Don't hit her on the head
Having frothed wih rage a couple of weeks ago about the woman who'd had eleven kids by five different fathers and bought them all up on benefits, without ever having troubled herself with the tedium of a fucking job, CF thought he'd seen it all.
But no. That egregious tale pales into relative insignificance when you read - with mounting disbelief - the story of another woman, named only as Rachael, who has ten kids by six different fathers.
Sounds similar? Well in the sheer mindless fucking fecundity, yes. But in the first story, at least the woman had brought the kids up herself , albeit with our money paying for their mobiles and Sky TV.
The difference is, that in this second, infuriating, teeth-grinding story, this fucking moronic baby machine has had every single one of the kids taken away from her. What? Yes.
One of the horde of daddies knocked her about, another was - for fucks sake - a sex offender and a third upped and fucked off, leaving her 'unable to cope', so its not exactly fucking astonishing that social workers didn't want to leave kids in her woefully inept care.
So now five have been adopted, four are in long-term foster care and one is awaiting adoption.
Rachael didn't want that to happen - in fact the over-fertile knicker-dropper wants custody of her children and has said she will “keep going” until authorities let her keep one. Yeah, well, why not, eh? You silly bitch.
But in the meantime, of course, we're footing the bill for all of this fuckwittery. The total projected cost to the taxpayer of looking after her children – aged between 17 months and 15 years – is estimated at £1.5m, while legal fees, adoption costs and social workers’ time, bring the total to £2.5m.
Two and a half million quid? On one deluded bint and her unfortunate offspring? Dear God.
John Hemming, Rachael's MP in Birmingham Yardley, feels sorry for his over-productive constituent:
“She is trying to cope and all the state is doing is hitting her over the head every time. This is a problem not just in Birmingham but throughout England.”
'Hitting her over the head'? Hitting her over the head? The state shouldn't be hitting her over the head, it should be fucking kicking her in the moot. Repeatedly.
Until she stops squirting babies out of it.
.
Posts
14 comments:
John Hemming has done sterling work on behalf of parents in dispute with the Social Services and in danger of having their kids taken away.
But boy oh boy, has he picked the wrong side in this one!
"Rachael, who has never married, told a newspaper she intended to have her next child in Spain or Ireland to try to prevent the authorities from taking it. "
Christ in a cartoon... She wants more? Apart from the fact the silly cow is unfit - getting it on with her would be akin to chucking a sausauge up the M1
Christ, CF the most amazing thing is not these young ladies' productive abilities, but the amazing number of names women call their Fanny
There is another aspect to this, which dare not be mentioned in polite company. This being the future prospects for childless families who adopt these children.
Would one want to bring up the progeny of two low intelligence social misfits? If one buys into the progressive myth that we are all identical at birth and 100% of our life outcomes are determined by our upbringing, then that's just fine. However, I would recommend reading up on the facts of inheritability of behavioural traits, and the current scientific views in the nature-nurture debate before enrolling in this state sponsored and financed social engineering experiment.
That list is my favourite thing ever ever ever in the history of the world. GUFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFAW.
The real crime here is that the state can so easily take children away from their mother. As a libertarian and believer in the rights of the individual over the convenience of the state I believe that taking a child away from its mother should be an act of last resort. I would have thought this would have been your opinion as well.
But even if you do not believe in the rights of the individual, from a purely pragmatic tax-saving point of view it would be cheaper if the children were left with the mother and steps were taken to oversee the welfare of the children (by all accounts the mother was not abusive herself, rather she was stupid in her choice of partners).
However stupid you think this woman is, Birmingham City Council's children's services department are much more stupid - they should be the target of your fury.
I've never even heard the word "moot" before. And "cunt" in third place?
They're all fucked ... in the head.
This breeding Mare .. and all the others like her should have the word "Slut" tattooed on their foreheads .. and the words "Mersey" & "Tunnel" tattooed one on each upper, inner thigh ..
Oh .. and they should be sterilised immediately .. for the public good ..
"The real crime here is that the state can so easily take children away from their mother."
The state's paying for them, though...
John Hemming is right about this happening all over England. Our benefit system makes baby production a lucrative cottage industry. She must be very frustrated that all those meal tickets have been taken away.
I think her dropping the next one in Spain or Ireland is a good idea.
Mr Woolas, are you listening.
Bolt the door after she's left.
Are you having a laugh Joe ??
Woolarse & his bunch of incompetent wazzocks can't even keep an Algerian bag-snatcher out .. despite bribing him with Taxpayers money not to return ..
Joe Public said...
TDM have the answer..........
"TORY TAX CUT FUNDED BY LOW INCOME CHILD AUCTION"
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/tory-tax-cut-funded-by-low-income-child-auction-201003292597/
Post a Comment