Family say they are being targeted after arson attack (From This Is Lancashire)

Seven kids and another on the way! I'll eat my hat if they're not in the government breeding programme and receiving full benefits.

For God's sake, 7 kids, another one on the way, three dogs and 7 pups in one house. He has osteoarthritis so he presumably can't work and they have a people carrier.
Really sorry for the incidents that are happeningh to them but for the love of god start to get your own house in order for the sake of your kids. Get rid of the dogs who must be costing you a fortune and represent a health hazard for the children. There is more to this story than meets the eye, as usual.

Dear PDY & Nibelung

Excuse me but what business is it of yours to judge people by how many kids they have, what car they drive and what pets they keep?

Just because some people have different lifestyles to your own, does that mean they are to be criticised? What sort of illiberal world would you have us live in?

This story could have been similar to the recent Harlow fire deaths, with the horriffic and harrowing images that etched themselves into the public psyche. And you guys have the temerity to ignore the horrific near miss and focus on your own prejudiced perceptions of what a "normal" family should look like.

Take a look in the mirror

Eight kids. Wow - they must have really good jobs to be able to afford so many. Oh, no, hang on... Actually, Frankandbill, we do have the right to judge if people are popping children left, right and centre, with no ability to fund it for themselves. It is totally irresponsible.

frankandbill wrote:
Dear PDY & Nibelung

Excuse me but what business is it of yours to judge people by how many kids they have, what car they drive and what pets they keep?

Just because some people have different lifestyles to your own, does that mean they are to be criticised? What sort of illiberal world would you have us live in?

This story could have been similar to the recent Harlow fire deaths, with the horriffic and harrowing images that etched themselves into the public psyche. And you guys have the temerity to ignore the horrific near miss and focus on your own prejudiced perceptions of what a "normal" family should look like.

Take a look in the mirror

Hey I dont know if they're in the government breeding programme or not but its very easy to assume that as eight kids will prob bring in about £40k plus a year in benefits if he was working he'd have to have a bloody good job to look after that many.

frankandbill wrote:
Dear PDY & Nibelung

Excuse me but what business is it of yours to judge people by how many kids they have, what car they drive and what pets they keep?

Just because some people have different lifestyles to your own, does that mean they are to be criticised? What sort of illiberal world would you have us live in?

This story could have been similar to the recent Harlow fire deaths, with the horriffic and harrowing images that etched themselves into the public psyche. And you guys have the temerity to ignore the horrific near miss and focus on your own prejudiced perceptions of what a "normal" family should look like.

Take a look in the mirror

It is my business when the family's personal situation is put into the public domain. The family could have asked for anonimity, which would have been the best thing, but chose to make a public comment. If you think that 8 children and 10 dogs in a house where the father obviously isn't working because of his osteoporosis represents anything other than "not normal" then you are part of the same problem. This family, undoubtedly worthy of sympathy for the situation they find themselves in because of the attack, are typical of the kind of " it's our right to live as we please" brigade who do as they please as long as the rest of us " normal people" pay for their excesses. They are totally irresponsible and I bet you wouldn't want to have your tea at their place anytime soon.

If the lady in question is really only thirty-two years of age, she must have had a child at every opportunity since puberty, so she hasn't had any real teenage/young adult life at all. She has probably spent more time in a maternity ward than at home. Does no one in the medical proffession think that preventative advice might have been a goood idea? I also assume that her husband is suffering from secondary osteoporosis, as he does not fall into the categories of other types of this condition. Therefore, he is suffering as a result of another chronic disease or illness, or as a result of over indulgence of medication or drugs. As PDY says, there is more to this family and this story than is being revealed here, but I must agree that seven, nearly eight children and so many animals in what must be an average sized home cannot be the ideal situation. If the BN wants us to believe what they write, why don't they give us all the facts, so that a true picture can be observed? After all, this bit by bit reporting naturally leads to assumption on behalf of the readers, which is normal, and if some readers dislike what is written in these comments, they either have to accept freedom of speech sometimes displeases some people, or they should move to Russia and enjoy freedom to do nowt!

brian jones wrote:
Eight kids. Wow - they must have really good jobs to be able to afford so many. Oh, no, hang on... Actually, Frankandbill, we do have the right to judge if people are popping children left, right and centre, with no ability to fund it for themselves. It is totally irresponsible.

Brian. You can judge all you like. But in a free society those that seek to judge are also worthy of being judged. So I judge that your assertion that having too many kids is socially irresponsible is none of your business and says more about you than the family in question.

PDY wrote:

frankandbill wrote:
Dear PDY & Nibelung

Excuse me but what business is it of yours to judge people by how many kids they have, what car they drive and what pets they keep?

Just because some people have different lifestyles to your own, does that mean they are to be criticised? What sort of illiberal world would you have us live in?

This story could have been similar to the recent Harlow fire deaths, with the horriffic and harrowing images that etched themselves into the public psyche. And you guys have the temerity to ignore the horrific near miss and focus on your own prejudiced perceptions of what a "normal" family should look like.

Take a look in the mirror

It is my business when the family's personal situation is put into the public domain. The family could have asked for anonimity, which would have been the best thing, but chose to make a public comment. If you think that 8 children and 10 dogs in a house where the father obviously isn't working because of his osteoporosis represents anything other than "not normal" then you are part of the same problem. This family, undoubtedly worthy of sympathy for the situation they find themselves in because of the attack, are typical of the kind of " it's our right to live as we please" brigade who do as they please as long as the rest of us " normal people" pay for their excesses. They are totally irresponsible and I bet you wouldn't want to have your tea at their place anytime soon.

Did the family go out of their way to put this story into the public domain? Did they issue a press release with pre-prepared statements in the hope that the media would take the bait? Of course not. The BEN got the story and, as reporters do, managed to get a quote from the victims - and perhaps the family believed that by allowing the BEN to cover the story, that they might help stop the attacks - would you do any different in their circumstance?

And if you wish to judge anyone that falls outside of a social norm you deem to be within acceptable tolerance then that suggests you are a of a fairly bigoted, illiberal, authoritarian mindset.

You assert the family are "typical of the kind of....brigade" and that us "normal people" pay for their excesses - so you have some insight into their personal circumstances do you? Or are you just assuming things and drawing your own narrow minded bigoted conclusions?

What's really worrying here is the fact that you feel sufficiently confident to put your reactionary thoughts out there into the public domain. But I for one am glad you did - as it allows others to see clearly where you stand and provides an opportunity for others to come right back at you.

Nibelung wrote:

frankandbill wrote:
Dear PDY & Nibelung

Excuse me but what business is it of yours to judge people by how many kids they have, what car they drive and what pets they keep?

Just because some people have different lifestyles to your own, does that mean they are to be criticised? What sort of illiberal world would you have us live in?

This story could have been similar to the recent Harlow fire deaths, with the horriffic and harrowing images that etched themselves into the public psyche. And you guys have the temerity to ignore the horrific near miss and focus on your own prejudiced perceptions of what a "normal" family should look like.

Take a look in the mirror

Hey I dont know if they're in the government breeding programme or not but its very easy to assume that as eight kids will prob bring in about £40k plus a year in benefits if he was working he'd have to have a bloody good job to look after that many.

Eight kids who will grow up and get jobs, pay taxes which help pay our pensions and NHS costs in our autumn years.

Having kids used to be seen as a blessing, a gift from god or other such wonderful thing. So when did having eight become such a bad thing?

The more the merrier I say.

frankandbill, stop being a nob.

ablueroom wrote:
frankandbill, stop being a nob.

ablueroom

Making valid points mate. Feel free to come back at me

Firstly, I'm not your mate. Secondly, you're not making valid points - you're showing yourself to live in a deluded dreamworld that bears little resemblance to the here and now.

ablueroom wrote:
Firstly, I'm not your mate. Secondly, you're not making valid points - you're showing yourself to live in a deluded dreamworld that bears little resemblance to the here and now.

Ok ablueroom..you're right - I'm not your mate - I was just being friendly. Next time I'll not bother.

And I can assure you I live very much in the real world - full of misanthropes it is too. So please allow me the freedom to speak as I see fit. And as I said, if you wish to come back on any points I'm more than happy to debate

Thank you for granting permission for a retort, I think that's very kind -although some may say it's nothing short of arrogance, perhaps the arrogance of the religiously deluded. Anyway, by way of retort I have little, although I will say that you have jumped on your rather superior high horse over the wrong point. There is no problem with having eight, ten, twelve or fifty kids; no problem whatsoever . . . assuming the parents can afford to feed them, give them a safe and happy childhood and support them through their education without placing a burden on a benefits system designed to help the needy not the reliant.

They could be lotto winners for all you know!

Plus BN like to blow things out of proportion. They probably have 3 children and a dog and it was just a case of a game of knock a door run!

Changeit! wrote:
They could be lotto winners for all you know!

Too true! Good point

berushka wrote:
If the lady in question is really only thirty-two years of age, she must have had a child at every opportunity since puberty, so she hasn't had any real teenage/young adult life at all. She has probably spent more time in a maternity ward than at home. Does no one in the medical proffession think that preventative advice might have been a goood idea? I also assume that her husband is suffering from secondary osteoporosis, as he does not fall into the categories of other types of this condition. Therefore, he is suffering as a result of another chronic disease or illness, or as a result of over indulgence of medication or drugs. As PDY says, there is more to this family and this story than is being revealed here, but I must agree that seven, nearly eight children and so many animals in what must be an average sized home cannot be the ideal situation. If the BN wants us to believe what they write, why don't they give us all the facts, so that a true picture can be observed? After all, this bit by bit reporting naturally leads to assumption on behalf of the readers, which is normal, and if some readers dislike what is written in these comments, they either have to accept freedom of speech sometimes displeases some people, or they should move to Russia and enjoy freedom to do nowt!

It says 'their children' so why do you assume that the lady has given birth to them all? Who knows, whose business is it and what has this got to do with the point being made: SEVEN CHILDREN'S LIVES WERE ENDANGERED.

What would you suggest they should do with their dog's puppies - skin them and make a coat for Cruella Deville ...... or keep them until they are old enough to be found homes?

Why do you 'assume' that the gentleman is suffering from 'secondary osteoporosis' , then give us your considered judgement on his lifestyle isses when it clearly states that he he has OSTEOARTHRITIS?

Why must it be an averaged sized home?

The relevant facts have been given: 2 adults, seven children, an unborn baby and 10 animals' lives were endangered by an arsonist as things stand. What more do you want to know?

This is nothing to do with the freedom of speech and please don't judge us all by your standards. It seems to me that some give everyone else the 'freedom to do nowt' without being on the end of their quite ignorant, unnecessary and judgmental assumptions. If you really have to be that judgmental, judge the arsonist, whoever this happens to be!

Nibelung wrote:
Seven kids and another on the way! I'll eat my hat if they're not in the government breeding programme and receiving full benefits.

I'm sure the family will appreciate your concern after their terrible ordeal. I must have missed the bit where it said they were on benefits. Just out of interest, did they deserve to have their house set on fire if they were?

ablueroom wrote:
Thank you for granting permission for a retort, I think that's very kind -although some may say it's nothing short of arrogance, perhaps the arrogance of the religiously deluded. Anyway, by way of retort I have little, although I will say that you have jumped on your rather superior high horse over the wrong point. There is no problem with having eight, ten, twelve or fifty kids; no problem whatsoever . . . assuming the parents can afford to feed them, give them a safe and happy childhood and support them through their education without placing a burden on a benefits system designed to help the needy not the reliant.

And you assume this family can't afford to feed their kids and are a burden on the benefits system? They might be taking more out of the system than you or I put in - but how do you know and why do you immediately come to that negative conclusion?

Do you assume all families with numerous kids are deliberately procreating just to screw the benefits system? What a negative view of your fellow human beings. Maybe they just love kids (as a matter of fact coming from a large family and having 4 kids of my own I do as well)

Let's talk straight here - What we are dealing with is nothing short of a cynical misanthropic assumptive view of human beings and their motives.

How sad

Well Lindlandl, the address is given and if you'd bothered to look at Maps or similar, you would have seen the house. I think the detractors are on fairly safe ground here.

lindlandl wrote:

berushka wrote:
If the lady in question is really only thirty-two years of age, she must have had a child at every opportunity since puberty, so she hasn't had any real teenage/young adult life at all. She has probably spent more time in a maternity ward than at home. Does no one in the medical proffession think that preventative advice might have been a goood idea? I also assume that her husband is suffering from secondary osteoporosis, as he does not fall into the categories of other types of this condition. Therefore, he is suffering as a result of another chronic disease or illness, or as a result of over indulgence of medication or drugs. As PDY says, there is more to this family and this story than is being revealed here, but I must agree that seven, nearly eight children and so many animals in what must be an average sized home cannot be the ideal situation. If the BN wants us to believe what they write, why don't they give us all the facts, so that a true picture can be observed? After all, this bit by bit reporting naturally leads to assumption on behalf of the readers, which is normal, and if some readers dislike what is written in these comments, they either have to accept freedom of speech sometimes displeases some people, or they should move to Russia and enjoy freedom to do nowt!

It says 'their children' so why do you assume that the lady has given birth to them all? Who knows, whose business is it and what has this got to do with the point being made: SEVEN CHILDREN'S LIVES WERE ENDANGERED.

What would you suggest they should do with their dog's puppies - skin them and make a coat for Cruella Deville ...... or keep them until they are old enough to be found homes?

Why do you 'assume' that the gentleman is suffering from 'secondary osteoporosis' , then give us your considered judgement on his lifestyle isses when it clearly states that he he has OSTEOARTHRITIS?

Why must it be an averaged sized home?

The relevant facts have been given: 2 adults, seven children, an unborn baby and 10 animals' lives were endangered by an arsonist as things stand. What more do you want to know?

