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.

Noel said in the last show IIRC that the children don't go to any clubs a s it would mean too much running around to collect them.

I agree with PP about adoption being the reason for their over breeding. I’m adopted and have no intention of having more than 2 children, or any more than I can take care of, and using it as an excuse for my life choices or poor behaviour etc. To imply that being adopted somehow makes you more prone to poor life choices or difficulties such as mental health issues etc is patronising, cliched and a bad false generalisation - so sorry to those who think this applies to all adoptees. It doesn’t, sorry.

That should say adoption not being the reason..! 🙄

I've seen a recent post of one of the girls going to gymnastics, I think it was a fb post.

WTAF has this got to do with ANYONE else but them?

Copper generally I agree but considering they have put themselves in the spotlight time and time again I think it is fine to have an opinion.

Adoptees are statistically more prone to difficulties. Just because you don't, or their quirks don't match yours, doesn't mean that their adoptions isn't an interesting part of why they've made this choice.

It's not patronising, or offensive, to realise that something traumatic in early childhood has lifelong effects.

No, it is nothing like xfactor. xfactor is promoted as a singing contest, not a look at my arse contest.

Radfords are a 'look at our huge family, aren't we amazing, and we don't even claim any benefits' reality television programme. If they don't want their behaviour to be negatively commented on they should step the fuck away from social media.

So you didn't notice the door handle being removed, smithsally, or the kids saying they were unhappy?

Exactly, they haven't fallen into the limelight by accident. They have put their dc into the dirtiest of rags time over and then complained that people were talking about them. She then gets pregnant/gives birth and they are back for more. They have been vocally upset about negative comments so IMO it must be the money they need, which I can understand. Raising that amount of dc on such a relatively small salary must be very hard, especially when you refuse all state handouts.

Please don't tell adopted people what is and isn't patronising and offensive to them, thomasmuggit. Even if you are adopted yourself, you must know that being adopted doesn't automatically mean you have a traumatic start in life - we're not all products of bad homes. All the adopted people on this thread are asking is that others not assume that being adopted is the reason for the life choices the Radfords have made, as that paints a negative picture of adoption, which never helps anyone.

I thought you might.

I'm not saying it's the reason. I'm saying it's interesting. If people choose to be offended by the evidence of research into the effects of adoption, then that's their choice.

The timing of adoption doesn't make people immune to its effects. I was answering those who were claiming these people who have made a very unusual choice in the size of their family cannot be affected by their adoptions because it happened at birth. The research does not point to adoption timing negating the negative effects of adoption.

Adoption has many positives. It's been a fantastic thing in my family. But it comes out of pain and loss. I don't think it's a massive leap to find it interesting that this may be influencing this unusual choice in family size.

Lets be honest this has gone way beyond a need to build a large family unit. This is an addiction. And I’d imagine there’s a fear that if there isn’t a new baby the interest and money will dry up as currently each baby brings interviews, photos and a This morning slot.
Those saying it shouldn’t be discussed? So why do they make a national announcement and family photo that they sell? Perhaps the older kids are able to attend clubs independently but they’ve been clear the younger kids don’t. I’m not sure why am opinion is so out of order? You can discuss the Royal Family, tv stars, famous cooks, why on Earth not a family making money out of reproduction and blatantly misleading how they financially survive.
I personally loved that Eamonn Holmes called him a ‘randy goat’

I'm not saying it's the reason

But many on this thread since the start, have and that is what we were responding to. Please understand where we are coming from.

If people choose to be offended by the evidence of research into the effects of adoption, then that's their choice.
Don't put words into my mouth, please. That is not what I or another poster was referring to, as finding patronising. Only on Mumsnet could someone feel it is ok to tell an adopted person this.

What research is this, by the way? I am part of the Post Adoption Centre charity and I know that 'research' is limited at best, before adoption in this country became "Open Adoption"., which was when the Radford's were adopted.

Anyway, this is de-railing the post. I cannot tell someone what to post, I am aware of that. However, asking for sensitivity shouldn't be rebuffed.

zzzz the discussion here is very ta me and respectful. I am not in favour of censorship but some of the things I have read on other (predominantly) US sites has been horrific. I
Also they both spoke in the last programme openly about their sex life and the measures they take to stop the children walking in on them whilst dtd; there isn't really much more than that surely?

Raising that amount of dc on such a relatively small salary must be very hard, especially when you refuse all state handouts.

But they don't, @tiredmumofmany. They take child benefits and have certainly taken tax credits in the past, as well as using state funded health care and education.

Who's attacking every aspect of their lives, @zzzzz? They are being criticised in terms of what they make public.

Adoption in this country is not "open adoption", in the US way of that term.

I apologise if you feel I put words in anyone's mouths.

As someone involved in post adoption charities, you will know why they need to exist, then? Adoption is a trauma. Many people cope ok with that, many don't. Statistically, adoptees do go on to have increased risk of problems. As do many other groups. Individually, people vary. But it's not irrelevant that the parents of this unusual family were adopted. That is interesting, in terms of wondering as to their drive to do something outside our current social norms.

Raising that amount of dc on such a relatively small salary must be very hard, especially when you refuse all state handouts

how do you know what they earn? do you think they do documentaries and publicity for free? how do you know what their online pie shop with the £15 pies makes?

smithsally They would have to be earning a fortune to bring up 21 children without benefits.