Child Poverty

[dogmandont 10,060]

2 minutes ago, W. Katchum said:

Be like me mate a can’t be sat about, this was his perfect chance to get out more haha an he ant doin too bad out it, I say 400odd but he already bought a new Berghaus in there half price sale an iv already took the money off his wages

We hadn't much of anything growing up so the first opportunity to earn was jumped at, looking back i dont know if it was the right decision because once you start you can't stop. Lol. 

[.357shooter 1,363]

if you can not afford kids you should not have them.tax payers like me should not be footing the bill for other peoples kids no matter where they come from. all these charities have thrown millions at these african countries and nothing has changed that shows money does not work.people should get food credits and such to support one child only.the state should not have to pay for your children if you can not.when you throw more and more cash at larger and larger families you are only supporting people to not work.

[WILF 49,731]

24 minutes ago, dogmandont said:

We hadn't much of anything growing up so the first opportunity to earn was jumped at, looking back i dont know if it was the right decision because once you start you can't stop. Lol. 

Likewise, I was out grafting at 12, used to dig foundations for a builder !

Then at 13 I used to buy tea towels and dusters and all that crap from the wholesaler and go out door to door selling with a pal who had a car and could get us about.

I was 11 when my old man died and I remember my mum going down the social to enquire about what they used to call widows pension and her coming out in bits because the bloke behind the ramp had said to her “Can you prove your husband is dead!” and her having to step over his dead body not 6 weeks earlier !

Then as I got older and was in business I was dealing with banks and all the government officials we all have to deal with, now I have been round a few crooks in my life and I like to think I know a stitch up when I see one and the whole f***ing thing is a massive scam......that’s what makes kids having f**k all even more disgusting.

Obviously all just my opinion, but that’s how I see it.

[WILF 49,731]

5 minutes ago, .357shooter said:

if you can not afford kids you should not have them.tax payers like me should not be footing the bill for other peoples kids no matter where they come from. all these charities have thrown millions at these african countries and nothing has changed that shows money does not work.people should get food credits and such to support one child only.the state should not have to pay for your children if you can not.when you throw more and more cash at larger and larger families you are only supporting people to not work.

And in return the state shouldn’t be asking for 60% of everyone’s hard earned.

[Nicepix 5,650]

7 hours ago, SheepChaser said:

I have to admit that often those at the top are short sighted. But even a lot of those folk are pretty good. The way it’s all funded is a bit to blame, short term grant funding, just little continuation.

if I’m honest though, it’s an almost unsolvable situation. I used to spend a lot of time trying to work out how the hell you fix it ...... I’m not sure if you can ? 

Like you I was often involved at the front end and have struggled to find suitable solutions to the problem long term. There are a lot of factors that add to the problem and some of these factors were brought in to solve one problem and caused another.  Example; giving single mothers priority on the housing list. Unwanted result is that many single girls see getting pregnant as being rewarded with a short cut to social housing. Child benefit payments were also seen as an easy way to obtain extra money. That has been reined in a bit now though. But people who are long-term unemployed should not have the means to produce large families. Some of these with 7 or 8 kids get more income than high earners. That can't be right.

Another issue that I have is with this term: "Full-time Mum". If you want to be a Mum then surely you should be able to support the children.Not opt out of work and rely on the State to pay for your life.

Parents with addictions such as drugs, alcohol and others will always place their needs above their children's needs. It is a proven association with addiction and should not come as a surprise. But you can't legally stop them having more children by accident or design.

For me the obvious if somewhat distasteful answer is to offer sterilisation for a one-off payment. Paying the people who will never by their own means be able to support kids will save the country money in the long run, ease the social housing situation and eventually reduce the number of children who suffer from poverty.  Of course there will be people who will argue that some of those who pt for voluntary sterilisation might claw their way out of the situation they are in and could regret the decision. But that would be a fraction and they had the choice. 

 

 

[low plains drifter 11,142]

5 hours ago, MH1 said:

They were doing them at the start of the lockdown where the meal could be collected from school then that changed to giving the parent the equivalent value in supermarket vouchers...

Could they spunk the vouchers on Amber leaf or were they solely for food ?

[Blackmag 6,354]

My old man was hard on us I remember being chucked out of school at 15 on a Friday he had me working with him in the slaughter house on the Monday up at  4am  and he worked me harder than the foreman I had worked there and other jobs since I was ten one of his saying was get the best boots woman or bed you can because if your not in one your in the other he shown us how to make money and save even in hard times there were 10 of us to feed yet he would never take a penny he could claim alot is down to laziness and motivation but I think we have become a soft society 

[Qbgrey 4,260]

You get alot guys just going round the council flats getting these dinlo girls pregnant,none of em got any backbone for thier actions,they are 25years old going 16 yrs old mental age.got all the money for fags,drugs,beer,gambling,tatts,but too selfish to bring up a kid properly.and by christ that saying when you ask how many kids you got?."er,er,got 3,well ones i know of."!! I could punch the inbred fools.

[WILF 49,731]

58 minutes ago, Nicepix said:

Like you I was often involved at the front end and have struggled to find suitable solutions to the problem long term. There are a lot of factors that add to the problem and some of these factors were brought in to solve one problem and caused another.  Example; giving single mothers priority on the housing list. Unwanted result is that many single girls see getting pregnant as being rewarded with a short cut to social housing. Child benefit payments were also seen as an easy way to obtain extra money. That has been reined in a bit now though. But people who are long-term unemployed should not have the means to produce large families. Some of these with 7 or 8 kids get more income than high earners. That can't be right.