This is nothing to do with the freedom of speech and please don't judge us all by your standards. It seems to me that some give everyone else the 'freedom to do nowt' without being on the end of their quite ignorant, unnecessary and judgmental assumptions. If you really have to be that judgmental, judge the arsonist, whoever this happens to be!

Bravo! Hear Hear! Applause Applause!

Frankandbill - again, you're drowning in your delusions. I didn't make any assumptions about the or any other family? Go on, you can tell us - you're religious aren't you?

That should be "the Robinsons"

ablueroom wrote:
Well Lindlandl, the address is given and if you'd bothered to look at Maps or similar, you would have seen the house. I think the detractors are on fairly safe ground here.

you mean the family are...go on let's say it...a bit working class!

So ok for the rich to breed like rabbits and have eccentric lifestyles - but not the great unwashed.

There's a word for folks with views like yours - snob.

Haha, you can waffle all you want - but the fact remains, the only comment I have made was aimed at you and to your credit, you're doing your best to prove me right, you are indeed a nob! I've not said a word for or against large families and not a word for or against the Robinsons in particular. Can you read? Go on, you're a god botherer aren't you . . .

ablueroom wrote:
Frankandbill - again, you're drowning in your delusions. I didn't make any assumptions about the or any other family? Go on, you can tell us - you're religious aren't you?

ablueroom

You're telling big porkys there. You absolutely did make assumptions about that family. Why else would you raise the issue of where they live or even bring the question of benefits into the debate.

Happy to debate with you - but let's be straight with each other here.

BTW: No not religious whatsoever - not that that's got anything to do with it. If I was - would that make a difference? Are the views of religious people invalid in your eyes?

Nope, I made no bad or good comment on large families or the Robinsons -please feel free to reiterate and put me right. The comment about the house was a factual reponse to Lind's retort about the size of the house. Again, no view for or against. You're a loon! Did you go to school? Go on, be honest, no one else is listening - you're into this praying lark?

Ok - I'm happy to argue the point

You claim you have a completely non judgmental view on this article - fair enough - I'm more than happy to believe you.

So what do you mean when you say :

"you would have seen the house. I think the detractors are on fairly safe ground here"

Which detractors exactly? And what "safe ground" do you refer to?

And go on - you can tell me - no-one else is watching - you're a lefty aren't you? Or maybe a card carrying Dawkinsist?

Berushka assumed it must be an average sized house, Lind questioned why it must be assumed as average sized, i went on google street view and it is indeed an average sized house, they all are on St Andrews. Thus Berushka is on safe ground. Also looking at St Andrews, the houses are in a pretty poor state so its safe to assume the owners are not lottery winners. Again, nothing negative or positive in those comments, nothing directed at the Robinsons, nothing snobbish, nothing superior. The comment you quote was made after your assumption by the way. You're an idiot who flew off the handle without reading what I actually wrote.

"poor state of repair" "safe to assume the owners are not lottery winners"

Not negative or positive!

Do me a favour.

frankandbill wrote:

ablueroom wrote:
Frankandbill - again, you're drowning in your delusions. I didn't make any assumptions about the or any other family? Go on, you can tell us - you're religious aren't you?

ablueroom

You're telling big porkys there. You absolutely did make assumptions about that family. Why else would you raise the issue of where they live or even bring the question of benefits into the debate.

Happy to debate with you - but let's be straight with each other here.

BTW: No not religious whatsoever - not that that's got anything to do with it. If I was - would that make a difference? Are the views of religious people invalid in your eyes?

FIRSTLY these actions are in no way acceptable and are ...disgusting ...


but to Frank & bull ...
i think this has become a Benefit argument to some and i must say

pull your head out of your @rse...and smell the coffee..
Forget Snobs comment you made.and half hearted judgements ...and stop chatting b(_)llsh!t..
blue has wrote what 99% of the country feel ... get a grip and get in the real world ...its b0llox like you chat is the reason this country is on the bones of its @rse...why and ask yourself why is this country in the sh!t its in ??? hmmmmmm... well we are the Beneifit capital of the universe...FACT

we have completley shafted our old age pensioners who made this country ONCE GREAT,,,do we look after them?? no ,, we take everything they worked for and earnt in there working and give to the goverment and stick them in some **** council run nursing home,,and for the lucky ones,,they cant afford to heat there homes in winter ,,they made this country great,,not like the Handouts we see today!!!! MILK the system,, cant get a job???? **** it,, get benefit,,,great hours and good pay .. shame you cant see both sides, as a kid ,,my parents could not afford a car,, loads of kids,, etc etc ,,...we **** worked hard and worked hard we did ,,, non of this benefit crap reason to dodge a job,,,
you really are blind to see it ,,,
there is always 2 sides to any story,,, you only get one side,, Bad news sells ..
franky,,, can you really not see why neg comments are made..????
,,,
how many familes struggle ,lose there house ...everything in this climate ...and always towed the line ????
or are you really that thick ?

dont reply ..said my piece

Look after the old folk

frankandbill wrote:
"poor state of repair" "safe to assume the owners are not lottery winners"

Not negative or positive!

Do me a favour.

Eh? Again, you're relying on a comment made after you assertion - but, again, its fairly safe to assume the occupants of St Andrews are not lottery winners. Thats just my assumption, there could well be millionaires there, but my comment is completely impartial, it neither attacks nor defends the occupants of St Andrews and is based on factual evidence (although it's fair to say Street View is a couple of years old). Is that all you've got?

sayithowitis99 wrote:

frankandbill wrote:

ablueroom wrote:
Frankandbill - again, you're drowning in your delusions. I didn't make any assumptions about the or any other family? Go on, you can tell us - you're religious aren't you?

ablueroom

You're telling big porkys there. You absolutely did make assumptions about that family. Why else would you raise the issue of where they live or even bring the question of benefits into the debate.

Happy to debate with you - but let's be straight with each other here.

BTW: No not religious whatsoever - not that that's got anything to do with it. If I was - would that make a difference? Are the views of religious people invalid in your eyes?

FIRSTLY these actions are in no way acceptable and are ...disgusting ...


but to Frank & bull ...
i think this has become a Benefit argument to some and i must say

pull your head out of your @rse...and smell the coffee..
Forget Snobs comment you made.and half hearted judgements ...and stop chatting b(_)llsh!t..
blue has wrote what 99% of the country feel ... get a grip and get in the real world ...its b0llox like you chat is the reason this country is on the bones of its @rse...why and ask yourself why is this country in the sh!t its in ??? hmmmmmm... well we are the Beneifit capital of the universe...FACT

we have completley shafted our old age pensioners who made this country ONCE GREAT,,,do we look after them?? no ,, we take everything they worked for and earnt in there working and give to the goverment and stick them in some **** council run nursing home,,and for the lucky ones,,they cant afford to heat there homes in winter ,,they made this country great,,not like the Handouts we see today!!!! MILK the system,, cant get a job???? **** it,, get benefit,,,great hours and good pay .. shame you cant see both sides, as a kid ,,my parents could not afford a car,, loads of kids,, etc etc ,,...we **** worked hard and worked hard we did ,,, non of this benefit crap reason to dodge a job,,,
you really are blind to see it ,,,
there is always 2 sides to any story,,, you only get one side,, Bad news sells ..
franky,,, can you really not see why neg comments are made..????
,,,
how many familes struggle ,lose there house ...everything in this climate ...and always towed the line ????
or are you really that thick ?

dont reply ..said my piece

Look after the old folk

sayithowitis99 You question my sanity then tell me not to reply. Forgive me if I don't take your advice.

You raisde some serious points about welfare entitlement - but what the hell has that got to do with the subject in hand?

This is about a family that nearly got torched alive by some low life idiots - then some more idiots started assuming they because the family had 7 kids and a few dogs they must therefore be benefit scroungers.

The issue here is the fact that some posters have a pretty dim view of those with large families and dogs - especially if they happen to live in working class areas.

As it happens I might agree with you about the state of welfare in this country - but that's simply not the point of the discussion at hand.

read my first line bone head

Frankandbill, you're toast - you're just putting words into people's mouthes to try and save face. It's not working, you're looking more and more pathetic. After your tirade against me, i've reduced you to arguing the point that it's fairly safe to assume people in St Andrews aren't millionaires! You remind me of the knight in the Holy Grail -and yes, I'm sure you could bite my legs off and I'm sure the Robinsons are quite capable of defending themselves and would probably do it a lot better than idiots like you.

ablueroom wrote:

frankandbill wrote:
"poor state of repair" "safe to assume the owners are not lottery winners"

Not negative or positive!

Do me a favour.

Eh? Again, you're relying on a comment made after you assertion - but, again, its fairly safe to assume the occupants of St Andrews are not lottery winners. Thats just my assumption, there could well be millionaires there, but my comment is completely impartial, it neither attacks nor defends the occupants of St Andrews and is based on factual evidence (although it's fair to say Street View is a couple of years old). Is that all you've got?

Well we can argue whether commenting on the state of repair or the relative poverty of the inhabitants of a certain street is negative all day long. In my eyes that is not an impartial view - but if you assert it to be so I'm happy to stand corrected.

But, in the context of this discussion you did say:

"assuming the parents can afford to feed them, give them a safe and happy childhood and support them through their education without placing a burden on a benefits system designed to help the needy not the reliant"

Now why would you seek to qualify your liberal assertion of impartiality with those conditions?

And if a father of 7 kids finds himself unable to work due to a chronic condition, do you feel the benefits system should step in and support the family - or leave them to fend for themselves?

Also: Let's be absolutely clear here, what did I say in my earlier posts that prompted you to, childishly, call me a nob?

Something else Frankie, you make the comment "low life idiots" but do you know what drove those "low life idiots" to take such an action? This could have been a multiple murder, thankfully it wasn't, but somebody thought taking such an action was reasonable. You don't know the first thing about what has gone on previously, yet here you are passing judgement on everybody else.

sayithowitis99 wrote:
read my first line bone head

I did - bone head!

frank&bull,,
ok,,,,,,,
i said i would not answer ,, but so you can Keep running your mouth
please do me a ( only Rough ) financial COSTING breakdown ..
of weekly outgoings , everything considered and i do mean everything how you get by in this ...just interested please as my wage has gone next day....please frank

Again Frankie, i didn't mention poverty - i said it's fairly safe to assume the residents of St Andrews are not lottery winners or millionaires and that was based on actual photos of the road and the properties contained therein. i could well be wrong. Also, the comments about being able to support your family are perfectly valid, i believe any parent has a duty to give their kids a safe, supported and happy childhood. No sign of an attack there is there? No comment made about the Robinsons? You're a toasted nob trying to save face.

only rough frankie ......
8 kids and dogs ..only rough please...
plus bills,,mortgage,,bil
ls cars,,,, all outgoings,,councl tax,,water, gas,petrol,,,shoppin
g

i just need to KNOW PLEASE....

please frank ,,, you can be the NEW Money saver.com...pleeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeease frank pleaseeeee

frankandbill wrote:

sayithowitis99 wrote:
read my first line bone head

I did - bone head!

you did not ..hence you're question Bone head

And yes, i do think the benefits system should kick in if a breadwinner of a large family loses a job that paid enough to support that family - of course it should, that's what it's there for!!! You didn't read what I wrote, you can bluster and wafle all night - but you didn't read it.

And just to be clear, I called you a nob in my first comment because i just happen to be an excellant judge of character, it's a gift.

Blue,,

frank see's & reads only what he see's and wants to see.. how can you take such a biggot seriously

plus the maths question **** his head up...lol

confused is not a swear word is it frank ?

frank....? please , how do i support....
visit
Frank&bullmoneysaver
.com

i would love if his disability benefit was taken off him as they feel he is fit enough to work if he can show his labido that much with the amount of children he's creating, and who walks the dogs? can't be his 7 1/2 month pregnant wife.

ablueroom wrote:
And yes, i do think the benefits system should kick in if a breadwinner of a large family loses a job that paid enough to support that family - of course it should, that's what it's there for!!! You didn't read what I wrote, you can bluster and wafle all night - but you didn't read it.

But what - specifically - did I say that urged you to call me a nob? You say it's because you're an excellent judge of character...well that hardly goes near an explanation for my liking.

Lets look at this again:

Family of 7 kids nearly gets torched

Newspaper reports story

People comment on number of kids and dogs in household

I comment back asking what's the relevance of the number of kids/dogs

You call me a nob

So why am I a nob?

If there is no issue with this family having lots of kids, or dogs, or living in a big house in a poor state of repair and not having much cash - why are you arguing with me and not with those that seek to judge the family?

Surely, if you believe the welfare state should step in when a father can no longer support his family due to a chronic illness, then you should react with outrage when people post comments condemning the family for procreating?

Where do you stand? I've been totally honest with my views - I think it's time you did the same instead of playing intellectual mind games.

davidjb wrote:
i would love if his disability benefit was taken off him as they feel he is fit enough to work if he can show his labido that much with the amount of children he's creating, and who walks the dogs? can't be his 7 1/2 month pregnant wife.

So he's on disability benefits is he? Sorry, I missed that in the article. Do you have special access to information?

I guess we can now work out a motive...if the family is on benefits, maybe some local thugs - with opinions not dissimilar to your own - take it upon themselves to serve out some local justice and torch the house.

Happy with the thought of a few kids melting to death because some folk think they are screwing the benefits system?

Good grief. What kind of world do we live in. Just for the record....when the barricades are erected - i'll be on the opposite side to you

sayithowitis99 wrote:
Blue,,

frank see's & reads only what he see's and wants to see.. how can you take such a biggot seriously

Biggot?

sayithowitis99

Sorry - apologies if I misunderstand you - I just don't get your point or the relevance of your postings

ablueroom wrote:
Well Lindlandl, the address is given and if you'd bothered to look at Maps or similar, you would have seen the house. I think the detractors are on fairly safe ground here.

