There seems to be a greater prepensity for black men to abandon their children ...
... which, ironically, passes on their 'family values'.
No measures, laws or punishments can alter that.
Off Topic OK, that's enough ...
- Thread starter Smug in Boots
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
There seems to be a greater prepensity for black men to abandon their children ...
... which, ironically, passes on their 'family values'.
No measures, laws or punishments can alter that.
Just lifted this one.
------
ALEGAL challenge against the Tories’ unfair two-child limit on benefit payments by two single mothers was quashed today, leaving thousands like them in despair.
Supreme Court justices unanimously dismissed an appeal by the claimants who had argued that the policy was in breach of human rights because it disproportionately affects women.
Campaigners said they were “hugely disappointed” at the judgement but are now considering taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
The rule, which came into force in April 2017 as part of Tory George Osbourne’s austerity drive, restricts child tax credit and universal credit to the first two children of the family, with a few exceptions.
These include if a child is the product of rape — known as the “rape clause,” forcing women to reveal pregnancies arising from non-consensual sex in order to receive the benefit.
The two single mothers who launched the claim had both been affected by the limit which they argued was responsible for worsening child poverty.
But the Supreme Court’s president Lord Reed dismissed the case today, upholding previous decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal.
The judges said that while the policy did have a greater impact on women, there was an “objective and reasonable justification” for this on cost grounds.
Women make up 90 per cent of single-parent families.
The Child Poverty Action Group, which supported the mothers’ legal bid, said the ruling “fails to give any meaningful recognition to the reality of the policy on the ground and its desperately unfair impact on children.”
The campaign group’s head of strategic litigation, Carla Clarke, said: “We know the two-child limit increases child poverty, including child poverty in working households, and forces women to choose between an abortion and raising their families without enough to live on.
“We continue to believe that the policy is unlawful and, together with our clients, are considering taking the matter to the European Court of Human Rights so that no child is left out of the social security safety net purely because of their birth order.”
Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Jonathan Reynolds also expressed disappointment at the judgement.
“In the midst of a pandemic and jobs crisis it is particularly callous to continue to pursue this punitive policy,” he said. “The government should do the right thing, abolish the two-child limit and support Britain’s working families.”
I have very mixed feelings on this one.
Yes these ladies have a perfect right to have as many children as they want.
BUT
Should the rest of us have to pay forthe upkeep of their resulting offspring?
Human rights versus human responsibiliities.
And having children that you can not afford to bring up is not in any way responsible.
But this logic says that the likes of Jacob Rees-Mog can breed like a rabit, and that is the case.
He can also live in a posher abode that most of us an hav a better car.
The fact is, whatever political theorists might claim,
WE ARE NOT ALL BORN EQUAL.
But in this country we can, if we try hard, make sure that our children get a better start in life than we did.
------
ALEGAL challenge against the Tories’ unfair two-child limit on benefit payments by two single mothers was quashed today, leaving thousands like them in despair.
Supreme Court justices unanimously dismissed an appeal by the claimants who had argued that the policy was in breach of human rights because it disproportionately affects women.
Campaigners said they were “hugely disappointed” at the judgement but are now considering taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.
The rule, which came into force in April 2017 as part of Tory George Osbourne’s austerity drive, restricts child tax credit and universal credit to the first two children of the family, with a few exceptions.
These include if a child is the product of rape — known as the “rape clause,” forcing women to reveal pregnancies arising from non-consensual sex in order to receive the benefit.
The two single mothers who launched the claim had both been affected by the limit which they argued was responsible for worsening child poverty.
But the Supreme Court’s president Lord Reed dismissed the case today, upholding previous decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal.
The judges said that while the policy did have a greater impact on women, there was an “objective and reasonable justification” for this on cost grounds.
Women make up 90 per cent of single-parent families.
The Child Poverty Action Group, which supported the mothers’ legal bid, said the ruling “fails to give any meaningful recognition to the reality of the policy on the ground and its desperately unfair impact on children.”
The campaign group’s head of strategic litigation, Carla Clarke, said: “We know the two-child limit increases child poverty, including child poverty in working households, and forces women to choose between an abortion and raising their families without enough to live on.
“We continue to believe that the policy is unlawful and, together with our clients, are considering taking the matter to the European Court of Human Rights so that no child is left out of the social security safety net purely because of their birth order.”
Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Jonathan Reynolds also expressed disappointment at the judgement.
“In the midst of a pandemic and jobs crisis it is particularly callous to continue to pursue this punitive policy,” he said. “The government should do the right thing, abolish the two-child limit and support Britain’s working families.”
I have very mixed feelings on this one.
Yes these ladies have a perfect right to have as many children as they want.
BUT
Should the rest of us have to pay forthe upkeep of their resulting offspring?
Human rights versus human responsibiliities.
And having children that you can not afford to bring up is not in any way responsible.
But this logic says that the likes of Jacob Rees-Mog can breed like a rabit, and that is the case.
He can also live in a posher abode that most of us an hav a better car.
The fact is, whatever political theorists might claim,
WE ARE NOT ALL BORN EQUAL.
But in this country we can, if we try hard, make sure that our children get a better start in life than we did.
And here we are again ...
"Greater Manchester police say the “content of the vandalism” of a mural of the England footballer Marcus Rashford was “not believed to be of a racial nature”.
... exactly as I said at the time!
If you were a daft Liverpool or City fan, living opposite that mural, there's bound to be a time when drink/emotions/rivalry/all three get the better of you ...
... but of course some people are so desperate for everything to be racism they'll claim it is without looking at the facts.
It's all doing more harm than good imo.
I am sick to death of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation - thought I better qualify that knowing some of the posters on here 
). If you go on the website its all about black people being downtrodden etc its like drip treatment they are doing the same with documentries on the TV now. If the race issues die down we are then onto LGBT and then drag queens etc. As a middle aged straight white person who has not racially abused and believes in live and let live why do I have to pay to have this continually rammed down my throat. Think its about time we abolished the licence fee now and make it voluntary.
Rant over
). If you go on the website its all about black people being downtrodden etc its like drip treatment they are doing the same with documentries on the TV now. If the race issues die down we are then onto LGBT and then drag queens etc. As a middle aged straight white person who has not racially abused and believes in live and let live why do I have to pay to have this continually rammed down my throat. Think its about time we abolished the licence fee now and make it voluntary. Rant over
100 % IN AGREEMENT MATE period drama Ann Boleyn as a coloured person, whats the kids going to think growing up, Next it will be vikings of colour. can you imagine roles reversed and whites playing zulusI am sick to death of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation - thought I better qualify that knowing some of the posters on here
Rant over
Last edited:
It's the Chinese I feel sorry for ...
... never got a single part in Braveheart.
I think thats mainly the Biased Broadcasting Corporation who want to destroy us with woke
Aye but they got their own back with the virus
what would Mary Whitehouse have thought
… do you mean when bbc told her she’d have to use a different name ?
Don't think Mary would be that bothered as long as Anne Boleyn wasn't getting her bangers outwhat would Mary Whitehouse have thought
Probably the only way that film could have been any less realistic. Really actually love the film if I turn my head off, but when you think about it and look at the history it is little better than anti English propaganda.
Could have done with more Chinese in it.
As a race the Chinese in this country just seem to get on with life without loads of belly aching unlike our coloured brethren who carry a chip on their shoulders the size of the Angel of the North.
