Mother of 11 having £400k taxpayer-funded house built 'bought flying lessons for partner as Christmas gift' | Mail Online

Can you spell contraception? Having multiple children and raising them on the State's money should not be an option.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282142/Mother-11-having-400k-taxpayer-funded-house-built-bought-flying-lessons-partner-Christmas-gift.html

Tasteful?

Crown Jewels Condoms ask us to 'Lie back and think of England' as they announce that:

'To celebrate the engagement of Prince William of Wales to Ms. Catherine Elizabeth Middleton, Crown Jewels Condoms of Distinction has commissioned a unique heritage edition Royal Wedding Souvenir boîte de capotes.

Combining the strength of a Prince with the yielding sensitivity of a Princess-to-be, Crown Jewels condoms promise a royal union of pleasure. Truly a King amongst Condoms.

* Presented in a timeless souvenir heirloom collector's box.
* Contains three individually wrapped condoms.
* Includes a collectable portrait of the Royal Couple as they might appear on their wedding day – exclusively created for Crown Jewels.'

Tasteful, very tasteful. And then the pretty unnecessary disclaimer:

'Crown Jewels Royal Wedding Souvenir Condoms are not supplied to, or approved by, Prince William of Wales, Catherine Middleton or any member of the Royal Family.'

I am shocked!  And not just by the misspelling of collectible...

Also bear in mind that:

'Crown Jewels Royal Wedding Souvenir Condoms are a novelty condom not suitable for contraception or protection against STDs.'

pardon my ignorance but other than preventing pregnancy or avoiding STDs why would you wear a condom? Patriotism excepted!

The same old line on contraception (update)

Further to my earlier post I The Mail's Amanda Platell has added her opinion to the debate. Unsurprisingly her piece is headed "Why I'll NEVER trust a man who says he's had the contraceptive jab... and neither should any girl" and includes such gems as

"Men are wonderful creatures, but they are not to be relied upon. Even some of life's simplest things are apparently beyond them.

...

And, above all, you certainly cannot rely on a man for contraception. "

Complete rubbish of course and for a bit of faulty female logic you can't do much better/worse than this:

"But most important of all, you can't buck human nature. Deep inside every man who still has his own hair and teeth, and even those who don't, is a sexual predator who will have sex anywhere, anytime, if he can.

Of course, for many of them the sexual encounters are with their wives. But wife or no wife, the urge for sex with other women never leaves them. And I'm sorry to say that sometimes they will fib to get what they want. "

What has this need for sex got to do with contraception? If the man takes the injection regularly then what's the issue?

As for:

"The other major problem with male contraception today is there is no longer any stigma attached to 'getting a girl pregnant'. There was a time when the shame and responsibility were so great, a boy would have to marry the girl to make a decent woman of her. That was a powerful form of contraception in itself.

Then feminism came and went, abortions became increasingly available - as did the Pill - and girls started bringing up children on their own. But at least the fathers were still expected to pay towards the upkeep of their kids.

Now we have an entire youth underclass who will never get a job and will live their lives on benefits. Not only will the father not have to pay for the care of the woman or children, they will also stand a better chance of getting a council house.

The state rewards you for having babies and society does not judge.

In such a climate, there is even less incentive for the man to take the injection. Why bother if he faces no sanction if he gets a woman pregnant?"

Maybe Amanda Platell should take a look at the actions of some of the "fairer sex" and see how many women oops their male partners; maybe then she would think twice before making making such sweeping anti-male statements.

The same old line on contraception

The Mail reports that:

"A male contraceptive jab tested by scientists has proved to be as good as the Pill in preventing pregnancies.

The injection, which temporarily halts sperm production, was found to be 'highly effective' during trials.

It is hoped the research could pave the way for both men and women to share equal responsibility for contraception. "

Sounds like good news to me but the Mail then push the usual 'men are unreliable whilst women are always honest' line with this:

"However, findings from previous surveys have repeatedly suggested one stumbling block will be whether women would sufficiently trust men to make reliable use of hormonal contraception. "

Hold on a moment, what about the men who are 'oopsed' by women who claim to be taking the pill, what about the men who are 'tricked' into becoming fathers and a 18 years of paying child support. Maybe it would be for the better if both men and women took contraceptive precautions until they both decided that breeding was what they wanted to do.

Does Welfare Reform Affect Fertility?

The answer is obviously yes but it has taken a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies to get the fact into the newspapers but not so far as I can tell onto the BBC. The Telegraph reports that:

"An academic study claims that an extra 45,000 babies were born to mothers who left school at 16 in the year after the "unprecedented" increase in the value of child benefits introduced by Labour.

Some women told researchers they had stopped using contraception.

The more generous welfare system is being credited with contributing to an increase in the overall UK birth rate, which is now at its highest level since 1974.

The report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies concludes: "We have shown that more generous Government support coincided with an increase in births among the group most affected by the [welfare] reforms.

"We have also provided supporting evidence of a decline in use of contraception among the group affected.

"Our results indicate a sizeable response in childbearing among the group affected by the reform."

...

For couples who both left school at 16, the reforms meant an increase in benefits of 45 per cent, from £39 a week to £56.76. This is a rise almost twice as much as the handouts for which a couple who went on to sixth form college would be eligible, which increased by 25 per cent to £37.27 a week.

The researchers then looked at fertility rates both before the reforms were announced and after, for a sample of 101,330 women aged between 20 and 45.

They found a large increase in the first year after the benefits were made more generous, particularly among women who had left school as soon as possible.

The results show a 15 per cent increase in the probability of having a baby in the "low education group", equivalent to an extra 45,000 births compared with 670,000 across Britain as a whole."

Staggering isn't it, the IFS just working out that if the Country pays chav children to have babies then they might just do that rather than work? Why should the feckless work in a low paid job when they can just get paid for reproducing? However by the same token why should Gordon Brown's "hard-working" families and indeed hard working singles have to pay for the reproductively irresponsible. Don't forget that Karen Matthews the kidnapper of her own daughter, Shannon, had never worked but because she had seven children – by five different fathers – was able to claim an estimated £286.60 a week in benefits. Maybe someone could explain to the chavvy Child Tax Credits claimers that having a child is not a right and if they cannot afford to keep a child they should use contraception or even abstain from sex.

So do we as a Country want to pay to raise another generation of tax credits junkies or do we want to start to engender some responsibility in the next generation.