# Two child limit on benefits



## kentish maid

@Vince_UK  posted about child poverty the other day. Seems that it is "estimated that more than 250,000 children would be pushed into poverty as a result of the measure by the end of the decade, representing a 10% increase in child poverty". I thought the government said they were going  to be helping the "just about managing" !!!

https://www.theguardian.com/society...igious-leaders-welfare?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


----------



## Amigo

I’m deeply concerned about any child suffering but I’m also concerned about the whole idea of having another child when you can’t afford to feed the existing ones you have. The £13.70 a week benefit won’t provide even if the parents spend it on the kids and it makes it even harder for people to work and provide for themselves.

I know many will shout me down but the country (and the affected kids), can’t afford to pay for children people can’t afford to have in the first place.


----------



## Mark T

Although, where do you draw the line?  My cousin had 7 children (yep!  his poor wife) mostly because for each one he was getting an increase in his benefits and moved up the housing list.


----------



## Grannylorraine

Mark T said:


> Although, where do you draw the line?  My cousin had 7 children (yep!  his poor wife) mostly because for each one he was getting an increase in his benefits and moved up the housing list.


Yep I know someone like this, they are currently expecting no 5, so they can get a bigger house and presumably more benefits.  

Just on your point Amigo - whilst I don't actually disagree with you, I had more kids than I planned due to a multiple birth, so sometimes you are not always in control of the amount of kids you get.


----------



## kentish maid

Grannylorraine said:


> Yep I know someone like this, they are currently expecting no 5, so they can get a bigger house and presumably more benefits.
> 
> Just on your point Amigo - whilst I don't actually disagree with you, I had more kids than I planned due to a multiple birth, so sometimes you are not always in control of the amount of kids you get.


I guess you are covered for multiple births by the clause that mentions special circumstances


----------



## Amigo

Grannylorraine said:


> Yep I know someone like this, they are currently expecting no 5, so they can get a bigger house and presumably more benefits.
> 
> Just on your point Amigo - whilst I don't actually disagree with you, I had more kids than I planned due to a multiple birth, so sometimes you are not always in control of the amount of kids you get.



Oh I absolutely know what you mean Grannylorraine but I bet you didn’t expect anyone else to keep them. My concern is people who already have two, are struggling but still take no personal responsibility about having another (that may turn out to be twins or even triplets!)


----------



## kentish maid

Benny G said:


> The human population is too big, there are too many.
> But not to worry, as human population growth is unsustainable it will end naturally.


Heading for dystopia? Currently reading Oryx and Crake, not long finished Make Room, Make Room and my son introduced me to Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged.  On a more mundane note, it was only yesterday that I found out that the Almond Milk I have started using since joining this forum is causing an impact on the environment.


----------



## kentish maid

A lot of people who I have come across over the years have more than 2 children as they feel the need to cement each new relationship by having a baby with their new partner. I am not altogether sure I understand that need, but then have not been in their shoes. Difficult one.


----------



## kentish maid

Benny G said:


> 'Make Room, Make Room' classic novel, set in the massively over populated world of 1999, the movie version 'Soylent Green' is set in 2022 against a vista of environmental collapse with population of 7 billion, which makes me wince as current actual population is 7.6 billion.


Just ordered the DVD. Hadn't come across it until you mentioned Soylent in a post on here.


----------



## Bubbsie

I wouldn't shout anyone here down for their opinions...we all have our own point of view...are entitled to it...I'm wondering if anyone here has read the proposals in detail?...I think the policy is barbaric...once again women & children will bear the brunt of this ill conceived... ill thought out strategy  ...harkens back to the times women were judged when they were literally left holding the babies if they hadn't already faced a visit to a back street abortionist...being questioned by civil servants about why they are pregnant to see if they qualify for the 'special circumstances'...the sexual assaults...coercion...the domestic abuse...accidents...all will be relived and explored by who?...the job centre...the local DSS officials...socially/economically deprived groups targeted again...including some monitories who for cultural/religious reasons have more than two children...this is divisive...arbitrary...sensationalist...the examples of 'milking the system' given above are few in number compared to the benefit recipients who do adhere to the rules & do not abuse the system...I could not support this...leave to seek judicial review has been granted...I sincerely hope the challenge is successful...this is not about reducing the population...it's purely an economic measure hitting the poor & disadvantaged...lets save money by any other means...don't allow women & children to be labelled/identified this way by cruel jingoistic legislation of this kind.


----------



## Grannylorraine

Amigo said:


> Oh I absolutely know what you mean Grannylorraine but I bet you didn’t expect anyone else to keep them. My concern is people who already have two, are struggling but still take no personal responsibility about having another (that may turn out to be twins or even triplets!)


No I have always worked.


----------



## kentish maid

I can totally see where you are coming from @Bubbsie .

There is also the question of the cost of the investigations into the families that have more than 2 children, the cost of the many appeals that will be sure to arise if people feel that they are being unfairly penalised. Will the government actually save much money at the end of the day?


----------



## Northerner

kentish maid said:


> Currently reading Oryx and Crake


Just wanted to say, awesome book  Hope you have the others in the trilogy! 

With these things, I often wonder how much it will actually save in the scheme of things, and how many families are actually only having babies for more money/better accommodation? As with benefit fraud, I'd guess the percentage involved is neglible, but it makes easy game for the government. Who's to say that that third child that some people may not have wouldn't have grown up to give a huge contribution and payback to society in the future? Efforts would be better applied to untangling the complexities of the tax system so those who can afford to pay their fair share.


----------



## Bubbsie

kentish maid said:


> I can totally see where you are coming from @Bubbsie .
> 
> There is also the question of the cost of the investigations into the families that have more than 2 children, the cost of the many appeals that will be sure to arise if people feel that they are being unfairly penalised. Will the government actually save much money at the end of the day?


I doubt that would save any money KM...however it's the social cost that concerns me...those who would be targeted...they are easy targets...many  unable to defend themselves...its not about population control...seems to me to be about social control...draconian...there are other ways to save money...re-distribute wealth...hitting women & children is not the way to do.


----------



## trophywench

All men are indeed equal but some are still more equal than others.  Let's pay less in benefits and reduce Corporation Tax, whilst retaining the lowest rate of 'ordinary' Income Tax I've ever paid since I started work in July 1966.  The deficit in tax income to the Government has to be made up from somewhere.

It is supposed to benefit everyone when Corporation Tax is reduced on the hypothesis that this creates more jobs and if that theory was correct perhaps it would - but is doesn't - they just buy another robot instead cos they aren't as expensive to obtain/employ as an extra person!

NHS jobs mostly can't be done by robots though - hence it all starts to fall down ......


----------



## Bubbsie

kentish maid said:


> I can totally see where you are coming from @Bubbsie .
> 
> There is also the question of the cost of the investigations into the families that have more than 2 children, the cost of the many appeals that will be sure to arise if people feel that they are being unfairly penalised. Will the government actually save much money at the end of the day?


