From Miss P. J. Taylor, MRPharmS
SIR,-Mr James's letter (PJ, July 8, p48) is rambling and not to the point. I fail to see what lunch breaks have to do with over-breeding or with living off the rest of us.
Regarding mothers not wishing to take their children to the doctor, I have often come across this attitude in the past, in spite of close proximity to the surgery.
As for his comments regarding my lack of historical knowledge, it would appear to be greater than his, as I think most people know that the rule of law did not prevail, even before the industrial revolution. However, in the first half of this century, there was not the lawlessness that prevails today and parents controlled their children, so that a 12-year-old mother was unheard of, as were drunks and murderers of 10 years.
When I was young, there was no vandalism. Now it is rife everywhere.
I was most certainly not brought up to think I would be supported from cradle to grave. When I was young, that attitude was unheard of. We were taught that we were responsible for our own lives and to stand on our own feet. People coped on their own before the war.
Our local roadsweeper had two children. The boy won a scholarship to Cambridge and became an officer in the RAF. The girl became a teacher. They were well cared for by their parents, who were not given hand-outs.
With regard to Mrs Davies's letter (same page), no one has criticised people who rely on state benefits through no fault of their own. We criticise those who make a point of sponging when they could help themselves.
A man I know has a computer business. He offered a young man suitable work, to begin at £275 a week. The young man refused as he said it was not worth taking, considering how much he could get from the state while unemployed, to support his family and himself.
Mrs Davies states that her decision to have more than two children is balanced out by those who have one or no children. We need fewer children in this grossly overcrowded country.
In 1931 there were 49 million people in the British Isles. In 1965, the number had increased to 54.4 million. By 1996 there were nearly 59 million - a 20 per cent increase since 1931.
The increase is the cause of the loss of countryside, where woods and fields have been replaced by thousands of little houses. The population density is 627 per square mile.
The remark concerning "not enough young people to support the aged" is irrelevant and an excuse for breeding. If one spent one's money on a private pension, instead of numerous children, one would have no need of support.
I note that those who disagree with Mr Morris and me concentrate on the aged living off the young but never mention the young needing to be educated. Perhaps they think a minimum of 11 years' education per child costs nothing. I am quite sure that it costs more to educate a child per week than to supply a basic retirement pension for which the receiver has paid. Those children also need medical treatment; it is not confined to the aged as one might assume, from reading the contents of the letters of the protestors.
I regret I do not have time to continue this correspondence, as my retirement is occupied by caring for animals that the feckless of this country have decided they no longer want. Having been brought up to believe that the world owes them a living, they just dump the animals.
P. J.Taylor
Burntwood, Staffordshire