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?

"
The change was not retrospective, so no families can have been split up by it being introduced."
Yes new claims after Nov 2018 will be affected. That's children born before April 2017.

He's a smug ignorant twat (as is anyone who bashes benefit scroungers.)

The availability of 'work' is steadily decreasing. Automation is removing the need for human labour. So we need UBI and proper enforcement of taxation for corporations (and billionaires).

We don't need to carry on the blind worship of 'work' to the extent that the government demands the creation of more and more utterly pointless jobs (at very low rates of pay).

I kind of agree with the wasters stop being allowed to have more kids. I would classify wasters as those who don't believe in working and refuse to try and get a job, even though they are perfectly capable of working.

I do wonder how the benefits cap is going to work in the future when some of these families "accidentally" have more than the allotted 2 children. You can see articles in the tabloids about how a mum of 5 is being evicted by an evil council as they cannot afford rent and food, but for some reason it won't be brought up that she never wanted to work and wanted the state to pay her to have a large family.

I could give countless examples of people I've dealt with who are claiming and shouldn't be , people who can work but won't , you have no idea the lengths some people will go to not to work, I have seen it first hand time after time

I’ve lived on one of the shittiest estates in the UK (according to a recent poll), I know that it happens. What I’m trying (and apparently failing) to explain is that that doesn’t represent the majority of benefits claimants, it isn’t representative of why most people claim, and those who are screwing the system shouldn’t be used as a stick to beat people who aren’t screwing the system with.

As for the government not reporting statistics properly, that’s ridiculous, if they had more to report they would because it suits their anti-benefit agenda. The fact is that more benefits go unclaimed a year than are defrauded.

People on benefits are human, they’re not scum or wasters, and it says a lot about a person if they derive some kind of satisfaction from demeaning another. And not in a good way.

*BishopBrennansArse

@Timeforanamochango my 'free upgrade' has double the rent of the previous house we had.

How is that free?*

If you receive full housing benefits and are in a Council property then the doubled rent on the bigger property is free to yourself. Here’s where you chime in with... but I’m working so it’s not free, in which case as you can see the post is not regarding working families.

If I have 5 kids in my 2 bedroom house that I own, that’s on my back to keep them all in one room or pay more to have a larger house. If you pop out 5 kids in your 2 bedroom Council House, you’ll be given an ‘upgrade’ to atleast a 4 bed. If you claim full benefits and don’t work, this will cover any rent increase in full as it’s council so you wouldn’t even need to think about the financial implications of Housing more children which is a huge factor when working families have to consider before having children.

I know he's an odious Tory but he did write this when he was 23. I remember I had some pretty rigid ideas when I was in my early twenties too. Thing is, he does make a good point. Like a pp said, it's also refreshing to see men being told to take responsibility for once.

Of course it doesn't represent the majority but what I'm saying is that it's far more common that people would think
As to the government , obviously they have statistics pertaining to the people whom they know we're claiming falsely , what they don't have, and what I see daily is the number of people still getting away with it

Ivymaud

I think there's a lot of jealousy involved, judging by those who post saying they know so-and-so who's living the high life, never worked a day etc. It's usually a friend or neighbour who appears to be getting 'something for nothing' the reality is probably quite different I suspect.

Why do you suspect that the accounts which people give about their friends or neighbours are untrue and not reality?

If I have 5 kids in my 2 bedroom house that I own, that’s on my back to keep them all in one room or pay more to have a larger house. If you pop out 5 kids in your 2 bedroom Council House, you’ll be given an ‘upgrade’ to atleast a 4 bed. If you claim full benefits and don’t work, this will cover any rent increase in full as it’s council so you wouldn’t even need to think about the financial implications of Housing more children which is a huge factor when working families have to consider before having children.

What council are you referring to? Because it’s highly, highly unlikely anyone would be given a bigger home because of overcrowding. There’s a housing shortage you know.

“Pop out”? Charming.

I owned my last house and my boys shared a room, doesn’t mean that I had the right (or the inclination) to have a pop at anyone in council housing or on benefits.

This assumption that being on benefits is an easy life is so ridiculous I could actually cry. It is far, far from an easy life. It’s shit, and attitudes like many on here make is far more shit.

There but for the grace of God and all that!

@BitchQueen90 Yes her youngest was 12 when she was either moved on to JSA or they started coming down on her hard. She was a lone parent with no disabilities with 2 children with no disabilities.

At the end of the day someone in their 30s with no employment history and no drive to find a job isn't going to get one - you can't exactly stop their money and let their children starve.

He's right really - and the Tories agree with him as they have since brought in benefit caps.

If you pay one sector of society to have children, they will, and if other parts of society choose not to have children because they can't afford them and don't want to claim, then you will end up with a lot more people born to the unemployed, over a generation.

He isn't advocating forced sterilisation anyway - just saying that it exists and is free so there's no excuse for not controlling the number of children you have. If 1 or 2 is enough for those in work , it should be enough for long term unemployed people too.

Obviously there will be a minority of people who've been financially independent, had 5 kids and then fell on hard times - but probably not many - as anyone who can afford 5 kids in the first place is probably either on benefits, or so rich they are going to have adequate insurance/family support etc. These people would not count as wasters anyway as he specifically mentions that those who are trying should be helped.

Poor people pay tax too - and this should not go to help other poor people pay for their 10 children - I agree with this

He can fuck aaaallllll the way off into the sun.

And what about those with more than two children, who were able to comfortably afford to be self sufficient but, through no fault of their own, fall on hard times? Will there be any provision for them?

Unfortunately not, but I suspect many wouldn’t give a shit until it happened to them.

He makes a fairly reasonable point. No-one should have 10 kids even if they're not on benefits, it's just not a responsible thing to do. And yes, have only as many kids as you can comfortably support. Don't see what's wrong with saying that ... birth control is widely available and free, and works for the majority (yes I know there can be exceptions).

crazycatlady yes, they wouldn't stop her money but they would have moved her onto JSA when her youngest was 5. They don't let you off the hook just because you have no employment history. If she had no qualifications they would have made her go on a training course. They wanted me to go on one when my DS turned 3 but as I was already studying with the Open Uni I didn't have to.

But you could comfortably support them one day and lose your job the next. Are we all supposed to have crystal balls?

I don’t get this. Ben Bradshaw might well be a knobhead but how I read the above is that he’s saying you can use the non-availability of contraceptives as and excuse. No where can I see that he’s advocating ‘forced sterilisation’.

He's right really - and the Tories agree with him as they have since brought in benefit caps.

Remember also that Labour were not going to undo the reforms at the last GE, so both wings of the government are for the caps.

@Ivymaud I don't know the ins and outs of sanctions, in my cousins case she decided to have another child.

Although at the end of the day some people at the job centre don't check whether you have been looking for work. When my mum was out of work after being made redundant she used to write down everywhere she looked at and everything she applied for and took this to the job centre. A young man who was in there are the same time as my mum was asked how many jobs he had applied for, he answered 10, when asked where he had applied he said he couldn't remember and that was it.

Crystal balls

Can anyone who disagrees with Ben Bradshaw's statement in the OP's first post give a coherent, rational explanation of what precisely they disagree with?

But you could comfortably support them one day and lose your job the next. Are we all supposed to have crystal balls?

Do people really think they have a job for life any more, those days are long gone. I know me and my ex discussed the what-if scenario when we were discussing children and decided to stop at 2.