What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

4 minutes ago, Sweep said:

It is, can't afford to feed them, then don't have them. Too many poor people get a free pass with shit like this

What if you have kids when you're financially stable, but then you get made redundant, or your partner dies or fucks off, or you get a life-changing injury, or a myriad of other reasons someone might face financial difficulties?

1 minute ago, Cheese said:

What if you have kids when you're financially stable, but then you get made redundant, or your partner dies or fucks off, or you get a life-changing injury, or a myriad of other reasons someone might face financial difficulties?

Then the kids should be removed from your care. Like what would happen if you didn’t feed a dog. 

9 minutes ago, royal white said:

Then the kids should be removed from your care. Like what would happen if you didn’t feed a dog. 

You think it's a better solution to remove a child from a loving and secure family than it is to just make sure that family has the means to feed their child? 

7 minutes ago, Cheese said:

What if you have kids when you're financially stable, but then you get made redundant, or your partner dies or fucks off, or you get a life-changing injury, or a myriad of other reasons someone might face financial difficulties?

I'm not sure, but I'd like to think if you were financially stable, that you'd have various insurances in place. Sadly, there is no exact science or answer, but my point is aimed at those who purposely have kids, knowing they can't afford them

I'm sure you'll argue (because that's what you do), but there are people who clearly cannot afford to have kids, and they do, knowing the state will look after them. There are families who are 2 or 3 generations in, claiming benefits and squirting out kids, knowing they don't have to attempt to provide, because the public purse will fit the bill (Mrs Sweep has family members like this, who are utter, utter feral scum...her Auntie, has never worked a day in her life and has 6 kids, only 2 of them have ever worked....the 4 who don't and won't work, have 5 kids between them already. Fucking scum they are)

11 minutes ago, royal white said:

Then the kids should be removed from your care. Like what would happen if you didn’t feed a dog. 

or this

1 minute ago, kent_white said:

You think it's a better solution to remove a child from a loving and secure family than it is to just make sure that family has the means to feed their child? 

Love doesn’t fill your belly. Love doesn’t keep you alive. 

Just now, Sweep said:

I'm not sure, but I'd like to think if you were financially stable, that you'd have various insurances in place. Sadly, there is no exact science or answer, but my point is aimed at those who purposely have kids, knowing they can't afford them

I'm sure you'll argue (because that's what you do), but there are people who clearly cannot afford to have kids, and they do, knowing the state will look after them. There are families who are 2 or 3 generations in, claiming benefits and squirting out kids, knowing they don't have to attempt to provide, because the public purse will fit the bill (Mrs Sweep has family members like this, who are utter, utter feral scum...her Auntie, has never worked a day in her life and has 6 kids, only 2 of them have ever worked....the 4 who don't and won't work, have 5 kids between them already. Fucking scum they are)

 

I'm not talking about people who can't afford to have kids in the first place. I'm talking about those who can, but then their financial circumstances change for reasons beyond their control. You're basically saying only rich people should have kids.

2 minutes ago, Sweep said:

or this

Or you could just set up a system that supports people in times of need, rather than tearing chidren away from their parents at an exponentially greater cost.

33 minutes ago, Cheese said:

 

I'm not talking about people who can't afford to have kids in the first place. I'm talking about those who can, but then their financial circumstances change for reasons beyond their control. You're basically saying only rich people should have kids.

I'm not, but, would that be such a bad thing?   - and as you've brought it up, what makes somebody "rich" ?

I'm saying that those who clearly can't afford kids (paupers) shouldn't - which is different to those who could afford them at the time, and have since had a situation change, two very different things

34 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Or you could just set up a system that supports people in times of need, rather than tearing chidren away from their parents at an exponentially greater cost.

I'm all for supporting in times of need......it's when they've been produced, and the parents are already in times of need, as they're already sponging off the state

17 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I'm all for supporting in times of need......it's when they've been produced, and the parents are already in times of need, as they're already sponging off the state

As I said, I'm not talking about them. So are you saying the system should only support people who were financially secure enough to support their child at the time of their birth? What are the cut-off points?

22 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I'm not, but, would that be such a bad thing?   - and as you've brought it up, what makes somebody "rich" ?

I'm saying that those who clearly can't afford kids (paupers) shouldn't - which is different to those who could afford them at the time, and have since had a situation change, two very different things

Yes, for a million reasons. You're obviously on the wind up.

35 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I'm not, but, would that be such a bad thing?   - and as you've brought it up, what makes somebody "rich" ?

I'm saying that those who clearly can't afford kids (paupers) shouldn't - which is different to those who could afford them at the time, and have since had a situation change, two very different things

So what would you do if someone who fails your affordability test gets pregnant ? 

