Guest 643- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,321
#1
I know this isn't a Dover story but I'd be interested to know what others feel about it.
Councillor Ward has resigned following his comment that in his opinion families living on benefits should be sterilized. There was outcry from his party (conservative) but I wonder how many agree with him if the truth be known. In a poll 80% of those asked agreed with him, saying why should those of us who do things properly and work for a living subsidise those who are content to sit on their backsides and let the state keep them. How many young girls these days get pregnant just to get benefits and a council house, an awful lot it seems.
This arose over the revelation that the mother of the little girl found recently has seven children by five different fathers.
I think we have to think what sort of lives these children are in for. They will grow up thinking it's ok to live off the state, to only have one parent, to have a succession of different adults in their lives etc. Is it any wonder that young people get into so much trouble, they have no guidance or self worth.
Before anyone starts accusing me of being nasty - I'm not referring to ALL single parents here.Obviously some are single because of bereavement or divorce among other reasons. But there are those who have unprotected sex then get pregnant and end up living on benefits. This is not good for the parent or the child in the long term.
I heard of an incident recently, not in Dover, where a single mum with five kids argued with a bus driver. She asked him "Who the hell do you think you are? I pay your wages" to which he replied " No darlin', I think you'll find I pay yours!" How true!
So I think Councillor Ward was right, and I suspect a lot of other people do too. What do you think?
There's always a little truth behind every "Just kidding", a little emotion behind every "I don't care" and a little pain behind every "I'm ok".
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
#2
Unfortunately nothing will stop some sections of society endlessly producing children to further their living conditions at the expense of the state. The fact that we have to fork out for them is a price we have to pay in a civilised society.
It happens in the third-world all the time - theoretically more children and lack of (or unwilling to use) contraception means more children to go out and work. However, resources and food can't stretch to feeding them and they become victims of their own population boom. Thomas Malthus warned about this two hundred years ago. That's why pumping money into Africa will never work in the long-term in alleviating poverty, starvation and death.
The difference here in the first world is that we can provide and support. Quite honestly, what is the alternative? Hoards of dispossessed families and starving children wandering the street?
Councillor Ward should have thought before opening his mouth. A retraction would have sufficed, but a resignation is going too far.
For interest, this is what Councillor Ward wrote on his internet blog, not that he was not advocating sterilisation for the unemployed, only those on benefits with two or more children:
"This is yet another example of 'Breakdown Britain', much of which stems from the Government-encouraged change away from the hard-working and decent family structure to an increasingly self-indulgent immoral and state-funded lazy lifestyle.
"Children become just a means toward that end, and are of themselves of little if any further significance in this new society.
"I think there is an increasingly strong case for compulsory sterilisation of all those who have had a second (or third, or whatever) child while living off state handouts.
"It would clearly take a lot of social pressures off all concerned, thus protecting the youngsters themselves to some degree, and remove the incentive to 'breed for greed' - i.e. for more public subsidy of their lifestyle (a well-known dodge, worth ever greater amounts to countless thousands of professional spongers).
"With over-population being the root cause of so much that negatively impacts Planet Earth, the very last thing the world needs is to encourage excessive breeding."
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
we all know about the people he was referring to, but forced sterilisation.?
the last chap that advocated that was a mr hitler.
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
#4
Well that was one of the fastest evocations of Godwin's Law I've ever seen on a Dover forum.
Cllr Ward was hardly advocating eugenics on racial grounds, or to remove mentally ill persons in an attempt to subvert the gene pool to produce supermen, akin to the Nazis. The victims of Nazi sterilisation programmes were hardly claiming off the welfare state.
Cllr Ward's comments are not comparable to the policies of the Third Reich in any shape or form.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
This would be the narrow end of the wedge and is not something I could possibly agree with. Where would it end?
It is also very defeatist. I understand the concern and to go on a slight tangent, there are now whole families who have not experienced work for 3 generations (or more). This is a serious problem and something does indeed need to be done about society's scroungers and the irresponsible.
There are other ways to deal with the root cause of this problem. The do-gooding brigade who are directly responsible for so many ills in our society would scream blue murder at what needs to be done. Some times you help people by being tough and hard on them but not by forced sterilisation....
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
#6
Good to see they have named a Law after me,My Mum was on benefit when my Dad left home,luckily she had 3 good looking sons, Is this man playing God or What,Yes we all know people who perhaps prefer benefit to working,the problem is they do get into the habit, my Mrs JHG when she worked in the DHSS IN Thanet,a young couple who were on benefit she was pregnant and she produced Takaloo the Boxer,glad I didn't suggest it to them,I would have got my ears boxed.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Guest 643- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,321
#7
I don't think John Ward meant that ALL single women on benefits should be sterilized!