This may sound extreme KM...wondering if this government has any plans to reinstate the Workhouses...how far  could this go?


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch

Bubbsie said:


> I wouldn't shout anyone here down for their opinions...we all have our own point of view...are entitled to it...I'm wondering if anyone here has read the proposals in detail?...I think the policy is barbaric...once again women & children will bear the brunt of this ill conceived... ill thought out strategy  ...harkens back to the times women were judged when they were literally left holding the babies if they hadn't already faced a visit to a back street abortionist...being questioned by civil servants about why they are pregnant to see if they qualify for the 'special circumstances'...the sexual assaults...coercion...the domestic abuse...accidents...all will be relived and explored by who?...the job centre...the local DSS officials...socially/economically deprived groups targeted again...including some monitories who for cultural/religious reasons have more than two children...this is divisive...arbitrary...sensationalist...the examples of 'milking the system' given above are few in number compared to the benefit recipients who do adhere to the rules & do not abuse the system...I could not support this...leave to seek judicial review has been granted...I sincerely hope the challenge is successful...this is not about reducing the population...it's purely an economic measure hitting the poor & disadvantaged...lets save money by any other means...don't allow women & children to be labelled/identified this way by cruel jingoistic legislation of this kind.




I totally agree with you, sadly


----------



## Mark T

Another issue is that in countries where they have tried to limit children you sometimes get a bias towards having male children.

For personal reasons, I find the concept of having children only to bring them up in poverty rather insane.  But then it took us 6 years to have the one and jumped through a few hoops as part of that.

As one of my (adopted) friends points out, there are also alot of children in the adoption system waiting for the right person to come by.

Some may ask (validly), why should the government try to control the number of children you can have.  But to extend that idea, why should the government control anything about your life?  I mean it's perfectly ok to litter, murder, rob, etc?

I'm not saying this policy is ok, because it isn't.  But I feel that we do need some way to encourage people to restrict population.  No idea now.


----------



## Amigo

Mark T said:


> Another issue is that in countries where they have tried to limit children you sometimes get a bias towards having male children.
> 
> For personal reasons, I find the concept of having children only to bring them up in poverty rather insane.  But then it took us 6 years to have the one and jumped through a few hoops as part of that.
> 
> As one of my (adopted) friends points out, there are also alot of children in the adoption system waiting for the right person to come by.
> 
> Some may ask (validly), why should the government try to control the number of children you can have.  But to extend that idea, why should the government control anything about your life?  I mean it's perfectly ok to litter, murder, rob, etc?
> 
> I'm not saying this policy is ok, because it isn't.  But I feel that we do need some way to encourage people to restrict population.  No idea now.



The Government are not trying to limit how many children you can have Mark. Just how many they are going to have to pay for!

I’ve no wish to see inhumane systems which question abused women and I’ve spent my entire professional life trying to protect children and families. What concerns me is the shift away from personal responsibility. I now see third generations who firmly believe their financial welfare is the total responsibility of ‘the State’. The attitude is being perpetuated and becoming ingrained and it worries me.


----------



## kentish maid

Northerner said:


> Just wanted to say, awesome book  Hope you have the others in the trilogy!
> 
> Yes, I am hooked


----------



## kentish maid

Bubbsie said:


> This may sound extreme KM...wondering if this government has any plans to reinstate the Workhouses...how far  could this go?


Strange you should mention workhouses. Back in the late 1800's I found various members of my late Dad's family in workhouses, asylums and children's homes. Two little girls were taken into care as there Mum had died and Dad was due to appear in court for a fairly minor offence. In 1881 this same man had been shown on the census as an ex serviceman and was in a workhouse. When I look round at all the ex serviceman who are rough sleeping, and the single Mum's, some with husbands serving time, who I came across with my work with a family centre, I sometimes feel that despite having a benefits system the problems surrounding the poor and vulnerable are still with us.  The divide between the rich and poor still gets wider


----------



## kentish maid

Mark T said:


> Another issue is that in countries where they have tried to limit children you sometimes get a bias towards having male children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amigo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Government are not trying to limit how many children you can have Mark. Just how many they are going to have to pay for!
Click to expand...


----------



## kentish maid

I was trying to be clever and answer @Amigo and @MarkT, not sure what I did wrong !!


Sadly that's true Mark, limiting the number of children often leads a bias towards male children

I can understand where you are coming from Amigo. I am always a little wary of statistics, but have read that there are a lot of middle class families only two wage packets away from homelessness.  What happens to someone who has had three or four children, thinking there future was secure, is suddenly hit by unemployment?


----------



## Bubbsie

kentish maid said:


> Strange you should mention workhouses. Back in the late 1800's I found various members of my late Dad's family in workhouses, asylums and children's homes. Two little girls were taken into care as there Mum had died and Dad was due to appear in court for a fairly minor offence. In 1881 this same man had been shown on the census as an ex serviceman and was in a workhouse. When I look round at all the ex serviceman who are rough sleeping, and the single Mum's, some with husbands serving time, who I came across with my work with a family centre, I sometimes feel that despite having a benefits system the problems surrounding the poor and vulnerable are still with us.  The divide between the rich and poor still gets wider


Ever wider KM sadly.


----------



## Davein

kentish maid said:


> Strange you should mention workhouses. Back in the late 1800's I found various members of my late Dad's family in workhouses, asylums and children's homes. Two little girls were taken into care as there Mum had died and Dad was due to appear in court for a fairly minor offence. In 1881 this same man had been shown on the census as an ex serviceman and was in a workhouse. When I look round at all the ex serviceman who are rough sleeping, and the single Mum's, some with husbands serving time, who I came across with my work with a family centre, I sometimes feel that despite having a benefits system the problems surrounding the poor and vulnerable are still with us.  The divide between the rich and poor still gets wider


We were sitting in the solicitor office waiting to go and sort out my partner's father's will. I started reading a book and it referred to the local census of years gone by and I was able to trace his grandfather and his occupation which was a scarecrow. doing further research we found out that he would stand in the local fields scaring the birds from the crops....Then I suppose progress took over and they made them out of straw and material. But I suppose it was the only local job about, being rural. Poverty has and always will exist- modern society thrives on power and greed.


----------



## kentish maid

Davein said:


> We were sitting in the solicitor office waiting to go and sort out my partner's father's will. I started reading a book and it referred to the local census of years gone by and I was able to trace his grandfather and his occupation which was a scarecrow. doing further research we found out that he would stand in the local fields scaring the birds from the crops....Then I suppose progress took over and they made them out of straw and material. But I suppose it was the only local job about, being rural. Poverty has and always will exist- modern society thrives on power and greed.


