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 just challenge your left wing bullshit and your statements which you are never able to support with any rational argument or evidence.

I am not sure about this, but it looks like they knew those panels were flammable.

And there was a political party in history that had a similar attitude towards groups they weren’t keen on. So if not taking the same approach as the fucking Nazis to humanity is bullshit I’m happy with that.

Notreallyarsed
Because there have been reports that the powers that be were warned about the flammable nature of the panels before the fire.
There was a pressure group who were begging the council to replace the cladding with fireproof stuff months before it happened.

The cladding met all requirements. The cladding had gone through fire safety checks and was approved by safety organisations, building regulation authorities, councils and the government. It wasn't the best cladding, there is no guarantee that the best cladding would have reacted much differently to this one in the same circumstances and saved any lives. The pressure group were making lots of demands about many things. This is what happens when you have a group of demanding tenants who are not paying for things exhibiting a Want Want Want attitude on everything. Same with the sprinklers. It becomes a bit Peter crying Wolf.

The cladding was not the best, but it was good enough. Hundreds of others live with the same cladding and have done for years. It met the authorities' requirements, there is no reason why anybody would have gone searching for the most expensive cladding using even more taxpayer money to fund these people's homes when they had this one and it met all the regs, is there?

But according to Flowerpot the tenants of Grenfell don’t matter.
According to Notreallyarsed any poster who challenges her can be accused of absolutely anything she makes up in her very uninformed, and very bitter head. Why not keep rational and to the facts, eh?

Notreallyarsed

Flowerpot I did answer your questions
No, you didn't. You just rant. You have never stated what in Bradley's statement you disagree with. I invite you again to do so. Copy the wording in Bradley's statement which you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it. Actually link your anger back to what he said, and not what you imagine he said, or any general left wing outrage. Be specific. What do you disagree with? Can you do that or can't you?

I may be left wing but I’d rather be a leftie than a...
I have cut your comment as it vulgar, disgusting language which anybody with a modicum of decency would not use in public. You really are of the gutter, aren't you?

The two things that shocked about the Grendell fire was that there was no sprinkler system and that quite a few units were illegally sublet.

I wasn't shocked by the wrong materials being used, the pay of the chief housing authority officer or that those taking exams carried on and sat them getting good grades.

I don't like the way this thread has turned. Surely someone who is able to work should work. It should not be an option for a father to not support their DC even if it's not financial support. The father can still provide childcare so the mother can work. This business of having multiple fathers in a family unit is insane and the ones who bear the brunt of this are the children. It's one thing having children to two fathers but anything more than that is not healthy. I know plenty of girls I went to school with who have 4 or more DC to at least 4 different fathers. Each of those fathers have multiple DC to multiple women that they can't afford to support. It's absolute insanity to think this should be supported by society either by those reliant on benefits or not.

Of course those who are disabled or supporting the disabled beyond 20 hours a week should be fully supported with those with care duties under 20 hours a week expected to get at least a PT job. I say this as someone who has two DC with ASD and works FT. Most managers are reasonable people and the laws around disability need to be strengthened like they are here in America to protect those who work for arseholes. No one would dare question any time off for tending to my disabled DC. The company are required to pay me at full rate because they have more than 50 employees.

The cladding met all requirements.

Apparently this is not necessarily true. The cladding used required that it be installed with other protective measures. They were warned of this apparently.

If I could just mention this, I thought a crucial point about the Grenfell cladding is that it wasn't supposed to be used above a certain height?

I've not seen much said about that recently though ...

And don't get me started on the number of people fiddling benefits for single parents. Every single one of my friends who have stayed in England in the north didn't get married until their youngest child was in school. Until then the father of the DC lived at his parents house on paper some of them owning the home the mother and DC lived in. All this is paid for by taxpayers.

want2 are we talking tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands who are doing that?

brown Why does it matter if it tens or hundreds of thousands?

We all know someone doing it, so it must be a lot of people.

Just like WantwbSupermum, I know someone who lives in her dp's house paid for with housing benefit, whilst her dp lives with his parents. Actually in this case her mum claims benefits in two countries, using her married name in one and maiden name in another. She lives in another house owned by the dd's dp, again paid for with housing benefit. Some people manage to weave such complicated webs that the authorities can't hope to catch up with them.

makeourfuture
The cladding met all requirements.
Apparently this is not necessarily true

I don't wish to derail this further following the tangent and outburst from Notreallyarsed, but just wanted to answer this point. It met all the requirements and was approved. It was stipulated by various groups that a more flammable insulator should not be used with certain external tiles (since a sort of envelope forms each total cladding component). From the info available so far, this apparently did not make it into building regs and therefore would not have been deemed non-compliant, and not picked up.

I'm as furious as anybody that the cladding clearly contributed to this tragedy. But perverse conspiracy theories about deliberately using cladding components that are used everywhere else by developers too, the social housing tenants being given poorer materials than others (it was the same!), etc etc is just nonsense.