So all people who live in whatever type of housing you weirdly decided to look up are on benefits and so deserve to have their house set on fire? Interesting if very worrying.

frankandbill wrote:

davidjb wrote:
i would love if his disability benefit was taken off him as they feel he is fit enough to work if he can show his labido that much with the amount of children he's creating, and who walks the dogs? can't be his 7 1/2 month pregnant wife.

So he's on disability benefits is he? Sorry, I missed that in the article. Do you have special access to information?

I guess we can now work out a motive...if the family is on benefits, maybe some local thugs - with opinions not dissimilar to your own - take it upon themselves to serve out some local justice and torch the house.

Happy with the thought of a few kids melting to death because some folk think they are screwing the benefits system?

Good grief. What kind of world do we live in. Just for the record....when the barricades are erected - i'll be on the opposite side to you

I'll be on your side of the barricades too frankandbill. I think all is lost when people think the issue is whether a family are claiming benefits (for which thereis no evidence) not that someone has committed a truly evil crime against them.

I Have just read every post on this story and I have to agree with Ablueroom That Frank you are an absolute first class Nob.

I'm presuming your a possible social worker or some kind of civil servant.
Guessing that you maybe work with within rehabilitation possibly re-integrating sex offenders back into society and that you struggle to see the bad in people and situations.

Have to go off to work now to earn money to feed, cloth and house my family.

Oh I almost forgot!!!! To pay taxes so that all the people who can't be bothered working (God bless them) can get up at about 10am scratch there backsides and go back to bed when they realise it's Saturday and Jeremy Kyle isn't on today.

lindlandl wrote:

frankandbill wrote:

davidjb wrote:
i would love if his disability benefit was taken off him as they feel he is fit enough to work if he can show his labido that much with the amount of children he's creating, and who walks the dogs? can't be his 7 1/2 month pregnant wife.

So he's on disability benefits is he? Sorry, I missed that in the article. Do you have special access to information?

I guess we can now work out a motive...if the family is on benefits, maybe some local thugs - with opinions not dissimilar to your own - take it upon themselves to serve out some local justice and torch the house.

Happy with the thought of a few kids melting to death because some folk think they are screwing the benefits system?

Good grief. What kind of world do we live in. Just for the record....when the barricades are erected - i'll be on the opposite side to you

I'll be on your side of the barricades too frankandbill. I think all is lost when people think the issue is whether a family are claiming benefits (for which thereis no evidence) not that someone has committed a truly evil crime against them.

Obviously you don't know what osteoarthritis is. A degenerative disease meaning he can't work. The fact they mention this in the report is clear. If the guy had asthma they wouldn't mention it as he would still be able to work. Local thug haha, no offence but i'm the guy who chases shoplifters and stops the scroates from getting stuff for free. Are you the guy who just stands on the side line says let's all live in peace we're all human and don't demand people get off their backsides and do something? Benefits have gone up more than wages, people who are on benefits should have to work for an equal amount of time to earn their benefit, that's their form of pay. For the sake of enlightening you on the situation i'll turn it into a mini-game.. 2 Adults, 8 kids, 10 dogs in a 3 bedroom house, who looks after who and what quality of life do you expect? i barely have room in my 3 bedroom house. On basic benefit they'll equate to earning £656.10pw that's £34,117.20 a year. I'm not condoning setting people on fire, but if they want to mention all the rest in the report then it's of equal talking value. The chances the fire was actually started by one of the kids is more likely to be fair, like most house fires it's internal as if you was fearing for your life and feeling targeted you wouldn't mention your name in the paper.
To summarise; people who work regardless of their job are worth bothering over while the rest are a leech to society.

Ben Haydock wrote:
I Have just read every post on this story and I have to agree with Ablueroom That Frank you are an absolute first class Nob.

I'm presuming your a possible social worker or some kind of civil servant.
Guessing that you maybe work with within rehabilitation possibly re-integrating sex offenders back into society and that you struggle to see the bad in people and situations.

Have to go off to work now to earn money to feed, cloth and house my family.

Oh I almost forgot!!!! To pay taxes so that all the people who can't be bothered working (God bless them) can get up at about 10am scratch there backsides and go back to bed when they realise it's Saturday and Jeremy Kyle isn't on today.

I'm no bleeding heart liberal and I don't have much sympathy with able bodied folk who choose a life on welfare. But that's a whole different debate.

This is a story about a family, whose circumstance we really don't have a clue about, almost being torched alive.

And judging by the comments on this thread I don't think the cops need look too far for a motive.

lindlandl wrote:

ablueroom wrote:
Well Lindlandl, the address is given and if you'd bothered to look at Maps or similar, you would have seen the house. I think the detractors are on fairly safe ground here.

So all people who live in whatever type of housing you weirdly decided to look up are on benefits and so deserve to have their house set on fire? Interesting if very worrying.

Remarkably and weirdly Aldiland or whatever your name is, you too cannot read basic English. I still haven't made any comment for or against the Robinsons or any family of any size other than parents should be able to provide for their kids. I decided rather than just spout off nonsense about the houses on St Andrews Road, I'd take the trouble to look - perhaps you should have done the same and you could have given a more informed view. Beruska was perfectly correct out the size of the house, you were not - it's that simple, and Frank is still a nob.

frankandbill wrote:

Ben Haydock wrote:
I Have just read every post on this story and I have to agree with Ablueroom That Frank you are an absolute first class Nob.

I'm presuming your a possible social worker or some kind of civil servant.
Guessing that you maybe work with within rehabilitation possibly re-integrating sex offenders back into society and that you struggle to see the bad in people and situations.

Have to go off to work now to earn money to feed, cloth and house my family.

Oh I almost forgot!!!! To pay taxes so that all the people who can't be bothered working (God bless them) can get up at about 10am scratch there backsides and go back to bed when they realise it's Saturday and Jeremy Kyle isn't on today.

I'm no bleeding heart liberal and I don't have much sympathy with able bodied folk who choose a life on welfare. But that's a whole different debate.

This is a story about a family, whose circumstance we really don't have a clue about, almost being torched alive.

And judging by the comments on this thread I don't think the cops need look too far for a motive.

"and cops don't have to look too far for a motive" . . . I don't think you should be agreeing with the arsonists Frank, this was a terrible crime that could have taken the lives of numerous people - suggesting the motive for this action is obvious is tantamount to shoving the burning paper through the door youself! Nob!

davidjb wrote:

lindlandl wrote:

frankandbill wrote:

davidjb wrote:
i would love if his disability benefit was taken off him as they feel he is fit enough to work if he can show his labido that much with the amount of children he's creating, and who walks the dogs? can't be his 7 1/2 month pregnant wife.

So he's on disability benefits is he? Sorry, I missed that in the article. Do you have special access to information?

I guess we can now work out a motive...if the family is on benefits, maybe some local thugs - with opinions not dissimilar to your own - take it upon themselves to serve out some local justice and torch the house.

Happy with the thought of a few kids melting to death because some folk think they are screwing the benefits system?

Good grief. What kind of world do we live in. Just for the record....when the barricades are erected - i'll be on the opposite side to you

I'll be on your side of the barricades too frankandbill. I think all is lost when people think the issue is whether a family are claiming benefits (for which thereis no evidence) not that someone has committed a truly evil crime against them.

Obviously you don't know what osteoarthritis is. A degenerative disease meaning he can't work. The fact they mention this in the report is clear. If the guy had asthma they wouldn't mention it as he would still be able to work. Local thug haha, no offence but i'm the guy who chases shoplifters and stops the scroates from getting stuff for free. Are you the guy who just stands on the side line says let's all live in peace we're all human and don't demand people get off their backsides and do something? Benefits have gone up more than wages, people who are on benefits should have to work for an equal amount of time to earn their benefit, that's their form of pay. For the sake of enlightening you on the situation i'll turn it into a mini-game.. 2 Adults, 8 kids, 10 dogs in a 3 bedroom house, who looks after who and what quality of life do you expect? i barely have room in my 3 bedroom house. On basic benefit they'll equate to earning £656.10pw that's £34,117.20 a year. I'm not condoning setting people on fire, but if they want to mention all the rest in the report then it's of equal talking value. The chances the fire was actually started by one of the kids is more likely to be fair, like most house fires it's internal as if you was fearing for your life and feeling targeted you wouldn't mention your name in the paper.
To summarise; people who work regardless of their job are worth bothering over while the rest are a leech to society.

Obviously you don't know what osteoarthritis is as my mother has suffered with it for the last 30 years and it did not stop her from working. What has this got to do with an arson attack on a family?

"To summarise; people who work regardless of their job are worth bothering over while the rest are a leech to society" Really? A breadwinner who's lost his or her job through no fault of his own (I'll use his for brevity) is a leech? Say he cannot work because of debilatating illness - cancer, MS for example, or oestoarthritis, or perhaps he lost his income due to a domino effect of company failures, or perhaps he had an accident that pulled the rug from beneath his feet - so, in your view, that's it, he's become a parasite leeching off the more fortunate who have yet to have some bad luck? What an absurd view! Shall we start praying to effigies and burning witches again?

Live within your means, that goes for kids too...

Having kids is a choice. Lots of people have none, one or two based on their financial situation and ability to work and care for those children (taking into account things like their own state of health). This is because they are reasonable responsible people.

Id rather have one or two children well brought up, well cared for children, with their individual needs catered for on an essential and holistic level.

My parents would spend half an hour each evening with me doing home work, reading etc on a one to one level, to do that with 8 would simply take all night (how do you watch the Jerry kyle repeats or xfactor or for that matter get on with having more kids?)

To have 8 kids is socially and morally irresponsible in my opinion!

Really must respond here; as has been correctly verified, the home in question is a typically average (council?) semi, of perhaps three or four bedrooms. So pretty crowded by all accounts. Then we have seven kids, bored, looking for something to do, and maybe, just as we did as kids, liked starting little fires, maybe even indoors. But this would not make a good story, but to say someone targeted them sounds much better in the papers. It doesn't look like the sort of place that anyone would want to single out a house for attack, unless there is something going on that we have not been privy to. But why would anyone, who thinks they are being targeted, want to make it public? And if the gentleman of the house is unable to work, do you think that having child after child will help his situation? I did not say that the children are all borne of the lady in question, but if not, why is there not mention of children from previous partnerships? Without clarification, one can only read into what is written as being factual. And do they really need so many dogs, come on, one or two would suffice for the kids, feeding them and exercising them must be a full time job for someone. To conclude, I take the assumption that it is yet another socially incapable family looking to get their names in the paper, as they are want to do.

ablueroom wrote:
"To summarise; people who work regardless of their job are worth bothering over while the rest are a leech to society" Really? A breadwinner who's lost his or her job through no fault of his own (I'll use his for brevity) is a leech? Say he cannot work because of debilatating illness - cancer, MS for example, or oestoarthritis, or perhaps he lost his income due to a domino effect of company failures, or perhaps he had an accident that pulled the rug from beneath his feet - so, in your view, that's it, he's become a parasite leeching off the more fortunate who have yet to have some bad luck? What an absurd view! Shall we start praying to effigies and burning witches again?

bad luck is bull, crap happens but you just got to pick yourself up and keep going. i was self-employed and when the recession hit i had to shut down. i went out and got a job. it's not hard, it's only hard if you go and blame the polish and foreigners for stealing jobs, thing is they do the job their employed to do. It may not be the job you want as i went from landscaping to dealing with shoplifters which is a bit of a wage drop, to be fair i'd earn more if i claimed benefits. So can't use losing a job as an excuse. If he's on benefits because he has his illness he is having more children to increase his benefit. plain and simple. If your not working you shouldn't have children as you cannot look after them without other people paying for them, that's us tax paying people. Also if you'd watch the news there's been a wave of fires involving large families were one parent has set fire to their own house. Maybe they realized they couldn't afford to look after their kids in the end.

davidjb wrote:

ablueroom wrote:
"To summarise; people who work regardless of their job are worth bothering over while the rest are a leech to society" Really? A breadwinner who's lost his or her job through no fault of his own (I'll use his for brevity) is a leech? Say he cannot work because of debilatating illness - cancer, MS for example, or oestoarthritis, or perhaps he lost his income due to a domino effect of company failures, or perhaps he had an accident that pulled the rug from beneath his feet - so, in your view, that's it, he's become a parasite leeching off the more fortunate who have yet to have some bad luck? What an absurd view! Shall we start praying to effigies and burning witches again?

bad luck is bull, crap happens but you just got to pick yourself up and keep going. i was self-employed and when the recession hit i had to shut down. i went out and got a job. it's not hard, it's only hard if you go and blame the polish and foreigners for stealing jobs, thing is they do the job their employed to do. It may not be the job you want as i went from landscaping to dealing with shoplifters which is a bit of a wage drop, to be fair i'd earn more if i claimed benefits. So can't use losing a job as an excuse. If he's on benefits because he has his illness he is having more children to increase his benefit. plain and simple. If your not working you shouldn't have children as you cannot look after them without other people paying for them, that's us tax paying people. Also if you'd watch the news there's been a wave of fires involving large families were one parent has set fire to their own house. Maybe they realized they couldn't afford to look after their kids in the end.