I got totally hooked.  The local archives used to run courses on researching family history. I signed up for one and found it fascinating. Also found a few skeletons in the cupboard


----------



## Davein

kentish maid said:


> I got totally hooked.  The local archives used to run courses on researching family history. I signed up for one and found it fascinating. Also found a few skeletons in the cupboard





kentish maid said:


> I got totally hooked.  The local archives used to run courses on researching family history. I signed up for one and found it fascinating. Also found a few skeletons in the cupboard


Not real ones I hope My sister was the same. I let her do all the legwork though and she would sent me all the copies of documents she had discovered. When I was in hospital having had another pancreatitis episode, I overheard the surname of the patient opposite which, ironically, was Sugars. I remembered that years ago I had a branch of the family called that and sure enough we were related. I was able to fill in a few blanks and he got a copy of part of his family tree thanks to my sister


----------



## Mark T

kentish maid said:


> I got totally hooked.  The local archives used to run courses on researching family history. I signed up for one and found it fascinating. Also found a few skeletons in the cupboard





Davein said:


> Not real ones I hope MY sister was the same. I let her do all the legwork though and she would sent me all the copies of documents she had discovered. When I was in hospital having had another pancreatitis episode, I overheard the surname of the patient opposite which, ironically, was Sugars. I remembered that years ago I had a branch of the family called that and sure enough we were related. I was able to fill in a few blanks and he got a copy of part of his family tree thanks to my sister


We are slightly off-topic now 

But I've been doing family history research for the past 8 years.  Turned up a few interesting things; a few naughty people!


----------



## kentish maid

Davein said:


> Not real ones I hope My sister was the same. I let her do all the legwork though and she would sent me all the copies of documents she had discovered. When I was in hospital having had another pancreatitis episode, I overheard the surname of the patient opposite which, ironically, was Sugars. I remembered that years ago I had a branch of the family called that and sure enough we were related. I was able to fill in a few blanks and he got a copy of part of his family tree thanks to my sister


No, no real ones . My Dad had been adopted but I didn't find that out till he died  I spent ages researching the family of the lady who raised him. The surname was quite unusual and I found a guy in Canada who was researching the name. Because I was here in Kent I was able to fill in a lot of gaps for him. Then started my quest to find Dad's birth family. I had some good leads, and eventually was able to find a half sister from his Mum's marriage and luckily she was aware of the fact that her Mother had given up a baby before she married.


----------



## kentish maid

Mark T said:


> We are slightly off-topic now
> 
> But I've been doing family history research for the past 8 years.  Turned up a few interesting things; a few naughty people!


How did you do that? I tried to reply to two quotes in one post and it went pear shaped !!!
We are off topic, but when we know what our families faced in the past we can begin to understand if we as a generation are in fact better off or worse off


----------



## Mark T

kentish maid said:


> How did you do that? I tried to reply to two quotes in one post and it went pear shaped !!!
> We are off topic, but when we know what our families faced in the past we can begin to understand if we as a generation are in fact better off or worse off


I pressed reply under each post I wanted to reply to!  The message bow should show both posts in it.  Only ever done it from PC Browser (not when replying on phone).


----------



## kentish maid

Mark T said:


> I pressed reply under each post I wanted to reply to!  The message bow should show both posts in it.  Only ever done it from PC Browser (not when replying on phone).


Thank you. Will try it again some time


----------



## trophywench

It would prove far more costly in this day and age to take so many children into care, firstly with the legal requirements for children's bedrooms.  Then if you housed a lot of children at the same address, where on earth would you find any school with enough places for them all (in each age group) when normally even people who live smack opposite the gates children aren't guaranteed a place there if they are oversubscribed!  LOL


----------



## Vince_UK

Amigo said:


> I’m deeply concerned about any child suffering but I’m also concerned about the whole idea of having another child when you can’t afford to feed the existing ones you have. The £13.70 a week benefit won’t provide even if the parents spend it on the kids and it makes it even harder for people to work and provide for themselves.
> 
> I know many will shout me down but the country (and the affected kids), can’t afford to pay for children people can’t afford to have in the first place.


Never a truer word said @Amigo. 
Not only he aspect of affording to have additional children but also that stress of actually looking after them and raising them.
My son has 5 albeit 3 over 16 now and 2 working, but the time task of feeding them when they were young,clothing them etc was an incredible task. He was working 24/7 to ensure thay had a good start. Many parents are not so lucky and the stress of 2 children must be enormous.


----------



## Vince_UK

Amigo said:


> The Government are not trying to limit how many children you can have Mark. Just how many they are going to have to pay for!
> 
> I’ve no wish to see inhumane systems which question abused women and I’ve spent my entire professional life trying to protect children and families. What concerns me is the shift away from personal responsibility. I now see third generations who firmly believe their financial welfare is the total responsibility of ‘the State’. The attitude is being perpetuated and becoming ingrained and it worries me.


Again Amigo I fully concur.  We have a generation that has an attitude of total entitlement. What worries me considerably is that this generation will grow up, have their own families and perpetuate the ingrained belief you speak of. That is going to be disastrous for the country and UK society in general. Any attempt at changng that now will be met with fierce opposition from this third generation. I despair sometimes.


----------



## mikeyB

We most certainly don’t have a “generation “ with an ingrained belief of entitlement. We have a generation who have seen no wage rises for a decade, while food prices increase. Zero hours contracts with no worker benefits such as sick pay, no guaranteed hours, so even though you are employed, you don’t know if you can pay for food and rent from one week to the next. 

And all the time, the rich get richer, get tax cuts to help, and the poor get poorer, with in work benefits cuts to help. That’s fair, isn’t it? I despair sometimes, too.


----------



## Vince_UK

mikeyB said:


> We most certainly don’t have a “generation “ with an ingrained belief of entitlement. We have a generation who have seen no wage rises for a decade, while food prices increase. Zero hours contracts with no worker benefits such as sick pay, no guaranteed hours, so even though you are employed, you don’t know if you can pay for food and rent from one week to the next.
> 
> And all the time, the rich get richer, get tax cuts to help, and the poor get poorer, with in work benefits cuts to help. That’s fair, isn’t it? I despair sometimes, too.


Yes we do.
Look around and observe.
Get into the real world


----------



## mikeyB

Any comment about the points I made? 

I do apologise for not living in the real world, it’s the curse of the disabled, we’re not allowed. 

However, as a UK taxpayer I am allowed to comment about where my money goes.


----------



## Vince_UK

mikeyB said:


> Any comment about the points I made?
> 
> I do apologise for not living in the real world, it’s the curse of the disabled, we’re not allowed.
> 
> However, as a UK taxpayer I am allowed to comment about where my money goes.


