Sue Radford, baby 21 is here..

[FortuneFrimble]

Daily Fail story here
21 babies! That's some achievement. I cannot believe her body is still in one piece. I feel sorry for those kids though. There's absolutely no way they can all have the individual attention they need growing up. Four kids maybe, perhaps 6 at an absolute push but 21 seems like collecting trophies for a hobby to me. It'd be interesting to see what families those children decide to have when the time comes. It seems like she's putting her own want for babies ahead of her existing children's wellbeing & that isn't healthy. I'm curious that she's practically guaranteed herself an endless supply of babies as her children have children. But they're supposedly paying for everything themselves so we're not allowed to say anything against them. I don't agree with it. Tell me I'm being U.

I don't judge and don't have have an opinion on tax or benefits or whatever but my god, 21 children. As women we all know what we go through during pregnancy and childbirth as standard (I say this as someone lucky enough to have had a relatively straightforward time of it), it makes me wince to think of her doing it 21+ times, physically. I thought when she started having grandkids, she'd be 'cured'.

I think the children seemed happy, well adjusted , kind and well mannered.Compare to kids on these school documentaries - you cant say the same of them. Or the misery of children in so-called blend3ed families with a procession of step parents and step siblins being foisted on them. Living with happily married biological parents is one OF the strongest predictors of success across the board

Fuck me mumto2 you sound utterly unhinged!
are you Sue?

Do people here not realise how tax credits work ? Mum2boys why are you waffling on about hmrc knowing .
So according to the tax credits calculator a couple earning 50k a year self employed with 12 children can claim £1600 a month tax credits
Child benefit works out about roughly £600 a month for 12 children so that’s £2200 a month , all legitimately claimed and the radfords are entitled to claim this , the fact a child cap is in place only affects them for their last 2 children .
HOWEVER that doesn’t change the fact they choose to keep procreating knowing they could just be supported on their choices .
They would be pretty thick not to claim the tax credits to be honest and I’m sure they wouldn’t not claim just to be liked by the public . So yeah the tax payer pretty much pays for their children even if it is all above board .

They families tax credits and child benefit entitlement eclipses any benefits an unemployed mum of 2 or 3 would get so they have no business looking down on anyone .

Someone upthread mentioned special needs and how such a big family wouldn’t work if her children had additional needs. Seriously, how would she know?

Obviously they don’t have syndromic disorders but if they had specific learning disorders would their parents know? I wonder if they could actually state their kids’ best friends, favourite book, favourite meal and academic strengths and weaknesses. It’s all very well to say that on camera they seem clean and polite and whatever but do their parents know who they are as people?

Sue would have been 13 years 6 months when she fell pregnant to her boyfriend - 4 years 4 months older so very nearly 18. Very nearly legally a man.

It is known that some men keep "their" women pregnant as a method of control. A couple who have their first child when the girl is 14 and the man is 18 may have an unusual relationship dynamic. This may not be the case but I do worry for Sue.

I will have 4 DC and a very happy marriage but I'm aware that life without DH would become harder with every additional child, which leaves me aware of how vulnerable and / or trapped I'd be if things went tits up. Not just divorce, affair, abuse but illness or death. It must be scary with even more kids.

I'm one of eight which is large but by no means Radford big and I feel so sorry for their children. I hated it, never having my parents attention or their interest in anything we did. I love my siblings but we aren't particularly close and apart from me they all have only children!

This couple are wrong to have had so many children, I don’t think they could possibly be given the attention and care they need.
However comments like below are irrelevant, arrogant and rude:

@whisky2014
And forgive me for saying this but i highly doubt any of the kids will be working in the higher tax band when/if they work. It's a horrible situation all round.

What exactly has a childs future tax paying ability got to do with anything? paying higher taxes does not mean you are a product of more successful parenting and more productive to society.

Most teachers/paramedics/nurses/midwives/carers won’t be in the higher tax paying Bands, yet I think many give more to society than some of the higher tax payers. I’m sure most, given they are educated people, were parented well and their education was well worth tax payers money. For those who didn’t receive good parenting and still have any kind of employment, their personal success is remarkable.

But who are you to imply that paying a higher tax is a marker of success or good parenting, when so many vital professions never earn this much?

lifesnotfair because it means they cost the economy with nothing to give back. If we all did that the country would be on its knees and also, i was referring to posters who were saying the radfords have created 21 tax payers which obviously, might not be true...

paying higher taxes does not mean you are a product of more successful parenting and more productive to society

You can score out the word "higher" actually and yes, that is what it means.

So educating anyone who in the future will earn under the higher tax payers band means a cost to the economy that is never paid back? Really?
Would you say that to the midwife who delivered your baby or the teacher who educated them? Or the paramedic who saved your life? That they have never gave anything back, because their profession doesn’t happen to be well paid enough for them to pay a higher tax rate?

I do not think the Radfords are responsible
People. They may very well not produce any tax payers at all.

But saying an individuals future tax paying potential is a financial justification for their education is absolutely abhorrent.

Where do disabled people fit with this whisky?
If most hcps, teachers and such like don’t ‘pay back’ their education because they can’t earn enough, what about disabled people who can’t earn anything.
Where do you sit on giving them an education?

Obviously they don’t have syndromic disorders but if they had specific learning disorders would their parents know? I wonder if they could actually state their kids’ best friends, favourite book, favourite meal and academic strengths and weaknesses.

what a ridiculous thin to say! Even a class teacher would know most of these things after only 6 hours a day with 30 children. And remember that are not 21 little children. Some of them are adults!

They are grandparents as well. I loved watching my mum and dad become ‘gran and grandad’ and take on that role and have a lovely bond with my own children, so feel a bit sad for the older Radford kids and I highly doubt it’s really been the same for them.

Are any of the radfords kids disabled? No. Thought not.

There's something terribly wrong about defining how worthy a person is by their income.

Whisky your views are awful.

I think the fact this couple are 'celebrities' and have their own TV programme just because they don't use contraception to prevent never ending pregnancies is worse than the amount of children they have.

They're not 'amazing' or 'Super parents' and they have obviously put their own needs above their children's. There's nothing to be lauded there.

I worry about her health but my Uncle is one of 15. I'm one of 7, only female with 6 brothers. With 6 I can say I never ever felt that I wasn't getting attention (only bringing it up because OP mentioned 6). I loved having all the siblings. My Uncle loved having such a huge family. I honestly don't care but I do worry about her health.

They MUST be entitled to a big tax credits sum surely? If they are entitled to child benefit, plus the number of kids they have born before April 2017 then logically they must get a sizeable amount of TCs.

I wouldn’t be surprised if what they get annually in benefits is actually a lot more than an unemployed family with 2 or 3 children who are solely reliant on benefits.

And why are they saying AGAIN that this baby is definitely the last? We all know they have absolutely no intention of using any contraception and preventative measures, will continue ‘trying’ for another pregnancy and if it doesn’t happen it will purely be because their ages finally caught up with them, not because they made the conscious decision to stop.