Benefits Street

[wasabi]

What would the repercussions be for such a person not taking the contraception?

Prison.

Actually, edit. Prison if found removing the implant or coil. However as the contraceptive I'm proposing is contraceptive implant or coil, not 'taking' the contraceptive is not normally an option.

[opel80uk]

Prison.

Good idea, that would most definitely help the financial burden on the tax payer

[wasabi]

Good idea, that would most definitely help the financial burden on the tax payer

See edit. And they're a burden anyway.

[santa claus]

Prison.

Fair play to you, I'm feeling a bit flat today and this made me laugh . When in a hole, stop digging.

[wasabi]

Fair play to you, I'm feeling a bit flat today and this made me laugh . When in a hole, stop digging.

Laughing at people going to prison? Bit callous.

[opel80uk]

See edit. And they're a burden anyway.

So, as that would only be applicable to women, not only would your policy be one of the most draconian going, it would also be sexist. And as they’re a burden already, your solution is to make them a bigger burden.

I'm sure your ideas would go down a treat with certain, dubious, sections of the public and, dare I say it, even a few posters on here too. But alas, I fear a career in policy advising may not be on the horizon just yet.

[Macman]

Why would it be sexist, because said policy to force women to use Implant/Coil? If not then they get flung in jail..

It's not a bad idea, would act as a deterrent. As the government need to do something because the current benefit system is being abused left, right and centre.

Those that decide to HAVE children I am sure take onboard their financial situation, any responsible parents would plan a pregnancy. However alot of these scumbags who don't work (those that are lazy and find it difficult to lift a finger) just drink, do drugs etc have a 2 minute fumble and hey presto, she's up the duff.

Thats the reality of it, I've heard conversation few years back that a young girl (Secondary school age) at a bus stop, was saying to her pal that she was going to stop taking the pill so she could have a baby, get her house, benefits and get away from her parents.. she wasn't caring if the guy stood by her or not. Thats one example, how many think in the same mindset?!?!?!

If one is capable of going to the shop to buy drink/fags, theres nothing wrong with them getting a job wether it be a cleaning job, fast food or in retail. Don't give me this minimum wage is peanuts or slave labour, they are getting paid to work and NOT HELD AGAINST their will.

[wasabi]

So, as that would only be applicable to women, not only would your policy be one of the most draconian going, it would also be sexist. And as they’re a burden already, your solution is to make them a bigger burden.

...insulting tubthumping...

Women bear children. Didn't you know that? Bless.

[TheAnimus]

I’m not necessarily talking about that one person, but pumping money into drug rehabilitation without getting at the causes that allow drugs (and the rest) to get a foothold in those communities, and help further cement the poverty, is effectively resigning to the fact that all we can provide is short term solutions.

Then why the hell are you mentioning this. First page I say that I think this program makes a good case for increasing funding for rehabilitation.

I've noticed something, I say something along the lines of I think it's reckless, irresponsible and cruel to have children if you are not in a stable situation, financially, emotionally, etc.. Suddenly I'm pro-eguencis and wanting a death camp.

I also state that I think child benefits should be provided in a more universal structure, such as dietary needs being catered for.

Ah, but you’re wrong. Because if we can make them realise how evil these two have been, it might just encourage them to see the error of their ways, and raise their children to understand that, if they don’t earn x amount of money (what is the formula for this, by the way?), then they don’t qualify, in the moral majority’s eyes at least, to have children. If there is a generation crisis as a result of this, what the hell, let’s fly it up the flagpole anyway.

What are you own about. Why would their be a generation crisis, so long as we aren't basing our economy on passing debt to children (hi state pensioners!). But also it isn't about demonising the child, but trying to suggest being responsible is a must for society.

Oh, does the context of the programme change after the first 20 minutes?

This is a thread about the program. Watching it might make your comments more credible. For example your comments on community pride and spirit related things, do you think having an in-bloom committee is positive?

Yeah, people like me. And I would imagine numerous others who come from a working class background whose parents used the small amount of child benefit they got to supplement their income, and now whose children work, pay taxes, and contribute monetarily. Some, like me, have been fortunate enough to have never claimed benefits in their life, and others, like my Sister, who now pays 45% tax on some of her earnings. I know you are forever bleating on about how you are affected, of how you begrudge funding others, of how your tax is wasted and how that money taken from you impacts on your lifestyle, but there are many others who pay exactly the same and understand that it is a price worth paying if society is to benefit as a whole.

I am not saying people should be forced to starve. Why are you making this appear so totalitarian. I just think that it is very irresponsible to have children if you can't take care of them.

And an issue that affects all, regardless of class or ability to pay.

Which is kind of the point, why have policies to encourage child production, it isn't as if we have a shortage.

The fact that you have to show more responsibility to bring an adult spouse into the country, than you do to create a life is bizzare. After all, the argument for such restriction is that we are over populated.

