Term time holiday fines scrapped in Derbyshire

[Tony Le Mesmer]

Family allowance should be for the first child only. All subsequent kids and you get nothing IMO. There are those who argue that such a move would penalise the subsequent children but i'd argue that in some of these families you see waddling and swearing down the street, i'd very much doubt the extra family allowance money is actually being spent on the kids anyway.

[Stive Pesley]

3 minutes ago, Tony Le Mesmer said:

Family allowance should be for the first child only. All subsequent kids and you get nothing IMO. There are those who argue that such a move would penalise the subsequent children but i'd argue that in some of these families you see waddling and swearing down the street, i'd very much doubt the extra family allowance money is actually being spent on the kids anyway.

A bit harsh - I think there is an argument to cap it at 3. No one really needs more than 3 kids, and to be honest - anyone who has more than 3 kids must be some sort of masochist! An extra £13 a week is not enough to combat the exhaustion that must cause

 

[eddie]

17 minutes ago, David said:

Nah, everyone should be entitled to have as many kids as they can financially afford.

Can't stop people popping kids out but the government could stop funding those that use their ovaries as a career choice.

Would save a few bob right there.

Take away the politicians free houses with multiple kitchens and stop following America into these oil wars as well and this country will soon be rolling in the cash.

#VoteDavid

Childbirth is a world-wide epidemic, not just one in this country or Europe.

[Day]

Just now, eddie said:

Childbirth is a world-wide epidemic, not just one in this country or Europe.

Let me fix Britain before taking on the world!

[Tony Le Mesmer]

16 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

A bit harsh - I think there is an argument to cap it at 3. No one really needs more than 3 kids, and to be honest - anyone who has more than 3 kids must be some sort of masochist! An extra £13 a week is not enough to combat the exhaustion that must cause

 

I don't think it's harsh. Like David says if you have kids then it's your responsibility to provide for them not the state. That's why I think family allowance for the first child only is more than fair and you shouldn't get nor expect any more handouts.

I get family allowance and I do use it wisely as I've not a lot of money but if the Government decided to take it away from us then although it would be a blow, my kid is my kid and it's up to me to provide. I wouldn't rant or rave about it.

Many people  expect everything nowadays for doing nothing and not contributing. They take out from the system and never put back in so yes, no more free money than is reasonable.

Anyway, i'd also argue it's just as challenging to have just the one child. I've looked after my kid since she was born and there is nobody else to entertain her other than  me. If you have a particularly demanding kid it's pretty hard work. They are there all day and you don't get a break. If you've got 3,4,5 or more kids they just do what they want and play with each other leaving you to sort other things out for periods during the day. Obviously they bicker and things which is the drawback but caring for one kid is also exhausting.

Having kids is masochism though SP!

[Day]

6 minutes ago, Tony Le Mesmer said:

I get family allowance and I do use it wisely as I've not a lot of money but if the Government decided to take it away from us then although it would be a blow, my kid is my kid and it's up to me to provide. I wouldn't rant or rave about it.

If you vote David the new laws I would bring in would not effect existing families with kids, they would apply only to any children that are born after 9 months from X date.

Couldnt throw families into poverty as they made decisions based on previous benefit laws.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

6 minutes ago, David said:

If you vote David the new laws I would bring in would not effect existing families with kids, they would apply only to any children that are born after 9 months from X date.

Couldnt throw families into poverty as they made decisions based on previous benefit laws.

That's a fair point Dave. Not really thought of that and it makes sense.

I will vote David.

So long as you don't call your voters 'Davidians'. That's been done once in Texas and we all know how that ended up!

[Wolfie]

14 minutes ago, Tony Le Mesmer said:

I don't think it's harsh. Like David says if you have kids then it's your responsibility to provide for them not the state. That's why I think family allowance for the first child only is more than fair and you shouldn't get nor expect any more handouts.

I get family allowance and I do use it wisely as I've not a lot of money but if the Government decided to take it away from us then although it would be a blow, my kid is my kid and it's up to me to provide. I wouldn't rant or rave about it.