Want2 only asked because you said don't get you started on the numbers fiddling the system so I thought it must be a huge number.

lady do you know anyone who receives support or benefits for a genuine reason? Just wondering what the percentage even in your small sample size is for genuine cases vs fiddlers.

My friends who are doing it are quite open about it between each other. I think it's quite widespread if nice middle class girls are doing it. The only reason I have not and would not report them is because it would be the children who suffer not the parents.

Oh, this nonsense that businesses will leave the country if corporation tax is raised - where will they go? Other countries will tax them more heavily.

I don't like the way this thread has turned. Surely someone who is able to work should work. It should not be an option for a father to not support their DC even if it's not financial support. The father can still provide childcare so the mother can work. This business of having multiple fathers in a family unit is insane and the ones who bear the brunt of this are the children. It's one thing having children to two fathers but anything more than that is not healthy. I know plenty of girls I went to school with who have 4 or more DC to at least 4 different fathers. Each of those fathers have multiple DC to multiple women that they can't afford to support. It's absolute insanity to think this should be supported by society either by those reliant on benefits or not.

Of course those who are disabled or supporting the disabled beyond 20 hours a week should be fully supported with those with care duties under 20 hours a week expected to get at least a PT job. I say this as someone who has two DC with ASD and works FT. Most managers are reasonable people and the laws around disability need to be strengthened like they are here in America to protect those who work for arseholes. No one would dare question any time off for tending to my disabled DC. The company are required to pay me at full rate because they have more than 50 employees.

Wow. Just wow. Where to begin....

The father can still provide childcare so the mother can work.

Not always.Sometimes it's not possible. It happens.

This business of having multiple fathers in a family unit is insane and the ones who bear the brunt of this are the children. It's one thing having children to two fathers but anything more than that is not healthy.

You actually don't have any say in this. You're aware of this, right?

Of course those who are disabled or supporting the disabled beyond 20 hours a week should be fully supported with those with care duties under 20 hours a week expected to get at least a PT job.

Well, aren't you kind, allowing this?

I say this as someone who has two DC with ASD and works FT. Most managers are reasonable people and the laws around disability need to be strengthened like they are here in America to protect those who work for arseholes. No one would dare question any time off for tending to my disabled DC. The company are required to pay me at full rate because they have more than 50 employees.

Yeah. Aren't you lucky? Lucky that you have an employer that follows the rules. Lucky that you work for a company that has over 50 employees so has to follow specific laws. Lucky that you're able to utilise childcare that allows you to work FT.

Of course, you're aware that not everyone is that lucky, right? And before you go all "the US is so good about this," I will mention that when I lived in the states, I had a LOT of hassle from my employer when I had to take time off to deal with my daughter's medical concerns, even though they weren't supposed to. This was a company that employed thousands. So yeah, not everyone is as lucky as you are. And the US isn't "all that" in this regard.

This is what happens when you have a group of demanding tenants who are not paying for things exhibiting a Want Want Want attitude on everything. Same with the sprinklers. It becomes a bit Peter crying Wolf.

This is a despicable attitude.

I don't pay my rent. I am on benefits. I don't work. I still expect my property to be maintained to the same standard that the HA maintains every other property they have. And I expect it to be safe. In return, I take care of my property and do what is required of me by making sure the rubbish is disposed of properly, repair what I am responsible for repairing, and reporting any repairs promptly that they are responsible for. Tenants have rights.

The level of outright hatred for the poor and poor women in general on here is utterly shocking. The propaganda machine has done an absolutely brilliant job of Wag the Dog to direct scorn and punishment on those with the least power in society rather than at those who continue to accrue vast personal wealth on the backs of the taxpayers.

Utterly shocking.

There are a lot of 👊🏻💦 for sure

Oh goody More Hilllsborough tactics about the Grenfell residents

and denigration of social housing tenants.

"This is what happens when you have a group of demanding tenants who are not paying for things exhibiting a Want Want Want attitude on everything. Same with the sprinklers. It becomes a bit Peter crying Wolf"

I dont know who posted this but isnt it feasible that if this poster thought this way so did some who sit on the TMO so therefore they did ignore it just like this poster would have done.

Interesting report on Channel 4 news on smart moterways. A family was almost killed in an accident at Christmas as there is no hard shoulder so nowhere for them to stand. Its down to cost cutting So its not just TMOs that choose not to listen when there is money to be saved. Highways England dont want to listen either..........not even to the police or LFB.

But will ppl say "as there has been no inquiry on this we cant be sure that this contributed to the accident"

Will be watching with interest.

ginger All you have to do is report an employer to the state DOL. The disability discrimination laws here are what they should be and the one thing I admire here is the attitude taken towards people who break the law. No one would dare allow the wrong cladding to be used because they would be in jail. Companies pay their taxes, with Amazon under a lot of pressure to cough up and cases of evasion result in lengthy jail terms. The UK these days is operating like it's the Wild West. It's insane that only one person was found guilty of fixing the libor rates. The fact the authorities could only round up six people shows just how useless the U.K. is with these cases.