aibu in thinking that the couples on the news

[TheUsefulSuspect]

shouldn't have had a first child, let alone a second if they think there 1 Bedroom flat is insufficient.

Why do they think they deserve to be rehoused?

Some of you might find this link about uk child poverty and family size of interest

www.jrf.org.uk/publications/child-poverty-large-families

"if your house isn't big enough and you have no money and you already have a child, it seems silly to have another."

see i find a comments like this very funny - my inlaws had 2 wonderful children - initially housed in a one bedroom flat til they could afford a family home - they eventually owned many properties and became successful financially and never relied on the state.

For purely selfish reasons I'm so glad they did decide to be silly and have children as if they hadn't of done so I would not have met my wonderful dh.

Oh or my other friend one of a family of 9 - who became a very successful businessman - retired early and gives away money to help others... but then he had a wonderful mum who taught him some wonderful values and did not neglect any of her children.,, all 7 have been educated to a high level, but these are just 2 examples and it seems mighty silly to base any kind of govt policy on such anecdotes.

so what you are saying is that your in-laws stopped at two becuase they didn't have the room for anymore in the one bedroom flat

two lovely examples there, but i don't think that anyone has thus far suggested that by considering your current circumstances (or not) and making a decision ( or not) on whether to have more children (or not) has in anyway a connection to success. However i think it would be widely accepted that those who are living in poverty in cramped conditions are less likley to be afforded the same life choices as those with more money etc.

And yes my 2 examples are only that - a bit ridiculous really - and not very relevant - and I think that was the point I was trying to make - you simply can not generalise.

WE also need to consider society as well as personal responsibility - you know that saying it takes a village to raise a child. No one raised children in isolation.

SO much is inter-related - for example you may be well off enough to afford a house keeper - because for example that housekeeper does not in fact get paid that much compared to say you - and has limited life choices because of that housekeepers circumstances....

I think RIven has really grasped the key issue - the issue is education for women. There are also political, religious issues why people have large families.

This could run and run.....

My DSis has 4 DC and is constantly moaning about not being able to afford a house big enough for them all. I have often wondered why she had 4 if she couldn't afford to house them.

I also think that there's an issue about expectation of house size. Ok, a one bed flat is tiny for children, so I'm not commenting on the specific couple mentioned by the OP, but I know plenty of adults in their 50s and 60s who were raised in families of two or three children in a two bed terrace. I think we've all become a bit obsessed with the amount of space we 'need' (never want, always 'need') to have children. I get a bit sick of hearing people say "ooh, we really want another one, but of course we'd need at least a three bed house to have two..."

Chica that's one eprson: we've 4 and a house too small by way of sn and yet I never complain about it.

I had a think about this last night as I know I went a bit off yesterday. Basically, whilst I could understand restricting IS etc (but never would support as I am opposed), restricting other benefits would be counterproductive and where do we stop? TC's? So prevennting people accessing wotrk to get them off benefits (poverty being a problem for all people not just the poor family); disability benefits (my ds3 is disabled; as are other peoples later children). Carers for the people caring for those disabled kids born after the second? the effect would be to complketely destroy swathes of innocent famillies.

And whilt I get it wouldn't affect me as not retrospective what sort of human would I have to be to support others losing life chances I have had?

I don't know anyone with even 5 children in above a 3 bed, I even suppported a family trying and failing to get a 4 bed with 5.

'The best contraceptive available to me and my friends as teenagers in the early 80's was the lack of free housing and benefits'

see where I grew up many of my classmates were pg at 15; in the eighties. Their parents gort lumbered wiyth costrs instead I guess.

Morris from your post yesterday if youre about (had to leave thread to do stuff) what failsafe contraception would you advise for me then?

Can't use hormonal methods, or be sterilised; DH on an 18 month wiaitng list for a vasectomy.

Coild not advised for me by GP due to med history as well.

??

I have no plans for another child, but an abortion is not something I can do (and I do know the reality of them, have supported women through them, but just couldn't). So if I accidentally get PG the baby stays.

Fortunately two sn kids is the best contraception a woman can find Ime

May I ask why you can't be sterilised?

"if you know that you would not get financial support from the government and you couldn't afford it - then don't have the children.

i don't see why this equation is so hard to understand."

