Bid in

I can agree with that principle to an extent. Except that in reality it says that rich people can have as many kids as they want and poor people can't. And unfortunately not everyone is educated at a young age to be responsible in that way.

Well perhaps the parent/s WOULD strive a little harder to educate the little darlings if they thought any future kids would impact on their household income in a negative rather than positive way.

You shouldn't concern yourself with what rich people do; there's relatively-few of them and, more often than not, they tend to self-regulate the amount of children they have... it's the poorer element who have vulgar numbers of offspring.

Just imagine how much better 'education' would be for all children if classes weren't huge and the children had an actual interest in learning things, knowing as they would that they'd have to rely on themselves for a living rather than just signing on for ever and ever like every generation had before!

You shouldn't concern yourself with what rich people do; there's relatively-few of them and, more often than not, they tend to self-regulate the amount of children they have... it's the poorer element who have vulgar numbers of offspring.

---------------------

I'm sure you're just saying these things to cause a reaction

There's no equality or fairness in allowing advantaged people to do one thing but not disadvantaged. I don't want to live in a society where this happens and that's why I'm glad I don't live in China or Saudi Arabia.

Do you really think that taking away child benefit and job-seekers allowance would actually decrease population growth and unemployment? I don't. It would probably make the problem worse and increase the rich/poor divide.

It wouldn't be 'allowing' one group to do one thing but denying another; everyone can have as many kids as they like! Hurrah!

It's just everyone has to provide for them too.

Fancy having to provide for yourself and your family... Scandalous racism 666.

Some people strive to survive in life and may never be able to earn enough to support a child without state support. Should they be denied the chance to have children? That's my issue really. I'm not a left-wing idealist who thinks the state should provide for everyone but I do believe in progressive policies where the more advantaged support the less advantaged. The issue is that too many abuse the systems. Dealing (or not dealing) with them seems to be one of the biggest issues for the last few governments.

"Children"? Yes. "A child"? No.

There should be a welfare state but the ideals of that are far removed from the bloated career choice that it's become under the auspices of the subverted 'Human Rights Act'.

My biggest concern is that, if left unattended for much longer, then the majority of voting age will be so reliant on this perverse scenario that no Government will ever get the mandate to change it. That time can't be far away

How did an article about our bid for Darius Henderson turn into a Daily Mail comments section.

Back to Henderson,I think that this country is really going to pot when a man can no longer do a bit of shadow boxing in a public place to impress his Mrs,for fear of being hauled before the courts if some daft lump gets in the way and catches a right hook.
It's elf n safety political correctness gone mad,sooner we are out of the EU the better.

Still sounding quite Daily Mail there!

comment by Cousin Omar (U11726)

posted 39 minutes ago

How did an article about our bid for Darius Henderson turn into a Daily Mail comments section.
[.]
sooner we are out of the EU the better.

---

IRONY