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?

As long as women are having children yes I suppose they will bear the brunt of any new caps . We do have a choice not to reproduce with wasters though . It’s a two child cap on access to benefits not a cap on how many children you have . Have as many as you want , but don’t expect the government to support your choices .

As long as women are having children yes I suppose they will bear the brunt of any new caps . We do have a choice not to reproduce with wasters though . It’s a two child cap on access to benefits not a cap on how many children you have . Have as many as you want , but don’t expect the government to support your choices

"not to reproduce with wasters"

How charming. Of course, we all have built in radar to know in advance that our marriage is going to go down the pipes due to abuse, cheating, etc. years from now

What's reassuring to me is that for every post that makes me , there are hundreds where decency and compassion shines through. We must not lose sight of the best of us!

I thought we were referring to wasters as hopeless and unemployed men with no prospects.
The ones who father children with multiple women , bit like the women who have child after child with said men . If we continue to make it possible for these situations to happen they will keep happening .

How many men would actually choose that? Simply because they were poor? Ridiculous suggestion that men would go "oh, I'm poor, I'm sure my circumstances will never ever change, so I'd better go get the snip."

I thought we were referring to wasters as hopeless and unemployed men with no prospects.
The ones who father children with multiple women , bit like the women who have child after child with said men . If we continue to make it possible for these situations to happen they will keep happening

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with that.

Disdainful much?

Compassion .
Of course you should have Number 5 with your new boyfriend of 6 months , we will be here to pick up the pieces and support you whatever you decide to do . I know you don’t have any money or the ability to work with 4 children to look after . That does not mean your child should grown up in poverty . Here have some more money .
Uncompassionate
I don’t think you should be having another child when you can’t pay for the two you already have . It will be crap , you will not be able to give them what they need never mind what they want . Please concentrate on your two lovely children . Do your best by them .

Ivymaud stop making out (ooh I said “making out” and not implying) that I am lying about where I went to university and what I earn. As I say, you are embarrassing yourself.

Lots of men choose permanent sterilisation when they know they can’t or it would be difficult to provide for more children than they already have . I don’t think anyone is saying get sterilised before you actually have children .

How is it disdainful to point out the truth ?

Problem is, more than half the population receives benefits in one form or another. This was never what the welfare state was designed for when it was introduced and this increased dependency on the welfare state was a deliberate ploy of the Labour government.

It should be there as a safety net - not to pay for the family you choose to have knowing full well you can’t support it.

Ivymaud Vasectomies are a form of contraception - a very effective one. Pretty much all other forms of contraception are also free. The point he is making is not that poor people should be sterilised - he NEVER said that - but that they have a choice in their family planning. They could choose to have a vasectomy, the woman could choose to go on the pill, have an implant, etc etc.

I have no idea why I am arguing with you. What is it they say about arguing with stupid people...?

Wellington and the majority of those are in work benefits. Because of the ridiculously high costs of renting, childcare, and bills, combined with low wages.

I receive in work benefits because I am on minimum wage. I was married to a man who had a well paid job and when DS was born we did not need to claim anything, but shit happens and now I'm on my own.

If there wasn't a welfare state many women who are stuck in abusive marriages just could never afford to leave. That's wrong.

BitchQueen90 I entirely agree with you. Who knows what is going to happen to us? We could get ill, our partner could leave, we could have a disabled child, we could lose our job and struggle to find another. I’m glad that the welfare state is there to help people to whom any of this happens.

But if someone deliberately gets pregnant knowing they are in that position already - and unlikely to ever get out of it - well, sorry, but I think that’s wrong.

Ivymaud And you are desperately trying to read between the lines to make out anyone who isn’t as left wing as you is some kind of eugenicist.

Ivymaud

No sorry, Wellington. I can’t be more frank, as I said but in addition , and for example, the way you’ve expressed some opinions, and the content, doesn’t point to high education level.

Your grasp of comma usage is poor and yet YOU have the audacity to criticise someone else’s ability to express herself! Lol

I have had no problem whatsoever following her posts. Just sayin’...

You are completely missing the point Ivymaud, which is that he in no way implied the poor should be sterilised. The point he is making is that people have a choice about their family planning. Would you be any less outraged if he said “contraception is free”? No you wouldn’t.

RoseWhiteTips Thank you!

sometimes the very child they struggled to afford will be the thing that pushes some to improve their education, their job/job prospects, and in doing so, their financial position

I'd like to think so, but I'm not aware of any statistics that show this to be a frequent approach among those who choose to raise a child on benefits - perhaps someone could enlighten me?

I don't imagine MN represents everyone, but on here it's far more common for posters to insist that social mobility is almost extinct in the UK - also that child rearing is hard enough and how dare anyone suggest that time should be found in busy lives for self improvement

We surely can't insist on the one hand that something's so very difficult, then claim that it's actually a popular option?