You really are an idiot, and an idiot with a huge chip on your shoulder. Lets have a look at the nonsense you spout - seems you don't agree with unemployment benefit, a welfare that's been around for around 100 years give or take but as a security guy, you think this benefit should be removed? Workers that work hard and contribute to their towns via local taxes, contribute to the country's welfare and security via taxes, contribute to the UK and global economy by buying goods, travelling, creating routes of commerce across the world, contribute to health and welfare of others via National Insurance, that support their families, support charities, take pride in themselves, their homes and their neighbourhoods - they should just be cast on the scrapheap with no payback should they, no safety net? Thanks for all you did while you were working and contributing, but now you lost your job, you're worthless, out of work and a scrote - don't expect anything from us! You're a top guy davidjb, a top guy - people like you find their own level in life. Your accusations regarding the Robinsons seem to be quite well informed by the way? I assume you know something the rest don't?

ablueroom wrote:
"To summarise; people who work regardless of their job are worth bothering over while the rest are a leech to society" Really? A breadwinner who's lost his or her job through no fault of his own (I'll use his for brevity) is a leech? Say he cannot work because of debilatating illness - cancer, MS for example, or oestoarthritis, or perhaps he lost his income due to a domino effect of company failures, or perhaps he had an accident that pulled the rug from beneath his feet - so, in your view, that's it, he's become a parasite leeching off the more fortunate who have yet to have some bad luck? What an absurd view! Shall we start praying to effigies and burning witches again?

I don't think some of these people have ever stopped!

berushka wrote:
Really must respond here; as has been correctly verified, the home in question is a typically average (council?) semi, of perhaps three or four bedrooms. So pretty crowded by all accounts. Then we have seven kids, bored, looking for something to do, and maybe, just as we did as kids, liked starting little fires, maybe even indoors. But this would not make a good story, but to say someone targeted them sounds much better in the papers. It doesn't look like the sort of place that anyone would want to single out a house for attack, unless there is something going on that we have not been privy to. But why would anyone, who thinks they are being targeted, want to make it public? And if the gentleman of the house is unable to work, do you think that having child after child will help his situation? I did not say that the children are all borne of the lady in question, but if not, why is there not mention of children from previous partnerships? Without clarification, one can only read into what is written as being factual. And do they really need so many dogs, come on, one or two would suffice for the kids, feeding them and exercising them must be a full time job for someone. To conclude, I take the assumption that it is yet another socially incapable family looking to get their names in the paper, as they are want to do.

So now you've stopped dispensing your wisdom about people's (according to you) lifestyle diseases, you're solving crimes on behalf of Bolton CID by making wild accusations and assumptions and taking an unhealthy interest in the type of accommodation people live in to judge them!

Perhaps the family could send you the coat they could make out of their puppies so you won't have to worry about them feeding them.

Would you like me to send you a picture of my house so you can give your expert analysis into my level of overcrowding, fitness to look after my family and criminal tendencies?

ablueroom wrote:

lindlandl wrote:

ablueroom wrote:
Well Lindlandl, the address is given and if you'd bothered to look at Maps or similar, you would have seen the house. I think the detractors are on fairly safe ground here.

So all people who live in whatever type of housing you weirdly decided to look up are on benefits and so deserve to have their house set on fire? Interesting if very worrying.

Remarkably and weirdly Aldiland or whatever your name is, you too cannot read basic English. I still haven't made any comment for or against the Robinsons or any family of any size other than parents should be able to provide for their kids. I decided rather than just spout off nonsense about the houses on St Andrews Road, I'd take the trouble to look - perhaps you should have done the same and you could have given a more informed view. Beruska was perfectly correct out the size of the house, you were not - it's that simple, and Frank is still a nob.

I didn't look because I was reading about a family whose lives were endangered, not seeking to judge them from where they happen to live. I have no trouble in reading basic Engllish, but I don't make a basic story into an elaborate web of nonsense. I think I 'll leave that to the people who, from their vicious ramblings, are twisted enough to be more outraged by the possibility that someone is receiving benefits than the possibility that they and their children could have died in an arson attack.

ablueroom wrote:

davidjb wrote:

ablueroom wrote:
"To summarise; people who work regardless of their job are worth bothering over while the rest are a leech to society" Really? A breadwinner who's lost his or her job through no fault of his own (I'll use his for brevity) is a leech? Say he cannot work because of debilatating illness - cancer, MS for example, or oestoarthritis, or perhaps he lost his income due to a domino effect of company failures, or perhaps he had an accident that pulled the rug from beneath his feet - so, in your view, that's it, he's become a parasite leeching off the more fortunate who have yet to have some bad luck? What an absurd view! Shall we start praying to effigies and burning witches again?

bad luck is bull, crap happens but you just got to pick yourself up and keep going. i was self-employed and when the recession hit i had to shut down. i went out and got a job. it's not hard, it's only hard if you go and blame the polish and foreigners for stealing jobs, thing is they do the job their employed to do. It may not be the job you want as i went from landscaping to dealing with shoplifters which is a bit of a wage drop, to be fair i'd earn more if i claimed benefits. So can't use losing a job as an excuse. If he's on benefits because he has his illness he is having more children to increase his benefit. plain and simple. If your not working you shouldn't have children as you cannot look after them without other people paying for them, that's us tax paying people. Also if you'd watch the news there's been a wave of fires involving large families were one parent has set fire to their own house. Maybe they realized they couldn't afford to look after their kids in the end.

You really are an idiot, and an idiot with a huge chip on your shoulder. Lets have a look at the nonsense you spout - seems you don't agree with unemployment benefit, a welfare that's been around for around 100 years give or take but as a security guy, you think this benefit should be removed? Workers that work hard and contribute to their towns via local taxes, contribute to the country's welfare and security via taxes, contribute to the UK and global economy by buying goods, travelling, creating routes of commerce across the world, contribute to health and welfare of others via National Insurance, that support their families, support charities, take pride in themselves, their homes and their neighbourhoods - they should just be cast on the scrapheap with no payback should they, no safety net? Thanks for all you did while you were working and contributing, but now you lost your job, you're worthless, out of work and a scrote - don't expect anything from us! You're a top guy davidjb, a top guy - people like you find their own level in life. Your accusations regarding the Robinsons seem to be quite well informed by the way? I assume you know something the rest don't?

As i said earlier, people on benefits should have to do unpaid work equating to how much their benefit is. if they have to 40 hours of litter picking a week to equate to their benefit at minimum wage then at least they have earned their keep. No excuses. It's unskilled labour, it's a job and they still get the same money they did before. Too many people sit around blaming foreigners or the fact there's no jobs going, oh there's jobs, there not exactly luxury but a jobs a job. I should have the right to be able to choose who i pay tax for, after all i did earn it.

lindlandl wrote:

berushka wrote:
Really must respond here; as has been correctly verified, the home in question is a typically average (council?) semi, of perhaps three or four bedrooms. So pretty crowded by all accounts. Then we have seven kids, bored, looking for something to do, and maybe, just as we did as kids, liked starting little fires, maybe even indoors. But this would not make a good story, but to say someone targeted them sounds much better in the papers. It doesn't look like the sort of place that anyone would want to single out a house for attack, unless there is something going on that we have not been privy to. But why would anyone, who thinks they are being targeted, want to make it public? And if the gentleman of the house is unable to work, do you think that having child after child will help his situation? I did not say that the children are all borne of the lady in question, but if not, why is there not mention of children from previous partnerships? Without clarification, one can only read into what is written as being factual. And do they really need so many dogs, come on, one or two would suffice for the kids, feeding them and exercising them must be a full time job for someone. To conclude, I take the assumption that it is yet another socially incapable family looking to get their names in the paper, as they are want to do.

So now you've stopped dispensing your wisdom about people's (according to you) lifestyle diseases, you're solving crimes on behalf of Bolton CID by making wild accusations and assumptions and taking an unhealthy interest in the type of accommodation people live in to judge them!

Perhaps the family could send you the coat they could make out of their puppies so you won't have to worry about them feeding them.

Would you like me to send you a picture of my house so you can give your expert analysis into my level of overcrowding, fitness to look after my family and criminal tendencies?

Again liddlelamb you seem to have a problem with Berushka being correct - is it unreasonable to assume that a three/four bed house containing nine people and a few dogs would be over-crowded by normal UK standards? I don't think it is, I think it's a perfectly plausible assertion. What's unhealthy about it? It's a perfectly reasonable, informed conclusion? Berushka's comment regarding who started the fire is purely conjecture, as is your opinion of who lit the match. Remember, an argument from personal incredulity is no argument whatsoever. Were you just born knowing everybody else is wrong if they don't agree with you?

davidjb wrote:

ablueroom wrote:

davidjb wrote:

ablueroom wrote:
"To summarise; people who work regardless of their job are worth bothering over while the rest are a leech to society" Really? A breadwinner who's lost his or her job through no fault of his own (I'll use his for brevity) is a leech? Say he cannot work because of debilatating illness - cancer, MS for example, or oestoarthritis, or perhaps he lost his income due to a domino effect of company failures, or perhaps he had an accident that pulled the rug from beneath his feet - so, in your view, that's it, he's become a parasite leeching off the more fortunate who have yet to have some bad luck? What an absurd view! Shall we start praying to effigies and burning witches again?

bad luck is bull, crap happens but you just got to pick yourself up and keep going. i was self-employed and when the recession hit i had to shut down. i went out and got a job. it's not hard, it's only hard if you go and blame the polish and foreigners for stealing jobs, thing is they do the job their employed to do. It may not be the job you want as i went from landscaping to dealing with shoplifters which is a bit of a wage drop, to be fair i'd earn more if i claimed benefits. So can't use losing a job as an excuse. If he's on benefits because he has his illness he is having more children to increase his benefit. plain and simple. If your not working you shouldn't have children as you cannot look after them without other people paying for them, that's us tax paying people. Also if you'd watch the news there's been a wave of fires involving large families were one parent has set fire to their own house. Maybe they realized they couldn't afford to look after their kids in the end.

You really are an idiot, and an idiot with a huge chip on your shoulder. Lets have a look at the nonsense you spout - seems you don't agree with unemployment benefit, a welfare that's been around for around 100 years give or take but as a security guy, you think this benefit should be removed? Workers that work hard and contribute to their towns via local taxes, contribute to the country's welfare and security via taxes, contribute to the UK and global economy by buying goods, travelling, creating routes of commerce across the world, contribute to health and welfare of others via National Insurance, that support their families, support charities, take pride in themselves, their homes and their neighbourhoods - they should just be cast on the scrapheap with no payback should they, no safety net? Thanks for all you did while you were working and contributing, but now you lost your job, you're worthless, out of work and a scrote - don't expect anything from us! You're a top guy davidjb, a top guy - people like you find their own level in life. Your accusations regarding the Robinsons seem to be quite well informed by the way? I assume you know something the rest don't?

As i said earlier, people on benefits should have to do unpaid work equating to how much their benefit is. if they have to 40 hours of litter picking a week to equate to their benefit at minimum wage then at least they have earned their keep. No excuses. It's unskilled labour, it's a job and they still get the same money they did before. Too many people sit around blaming foreigners or the fact there's no jobs going, oh there's jobs, there not exactly luxury but a jobs a job. I should have the right to be able to choose who i pay tax for, after all i did earn it.

I agree with you on this point, if a person's able to do something of benefit to get benefits, then that person should do so either voluntarily or otherwise. Nothing wrong with that view at all.

ablueroom wrote:

lindlandl wrote:

berushka wrote:
Really must respond here; as has been correctly verified, the home in question is a typically average (council?) semi, of perhaps three or four bedrooms. So pretty crowded by all accounts. Then we have seven kids, bored, looking for something to do, and maybe, just as we did as kids, liked starting little fires, maybe even indoors. But this would not make a good story, but to say someone targeted them sounds much better in the papers. It doesn't look like the sort of place that anyone would want to single out a house for attack, unless there is something going on that we have not been privy to. But why would anyone, who thinks they are being targeted, want to make it public? And if the gentleman of the house is unable to work, do you think that having child after child will help his situation? I did not say that the children are all borne of the lady in question, but if not, why is there not mention of children from previous partnerships? Without clarification, one can only read into what is written as being factual. And do they really need so many dogs, come on, one or two would suffice for the kids, feeding them and exercising them must be a full time job for someone. To conclude, I take the assumption that it is yet another socially incapable family looking to get their names in the paper, as they are want to do.

So now you've stopped dispensing your wisdom about people's (according to you) lifestyle diseases, you're solving crimes on behalf of Bolton CID by making wild accusations and assumptions and taking an unhealthy interest in the type of accommodation people live in to judge them!

Perhaps the family could send you the coat they could make out of their puppies so you won't have to worry about them feeding them.

Would you like me to send you a picture of my house so you can give your expert analysis into my level of overcrowding, fitness to look after my family and criminal tendencies?

Again liddlelamb you seem to have a problem with Berushka being correct - is it unreasonable to assume that a three/four bed house containing nine people and a few dogs would be over-crowded by normal UK standards? I don't think it is, I think it's a perfectly plausible assertion. What's unhealthy about it? It's a perfectly reasonable, informed conclusion? Berushka's comment regarding who started the fire is purely conjecture, as is your opinion of who lit the match. Remember, an argument from personal incredulity is no argument whatsoever. Were you just born knowing everybody else is wrong if they don't agree with you?

