Happy Face

How?

The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. I'm not suggesting a solution to the situation, just pointing out the problems. Though in the long term clearly it shouldn't be as financially advantageous to have so many kids. That's the point I've argued throughout. It's not financially advantageous. They're coping on £33 a week per person. Less than a fiver a day for everyone in the house to live on. I'm sure every day is a struggle for them and has become moreso with every kid they have.

The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot. That's not what he was saying though. I'm struggling to see what anyone is saying here tbh. Other than demonising the parents there's no sensible alternatives to maintaining the status quo.

The odds are stacked against the kids making anything of themselves tbf, most of them will probably not be able to remember their parents ever being in employment which doesn't set a good example. Plus chances of the kids doing well educationally are also slim as I'm guessing the parents aren't the most gifted academically and they also couldn't possibly devote the time needed to help each child with their school work. Dregs of society. Let them rot.

You've lost me - duplicity? Double dealing. You saying they went 2's up on Eric's mam? All 3 were engineering a move from Century, but when challenged they said they knew nowt and hung Gates out to dry. Someone rang them a couple of days later and put it to them, but they cut him off.

Wasn't it on here that I read about Macdonald and Slaven's duplicity?

I've not noticed a change tbh

Having said all that I have, them mad old women that have 478 cats in a 1 bedroom flat have the animals removed and are prosecuted for cruelty. I pity those people and their desparation for love and picture a couple that have as many kids as these have in a similar vein. Maybe they should have their kids put into care, but I don't think I could stretch the analogy that far.

How come Peasepud's "Last Active" is set to private, can I do that?

How to encourage crime in 3 simple steps. If they commit crimes, prosecute them like you or I. And our taxes will pay for the prison time of half the family. I think it's far more expensive to keep someone in a cell than it is to pay them benefits. I think stories like this bring about an emotive response as to what the parents deserve, rather than a logical response as to what will benefit society.

How to encourage crime in 3 simple steps.

He was spot on. So anyone who is able to should contribute to lift the poorest members of society out of poverty. In turn, those people will be in a better position to contribute themselves....rather than turning to crime. In my opinion, anyone that can sit on there arse and do fuck all and draw that kind of income is as much of a criminal as someone walking into a bank with a gun and saying "stickem up". Honestly? How much does a jobless single parent with one child receive a week these days? As I said, I reckon it would be comparable. Is it a crime that they get that money? I think the issue here is not the money they're receiving, but the fact that they keep having kids. I can't see a viable solution to that though. We aren't talking about a single parent in this case, the solution would be getting off your arse and finding a job, or keeping your cock in your pants and not having 12 kids. I completely agree that it's selfish to have that many kids, but the bloke was off his arse working...until a cut in his benefit meant being jobless benefited his family more. And not shagging isn't really something we can legislate for. The daily mail making hate figures of them might give them the sharp shock they need to stop knocking out sprogs, but the fact that they're now hate figures seems unfair to me when they're only scroungers as much as any other jobless individual.

He was spot on. So anyone who is able to should contribute to lift the poorest members of society out of poverty. In turn, those people will be in a better position to contribute themselves....rather than turning to crime. In my opinion, anyone that can sit on there arse and do fuck all and draw that kind of income is as much of a criminal as someone walking into a bank with a gun and saying "stickem up". Honestly? How much does a jobless single parent with one child receive a week these days? As I said, I reckon it would be comparable. Is it a crime that they get that money? I think the issue here is not the money they're receiving, but the fact that they keep having kids. I can't see a viable solution to that though.

Hattie Jacques Pretentious Cheese Wog

He was spot on. So anyone who is able to should contribute to lift the poorest members of society out of poverty. In turn, those people will be in a better position to contribute themselves....rather than turning to crime.

If I understand you right, you're saying we should ensure these kids don't sink into a life of poverty, benefit claiming or even worse criminality. And the way to do that is to provide the best that we, as a society, can for them.

"I did this for ten weeks and at that time my housing benefit was cut from £1600 to £800 a month so it just didn't make sense for me to carry on working." So a cut in benefits is what stopped him working in the first place. Reinstate that benefit and it'll move another group of people into a position where working isn't cost effective. So its fair on society that it becomes better to be unemployed than to be earning your way ? What I'm saying is that there is no all encompassing perfect solution where everyone would be better off working. Having 12 kids is crazy, but I'd have thought non working families with one kid get a comparable amount, what I mean is it's not like the amount you receive increases exponentially with every child.

"I did this for ten weeks and at that time my housing benefit was cut from £1600 to £800 a month so it just didn't make sense for me to carry on working." So a cut in benefits is what stopped him working in the first place. Reinstate that benefit and it'll move another group of people into a position where working isn't cost effective.

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system. Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though. So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ? I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system. I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids. People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works. In my view the system is all wrong, I have three kids and earn what I consider a very generous wage, yet I still collect around £200 a month for having my beloved little ones, do I send the money back ? of course not, but I do concede that that benifit system is wrong, I should not get the money I collect from the state, I had my children because I could afford them and it was my decision. Well there you go, maybe the system should change so that well off individuals don't receive benefits they don't require. But the fact that this unemployed family are getting by on £60 a week each doesn't seem excessive to me. I couldn't live on £60 a week. Is that £60 each with little or no bills to pay? I reckon I could survive. Well it says... So (if I understand how these benefits work, but I AM guessing) the £44k is not what they get, but covers some of their costs (Housing and council tax) and what's left goes to them. They actually receive 1200 + 560 + 280 = 2040 a month which is £24,480 a year. Between 14 of them that's less than £2k a year each. £33 a week A pittance tbh

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system. Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though. So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ? I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system. I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids. People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works. In my view the system is all wrong, I have three kids and earn what I consider a very generous wage, yet I still collect around £200 a month for having my beloved little ones, do I send the money back ? of course not, but I do concede that that benifit system is wrong, I should not get the money I collect from the state, I had my children because I could afford them and it was my decision. Well there you go, maybe the system should change so that well off individuals don't receive benefits they don't require. But the fact that this unemployed family are getting by on £60 a week each doesn't seem excessive to me. I couldn't live on £60 a week.

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system. Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though. So you are happy with chavs with no intention to work whatsoever infinitely multiply themselves save in the knowledge that the state will look after them ? I'm no loony lefty, but I'm not going to condemn the system without having a solution I think is workable, humane and better than the current system. I can't blame a bloke for jacking in a job where he earns less than he would on benefit and helping the old woman that lives in a shoe with the kids. People willing to burden themselves with that many kids are few and far between, and are an exception to a system that works.

It was from the Daily Mail, but that's not the issue is it, the overwelming problem is that someone can go about their life with no intention to work an bring 12 children into the world and bring in £44,000 a year from the tax payer and have an 8 bedroom house provided for them. I'm not blaming them, I'm blaming the system. Well we could go the same way as China and limit people to a certain number of kids by law, not sure I'd agree with that either though.

When people advocate the death penalty for murdering rapist paedophiles I understand where they're coming from without necessarily agreeing, I think it's going a bit far suggesting it should be applied arbitrarily to large families though.

Is that from the Daily Mail? A family with 12 kids have their house burned down and they're begrudged somewhere to stay! A non-story imo.

"It's 52 minutes since housemates Chanelle and Charley had an argument about the age of popular R&B star Rhiana!" Charley is Jesus like, she was killed and was resurrected and has sacrificed herself for the good of housematekind.