Sterilise parents on benefits, says Torys

AcidHell2 said:
I've always thought you should get 6months maximum. To try and find a job you like after that you do what ever you can. Even if your fully qualified and come from a 100k job. If you can't find a similar job after 6months you should have to take anything, like stacking shelves.
Click to expand...

I personally think that should be a minimum.

I just revile the idea that i'm spending time doing a job I don't really want to do (admittedly it's just a "make ends meet" job until I graduate), and money gets taken from me to give to those who can't be bothered.

I'm sure if I can be bothered, everyone else in the country fit to work sure as hell can be. :)
 
Tute said:
How about stopping JSA altogether?

"You get what you work for."
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what about the people that contribute loads to the economy (e.g. people earning £200,000 a year)? I would hate anyone to be in the situation that if they lost their job they would lose everything they have worked for over the years, like their house cause they can't pay the mortgage or bills.
 
AcidHell2 said:
I've always thought you should get 6months maximum. To try and find a job you like after that you do what ever you can. Even if your fully qualified and come from a 100k job. If you can't find a similar job after 6months you should have to take anything, like stacking shelves.
Click to expand...

This sounds good, obviously you'll be knackered if you've got a 100k job mortgage to cover and your insurance only helps out if you're unemployed. But it is a good basic idea.
 
Fraggr said:
Yeah, but what about the people that contribute loads to the economy (e.g. people earning £200,000 a year)? I would hate anyone to be in the situation that if they lost their job they would lose everything they have worked for over the years, like their house cause they can't pay the mortgage or bills.
Click to expand...

I would hope that anyone on a good wage would at least save some, or have enough to keep themselves going in between jobs.
 
Teki187 said:
A councillor is facing calls to resign after he said parents on benefits should be sterilised to stop them having more than one child.

John Ward, a Conservative member of Medway Council in Kent, made the comments during a discussion about the hunt for the schoolgirl Shannon Matthews.

source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/25/ntory125.xml
Click to expand...

Well, we can wave goodbye to most of the Black Country.

It'll be nice to have some breathing room at last.
 
I think a more general idea would be to have mandatory contraception, in the water supply or something. Then licences to breed with the antidote to the contraception issued in a controlled manner to reduce the population.

This needs to be implemented on a worldwide scale though to be effective.
 
Tute said:
I would hope that anyone on a good wage would at least save some, or have enough to keep themselves going in between jobs.
Click to expand...

The thing is, should a successful person be required to spend their saving just because they fall on hard times for a while. I'm still undecided on this. Personally I have a bit of cash tucked away but not a huge amount, yet I've also been paying NI so why can't I use my "insurance" when that happens? I i get fired tomorrow in effect I'm being punished for being successful and responsible.

It's pretty extreme to suggest neutering people on benefits but then again why should long term scroungers be given a license to make cash out of having kids and not bothering to contribute to society?
 
Well people, I hate to break it to you but you're all effectively (those in accordance with this idiot) succumbing to tyranny.

This idea is tyrannical and retarded outside any country other than communist china where tyranny still reigns strong.

To forcibly deprive someone of their ability to reproduce is belittling them and depriving them of a large part of being a human being.

how embarrassing.
 
Voltar said:
Well people, I hate to break it to you but you're all effectively (those in accordance with this idiot) succumbing to tyranny.

This idea is tyrannical and retarded outside any country other than communist china where tyranny still reigns strong.

To forcibly deprive someone of their ability to reproduce is belittling them and depriving them of a large part of being a human being.

how embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Hopefully you realise I was being sarcastic? I do agree to a certain point with you, but then everyone has an opinion, be it right or wrong (from whichever perspective). However, there are members of society, who possibly would not be there due to lack of social care, who really should not have children. For their sake and that of the kids.
 
Voltar said:
Well people, I hate to break it to you but you're all effectively (those in accordance with this idiot) succumbing to tyranny.
Click to expand...

Actually it's called having common sense. Why should I pay for someone else to do nothing?

This idea is tyrannical and retarded outside any country other than communist china where tyranny still reigns strong.
Click to expand...

What do you suggest then? Because look what ten years of leftie ideas has done for this country.

To forcibly deprive someone of their ability to reproduce is belittling them and depriving them of a large part of being a human being.
Click to expand...

If they can't use it responsibly, then they shouldn't be able to use it at all.

how embarrassing.
Click to expand...

For you, yes.
 
I cannot accept that there must be a right to reproduce when the planet is massively overpopulated.

Yes, to single out sections of society and prevent them from having children is wrong, but I don't believe there should be a universal right to procreation. It should be controlled, strictly, for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom