31 replies to this topic

[Still Waters]

Britain’s biggest family has just got a little larger after mother Sue Radford gave birth to her 16th baby, then pledged to have more.

Sue Radford, 37, gave birth to baby Caspar in just 16 minutes, bringing her total number of children to an impressive 16.

Mrs Radford, who lives with husband Noel and their children in Morecombe, Lancs, said she would now feel “lucky” to have even more.

They are believed to be Britain’s biggest family, living in a former care home and using a minibus to get around.

http://www.telegraph...16th-child.html

[Old Man Waffles]

ouch lol

[ExpandMyMind]

16 minutes? The wee one probably took longer to conceive

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 23 November 2012 - 01:54 PM.

[schizoidwoman]

They've been busy!

[TheLastLazyGun]

If they were on benefits, such as child benefit, I'd be arguing for them to be sterlised.  I don't see why the British taxpayer should pay for someone's children.

I was pleasantly surprised, though, to see that they are not on benefits and they pay for their children themselves.

[ealdwita]

Reminiscent of Monty Python's 'The Meaning of Life"!

All together now...........
♪♫♫♪ ♪ ♫
Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
   God gets quite irate.
♪♫♫♪ ♪ ♫

Edited by ealdwita, 23 November 2012 - 04:26 PM.

[questionmark]

16 ? And do they have other hobbies?

[ExpandMyMind]

questionmark, on 23 November 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

16 ? And do they have other hobbies?

Hopefully for their sake washing dirty clothes and cleaning up mess lol.

[ealdwita]

TheLastLazyGun, on 23 November 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

If they were on benefits, such as child benefit, I'd be arguing for them to be sterlised.  I don't see why the British taxpayer should pay for someone's children.

I was pleasantly surprised, though, to see that they are not on benefits and they pay for their children themselves.

Yes, if you discount nearly £11,500 per annum child benefit and, (if the breadwinner earns around £20,000 per year), the tax credits that amount to almost £43,000!

Edited by ealdwita, 23 November 2012 - 05:01 PM.

[Still Waters]

"Mrs Radford, who lives with husband Noel and their children in Morecombe, Lancs, said she would now feel “lucky” to have even more."

Lucky indeed when there are couples who would give anything just to have the one child.

Speaking as I mother, I don't know how she copes with sixteen

[shaddow134]

ealdwita, on 23 November 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

Yes, if you discount nearly £11,500 per annum child benefit and, (if the breadwinner earns around £20,000 per year), the tax credits that amount to almost £43,000!

This is the perfect argument to change the tax credit system,the tax credit should be awarded to the oldest child only,and when that child reaches 16 it is then transferred to the next oldest child.This is a gross insult to the British tax payer struggling under the Tory Austerity measures.

[TheLastLazyGun]

shaddow134, on 24 November 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

This is the perfect argument to change the tax credit system,the tax credit should be awarded to the oldest child only,and when that child reaches 16 it is then transferred to the next oldest child.This is a gross insult to the British tax payer struggling under the Tory Austerity measures.

That is precisely what the Conservatives are trying to do - award child benefit only to the oldest child.

Needless to say, this has got the Left, such as the Labour Party, bleating that "the nasty Tories are trying to make mothers poor by taking away their child benefit".

But the taxpayer doesn't pay for people's dogs so I don't see why the taxpayer should have to pay for people's children.  If a couple can't afford to raise a child out of their own money then they shouldn't have a child in the first place.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 24 November 2012 - 03:01 PM.

[smurf0852]

TheLastLazyGun, on 24 November 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

That is precisely what the Conservatives are trying to do - award child benefit only to the oldest child.

Needless to say, this has got the Left, such as the Labour Party, bleating that "the nasty Tories are trying to make mothers poor by taking away their child benefit".

But the taxpayer doesn't pay for people's dogs so I don't see why the taxpayer should have to pay for people's children.  If a couple can't afford to raise a child out of their own money then they shouldn't have a child in the first place.

so you link poor peoples children with dogs ?.yes the right are such a caring bunch .bring on the thatcher death party

[Bling]

I don't know whether to feel jealous or shocked.

[Hasina]

Uterus is not clown car.