I'm Starving Here!

Starving children? Have we gone stark, staring mad? At the same time as an increasing proportion of children are being diagnosed as clinically - in some cases, morbidly - obese, others are said to be starving. But hey, hang on a minute, starving means dying from lack of food, not being malnourished by an over-reliance on sugary, starchy, so-sweet-and-fat-they-can't-be-found-in-nature food. So, actually starving or just poorly fed? Either way it is scandalous.

'Chaotic parenting' is blamed. Chaotic sounds like they're a bit woolly; well-meaning but d'oh! Chaotic sounds like, "What am I like?" as they 'accidentally' go on a bender, leaving the two-year-old in the care of the family Rottweiler. Why do we have to dress it up in forgiving language when it is nothing short of criminally irresponsible parenting?

Or let's get to the nub of this because it is really about undeserving parents, isn't it? Some people do not have the wit, the morals or the capability to be decent parents. Some people will only ever be able to breed clones of their unworthy selves - welfare dependent, criminally inclined, social misfits who will live their entire lives as a drain on the state. They'll take up proportionately more resources - education, healthcare, prison - than all of those who have to pay for them and that is simply untenable.

Of course we should look after those who are old or young, sick or dying. We should also have the compassion to offer help for those who truly need it in times of hardship. But we can't go on ignoring a major failing of our age - attempting to grant to all that which they wish. It might make the middle classes feel less guilty about their own successes but it will ultimately drag us all down. It is not compassionate to allow the unfit to breed; all you're doing is perpetuating the problem, creating more needy (and un-needed) children and bringing more hand-wringing dilemmas to your door.

But the solution is simple. Do away, entirely, with 'child benefit'. It doesn't benefit the child, but it does encourage the feckless to breed. Get rid of the supposed entitlement of all woman to have children. Some must simply never be allowed to reproduce and the biggest benefit you could hand to their children is never to be born in the first place. Make having children too expensive and difficult for the undeserving and be prepared, as a society, to swiftly remove the accidental progeny of their unthinking liaisons. Make having children important, as you all believe, not casual as it is right now.

Some starving children, yesterday.

There are no non-selfish reasons for having children - they don't ask to be born. Isn't it about time we abandoned the freakish notion that it is a noble purpose to become a state-sponsored breeding machine. And what do I say to these kids, who grow up with a sense of entitlement and believe I am their mate? I say, "Fuck off, it's 'Sir' to you" as they hand me my change.

Poor Old Me

Child poverty. In Britain? Oh, give me a break.

Today in the (ahem) "Independent" Owen sanctimonious Jones once again attacks the Tories for something caused primarily by the thickitude and greedy-graspiousness of humanity and the unintended (or possibly entirely intended) consequences of Labour's largesse while in power.

The Communist wunderkind says, "With 3.6 million children growing up in poverty, the Tories have stumbled on an ingenious solution: they will redefine what child poverty is" as if that's a bad thing. It's not and poverty is long overdue for a common sense redefinition.

Labour have always mistaken relative poverty for absolute poverty and the bleeding pink, gutless, sociology brigade have added layers of unachievable aspiration to the mix to make poverty mean anybody having less than they think they deserve. Of course, the underclass - for make no mistake, there is one - are not capable of that level of thought, so quislings like Jones are more than happy to provide them with the 'right' answers to such enquiries.

In the imaginary world inside the redder than bright-red paperboy's head, all Conservative politicians are millionaires, a sum they earn by squeezing the juice out of the dried husks of the downtrodden poor, no doubt wearing tail coats and quaffing vintage champagne, while singing the Bullingdon club song to a time beaten out on the hollowed-out skulls of starved children.

In truth, relative poverty is an absurd measure. Which 'average' income is taken as the yardstick? Is a two-child family below the average wage still poor? Compared to a ten-child family they would appear rich. Oh, except the ten-child family would almost certainly be sustained healthily by the taxes paid out by poor, working households. Free education, free healthcare, a welfare state - by any objective measure there is no such thing as 'child  poverty' in the UK. 

Desperate child poverty in the United Kingdom

Yes, children go without books, without guidance, without love and attention, even without food on occasion, but that's not due to poverty; that is neglect, which is a different thing altogether. Maybe the slavering socialist malcontents should consider why one of their most enduring legacies is the withering away of social mobility and social conscience on their watch?