Should Chavs be sterelized?

[garinda]

Rather than the State fund a whole generation of professional benefit breeders, who see their only future as having kids, who then have kids, should they be sterelized?
This could be done humanly with sperm/eggs being taken at the onset of puberty, and released for fertilization when they've passed a suitable test which will ensure good parenting skills.
A great amount of money would be saved in the long term, and they would have the satisfaction of buying their own Burberry baby-grows.

[garinda]

How disappointing, so many views and no replies.

Surely you can't all be storing your seed/eggs in the freezer department?

[Less]

Originally Posted by garinda

should they be sterilized?
.

I don't know about that but they should wash more often.

[Neil]

I have a very strong point of view on this subject but might get banned for making racist comments, I think I had better keep quiet for once.

[Acrylic-bob]

A point of view, no matter how strongly felt or expressed should be aired. That is what freedom of speech is all about. If you can managed to stay within the law in airing it, then I am sure that we would all like to read what you have to say. Some of us may not agree with you, but that is also what freedom of speech is about.

[Cjay]

Originally Posted by garinda

How disappointing, so many views and no replies.

Surely you can't all be storing your seed/eggs in the freezer department?

Maybe the government could take them to the vets and get them neutered..... That would stop the boozed up chavs marking their territory, (and evrybody elses for that matter, Cars - Lamposts - Phone boxes etc).

[stanerlee]

Has any one ever heared of the Denmark project?
Basically from the early 1950's any one convicted of a felony offence was sterelized, the upshot was that crime fell to 2% and criminals were bred out of the system.
when Denmark was forced to stop this in the early 70's when they joined the E.U. the crime went back up and the crims bred once again.

AS chavs commit most crime in this country taking lead from the denmark project would have a double whammy and the tax payers amongst us would be happy.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I'll have to think about that one. It sounds a convincing argument but I'm coming up with a "But" which I can't quite get my head round yet because I didn't get enough sleep last night.

[-pixie]

Maybe nor go as far as sterilising, but I would like to see some sort of limit placed on the amount of kids that people who are lazing on benefits can have. Or some limit placed on the amount of kids that the state will support - let them have one or two and if they decide they want a whole football team (number of kids, not dates ) then its up to them to support that family. I have no objection to people having as many kids as they want, but I do think that they should be able to support the kids that they do have. I don't think its up to the state to fund these families. The women bleat that bringing up kids is a full time job in itself - maybe so. But I seem to be managing to hold a job and bring up a kid and still have time for my partner - why can't they?

[garinda]

Again the definition of:
Chav.
From the Romany for boy- Charv, or a citizen of Chatham in Kent, representing a white underclass, who wears designer baseball caps the wrong way round.:
Chavette.
Danielle Westbrook.

[-pixie]

Also see - http://www.chavscum.co.uk/

[garinda]

l'd just like to say l have nothing against parents bringing up children under averse conditions. l'm just sick of boys and girls dragging children around town and not taking the slightest bit of interest in them. l see them everyday, and soon these children who have been dragged up will go onto breed themselves, and it frightens me.

[-pixie]

The Government have made having a baby so lucrative its almost a business if you are on benefits.
For instance - £500 Sure Start Maternity Grant to spend on anything you like (its supposedly to purchase baby things with)

Free baby milk, vitamins for yourself. Now the decent baby milk costs about £6 a week, so thats about £312 a year.

And if you are on low earnings etc etc you get all your rent paid, council tax paid etc at goodness knows what cost.

And you have all the organisations like Sure Start, Home Start that run free playgroups where basically you have a gaggle of teenage mums who dump their offspring for an hour (they call it playgroup but whether thats for the babies or the mums..?) and have a coffee and a fag and a natter.

[Acrylic-bob]

This might be a bit "off thread", but I think that it is a valid part of the wider discussion.

I heard an apologist for an ethnic minority explaining the growth in gang culture and gun crime last night. One of the reasons he put forward for this disturbing trend was that black teenagers were unemployed and because they had brothers, uncles, and fathers who had never worked they consequently saw no requirement or felt no imperative to work either.
This made me wonder. Why does the government feel that it is right to fund, through social security payments, a section of society extending to three generations that will not work to earn their keep? Why do they think that it is reasonable to expect the rest of us to pay taxes to support a distinct class whose only concern is consumption?

I have at times been very grateful for the benefits afforded by the social security system in filling the gaps between one job and the next. It is a valuable safety net, but I do not think that it was ever intended as a career choice. I do remember that at all times when I have made a claim for unemployment benefit, there was the requirment to prove that I was actively seeking work and I was told that there would be consequences if I did not pursue the offer of work should it be made. In that light, I cannot understand how this situation has been allowed to develop. How can three generations of a families eschew employment and claim benefits without, apparently, anyone asking questions ?

[Neil]

Read this before the page changes.