Many people  expect everything nowadays for doing nothing and not contributing. They take out from the system and never put back in so yes, no more free money than is reasonable.

Anyway, i'd also argue it's just as challenging to have just the one child. I've looked after my kid since she was born and there is nobody else to entertain her other than  me. If you have a particularly demanding kid it's pretty hard work. They are there all day and you don't get a break. If you've got 3,4,5 or more kids they just do what they want and play with each other leaving you to sort other things out for periods during the day. Obviously they bicker and things which is the drawback but caring for one kid is also exhausting.

Having kids is masochism though SP!

I agree.

My little girl is nearly 4 now and it's certainly tiring being the one who has to play with her because she has no siblings.

I don't mean that to sound bad but there are times when I just don't feel like playing pretend.

Those playbarn things are a godsend. Meet up with a mate and kid(s), send them off round the barn while you sit and have a coffee & chat.

[Tony Le Mesmer]

I cannot play pretend due to the mild aspergers I have so it's been a bit tricky to be fair although to compensate I did used to sit with her for hours colouring, drawing and building lego, baking and stuff. Just methodical practical things really and don't think she missed out but all that pretend making things up stuff I just cannot do despite trying. I can't do voices of different characters and come if with stories and things.

My problem with the playcentres are that she wanted me to get up on the equipment and wouldn't even leave me alone in there! I did get up and play a few times and then loads of kids started flocking round me because I was interacting and before you knew it I was like the flamin' pied piper of Hamlyn, surrounded by ra.............errrr I mean kids.

Not got up to play ever since.

She's a bit older now so I just sit and read a book or something.

I guess we do what needs to be done to get by Wolfie as do lots of dads out there, families and single mums.

 

[LesterRam]

I know someone that was on the large families on benefits that channel four commissioned a few years ago, he exceeded £100k a year in benefits per year (before the cap), the kids are right little bathroom stewards and schooling is a massive issue, he has a lovely portfolio of housing though

[Day]

2 minutes ago, LesterRam said:

I know someone that was on the large families on benefits that channel four commissioned a few years ago, he exceeded £100k a year in benefits per year (before the cap), the kids are right little bathroom stewards and schooling is a massive issue, he has a lovely portfolio of housing though

Fair play to him.

We're only here once, I have no proof of this but nor have I any proof of resurrections and walking on water either.

Seen an opportunity not to spend most of his life couped up in an office 9-5 and took it.

Will never knock someone for it but you can knock the government for making it possible. Far too slow in reacting to the world we live in, how long has the internet been a thing yet only now are we seeing laws come into place that apply to say online shopping and social media abuse.

[LesterRam]

1 minute ago, David said:

Fair play to him.

We're only here once, I have no proof of this but nor have I any proof of resurrections and walking on water either.

Seen an opportunity not to spend most of his life couped up in an office 9-5 and took it.

Will never knock someone for it but you can knock the government for making it possible. Far too slow in reacting to the world we live in, how long has the internet been a thing yet only now are we seeing laws come into place that apply to say online shopping and social media abuse.

you should see some of the things he did, registered the kids with ADHD (premium), free bus/taxi travel for all the children and even though he had a new minibus but didn't rise until midday, free yearly entrance to local zoo, free school meals and the school even supplied the school uniforms even though they only lasted a few months in each school.

[Stive Pesley]

Fair enough Tony, and you're right in a way. I've always thought of Child Benefit as a bonus that I never asked for, and it certainly didn't cross my mind in the run up to birth that I woulld be getting a few quid extra a week off the state

The history of Child Benefit in this country is quite interesting as it started out only for kids  once you had more than 1. So the first child got no allowance at all. Eventually they flipped it around slightly so the first child gets more and any after that get a lower rate. So what you're advocating is actually to flip it properly from what it was and only the first child gets a benefit. Maybe a middle-ground would be to taper the payments down for 2nd/3rd/4th kids etc so eventually it becomes less of an incentive to breed unless you can actually afford it?

