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 child cap applies to any family that had a third child after whatever the date was. It also applies - and this is the bit so many people don’t get - to any families where an entirely new claim for benefits is being made. What is your point?

I think he's using a problem that doesn't really exist as an excuse to demonise people on benefits despite the fact that the vast majority of them are in work.

I also think that enforced sterilisation will never be acceptable and should be left in the past with the nazis who invented it.

@LyraPotter yes! Spot on.

"but what about the minority of parents who suddenly "discover" a hitherto unperceived issue in their child when they learn of the exception"

A child doesn't get Dla just because they have an issue ( or a diagnosis) - no matter what you might read in the daily mail.

ohreallyohreallyoh

The child cap applies to any family that had a third child after whatever the date was. It also applies - and this is the bit so many people don’t get - to any families where an entirely new claim for benefits is being made. What is your point?

That’s not correct. It only applies to children born after April 2017. If you had 3 kids before this date, you’re unaffected by the changes.

There certainly are some frustrating families who keep reproducing when they are already doing a bad job with their existing kids. Not all of them are unemployed, though. Clearly Ben Bradley did not go far enough. Once you've decided it's OK to force a vasectomy on any man caught fathering children he cannot afford, how about arguing the same with regard to men who father children they won't look after, even though they can afford it? How about forced abortions on women deemed to have too many children already? Or forcing paternity tests on people who deny responsibility for a pregnancy and giving a vasectomy to anyone caught out lying? How nasty and invasive are we wanting to get, here?

Aye and switching from other benefits to UC classes as a new claim apparently.

Yes new claims after Nov 2018 will be affected. That's children born before April 2017

A quick google suggests:_
a) You can't claim universal credit at all if you have more than two children (have to claim old-fashioned benefits, including maybe child tax credit.)
b) for child tax credits only children born after the change are excluded from new claims.

So which benefit are you talking about where new claims for children born before the change aren't allowed?

At least he talked about vasectomies (and made no mention of men being forced to have them). It is refreshing for a politician to put the onus on men to prevent unwanted pregnancies or take responsibility for providing for the children they father. Makes a change from demonising single mothers.

Office worker, unemployed mother of 10 and Chancellor are sat at the table with 10 biscuits.

Chancellor takes 9 for his mates at Google and says "Watch out Office worker, that bum is trying to steal your biscuits"

I may well be wrong, I'm only going by what google has told me. Maybe people can find links I've missed that show circumstances where a child born before the the 2-child limit was introduced cannot be claimed for.

I don't disagree with capping benefits to two children as I still leaves them the human right to have more but they won't be funded. Does that make sense at all. Or do I need to open my mind more and they should get benefits for every child regardless of them being able to afford it.

Yay! Marie Stopes is still alive.
Good grief some people are disgusting. These views are abhorrent.
As for those of you going on about lots of children, check the numbers out. There are in fact a relatively small number of families with three or more children, let alone ten. There are very with ten.

I agree with what he said, but he was talking about a very small minority.

I agree with forced vac for men who chose not be stand up and be a parent.

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 has been bothering people for at least a century...

A lot of people really do seem to believe that the unemployed are somehow a different type of human. Who will pass unemployment to their children genetically. There's probaly some kind of role-model type influence, sure, but it completely ignores the wider context - a spike in unemployment after a recession, for example, isn't caused by a load of people suddenly deciding they can't be arsed to work. Countries financially on the up don't find the middle-classes increasing in number because a load of the (genetically, inescapably) poor have died off!

Alongside this is the idea that these poor "type" of people somehow have different rules applied to them around benefit access. Eg. young person A "can't afford" to leave home but young person B on benefits can. They are living under the same system. In actual fact person A will have a higher income than person B, and if not will be entitled to top-up benefits themselves. It's just that person A doesn't want to live in a scummy HMO with so little to live on each week after rent paid. (Have they cut HB entirely to under 25's now? This "logic" was rolled out to justify it...)

Re. disability benefits - I'd be interested to see if there's a correlation between social class and who is awarded benefits with relatively little trouble. I think they might be weighted towards those who can fight their corner...

hat’s not correct. It only applies to children born after April 2017. If you had 3 kids before this date, you’re unaffected by the changes

Please google and look again.

And even if it were the case that currently people with three children born before the cut off can apply, within a very short time, there will be thousands of families who can’t. All fine until your marriage breaks down.

I dare say that there will be a tidal change in narrative about the unemployed when ai invades middle class jobs.

I hate to disappoint, Spikey, but your rather facile point about the Daily Mail has no relevance to what I wrote; the circumstances I described were told to me in person by young women who mistook me for someone who'd admire their "cleverness"

I don't for an instant suggest they represent the majority of claimants, only that it would be worthwhile finding a way of separating out folk like this from all the decent people they're cheating

Once a while ago. i was a single mother. It is not a life style i would chose nor a life chosen by several other women in the same situation I was on. One or two...bit cheeky I reckon and 1 case in particular was epic but there were so many other factors including mental health that it was keeping a couple of departments fully employed. The woman in question came from a very well to do family who were supporting her as much as they could. It was not genetic. All her kids are doing ok now. they had a rough time.
I was and still am, so grateful that the welfare state held me safe long enough to get my feet under me because another person decided not to parent. He wasn't work shy. He was parent shy.
I have thrived, so has my daughter. I have had another child, returned to education, a career....ooooh can't see nothing but the stars from here. A few years ago I was on John Redwoods radar and he was coming for me. Nothing has changed in 20 years, just the title of the criminal

No having a issue does not get you Dla Puzzled. Whoever has told you that is wrong.

I dare say that there will be a tidal change in narrative about the unemployed when ai invades middle class jobs.

AI is decades away at best and automation has been happening since the industrial revolution so its a moot point, also when AI does take hold there will be even stricter limits on benefits for children as we will not need to replace the workforce so much and you will have to manage with a UBI with add ons just for disabilities. The same motive will be at play, only have the children you can afford, and that does also mean factoring in the now universal scenario of not having a job for life.