i had the joy of representing a lady (if i could call her that) this week who rakes in 3k a month in benefits and has not done one days work in her life. i was gobsmacked. its time the government changed things massively. i know they are trying but i believe you should now require a licence before you can have children. this would save the country billions. get out the EU bring in the British Human Rights and job done. The Chinese do it why not us.

It's a bit early to be drinking absinthe isn't it?

Bacchus wrote:It's a bit early to be drinking absinthe isn't it?

Absinthe? Brasso, more like.

Great idea Adolf.

i agree its a very good idea. would stop all the dole dossing **** knocking kids out to claim every benefit going. cant afford them shouldnt have them. im sick to death of my taxes paying for these disgusting peoples lifestyle

It's a Brave New World we live in.

Bring back Capital Punishment.

There's no doubt that putting some sort of sensible restriction on the amount of children the underclassses could have would help everyone . There should be a means test for more than 2 kids.

i assume the people who are against this idea are jobless and claiming all the benefits. makes sense then

You have to have a TV licence, a driving licence, a gun licence and formerly a dog licence. Many didn't bother, licences are for mugs!

I have the same feeling for dimwhitted ******** who can't simply type capital letters after full stops.

pushpinpussy wrote:i had the joy of representing a lady (if i could call her that) this week .

In what capacity were you representing her?

Please tell me you're not a lawyer

Although realistically you cannot put such a licence in place I do think the answer is simple. Help for up 2 kids that's it. Anymore your on your own. That would be a good place to start. Add in rules like if you have never contributed you are entitled to zero ie. Finishing education and 18 and straight to signing on if you have never worked. No entitlement to any form of NHS or benefit if from outside the UK until you have worked a day in the UK etc.

Very easy solution. Let people have as many children as they want but limit benefits to two children under the age of 16. Basically, if they're out of work, sick or on the dole, the government will support two children, if you want more then pay for them yourself.

pushpinpussy wrote:i had the joy of representing a lady (if i could call her that) this week who rakes in 3k a month in benefits and has not done one days work in her life. i was gobsmacked. its time the government changed things massively. i know they are trying but i believe you should now require a licence before you can have children. this would save the country billions. get out the EU bring in the British Human Rights and job done. The Chinese do it why not us.

Her from Dewsbury is a prime example ..

2 kid limit IMO. After that you should get zero benefits/ financial help with them.

If you having more than 2, you should be able to look after them yourself, not expect others too.

It's not an easy solution though beyond a sensible benefit cap unless you support child poverty.

Not that I think you are a Lawyer/Solicitor, but if you were the legal aid from these types as you put it fund your career choice.

Totally agree. Critics go straight to the Hitler comparison but doing that is, at the least, lazy. I remember talking to some customers as couple of years ago. 19 or 20 with 3 kids and one more on the way. Adults with the right to vote, could be called to serve on a jury in say a serious fraud case and responsible for the upbringing and wellbeing of their kids. They had never worked obviously. The stupidity flowed off them. Two adults who thought the part of the wall in your living room above the fireplace was called the chimley. I would have sterilised them on the spot to save me paying for them producing yet another generation of the same.

Reading this makes me hope CT makes it a requirement to have a license to post on here.

So what do we do with the third and fourth kid? Starve them? That will teach the little ******* for being conceived.

john'sroseyspecs wrote:Totally agree. Critics go straight to the Hitler comparison but doing that is, at the least, lazy. I remember talking to some customers as couple of years ago. 19 or 20 with 3 kids and one more on the way. Adults with the right to vote, could be called to serve on a jury in say a serious fraud case and responsible for the upbringing and wellbeing of their kids. They had never worked obviously. The stupidity flowed off them. Two adults who thought the part of the wall in your living room above the fireplace was called the chimley. I would have sterilised them on the spot to save me paying for them producing yet another generation of the same.

Quite a few people pronounce chimney as chimley. Is it a regional thing? When working in Wigan and Liverpool it cropped up quite a bit.

pushpinpussy wrote:i had the joy of representing a lady (if i could call her that) this week who rakes in 3k a month in benefits and has not done one days work in her life. i was gobsmacked. its time the government changed things massively. i know they are trying but i believe you should now require a licence before you can have children. this would save the country billions. get out the EU bring in the British Human Rights and job done. The Chinese do it why not us.

Did you recieve a fee for representing said lady?

There was a TV programme a couple of years ago that asked two teenage, benefit claiming mothers whether they thought they were working class or middle class. They both answered ''middle class. we can't be working class cos we've never worked''.................. underclass more like!!!

Did you recieve a fee for representing said lady?

no but my firm received a large amount most probably.