Yes, littlelamb, you do seem to have an air that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Tell me honestly, do you think that a four bedroomed house is adequate for eight children, ten animals and two parents? I certainly do not think so; I am fortunate to live in a very large house, with seventeen rooms plus garage and two hectares of garden. There are two children, both in their teens, my wife and I, three fish, a snake and two geckos, and we need all this space to get out of each others' way once in a while. That is, however, irrelevant. What is relevant is that I fear this family is grossly overcrowded, obviously financially hampered, and I dare say the poor mother is also under severe stress, with so many children, each going through the various stages of growing up, each stage bringing its own problems. Ask any Mother who has more than one child, yourself for instance, and you will hear the same story, 'they drive me to despair sometimes'. Look at the facts as afar as we know them, and tell me why you think someone is really targeting this particular family. It doesn't take a degree in social psychology to see this story is covering much more than is being told, but what do I know, I am only a Doctor of Medicine.

ablueroom wrote:

lindlandl wrote:

berushka wrote:
Really must respond here; as has been correctly verified, the home in question is a typically average (council?) semi, of perhaps three or four bedrooms. So pretty crowded by all accounts. Then we have seven kids, bored, looking for something to do, and maybe, just as we did as kids, liked starting little fires, maybe even indoors. But this would not make a good story, but to say someone targeted them sounds much better in the papers. It doesn't look like the sort of place that anyone would want to single out a house for attack, unless there is something going on that we have not been privy to. But why would anyone, who thinks they are being targeted, want to make it public? And if the gentleman of the house is unable to work, do you think that having child after child will help his situation? I did not say that the children are all borne of the lady in question, but if not, why is there not mention of children from previous partnerships? Without clarification, one can only read into what is written as being factual. And do they really need so many dogs, come on, one or two would suffice for the kids, feeding them and exercising them must be a full time job for someone. To conclude, I take the assumption that it is yet another socially incapable family looking to get their names in the paper, as they are want to do.

So now you've stopped dispensing your wisdom about people's (according to you) lifestyle diseases, you're solving crimes on behalf of Bolton CID by making wild accusations and assumptions and taking an unhealthy interest in the type of accommodation people live in to judge them!

Perhaps the family could send you the coat they could make out of their puppies so you won't have to worry about them feeding them.

Would you like me to send you a picture of my house so you can give your expert analysis into my level of overcrowding, fitness to look after my family and criminal tendencies?

Again liddlelamb you seem to have a problem with Berushka being correct - is it unreasonable to assume that a three/four bed house containing nine people and a few dogs would be over-crowded by normal UK standards? I don't think it is, I think it's a perfectly plausible assertion. What's unhealthy about it? It's a perfectly reasonable, informed conclusion? Berushka's comment regarding who started the fire is purely conjecture, as is your opinion of who lit the match. Remember, an argument from personal incredulity is no argument whatsoever. Were you just born knowing everybody else is wrong if they don't agree with you?

I don't have a problem with anyone being correct about anything. The point is it is irrelevant where these people live and nothing to do with anyone else or the story. From the article and even if I were to look at a picture of their house (which none of us can because there is no house number) it would not give me or anyone else valid information as to how well these people take care of their family, whether or not they work, whether or not they receive any form of benefits etc etc. if anyone else wishes to make unfounded assumptions and wild accusations based on the size and type of house someone lives in, assuming they are familiar with every house in the road, t is up to them,but it does not make them right.

I didn't say it was unhealthy to conclude that a house was overcrowded, I said I thought it unhealthy to find out where someone lives in order to be able to judge them, when it has nothing to do with the story.

How would you feel if there was a fire at your house and a stranger suggested that it was one of your children who had started it,without any evidence? I think most people would find that quite upsetting and such comments are unfounded and unhelpful at best. I have no opinion as to who caused the fire as I have no idea, as does no-one else from the information given in the story.

I didn't accuse anyone of being wrong because they don't agree with me, I pointed out they were wrong about the gentleman suffering from osteoporosis because it clearly says that he suffers from osteoarthritis and I pointed this out because there were also assumptions made about him on the incorrect basis of him suffering from osteoporosis.

I was also told that I didn't know what ostearthritis was because people aren't able to work with that condition. I don't have a problem with someone being right about that, it's simply untrue.

I have no idea what is meant by 'an argument from personal incredulity is no argument whatsoever'.

I wasn't born knowing everybody else is wrong if they don't agree with me, I was just brought up with integrity and the belief in treating other people how I would like to be treated and with no desire to join the baying mob.

Berushka, aren't you the one from the Czech Republic with big chips on your shoulders about the UK and Bolton in particular ......... thought so.

I've never seen so many judgemental people all in one go.......... To those who judged this family get a life!!!!! Just cause you think you know everything news flash you don't!!!!!!! Stop judging and actually shut up and show some respect this family has gone through enough they don't need to read all your judgements..... God knows how you'd feel if it where you in this position!!!!!

atlas123 wrote:
Live within your means, that goes for kids too... Having kids is a choice. Lots of people have none, one or two based on their financial situation and ability to work and care for those children (taking into account things like their own state of health). This is because they are reasonable responsible people. Id rather have one or two children well brought up, well cared for children, with their individual needs catered for on an essential and holistic level. My parents would spend half an hour each evening with me doing home work, reading etc on a one to one level, to do that with 8 would simply take all night (how do you watch the Jerry kyle repeats or xfactor or for that matter get on with having more kids?) To have 8 kids is socially and morally irresponsible in my opinion!

Interesting that no one picked up on this point. "To have 8 kids is socially and morally irresponsible" really? Not that long ago big families were far more commonplace than they are today in fact I'd guess more than a few of those posting on this thread came from a big family (I did and it was great)

So how did we get to a point when we think big families are socially and morally bad? It's just not true anyway - how can it be? Where's the evidence to substantiate that claim?

The fact that the majority of contributors come from a standpoint that having lots of kids is a bad thing - whether paid for from welfare or not - seems like we've lost a sense of the idea that having children is an inherently good thing.

We really do live in scary conservative reactionary times indeed

The simple fact is its the run up to bonfire night...and people just need to take the advice of the fire service...and make your home as fire safe as you can and keep escape routes as clear as possible ... well done to the family in question for having a working smoke detector it most likely saved there lives .......

Bob Shaftoe wrote:
Berushka, aren't you the one from the Czech Republic with big chips on your shoulders about the UK and Bolton in particular ......... thought so.

No chip, just fed up of reading sob stories from inadequate people who want everyone else to feel sorry for them, and Bolton has more than its' fair share.
and this from frankandbill; 'The fact that the majority of contributors come from a standpoint that having lots of kids is a bad thing - whether paid for from welfare or not - seems like we've lost a sense of the idea that having children is an inherently good thing.' Not at all, I, too, came from a big family and life was wonderful. But that was also in a time when most men worked, took good care of their families, and the population needed a boost after the losses suffered as a result of the obscene war. Today is a totally different story; the resources are not available any more to sustain unlimited families, housing is in desperate shortage, as are jobs, hospitals can hardly cope, and the welfare system is collapsing under the ever-increasing demand put on it by a society that believes benefit-claiming is the norm, as is including sick leave as part of ones annual holiday entitlement. Times have changed, and it is no longer responsible to produce endless children without being aware of the consequences in the future. From what I read all too often in the BN and statistical reports, it seems more people in Bolton are on some sort of benefit than those that are not. Times certainly have changed.

Looks like they breed dogs to supplement their income. They had some staffy pups that they sold back in February as well as the ones they're trying to sell now. Mr Robinson seems to have a problem with aggression, too, judging from his Facebook comments.

Read all the posts, great fun. :)

If you cannot afford kids, don't expect me to pay for them.

I would suspect this guy or one of his kids has upset someone ( no reason to try and set fire to them, think everyone agrees with that)

Large families like this tend to be all the same, loud, obnoxious, generally not nice.

I would love another child, but the small thing of work gets in the way!,,

As for the comment about 8 kids growing up to get jobs and pay into the system, WTF are you on, this is 8 more scroungers.

Would be interested to see if the income from his alleged puppy farm is being declared ?

This is all that is wrong with society if this family is on benefit handouts. Most hard working tax payers can not afford two children let alone the kennel food bills. Irresponsible selfish bastards, I will stake that they are claimants and will never work or pay taxes.

JustBecause wrote:
Read all the posts, great fun. :)

If you cannot afford kids, don't expect me to pay for them.

I would suspect this guy or one of his kids has upset someone ( no reason to try and set fire to them, think everyone agrees with that)

Large families like this tend to be all the same, loud, obnoxious, generally not nice.

I would love another child, but the small thing of work gets in the way!,,

As for the comment about 8 kids growing up to get jobs and pay into the system, WTF are you on, this is 8 more scroungers.

Would be interested to see if the income from his alleged puppy farm is being declared ?

I agree in full,

JustBecause wrote:
Read all the posts, great fun. :) If you cannot afford kids, don't expect me to pay for them. I would suspect this guy or one of his kids has upset someone ( no reason to try and set fire to them, think everyone agrees with that) Large families like this tend to be all the same, loud, obnoxious, generally not nice. I would love another child, but the small thing of work gets in the way!,, As for the comment about 8 kids growing up to get jobs and pay into the system, WTF are you on, this is 8 more scroungers. Would be interested to see if the income from his alleged puppy farm is being declared ?

The way we view children says something about how we view the world; and to claim these 8 kids are simply the next generation of scroungers suggests you have a fairly pessimistic misanthropic view on humanity. Who knows one of those kids might save your life in the future, or build your next home or some other similar positive act. Why the negative view? Is that what you really believe?

I don't think it's a negative view, so much as a realistic one. These children have been brought up in a workless family, with a father who thinks things can be solved by using his fists (if his facebook profile is anything to go by). You honestly think that he's instilling a great work ethic into those poor children? Or do you think that they see all the things that they can get without having to go out to work every day? You don't seriously believe this guy wants his children to become lawyers and doctors? It's great having such a caring view of people like this - but do you honestly think they'd appreciate your compassion? They'd laugh in your face. It's sweet, but it's beyond naive.

brian jones wrote:
I don't think it's a negative view, so much as a realistic one. These children have been brought up in a workless family, with a father who thinks things can be solved by using his fists (if his facebook profile is anything to go by). You honestly think that he's instilling a great work ethic into those poor children? Or do you think that they see all the things that they can get without having to go out to work every day? You don't seriously believe this guy wants his children to become lawyers and doctors? It's great having such a caring view of people like this - but do you honestly think they'd appreciate your compassion? They'd laugh in your face. It's sweet, but it's beyond naive.

Well if you see it as realistic - then that's clearly your own pessimism speaking. Kids don't always follow their parents lead - if they did there would be no lapsed catholics in the world.

And you cannot (and should not) judge the culture of a family on a few tit bits of information. You have no idea what ethics this family are engendering in their kids.

The bigger problem here is one of negative assumptions based on cultural prejudice, which has chosen to overlook the fact that this family were almost torched alive in their own home.

frankandbill wrote:

brian jones wrote:
I don't think it's a negative view, so much as a realistic one. These children have been brought up in a workless family, with a father who thinks things can be solved by using his fists (if his facebook profile is anything to go by). You honestly think that he's instilling a great work ethic into those poor children? Or do you think that they see all the things that they can get without having to go out to work every day? You don't seriously believe this guy wants his children to become lawyers and doctors? It's great having such a caring view of people like this - but do you honestly think they'd appreciate your compassion? They'd laugh in your face. It's sweet, but it's beyond naive.

Well if you see it as realistic - then that's clearly your own pessimism speaking. Kids don't always follow their parents lead - if they did there would be no lapsed catholics in the world.

And you cannot (and should not) judge the culture of a family on a few tit bits of information. You have no idea what ethics this family are engendering in their kids.

The bigger problem here is one of negative assumptions based on cultural prejudice, which has chosen to overlook the fact that this family were almost torched alive in their own home.

Do statistics suggest that children from large workless families are more likely to succeed in a good career than follow in their parents's footsteps? My understanding is that that is not the case - realism, not pessimism. I'd be delighted if those children prove me wrong. You really need to get into the real world. Believe me, they won't thank you for your compassionate, caring attitude. In fact, it's funny, you know. Your type are full of love for this family and others of their ilk, believing that they are worthy of your compassion, but the minute someone disagrees with your point of view, you become harsher - you don't care quite as much for people who share a different view. Surely, you should feel as sorry for us as you do for them?

brian jones wrote:

frankandbill wrote:

brian jones wrote:
I don't think it's a negative view, so much as a realistic one. These children have been brought up in a workless family, with a father who thinks things can be solved by using his fists (if his facebook profile is anything to go by). You honestly think that he's instilling a great work ethic into those poor children? Or do you think that they see all the things that they can get without having to go out to work every day? You don't seriously believe this guy wants his children to become lawyers and doctors? It's great having such a caring view of people like this - but do you honestly think they'd appreciate your compassion? They'd laugh in your face. It's sweet, but it's beyond naive.

Well if you see it as realistic - then that's clearly your own pessimism speaking. Kids don't always follow their parents lead - if they did there would be no lapsed catholics in the world.

And you cannot (and should not) judge the culture of a family on a few tit bits of information. You have no idea what ethics this family are engendering in their kids.

The bigger problem here is one of negative assumptions based on cultural prejudice, which has chosen to overlook the fact that this family were almost torched alive in their own home.

Do statistics suggest that children from large workless families are more likely to succeed in a good career than follow in their parents's footsteps? My understanding is that that is not the case - realism, not pessimism. I'd be delighted if those children prove me wrong. You really need to get into the real world. Believe me, they won't thank you for your compassionate, caring attitude. In fact, it's funny, you know. Your type are full of love for this family and others of their ilk, believing that they are worthy of your compassion, but the minute someone disagrees with your point of view, you become harsher - you don't care quite as much for people who share a different view. Surely, you should feel as sorry for us as you do for them?

I'm quite willing to accept that the statistics might suggest an association between poor parenting and childhood outcomes. But so what? It's a huge leap to jump from an association to a causal link - that would be to suggest all our problems are caused by our parents and problematic adults are simply passive victims of the way they were brought up.

That's probably the dominant view among those who make policy, but it doesn't necessarily make it right. In my view, to assert that kids brought up in problematic family environments will turn out to be the next generation of scally hoodies is overly deterministic, pessimistic and an insult to those kids who actually make something of their lives in the face of adversity.

