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.

At 6 weeks?

Controlled crying at 6 weeks is wholly unacceptable. Just because our parents did it does not make it ok. Our parents didn't strap us in a car but that doesn't make it ok to do that now (my parents did strap me in btw, I was the uncool kid who wasn't allowed to stick my head out of the sunroof when stopped at the lights).

I dont think any “experts” recommend controlled crying under 6 months do they?
You can’t just not feed a 6 week old baby for 12 hours or so because you’ve decided you want a quiet evening! That’s barbaric!

Did you not read the quote from the Radford blog up thread? (Ie, what we’re all talking about)
They say you ignore their crying and don’t go back in because they “just want attention”
And no, all advice says 6 months

Are you being deliberately obtuse zzzz?

Yeah because that’s exactly what we’re saying 🙄

You’re clearly purposely misreading and/or omitting bits of information because you’re so adamant to make out like these parents are right
Wouldn’t surprise me if you were one of them or one of their older kids
It’s actually pointless talking to you

I my not being judgemental. If I couldn't have reconfigured my room to fit a cot in then I would've found another way to sleep by my baby. With my last I slept on the pull out sofa bed downstairs and had him in the Priam next to me. It's not about identikit parenting, it's about keeping a newborn baby safe at any cost.

I do get that some babies sleep better alone and that not everyone can fit a cot in their bedroom but that is very different to leaving a 6 week old tiny hungry baby to cry at night because you are too busy TTC the next one

I can't help thinking that if it were a single mother who locked her children in their room at night as would around her like flies on shite.
Like I say I really do not get how these 2 have became heros.

It sounds like they just leave their babies to cry it out which is different to controlled crying.

@Donaldduckstowels I know, it was crazy! He was actually completely normal sized, not tiny at all. The mum was right next to him if he stirred so I guess if he was left alone you’d have falling concerns. Some people keep kids on cots till they’re 3, others have babies that are 9 months and climb out of their cots so you have to find another solution (my child)
The point is, there are guidelines and the majority follow them. It is more unusual to move children out of parents bedroom early, but for many they don’t want to. I’d move my husband out before my baby!! They just seem so small to be alone.
But 6 weeks, and crying it out is not right.

@zzzzz

Nope. I’m just not so arrogant as to think that any child who isn’t raised in exactly the same way as mine is doomed to a life of misery. The idea that someone you don’t know in a house you have never seen should have shifted bedroom furniture and miraculously produced room for a cot blah blah blah.....judgemental crap.
Not at all, the point is, most people do. Yes I have rearranged furniture to accomodate a baby and not been able to open my wardrobe! It was only short term. Of course not everyone will but the people being discussed here have shared their bedroom and it’s plenty big enough for a Moses basket for a few months, and actually what is going on? You have a woman abused as a child, robbed of her childhood by an older man and now she’s continuously reproducing and moving them on at 6 weeks old. Some babies sleep through early, but many don’t and that is normal. They are only babies a short while.

I can't help thinking that if it were a single mother who locked her children in their room at night as would around her like flies on shite

That did happen. There was a large family who had the same circs as the Radfords; dad worked and mum was a SAHM. I think they had about 10 dc. They were on a C5 programme and very open about the fact that they got tax credits and they also had a HA property. They were torn to shreds and the tabloids used to go on about her '£5k birth via the taxpayer' every time she had a baby. IIRC she was nick named the 'Queen of Benefits'.

The Radfords have been portrayed by the media as the salt of the earth, British working class grafters. Their early punch lines were always related to them REFUSING to accept benefits. If you look at the online comments on their birth announcements the only positive ones are far-right 'well at least they're having more white babies for Britain' or referring to the fact that they are paying their way. The media have played a massive part in the continuing rise of their fame.

Well that's my point well and truly proven then, Tired

I followed one of the mums from 15 and counting for a while, they really struggled with the negative angle portrayed and attention they gained and refused to take part in subsequent programs.

@zzzzz ‘waited 5 years’ gosh yes, she was 18 when she had her second child.
In any other circumstance people would be horrified by this story. It’s hardly an achievement.
17 yr old friend of girl’s brother gets her pregnant at 13, then again at 17. Repeat x 19

@zzzzz I’m not disagreeing with you in that sense, I have teenagers and it’s awful that this is brushed aside. I’m sure technically he didn’t ‘groom’ her and they are clear to promote the Sue sent him love notes, but the fact was he was considerably older and she a young child,
And I very much imagine that the teachers of all these kids would have insight that would not be supportive of increasing year on year.
I wish the children well, I just wish they all had a chance to be focused on and enjoyed for who they are. There is t enough time in a week for 2 parents to do that with so many.

I followed one of the mums from 15 and counting for a while, they really struggled with the negative angle portrayed and attention they gained and refused to take part in subsequent programs

I remember reading on here that someone whose family member worked for C4 said that the families were approached from an angle intentionally. There was a religious fanatic who isolated her dc from the world (she actually went on to lodge a complaint against channel 4 and spoke quite openly about how they were misrepresented), the unemployed 'immigrant' Muslim family, the party family who ate out in the pub everyday and never washed socks and then the nations favourite, the Radfords. She said that the camera crew used to deliberately rile up the Saleem children when out in public to make them look out of control and clutter their house up to make it look messy. It goes to show you that the media take an angle and spin it off as the truth.

I’ve just had my fourth DC and the HV visited for the first time a few days ago. I have never had a HV tell me this before (DC3 is six) so I imagine it’s new advice but she basically started waffling on about synapses and how they become damaged if a baby under six months is ignored and left to cry. They need lots of love and attention on demand before they turn six months and they don’t have the brain capacity to manipulate adults for attention.

That was a slight tangent but I imagine the Radfords ignoring their babies crying from six weeks of age and also ignoring SIDS guidelines by placing them in their own room will lead to some majorly damaged synapses. As terrible as it sounds they are majorly fortunate to have only lost one out of 21 children and to not have any majorly disabled children. Not only that but Sue herself is fortunate to not have any long term health issues or actually to not have died during one of the twenty one deliveries.

If you put the cost to tax payers to one side, my biggest concern is the fact the children will never have experienced quality 1:1 time with their parents. It’s just impossible with that volume of children. They will also struggle to have a private life of any sort until they leave home, they’re constantly surrounded by siblings and I’d imagine lots of noise. I bet they love school, it’s probably the only time adults speak to them properly and give them individual attention.

I think because Sue had her first child so young, it really is all she has known. She never had the opportunity to build a life of her own first so her life has just become being pregnant. She probably feels lost when she isn’t pregnant or handling a newborn baby.

As I said, I have just had my fourth (and final) child. It’s difficult enough for DP and I to offer them the individual attention they need, especially with an all demanding newborn around. It’s literally impossible offering that to as many kids as they have. Plus they must be permanently shattered.