I agree with Barry that something has to be done though. Maybe those who carry on having children outside of a stable relationship and by different fathers should be penalised in some way so that becoming pregnant isn't seen as an easy way to get benefits and live off the state. It seems these days that the lazier you are the more you get on financially. What seriously worries me is the amount of children that are brought into the world and then left to their own devices as soon as they can walk. All children deserve to be loved and cared for, they don't ask to be born. I don't know what the answer is but I do think it's a serious problem.
There's always a little truth behind every "Just kidding", a little emotion behind every "I don't care" and a little pain behind every "I'm ok".
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
like yourself jacqui i do not know the answer, the problem is a serious one.
we see these children every day, just being used as levers to climb on the housing list.
it is nothing to do with poverty, more to do with attitude.
i still do not want to see any kind of sterilisation though.
Guest 643- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,321
#9
Totally with you there Howard. I don't think sterilisation will ever be used anyway - nor should it be. Whatever any government decides to do it will cause argument, you can't please everyone, specially on a sensitive subject like this one.
There's always a little truth behind every "Just kidding", a little emotion behind every "I don't care" and a little pain behind every "I'm ok".
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#10
Surely we should look at overhauling the benefit system and make it less attractive and lucrative to single mothers. Perhaps we should stop calling it 'Benefits' andre name it 'Back to work' ie that a person only receives govt financial support whilst one is unable to work due to illness or bringing up a child.Once that child reaches the age of 3 and qualifies for a free childcare centre place (nursery) then the mother should be helped and encouraged back to work and her allowance immediately reduced. Other child benefits could be paid using a voucher system ie milk vouchers,free school meals vouchers even school uniform vouchers so that money is spent on the child and not on booze fags drugs or in many cases all 3 !
The same applies to pensioners and their fuel allowance.I know so many pensioners who use their winter fuel allowance to buy Christmas presents for the grandkids and then half freeze to death the rest of winter.Give me £300 and I could more or less keep my young family warm and washed for at least 6 months.
We need to ensure that the child allowance is spent on the child and the fuel allowance is spent fuel.
So before we start advocating mass sterilization perhaps we should make benefits less attractive to the young mothers and that in itself may have the desired effect of reducing the number of children born into fatherless homes.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#11
Very well put Marek.
Every one agrees that this needs a serious over-haul, but I don't think any Government (prove me wrong please DC) has the balls to do it.
Roger
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#12
Roger
I believe that Frank Field is closely looking at the current benefits system with a view to people only being allowed to claim for 6 months(similar to the one Clinton introduced in the USA) but I have read or seen very little about it recently.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
Frank Field is one Labour MP well worth listening to. I have many differences with him but he certainly deserves a lot more respect than many in his own Party have given him in the past.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#14
BarryW
I agree Frank Field has some vision and isn't scared to speak his mind and put his opinions forward.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
#15
I don't know John Ward but from radio interviews and news items I understand that this was an entry on his blog that he didn't double check before posting.
It is often far safer to prepare a posting as a word document when you are not enclined, in a moment of distraction, to hit the 'send'.
Guest 650- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 542
#16
There are a heap of things that do need to be discussed on this, also things that could be. Suffice it to say I have strong opinions, and see it as a complicated and far-reaching area.
One thing I'd like to mention in passing though, is that there seems to have been a slight slide in the dicussion here from "families" to "young, single mothers". But there are fathers in there somewhere too, when a child is produced. I feel a certain amount of attention needs to be directed towards them also, encouraging them to support their offspring, get off benefits if they are on them and are able to come off, and also discouraging the idea that it's somehow manly to throw a few oats around.
Guest 654- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 169
#17
Marek
Your right about frank field but sadly he was tasked by blair before and as soon as he came up with radical ideas blair said no.
so i dont hold out much hope there.
But the benefits system needs sorting out and quick.
Roger
its not this Government, but ALL govts have failed on this one (yes even your tory friends)
no govt has ever been brave enough to take this issue on
and i suspect Tory/labour or lib dem never will.
Mr Ward made a bad error, and hopefully has learnt from it, Hopefully it is not a view he shares(sterilisation)but he certainly hasn't said he doesn't support it as yet.
what he said was, lets explore other avenues first, but didn't rule it out if all these avenues failed.
jacqui
nice to see you on line my computers at doctors for about a week iv sneaked into boys bedroom using his at mo
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#18
Thanks Keith, but I did say that I don't think any Government has the balls to do it - I wasn't picking on Labour.
Roger