But I'm no pollyanna here. If this family is a pain the arse to it's neighbours and feeds off welfare with a disregard to wider society then I'd be the 1st to condemn. No problem with that whatsoever. But the truth here is that they were very nearly torched alive in their own home and then, to compound matters, were attacked on this thread for their lifestyle - with no evidence whatsoever to suggest they deserved it.

I'm quite prepared to give this family the benefit of the doubt and not assume that, just because they have 7 kids, they are deemed less worthy than anyone else. All I ask is that, before we start condemning them based on our own pessimistic assumptions, we remember they were nearly turned into charcoal.

89 comments and MR MOAN has not had his two pence worth......

Paul-smith wrote:
89 comments and MR MOAN has not had his two pence worth......

Hahahaha lol

How about the closed minded people just be quite as there making bigger fools of themselves than they think!!!!!!!!

Their

Cjhayes wrote:
Their

well actually it's ". . . they're . . ." but i love the irony.

so Frankie, from your bloated prose I glean you think this could be just a random attack on innocents (on the assumption it was indeed an attack)? They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? As stated previously, this could have been multiple murder with multiple life sentences for the murderer - bit of a risk isn't it? I mean for me, mischief ends at putting a traffic cone on a mates car - this is attempted multiple murder of adults and minors. I admire your lone voice valiantly standing up for human lovelyness, but i'd say its more probable there's a far bigger picture to see.

If this family's home is rented from the council or an association, then there are probably rules concerning sleeping arrangements for the children, so seven divided into three means there is probably some overcrowding occurring here, unless, of course, they also sleep in the lounge and dining room, both considered as 'bedrooms' in cases of overcrowding. Whatever the situation, I must agree that children coming from problematic parents do tend to follow their example, very rarely getting out and becoming successful. I have not read anything on Facebook, but it appears that the gentleman in question has a problem with aggression, so this may turn out to be payback from someone he has been involved with. I think that the real story behind all this will not be known, because the family is probably under the casebook of welfare or social services, who will not reveal details of their clients to anyone. So here we have the BN making a story from half evidence, without the benefit of the whole picture, or at least, they are not saying all they know. So from what is written, people will obviously make assumptions. But as we have seen so many of these victim families on these pages turn out to be not exactly as what we are led to believe, it is becoming easier to spot the signs and make reasonable and accurate conclusions. By all means, Frankie and others who jump to their defence, give them the benefit of the doubt, but you must also accept the opinions of those who disagree with you. After all, they, too, can read between the lines.

ablueroom wrote:
so Frankie, from your bloated prose I glean you think this could be just a random attack on innocents (on the assumption it was indeed an attack)? They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? As stated previously, this could have been multiple murder with multiple life sentences for the murderer - bit of a risk isn't it? I mean for me, mischief ends at putting a traffic cone on a mates car - this is attempted multiple murder of adults and minors. I admire your lone voice valiantly standing up for human lovelyness, but i'd say its more probable there's a far bigger picture to see.

I've assumed nothing of the sort. I have no idea what the motive was and I totally agree there's more to the story than the article reveals...sorry - don't get what you're trying to say there?

berushka wrote:
If this family's home is rented from the council or an association, then there are probably rules concerning sleeping arrangements for the children, so seven divided into three means there is probably some overcrowding occurring here, unless, of course, they also sleep in the lounge and dining room, both considered as 'bedrooms' in cases of overcrowding. Whatever the situation, I must agree that children coming from problematic parents do tend to follow their example, very rarely getting out and becoming successful. I have not read anything on Facebook, but it appears that the gentleman in question has a problem with aggression, so this may turn out to be payback from someone he has been involved with. I think that the real story behind all this will not be known, because the family is probably under the casebook of welfare or social services, who will not reveal details of their clients to anyone. So here we have the BN making a story from half evidence, without the benefit of the whole picture, or at least, they are not saying all they know. So from what is written, people will obviously make assumptions. But as we have seen so many of these victim families on these pages turn out to be not exactly as what we are led to believe, it is becoming easier to spot the signs and make reasonable and accurate conclusions. By all means, Frankie and others who jump to their defence, give them the benefit of the doubt, but you must also accept the opinions of those who disagree with you. After all, they, too, can read between the lines.

I'll jump to anyone's defence when they're being picked on for not good reason. And plently of posters on this thread sought fit to attack them simply because of the number of kids they had and the number of animals - without knowing a single truth about the families' real circumetance or the background to the criminal act in question.

And why should anyone "accept the opinions" of those they violently disagree with? Sue I'll defend their right to hold whatever opinion you like - but I'll also reserve the right to argue back on a point of disagreement

frankandbill wrote:

ablueroom wrote: so Frankie, from your bloated prose I glean you think this could be just a random attack on innocents (on the assumption it was indeed an attack)? They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? As stated previously, this could have been multiple murder with multiple life sentences for the murderer - bit of a risk isn't it? I mean for me, mischief ends at putting a traffic cone on a mates car - this is attempted multiple murder of adults and minors. I admire your lone voice valiantly standing up for human lovelyness, but i'd say its more probable there's a far bigger picture to see.

I've assumed nothing of the sort. I have no idea what the motive was and I totally agree there's more to the story than the article reveals...sorry - don't get what you're trying to say there?

Well its quite simple, the route to a conclusion that contains the least number of incorrect assumptions is the correct one. People here are making comments based on assumptions, those assumptions are largely based on credible evidence about the house and family and taken as a whole give the correct impression, whereas your ludicrous stance is based on arrogantly assuming others haven't considered the whole story and much less tenable assumptions so there is little chance it is correct. Thats not to say it isn't correct, it's just very unlikely. If it looks, waddles and quacks like a duck, more often than not - it's a duck. I think your narcissistic, arrogant nature doesn't do you any favours - do you think everybody else is stupid?

ablueroom wrote:

frankandbill wrote:

ablueroom wrote: so Frankie, from your bloated prose I glean you think this could be just a random attack on innocents (on the assumption it was indeed an attack)? They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? As stated previously, this could have been multiple murder with multiple life sentences for the murderer - bit of a risk isn't it? I mean for me, mischief ends at putting a traffic cone on a mates car - this is attempted multiple murder of adults and minors. I admire your lone voice valiantly standing up for human lovelyness, but i'd say its more probable there's a far bigger picture to see.

I've assumed nothing of the sort. I have no idea what the motive was and I totally agree there's more to the story than the article reveals...sorry - don't get what you're trying to say there?

Well its quite simple, the route to a conclusion that contains the least number of incorrect assumptions is the correct one. People here are making comments based on assumptions, those assumptions are largely based on credible evidence about the house and family and taken as a whole give the correct impression, whereas your ludicrous stance is based on arrogantly assuming others haven't considered the whole story and much less tenable assumptions so there is little chance it is correct. Thats not to say it isn't correct, it's just very unlikely. If it looks, waddles and quacks like a duck, more often than not - it's a duck. I think your narcissistic, arrogant nature doesn't do you any favours - do you think everybody else is stupid?

very eloquently put and I couldn't agree more with you, ablueroom. It is a pity that those who disagree either see more than we do, or believe that when all is lost, there is still something to gain. Come on, Franke and others, use your common sense, look at all the details and then tell me, do you really believe this is a good honest family who are victims of a vendetta? I think not.

berushka wrote:

ablueroom wrote:

frankandbill wrote:

ablueroom wrote: so Frankie, from your bloated prose I glean you think this could be just a random attack on innocents (on the assumption it was indeed an attack)? They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? As stated previously, this could have been multiple murder with multiple life sentences for the murderer - bit of a risk isn't it? I mean for me, mischief ends at putting a traffic cone on a mates car - this is attempted multiple murder of adults and minors. I admire your lone voice valiantly standing up for human lovelyness, but i'd say its more probable there's a far bigger picture to see.

I've assumed nothing of the sort. I have no idea what the motive was and I totally agree there's more to the story than the article reveals...sorry - don't get what you're trying to say there?

Well its quite simple, the route to a conclusion that contains the least number of incorrect assumptions is the correct one. People here are making comments based on assumptions, those assumptions are largely based on credible evidence about the house and family and taken as a whole give the correct impression, whereas your ludicrous stance is based on arrogantly assuming others haven't considered the whole story and much less tenable assumptions so there is little chance it is correct. Thats not to say it isn't correct, it's just very unlikely. If it looks, waddles and quacks like a duck, more often than not - it's a duck. I think your narcissistic, arrogant nature doesn't do you any favours - do you think everybody else is stupid?

very eloquently put and I couldn't agree more with you, ablueroom. It is a pity that those who disagree either see more than we do, or believe that when all is lost, there is still something to gain. Come on, Franke and others, use your common sense, look at all the details and then tell me, do you really believe this is a good honest family who are victims of a vendetta? I think not.

No idea whether they are a good honest family - and neither do you!

Are they victims of a vendetta - well why else would someone seek to torch them alive?

Frankandbill, assume you don't live next to a family of this nature? It's not nice!

Your assumptions are simply wrong, I am a professional businessman and do not know anyone working with 8 kids, selling puppies etc, its the perfect stereotypical scumbag family.

Regardless of there lifestyle choices the arson attempt was clearly wrong.

Frankandbill, assume you don't live next to a family of this nature? It's not nice!

Your assumptions are simply wrong, I am a professional businessman and do not know anyone working with 8 kids, selling puppies etc, its the perfect stereotypical scumbag family.

Regardless of there lifestyle choices the arson attempt was clearly wrong.

ablueroom wrote:

frankandbill wrote:

ablueroom wrote: so Frankie, from your bloated prose I glean you think this could be just a random attack on innocents (on the assumption it was indeed an attack)? They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? As stated previously, this could have been multiple murder with multiple life sentences for the murderer - bit of a risk isn't it? I mean for me, mischief ends at putting a traffic cone on a mates car - this is attempted multiple murder of adults and minors. I admire your lone voice valiantly standing up for human lovelyness, but i'd say its more probable there's a far bigger picture to see.

I've assumed nothing of the sort. I have no idea what the motive was and I totally agree there's more to the story than the article reveals...sorry - don't get what you're trying to say there?

Well its quite simple, the route to a conclusion that contains the least number of incorrect assumptions is the correct one. People here are making comments based on assumptions, those assumptions are largely based on credible evidence about the house and family and taken as a whole give the correct impression, whereas your ludicrous stance is based on arrogantly assuming others haven't considered the whole story and much less tenable assumptions so there is little chance it is correct. Thats not to say it isn't correct, it's just very unlikely. If it looks, waddles and quacks like a duck, more often than not - it's a duck. I think your narcissistic, arrogant nature doesn't do you any favours - do you think everybody else is stupid?

No way have I assumed others haven't considered the whole story. I don't think anyone here is stupid - but after assimilating the limited information provided you have then gone on to put your own negative spin on the family's value set.

And narcissistic is an interesting choice of label. Well what could be more narcissistic than to look down at others in an attempt to elevate your own self esteem?

All I have done is to defend a stance. If that's narcissistic then I'll happily plead guilty as charged

JustBecause wrote:
Frankandbill, assume you don't live next to a family of this nature? It's not nice!

Your assumptions are simply wrong, I am a professional businessman and do not know anyone working with 8 kids, selling puppies etc, its the perfect stereotypical scumbag family.

Regardless of there lifestyle choices the arson attempt was clearly wrong.

Family of what nature? You have privileged insight?

As a self proclaimed professional business you obviously understand the importance of analysis in the decision making process and how many a bad decision is made on poor quality information?

So why assume the culture of this family on such dodgy insight? Maybe you're right - maybe they are low life scrounging scumbags on the make? But surely in any civilised society we give people the benefit of the doubt before convicting?

If you were called up for jury service - would you convict without studying all the fact of a case?

Truth will out. But, regardless of whatever this families personal situation is the fact remains that arson with attempt to endanger life is a vile crime that should be subject to the death penalty. Also, having a large family is not particularly an indication that you are a lazy, scrounging free loader. A certain 'royal' and his ex wife spring to mind. Only two kids and none of 'em work!

KizzyB wrote:
Truth will out. But, regardless of whatever this families personal situation is the fact remains that arson with attempt to endanger life is a vile crime that should be subject to the death penalty. Also, having a large family is not particularly an indication that you are a lazy, scrounging free loader. A certain 'royal' and his ex wife spring to mind. Only two kids and none of 'em work!

Indeed. And worth adding that big families are not intrinsically bad. I come from a family of 8 (6 living) and we all grew up fine, gt good jobs, had kids of our own etc etc. My father came from a family of 10, mainly lads who fought in wars, got jobs had kids paid taxes etc. My late uncle was a wonderful man who fathered 8 of he nicest children you could wish for. The happiest family you could imagine who lived in a 3/4 bed terraced house in Heaton. Not that long ago It wasn't unusual for families to have 6,7 or 8 kids - especially if they were Catholics! No one thought bad of the family; quite the opposite actually. When my uncle would come to visit with more "news", we were delighted for him and the smile on his face was a pleasure to see.

So how the hell, in the space of just a generation, have we got from that to the cultural demonisation of large families?

frankandbill wrote:

JustBecause wrote:
Frankandbill, assume you don't live next to a family of this nature? It's not nice!

Your assumptions are simply wrong, I am a professional businessman and do not know anyone working with 8 kids, selling puppies etc, its the perfect stereotypical scumbag family.

Regardless of there lifestyle choices the arson attempt was clearly wrong.

Family of what nature? You have privileged insight?

As a self proclaimed professional business you obviously understand the importance of analysis in the decision making process and how many a bad decision is made on poor quality information?

So why assume the culture of this family on such dodgy insight? Maybe you're right - maybe they are low life scrounging scumbags on the make? But surely in any civilised society we give people the benefit of the doubt before convicting?