Quickenthetempo wrote:Quite a few people pronounce chimney as chimley. Is it a regional thing? When working in Wigan and Liverpool it cropped up quite a bit.

Think it's a stupidity thing. Maybe it was an unfair point but I think the gist of what I was saying is valid. We can't keep paying people to breed another generation like them because it's unsustainable.

pushpinpussy wrote:Did you recieve a fee for representing said lady?

no but my firm received a large amount most probably.

Large amount as opposed to a reasonable amount..... says it all really. Your making a living off the back of the state as well as the 'lady' She does nothing, and you probably a little bit more..... dont bite the hand that feeds you.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:So what do we do with the third and fourth kid? Starve them? That will teach the little ******* for being conceived.

Anyone that approves of the idea going to answer this?

Personally I wish we had the same levels of disgust for corporate welfare as we did for state welfare.

SonofPog wrote:Anyone that approves of the idea going to answer this?

Personally I wish we had the same levels of disgust for corporate welfare as we did for state welfare.

Well said!

A 2 kid limit would be discriminatory against non- indiginous people. Time to get out of Europe

cricketfieldclarets wrote:So what do we do with the third and fourth kid? Starve them? That will teach the little ******* for being conceived.

Easy solution. After the first two children we pay by tokens redeemable only for food and children's clothing. Additional tokens can be claimed for children's activities such as swimming, etc.

There needs to be a sensible international debate on world population. However that doesn't mean to say that other countries can't look to do something themselves. China being the type of country that it is were able to take drastic steps which many would see as quite draconian.

The DWP have been considering for many years the vexed question of whether to limit child benefit to just two children but thus far through both Labour and Tory governments neither have had decided to take the first step. Both have seen it as a political minefield.

I think we need to look at this in a grown up none partisan manner and at least consider whether restricting child benefit to only 2 children will work.

For instance should child benefit be means tested.

I want a system that is fair but not abused.

lovebeingaclaret wrote:Easy solution. After the first two children we pay by tokens redeemable only for food and children's clothing. Additional tokens can be claimed for children's activities such as swimming, etc.

No......... swimming not allowed to expensive. Have you been t' baths lately?

Easy ? What happens if uv worked all ur life , planned , saved ... she gets pregnant as planned .. it's phookin triplets?

Dano1bfc wrote:Easy ? What happens if uv worked all ur life , planned , saved ... she gets pregnant as planned .. it's phookin triplets?

That's ones is simple. Like disabilities etc you make allowances for that. Triplets get child benefit etc. 2nd pregnancy twins have 3 kids fine. Pregnant again that's your choice then the cap comes into play.

.

mrhungryone wrote:No......... swimming not allowed to expensive. Have you been t' baths lately?

Swimming too expensive?

Yet more false news. Suggest you check out free swimming for children and over 60s at St Peters.

Danieljwaterhouse wrote:And when they ignore this 'rule' and have the child, what do you propose we do when that child is born into a family without the means to support it? Let the child die? Enter the child into the non exsistant and infinitely more expensive care service?

Answers from the Daily Mail are not allowed...

Thought I'd answered that earlier!

So did i

What a load of tosh ... whilst there are those who will freeload it is not the majority who should be punished but the freeloaders themselves . One size does not fit all in this scenario and to suggest a disability style living allowance (DLA) for the 3rd child + is bonkers . Some people who actually require the benefit in the uk do not receive it never mind somebody with an extra child ... which is not a disability I may add ...
If wer going to be draconian about this perhaps it is contribution tested and a loan so to speak such as Support For Mortgage Interest will be for many moving forwards
....except in this case will be taken from your state pension in later life if sufficient contributions have not been made etc... thus not punishing the child .

Danieljwaterhouse wrote:And when they ignore this 'rule' and have the child, what do you propose we do when that child is born into a family without the means to support it? Let the child die? Enter the child into the non exsistant and infinitely more expensive care service?

Answers from the Daily Mail are not allowed...

The current 'system' doesn't work that's for sure. If you have had child 1. 2 and 3 etc then keep the clothes toys prams etc and reuse them. Buy perfectly good stuff second hand from many of the buy and sell pages on fb. Feed your kids properly with home made food. Use old veg to make soups that's lunches for next to nothing. Not on takeaways 5 or 6 nights a week etc. Instead of expecting benefits and buying the latest whatever.

Its the media that is to blame for half of this. The problem isn't half as bad as people believe / perceive.

There are cases of it, more so in the poorer areas. But I would guess that even in a place like Burnley the majority of people who can work, do. I personally know very few if any people who are 'career' single parent / benefit scroungers. In fact I can't think of anyone. Not saying there are none, clearly there are and there are more in certain areas and certain towns. The media would have you believe there are thousands in every town.

