Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Still Waters

Britain's biggest family welcomes 16th child

32 posts in this topic

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ouch lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes? The wee one probably took longer to conceive :D

Edited by ExpandMyMind
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been busy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 ? And do they have other hobbies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 ? And do they have other hobbies?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :su

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uterus is not clown car.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They actually are on benefits as pointed out by Ealdwita - they get 53000 pounds a year in benefits from everyone else!! Is their house actually a Council House?? we are not told - but from the description as a having a former "Childrens Home? I suspect that is what the reality is.

So Cheap housing (probably paid for by Housing Benefits), MASSIVE Tax breaks, and no need to be responsible in the pro-creation department. These people are taking the system to breaking point, of course the Mother never has to work a day in her life, she just makes sure that she keeps at least 1 child under the age of 5yrs....

If I am being unreasonbly harsh then please tell me...I only had children when I knew that I could look after them,without any reliance on the State..

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They actually are on benefits as pointed out by Ealdwita - they get 53000 pounds a year in benefits from everyone else!! Is their house actually a Council House?? we are not told - but from the description as a having a former "Childrens Home? I suspect that is what the reality is.

So Cheap housing (probably paid for by Housing Benefits), MASSIVE Tax breaks, and no need to be responsible in the pro-creation department. These people are taking the system to breaking point, of course the Mother never has to work a day in her life, she just makes sure that she keeps at least 1 child under the age of 5yrs....

If I am being unreasonbly harsh then please tell me...I only had children when I knew that I could look after them,without any reliance on the State..

Most likely they do live in Council Housing,people like these and young single mothers are the scourge of the welfare system,although i do see that the British Government has finally stopped their automatic right to free housing.I will most likely get haranged for these comments but i don't care,its time to clamp down on the spongers and give the honest hard working tax payer a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They actually are on benefits as pointed out by Ealdwita - they get 53000 pounds a year in benefits from everyone else!! Is their house actually a Council House?? we are not told - but from the description as a having a former "Childrens Home? I suspect that is what the reality is.

So Cheap housing (probably paid for by Housing Benefits), MASSIVE Tax breaks, and no need to be responsible in the pro-creation department. These people are taking the system to breaking point, of course the Mother never has to work a day in her life, she just makes sure that she keeps at least 1 child under the age of 5yrs....

If I am being unreasonbly harsh then please tell me...I only had children when I knew that I could look after them,without any reliance on the State..

no your assesment is fair the problem as i see it is the goverment keeps banging on about the fact people knock out kids like shelling peas to get more money .the reason they do this isnt the benefit system they are attacking like disability living allowance or job seekers allowance its tax credits .the goverment always leave those alone because they keep company profits stupidly high at the expense of the tax payer .they need to be abolished and work needs to be made worthwhile again .as long as employers are able to pay there staff stupidly low tax payer subsidised wages this kind of thing is just going to keep happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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 :unsure2:

She probably was prepared to have children...or i don't know either :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 ? And do they have other hobbies?

Where are they going to get the time for other hobbies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

hmmm, now its making sense!

plus all the NHS costs for the children, and the schooling costs until each reach 16, free dental treatment for them all and the mother cos you get it free when you are pregnant, so seeing that she is permanently pregnant, she must have the best teeth in the country. yep, its costing us a fortune!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My old roomate from Laos had 15 siblings. Of course they needed that many to work on the farm and half of them died before the age of 5 and it was the 3rd world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My old roomate from Laos had 15 siblings. Of course they needed that many to work on the farm and half of them died before the age of 5 and it was the 3rd world.

my forefathers were the same, as was many others, but it was to work on the farms and as you say, and in those days many did die. This family do not have a farm and have the best NHS treatment, so it must be down to something else!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am third youngest of 15 children. the oldest is a sister who is almost 18 years older than i am.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am third youngest of 15 children. the oldest is a sister who is almost 18 years older than i am.

Wow, I am the youngest of four and the oldest is 12 years older than me. My nephew is nine years younger than I am and I became a great aunt looong before I should have been considered a great anything...in that context. :D

I thought having more than four or five kids went out in the 19th century.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.