Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

by Syl Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:21 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/16/ben-bradley-under-fire-for-blogpost-urging-jobless-people-to-have-vasectomies

He has since backtracked...but does he have a point?

"A Conservative MP who has been appointed as a party vice-chairman once suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than continuing to have children they could not afford to support.

In a blogpost, Ben Bradley claimed that the country would be soon “drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters” if workless families had four or five children while others limited themselves to one or two.

Bradley, who unexpectedly defeated Labour’s Alan Meale last year to become the Tory MP for Mansfield, made the comments in 2012 in support of a government policy for a benefit cap.

The 28-year-old, who was promoted to Conservative vice-chair representing young people in Theresa May’s new year reshuffle, apologised for the inappropriate post and said he had since matured. Labour said the comments were evidence that the “nasty party” lived on. "

by Guest Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:24 pm

No, he does not have a point.

As what happens when they do later find employment?

Even then, what right do Governments have to stop people having children, just because they are unemployed?

None

by Syl Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:30 pm

I agree Didge, a person can be unemployed through no fault of their own, and to class them all as irresponsible is wrong.

However....there is a culture of people who breed like rabbits and know full well they cant afford to bring children up, so rely on lifelong benefits whilst others support their kids.

Maybe he should have chosen his words more carefully?

by Cass Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:35 pm

Suggesting sterilization?

Hmmmm now where have I heard that before.

by Syl Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:41 pm

He didn't say they were compulsory Cass...just that they were free.
I think he talks sense in some of the things he said.

In the blogpost revealed by BuzzFeed, Bradley said: “It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.

by magica Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:52 pm

I think it could be an option, but really its up to the indivdual.

I do think however, anyone who goes on having so many kids on benefits should see their benefits reduced. Benefits are not there to enable someone to have many kids which the taxpayer pays for.

Also family allowance should be for one child, half for two then nothing for any other kids, that might stop the breeding if they have to pay for themselves.

by Syl Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:58 pm

I am old enough to remember when child allowance was not given to the first child, it only kicked in for subsequent children.
Times have changed, post WW1 and 2 we needed people to have bigger families ...now we don't.
When my son started at the local C of E primary school the head joked to get on with having more babies so the school could flourish, now so many are being turned away because its full.

by magica Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:01 pm

The population of this country, the world, is over flowing. People should only have kids if they can afford them.

by eddie Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:10 pm

No he’s not right! Since when is money a deciding factor on how well you can parent a child?
Some might argue that being at home all day and giving a child time instead of money, makes for a happier child. This idiot is basically generalising that all unemployed people are wasters.

by 'Wolfie Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:15 pm

Cass wrote:
Suggesting sterilization?

Hmmmm now where have I heard that before.

No surprise to see the "class(less)" obsessed Tory scum suckers peddling sterilisation for those great unwashed pleb's out there...

Like all good neo-nazis, they 'know' that the unemployed are only there "because they want to be", and the disabled are only disabled "because they are bad people who deserve it", and the poor are only poor "because they made themselves poor"..

Unless, of course, they are the children of 'good' Tory upbringing -- in which case it must be 'just bad luck', because everyone knows that good naz--err.., Tories are born superior to everyone else.

So suck it up, all you wicked, 'orrible and ungrateful communistic peasants, the queue for state-sponsored vasectomies start on the right, 'tube tyings to the left, and don't forget to pick up your bonus bag of coal on the way out..

by 'Wolfie Wed Jan 17, 2018 3:22 pm

magica wrote:
I think it could be an option, but really its up to the indivdual.

I do think however, anyone who goes on having so many kids on benefits should see their benefits reduced. Benefits are not there to enable someone to have many kids which the taxpayer pays for.

Also family allowance should be for one child, half for two then nothing for any other kids, that might stop the breeding if they have to pay for themselves.

Ohh...

And just bad luck for those couples who have twins or triplets first-time out, or that unplanned and unexpected third child..

Surely a "sliding scale" of reducing payments, and having them cut out after four or five kids, could be a better way of reducing family payments -- otherwise, you would be effectively making the children pay for the parents' mistakes ?

by Syl Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:46 pm

eddie wrote:No he’s not right! Since when is money a deciding factor on how well you can parent a child?
Some might argue that being at home all day and giving a child time instead of money, makes for a happier child. This idiot is basically generalising that all unemployed people are wasters.

He was wrong to tarnish all unemployed with the same brush obviously.

Being at home all day bringing up children is a luxury, I did it myself, I was supported by my OH not benefits.

If circumstances have changed after children are born, people die, split up, made redundant, ill health, no available work etc etc, there are lots of reasons why people may need benefits to support themselves and their children.

However making a career out of breeding and living off others to support their growing breed doesn't come into any of the above categories does it....I believe they were the people he was targeting.....he should have used his words more carefully.

,

by eddie Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:15 pm

I think all mothers should stay at home with their kids until they go to full time school.

by Maddog Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:21 pm

This is the problem when you redistribute wealth. You no longer own your body and governmnet starts telling you what you can do with it as a condition of that redistribution.

by Syl Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:59 pm

Maddog wrote:This is the problem when you redistribute wealth. You no longer own your body and governmnet starts telling you what you can do with it as a condition of that redistribution.

Well to be fair in this country no one tells anyone else what to do with their bodies.
Its a choice, and responsible people don't wantonly have children they cant afford to care for.

by Syl Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:01 pm

eddie wrote:I think all mothers should stay at home with their kids until they go to full time school.

Well that's more or less how it used to be.

Family life has changed so much though...definitely not for the better.

by Maddog Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:18 pm

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:This is the problem when you redistribute wealth. You no longer own your body and governmnet starts telling you what you can do with it as a condition of that redistribution.

Well to be fair in this country no one tells anyone else what to do with their bodies.
Its a choice, and responsible people don't wantonly have children they cant afford to care for.

Can you ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

by Syl Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:19 pm

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:

Well to be fair in this country no one tells anyone else what to do with their bodies.
Its a choice, and responsible people don't wantonly have children they cant afford to care for.

Can you ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

Obviously that's what a lot of feckless scroungers are doing. snobby

by Syl Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:21 pm

Oh....was that a genuine question not a euphemism? Embarassed

by JulesV Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:11 pm

Maddog wrote:This is the problem when you redistribute wealth. You no longer own your body and governmnet starts telling you what you can do with it as a condition of that redistribution.

It does not happen here!! European govts never tell people what to do with their own bodies.
Only the US govt does this.

IRONICALLY, the only time the US govt tells people what to do with their body - is to force them to have MORE babies.
Conservative US govts are anti-abortion and they force women to have unwanted babies.

by Maddog Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:44 pm

Syl wrote:Oh....was that a genuine question not a euphemism?

Yes it was. Is it legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

by Maddog Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:45 pm

Jules wrote:
Maddog wrote:This is the problem when you redistribute wealth. You no longer own your body and governmnet starts telling you what you can do with it as a condition of that redistribution.

It does not happen here!! European govts never tell people what to do with their own bodies.
Only the US govt does this.

IRONICALLY, the only time the US govt tells people what to do with their body - is to force them to have MORE babies.
Conservative US govts are anti-abortion and they force women to have unwanted babies.

So prostitution and cocaine are legal there?

by JulesV Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:16 pm

I think we're comparing apples with oranges here.

by Maddog Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:32 pm

Jules wrote:I think we're comparing apples with oranges here.

I don't care what you think. The fact is, you don't own your body if you cant do what you like to it.

by JulesV Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:00 pm

Maddog wrote:
Jules wrote:I think we're comparing apples with oranges here.

I don't care what you think. The fact is, you don't own your body if you cant do what you like to it.

Well you're always quick enough to say what YOU think, on every topic. Why should others not say what they think too?

Controlling fertility (compulsory sterilisation) is a very personal and sensitive issue as it always evokes memories of Nazi Germany practices pre WW1, in people's minds.

If you insist on EQUATING it with controlling drug addiction/prostitution so be it! *shrug*

by Maddog Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:03 pm

Jules wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I don't care what you think. The fact is, you don't own your body if you cant do what you like to it.

Well you're always quick enough to say what YOU think, on every topic. Why should others not say what they think too?