I am a UK taxpayer also.
No comment was made about any diabilities whatsoever so why you have brought that into the conversation totally evades me. 
I am also a member of the UK Taxpayers Alliance and insist on a say where my tax monies go. 
Disabled people need and should have all the help that we should give them. We, as a society have a responsibility to look after them and also ensure that system is not abused but I am not talking about the disabled.
I am taking about a social group who believe they are entitled to everything they can gain from the State with minimum inputs.
Food prices increase and will continue to increase fuelled by the uninformed decision taken for Brexit.
We have to examine the reasons why unemployment in traditional industries is low and that was because it was destroyed by restrictive practices.
What I am saying is that there is a belief in some quarters that the "State' has the responsibiity to give a certain social group everything they desire and need in order to live and live comfortably. There is also within that social group a work ethic that is low. If the UK wants to be competitive in the global economy, which it is not, then we need to wake up to the realities of life. I do not  agree with zero hour contracts and would not adopt them when I was in the UK but many do and are fully aware of the consequences of agreeing to them.  Nothing in life is guarenteed now. Immigrants doing work that UK people will not do because A) it is considered beneath them or B) in interferes with their tax credits.  Self employed should understand what that actually means and should cover the eventuallities of sickness leave themselves as any employer would.
I will continue to beg to differ that in certain levels of UK society there is a firm belief in entitllement and the only people that will suffer the longtern effects of that ethos are the UK people in general. 
In Asia which is booming economically the ethos is "no work, no eat".When I tell them about the benefits people in the UK receive from the State they laugh, actually laugh in disbelief. Then they say no wonder the Great UK is not Great anymore you people are just lazy.
That is not only here by the way that is in all of Asia.


----------



## Bubbsie

I said at the start of my response to this thread "I wouldn't shout anyone here down for their opinions...we all have our own point of view...are entitled to it"  perhaps we can remember that ...lets not  obscure the real issue here which is how women & children will fare NOW when/if this new legislation is enacted...we won't all agree...that doesn't matter...lets not lose the focus of Kentish Maids thread please.


----------



## Grannylorraine

Bubbsie said:


> I wouldn't shout anyone here down for their opinions...we all have our own point of view...are entitled to it...I'm wondering if anyone here has read the proposals in detail?...I think the policy is barbaric...once again women & children will bear the brunt of this ill conceived... ill thought out strategy  ...harkens back to the times women were judged when they were literally left holding the babies if they hadn't already faced a visit to a back street abortionist...being questioned by civil servants about why they are pregnant to see if they qualify for the 'special circumstances'...the sexual assaults...coercion...the domestic abuse...accidents...all will be relived and explored by who?...the job centre...the local DSS officials...socially/economically deprived groups targeted again...including some monitories who for cultural/religious reasons have more than two children...this is divisive...arbitrary...sensationalist...the examples of 'milking the system' given above are few in number compared to the benefit recipients who do adhere to the rules & do not abuse the system...I could not support this...leave to seek judicial review has been granted...I sincerely hope the challenge is successful...this is not about reducing the population...it's purely an economic measure hitting the poor & disadvantaged...lets save money by any other means...don't allow women & children to be labelled/identified this way by cruel jingoistic legislation of this kind.


 I'll be honest Bubbsie I had acquainted myself with the full facts of how this would be achieved, such as your points above questioning women on their decision/why they became pregnant, that in my opinion is totally unacceptable and in some cases so traumatic it may cause women to take their own lives.  I do however think there does have to be control over how much benefits an individually family can receive, for instance my daughters neighbour with two kids taking into account her housing benefit etc has a greater income than my daughter who works and gets no help at all, even when my daughter has her second baby the neighbour will still have more income a month than my daughter, plus daughter has to pay out childcare, it is only because my daughter has pride in not being on benefits that she works when financially she would be better off not working.   There are no medical reasons why the neighbour cannot work, she simply chooses not to.


----------



## kentish maid

I have inadvertently stirred up a bit of a hornets nest I think.
With my limited experience in working with disadvantaged families I have seen how difficult it is to break the cycle of 'benefit dependence'. In my mind it is not so much that the next generation feel that they are 'entitled' to benefits but that the parents have been dragged down by the conditions they find themselves in and can feel hopeless because they are unable to provide for their children. A depressed person, presenting for a job, will more than likely be passed over by an employer for someone more upbeat. When you keep getting rejections you lose hope. As @Bubsie quite rightly says, we are all entitled to our own opinion, and that is mine


----------



## Bubbsie

Grannylorraine said:


> I'll be honest Bubbsie I had acquainted myself with the full facts of how this would be achieved, such as your points above questioning women on their decision/why they became pregnant, that in my opinion is totally unacceptable and in some cases so traumatic it may cause women to take their own lives.  I do however think there does have to be control over how much benefits an individually family can receive, for instance my daughters neighbour with two kids taking into account her housing benefit etc has a greater income than my daughter who works and gets no help at all, even when my daughter has her second baby the neighbour will still have more income a month than my daughter, plus daughter has to pay out childcare, it is only because my daughter has pride in not being on benefits that she works when financially she would be better off not working.   There are no medical reasons why the neighbour cannot work, she simply chooses not to.


Lorraine that's a perfectly valid point of view...there are some who do avoid work...have no  intention of supporting themselves...abuse the system...those are the ones who need to be 'encouraged' back into the work place...there is a wider culture of benefit entitlement that needs to be addressed overall...most likely we all know someone who could go to work...has the ability to work...makes no effort to support themselves...lets address the bigger picture (apologies for the clichés here) my objection is how this  policy will impact on women & children...target them directly...lets deal with the overall malaise in our system...the benefits culture per se not select vulnerable groups that are easy targets.


----------



## Bubbsie

kentish maid said:


> I have inadvertently stirred up a bit of a hornets nest I think.
> With my limited experience in working with disadvantaged families I have seen how difficult it is to break the cycle of 'benefit dependence'. In my mind it is not so much that the next generation feel that they are 'entitled' to benefits but that the parents have been dragged down by the conditions they find themselves in and can feel hopeless because they are unable to provide for their children. A depressed person, presenting for a job, will more than likely be passed over by an employer for someone more upbeat. When you keep getting rejections you lose hope. As @Bubsie quite rightly says, we are all entitled to our own opinion, and that is mine


Well argued @kentish maid...we need to take account of all the relevant issues...I wouldn't say you've stirred up a 'hornets nest'...there's nothing wrong with rational/reasonable discussions.


----------



## Davein

Grannylorraine said:


> I'll be honest Bubbsie I had acquainted myself with the full facts of how this would be achieved, such as your points above questioning women on their decision/why they became pregnant, that in my opinion is totally unacceptable and in some cases so traumatic it may cause women to take their own lives.  I do however think there does have to be control over how much benefits an individually family can receive, for instance my daughters neighbour with two kids taking into account her housing benefit etc has a greater income than my daughter who works and gets no help at all, even when my daughter has her second baby the neighbour will still have more income a month than my daughter, plus daughter has to pay out childcare, it is only because my daughter has pride in not being on benefits that she works when financially she would be better off not working.   There are no medical reasons why the neighbour cannot work, she simply chooses not to.