[opel80uk]

Women bear children. Didn't you know that? Bless.

Ah, I see, you genuinely don’t get it. Ok, in simple terms:

Because men create children too, your policy of putting all of the responsibility of avoiding pregnancy, and then accepting all of the punishment (i.e. prison) should they fall pregnant on the woman, would be considered sexist.

Unless you’re saying that both parents would go to prison?

[ik9000]

Ah, I see, you genuinely don’t get it. Ok, in simple terms:

Because men create children too, your policy of putting all of the responsibility of avoiding pregnancy, and then accepting all of the punishment (i.e. prison) should they fall pregnant on the woman, would be considered sexist.

Unless you’re saying that both parents would go to prison?

cough cough. snippity snip snip.

[opel80uk]

Then why the hell are you mentioning this. First page I say that I think this program makes a good case for increasing funding for rehabilitation.

Because, if you rehabilitate someone, and then put them right back into the same situation that contributed to them taking drugs in the first place, then chances are you are wasting your money. All you have to do is have a look at overall relapse rates amongst drug addicts, even amongst those who take part in rehabilitation programmes, to tell you that. So yeah, you are right that the programme makes a good case for increasing funding for rehabilitation, in much the same way as it makes a case for an increase in dental hygiene advice for the people in it, but in terms of getting to the overall problem, and actually helping the people in it lessen the hold that drugs have on these deprived communities, it doesn’t help very much at all.

I've noticed something, I say something along the lines of I think it's reckless, irresponsible and cruel to have children if you are not in a stable situation, financially, emotionally, etc.. Suddenly I'm pro-eguencis and wanting a death camp.

That’s twice now that you’ve mentioned eugenics in a direct response to me, and someone reading this message may be under the impression that I said it. Just to be clear, I’ve never even implied that that is what you were suggesting.

I myself, in this thread, have said it is reckless and irresponsible to have children when you can ill afford it, and no one has said or implied (to my knowledge) that I am I'm pro-eguencis and wanting a death camp. Why do you think that might be? It may be because you bandy words like evil around. Just an idea.

What are you own about. Why would their be a generation crisis, so long as we aren't basing our economy on passing debt to children (hi state pensioners!).

Do you know the amount of people that claim (and need, based on income figures) benefits but are working? If you were to rule them all out of having children, of course there would be a population crisis. Aside from that, and I know it’s one of your famous bugbears, but we DO need the next generation to help pay for the state pensions.

But also it isn't about demonising the child, but trying to suggest being responsible is a must for society.

Of course trying to suggest being responsible is a must for society, but what you seem to fail to comprehend, is that your way (or at least what you appear to be advocating) would demonise the child. Not only that, but it would put a child who already lives in relative depravation, in further depravation.

This is a thread about the program. Watching it might make your comments more credible.

My comments were made when the thread moves away from the actual programme and became, predictably, a thread to bash all those on benefits. The fact you think that me only watching 20 minutes of a programme, (which incidentally the first 20 minutes of was like a visual interpretation of some posters on here wet dreams, although perhaps the remaining 40 became a Dickensesq critique of modern day Britain?), means my comments lack credibility matters not a lot to me, to be honest.

I asked you previously, but you didn’t answer, what did miss from the remaining 40 minutes that I missed the first time round? You want to watch a hatchet job on the bewildered, ill-educated and ignorant, you fill your boots, but it’s not for me, thanks.

For example your comments on community pride and spirit related things, do you think having an in-bloom committee is positive?

Yeah, I think schemes like that are really positive. I mean who doesn’t want to see a nice pot plant, surrounded by the piles of household rubbish that the kids play in. And you can’t beat looking out of the cracked bedroom window, in a house with no carpet, and spotting a well-kept hanging basket

I am not saying people should be forced to starve. Why are you making this appear so totalitarian.

No, you don’t want them to starve, you just want people, some of whom don’t have much to start with, to make do with even less, should they be ‘irresponsible’. I don’t think it’s totalitarian. I just think it’s a crap, punitive, idea.

I just think that it is very irresponsible to have children if you can't take care of them.

I agree.

Which is kind of the point, why have policies to encourage child production, it isn't as if we have a shortage.

I’m not sure whether you have kids, and I don’t want to get too personal but let me tell you, anyone who suggests to you that a policy where you get given £15 pound a week, per child, is encouraging child production is either a) Childless, b) working to an ulterior motive, or c) Fibbing.

[opel80uk]

cough cough. snippity snip snip.

That's fair enough. So I presume using Wasabi's 'policy' if you don't have the snip, you get chucked in the slammer too?

[santa claus]

Laughing at people going to prison? Bit callous.

But they're not going to prison are they? It's just your little fantasy remember? My goodness you really have become detached from reality

[ik9000]

My goodness you really have become detached from reality

says the man calling himself Santa! LMAO....

[santa claus]

says the man calling himself Santa! LMAO....

Your real name is Mr ik9000?