Does this make you happy or sad?

Does it really matter if a woman wants to have a lot of children? It's hardily that common, the birth rate in the country is still under 2... There are obviously many woman who have no children, or only one.
 
I don't think it matters if one woman has 8 kids generally speaking, it's probably better if she has an amount of children that allows her to give them plenty of attention though.
 
Greebo said:
Clearly they are just true British patriots doing their bit so in the future we have more white British people than Muslims living here,.
Click to expand...
wtf :/

If they can afford to care for their children then fine. Only thing that stood out to me as a big concern is it's a 3-bed house. That's ok when they're all nippers but when they're teenagers it'll be a bit more difficult. I have 1 brother, 1 half sister (same dad) and 4 step sisters (dad's second marriage). So when we used to go on holiday or day trips with my dad it was pretty crazy. 9 of us in total. But I did enjoy it, and personally I think I'd want a larger family when I have children. 4 at most though. And basically it depends on how many I can afford to have. If we have 2 and we can't reasonably house any more then that's the limit for me.
 
Good on her. I'm fed up of British people being told we shouldn't have children because it will harm the environment or it will make us miserable, or it will hinder our careers, etc. but at the very same time we are told we need to accept mass immigration to prop up the economy.

Overpopulation is going to happen anyway, and it will be almost entirely Africa and Asia's fault.

qSqk1Fs.png
 
I was expecting the family to be on benefit hand-outs but fair play at least one of them works and earns a decent wage.
 
G-MAN2004 said:
Good on her. I'm fed up of British people being told we shouldn't have children because it will harm the environment or it will make us miserable, or it will hinder our careers, etc. but at the very same time we are told we need to accept mass immigration to prop up the economy.
Click to expand...

News flash: children take 18 years to grow up. whereas skilled immigrant workers can start work immediately. Governments don't wait to wait around for nearly 20 years in the hope of boosting the workforce.
 
Evangelion said:
News flash: children take 18 years to grow up. whereas skilled immigrant workers can start work immediately. Governments don't wait to wait around for nearly 20 years in the hope of boosting the workforce.
Click to expand...

Yes, because mass immigration would provide us solely with skilled workers in industries that actually need them. No unskilled whatsoever.
 
G-MAN2004 said:
Yes, because mass immigration would provide us with solely with skilled workers in industries that actually need them. No unskilled whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Mass immigration can provide you primarily with skilled workers if you have a points based immigration system, like Australia. Incidentally, it's worth noting that people born overseas compromise just 14% of the UK's population, whereas in Australia that figure is 25%.

b00merang69 said:
The ones I see make/deliver kebabs or now cut hair
Click to expand...

So they are working and contributing to the economy. That's good news, surely? You wouldn't want them on welfare.

as before mentioned market is saturated (we had no shortage of barbers to start with) so not much skill there.
Click to expand...

If you want more skilled workers you need to introduce an immigration system that prioritizes them while de-prioritising unskilled workers. Have the Tories shown any interest in doing that during their time in power?
 
BowdonUK said:
I'm all for more population.
Click to expand...
Why?

Not that it matters. At this point we're all ****ed anyhow.

As is most of the non-human life on this planet (they'll all get wiped out before the last of us dies). Except the bacteria at the bottom of the Mariana trench. They're probably safe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom