Fop 1 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Looks like he could do with it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Wouldn't paid sterilisation encourage law-suits later on, whereby the claimant states they weren't fully aware of the facts when they agreed to it and that circumstances change and it's impossible for them to have forseen that they were going to break off with the on-off boyfriend who didn't want kids and get with the man of their dreams who does? I say that anybody who has more than two kids and is on benefits, has to buy their shop from a WHO dictated shopping list, or even better, have their benefits "paid" by way of food parcels, books, musical instruments and sports equipment. God, could the last bit by any more middle class? The stigma would be great as well, "Look at him in his hi-tec trainers". Worse than nasher geps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10965 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 Wouldn't paid sterilisation encourage law-suits later on, whereby the claimant states they weren't fully aware of the facts when they agreed to it and that circumstances change and it's impossible for them to have forseen that they were going to break off with the on-off boyfriend who didn't want kids and get with the man of their dreams who does? I say that anybody who has more than two kids and is on benefits, has to buy their shop from a WHO dictated shopping list, or even better, have their benefits "paid" by way of food parcels, books, musical instruments and sports equipment. God, could the last bit by any more middle class? The stigma would be great as well, "Look at him in his hi-tec trainers". Worse than nasher geps. I clearly meant Footballs or Cricket equipment you pedantic tossbag. You know I'm right, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10965 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 Wouldn't paid sterilisation encourage law-suits later on, whereby the claimant states they weren't fully aware of the facts when they agreed to it and that circumstances change and it's impossible for them to have forseen that they were going to break off with the on-off boyfriend who didn't want kids and get with the man of their dreams who does? I say that anybody who has more than two kids and is on benefits, has to buy their shop from a WHO dictated shopping list, or even better, have their benefits "paid" by way of food parcels, books, musical instruments and sports equipment. Just bang them up under anti-terror legislation. Nah just Taser her clunge shut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Wouldn't paid sterilisation encourage law-suits later on, whereby the claimant states they weren't fully aware of the facts when they agreed to it and that circumstances change and it's impossible for them to have forseen that they were going to break off with the on-off boyfriend who didn't want kids and get with the man of their dreams who does? I say that anybody who has more than two kids and is on benefits, has to buy their shop from a WHO dictated shopping list, or even better, have their benefits "paid" by way of food parcels, books, musical instruments and sports equipment. God, could the last bit by any more middle class? The stigma would be great as well, "Look at him in his hi-tec trainers". Worse than nasher geps. I clearly meant Footballs or Cricket equipment you pedantic tossbag. You know I'm right, by the way. Erm, what's the difference? Do you not need footwear to do sports as well like? Anyway, I think it's a terrible idea. Patronising as fuck as well. I don't think policy should be made on the basis of morons like the ones in the OP either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22001 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Wouldn't paid sterilisation encourage law-suits later on, whereby the claimant states they weren't fully aware of the facts when they agreed to it and that circumstances change and it's impossible for them to have forseen that they were going to break off with the on-off boyfriend who didn't want kids and get with the man of their dreams who does? I say that anybody who has more than two kids and is on benefits, has to buy their shop from a WHO dictated shopping list, or even better, have their benefits "paid" by way of food parcels, books, musical instruments and sports equipment. God, could the last bit by any more middle class? The stigma would be great as well, "Look at him in his hi-tec trainers". Worse than nasher geps. I clearly meant Footballs or Cricket equipment you pedantic tossbag. You know I'm right, by the way. Erm, what's the difference? Do you not need footwear to do sports as well like? Anyway, I think it's a terrible idea. Patronising as fuck as well. I don't think policy should be made on the basis of morons like the ones in the OP either. I agree you can't knee jerk because of one extreme case but I do think there is an issue with people having kids just to get more benefits and a nicer council house etc. Unfortunately these people tend to make the worst parents too, obviously, which is the real problem. Anyhow, do these immigrant families (who are allegedly having the most kids) claim dole and spend it on fags, booze, and Sky TV? Serious question, I've no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Wouldn't paid sterilisation encourage law-suits later on, whereby the claimant states they weren't fully aware of the facts when they agreed to it and that circumstances change and it's impossible for them to have forseen that they were going to break off with the on-off boyfriend who didn't want kids and get with the man of their dreams who does? I say that anybody who has more than two kids and is on benefits, has to buy their shop from a WHO dictated shopping list, or even better, have their benefits "paid" by way of food parcels, books, musical instruments and sports equipment. God, could the last bit by any more middle class? The stigma would be great as well, "Look at him in his hi-tec trainers". Worse than nasher geps. I clearly meant Footballs or Cricket equipment you pedantic tossbag. You know I'm right, by the way. Erm, what's the difference? Do you not need footwear to do sports as well like? Anyway, I think it's a terrible idea. Patronising as fuck as well. I don't think policy should be made on the basis of morons like the ones in the OP either. I agree you can't knee jerk because of one extreme case but I do think there is an issue with people having kids just to get more benefits and a nicer council house etc. Unfortunately these people tend to make the worst parents too, obviously, which is the real problem. Anyhow, do these immigrant families (who are allegedly having the most kids) claim dole and spend it on fags, booze, and Sky TV? Serious question, I've no idea. I think you have to make the benefits system as fair as possible then you have to trust people to spend the money wisely rather than deciding for them. No system is ever going to be perfect, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 175 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Welly top. You could probably slip your hand in and toss a coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10965 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 Erm, what's the difference? Do you not need footwear to do sports as well like? Anyway, I think it's a terrible idea. Patronising as fuck as well. I don't think policy should be made on the basis of morons like the ones in the OP either. I was nto about to submit it for consideration to my local MP now was I? fwiw I think there are more morons like the ones in the OP than you'd think. Maybe not to the ridiculous extremes, but certainly with regard to the God-Awful parenting on display. Also, I couldn't give a shit if pikey fuckers like them feel patronised, they're scum and don't deserve the fifteen minutes of fame they're sure to enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Erm, what's the difference? Do you not need footwear to do sports as well like? Anyway, I think it's a terrible idea. Patronising as fuck as well. I don't think policy should be made on the basis of morons like the ones in the OP either. I was nto about to submit it for consideration to my local MP now was I? fwiw I think there are more morons like the ones in the OP than you'd think. Maybe not to the ridiculous extremes, but certainly with regard to the God-Awful parenting on display. Also, I couldn't give a shit if pikey fuckers like them feel patronised, they're scum and don't deserve the fifteen minutes of fame they're sure to enjoy. It's patronising to everyone on benefit though. The people in the OP want putting down tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Fish&Foptastic © Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Fish&Foptastic © Parky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10965 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 It's patronising to everyone on benefit though. The people in the OP want putting down tbh. Only the breeders with more kids than IQ points would have the Nanny Mcphee overlords in my world, though. So your average family who genuinely need a little assitance would not feel the wrath of my government, and those who popped out more kids than they can support deserve what they get. It may even have that strata of society reconsidering squeezing another Toney out. p.s. I know that's a little dictatorial, but I'd be a great Dictator so, y'know, deal with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 It's patronising to everyone on benefit though. The people in the OP want putting down tbh. Only the breeders with more kids than IQ points would have the Nanny Mcphee overlords in my world, though. So your average family who genuinely need a little assitance would not feel the wrath of my government, and those who popped out more kids than they can support deserve what they get. It may even have that strata of society reconsidering squeezing another Toney out. p.s. I know that's a little dictatorial, but I'd be a great Dictator so, y'know, deal with it... You said anyone with more than two kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10965 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 You said anyone with more than two kids. Aye, but you said anyone on benefits. People with one kid on benefits wouldn't endure the shame of it all, neither would couples on benefits without kids, nor people on disability benefits, neither would, neither would, neither would... etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) You said anyone with more than two kids. Aye, but you said anyone on benefits. People with one kid on benefits wouldn't endure the shame of it all, neither would couples on benefits without kids, nor people on disability benefits, neither would, neither would, neither would... etc. etc. But someone with 3 kids who loses their job would but a couple with 2 kids who've never attempted to work in their lives wouldn't? Excellent. I can see you've thought this through Edited July 30, 2009 by alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7084 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 I really like his vintage Guinness T-Shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10965 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 You said anyone with more than two kids. Aye, but you said anyone on benefits. People with one kid on benefits wouldn't endure the shame of it all, neither would couples on benefits without kids, nor people on disability benefits, neither would, neither would, neither would... etc. etc. But someone with 3 kids who loses their job would but a couple with 2 kids who've never attempted to work in their lives would? Excellent. I can see you've thought this through Well, obviously there's a few bumps that need ironing out, but the foundations seem sound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 31204 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Do they still use food stamps in the U.S.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 You said anyone with more than two kids. Aye, but you said anyone on benefits. People with one kid on benefits wouldn't endure the shame of it all, neither would couples on benefits without kids, nor people on disability benefits, neither would, neither would, neither would... etc. etc. But someone with 3 kids who loses their job would but a couple with 2 kids who've never attempted to work in their lives would? Excellent. I can see you've thought this through Well, obviously there's a few bumps that need ironing out, but the foundations seem sound Do they fuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10965 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 You said anyone with more than two kids. Aye, but you said anyone on benefits. People with one kid on benefits wouldn't endure the shame of it all, neither would couples on benefits without kids, nor people on disability benefits, neither would, neither would, neither would... etc. etc. But someone with 3 kids who loses their job would but a couple with 2 kids who've never attempted to work in their lives would? Excellent. I can see you've thought this through Well, obviously there's a few bumps that need ironing out, but the foundations seem sound Do they fuck Wait, you're saying a half arsed daydream on a thursday afternoon isn't sound governmental policy? Jeepers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 You said anyone with more than two kids. Aye, but you said anyone on benefits. People with one kid on benefits wouldn't endure the shame of it all, neither would couples on benefits without kids, nor people on disability benefits, neither would, neither would, neither would... etc. etc. But someone with 3 kids who loses their job would but a couple with 2 kids who've never attempted to work in their lives would? Excellent. I can see you've thought this through Well, obviously there's a few bumps that need ironing out, but the foundations seem sound Do they fuck Wait, you're saying a half arsed daydream on a thursday afternoon isn't sound governmental policy? Jeepers. Serious bit of backtracking there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10965 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 Serious bit of backtracking there Shut yer face, you. It's not like I'm known for my considered policy towards articles about pikeys in The Sun. It was either take the piss here or play Worms all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7084 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Serious bit of backtracking there Shut yer face, you. It's not like I'm known for my considered policy towards articles about pikeys in The Sun. It was either take the piss here or play Worms all day. If only we could combine the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10965 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 Serious bit of backtracking there Shut yer face, you. It's not like I'm known for my considered policy towards articles about pikeys in The Sun. It was either take the piss here or play Worms all day. If only we could combine the two. Play with piss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now