bobbie

Bet you all stop doing your diets by March. And then pile all your weight back on plus a little extra The classic yo yo diet

Just under £800 per a month? come on its not bad. 197.99 a week, or £236 a week before tax......... a working person on the minimum wage would need to work 39 hours a week to earn that, AND pay their council tax and rent to support themselves and their family

Perhaps the ratio of men:women is weighted in favour of the women? So therefore, I guess you have to have a good photo if you stand a chance of getting one of the women to notice you. Its shallow, I know. Throw it back the other way, if you as a man had 30 potential women wanting to date you, would you read the profiles or would you simply look that the photo and make a judgement? Perhaps thats the reason - you have a poor photo

Again, throwing it back at the man. He has 2 homes paid for by the taxpayer for free to provide for the family he has chosen to reject. If he has a 3rd child, as mentioned earlier he is still only paying 40% of his net income to run 3 homes.

True, but if your not paying council tax and rent, then thats at least £450 a month you don't have to find. If its a 3 bed home, with £500 a rent, and at least £100 in council tax, thats £600 that someone would have to find each month if they were in employment. Agreed not rolling in it, but a huge help upwards.

OK - lets throw it back onto the woman, its not a man bashing thread. She has got 2 kids, a free 3 bed home all paid for by the taxpayer, so any money she has in benefits is pure spending money. The 2 kids have a seperate bedroom each, and so does she. If she has another child, then 2 of the kids have to share a bedroom and she has no extra money to provide for the 3rd. Would this situation not force the woman to think about insisting on contraception if she chose to have sex? She can't use the "I was drunk and didn't realise" as an excuse, as she probably has done that twice before

I'm staying in because I'm skint from christmas. I'll be stuck in until about 3 weeks into the new year. I don't get paid between xmas week, and as I was unable to work for one week before xmas due to snow, I didn't earn any money. 2 weeks without any income + all my bills/taxes to pay. Its quite frightening how quickly you soon end up without money if you have no income

Would this solution not forced the women to be more choosey about who they have unproteced sex with, or not to put themself in a situation where they could be taken advantage of?

OK, the leftys are squealing 'its not right'etc.... Lets look at it this way............ If a man is working Lets say the man is working, and his net income is £25,000 per year (good wage - just irresponsible), and the 3rd woman is pregnant and needs homing by the taxpayer. 40% of £25,000 = £10,000 per annum, or £833 a month this man pays for 3 kids 60% of £25,000 = £15,000 per annum, or £1250 a month this man pays for 4 kids For all those who think this is harsh, do you know how much it costs for a working man/woman to run just one 3 bedroomed house? I bet you would need at least £1200 a month coming in just to support ONE 3 BEDROOMED HOUSE. So, a man with a net salary of £2500, is only paying £833 a month for his children to live in 3 DIFFERENT HOMES. If he gets the 4th woman pregnant, he is still only paying £1250 a month for FOUR HOUSES !!! When you think about it, that is not a bad deal. If a working man/woman had a net salary of £25000 a year, there is no way on earth they could afford to run 4 different homes, with council taxs, bills etc..... If the man is on benefits Lets say the man is on benefits, and is on £65 a week benefits = £3380 a year in money, he now has got the 3rd woman pregnant and she needs homing by the taxpayer. 40% of £3380 = £112 a month this man pays to support 3 kids 60% of £3380 = £169 a month this man pays to support his kids This is still a very fair deal, this man pays £169 a month for FOUR DIFFERENT 3 BEDROOMED HOMES. How on earth can anyone say that this solution is not fair?

Dead birds? I assume they must have died. Why are we worrying, birds have been dying since time began

Sack the manager 3 - 1 down how is that acceptable?

So how would this plan work? I accept it would be crueld to penalise exsiting kids/familys, so change the rules from January 2012. The new rules would be - with the maximum of 2 kids for society to pay for The womans point of view She gets pregnant the 1st time - She goes to social, explains she is pregnant, its the 1st time. Society, then pays for a 3 bed home for her and the baby. If she is unable to name the father as she was drunk or had 6 or 7 partners in a month, fair enough, we all make mistakes. She gets pregnant a 2nd time, if for the 2nd time she is unable to name the father, we say "ok - look, you need to be more careful in future as we cannot afford to house any more kids, a 3 bed home is all society can afford. She gets pregnant a 3rd time, 4th time, 5th time etc.... no more money. This could also be enforceable, because if she named the father of the baby, she would get an extra £30 each - for a maximum of 2 children (so £60 extra a week for naming the men). The mans point of view So he is named, and proven via DNA if needed that he has fathered his first baby and has spilt from the mother. Society says "fair enough, anyone can make a mistake - try to make sure it doesn't happen again, society will pick up the tab for your baby" The 2nd time. Ok, look young man, this is the 2nd time this has happened, this is the last child that society is going to pay for. In future, think about using contraception. The 3rd time. 40% is deducted at source from his benefits, or his net wages automatically, as he now has to make a contribution to the children he keeps fathering. The 4th time he leaves a woman pregnant. 60% is deducted at source from his benefits or his net salary to pay for his offspring The 5th time. 80% is deducted from his benefits or his net salary The 6th time he fathers a baby and leaves the woman. He loses everything. Obviously, this applys in cases whereby the woman has to be supported and housed finacially by society The benefit of this method is the after the 3rd baby, the man has less and less money to spend on beer which is often the cause of unplanned preganacys. Men are more likely to be forced to form a relationship with the woman, perhaps marry the woman and provide.

Are the men forced to have unprotected sex?

It would mean she would have to think very carefully before having the 3rd, 4th or 5th. The lady that was highlighted, would also be forced to pick the men far more carefully. Men who could provide rather than sticking their bits in and then clearing off/ Any male can create a child, but it takes a REAL MAN to be a father. REAL MEN is what society needs again, as well as women who can say no, and keep their legs shut until she picks a suitable man

Are we saying that adults are not capable of using contraception? working out the income needed to provide for more kids, and then deciding if they can/can't more offspring? I'd like a family holiday in the caribean in Summer in a 5 star hotel, but due to my finances, can only afford 3 star in Majorca. Or should, I expect the taxpayer to fund me a 5 star holiday in the caribean as my family would go without and suffer?

Its both a male/female problem really. There are certain types of men who will deliberatly target drunken women, because they know women become easier after a few drinks. WOmen would perhaps be forced not to put themselves in such a vunerable position

Thats what I said in the origional post. THe women would be forced to choose the men more wisely

A controvertial one perhaps, but perhaps a real solution to societys ills. We pay benefits for 2 children maximum, and any children above 2, then you pay for them yourself. Would this stop feckless and irresponsible men from fathering children all over the place, and then clearing off to repeat their actions again, and again. If men were compelled/forced to pay if they fathered more than 2 children, would this stop their irresponsible actions. The men would be forced to take action, to provide for their offspring. On another level, the women would be forced to pick their sexual partners far more carefully, and perhaps not put themselves into a position whereby an irresponsible man could take advantage ( a drunken night out). The women would be forced to pick a man who could finacially provide, should she find herself pregnant. The resulting children would be more likely to contact with their natural father who would then play a part in their lives a give the children a positive role model to emulate Do you think this is a good idea for society in general, or are we best simply paying people to have kids they cannot afford?

Yes Hallibut, the maximum of 2 kids paid for by the taxpayer would apply to ALL !!! Blacks, whites, yellows, brown skined people. You have 2 kids, we pay for them. Any more kids, you as a man, you now have to prove yourself to be a real man. In other words, you created the life, now you provide for that life and that applys to all.......REGARDLESS OF THE COLOUR OF THEIR SKIN

At last, someone on SF who has a brain - hooray !!! Cut the benefits, make it financially unviable to not work and have massive familys and you solve the problem. BME familys have enourmous familys/loadsa kids Of course, while we have spineless people in power, things will never change. But hey, who cares, its future generations who will have to deal with the mess

Cut the benefits and solve the problem. We as a society pay for 2 CHILDREN MAXIMUM!!! - then see how attractive the UK is to people wanting free money.

No, but the benefits makes it a magnet for people from (ahem) foregn shores wishing to take advantage

BENEFITS, BENEFITS, BENEFITS !! The white english, work and then get taxed to death. They can't afford to have kids. The BME, often come into this country to claim benefits - the more kids = more benefits Thats the answer to the question

At University, one of our roommates did a study into gyms/fitness, and one of the areas that he studied was the mens shower area, and what happened. He spent 6 months observing what happened, and what the men were doing. He was eventually stopped from carrying out his study after complaints from the gym members - so much for educating yourself

I guess in the olden days when a crime was commited, the villian was dealt some good old fashioned pain as punishment, which range from a clip round the ear for things such as swearing to death by hanging for more serious crimes. However, in 2011, a victim of car crime has a very tricky problem. Lets pretend someone has thrown a brick through your windscreen, and then the villians dog has been allowed to climb onto the car roof and poop. 1) if you report it to the police Your area then becomes known as a car crime hot spot - which, if if too many other people in the area are a victim of car crime the insurance premiums rocket, or worse still you are unable to insure your car, due to your post code. 2) YOu report it to the insurance YOu get hammered the following year with increased insurance premiums. Again, if too many others in the area are victims of car crime, the insurance for all in that area goes up. So where does your law abiding taxpayer turn to for help, when they are victims of car crime?