Stop giving out benefits for having children, only allow people to have kids when they can afford to have them (or otherwise they will be adopted).

This will stop this friggin mess...

Oh, and stop the mass unwashed/unemployed voting so the government parties cannot aim their campaign at them for easy votes!!

Sorted :D

^^
thats more right wing that Beckham, lol

Gets the nod from me. If you don't contribute to society they should stop your benefits and your right to vote. That would a) stop these scummers claiming and living like the parasitic leeches they are, and b) stop Labour ever getting in power again.

Oh, and putting bromide/arsenic in the water supply to certain parts of some cities might be a good idea too. Or just napalming them.

Only one that pissed me off was the 14 yr old girl who could't talk properly (deaf?) and clearly didn't give a fook. Her baby should be repossesed, stupid little slag.

Can you really get arthritis at 17?

Most young men will leg it as soon as they hear the word 'pregnant' as did most of the fathers in this.

The girl hasn't had a chance to live any of her life either.Her problem I accept (don't accept anyones argument that kids now don't understand the risks,in fact more so seeing as they dress to look 18 at the age of 13)

Only people I feel sorry for are the babies.Instantly born into a ruined life.No stable family.:(

That girl's mobile phone seemed far more important to her than the little human being she wanted nothing to do with,

Oh come now, Pete. even YOU can remember that the Tories didn't START that little lot, it was introduced under Labour, continued under the Tories and EXPANDED and INCREASED massively by this lot;rolleyes: In 1998, in fact, one of the FIRST things they did;)

BBC NEWS | Business | Q&A: Child benefit

Alcazar

Well they are all paying the price of not keeping their legs shut now!
The 13 year old had originally been sent into care because of behaviour problems then came back hiding her pregnancy so it was obvious she didnt want anything to do with her baby as she hasnt grown up herself yet.

PSL!

Why has your glorious leader not done anything to stop the appalling drop in standards to gutter level which have occurred over the last 10 years or so.

Why has he encouraged the loss of the basic family which used to bring children up properly with the best chance of furthering themselves as was always the case, even in Attlee's government?

Why has he shirked his "Tough on Crime" claims and run out of prison space thus encouraging the further spread of viciously violent crime?

When do you think he might actually do anything rather than blather about it in an effort to impress us which might be good for the electorate of this country who are the ones generating this country's wealth and are being taxed shamefully and see their taxes being pissed against the wall?

Les :(

Just been talking about this in work. I missed it but sounds very worrying.

As a father of a 4 year old girl, its very worrying to see this sort of thing happening. Although I agree 100% this free housing and money needs to be stopped before the country finally goes down the ****ter, its just so easy to pick female losers with nothing going for them for a show such as that.

What about the ones that have no intention whatsoever to get themselves pregnant the first chance they get or even to have sex at an early age, yet occasionally it still happens. Dont see any of that on TV.

I'm making every effort to ensure my daughter doesn't make these mistakes and attempt to install the need to do other things first - education, travel etc etc. If I have anything to do with it, she won't grow up around these benefit vampires (of which some of her mothers family are sadly) but the worry that she might make a mistake will be there in a dozen years time.

I'd rather see a program about the parents of girls that get pregnant but who are brought up in a lower-middle/upper working (whatever you want to call it) class environment.

The 14 year old girl (the worst one) in the program last night was in a middle class family who owned a stables business, horses etc and were by no means chav/scummy.

Offensive, even by your own normal standards Pete.

Scooby doo first appeared in 1969. You claim to be 78. Therefore the earliest you could have been watching it was at the age of 41! :lol1:

Another slip up old man!:rolleyes:

Explain??????????????

Pete

you know full well. Trying to act confused doesn't wash

He is often confused and does not wash:lol1:

The girl had 3 brown babies - FACT

The Father wasn't around - FACT

These Young Fathers usually fook off - FACT

Cannot see what the issue is??

Hence - please explain to me why it was offensive??

Go and piss off you PC Brigade members!! :mad:

Pete

Pete,

What you wrote was offensive, you don't need me to explain why, you know full well. I'm surprised, normally I expect you to stand behind your posts not try to squirm out them.

Cheers

Apparently it is 'offensive' to use a colour specific adjective to describe someone now. :rolleyes:

If the babies were brown they were brown so get the fcuk over it.

Your username is in blue.... 'blue Sport160'. Be offended.... very offended. :lol1:

Too difficult to answer yet again PSL, since you are ducking my questions.

Les

PSL Stressed that the babies were brown and that it was no surprise the fathers weren't interested.

No issue with the babies being brown. No issue with the fathers not being interested. Both of these are facts.

Big issue with the EMPHASIS being on brown and the direct implication being that the fathers were black and this is why they weren't interested.

THAT is what made the post offensive, even by Pete's normally low standards.

SB

Well put SB

The number of people on this board obsessed with colour of skin is alarming.

Well I didn't pick Pete's post up as racist, just a slur on the no hope fathers.

Perhaps those who picked it up as racist have the issues.

Cheers
Lee

So the fact that the only word in capitals in his post was the word BROWN, wouldn't lead you to believe he was stressing the relevance of the colour of the babies then? :confused: :rolleyes:

Quote:
"Scooby doo first appeared in 1969. You claim to be 78. Therefore the earliest you could have been watching it was at the age of 41! :lol1:

Another slip up old man!:rolleyes:"



More importantly Pete, can you answet this question about your age, or will you just ignore it now that you realise you've dropped yourself right in it again. :lol1: :lol1: :lol1:

Well FFS this IS scoobynet......... not a feckin BLUE Peter Fan Forum....:rolleyes: We need to strike that balance with racist undertones where colour is concerned, and well IF someone refers to it.... let it go! rather than discuss the whole pathetic thing for another three pages!!!!

Anyway they were more 'CARAMEL' than 'BROWN'....... which explains EVERYTHING.... kebab anyone ;)

Don't disagree with you, just irritated me that someone thought there was no relevance to the colour in the original statement, when there blatantly was. And no thanks, no kebab for me :)

Well spotted. Pity the sad loser wont answer this one. I wonder why ;)