Wednesday, April 29, 2009

My extended 'family'

I've got some time off work at the moment. Not due back 'till next week. I can catch up with all those little jobs that need doing, like lying on the sofa and watching day time telly. I have always been employed, worked full time since I was sixteen. My job is pretty much recession proof so I have never signed on. I used to be proud of this little fact. Not any more.

In the street where we live, there must be well over one hundred houses. A few are empty, after all it's not exactly a highly desirable area. But the houses are large well built homes, dating from the 30's, with large gardens. By my estimations there are only a handfull of families like my household. Working families.

I work hard to provide for my family, I don't expect a pat on the back nor should I get one. It's what you are supposed to do. It's what generations of men have done in times past.

Now here's the rub. Apparently I have an extended family. A family I didn't even know I had. A family whose names I don't know. A family I support via my hard work. A family I support through no choice of my own.

I put food in their bellies. I support their offspring. I support their habits, legal or otherwise. I pay for the roof over their heads. I put the latest fashion on their backs, the new trainers on their feet. I pay for the medical care they receive, the detox programme they may be on. I pay for their entertainment. I pay for their sky telly and 50" plasma telly. I pay for their dogs that shit in my garden. I pay for their broken windows and doors.

If the righteous do gooders are to be believed, this family of mine do not choose to live in this fashion. They are 'victims'. Bless. My area has been designated a 'deprived' area. It has been given a label. The victims are delighted, after all they have been labelled, so surely they can't be blamed. It's the fault of others. Not them. No.

If it was up to me, I would label the area as 'depraved' other than 'deprived'.

It makes me sick.

10 comments:

Faux Cu said...

Get back to BBC 4 and Randall and Hopkirk(decesed) ya scum

Sue said...

The benefits system needs serious reform. It was meant as a safety net for those "between jobs" and those unable to work through disability and sickness.

It was not meant for the lazy, fat and downright taking the piss brigade to ponce off!

Rab C. Nesbitt said...

Indeed. Its more of a lifestyle choice these days.

The Penguin said...

As with the ghastly Leanne Salt - that poor black bastard must have been tied up and raped, there's no other explanation.

The Penguin

Rab C. Nesbitt said...

She's defo a double bagger.

Faux Cu said...

Fart and give me a clue.

Naw not even with yours

Old Bag said...

indeed rab. we are all paying to keep our chavscum relatives in the lives they have become accostomed. maybe we could dig a bit deeper into our pockets and pay for one way tickets to mexico for them too?..i understand that country does a nice line in "thinning out the ranks"....

Tory Poppins said...

Makes me sick too! People living in a 'non-society' shaped by Labour's communist values. I despise them. I know I always get on this rant, but my grandfathers fought in two world wars for the freedoms that this Government has squandered over the last 12 years; completely abused the welfare state for what is was actually set up to do in the first place . . I could obviously go on! ;-)

woman on a raft said...

On a recent Titchmarsh afternoon show the audience came up warmly for limiting benefits to the first two children per woman (with, presumably, some anomalies such as if you find the second pregnancy is twins).

It's a humane response; it avoids punishing children for their parent(s) decisions but at the same time sends a price signal that should discourage the unwanted behaviour, unless the person can definitely afford it themselves.

It won't solve the problem of the large lady over at OH's because she happened to come within the anomaly of triplets on the first pregnancy, but it would reduce the number of similar cases.

It would set about removing the incentive to have multiple partners and unlimited pregnancies. It doesn't solve the problem in one go, but it starts a process by challenging the fundamentally bad idea: that anyone can hand the bill to the family next door for an unlimited number of children.

Rab C. Nesbitt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.