26 Kids, By 15 Different Women, And All On The Dole

[mikey4444]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/483907/Britain-s-most-shameless-dad-Peter-Rolfe-pockets-500K-in-benefits-still-won-t-work

I caught a glimpse of this on the TV last week but switched over because I found it so offensive. Leaving aside the obvious free-loading aspect of this, does anybody know what Mr Rolfe is going to do when he loses his looks ?

[andy-hughes]

I would like to be associated with the remarks of the last speaker.

[kvalidir]

Thank you andy :)

[Cloverjo]

I agree with Andy and kvalidir, only I couldn't have put it so eloquently.

[New Judge]

"You certainly can't go around carting people's kids off into care though, and anyone who thinks you can or should is heading for a social apocalypse where the poor have no rights."

Why ever not, kvalidir? The State has a duty to protect vulnerable children. It is not too much of a stretch to conclude that children sired in such a way as this are vulnerable, have little in the way of life chances and need removing from the circumstances in which they find themselves. If the State is to support these children it should be for the State to say just what form that support takes. It's no good fannying around with these people because they will continue to take the pi55. Simply doling out bucketloads of dosh to them does not work and something radically different needs to be done.

You mention the poor. These people are not poor. They have an income of around £41k a year (net, equivalent to about £54k before tax), and have had more than half a million pounds pass through their hands. Anybody earning £54k would be considered quite comfortably off. We're not talking about clobbering poor couples struggling to bring up a couple of children here. We're talking about curbing the pathetically irresponsible lifestyles of people who simply will not behave in a manner acceptable to the vast majority of the population who are paying for their fecklessness.

[kvalidir]

Whyever not NJ? Because it's a slippery slope, that's why.
How and who decides who is feckless and who is simply unlucky in perhaps having lost their job? What would be your 'cut off' line? Think for a moment of the misery your ill considered money centric ideals would cause if actually put into practice, the tearing away from loving parents of a child because they are not fitting to your idea of how things should be. The children would duffer far more than their parents, and that is unacceptable. Horrific is a word in fact which springs to mind.

[Mamyalynne]

Also to consider that all children taken into care are safer is not cut and dried as history attests.

[kvalidir]

Indeed, and if it's money NJ is worried about it will cost more money to keep a child in care than to pay it's parents other benefits.

[Rosetta]

I dont support removing kids from their birth parents wholesale, the care system aint great. However there needs to be a policy decision that child benefit and benefits in general is only payable for 2/ maximum 3 children. We are an overpopulated island/ world, having huge numbers of children is not acceptable.
Birth control rules ok!!