Controlling fertility (compulsory sterilisation) is a very personal and sensitive issue as it always evokes memories of Nazi Germany practices pre WW1, in people's minds.

If you insist on EQUATING it with controlling drug addiction/prostitution so be it! *shrug*

Controlling being the operative word. Cool

by JulesV Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:09 pm

A regime where there is no form of control whatsoever is a pipe dream. The wild wild west where everyone was free to do as they pleased, is ancient history.

by JulesV Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:10 pm

Re topic:

I don't believe in large families. I have always criticised the practise of having too many kids. I only have one, myself. But I think enforced sterilisation is a step too far.

by Maddog Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:21 pm

Jules wrote:A regime where there is no form of control whatsoever is a pipe dream. The wild wild west where everyone was free to do as they pleased, is ancient history.

So you don't have control over your body. Glad we agree. Now was that hard?

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 17, 2018 9:57 pm

Our benefits system and our immigration system are in complete disarray...!

The sooner the overhaul of them back to common sense rules, the better!

by The Devil, You Know Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:07 pm

it is not the states job to pay for your kids. After 2 you should not get benefits you should get tax increases. Either the worlds over populated and we are all going green or it is just a scam to get your cash.

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:24 pm

Maddog wrote:
Jules wrote:
Maddog wrote:This is the problem when you redistribute wealth. You no longer own your body and governmnet starts telling you what you can do with it as a condition of that redistribution.

It does not happen here!! European govts never tell people what to do with their own bodies.
Only the US govt does this.

IRONICALLY, the only time the US govt tells people what to do with their body - is to force them to have MORE babies.
Conservative US govts are anti-abortion and they force women to have unwanted babies.

So prostitution and cocaine are legal there?

is there ready access to abortions in the USA?

by The Devil, You Know Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:36 pm

Jules wrote:
Maddog wrote:This is the problem when you redistribute wealth. You no longer own your body and governmnet starts telling you what you can do with it as a condition of that redistribution.

It does not happen here!! European govts never tell people what to do with their own bodies.
Only the US govt does this.

IRONICALLY, the only time the US govt tells people what to do with their body - is to force them to have MORE babies.
Conservative US govts are anti-abortion and they force women to have unwanted babies.

has anyone told black folks that as they abort thousands and thousands of babies every year.

by magica Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:41 pm

Maddog wrote:
Jules wrote:

Well you're always quick enough to say what YOU think, on every topic. Why should others not say what they think too?

Controlling fertility (compulsory sterilisation) is a very personal and sensitive issue as it always evokes memories of Nazi Germany practices pre WW1, in people's minds.

If you insist on EQUATING it with controlling drug addiction/prostitution so be it! *shrug*

Controlling being the operative word.

Hey Jules, there wasn't nazis in WW1, it came into being in the 1930s I believe.

No I don't think sterilizing is right, but people should only have as many they can afford.

by Maddog Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:52 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Maddog wrote:

So prostitution and cocaine are legal there?

is there ready access to abortions in the USA?

Of course, but we don't have freedom over our bodies either. Because society has to pay if you break your body, society can now limit what you can do to your body. That's the rational behind seatbelts and helmets.

by Maddog Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:53 pm

magica wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Controlling being the operative word.

Hey Jules, there wasn't nazis in WW1, it came into being in the 1930s I believe.

No I don't think sterilizing is right, but people should only have as many they can afford.

To be fair, I think there were about 12 Fascists pre WWI. Suspect

by Syl Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:44 am

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:Oh....was that a genuine question not a euphemism?

Yes it was. Is it legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

No its not legal, we obviously have laws re road safety, drugs, etc, but we were talking about birth control.
The government has no say in who can or cant have children (assuming the participants are old enough and willing) or the number of children they can produce.
In that respect the government has no control of our bodies.

by Guest Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:40 am

magica wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Controlling being the operative word.

Hey Jules, there wasn't nazis in WW1, it came into being in the 1930s I believe.

No I don't think sterilizing is right, but people should only have as many they can afford.