49 minutes ago, Ani said:

So what would you do if someone who fails your affordability test gets pregnant ? 

sterilisation at birth, to be reversed at a later date when financial viability is proved 😜

8 minutes ago, Sweep said:

sterilisation at birth, to be reversed at a later date when financial viability is proved 😜

Ahh that now makes sense. Clearscore and Experian could just introduce a new rating of ‘parent qualified’ presumably with levels to agree number of kids. In case of twins one could be sold to rich folk with barren ovaries. 

We know a distant family member who we see 2-3 times a year, she's had 3 children and openly boasts about the fact her life is propped up by the state as a result. Basically, she's had children knowing it means she can avoid ever having to work.

I'd imagine there are tens or hundreds of thousands more just like her.

The state then props these families up and in return the state gets fuck all.

But somehow, adding 100,000 people into this mix who've just arrived on boats isn't an issue.

The bill for all this is bigger than all other bills we face as a nation.

Now, I don;t like it, but the liberal in me understands that we are somehow (dfuck knows how, but we are) obliged to contribute as taxpayers to this utter fucking waste of money.

But to then be asked to do it for blokes from the middle east who have turned up illegaly is fucking rotten.

I'm sorry for combining complaints here, but I think it's important to view the whole picture.

4 hours ago, Cheese said:

This is a good article by Andrew Marr about all the stuff Labour are actually doing, while everyone just seems to want to rant and rave about migrants.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/07/britains-decline-is-as-much-intellectual-as-political

think this sums it up for me

But this I know: if the answer to our troubles is to be Starmer and Labour, the Prime Minister needs to start grabbing our attention – inspiring us, making us think again – in ways we haven’t seen during this first year in government. Let’s hope he has a few hours in August to think about it.

3 minutes ago, Zico said:

think this sums it up for me

But this I know: if the answer to our troubles is to be Starmer and Labour, the Prime Minister needs to start grabbing our attention – inspiring us, making us think again – in ways we haven’t seen during this first year in government. Let’s hope he has a few hours in August to think about it.

Aye. Comms are abysmal.

11 minutes ago, Zico said:

think this sums it up for me

But this I know: if the answer to our troubles is to be Starmer and Labour, the Prime Minister needs to start grabbing our attention – inspiring us, making us think again – in ways we haven’t seen during this first year in government. Let’s hope he has a few hours in August to think about it.

Element of truth in that.

Fortunately, he's not Boris. Boris was a great one for blustering, rousing speeches and bellicose optimism.

Starmer is just dour. But that means he's working on shit without making it sound sexy or like we're still about to launch spitfires at Berlin.

Reform will, eventually, have to show their hand. And it's almost certain to be a confused, rancid broth of racist bullshit and unworkable policies. Starmer will need to be strong for that, because soundbites and twitter bots are more powerful than ever.

2 hours ago, royal white said:

Love doesn’t fill your belly. Love doesn’t keep you alive. 

No but a food voucher and a trip to a food bank will. 

Taking kids away from families because they have fallen on hard times is a bonkers idea. 

Can you imagine the costs for a start? And the welfare of the child? And the future problems that that child and the state will have to deal with on account of them being separated from their family? 

It would be a massive waste of time and money and store up loads of problems for the future. I think you need to go back to the drawing board on this one! 😁

It sad but I suppose inevitable that all discussions on this subject revolve around the parents and everything they have got wrong and so little talk about how we break the cycle so the kids do not follow them down the same path.

Suppose breakfast clubs are a start. 

17 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Aye. Comms are abysmal.

Labour Comms.

"50,000 Migrants Successfully Reach Safety Across Channel in Small Boats"
 

43 minutes ago, Ani said:

Ahh that now makes sense. Clearscore and Experian could just introduce a new rating of ‘parent qualified’ presumably with levels to agree number of kids. In case of twins one could be sold to rich folk with barren ovaries. 

welcome to the new world order

11 minutes ago, kent_white said:

No but a food voucher and a trip to a food bank will. 

Taking kids away from families because they have fallen on hard times is a bonkers idea. 

Can you imagine the costs for a start? And the welfare of the child? And the future problems that that child and the state will have to deal with on account of them being separated from their family? 

It would be a massive waste of time and money and store up loads of problems for the future. I think you need to go back to the drawing board on this one! 😁

There’s adults not feeding their kids. Now let’s assume these adults are receiving vouchers/benefits etc then what’s the excuse? Why aren’t they being fed? 

26 minutes ago, royal white said:

There’s adults not feeding their kids. Now let’s assume these adults are receiving vouchers/benefits etc then what’s the excuse? Why aren’t they being fed? 

The continuous doom loop.

As long as the state continues to do more and more, the public will take it, and do less and less.

I reckon the long term unemployed/lazy twats should have to undertake community work to get their benefits too.