I agree with what you say GL. I once advertised a job for an apprentice/trainee through the job centre. The applicants ranged from one person willing to work one month free to another who was accompanied by his father who just wanted me to sign him off as not suitable because they were quite happy to live off the state. My workforce were all paid well above the going rate and this job was no exception. I choose the lad who was willing to work without pay as he had demonstrated the extent he was prepared to go to to get employment and I paid him from day one.


----------



## kentish maid

trophywench said:


> It would prove far more costly in this day and age to take so many children into care, firstly with the legal requirements for children's bedrooms.  Then if you housed a lot of children at the same address, where on earth would you find any school with enough places for them all (in each age group) when normally even people who live smack opposite the gates children aren't guaranteed a place there if they are oversubscribed!  LOL


Interesting what you say about children in care. There seems to be much more emphasis these days on trying to keep families together and in most cases it seems to be working. Both the girls I mentioned earlier became single Mums at a very early age, and this was back in the 1920's, so lack of a stable upbringing certainly impacted on their lives


----------



## Bubbsie

kentish maid said:


> Interesting what you say about children in care. There seems to be much more emphasis these days on trying to keep families together and in most cases it seems to be working. Both the girls I mentioned earlier became single Mums at a very early age, and this was back in the 1920's, so lack of a stable upbringing certainly impacted on their lives


Its difficult to avoid relating our own personal experiences to these kind of issues...again as a woman possibly I have a different perspective...my own family history includes a brother born in the 'workhouse' in Southern Ireland...one of the notorious laundries still operating until the early 1980's...lets not provide any opportunity to return to those times...address the problem of the overall ever increasing benefits bill without isolating those least able to defend  themselves.


----------



## HOBIE

I can assure you that I am a hard worker & worked it out I could only afford 2 kids. They cost a fortune


----------



## Amigo

HOBIE said:


> I can assure you that I am a hard worker & worked it out I could only afford 2 kids. They cost a fortune



We don’t always agree but fair play for that Hobie!


----------



## mikeyB

The first time I heard of the two child benefit limit, the first word that came into my head was eugenics. 

This may be a little over dramatic, but Beveridge, (who wrote the report that led to the NHS and all the benefits that we were familiar with in the fifties and sixties) was a lifelong eugenicist. When he designed universal child benefit, he proposed a sliding scale, depending on income. Poorer people would get a smaller amount, and better off people the full amount. This was his eugenic character coming to the fore - discourage poor people from breeding, encourage the better off to breed, and you end up with a better society. The Labour government at the time went pale when they read this, and it was quietly abandoned for a universal benefit at the same amount for all, which of course benefited the worse off.

So if any of you can separate Beveridge’s eugenic thinking, from this financial  bribe to stop poor people breeding, feel free to do so. The similarity is ominous.

For those unfamiliar with the word eugenics, it is the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. 

As an aside, the only society that pursued this policy to its logical limits was Nazi Germany.


----------



## Amigo

mikeyB said:


> The first time I heard of the two child benefit limit, the first word that came into my head was eugenics.
> 
> This may be a little over dramatic, but Beveridge, (who wrote the report that led to the NHS and all the benefits that we were familiar with in the fifties and sixties) was a lifelong eugenicist. When he designed universal child benefit, he proposed a sliding scale, depending on income. Poorer people would get a smaller amount, and better off people the full amount. This was his eugenic character coming to the fore - discourage poor people from breeding, encourage the better off to breed, and you end up with a better society. The Labour government at the time went pale when they read this, and it was quietly abandoned for a universal benefit at the same amount for all, which of course benefited the worse off.
> 
> So if any of you can separate Beveridge’s eugenic thinking, from this financial  bribe to stop poor people breeding, feel free to do so. The similarity is ominous.
> 
> For those unfamiliar with the word eugenics, it is the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.
> 
> As an aside, the only society that pursued this policy to its logical limits was Nazi Germany.



Perhaps a little over dramatic Mike. I can easily separate the issue of eugenics and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population from telling people they can have as many children as they want as long as they can provide for them without relying on others to do so.

Benefits and State help should be for the needy not the greedy and humane, sensitive practices should be in place to safeguard those who fall through the net. Which is what the special exceptions are in these proposals. None of us want to bare our all to the Benefit Agencies and admittedly they don’t always do it well but anyone who has ever completed a PIP application etc. will know we are required to disclose delicate information in order to stand a chance of qualifying. It’s a sad fact of life if we want access to public coffers.


----------



## Bubbsie

i





Amigo said:


> who has ever completed a PIP application etc. will know we are required to disclose delicate information in order to stand a chance of qualifying. It’s a sad fact of life if we want access to public coffers.


Yes but we are not quizzed on how we came to have those conditions... how we became disabled/ill... what we did to try & avoid them... it's based on whether we have those conditions...whereas the special circumstances will involve women having to disclose a rape...go through the details... what  happens if their attacker  was acquitted...how would they demonstrate they had been raped... a pseudo trial with the DSS/Job Centre...women in a relationship where they are coerced by  their partners to have more children...still living with their partners because they have nowhere else to go...how would they establish that...my main concern is what would  happen to the third or fourth child a family could not financially support...because we know even if that legislation comes in...it won't prevent the arrival of more than two children...there are other areas where benefit abuse could be stopped...action taken...benefit abuse comes in all categories of the population...why target women & children...because I'll say it again...they are an easy target...its populist proganda...there are other ways to prevent benefit abuse...I work hard too @HOBIE ...like you I always have...yet I could not support these measures...not against such a vulnerable group.


----------



## HOBIE

For a period in China you where only allowed one child  If you don't work there what happens ?


----------



## Amigo

Bubbsie said:


> i
> Yes but we are not quizzed on how we came to have those conditions... how we became disabled/ill... what we did to try & avoid them... it's based on whether we have those conditions...whereas the special circumstances will involve women having to disclose a rape...go through the details... what  happens if their attacker  was acquitted...how would they demonstrate they had been raped... a pseudo trial with the DSS/Job Centre...women in a relationship where they are coerced by  their partners to have more children...still living with their partners because they have nowhere else to go...how would they establish that...my main concern is what would  happen to the third or fourth child a family could not financially support...because we know even if that legislation comes in...it won't prevent the arrival of more than two children...there are other areas where benefit abuse could be stopped...action taken...benefit abuse comes in all categories of the population...why target women & children...because I'll say it again...they are an easy target...its populist proganda...there are other ways to prevent benefit abuse...I work hard too @HOBIE ...like you I always have...yet I could not support these measures...not against such a vulnerable group.



This is the most emotive element of these changes Bubbsie and having a background working with abused women and children over 3 decades, of course it causes me concern. All welfare applications involve very intrusive levels of questioning and distress (even PIP applications) and the way in which these are conducted is often a disgrace. That is a separate issue and in truth, although we are concentrating on women subject to rape leading to a pregnancy, this represents a tiny amount proportionally. 
Also, it’s not necessary for the affected woman to give evidence herself. She can be represented as these details set out;

‘That includes allowing an "approved person" to give evidence to HM Revenue and Customs to spare victims the trauma of reliving their ordeal.

These people are set to include healthcare professionals, social workers or counsellors and workers at specialist rape charities.’

The guidance to the law says: "In developing this requirement, the Government has sought to strike a balance between the need to treat such cases with sensitivity and the need to ensure that child tax credit is paid only to persons who are genuinely entitled to it."


Women will also be exempted if there is "a relevant conviction for an offence of rape or controlling or coercive behaviour".

I do accept however that there will be an issue where the woman hasn’t disclosed the abuse or the perpetrator hasn’t been convicted. 

I’m certainly not suggesting the men involved in these situations escape without paying their dues. There’s a lot of focus on the women here and I’d like to see a more concerted effort to see the fathers of these children face up to their responsibilities. In my experience many scarper and leave the women (and the State) holding all the responsibilities.


----------



## kentish maid

I seem to remember that when child benefit was first introduced you only got it for second and subsequent children. My parents were certainly not wealthy, but as I was an only child would have got no benefits.

Have been looking at the situation regarding child benefits in other countries. If Wikipedia is reliable, it seems that in Iceland  single parents get more benefits than married couples  and that Belgium has supplements depending on the social status of a parent (retired, unemployed, invalid) and in Italy the more you earn the less child benefit you get. Other countries do not appear to restrict benefits

What is being planned does not show us in a good light


----------



## kentish maid

mikeyB said:


> The first time I heard of the two child benefit limit, the first word that came into my head was eugenics.
> 
> This may be a little over dramatic, but Beveridge, (who wrote the report that led to the NHS and all the benefits that we were familiar with in the fifties and sixties) was a lifelong eugenicist..



I was aware of the report, but not that Beveridge was a eugenicist. A subject I must look into in more depth I think.


----------



## Bubbsie

Amigo said:


> The guidance to the law says: "In developing this requirement, the Government has sought to strike a balance between the need to treat such cases with sensitivity and the need to ensure that child tax credit is paid only to persons who are genuinely entitled to it."


This is a barbaric practice however much the powers that be try to dress it up or soften the blow......thankfully it is not law yet & hopefully never likely to be... it is a product of sub-delegated legislation... a discretionary power conferred by the Welfare Reform Act 2018 on the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions...as 'discretionary power' only it can be subject to judicial challenge (whereas a primary Act of Parliament cannot )...leave to seek judicial review was applied for in October 2017and was granted... the case was heard in early February...judgement was reserved and is due shortly...I sincerely hope this proposed addition to the Welfare Reform Act is struck out forcefully as it should be.


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch

HOBIE said:


> For a period in China you where only allowed one child  If you don't work there what happens ?



I suspect you die


kentish maid said:


> I seem to remember that when child benefit was first introduced you only got it for second and subsequent children. My parents were certainly not wealthy, but as I was an only child would have got no benefits.
> 
> Have been looking at the situation regarding child benefits in other countries. If Wikipedia is reliable, it seems that in Iceland  single parents get more benefits than married couples  and that Belgium has supplements depending on the social status of a parent (retired, unemployed, invalid) and in Italy the more you earn the less child benefit you get. Other countries do not appear to restrict benefits
> 
> What is being planned does not show us in a good light



"A Society will be judged by how it treats its weakest members" Harry Trueman


----------



## Bubbsie

HOBIE said:


> For a period in China you where only allowed one child  If you don't work there what happens ?


We're not talking about China Hobie....


----------



## Marsbartoastie

We need to look at the bigger picture. The rich are getting richer and the poor (working people and those reliant on benefits) are getting poorer.  The Sunday Times ‘rich list’ tells us that the total wealth of Britain’s 1,000 richest individuals and families last year was £658 billion (a 14% rise on the previous year).  That’s £226 million a day.  We have obscene wealth at one end of society and food banks at the other.

When the bankers got themselves into trouble the ‘powers that be’ found £850 billion to bale them out.  When ordinary people find themselves in difficulties it's a different story. 

If people are working hard and still struggling to keep their heads above water it’s easy to manipulate them by offering simplistic solutions to complex problems.  The far right have always used this tactic.  Current attempts to use the poorest and most vulnerable members of society as scapegoats are disgusting.  The rich and powerful love it when we fight amongst ourselves.  It  diverts our attention, keeps us occupied and stops us fighting for meaningful changes that would benefit everyone.  Beer and circuses.


----------



## HOBIE

Bubbsie said:


> We're not talking about China Hobie....


I know we are not talking about China but that is what the country had to do. Too many kids ?


----------



## kentish maid

HOBIE said:


> I know we are not talking about China but that is what the country had to do. Too many kids ?


From what I have read Chinese families abandoned girl babies, who then ended up in State run orphanages. Now the orphanages are full of abandoned children who have disabilities as families cannot afford to care for them. Certainly a path I hope we don't go down. They even have 'hatches' in the orphanages where you can drop the babies off !!! Takes us back to Thomas Corum and the Foundling Hospital, where a basket  was hung outside the hospital for people to leave children in.


----------



## Marsbartoastie

HOBIE said:


> I know we are not talking about China but that is what the country had to do. Too many kids ?


China did not _*have *_to introduce a one child policy, but the political elite decided it was going to be their next big initiative.  The human cost was immaterial to them.  After all, they had already presided over the Cultural Revolution and the devastating man-made famine of 1959-61 which together killed tens of millions.

It is now universally agreed by demographic and economic experts that the one child policy was a mistake and China is waking up to the fact that it has planted an economic time bomb.  A strong supply of  workers is essential to prosperity, yet by 2050 the number of people aged 60+ will amount to 1/3 of the entire population. As so often happens, what seemed to be an easy solution to a complex range of challenges is simply creating different problems.

In addition to the strong economic argument against the one child policy it's worth noting that it was often implemented using horrific coercive measures.  It was applied unequally across different cultural and economic groups as a means of social engineering.  It resulted in the murder of countless baby girls and caused a gender imbalance in the affected age group.  With no 'cradle to grave' welfare system the elderly in families are dependent upon their children and grand-children.  How long will it be before old people in China are regarded as such a drain that they are disposed of...culled by starvation or exposure.  This may be a nightmare vision of the future, but given the relatively recent social and political history of China it is far from unrealistic.

I'm sorry Hobie.  Everything about the one child policy was misguided.


----------



## HOBIE

So is it ok for someone to have never worked, have 10 kids & no intentions of working ?   I go to work for a reason & so does a lot of people. That's why I don't live in China


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch

70% of benefit claimants are actually in work.

By far the biggest slice of the welfare budget is spent on pensions.


