So a man goes into the doctor’s with a hosepipe stuffed in his ear, and says “Doctor, it hurts me when I stick a hosepipe in my ear.” And the doctor says “Stop sticking a hosepipe in your ear, then.”
If, like me, you suspect that an elephant is a mouse designed by a government committee, then take a look at this gigantic Jurassic Park-sized government cluster bomb cloning its Geordies-to-Newcastle mammoth from ancient taxpayers’ blood out of North Sea Amber…. Louise Casey, the head of the Government’s troubled families unit, says the state should “interfere” and tell women it is irresponsible to keep having children when they are already struggling to cope. That’s government using its legitimate authority to stop or slow individuals making the lives of their neighbours worse, and hurting their children; present and future. That’s almost like… conservatism. But what country are we in, and in what year? There has to be a catch, right? Britain’s 120,000 problem families cost taxpayers an estimated £9billion in benefits, crime, anti-social behaviour and health care. A fifth of them have more than five children. Miss Casey is leading a scheme to turn their lives around after they were blamed for last year’s riots. Now, that’s actually a more accurate picture than the usual tabloid complaint about benefits going to support large families, which they do, but that's th eleast of the harm they cause. They’re not families at all, but serially bastardizing females formerly referred to as ‘mothers,’ so there might be some hope of realism here. “There are plenty of people who have large families and function incredibly well, and good luck to them, it must be lovely,” she said. “The issue for me, out of the families that I have met, [is that] they are not functioning, lovely families. “One of the families I interviewed had six social care teams attached to them: nine children, [and a] tenth on the way. Something has to give here really.”
That’s the welfare-addicted tattooed tail wagging the taxpayers’ (and the disturbed and intimidated schoolmates of the doley spawn and their ragged teachers.) it’s not just the benefitpayments s: it’s the harm to all and sundry that fatherless, half-feral children do to all around them until they, too, can sign on and start the merry chase into the next, closely-spaced, generation. Miss Casey warns that the state must start telling mothers with large families to take “responsibility” and stop getting pregnant, often with different, abusive men. “The responsibility is as important as coming off drugs, coming off alcohol, getting a grip and getting the kids to school. “So for some of those women the job isn’t to go and find yourself another violent, awful bloke who you will bring a child into the world with, to start the cycle all over again.”
Now, an actual conservative or many uncrazyfolk on the Left who truly do mean well, might ask at this particular stage what is it that assures these women that it’ll somehow be okay to have more and more kids each time an inked-up Lee or Tyson wanders into their bed and by the magic of romance transforms her Income Support claim into one for Jobseeker’s Allowance, only to wander off when the bulge or the imminence of Pampers starts to do his head in. Why has Kylie or Sharon no fear of another mouth to feed, to clothe, to house if she lets New Kevin park his escort in her drive without a dust cover on? Why, frankly, doesn’t she demand that he marry her and show some commitment before they play trains and tunnels? In the wake of last summer’s riots, David Cameron set up the troubled families unit to coordinate action against the problem. He appointed Miss Casey, who was previously Tony Blair’s “respect tsar”, to lead it. Absolutely no red flags here, then, are there? Families who refuse help will be threatened with sanctions such as losing their council housing, having their children put into care or anti-social behaviour orders which, if breached, can lead to prison. All of which could happen right now if the authorities used existing powers. But the authorities hate authority and judgement already, so what’s going to make them do it now? How about £448 million, for starters?
Miss Casey has travelled the country and has analysed the problems of 16 of the worst families, who cost the state up to £200,000 each a year…. Under the £448 million programme, each family will have a dedicated worker whose job is to turn them around. Sometimes this will involve arriving early to ensure that children go to school. Miss Casey says that getting children to school, and encouraging teachers to keep them there, is the major challenge Under the £448 million programme... £448 million programme... £448 million... Miss Casey also believes that there needs to be a shift throughout society in attitudes over behaviour. …. “I have never met women who woke up wanting to be bad parents. In my view, most people do want to be decent and do want their kids to behave. I’m just saying we are not helping anybody if we don’t call the police.” Single mothers will have up to £3,000 deducted from child support to cover the cost of chasing their former partners. Ministers expect up to 300,000 single parents to stop pursuing their ex-partners for cash when the new Child Maintenance Service starts charging fees next year.
Couple of points here.
In all the committees and inquiries and political chitchat at Westminster and in Whitehall that led up to the decision to do all this, did no-one suggest something cheap and simple to prevent all this happening again without setting up a brand new £448 million programme with its inevitable staffing, pensions, office space, IT resources, maternity and paternity leave, etc? How about the half dozen or so lines amending Social Security and Tax credit legislation halting a family’s entitlement to more Child Benefit, Child Tax Credit, Housing and Council Tax Benefit after, say, the third child was born and survived the NHS hospital it emerged in? How about not making this retrospective* but simply stating that the merry-go-round ends from now on, so the 28-year-old grandmother becomes a rare thing once more? Then a smaller budget might be dedicated to dealing with existing fast-breeders (training and moralizing them) and helping their kids to concentrate, go to school, eat breakfast, etc, just as my grandmother did whilst hiding from the ‘doctor’s man’ when he came calling for the weekly payment for medicines for Mum and her siblings.
Apparently, the government doctor never thought of suggesting the Welfare State should stop sticking a hosepipe in its ear, or something. But there are fewer jobs in such an arrangement and one might expect the politicians to want the patronage and power of overseeing and appointing staff to a £448 million programme. On the other hand, it might just be that the committees involved simply never thought of not designing an elephant.
*Oh, and to be retrospective appears to be the greatest sin of all to the libtards. Oh, you can let people study at Oxbridge and go through seminary to minister Christianity to their shrinking parish populations according to the ancient standards of Christian thought and morality, but you’re happy enough that they might soon suddenly face prosecution if they don’t marry homosexual couples in their churches. That, apparently, isn’t a bad retrospective, like a season of On The Buses repeats.
Because the real sin in this whole retrospective thing in Libworld is that, by treating adult people who likely have access to daytime television as capable of using the skills taught in ‘Can’t Cook.Won’t Cook,’ you’re basically pumping exhaust fumes into the lungs of the mentally ill.