Daily Mail readers want Chinese-style restrictions on having children

The Daily Mail comes in for a lot of flack, and sometimes it is deserved, but their website is nicely designed and there are always interesting nuggets there that no other mainstream paper seems to cover. And if you like ogling scantily-clad ladies (actresses at awards ceremonies, pop stars, footballers’ girlfriends on the beach, etc.) you usually get that too, in the right-hand column.

Daily Mail readers are generally presumed to be conservatives, so I was stunned to see the result of the poll which accompanies this article: Save the planet by having fewer babies, says BBC presenter as he calls for tax breaks for small families.


Many of the readers’ comments are wonders to behold as well. No wonder folk keep voting LibLabCon. They obviously want to live impoverished and enslaved in the EUSSR. Here’s what the article says,

BBC wildlife expert Chris Packham has warned the only way to protect the future of the planet is to curb population growth.

The Springwatch presenter suggested offering Britons tax breaks to encourage them to have smaller families.

He effectively endorsed China’s controversial one-child policy, which sees couples who adhere to the rule given a lump sum on retirement.

And which has also seen forced abortions up to the ninth month of pregnancy – and forced sterilisations.

But he stopped short of suggesting people should be penalised for having too many children.

Packham, 49, who has no children of his own, told Radio Times: ‘By 2020, there are going to be 70million people in Britain. Let’s face it, that’s too many.’

Let’s face it, Packham doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Most people are crammed into towns and cities. And anti-humanity advocates love showing photographs of major city centres in the rush hour, like this somehow proves their point. The overpopulation myth is due to be one in my series: Myths and Hoaxes in 21st Century Britain. I’ve only managed to write one so far so don’t expect the next one any time soon! Back to Packham…

He added: ‘There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and  tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population.’

Packham suggested offering couples a financial incentive as ‘a carrot’ to persuade them to have fewer – or no – children.

He said: ‘I would offer them tax breaks for having small families: say, 10 per cent off your tax bill if you decide to stick with just one child. And an even bigger financial incentive if you choose not to have a family at all.

Some Mail readers have at least tried to explain that an agenda like this will destroy our society. The fertility rate has to be 2.11 children per woman just to maintain the current population. This graph from the Office for National Statistics shows that the British are already in decline.

UK Fertility Rate

It is probably worse for native Brits than these figures look, seeing that the birth-rate among Muslims is higher.

Experts have predicted that the British population – which is currently around 62million – will increase to 70million by 2029.

A report by the sustainable development group Forum For The Future said Britain would struggle to handle such growth. The increase in population would be ‘catastrophic’ and put unsustainable pressure on housing, schools and hospitals as well as natural resources.

Forum For The Future are the ones, remember, who envisage a pretty bleak future for us, where only the rich can afford to drive in town centres and we get to eat meat on our birthdays, if we can manage to scrape enough money together.

Current trends will see a city the size of Bristol added to the population of the UK every year for the next two decades.

But they won’t be filled with British people!

Packham, who presents new BBC2 show The Animal’s Guide To British Wildlife, was also critical of the nation’s reliance on cheap supermarket produce and fast food.

‘The public expect cheap food as a right, and we aren’t prepared to pay the prices farmers need in order to provide quality food.

‘We should insist on buying locally grown food and be prepared to pay for it.

‘As for the hard-pressed mum who says she’s not got the time or money, I’m sorry, but making her children good, nutritious food should be her priority.

I think that maybe Mr Packham is out to lunch. While what he says is true, he seems to have forgotten that the social engineers made the country’s women go out to work and dump their kids in playgroups and nursery schools.

‘Everyone knows we’ve got the most obese kids in the world.

I think Americans would be entitled to claim that distinction.

‘Besides which, giving them fast food actually works out more expensive than cooking them a proper meal.’

Yes, it does, but there are only 24 hours in a day, and if eight are spent sleeping, nine or ten are spent at work and getting to and from work, an hour for ablutions et al, doing the washing and ironing, gardening, housework, shopping, and so on, there isn’t exactly a lot of time left to flick through Delia’s latest tome and prepare a masterpiece.

The full interview is in this week’s issue of Radio Times, out now.

You mean he spouts even more uneducated piffle? I expect he’ll be a government “advisor” any day now.

Our society and culture are under attack from all quarters so that we are destroyed as a nation in order to slip us into a global system of government. Reducing our population is just one of those fronts.

The “Two’s Plenty” campaign from the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) is calling for Scotland’s population to be cut by a quarter and the UK’s to be brought as low as 30 million.