For those that want to live like that - good luck to them if they are happy. I couldn't do it. Its like the prison topic the other day - if you think its that great a lifestyle go and live it yourself.

The programs they put on, the news stories they publish is to make people angrier about a relatively minute problem compared to corporate tax evasion, money laundering, drug dealing and MP's claiming for bath plugs!

lovebeingaclaret wrote:Easy solution. After the first two children we pay by tokens redeemable only for food and children's clothing. Additional tokens can be claimed for children's activities such as swimming, etc.

Not a bad suggestion.

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Its the media that is to blame for half of this. The problem isn't half as bad as people believe / perceive.

There are cases of it, more so in the poorer areas. But I would guess that even in a place like Burnley the majority of people who can work, do. I personally know very few if any people who are 'career' single parent / benefit scroungers. In fact I can't think of anyone. Not saying there are none, clearly there are and there are more in certain areas and certain towns. The media would have you believe there are thousands in every town.

For those that want to live like that - good luck to them if they are happy. I couldn't do it. Its like the prison topic the other day - if you think its that great a lifestyle go and live it yourself.

The programs they put on, the news stories they publish is to make people angrier about a relatively minute problem compared to corporate tax evasion, money laundering, drug dealing and MP's claiming for bath plugs!

My issue with it whether it is one or 1 million people is one of resentment. I have worked for every thing I have. And worked hard.

Recently I took my disabled father to his pips a assessment. In the waiting room was a man who clearly had some form of drink or drugs problem. Amd a lady who was of eastern European origin. My dad worked all his life and paid into pension which he enjoys during retirement the disability helps with things to make his daily life easier. (A baby of the 50s that had polio) Whilst I do not know the insurance and outs of the other cases i can't help rightly or wrongly feel resentment when there are others out there that despite whatever life throws at them make the best of it what they can.

d1sc0 wrote:My issue with it whether it is one or 1 million people is one of resentment. I have worked for every thing I have. And worked hard.

Recently I took my disabled father to his pips a assessment. In the waiting room was a man who clearly had some form of drink or drugs problem. Amd a lady who was of eastern European origin. My dad worked all his life and paid into pension which he enjoys during retirement the disability helps with things to make his daily life easier. (A baby of the 50s that had polio) Whilst I do not know the insurance and outs of the other cases i can't help rightly or wrongly feel resentment when there are others out there that despite whatever life throws at them make the best of it what they can.

I understand. Both I and people i know needed hospital treatment recently and the waiting times and everything else are a windup.

But don't resent the people, the system is to blame. A sick person is a sick person.

I think only ugly people who noone will sh*g would want the op's rule..

cricketfieldclarets wrote:I understand. Both I and people i know needed hospital treatment recently and the waiting times and everything else are a windup.

But don't resent the people, the system is to blame. A sick person is a sick person.

You make a great point. At the moment the current 'system' is broken and things do need to change. That's for sure.

The NHS is a fantastic system. The nurses and doctors and the rest of them are hard working, good people in the main. But the system / processes are as much a hindrance as anything else. I will give you an example.

When I was awaiting treatment the queues were so long The Senior Manager came into A and E and told people that the wait time would be up to 9 hours. If the matter was not urgent to go home and seek help / treatment the next working day from their GP. There were over 100 people waiting.

Around 30% of the people waiting got up and left. Great - that should reduce the waiting time. Except the hospital with its best intentions, didnt think to ask all of those people leaving to 'check out'. Therefore the doctors were still spending time reviewing patients symptoms / notes, coming out calling the patients name. Waiting five minutes while it was clear they weren't there and then going back to do the same.

If the whole process only took 10 minutes per person, thats 300+ minutes (5 hours) of collective resource wasted on people who had gone home. Had they simply logged who had 'discharged' themselves then that would have saved a massive amount of time.

This is just one example. As A and E is an ongoing thing this is a never ending cycle. There are so many ways they could be more efficient and help themselves.

111 is another system with good intentions but ludicrously managed. Ring up with some symptoms for diagnosis or reassurance, tick one 'wrong box' (Headache / temperature / Injury of any nature) and they insist you go to A and E immediately. Purely to cover their own backs. They could invest in trained resource / systems to negate this problem!

I heard a recent story of an NHS worker who was earning around 60k per year who was offered a redundancy package as cost savings were required. The same person is now working sat at the same desk doing the same job via an agency now earning 75k.

I cannot gauruntee whether this information is correct. The thing is it just doesn't surprise me.

It's old people you need to target if it's about saving money.

Although a license to breed would save me a headache 99% of the time I hear people speak or read their thoughts online.