You had the forerunner to the Nazi Party

The-Pan Germanic League

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-German_League

Also before WW1, the Germans ran death camps in Namibia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_Island_Concentration_Camp

by Maddog Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:50 am

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Yes it was. Is it legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

No its not legal, we obviously have laws re road safety, drugs, etc, but we were talking about birth control.
The government has no say in who can or cant have children (assuming the participants are old enough and willing) or the number of children they can produce.
In that respect the government has no control of our bodies.

European govts never tell people what to do with their own bodies.
Only the US govt does this.

So this comment would be false. It would depend on what you wanted to do with your body. Reproduction is ok (for now anyway).

by Guest Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:54 am

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:

No its not legal, we obviously have laws re road safety, drugs, etc, but we were talking about birth control.
The government has no say in who can or cant have children (assuming the participants are old enough and willing) or the number of children they can produce.
In that respect the government has no control of our bodies.

European govts never tell people what to do with their own bodies.
Only the US govt does this.

So this comment would be false. It would depend on what you wanted to do with your body. Reproduction is ok (for now anyway).

Who is stopping you doing what ever you want with your body?

The simple answer is nobody, unless caught doing something illegal

by Maddog Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:56 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

So this comment would be false. It would depend on what you wanted to do with your body. Reproduction is ok (for now anyway).

Who is stopping you doing what ever you want with your body?

The simple answer is nobody, unless caught doing something illegal

The people that made it illegal.

by Syl Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:57 am

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:

No its not legal, we obviously have laws re road safety, drugs, etc, but we were talking about birth control.
The government has no say in who can or cant have children (assuming the participants are old enough and willing) or the number of children they can produce.
In that respect the government has no control of our bodies.

European govts never tell people what to do with their own bodies.
Only the US govt does this.

So this comment would be false. It would depend on what you wanted to do with your body. Reproduction is ok (for now anyway).

I didnt write that.

by Guest Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:58 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

Who is stopping you doing what ever you want with your body?

The simple answer is nobody, unless caught doing something illegal

The people that made it illegal.

But they have to stop you

Many people take illegal drugs all the time without ever getting caught

by Maddog Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:59 am

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

So this comment would be false. It would depend on what you wanted to do with your body. Reproduction is ok (for now anyway).

I didnt write that.

I'm aware of that. But that is where my comment about helmets came from. In a society that let you do what you wanted to your body, you could ride around without a helmet, even though it increased the chance of injury or death.

by Maddog Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:00 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

The people that made it illegal.

But they have to stop you

Many people take illegal drugs all the time without ever getting caught

Why do they have to stop people?

by Guest Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:02 am

Maddog wrote:
Didge wrote:

But they have to stop you

Many people take illegal drugs all the time without ever getting caught

Why do they have to stop people?

That is not my point being made

There is little any authorities can do to physically stop you doing anything to yourself, if you really want to do something.

There is simple consequences if you get caught.

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:06 am

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:

So this comment would be false. It would depend on what you wanted to do with your body. Reproduction is ok (for now anyway).

I didnt write that.

I'm aware of that. But that is where my comment about helmets came from. In a society that let you do what you wanted to your body, you could ride around without a helmet, even though it increased the chance of injury or death.

I like this Fantasy world you propose
where a cyclist's brains smeared over the road is of no impact or inconvenience to anyone else Cool

by Maddog Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:06 am

Didge wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Why do they have to stop people?

That is not my point being made

There is little any authorities can do to physically stop you doing anything to yourself, if you really want to do something.

There is simple consequences if you get caught.

My point was, that once you start allowing the authorities to make laws based on how self harm and poor choices affect the rest of society, you get fools like the MP, who thinks he needs to make laws about behavior for the good of society, because society is now footing the bill for bad behavior.

It's why many countries still throw people in cages for smoking a non government approved plant. The idea is to protect the citizen from his own poor choices, and therefore protect society.

by Maddog Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:07 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I'm aware of that. But that is where my comment about helmets came from. In a society that let you do what you wanted to your body, you could ride around without a helmet, even though it increased the chance of injury or death.

I like this Fantasy world you propose
where a cyclist's brains smeared over the road is of no impact or inconvenience to anyone else

Good. I'm making progress with you. You may even embrace freedom some day. tongue

by Maddog Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:08 am

Veya, you may even run a red light one day, when no one is looking. Shocked

by Sponsored content