Custardo, this 'equation' is answering a different question.

Imagine just for a second that someone knew they were not going to get financial support for more than two children and went on and had three or four regardless. Or had a third, unplanned child.

What happens to those children?

Is that so hard to understand?

And please don't repeat the same naive assertion that nobody would have further children without state support, because that is risible.

ExP:

Gop advises against it on basis of:

A) I have what may be early stage osteoporosis (my own effing fault as am dairy intol and as a younger person didnt bother with calisum etc, have had 3 minor fractures in past year)

B) He advises against it for anyone who won't get recuperation time: Dh's Uni won't allow time off for 8anything* (they all had a group warning because some students taking the mick, all being monitored)- plus of course he's self employed and you know about the boys needs etc- Mum can't help as she's on call fpor BIL's oft cancelled op or my suster and we are too far away anyway

C) DS4 won't drink anything other than BM- allergic to milk etc and refuses to drink from cup, bottle etc (i'd put hard cash on AS but too young atm): this means a general anasesthetic and hospitalisation would be a no go at this stage

yep tether

and iondeed that people really, really dont believe that redundancy / disability / etc will happen to them and their famillies and change everything.

runnybottom - who on earth has enough time to read through 13 pages of posts?? screw that - I just post anyway without reading everyone else's comments!

tethersend Is it really so hard to understand that people should take some responsibilty for themselves?

It's simple, there's the choice to have sex or not, choice to use contraception, morning after pill, abortion and even adoption.

As I said earlier I didn't have children with my 2nd DH as I didn't want to have teenagers having to share a room with toddlers (there'd been through enough with divorce etc). We couldn't get a mortgage to move get a bigger house. It's not like we could ask the council to pay the difference. My 2nd Dh has a right to have a child, according to some people. Well we didn't because we couldn't afford it. We couldn't have afforded out current mortgage anyway if I'd had maternity leave.

As soon as anybody mentions resricting levels of support, people start mentioning multiple births and contraceptives not be always effective. Does that mean that we shouldn't even try to encourage people to take responsiblity?

No 2old, but to me it means this is entirely the wrong way to go about it.

Som say this was brought in ten years ago: would it aean I couldnt get any benefits as the third child is the one I get my carer's allowance for?

I am not sure of the boudaries of all this, you see.

Now if I were running the world I'd be looking to massively spread out support on the homestart model, mentor support for women whoa re struggling on benefits. That kind of support works, forcing people into poverty if theya re one of the unlucky ones (and yes I do mean who could not have an abortion (for me it would be an absolute could not; we though ds3 might be seriously disabled with a different condition but we couldnt consider it (the autism he has is copmpletely separate- he was feree of the prospective dx ironically / was unlucky with contraception / etc)

Most of all though I don't want to live in world where my Government tells people what shape their famillies should be. Besides, 2 palces us under replacement rate so the entire benefit system would collapse: hey ho.

Who'd bring this in btw? DC with his 3 children (yes I know about Ivan but he nonetheless is a father of three) and his fortune? Sorry mate you're not as lucky as me, you may well be unable to escape poverty for some very real reason, but either you don';t have that much longed for extra child or we leave you to starve.

Becuase you see, to those of us in poverty- and for us it really does appear tempoorary,. though it isn;t to many- that is how exactly it will look.

Beleive it or not, the vast majhority of people manage to scrape by without compl;aint in low paid jobs without benefits. We did, we are and were a very happy family. It won't stop babies being born, but it will elave a great many children vulnerable in the worst situations and the notable ones will be where the parents were caught unawares- redundancy, parental death etc. The people at the bottom of the income structure- the benefit dependent and lifelong IS claimants- they will cope; your life sets up to it. A few complain about council houses but if one person on a high wage went public with a complaint about mortgage rates for bigger famillies being lowered or soemthing would we all assume they spoke for all? nope. likewise we've never asked for a bigger house (private rented btw) and can't imagine we would tbh. So why should we be classed in with some supposed ingrate group?

There's also this over riding feeling of 'we the taxpayer'... well guess what, me the taxpayer- or at elast DH. And me for as long as I was able indeed. And me the taxpayer would rather see it go to support children and enable family choice than a great many other initiatives including and not limited to wars and pointless expenses.