It also started out as tax break, so it was only available to those in employment, only later becoming a universal payment. I doubt going back there would be popular, but you never know with a hardline Tory government

Sounds like we need a Dad's thread on here, as it's by far the hardest job I've ever had

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, Tony Le Mesmer said:

I don't think it's harsh. Like David says if you have kids then it's your responsibility to provide for them not the state. That's why I think family allowance for the first child only is more than fair and you shouldn't get nor expect any more handouts.

I get family allowance and I do use it wisely as I've not a lot of money but if the Government decided to take it away from us then although it would be a blow, my kid is my kid and it's up to me to provide. I wouldn't rant or rave about it.

Many people  expect everything nowadays for doing nothing and not contributing. They take out from the system and never put back in so yes, no more free money than is reasonable.

Anyway, i'd also argue it's just as challenging to have just the one child. I've looked after my kid since she was born and there is nobody else to entertain her other than  me. If you have a particularly demanding kid it's pretty hard work. They are there all day and you don't get a break. If you've got 3,4,5 or more kids they just do what they want and play with each other leaving you to sort other things out for periods during the day. Obviously they bicker and things which is the drawback but caring for one kid is also exhausting.

Having kids is masochism though SP!

We've just had two babies in just over a year, to go along with our 6 year old girl (second baby came as a bit of a surprise, we were quite happy at 2). I remember with the first one, everything seemed so hard. I get that look after one can seem like the hardest thing in the world. Trust me though, it's a piece of piss compared to looking after three. 

My sister recently took the two older ones off our hands for a week, leaving us with just the 8 week old baby, and oh my god it was so easy. This is reality now, life is so difficult that looking after one kid is a breeze by comparison. 

You'd think the bigger one can look after herself a bit, and thankfully she's very sensible and quite helpful. But then she still needs dropping off at school, taking to after school activities (which is pretty much what all the child benefit gets spent on), then I've got to cart at least one of the other kids with me to all these things. Have you tried to entertain a one year old while his sister is riding a horse, and he can't crawl around cos you're in a stable with horse **** on the floor, and his baby sister is crying milk in her car seat? I have. I'm actually quite good at dealing with it now, but I don't half look at childless couples with some envy. 

I saw a good Michael MacIntyre bit about it. If a childless couple wants to go out to pop to the pub down the road for a drink. They make the decision, they grab their coats, and they go. If you've got 3 kids, the logistics of such a simple thing make it simply not worth it. Something as simple as leaving the house, which we have to do occasionally, is just so difficult. 

We satisfy ourselves by saying that every day, it gets easier (or at least we get used to it more). And the more kids we have, the more chance there is that one of them won't become a feckless **** who might actually look after us when we get old. 

There are joyful moments too, mind. I do actually love being a parent. It's a very strange feeling. All parents seem to do is moan about how hard their life is, but I don't know any parents who would change it for the world. 

[TigerTedd]

Back on topic, re holidays. I remember my sisters coming to Peru for my wedding. It was on a specific date to coincide with my wife's birthday, not around school holidays. So when my sisters had to come over for a week and a half, they had to negotiate with school. Two of them didn't have too much trouble, but the third, who's daughter was still in infants, had a really hard time. Bear in mind they weren't just coming for my wedding, they were going to see the country, spend a few days in the rain forest, and some days in Cusco exploring Inca ruins. This isn't a week sat by the pool at an all inclusive resort. Eventually the school relented as long as my niece kept a learning diary of all the things she'd seen and learnt. 

I think that's a great thing. If you can work in collaboration with the school around your holidays, rather than trying to teach your kids how to pull a sickie, then if you were going on an all inclusive to Cyprus, for example, then you and the school could agree to do that, as long as your kid did something cultural while they were there, and put together a little diary about it. So one day out of the week could be spent on a tour of historical sites and roman mosaics, or they could learn a few words of the local lingo. The kids love it, and they're learning a helluva lot more than they would be in school. 