Another issue that I have is with this term: "Full-time Mum". If you want to be a Mum then surely you should be able to support the children.Not opt out of work and rely on the State to pay for your life.

Parents with addictions such as drugs, alcohol and others will always place their needs above their children's needs. It is a proven association with addiction and should not come as a surprise. But you can't legally stop them having more children by accident or design.

For me the obvious if somewhat distasteful answer is to offer sterilisation for a one-off payment. Paying the people who will never by their own means be able to support kids will save the country money in the long run, ease the social housing situation and eventually reduce the number of children who suffer from poverty.  Of course there will be people who will argue that some of those who pt for voluntary sterilisation might claw their way out of the situation they are in and could regret the decision. But that would be a fraction and they had the choice. 

 

 

The bit you are all missing is that it wasn’t the full time mum who changed, it was the system that changed......they hijacked that woman for taxes and what’s left over is the fall out.

[Blackmag 6,354]

16 minutes ago, Qbgrey said:

You get alot guys just going round the council flats getting these dinlo girls pregnant,none of em got any backbone for thier actions,they are 25years old going 16 yrs old mental age.got all the money for fags,drugs,beer,gambling,tatts,but too selfish to bring up a kid properly.and by christ that saying when you ask how many kids you got?."er,er,got 3,well ones i know of."!! I could punch the inbred fools.

My brother I think about 20 at the time left his Mrs she's up the duff and he tells are old man that's it i don't want nothing to do with her  next thing he's up pasting him telling him you breed um you fecking feed um he lost it 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Blackmag

[MH1 1,919]

1 hour ago, low plains drifter said:

Could they spunk the vouchers on Amber leaf or were they solely for food ?

Think they can be spunked but "shouldn't be"

[SheepChaser 8,091]

1 hour ago, Nicepix said:

Like you I was often involved at the front end and have struggled to find suitable solutions to the problem long term. There are a lot of factors that add to the problem and some of these factors were brought in to solve one problem and caused another.  Example; giving single mothers priority on the housing list. Unwanted result is that many single girls see getting pregnant as being rewarded with a short cut to social housing. Child benefit payments were also seen as an easy way to obtain extra money. That has been reined in a bit now though. But people who are long-term unemployed should not have the means to produce large families. Some of these with 7 or 8 kids get more income than high earners. That can't be right.

Another issue that I have is with this term: "Full-time Mum". If you want to be a Mum then surely you should be able to support the children.Not opt out of work and rely on the State to pay for your life.

Parents with addictions such as drugs, alcohol and others will always place their needs above their children's needs. It is a proven association with addiction and should not come as a surprise. But you can't legally stop them having more children by accident or design.

For me the obvious if somewhat distasteful answer is to offer sterilisation for a one-off payment. Paying the people who will never by their own means be able to support kids will save the country money in the long run, ease the social housing situation and eventually reduce the number of children who suffer from poverty.  Of course there will be people who will argue that some of those who pt for voluntary sterilisation might claw their way out of the situation they are in and could regret the decision. But that would be a fraction and they had the choice. 

 

 

Good post. Where we got to was basically you are dealing with Russian Dolls. Daughters within mothers, within mothers etc. If you know what i mean.

Somehow, you need a generational break.

I can only liken it to sheep.

You can keep running around and sorting the day to day problems until you go mad, or you can work at the bigger things, flock genetics, nutrition and flock level management, which allows you to cull / breed the population so you dont see those problems any more.

Take lameness as an example - you can keep treating feet for eternity, or treat and cull repeat lame offenders and their daughters, and within a few gens your lameness % will start to drop fast. That is, as long as you have the over all environmental factors sorted first.

[Nicepix 5,650]

9 hours ago, WILF said:

The bit you are all missing is that it wasn’t the full time mum who changed, it was the system that changed......they hijacked that woman for taxes and what’s left over is the fall out.

The system changed to allow people with no means of supporting themselves to opt for full time unemployment. If want a car you have to be able to afford it and the running costs. If you want a kid the State will pay for it. For generations single women have been bringing up kids whilst doing part-time work and  / or with help from relatives and friends. Now they put on the 'Full-Time Mum' badge and we all should understand. 

[WILF 49,731]

1 hour ago, Nicepix said:

The system changed to allow people with no means of supporting themselves to opt for full time unemployment. If want a car you have to be able to afford it and the running costs. If you want a kid the State will pay for it. For generations single women have been bringing up kids whilst doing part-time work and  / or with help from relatives and friends. Now they put on the 'Full-Time Mum' badge and we all should understand. 

I dont agree with your assessment mate I’m afraid.

Our births rates in Europe are at an historical low (below replacement numbers) and we are importing aliens to fill that supposed gap.

The economic & policy facts just don’t back up your view imho matey.

[gnasher16 31,346]

13 hours ago, Nicepix said:

For me the obvious if somewhat distasteful answer is to offer sterilisation for a one-off payment. Paying the people who will never by their own means be able to support kids will save the country money in the long run, ease the social housing situation and eventually reduce the number of children who suffer from poverty.  Of course there will be people who will argue that some of those who pt for voluntary sterilisation might claw their way out of the situation they are in and could regret the decision. But that would be a fraction and they had the choice. 

 

 

Your trying to cut off the headache by cutting off the head mate....for me the obvious if somewhat distasteful answer is to value ourselves more than others,help our own more than others,educate our own more than others.....but unfortunately British society,particularly white British society is being conditioned to hate themselves !