Can you imagine what the retirement age will have to be if there are not enough younger people to do the work and pay taxes? It would be a total disaster. Our whole society would collapse. But, I think that’s the idea. I can’t believe that those involved – like David Attenborough, Professor Aubrey Manning and Jonathon Porritt – can possibly not see this.

Unless they also believe in culling the proles when we reach, say sixty years old.

But from perusing the Daily Mail readers’ comments, it is clear that there is much resentment over Child Benefit being paid to other people’s children, and they want to crack open a nut with a sledgehammer to change this. I would expect even Sun readers to be more clued up. Maybe that’s why the Daily Sport went bust – their readers have flocked to the Mail? It makes sense, what with both specialising in ridiculous stories and gratuitous images of female flesh.

This would be my plan for the UK: encourage marriage and larger families and make planning regulations less restrictive. And leave the European Union and take our ‘borders’ back.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Daily Mail readers want Chinese-style restrictions on having children

  1. I think there ought to be one copy of the Daily Fail for every million people in the population. Oh – and the Mail Online should go behind a paywall. That would reduce the quantity of brain-dead comments by the knuckle-draggers so that polls like the one described would cease to be newsworthy.
    Pundits should be steadfastly mocked and ignored. Perhaps they’ll get the message one day..

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    I thought it was important to draw attention to this poll because I found it worrying that so many people buy into this environment religion.

    Anyway, I hope the Mail doesn’t go behind a paywall. It’s my only pleasure…

  3. Rob says:

    Some Mail readers have at least tried to explain that an agenda like this will destroy our society//

    What a load of bollocks. Take your pick. Destroy our society through rampant increases in population, or destroy it (according to you) through restricting it. Packham is not the only one to flag up the population issue – Sir David Attenborough has been warning of it for years. You want to have a pop at him, too?

    This is one of those rare look-how-stupid-the-Fail(ha-ha)-is posts that is actually far worse and woolley-headed than the actual article. An ever-increasing population (whether it is born or immigrated) is bad news. I would actually support a restriction on birthrates, although given that the world is pretty much f***ed anyway, what real difference will it make?

    [You broke the blog’s unwritten rules, but I allowed your comment by adding asterisks. ED]

  4. Stewart Cowan says:


    I realise that many people have fallen for the lie of overpopulation and the fake environmental issues, designed to allow our global masters to cull the human population (i.e. mass murder on an unprecedented scale, even compared with the 20th Century).

    I mentioned David Attenborough. He has been perverting the truth on the BBC for decades.

    I’m afraid that it is your “woolley-headedness” which prevents you seeing what is actually going on – the destruction of the British way of life – and then the destruction of life.

  5. Global ‘over-population’ is a myth.

    An unrestricted and unmanipulated natural society based on the marriage-based family (and in which abortion and euthanasia are forbidden) gets along just fine.

    This world has ample resources to provide the needs of every human being on the planet. The problem has never been lack of resources; rather, the problem of lack of provision or unfair distribution is caused by human vices – greed, corruption and inhumane attitudes towards others.

    The over-population myth is essentially eugenicist in origin. [Eugenicist like, say, Hitler admirer Marie Stopes]. Funnily enough, I’ve just been writing a paper considering the Holocaust. If you want to know where the over-population agenda will end up if its advocates gain the power and influence necessary to implement their vision to the hilt, the answer is millions of people being murdered. (Oh… it’s already happening isn’t it? ABORTION.)

  6. Vicente Navarro Pérez says:


    The problem of the panic to a world overpopulation arises from the thesis of Robert Malthus that deals with the question of if the whole world were developed like Occident, there would be shortage of resources. A transition has been demonstrated between the old demographic order and the modern one, in this way, an old order; Many births, much mortality, new order; Few births, little mortality.

    For me, and from a Neomaltushian point of view the problem would not be the resources, but the ecology. And it may sound like a weak version of the problem, but, as I said, from my point of view, if everyone developed just like the West, pollution could be a problem.

    When I was young (more) it was said that if all the Chinese kicked the ground at the same time, the planet would change its orbit. Well, if all Asia were to develop with the same system of consumption-production as the West, with unpolluted energies, the impact on the planet’s environment, I think, could be important. Especially considering that the rest of the world represents only 45% of the total world population with respect to Asia, which alone represents 55% of the world’s population.

    Regarding Brexit, I am Spanish and I have to say that I can understand them, as the comedian says “I do not say anything and I say everything”: How many curricula do not contemplate English as a second language?

    I left it there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>