----------



## Bubbsie

I go to work too ...pay taxes...I support a welfare state & have benefitted  greatly from it...my education...the healthcare I have received...that we've all received...that's the system we have here... I support equal opportunity...an equitable distribution of wealth...public responsibility for those who are unable to provide adequately for themselves or their families...as one member here has said " Society will be judged by how it treats its weakest members" ...we all need to bear that in mind...as for China...that question has been answered eloquently by more than one of the responders above.


----------



## HOBIE

There was a parent on this forum a few years ago who said our little tommy has T1 diabetes & will never work. SORRY I would never say that & have never been on benefits in my life because I don't like sitting still for my health. If I am not at work I love to do voluntary work at the unis or Duk. T1 since being 3 & still at work is hard work at times but I feel strongly its better for you


----------



## kentish maid

HOBIE said:


> There was a parent on this forum a few years ago who said our little tommy has T1 diabetes & will never work. SORRY I would never say that & have never been on benefits in my life because I don't like sitting still for my health. If I am not at work I love to do voluntary work at the unis or Duk. T1 since being 3 & still at work is hard work at times but I feel strongly its better for you


Don't know the full circumstances of the parent you mentioned but I think that it is a very defeatist attitude to take. Children with any medical condition or disability should be encouraged to lead as 'normal' life as possible.


----------



## HOBIE

Totally K Maid !  If everyone had that attitude they are going to have a hard life. Lots of T1 winners out there


----------



## Vince_UK

Marsbartoastie said:


> China did not _*have *_to introduce a one child policy, but the political elite decided it was going to be their next big initiative.  The human cost was immaterial to them.  After all, they had already presided over the Cultural Revolution and the devastating man-made famine of 1959-61 which together killed tens of millions.
> 
> It is now universally agreed by demographic and economic experts that the one child policy was a mistake and China is waking up to the fact that it has planted an economic time bomb.  A strong supply of  workers is essential to prosperity, yet by 2050 the number of people aged 60+ will amount to 1/3 of the entire population. As so often happens, what seemed to be an easy solution to a complex range of challenges is simply creating different problems.
> 
> In addition to the strong economic argument against the one child policy it's worth noting that it was often implemented using horrific coercive measures.  It was applied unequally across different cultural and economic groups as a means of social engineering.  It resulted in the murder of countless baby girls and caused a gender imbalance in the affected age group.  With no 'cradle to grave' welfare system the elderly in families are dependent upon their children and grand-children.  How long will it be before old people in China are regarded as such a drain that they are disposed of...culled by starvation or exposure.  This may be a nightmare vision of the future, but given the relatively recent social and political history of China it is far from unrealistic.
> 
> I'm sorry Hobie.  Everything about the one child policy was misguided.


Absolutely true.
They have just relaxed the one child policy here because they have realised it was totally misguided and laid the foundations for a serious gender imbalance which now is starting to bite. Enforced abortions by local "officials' were common up until 2 or 3 years ago. Selective birth control via abortion where females were aborted after being sexed by scans. The revolution you talk about @Marsbartoastie killed 70 million but that is not allowed to be spoken of and is in absolute denial.
The gender imbalance has created a significant social problem because men cannot find wives and girls are being hghly selective on their choices of men.There is a huge number of single men who just canot find a wife and matchmaking for enormous fees is quite common. It is also driving the need for a high educaton and overseas study where affordable so they can attract the right girl.
The retirement age here is 60 but many still work  on menial tasks such as street cleaning because there is less and less financial support as families have shrank to 1 child who must look after the parents and grandparents as well as bring up their own family. Disastrous consequences. If they are fortunate enough to marry that is two sets of parents ad possibly grandparents to be supported. Horrendous stress.
People starving during that cultural revolution and the great leap forward and actually eating their dead offspring and that is a fact, I have had thst first hand on more than one occasion. That was in the 1970's by the way not so long ago.
The whole outcome of this was abhorent and the longterm effects are still being felt.
I do know many coutryside fold however who managed to "hide" their kids during that period and it is not uncommon for families of 6 to exist but then again the drive was to have a Son. One of my friends is from a family of 6, 4 sisters and 2 brothers where all the girls where born first. One has to be grateful they were not "disposed of" by exposure to the elements, as indeed many were, or aborted. The reason for this is simply  the family could not afford the costs and the father was a party cadre who can escape any rules.
I will add to this something that I was on the periphery of.
At the beginning of 2013 I had a friend from a wealthy family, industrialist, whose sister was married and already had a daughter.
He informed me one weekend that he was going to Hong Kong with his sister because she was pregnant again and I naively congratulated him.
Asked why he was going to HK and he straight out told me so she could have a scan to determine if it was a girl or boy. He then told me that if it was a girl it would be aborted there and then as they MUST have a boy to carry on the family name and HK was much better than the mainland and they could circumvent any mainland regulations with regards to abortion. That was the family’s desire, not the wife’s or husbands but it was being decided by the family.
I was horrified to say that least and I felt as if I was a party to premeditated murder. I severed all connections with him immediately.
That is modern selective breeding that isn’t talked about.


----------



## Lucy Honeychurch

Lots of stuff coming from your neck of the woods with regard to gender imbalance. Teen girls being abducted  etc. Like you say, favouring boys and aborting and infanticide of females is all to common. As a mother of three daughters it makes  me feel sick.


----------



## Marsbartoastie

Vince_UK said:


> Absolutely true.
> They have just relaxed the one child policy here because they have realised it was totally misguided and laid the foundations for a serious gender imbalance which now is starting to bite. Enforced abortions by local "officials' were common up until 2 or 3 years ago. Selective birth control via abortion where females were aborted after being sexed by scans. The revolution you talk about @Marsbartoastie killed 70 million but that is not allowed to be spoken of and is in absolute denial.
> The gender imbalance has created a significant social problem because men cannot find wives and girls are being hghly selective on their choices of men.There is a huge number of single men who just canot find a wife and matchmaking for enormous fees is quite common. It is also driving the need for a high educaton and overseas study where affordable so they can attract the right girl.
> The retirement age here is 60 but many still work  on menial tasks such as street cleaning because there is less and less financial support as families have shrank to 1 child who must look after the parents and grandparents as well as bring up their own family. Disastrous consequences. If they are fortunate enough to marry that is two sets of parents ad possibly grandparents to be supported. Horrendous stress.
> People starving during that cultural revolution and the great leap forward and actually eating their dead offspring and that is a fact, I have had thst first hand on more than one occasion. That was in the 1970's by the way not so long ago.
> The whole outcome of this was abhorent and the longterm effects are still being felt.
> I do know many coutryside fold however who managed to "hide" their kids during that period and it is not uncommon for families of 6 to exist but then again the drive was to have a Son. One of my friends is from a family of 6, 4 sisters and 2 brothers where all the girls where born first. One has to be grateful they were not "disposed of" by exposure to the elements, as indeed many were, or aborted. The reason for this is simply  the family could not afford the costs and the father was a party cadre who can escape any rules.
> I will add to this something that I was on the periphery of.
> At the beginning of 2013 I had a friend from a wealthy family, industrialist, whose sister was married and already had a daughter.
> He informed me one weekend that he was going to Hong Kong with his sister because she was pregnant again and I naively congratulated him.
> Asked why he was going to HK and he straight out told me so she could have a scan to determine if it was a girl or boy. He then told me that if it was a girl it would be aborted there and then as they MUST have a boy to carry on the family name and HK was much better than the mainland and they could circumvent any mainland regulations with regards to abortion. That was the family’s desire, not the wife’s or husbands but it was being decided by the family.
> I was horrified to say that least and I felt as if I was a party to premeditated murder. I severed all connections with him immediately.
> That is modern selective breeding that isn’t talked about.