If you were called up for jury service - would you convict without studying all the fact of a case?

There are plenty of facts, and far more are on the negative side than the positive. Are you a player of the pink oboe?

ablueroom wrote:

frankandbill wrote:

JustBecause wrote:
Frankandbill, assume you don't live next to a family of this nature? It's not nice!

Your assumptions are simply wrong, I am a professional businessman and do not know anyone working with 8 kids, selling puppies etc, its the perfect stereotypical scumbag family.

Regardless of there lifestyle choices the arson attempt was clearly wrong.

Family of what nature? You have privileged insight?

As a self proclaimed professional business you obviously understand the importance of analysis in the decision making process and how many a bad decision is made on poor quality information?

So why assume the culture of this family on such dodgy insight? Maybe you're right - maybe they are low life scrounging scumbags on the make? But surely in any civilised society we give people the benefit of the doubt before convicting?

If you were called up for jury service - would you convict without studying all the fact of a case?

There are plenty of facts, and far more are on the negative side than the positive. Are you a player of the pink oboe?

Is that all you've got left?

Sad when you've been argued to defeat your final parting shot is to fling a homophobic insult at me.

Exposed yourself there lad

Poor quality of information? Are you out of your mind? Where is the positive evidence to substantiate the Utopian view of this family you hold so dear? I see none, not a jot of evidence to show this family in a positive light yet you clutch at the straws so tightly? We all know there are two sides to every story, except in this case there is no indication of a positive side whatsoever, so you cannot blame the detractors for drawing the conclusions they draw. Thanks for going to such great lengths to qualify my opening statement on this thread, it is much appreciated.

frankandbill wrote:

ablueroom wrote:

frankandbill wrote:

JustBecause wrote:
Frankandbill, assume you don't live next to a family of this nature? It's not nice!

Your assumptions are simply wrong, I am a professional businessman and do not know anyone working with 8 kids, selling puppies etc, its the perfect stereotypical scumbag family.

Regardless of there lifestyle choices the arson attempt was clearly wrong.

Family of what nature? You have privileged insight?

As a self proclaimed professional business you obviously understand the importance of analysis in the decision making process and how many a bad decision is made on poor quality information?

So why assume the culture of this family on such dodgy insight? Maybe you're right - maybe they are low life scrounging scumbags on the make? But surely in any civilised society we give people the benefit of the doubt before convicting?

If you were called up for jury service - would you convict without studying all the fact of a case?

There are plenty of facts, and far more are on the negative side than the positive. Are you a player of the pink oboe?

Is that all you've got left?

Sad when you've been argued to defeat your final parting shot is to fling a homophobic insult at me.

Exposed yourself there lad

So, you don't like homosexuals? You're insulted? Fair enough - someone called you a biggot earlier i think, they also had a point.

You are gay though aren't you? Fair play. I noticed the androgeny in your name - your attitude shows the hallmarks of a vocal minority rather than a silent majority without axes to grind. My partner has an adrogenous name, well in its short form anyway, but i don't feel the need to make a point of it - you clearly do. Sam Cooke beat you to it though. Anyway, the argument is up above in print - people can make up there own view about who was "defeated," but that said - you were the only one arguing.

ablueroom wrote:
Poor quality of information? Are you out of your mind? Where is the positive evidence to substantiate the Utopian view of this family you hold so dear? I see none, not a jot of evidence to show this family in a positive light yet you clutch at the straws so tightly? We all know there are two sides to every story, except in this case there is no indication of a positive side whatsoever, so you cannot blame the detractors for drawing the conclusions they draw. Thanks for going to such great lengths to qualify my opening statement on this thread, it is much appreciated.

I do not have a utopian view of this family at all. I have no opinion either way as it happens. I have not claimed the family in question have any positive virtue whatsoever. I just refuse to condemn without evidence and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt - as I hope others would afford me if I found myself in a similar situation.

We either choose to live in a civilised tolerant society or descend into tyranny - it's our choice,

PS: If you wish to debate further fine but apologise for your blatant homophobic insult or this stops right now

Why are you insulted? You're gay, that's fine by me - it informs my view of your stance.

berushka wrote:

ablueroom wrote:

lindlandl wrote:

berushka wrote:
Really must respond here; as has been correctly verified, the home in question is a typically average (council?) semi, of perhaps three or four bedrooms. So pretty crowded by all accounts. Then we have seven kids, bored, looking for something to do, and maybe, just as we did as kids, liked starting little fires, maybe even indoors. But this would not make a good story, but to say someone targeted them sounds much better in the papers. It doesn't look like the sort of place that anyone would want to single out a house for attack, unless there is something going on that we have not been privy to. But why would anyone, who thinks they are being targeted, want to make it public? And if the gentleman of the house is unable to work, do you think that having child after child will help his situation? I did not say that the children are all borne of the lady in question, but if not, why is there not mention of children from previous partnerships? Without clarification, one can only read into what is written as being factual. And do they really need so many dogs, come on, one or two would suffice for the kids, feeding them and exercising them must be a full time job for someone. To conclude, I take the assumption that it is yet another socially incapable family looking to get their names in the paper, as they are want to do.

So now you've stopped dispensing your wisdom about people's (according to you) lifestyle diseases, you're solving crimes on behalf of Bolton CID by making wild accusations and assumptions and taking an unhealthy interest in the type of accommodation people live in to judge them!

Perhaps the family could send you the coat they could make out of their puppies so you won't have to worry about them feeding them.

Would you like me to send you a picture of my house so you can give your expert analysis into my level of overcrowding, fitness to look after my family and criminal tendencies?

Again liddlelamb you seem to have a problem with Berushka being correct - is it unreasonable to assume that a three/four bed house containing nine people and a few dogs would be over-crowded by normal UK standards? I don't think it is, I think it's a perfectly plausible assertion. What's unhealthy about it? It's a perfectly reasonable, informed conclusion? Berushka's comment regarding who started the fire is purely conjecture, as is your opinion of who lit the match. Remember, an argument from personal incredulity is no argument whatsoever. Were you just born knowing everybody else is wrong if they don't agree with you?

Yes, littlelamb, you do seem to have an air that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Tell me honestly, do you think that a four bedroomed house is adequate for eight children, ten animals and two parents? I certainly do not think so; I am fortunate to live in a very large house, with seventeen rooms plus garage and two hectares of garden. There are two children, both in their teens, my wife and I, three fish, a snake and two geckos, and we need all this space to get out of each others' way once in a while. That is, however, irrelevant. What is relevant is that I fear this family is grossly overcrowded, obviously financially hampered, and I dare say the poor mother is also under severe stress, with so many children, each going through the various stages of growing up, each stage bringing its own problems. Ask any Mother who has more than one child, yourself for instance, and you will hear the same story, 'they drive me to despair sometimes'. Look at the facts as afar as we know them, and tell me why you think someone is really targeting this particular family. It doesn't take a degree in social psychology to see this story is covering much more than is being told, but what do I know, I am only a Doctor of Medicine.

hi tell you what i will be one of your pets if i get to have a big room to myself just to fill it ha ha .tell you what you could share with the family involved could make two house's with space you got & becarefull if govement knows you may have to pay for the space you have to fill surly the is some person who as entered uk looming for a room ..

ablueroom wrote:
Why are you insulted? You're gay, that's fine by me - it informs my view of your stance.

Well you've made plenty of assumptions during the course of this discussion and have arrived at some pretty controversial conclusions based on those assumptions.

And now you assume I'm gay, and that "informs you of my stance". Well any half wit could quickly point out that there are plenty of guy guys who would agree with you and disagree with me...because like the rest of us gay guys don't all think the same.

But if I was gay, and came out on here and said I was gay, that would help you pigeon hole me into a certain category of people in your mind right? And in your head gay people are idiots right - because I'm an idiot and I sound gay ergo gay people are idiots. So now you can sit back with smug look on face and think you're not gay, you're smart, you're not low life scum with 8 kids living off welfare - then look in the mirror and remind yourself how wonderful you really are.

Is ablueroom a cover for Dorian Gray?

frankandbill wrote:

JustBecause wrote:
Frankandbill, assume you don't live next to a family of this nature? It's not nice!

Your assumptions are simply wrong, I am a professional businessman and do not know anyone working with 8 kids, selling puppies etc, its the perfect stereotypical scumbag family.

Regardless of there lifestyle choices the arson attempt was clearly wrong.

Family of what nature? You have privileged insight?

As a self proclaimed professional business you obviously understand the importance of analysis in the decision making process and how many a bad decision is made on poor quality information?

So why assume the culture of this family on such dodgy insight? Maybe you're right - maybe they are low life scrounging scumbags on the make? But surely in any civilised society we give people the benefit of the doubt before convicting?

If you were called up for jury service - would you convict without studying all the fact of a case?

Seriously, your side of the debate simply will not hold water, sure 30-40 years ago families were large, we had community, neighbours, family, morals, etc.

News flash! They are no longer the norm ! They are the exception.

Large families of this nature that is based on the info at hand,, small house, dog breeder, violent episodes, etc. are key indicators of a "problem" family.

As I have said I would love 8 kids, but there is no way on gods earth I could afford it (and I earn a lot of money)

I feel sorry for the kids.

Berushka wrote:

"Yes, littlelamb, you do seem to have an air that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Tell me honestly, do you think that a four bedroomed house is adequate for eight children, ten animals and two parents? I certainly do not think so; I am fortunate to live in a very large house, with seventeen rooms plus garage and two hectares of garden. There are two children, both in their teens, my wife and I, three fish, a snake and two geckos, and we need all this space to get out of each others' way once in a while. That is, however, irrelevant. What is relevant is that I fear this family is grossly overcrowded, obviously financially hampered, and I dare say the poor mother is also under severe stress, with so many children, each going through the various stages of growing up, each stage bringing its own problems. Ask any Mother who has more than one child, yourself for instance, and you will hear the same story, 'they drive me to despair sometimes'. Look at the facts as afar as we know them, and tell me why you think someone is really targeting this particular family. It doesn't take a degree in social psychology to see this story is covering much more than is being told, but what do I know, I am only a Doctor of Medicine."

Me having a problem with anyone disagreeing? I am just not willing to jump to conclusions on the basis of limited information in a newspaper. Being a Doctor of Medicine does not qualify you to invent information not contained in the article. I am not saying anyone is wrong, precisely because I have no way of knowing and neither do you unless you know this family. Indeed, it is you who seems to have a problem with me refusing to jump to conclusions. Why does that bother you so much?

I have no idea of the size of the house from the article. I do not regard it as my business whether they are overcrowded or not. Perhaps that is a matter for social services. I would not choose to have such a large family and I regard it as selfish, irresponsible and antisocial if it was a lifestyle choice funded on benefits. The point is that,from the article,I have no idea about the circumstances of this family so would not jump to conclusions. That is how I operate and do not understand why this is offensive to you. I would not choose to breed dogs in my home and believe that there should be a lot more controls on this activity, from an animal welfare point of view and because rehoming centres seem to be stuffed to the gunnels with neglected, unwanted and mistreated animals. I have no way of knowing from the article, however, the circumstances of their dog breeding activities and whether they are responsible or irresponsible.

I have no idea why the family is being targeted and, from the article, neither do you. Whatever the reason for the attempted fire, it is wrong, criminal and evil, whoever has done it. As to that I have a completely open mind. I would rather the police deal with it as they are far better qualified and experienced to come up with lines of enquiry than I am. If others think that their qualifications, including in medicine, qualify them to jump to conclusions on the basis of limited information in a newspaper article that's up to them. Personally, I don't care what you think, it doesn't bother me. It is you who has a problem with people not agreeing with you.

I am very happy for you that you have a very large house with 17 rooms a garage and 2 hectares and I imagine that, indeed, your family does need this for the reasons you stated.

JustBecause wrote:

frankandbill wrote:

JustBecause wrote:
Frankandbill, assume you don't live next to a family of this nature? It's not nice!

Your assumptions are simply wrong, I am a professional businessman and do not know anyone working with 8 kids, selling puppies etc, its the perfect stereotypical scumbag family.

Regardless of there lifestyle choices the arson attempt was clearly wrong.

Family of what nature? You have privileged insight?

As a self proclaimed professional business you obviously understand the importance of analysis in the decision making process and how many a bad decision is made on poor quality information?

So why assume the culture of this family on such dodgy insight? Maybe you're right - maybe they are low life scrounging scumbags on the make? But surely in any civilised society we give people the benefit of the doubt before convicting?

If you were called up for jury service - would you convict without studying all the fact of a case?

Seriously, your side of the debate simply will not hold water, sure 30-40 years ago families were large, we had community, neighbours, family, morals, etc.

News flash! They are no longer the norm ! They are the exception.

Large families of this nature that is based on the info at hand,, small house, dog breeder, violent episodes, etc. are key indicators of a "problem" family.

As I have said I would love 8 kids, but there is no way on gods earth I could afford it (and I earn a lot of money)

I feel sorry for the kids.

Forgive me but that's sounds like your own pessimistic consciousness speaking there.

But is your vision really fair? or just the product of wall to wall media stuffing our faces full of demons in the form of problem families, feral children, drug induced riot hungry hooded youth, football thuggery and the like.

The truth is out there..and the loss of community is real - I accept that - but is it all as bad as you claim? Or is the reality that the vast majority of people just get on with their lives, work, struggle and bring up their kids in the best way they see fit - like it's been for generations before us?

frankandbill wrote:

PDY wrote:

frankandbill wrote:
Dear PDY & Nibelung

Excuse me but what business is it of yours to judge people by how many kids they have, what car they drive and what pets they keep?

Just because some people have different lifestyles to your own, does that mean they are to be criticised? What sort of illiberal world would you have us live in?