And yes of course i now thats a rant (see my name) but hey ho

"tethersend Is it really so hard to understand that people should take some responsibilty for themselves?"

Is it really so hard to understand that some people won't?

And will somebody please tell me what happens to those 'extra' children of parents who do not give a flying fuck about responsibility?

Or do we not support those children in order to punish their feckless parents?

Looks as if that is the case yes tether.

Quite sickening really.

Am assuming btw that we are feckless? Despite me being a carer and DH sharing an 80 hour week between work and study, the fact that atm we need benefits to help us along post reedundancy from job we thought ws for life makes us that?

Why assume that Preachy? No-one has even intimated that.

I don't know why you're so worked up really. Nothing is going to happen. I honestly don't beleive anyone here would like to see any child anywhere punished or purposefully deprived of essential care by any new rule or law. Nothing is going to happen to anyone and no-one is going to be prevented from doing anything.
People are sounding off. Because for many different reasons it pisses people off to see people like those in the OP. I can't speak for anyone else but yes I think theres an element of its not fair about it, and a feeling of ffs get a grip. Because when you are working hard and struggling, or being a carer and struggling, or actively seeking work or just doing your bloody best and struggling, it grates when you're watching the news and you hear someone whining about needing a bigger house, or when you read the paper and see a woman with 11 children complaining about how hard her life is on benefits.
Its sounding off. I don't think theres much more to it than that.

Why am I worked up? Honestly, deep soul searching?

becuase I feel gulty for every penny we claim. I am well aware that if wehadn't ahd a large family, or any family as the boys will be expensive with their SN, the country as a whole would be better off. So yes I feel guilty, allso that I can't find an immediate way out for us.

saying that people on benefits with alrege famillies are ijn some way to blame feels as if someone is saying I am feckless, whcih may well say mroe about my issues than whats actually being said. I think that is understandable though.

I'M sorry you feel that way, truly I am. I for one had no intention of making you or anyone feel bad.
Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with someone having a large family and being on benefits, for the most part. I grew up on benefits. My only problem was with the attitude of some ( a very small minority I presume) who seem to be not only content to draw and never contribute, but to see it as their right and to want more and more.

I don't want to live in a society that doesn't support it most vulnerable. I'd like to see much more support given to many. But theres one or 2 I'd just like to slap instead. Thats all.

I totally understand that; I remember well when ds1 was small and we just found out planned ds2 was due seeing someone with a double buggy I wanted but coudn;t afford, and knowing that whilst we were both working jobs we ahted to get by she had never worked a day in her life (and in fact all her kids ahve been taken away now so doubler grr in retrospect I guess)

And of course when I worked for HS I would walk into famillies and think FGS why not just go back to college / get rid of the cock lodger / whatever

Of course I did, i'm human after all.

But whilst I felt angry at the parents I never onve wanted to see a system that would leads to any children beng worse off.

Would be far better imo to rejog the ssystem so that it rewrds people for making positive choices such as college, taking on voluntary experience- atm the momkent the sort of thing that would make people employable is often something that would cause you to be deemed not available for work and not paid! Seems bizarre tbh.

There's a single mumof five I know as well, did ehr degree alongside me, did blody well, a few fathers IIRC, wants to work but when she went off to teacher train she was refused a bursary as they felt having and ASD child would make her unreliable (never did hern degree attendance)

So many things work against parents that they ned to be resolvedf before pennury inducing draconian measures are considered
imo

And nobody on egre made me feel guilty, I do that all by myself: and indeed is a sign of my own integrity really as why woudl i want to live off other people?

I agree entirely. I'm in the middle of my degree right now, not only was I refused any kind of grant, allowance, anything...I also didn't qualify for free fees (because I have to do distance learning as can't afford childcare), so my fees alone are over 10 thousand euro. Its ridiculous, we have no money at all but you get no notice for trying to make something of yourself and do well.

Fuck it, at least we can say we have a bit of pride I suppose!

Preachy I can totally emphasise why you feel guilty for claiming.

I sensed a judgemental tone to those from large families in this thread.

I think so often people forget that so often your wealth is dependent on so many different circumstances and not always controllable.

I really wish you and your family help through these hard times.

Redundancy is very tough and redundancy payments are very limited.