The 56-year-old fathered nine children by the girls in order to support his lifestyle, his relative said. He once offered his younger daughter £500 to have another child in order to boost his income through benefits and tax credits, she said.
"He would always have a roll of £20 notes but everyone knew he had never worked a day in his life," the sister-in-law said.
"He claimed to have a bad back but tended an allotment and built huts in his garden. He obviously thought the bundles of benefits he was getting for the children was worth the risk and was not bothered about any pain it caused them."
I accept that this is an unusually cynical chap, but really, does anyone believe this is the only case where people have cynically had kids to get their hands on dosh or housing? I've been horrified at the number of dole-scroungers I've met who seriously believe that it's a career option, and when they show me the numbers, they're right! You have to do pretty damn well to get a better lifestyle than "the social" will fund for you. And given that the state does everything in its power to dumb you down and park your brain in neutral, why wouldn't you succumb to the blandishments of a life on the dole.
Fuck it. Pull the plug on the whole thing. Make individual people accountable for their actions and they won't be so tolerant of the government's incompetence. "Social justice" doesn't work, and no amount of banging on about "raising children out of poverty" and other mental masturbation will undo the horrors foisted on these kids, Baby P, Victoria Climbie, and the unsung, invisible hordes of feral, ignored and unloved kids who we generally despise and / or fear when we see them heading towards us in a large group. Sure, some of them were never going to be anything other than vicious, feral cunts. But a most of them could have turned out better if they weren't simply a necessary evil for their parents.
Fuck the welfare state.
11 comments:
"...the unsung, invisible hordes of feral, ignored and unloved kids who we generally despise and / or fear when we see them heading towards us in a large group. "
Hey, stop channelling Martin Narey!
:)
Pretty disgusting stuff for all kinds of reasons, but it does raise some interesting questions about libertarians and social services which I posed on my blog today.
Right on the nail!
The Penguin
Totally on the money!
It's those parents who take their own children "hostage"* who should be discouraged.
Children should be a parental responsibility.
* Pay up, or the child gets harmed.
"most of them"
Well, old Booth (of Salvation Army, not slotgob) found in his tour of the East End slums 100 years ago that 98.75% of the people were honest, hard working, sincere and had good stable and loving family lives. You know, ordinary decent people. Only 1.25% were villainous scum who ruined things for the rest.
Feed the tumour and it will grow.
It has been fed for decades. It is kiling the host.
I bet if the resources were cut off, we would return to a state where we had yet again 98.75% of the population are decent people raising kids in a loving environment.
'does anyone believe this is the only case where people have cynically had kids to get their hands on dosh or housing?'
Yep, that's exactly how it works.
Single mothers, in their early forties see their children growing up - at least to the TDA stage and maybe to partly support themselves in the freelance house clearance trade. These scalliwags' presence in the hovel may help to keep the levels of Housing Benefit high, but the mother's Income Support [i.e., don't even THINK of looking for work,Tracey,- it's for THE CHILDREN] is looking shaky as Chanelle, Lee and Nike are all nine or over now, and when the youngest hits 12 it's Job Seeker's Allowance (if Mum can't fake a disability) and a pretty strong chance she'll be nagged by the Job Centre for 'back' to work training. As if going from school to claiming Child Benefit hadn't been a seamless transition in the first place, eighteen years ago.
Cleaning jobs or school yard warden at minimum wage lurks just over the horizon like some Leviathan of unprecedented personal responsibility.
But happy news! A star shines over Chevlehem, and Ms Tracey Biker is with child again, and it may even be from the same nameless, faceless 'father' who never, ever lived at Biker House, to threaten Income Support, Housing Benefit, and all.
Some of my Leftie colleagues argue that they don't get wilfully pregnant to stay on the dole; some are just stupid enough to assume they will always be helped, somehow, but these people [who recently called them land whales hereabouts?] live and breed in the system and know it's funny little ways.
At teh very least , and incoming Tory government should stop all further child-related allowances, benefits, and disregard after the third child attached to any female National Insurance number. Start it 10 months after election day, and count any child who dies as one of the three.
It's not libertarian, but most people would back it to the hilt. Even Lefties, if shamefacedly and silently.
No, how clueful are Messers Campbell and Osborne about this one, I wonder?
That should have been 'live and breed in the system and know ITS funny little ways.'
I am ashamed.
I didn't know the motivation of the Sheffield daughter rapist was to get more benefit money.
Bill Clinton changed welfare rules so that benefits are given to families fallen on hard times, but no extra money is given for any children borne to people already on welfare. Birth rates among these groups dropped.
If you pay for something you will get more of it. If you pay for people to be unemployed, unemployment will be higher. If you pay for slappers to have kids, more slappers will have kids.
It is perfectly bloody libertarian, North Northwester, thank you very much, not to subsidise the underclass in their feral and malevolent ways. In a just and humane society, we would ensure that there were not people actually dying on the streets of malnutrition or hypothermia. Other than that, the bulk of the welfare state should go. The technical implementation of such a scheme is immaterial, whether it be CBI or negative income tax or whathaveyou. The fact is that a truly liberal society will not survive in the face of predatory untermenschen who have been empowered by the Gramscian Left. Take their bloody giros, take their child support, bang them up when they nick things, and before long we can ignore them again.
I don't call it the failure reward state for nothing.
David Gillies from here
http://www.dailypundit.com/ wrote:'It is perfectly bloody libertarian, North Northwester, thank you very much, not to subsidise the underclass in their feral and malevolent ways.'
You are correct - what you wrote IS libertarian.
But what I meant to say more clearly than I did was that my plan was NOT libertarian [I'm a conservative] in of ultra-minimal state or anarcho-capitalism sense, but that it was a start and even one which our British Tories might think of adding to an election manifesto, if they ever grow a pair about the Welfare State.
We have so much state-worship here in the UK that it's probably the most they could propose before a general election without all sections of the media outside our control(which is all of them except a handful of newspapers and the blogosphere) accusing us 24/7 with genocide of the underclass.
Which this would in fact be, generation-on-generation, as it would end the fast-breeding repeated horrors our public housing projects are filling up with.
Post a Comment