essentials and the lack of freedom would encourage many into work so that they could spend how they like.

'remember the couple who let stood outside while their benefits earning children burned to death?
Benefits are evil - they create monsters.'

Yes. JK Rowling was on benefits, after returning to the UK as a single mum fleeing domestic violence with her foreign-born child. She is now a multi-millionaire who doesn't tax avoid because she sees that as morally wrong. That must make her a monster under your skewed logic.

'The US use food vouchers so that the state is only paying for essentials. It would have two fold benefits, the cards could be heavily restricted so people can only buy the essentials and the lack of freedom would encourage many into work so that they could spend how they like.'

It varies by state, but of course, you don't know that because you don't live there, go there, or stay there or you'd know that many people in fulltime work still qualify for such benefits, in addition to medical care for indigent children and other benefits and that those who could and would always play the system still find ways round that system. But again, don't let that hamper your agenda, which is ultimately misogynist demonisation of the poor and working poor no matter how many times you change your name.

Let's look at some real monsters in British society, shall we? Levi Bellfield, Peter Sutcliffe, Robert Black, Peter Tobin. What do they have in common, people, aside from being male? Oh, that's right! They were all in employment. In fact, they often used their employment to gain victims. But don't let that stop you from your agenda of hate and demonisation of the poor and working poor. Way to go!

The food stamp program isn't great. The WIC program is much better and provides fresh fruit, veg and other wholesome foods to families who are low income. Personally I'd like to see the WIC program in the UK for all families with DC ages 16 and younger.

Food stamps have driven up the cost of food in low income areas so low income households who don't qualify for the program really struggle.

Also money not food should be used to incentivize.

Agree with everything that expat has said.

so you lose your job go onto to benefits get made to have the snip then you get a good job work your way up the ladder to have a good career and then you cant have kids. You should not be thinking about having children when you are on benefits as you really cant support yourself let alone another life but for a jumped up moron that gets paid too much to tell another person what they can and cannot do is a little rich

I have read all of the posts so far, and the saddest one is that of 'istilllovefriends' yesterday @14:01pm.
What a lot of the posters on here don't seem to realise is that she is completely correct in that, if you have earned what the state class as 'too much' the year prior to say you being made redundant, losing your job for whatever reason etc, you are more than likely not elible for benefits.
It is often the case that people who have worked (and are expected to have saved money) are left high and dry, with little mouths still to feed.
There are big parts of the 'system' that are wrong, for example, if you have a mortgage and are then unable to work for whatever reason, you will only get help towards the 'interest' part of the mortgage (still having to find the rest of the monies from somewhere) whilst benefit claimants can have up to 100% of their rent paid by housing benefit monies, which in London are thousands of pounds a month.

I've got to say I total agree with most of what he's saying. Yes, no one should be able to tell you how many children you arequire 'allowed' to have BUT if you are not able to financially support them then don't have them! Simple. I think that the benefits system needs a complete over haul. The welfare system was designed to provide a safety net for people who were struggling or going through a difficult time. It was a short term 'helping hand' while people got back on their feet. It was NEVER meant to be a way of life, and in my opinion (not that it counts for anything) you shouldn't be able to 'live comfortably' if you're living on benefits. Benefits should pay for a roof over your head, food in your belly and clothes on your back....nothing else. There shouldn't be so much money that you can afford sky TV, foreign holidays, games consoles, mobile phones, the latest designer trainers etc... My husband works 70 hours a week and we can't afford most of those things so why should you be able to if you don't work at all. I can't understand why we can't go back to the old system where you got vouchers for food, grant letter's for school uniforms, gas and electric cards, minimal 'actual cash'! The people that really needed to be on benefits would accept this and be grateful for the help, only the people that were using it as a cash cow would complain that they needed the 'actual cash'.

Should have read 'eligible'!

'whilst benefit claimants can have up to 100% of their rent paid by housing benefit monies, which in London are thousands of pounds a month.'

But they don't. The caps see to that. And you see, it is not their asset. It goes to line the pockets of their landlord, who, if they are private tenants, can end their tenancy after 4 months, is free to discriminate - no children, no people on 'DSS' - and they are left to find another landlord who will take them. They are not enriching themselves on this. Can you not see this? Is it really that unclear? The benefit is to be paid to their landlord. If they don't do this, of course, it is playing the system, but the vast majority use their housing benefit to pay their rent to their landlord, who owns the property. Is that so hard to understand?

And anyone is entitled to contribution-based JSA. Then, if they have not the means and fall under the threshold, they are entitled to claim income-based JSA or Universal Credit if they are in such an area.

I grew up on benefits, mother is disabled.

I never went on any foreign holidays, i remember going hungry or eating complete crap that made me hungrier. I had holes in my clothes, sometimes they were filthy because the elecricity couldn't be paid for. Never had Sky growing uo, let alone a computer or internet.

Who are these so called peoplebon benefits who can afford luxuries? Are they claiming JSA whilst also working cash in hand?

The people that really needed to be on benefits would accept this and be grateful for the help, only the people that were using it as a cash cow would complain that they needed the 'actual cash'.
No I wouldn't. I'm disabled, I would like to be able to spend my cash on fresh fruit and veg from the local market. Asda is 25 miles away on an impossible bus ride and twice the price. Apart from which, I don't see the problem with making choices about how I spend my money. Why the hell should I be penalised because others don't spend their monies in the way that I choose to? Why should I have it dictated to me?

Interestingly it could also be detrimental to my disability. For example if vouchers were for wholewheat bread and pasta, that would cause me significant difficulty.

Wondered how long it would be before someone mentioned Sky TV.

genius you would like to see children suffer and not be able to live comfortably because of the situation their parents are in?

Gilead
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.

Eh? When you say the comments in the OP's post are wrong, his views are wrong etc it is not playing silly buggers to ask you what in that post is wrong!

You wrote elsewhere that you thought it was a silly game if you were asked to unpack and actually look at what Bradley wrote and specifically say what you disagreed with. That's simply astonishing.

If you say you disagree with Bradley's statement, then asking you which bit isn't a game, isn't goady fuckery as other posters who have been unable to say what precisely it was that he said that they rationally disagree with have described it as - it's basic common sense and basic inquiry.

This is normal:
"I disagree with the views he wrote about"
"Which?"
"These - he said x, y z".

This is bonkers:
"I disagree with the views he wrote about"
"Which?"
"I am not playing your game. It doesn't matter what he wrote. I can't stand him. He's wrong. I don't have a clue what he wrote, but whatever it was, I disagree with it anyway, so there."

Crazy.

Also the idea of food and clothing vouchers is madness. What if, for example, someone had a £10 clothing voucher left. They need new shoes for their DC. The shoes cost £20. They don't have enough with their clothing voucher to buy them.

People spend different amount of cash on different things. My water bill for example is £10 a month, it's tiny. Somebody else's might be significantly larger. I only have one child, somebody else might have there and so has to buy more food and clothes. Who exactly gets to decide exactly how much money goes on each voucher for each individual family? Ridiculous idea.

'remember the couple who let stood outside while their benefits earning children burned to death?
Benefits are evil - they create monsters.'

Yes and there was that couple in America recently who serverly abused their 13 children, dad earned $140,000 a year. Proof that high pay creates monsters.