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?

Oh Ivymaud just eff off and stop being so goady. What is wrong with you? Seriously FFS. Why the hell would I lie?

"You seem to think there is plenty to go around - there isn’t. That money that goes to the family who had children knowing they can’t provide for them is money that could have gone to the NHS, education, the disabled. "

Or we could piss around designing Garden Bridges, other Bridges that we don't need, Computer systems not fit for purpose. We could give private firms billions to build public buildings and then they could charge us millions to put the time right on a clock or change a light bulb, or we could get involved in conflicts that would cost money and lives.

Personally I'd prefer to invest in people. Just because those at the top don't need cannon and factory fodder doesn't give them the right to decide that we are surplus to their requirements.

Wellington the impression you are giving me is that hard working low income families like mine who have good work ethic that are passing onto their children should not have children. What you should be asking is why are employers allowed to get away with keeping wages low so that families have claim Tax Credits in the first place. Surely this needs to be addressed. Plus if the poor stop having children will the future work force come from? We need care workers, nurses, teachers etc and don't see wealthier families wanting their children to be working in those areas.

Wellington if that's not your belief then perhaps try not posting in favour on a thread about that very view 🙄

If you feel like a bad human being then that's on you and not me Wellington.

I'm not a "socialist". I just want a functioning society and I am happy to contribute to it.

Have you read the title of the thread? It's based on the belief that certain members of society should be sterilised. That's why I brought it up.

Honestly, I think that you feel uncomfortable because you know deep down that you're argument about hard work and choices isn't enough to justify your position.

Again, I will retract the statement about sterilising. I think that focusing on your outrage at that statement allows you to ignore the uncomfortable truth-your world view is simplistic and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

At no point have I called you a bad human being. I don't know you from Adam .

Even though you've been critical of my stance I don't feel like a bad human being so why do you?

It’s so frustrating the way people who work incredibly hard and pay a hell of a lot into the system are made out to be selfish and lacking in compassion because they dare to hold up their hand and say, “hold on, enough is enough”.

You're aware, of course, that the poor, even those on benefits, actually work incredibly hard, too? Just because they may pay less into the system,that doesn't mean their wants and needs are any less important.

Read Ben Bradley’s word again - where did he say anything about enforced sterilisation? All he said is contraception is free - i.e., people have a choice.

And many of the poor on benefits may well have had jobs and paid taxes too.

I had three years on benefits when life with my autistic son became very challenging. Prior to that I had worked for 30 years and paid in.

Thankfully life has settled and I am back in work once again. I won't ever forget how awful it was to rely on the state though. Or to know that some people would think I was a waster with no ambition.

Bertiesgal because you made out I think the poor should be sterilised!

Contraception is free...people have a choice

However contraception is also not 100% effective and there will always be failures.

I will also say as an ex midwife that around 80% of people I booked were having an unplanned baby. This was because they were not using contraception most of the time but were settled and happy with the pregnancy.

A) if you deny families with lots of children help then what happens to the children? How do you "punish" the parents for their "actions" without punishing the children too?

B) It says a lot about the shameful state of this country that it's assumed that children born to "unemployed wasters" are themselves destined to become "unemployed wasters". What happened to social mobility?

BILLIONS to bail out banks badly managed by fat cats who ran off with millions of pounds, BILLIONS to blow on Brexit, BILLIONS for Trident and HS2, Carillion holding its hands out for billons to bail them out with its bosses still being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds, tens of millions a year to a family of billionaires (who avoid taxes with offshore investments and whose portfolio includes the likes of fucking BrightHouse) and you still have people who are angriest at the 1% of so of people on welfare who have 3+ children and the poor.

You couldn't make it up.

'I think that a way to distract from real injustice is to encourage bickering between those who have very little and those who have even less. '

This. What's astounding is how well this type of propaganda works.

I've met Polly and collaborated on an article she wrote. Fab lady, completely unpatronising.

Shall I retract my statement about sterilising a third time?

It is so much easier for you to focus on that and semantics than to address the many excellent points being put forward by other people.

For the third time, I don't believe that you want to sterilise the poor.

I do believe that you think that escaping from poverty is solely down to hard work and I disagree with you wholeheartedly.

I don't think that you are a bad human being. I do think you struggle to look beyond your own experience and that means you struggle to see how other people can find themselves in positions of misfortune.

Delores Similar situation here, but two autistic children and very challenging. Also worked all my life prior to this.

It's so frustrating, because the conversation on here is always the same.

Post: "Oh those wretched benefit scroungers who don't work and have the audacity to have children."

Me: I'm on benefits with children with disabilities. I'm not a scrounger.

Post: "Oh, not you,dear, that's different - you have a good reason...it's those OTHER ones...blah blah"

But it ISN'T any different ... because those OTHER ones also may have disabilities or other "good reasons." You don't know.

It's a shame people can't be more compassionate and less judgemental.

I agree with him . Contraception is free. We should be discouraging people who are unable to or unwilling to provide for their own children from having any never mind more .
Unfortunately the welfare state has encouraged so much dependence in recent years than any changes now will seem inhuman to many .I think the two child cap is a step in the right direction.

And who would be penalised in a 2 child cap? Women.

Men can go about and father children left and right, while women deal with the consequences.

Yeah. I don't think a 2 child cap is a step in the right direction.

I think we need to focus on money misspent by the government on bailouts and "reorganising" the NHS and "reorganising" the benefits system. Wages, housing, and the like need to be addressed LONG before the number of children is discussed.

What is your evidence base for the welfare state creating a culture of dependency?

I'm more frustrated by the banks and private companies like Carillon depending on government money but I imagine you consuder them to be the right types to benefit from government money Agnes?

Better to focus on the most vulnerable members of society instead? So much easier....

I agree with him . Contraception is free.

I think some people are getting confused. In the OP Ben Bradley is talking about male sterilisation i.e. vasectomies, for those who can’t afford children. Not contraception in general. So he is talking about sterilisation of the poor. It has also been said his views have mellowed since then. Thank goodness for that.

Sorry to quote and single out that person there, there are a few who have said similar.

I'd love to know this:

A) if you deny families with lots of children help then what happens to the children? How do you "punish" the parents for their "actions" without punishing the children too?

And keeping in mind that the parent that will likely be punished is the MOTHER, not the father in this day and age of divorce and remarriage.

Ivymaud seriously, stop, you are embarrassing yourself.