[LesterRam]

2 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

We've just had two babies in just over a year, to go along with our 6 year old girl (second baby came as a bit of a surprise, we were quite happy at 2). I remember with the first one, everything seemed so hard. I get that look after one can seem like the hardest thing in the world. Trust me though, it's a piece of piss compared to looking after three. 

My sister recently took the two older ones off our hands for a week, leaving us with just the 8 week old baby, and oh my god it was so easy. This is reality now, life is so difficult that looking after one kid is a breeze by comparison. 

You'd think the bigger one can look after herself a bit, and thankfully she's very sensible and quite helpful. But then she still needs dropping off at school, taking to after school activities (which is pretty much what all the child benefit gets spent on), then I've got to cart at least one of the other kids with me to all these things. Have you tried to entertain a one year old while his sister is riding a horse, and he can't crawl around cos you're in a stable with horse **** on the floor, and his baby sister is crying milk in her car seat? I have. I'm actually quite good at dealing with it now, but I don't half look at childless couples with some envy. 

I saw a good Michael MacIntyre bit about it. If a childless couple wants to go out to pop to the pub down the road for a drink. They make the decision, they grab their coats, and they go. If you've got 3 kids, the logistics of such a simple thing make it simply not worth it. Something as simple as leaving the house, which we have to do occasionally, is just so difficult. 

We satisfy ourselves by saying that every day, it gets easier (or at least we get used to it more). And the more kids we have, the more chance there is that one of them won't become a feckless **** who might actually look after us when we get old. 

There are joyful moments too, mind. I do actually love being a parent. It's a very strange feeling. All parents seem to do is moan about how hard their life is, but I don't know any parents who would change it for the world. 

it doesn't get easier, the logistics change but the neediness doesn't, my girls are now 12 and 14 and they want absolutely everything they see, a iphone7 or the latest ipad, my missus bought some trainers for them last week and it was near on £200, took them Devon last year and they bought a Jack Wills pencil case for £20( you f*$%$££ kidding me), inside "Made in China", the farting amount of child benefit I receive is a drop in the ocean to what they actually cost.

[Stive Pesley]

17 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

All parents seem to do is moan about how hard their life is, but I don't know any parents who would change it for the world. 

Exactly - i just described it as the hardest job I've ever had, but it's also by far the most rewarding.

For the record, I had my two 14 years apart, and I can thoroughly recommend that as an age gap

[StringerBell]

Thoughts on today's Supreme Court decision?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39504338

If only they'd come down hard on the parents of kids who never attend. 

[Sith Happens]

7 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Thoughts on today's Supreme Court decision?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39504338

If only they'd come down hard on the parents of kids who never attend. 

Its tough, i dont know how old the children involved are, but i tend to think that a couple of weeks a year when they are under say 12 then really is it going to do any harm? Education isnt just what you learn at school.

I think the older they are maybe its harder to catch up.

If I genuinely thought the schools had the kids bests interests at heart i might support them a bit more, but i think they are probably more concerned with attendance rates than anything else.

On the other hand, parents do know before they have kids that holidays in school holidays will be more expensive so there is an argument to say they know what they are getting themselves into, the extra cost of a holiday is probably minimal compared with the overall cost of bringing them up.

I also do not agree when people say holiday companies are to blame, its almost like profit is a dirty word, but thats what they are profit making companies so of course they will charge more when demand is greater,

 

[G STAR RAM]

10 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Thoughts on today's Supreme Court decision?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39504338

If only they'd come down hard on the parents of kids who never attend. 

My thoughts are that this is yet another attack on honest hard working families.

Judgements passed down by people so far up their own arses and drowning in cash that they don't need to worry about the extra one or two thousand pounds on the cost of a family holiday.

I will continue to do what I think os best for my family. Would anyone really take their kids out of school of they thought it would be detrimental?

What makes it worse is that om the week the girl was taken out of school age would probably only have been playing games or watching dvds anyway.

Like you say it's funny the parents of these children can be found and 'brought to justice'.