Thank you for taking the time to write such an interesting and informative reply Vince.  I'd 'like' it, but that hardly seems appropriate given the subject matter.  What you say helps to clarify why I have such strong objections to the proposals under discussion  in this thread.  Systematic institutional and social discrimination against women and girls is widespread throughout the world.  Where this is commonplace it has a dreadful corrosive impact on individuals, families and society. 

Every freedom enjoyed by women in our society was hard won.  We must fight to ensure that those freedoms are not eroded by desperate politicians who cannot see further than the next general election.  The current proposals simply pander to a disgruntled vocal element in society...and we know what happened the last time politicians did this.  The referendum on membership of the EU was offered as a sop to reactionary xenophobes.  We will pay the cost of that ridiculous gamble for generations.


----------



## Bubbsie

Vince_UK said:


> Absolutely true.
> They have just relaxed the one child policy here because they have realised it was totally misguided and laid the foundations for a serious gender imbalance which now is starting to bite. Enforced abortions by local "officials' were common up until 2 or 3 years ago. Selective birth control via abortion where females were aborted after being sexed by scans. The revolution you talk about @Marsbartoastie killed 70 million but that is not allowed to be spoken of and is in absolute denial.
> The gender imbalance has created a significant social problem because men cannot find wives and girls are being hghly selective on their choices of men.There is a huge number of single men who just canot find a wife and matchmaking for enormous fees is quite common. It is also driving the need for a high educaton and overseas study where affordable so they can attract the right girl.
> The retirement age here is 60 but many still work  on menial tasks such as street cleaning because there is less and less financial support as families have shrank to 1 child who must look after the parents and grandparents as well as bring up their own family. Disastrous consequences. If they are fortunate enough to marry that is two sets of parents ad possibly grandparents to be supported. Horrendous stress.
> People starving during that cultural revolution and the great leap forward and actually eating their dead offspring and that is a fact, I have had thst first hand on more than one occasion. That was in the 1970's by the way not so long ago.
> The whole outcome of this was abhorent and the longterm effects are still being felt.
> I do know many coutryside fold however who managed to "hide" their kids during that period and it is not uncommon for families of 6 to exist but then again the drive was to have a Son. One of my friends is from a family of 6, 4 sisters and 2 brothers where all the girls where born first. One has to be grateful they were not "disposed of" by exposure to the elements, as indeed many were, or aborted. The reason for this is simply  the family could not afford the costs and the father was a party cadre who can escape any rules.
> I will add to this something that I was on the periphery of.
> At the beginning of 2013 I had a friend from a wealthy family, industrialist, whose sister was married and already had a daughter.
> He informed me one weekend that he was going to Hong Kong with his sister because she was pregnant again and I naively congratulated him.
> Asked why he was going to HK and he straight out told me so she could have a scan to determine if it was a girl or boy. He then told me that if it was a girl it would be aborted there and then as they MUST have a boy to carry on the family name and HK was much better than the mainland and they could circumvent any mainland regulations with regards to abortion. That was the family’s desire, not the wife’s or husbands but it was being decided by the family.
> I was horrified to say that least and I felt as if I was a party to premeditated murder. I severed all connections with him immediately.
> That is modern selective breeding that isn’t talked about.


Oh Vince that made difficult reading the truth often does...shocking in it's brutality...extremity...political expediency is callous...the real truth about 'collateral damage' is often forgotten...neglected ...hidden from view...then everyone moves on...except those individuals/societies damaged by it.


----------



## Bubbsie

Marsbartoastie said:


> Thank you for taking the time to write such an interesting and informative reply Vince.  I'd 'like' it, but that hardly seems appropriate given the subject matter.  What you say helps to clarify why I have such strong objections to the proposals under discussion  in this thread.  Systematic institutional and social discrimination against women and girls is widespread throughout the world.  Where this is commonplace it has a dreadful corrosive impact on individuals, families and society.
> 
> Every freedom enjoyed by women in our society was hard won.  We must fight to ensure that those freedoms are not eroded by desperate politicians who cannot see further than the next general election.  The current proposals simply pander to a disgruntled vocal element in society...and we know what happened the last time politicians did this.  The referendum on membership of the EU was offered as a sop to reactionary xenophobes.  We will pay the cost of that ridiculous gamble for generations.


Hear hear MBT.


----------



## kentish maid

Very interesting reading @Vince_UK .
It does concern me what life will be like for my grandson and his descendants when I see what a mess the government seem to be making of tackling poverty, Brexit, the NHS crisis...... the list goes on.


Marsbartoastie said:


> desperate politicians who cannot see further than the next general election.  The current proposals simply pander to a disgruntled vocal element in society...and we know what happened the last time politicians did this.  The referendum on membership of the EU was offered as a sop to reactionary xenophobes.  We will pay the cost of that ridiculous gamble for generations.


. Exactly how I see things.


----------



## Vince_UK

kentish maid said:


> Very interesting reading @Vince_UK .
> It does concern me what life will be like for my grandson and his descendants when I see what a mess the government seem to be making of tackling poverty, Brexit, the NHS crisis...... the list goes on.
> . Exactly how I see things.


And I also feel that way too.


----------



## kentish maid

Benny G said:


> 'Make Room, Make Room' classic novel, set in the massively over populated world of 1999, the movie version 'Soylent Green' is set in 2022 against a vista of environmental collapse with population of 7 billion, which makes me wince as current actual population is 7.6 billion.


Well @Benny G I watched Soylent Green, it was OK but much preferred the book.


----------



## trophywench

Charlton Heston!  Ben Hur but not LOL


----------



## kentish maid

Benny G said:


> I know what you mean, but the movie is almost 50 years old. Edward G.Robinson, great performance.
> 
> Art imitates life,
> life imitates art.
> If we lived in USA we could have our own 'Tuesday is Soylent Green day'.
> https://www.soylent.com
> The nightmare is coming true.
> Oooooooh!


Worrying !!!!


----------

