yes i did. are they still serving them though, first stat i could find.



indeed it doesn't. well done.

"peeps"? is that "the language"?
like i've told you, cats in hats, sweetheart.

still no mention of ed balls speeding. how very strange.

On private property disabled bays place no obligation on a driver, other than perhaps a moral one.

They end up in prison etc. precisely because the rules do apply to them.
Lawbreakers, in general, know they are breaking the law and also know that the law applies to them.

The comment was not about whether the rules apply to any section of society but was rather a comment about a certain section who think the rules do not apply to them.

You might have the right opinion but I can't tell because your reply is about something else.

Everyone who holds a different opinion to her is a 'troll'

Absolutely disgusting. Speed kills. He should tender his resignation immediately, not that I except he will. Slippery customer that one.

out of interest, do the populace of the Sin Bin accept that Philpott was attempting to start the fire, rescue his kids, be seen as a hero and get them (and therefore, the associated benefits) back into his life?

Whilst I can agree that it wasn't the system that created him, it was his motivation to get the money back in his pocket, and that money was available because of the benefit system.

Why did he have 17 children by 14 different women (or whatever it is)?

You could very well be correct.

However it doesn't make him typical of large families who happen to require state benefits during an period of unemployment, which is what a compliant media are trying to convince us of.

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255203/200-families-claiming-housing-benefit-10-children-taxpayers-face-150million-benefit-broods.htmlThe stats here[/url show that just 200 families on benefits have ten or more children and of course those families are in for a shock when the £26k cap on benefits comes into play, in that respect Philpott killing his own children to try and get his money spinning other offspring back was in vain, he'd have been much worse off with more mouths to feed very shortly.

If you read the rest of that article linked to (above) you might also notice with a bit of unease that the next target for abuse would appear to be large families, presumably we're done with single parent families, disabled, and people with too many bedrooms - this weeks target of derision are those with lots of kids.

The Pope will no doubt be writing a strongly worded letter to Osborne any day now.

You shouldn't get benefit for families above 2 kids, in fact, if one man or woman has multiple children by different partners then the state should stop funding them, if you can't afford them, don't have them.

:kxv8j0sb

Yes, yes, yes –etc – and something else

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1318439/Jeremy-Hunt-Dont-expect-pay-benefits-unlimited-babies.htmlAn old idea but one that is being revived[/url this week with news that Cameron is studying the American way of capping family based benefits and also limiting unemployment benefits to two years worth of claims.

To most people it sounds fair or at least fair-ish but of course it doesn't account for those who are unlike the majority and simply cannot work, and there are some genuine cases, are we prepared to ostracise those and watch them starve in a skip in the street along with their ten children ?

So, we have – what? – 2.5 million unemployed.

And if someone who has been entirely responsible in their life is thrown out of work, through no fault of their own, but has three children (imagine if it was triplets!), one of those won't be included in benefit.

Have you ever watched or read [iSophie's Choice[/i?

And honestly, look up Martine White and forget Philpott. The former will tell you far, far more about that this government is doing than the latter.

I agree it's a difficult decision to make, but whilst people like "us" chose not to have children and people like Philpott breed prolifically we need some type of answer.

I know of fourth generation, yes FOURTH, council tenants where none have them have worked, ever. And all their kids "aspire" to is getting a Council house by breeding.

Philpott is a nasty monster who should have received 6 life sentences, on that I think we're all agreed.

We already have an answer. It's just not one that you like.

For the sake of 200 families you think it's worth penalising everyone else?

And what do you propose to do with all the children who no longer qualify for support through benefits? Workhouses? Deportation? Or just begging on the streets?

No, we maintain support for those who are already within the system, but we stop it moving forwards.

And it's way more than 200 parents with more than two kids, you want kids, you look after them. It was your choice to let one eye no brains do his business.

You realise that we have an aging population and that old folk put way more strain on state finances than any number of children? Should we start culling the old? Makes more financial sense.

You will never stop some people having more than 2 kids. That means that there will always be 'spare' kids under your scheme. What do you propose to do with them?

People on benefits can budget like any other family has to.

If you have a job and 10 kids take out an insurance policy to cover yourself in case you fall on hard times.

Other people's kids are their concern, not mine.

Because that would be top of your list of priorities when you're balancing trying to get a job (depending on the benefit you're on) with looking after 10 kids and paying your bills, isnt it?

Well you would take out the insurance before you lost your job, obviously.

Prudent really if you have 10 kids. Contingency planning.

Why is every single viable alternative to just handing out endless lumps of cash so quickly rubbished by people on the forum?

Yes, yes - we all know that your ideal career move would be the Child Catcher from Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang. However, something would need to be done by someone. What would you propose?

Because the vast majority of them are ill-thought-out and/or not viable at all.

For instance - redundancy insurance. Go look up how these schemes work and how much they cost per month, even for someone at 'low risk'.

Stop being stupid, either contribute or f'k off.

The fact you can't ignore a "moderator" is pants.

I've asked a perfectly reasonable question. You haven't answered. Which one of us is failing to contribute?