This story could have been similar to the recent Harlow fire deaths, with the horriffic and harrowing images that etched themselves into the public psyche. And you guys have the temerity to ignore the horrific near miss and focus on your own prejudiced perceptions of what a "normal" family should look like.

Take a look in the mirror

It is my business when the family's personal situation is put into the public domain. The family could have asked for anonimity, which would have been the best thing, but chose to make a public comment. If you think that 8 children and 10 dogs in a house where the father obviously isn't working because of his osteoporosis represents anything other than "not normal" then you are part of the same problem. This family, undoubtedly worthy of sympathy for the situation they find themselves in because of the attack, are typical of the kind of " it's our right to live as we please" brigade who do as they please as long as the rest of us " normal people" pay for their excesses. They are totally irresponsible and I bet you wouldn't want to have your tea at their place anytime soon.

Did the family go out of their way to put this story into the public domain? Did they issue a press release with pre-prepared statements in the hope that the media would take the bait? Of course not. The BEN got the story and, as reporters do, managed to get a quote from the victims - and perhaps the family believed that by allowing the BEN to cover the story, that they might help stop the attacks - would you do any different in their circumstance?

And if you wish to judge anyone that falls outside of a social norm you deem to be within acceptable tolerance then that suggests you are a of a fairly bigoted, illiberal, authoritarian mindset.

You assert the family are "typical of the kind of....brigade" and that us "normal people" pay for their excesses - so you have some insight into their personal circumstances do you? Or are you just assuming things and drawing your own narrow minded bigoted conclusions?

What's really worrying here is the fact that you feel sufficiently confident to put your reactionary thoughts out there into the public domain. But I for one am glad you did - as it allows others to see clearly where you stand and provides an opportunity for others to come right back at you.

If you are not in a position to pay for the upkeep of even one child you shouldn't have any let alone eight, if you think this a fair and responsible thing to do then you are one deluded politically correct and i bet multiculturalist dogooder !!

davoovad wrote:

frankandbill wrote:

PDY wrote:

frankandbill wrote:
Dear PDY & Nibelung

Excuse me but what business is it of yours to judge people by how many kids they have, what car they drive and what pets they keep?

Just because some people have different lifestyles to your own, does that mean they are to be criticised? What sort of illiberal world would you have us live in?

This story could have been similar to the recent Harlow fire deaths, with the horriffic and harrowing images that etched themselves into the public psyche. And you guys have the temerity to ignore the horrific near miss and focus on your own prejudiced perceptions of what a "normal" family should look like.

Take a look in the mirror

It is my business when the family's personal situation is put into the public domain. The family could have asked for anonimity, which would have been the best thing, but chose to make a public comment. If you think that 8 children and 10 dogs in a house where the father obviously isn't working because of his osteoporosis represents anything other than "not normal" then you are part of the same problem. This family, undoubtedly worthy of sympathy for the situation they find themselves in because of the attack, are typical of the kind of " it's our right to live as we please" brigade who do as they please as long as the rest of us " normal people" pay for their excesses. They are totally irresponsible and I bet you wouldn't want to have your tea at their place anytime soon.

Did the family go out of their way to put this story into the public domain? Did they issue a press release with pre-prepared statements in the hope that the media would take the bait? Of course not. The BEN got the story and, as reporters do, managed to get a quote from the victims - and perhaps the family believed that by allowing the BEN to cover the story, that they might help stop the attacks - would you do any different in their circumstance?

And if you wish to judge anyone that falls outside of a social norm you deem to be within acceptable tolerance then that suggests you are a of a fairly bigoted, illiberal, authoritarian mindset.

You assert the family are "typical of the kind of....brigade" and that us "normal people" pay for their excesses - so you have some insight into their personal circumstances do you? Or are you just assuming things and drawing your own narrow minded bigoted conclusions?

What's really worrying here is the fact that you feel sufficiently confident to put your reactionary thoughts out there into the public domain. But I for one am glad you did - as it allows others to see clearly where you stand and provides an opportunity for others to come right back at you.

If you are not in a position to pay for the upkeep of even one child you shouldn't have any let alone eight, if you think this a fair and responsible thing to do then you are one deluded politically correct and i bet multiculturalist dogooder !!

No fan of political correctness nor a fan of multiculturalism as it happens. I'm no Pollyanna of bleeding heart liberal either.

But who are you to judge how many kids other people can have? What gives you that right? Would you have us all follow Chinas one child policy? To quote a well known insult - if you don't like it over here - eff off to china!

frankandbill wrote:

KizzyB wrote:
Truth will out. But, regardless of whatever this families personal situation is the fact remains that arson with attempt to endanger life is a vile crime that should be subject to the death penalty. Also, having a large family is not particularly an indication that you are a lazy, scrounging free loader. A certain 'royal' and his ex wife spring to mind. Only two kids and none of 'em work!

Indeed. And worth adding that big families are not intrinsically bad. I come from a family of 8 (6 living) and we all grew up fine, gt good jobs, had kids of our own etc etc. My father came from a family of 10, mainly lads who fought in wars, got jobs had kids paid taxes etc. My late uncle was a wonderful man who fathered 8 of he nicest children you could wish for. The happiest family you could imagine who lived in a 3/4 bed terraced house in Heaton. Not that long ago It wasn't unusual for families to have 6,7 or 8 kids - especially if they were Catholics! No one thought bad of the family; quite the opposite actually. When my uncle would come to visit with more "news", we were delighted for him and the smile on his face was a pleasure to see.

So how the hell, in the space of just a generation, have we got from that to the cultural demonisation of large families?

Yes, but as I said before, when large families were the norm, and mostly planned to offset the WWII shortage, (approximately eight hundred thousand families lost a member of their family), parents were best equipped to look after the children. I also came from a large family, and never wanted for anything, including love, time and friendship. Today, the story is far different, and large families tend to be caused by either inadequate adults behaving like rabbits or by those seeking to gain as much benefit from the state as they can, or both. Most working people simply cannot afford multiple children no matter how desperately they would wish to have them, and use restraint and common sense to avoid bringing children into the family that they are unable to provide the best for. I really do feel sorry that the children in this family, although no doubt they may be happy, will suffer from the affects resultant from lack of resources. And to answer lindlandi, in my profession I have seen many families such as this and the problems that come with them. And if you knew the topography of the residence, as I do intimately, you would have known the size and capacity of the property, so no wild guessing on my behalf.
Finally, I must be very greedy, because I also own a nice house on the Swiss border, perhaps I could let this family have it to keep their dogs?uonly for summer months. Pe

sorry, the last sentence should have read;
Finally, I must be very greedy, because I also own a nice house on the Swiss border, only for the summer months. Perhaps I could let this family have it to keep their dogs?

berushka wrote:
sorry, the last sentence should have read;
Finally, I must be very greedy, because I also own a nice house on the Swiss border, only for the summer months. Perhaps I could let this family have it to keep their dogs?

If that was in answer to me, as you stated, I certainly didn't accuse you of being greedy, nor did I suggest that you provide anything for anyone or anyone's dogs. You really have lost me with your ramblings about 17 room residences with garage and 2 hectares and summer residences 'on the Swiss border'. What you own, where it is and how big it is really has nothing to do with this article and is of no relevance or interest. I think you may be a bit obsessed with property, making assumptions and judging people by where you convince yourself that they live. I seem to remember some time ago, because I did not agree with something you said, right out of the blue you told me that I lived in a semi in Ladybridge without knowing anything about me, neither of which is remotely true!

Greedy? I have no idea and it's none of my business. Obsessed with judging people by where you think they live? The evidence is mounting up.

lindlandi, you really should read the posts properly; Never did I suggest that you lived in Ladybridge, it is more likely that this family reflects your own circumstances, hence your morbid defence of them.
Throughout this debate, I and several others, including davidjb, atlas123 and just because, have stated that having a large family was common a few decades ago because life was so different then. Today, it is economically and socially very difficult to have multiple children, and those that do are usually inadequately equipt to cope. Study the facts as we know them, eight children, ten dogs, unemployed parents, average semi, a man who is apparently want to aggression and the stress and worry that comes with so many mouths, animal and human, to provide for. Now, is this a normal, happy, productive and sociable family environment, or a sad indictment of today's ever-growing problems? Apart from this forum, I have yet to see any further response from either the Police or anyone else in respect of the alleged attack.

I do not 'think' I know where they live, I know exactly where they live. To support your pleading heart for these people, I suggest you bother to study the street in question and finally agree that what most of us have been saying is a fair and honest assumption.

And, finally, my own residential circumstances are such that I am happy to provide the best I can for my children, and would certainly have a problem living in a small semi with twenty living beings relying on me. Oh, and it would not be necessary to receive the skins off of the dogs, we use cat, sheep rabbit and wolf skin here, they make super protective covers for our furniture.

Yes you did, following a separate article some months ago. But then you also claimed to have a PhD in that thread too! Keep up and remember what you have said in previous threads. Not sure what a 'morbid' defence is! I have no idea what this family's situation is so I would have no idea whether it would reflect my family' but if they are a working household of 40% tax payers then I guess you're right. I couldn't find anything in the article to suggest whether the family were working, how much tax they pay, on benefits etc. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction. The chance is that this family is not as well off as mine as we are in the minority but one of the differences between you and I is that I don't feel the need to arrogantly judge other people, especially those I know nothing about.

Have you seen the house where five children and heir mother perished in a fire in Essex last week? From the 'look of it' and that WAS shown in news reports, I'm sure you would have described the family as overcrowded and may have even assume they were on benefits. The husband/father who survived is a 'doctor of medicine' so you see you can't always assume that doctors live in 17 room houses with garage, 2 hectares and a summer home 'on the Swiss border'.

As far as your furniture protection goes my assumption of your penchant for animal skins was correct Berushka Deville!

berushka wrote:
lindlandi, you really should read the posts properly; Never did I suggest that you lived in Ladybridge, it is more likely that this family reflects your own circumstances, hence your morbid defence of them. Throughout this debate, I and several others, including davidjb, atlas123 and just because, have stated that having a large family was common a few decades ago because life was so different then. Today, it is economically and socially very difficult to have multiple children, and those that do are usually inadequately equipt to cope. Study the facts as we know them, eight children, ten dogs, unemployed parents, average semi, a man who is apparently want to aggression and the stress and worry that comes with so many mouths, animal and human, to provide for. Now, is this a normal, happy, productive and sociable family environment, or a sad indictment of today's ever-growing problems? Apart from this forum, I have yet to see any further response from either the Police or anyone else in respect of the alleged attack. I do not 'think' I know where they live, I know exactly where they live. To support your pleading heart for these people, I suggest you bother to study the street in question and finally agree that what most of us have been saying is a fair and honest assumption. And, finally, my own residential circumstances are such that I am happy to provide the best I can for my children, and would certainly have a problem living in a small semi with twenty living beings relying on me. Oh, and it would not be necessary to receive the skins off of the dogs, we use cat, sheep rabbit and wolf skin here, they make super protective covers for our furniture.

berushka

If someone is filthy rich - why is it economically difficult to have multiple children?

What makes it socially very difficult to have multiple children?

Who says those that have multiple children are usually inadequately equipped to deal with them?

PS: Try to avoid reference to houses on the Swiss Border in your response

Frankly Gay still spouting nonsense then?

Gay (hate that word) Frankie says 'PS: Try to avoid reference to houses on the Swiss Border in your response'. Why? Jealous are we?
Lindilandililly - I do have a PhD, actually, but that is a lesser degree than others I hold, so it is irrelevant. If you knew anything about Eastern Europe, you would know that almost all the villagers are self-sustaining, no supermarket rubbish for us, and nothing is wasted. We never wear shoes nor smoke inside any home, even the Prime Minister would remove his shoes on entering my house, so our floors are always clean, not covered in the often dirty and dusty carpets as is the norm in the UK, and our furniture is protected by the animals we breed and care for, and then consume, namely rabbits, sheep and goats, and when a domestic animal, such as a dog , dies, its skin is also put to good use, and not thrown in the dustbin or alongside the highway, which is also far to common in England.

And for the last time, having a hockey team's worth of kids when circumstances should dictate that enough is enough, is both socially and morally wrong. Live within your means, and don't forget that a child needs to hear at least four hundred words a minute to develop good speech and understanding. No wonder half the young people you hear speaking in the pubs around Bolton cannot even pronounce simple words correctly.

berushka wrote:
Gay (hate that word) Frankie says 'PS: Try to avoid reference to houses on the Swiss Border in your response'. Why? Jealous are we?
Lindilandililly - I do have a PhD, actually, but that is a lesser degree than others I hold, so it is irrelevant. If you knew anything about Eastern Europe, you would know that almost all the villagers are self-sustaining, no supermarket rubbish for us, and nothing is wasted. We never wear shoes nor smoke inside any home, even the Prime Minister would remove his shoes on entering my house, so our floors are always clean, not covered in the often dirty and dusty carpets as is the norm in the UK, and our furniture is protected by the animals we breed and care for, and then consume, namely rabbits, sheep and goats, and when a domestic animal, such as a dog , dies, its skin is also put to good use, and not thrown in the dustbin or alongside the highway, which is also far to common in England.

And for the last time, having a hockey team's worth of kids when circumstances should dictate that enough is enough, is both socially and morally wrong. Live within your means, and don't forget that a child needs to hear at least four hundred words a minute to develop good speech and understanding. No wonder half the young people you hear speaking in the pubs around Bolton cannot even pronounce simple words correctly.

Mad

Back to the thread then. No one has mentioned what a scab mr Robinson actually is ? He was a smack head for many years and is extremely well known in Radcliffe.
Trying to get a sympathy vote with his illness? Self inflicted !!
I just feel sorry for his kids !!