The Bull  permalink

Restriction of child benefits to two children

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 451 - 488 of 488
  • Message 451

    , in reply to message 447.

    Posted by Shirley Knott (U14164156) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Indeed! Yes, many would have you believe that individuals of the type you describe, do not exist.

    They do. Ime, some anecdotal, some through more direct knowledge......lots of them exist. 


    Oh indeed, they do - in every town.

    But they are not claiming fraudulently - as things stand, the system allows her to do this quite legitimately.

    But I have to say it is why I see people like that as being worse than bankers - not only do they not give(to the state) but they take aswell - a double whammy, if you see what I mean.

    And totally unfair to the people in society who go about their lives in a responsible, sensible way.

    Which brings us (well me, anyway) back full circle - the restriction of child benefit (or any benefit) must be restricted to two children, in order to send the message that the people who do the right thing will not be bled dry, and that in future, if you have more children than you can afford, then you will have to make the money you have stretch to go round.

    Report message1

  • Message 452

    , in reply to message 451.

    Posted by fat_kid (U1705916) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    I agree Shirley

    If a flawed system offers incentives to behave in a certain manner, guess what people are likely to do>

    Report message2

  • Message 453

    , in reply to message 450.

    Posted by SmoctusMole (U13882662) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Don and Dee

    You are both absolutely right. Can't argue with you - and don't want to anyway.
    But
    "Old heads on Young/Schtoopid Shoulders".

    Perhaps the benefits system is now a mindset. Well, when it comes to being housed by Councils or Housing Assocs. this would definitely seem to be the case. But until the people I'm thinking of reach an age of mental maturity what should be done ? Should we take the resultant babies into care? I wouldn't wish that on anyone - but that's a whole new subject !
    And it for sure wouldn't save any monies for the more needy.

    Report message3

  • Message 454

    , in reply to message 453.

    Posted by Dee (U3082905) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    well, for starters, children should share bedroom if they are of the same gender. 2 or even three (1 single plus bunk beds) to a double room - this was considered quite normal until very recently. If you live in a three bed house and have more than 6 kids, then well parents, you will have to sleep on a sofa bed while you 7 & 8th children take "your" room (again, not unheard of until recently).

    That's it no-one to be allocated a house larger than 3 double bedrooms max.

    Prospective tennants may "jump" the housing ladder if they are willing to take a property which is need of decoration & repair if they undertake to do those repairs (materials provided). This would help with the housing stock and also help families who are in need of social housing but are willing & able to do their bit too.

    Tennants of larger council properties to be incentivised to move to smaller ones if they no longer need the space. Maybe removal expenses paid etc and a period of reduced rent at the smaller properties. This would free up larger stock and councils wouldn't need to pay market rent to private landlords.

    Women living with parent(s) who become pregnant to not neccessarily be allocated housing immediately (not saying "never" but not neccessarily until the child is 4 or 5,) No reason a baby cannot share its mothers room for a couple of years. Would possibly prevent a second or third successive pregnancy and the woman in question may have a change in circumstances in the interim.

    Report message4

  • Message 455

    , in reply to message 444.

    Posted by londonplug (U13638089) on Thursday, 1st November 2012


    Cases like this:

    www.standard.co.uk/n...

    I suspect that had this lady had to bear the cost of having to raise her own children, rather than being rewarded with a Notting Hill townhouse for doing nothing other than producing children she couldn't afford to look after, the number of 'accidents' would've been fewer.

    If you reward people for having large numbers of children they can't afford, then a tiny(but disproportionately expensive) minority will do precisely that.

    REPLY...............Exactly and why not,, what would ANYBODY do in that situation?? you cannot blame the people for doing it you can only blame our soft lame duck politicaly correct tail wagging the dog leftie governmenntsd for not just allowing but positivly encouraging it to go on
    At the end of the day if a man was standing on a street corner giving all his billions away we are all going to grab some of it , and thats exactly how our governments are behaving hence the atraction for immigrants and so called asylum seekers here

    "In October it was revealed a family of eight Afghan immigrants were being housed in a £1.2 million private home in Ealing for an annual taxpayer-funded rental of £150,000."

    You have to ask yourselves where would you want to be living in Afganistan or in a £1.2 million private home in probably the most aloof and prestige cities in th eworld with everything provided free of charge no matter how many more children you wish to produce

    Not rocket science is it??

    Report message5

  • Message 456

    , in reply to message 455.

    Posted by SmoctusMole (U13882662) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Well, sorry for over-making with the quotes today, but hard cases make for hard laws don't they.

    Of course londonplug's cases are quite outrageous. But I don't see that a Notting Hill townhouse is in fact an incentive to breeding. And a 3-bedder with mum and dad on the sofa (actually what was considered normal for my in-laws in Liverpool post war) would disincentivise - if that's a word.
    So, if the "wrong" sort of people continue to have large families regardless of living conditions is that OK, and if not has anyone got a solution?

    I certainly haven't !

    Report message6

  • Message 457

    , in reply to message 456.

    Posted by fat_kid (U1705916) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    If you keep on doing the same old thing, you'll keep on getting the same old results.

    Report message7

  • Message 458

    , in reply to message 456.

    Posted by Dee (U3082905) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    So, if the "wrong" sort of people continue to have large families regardless of living conditions is that OK  

    Well, it is, sort of. I certainly don't want a society in which we ban people (and we could only do that by forced sterilzation or contraception or by taking "surplus" children into care) from having children. And who decides what the "right" sort of person is? That route leads to you know where.

    But at least we, the tax payer, would not be further supporting the families in question by providing ever larger houses and ever increasing hand-outs. And thatis really the whole point of the thrust of this thread - the mass population payng for the larger families. So, if you have a family, you make a choice - either stop at 1,2 or 8 if you can afford to keep them in the manner of your choosing, or down-grade your lifestyle considerably so that your budget stretches. Either way, you get no additional monies and no additional bedrooms should you need to be housed by the local authority.

    Report message8

  • Message 459

    , in reply to message 453.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    .....But until the people I'm thinking of reach an age of mental maturity what should be done ? Should we take the resultant babies into care?.....  It is a difficult situation I admit.

    Although the kind of entitlement mentality that many seem to have increased over the years needs to be pegged back one way or other......I would argue.

    I don't think it will be without pain.....in the interim. That some children might go without (of the kind who are probably already, to an extent, going without I would argue) is not a reason for not doing anything......and the situation going unchanged.

    Report message9

  • Message 460

    , in reply to message 458.

    Posted by SmoctusMole (U13882662) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    I'm not disagreeing with that, Dee. I never did disagree with anything you have said here.
    But I still feel that the ones most likely to suffer from this are the children.

    It won't hurt a family of 8 (which would include mum and dad) to cram into a 3-bedroom house, as was the case for my in-laws post-war. But the children are severely disadvantaged in a manner of ways.

    This thread, of course, broadly talks of *benefits*, which would not just be about housing but presumably child benefit generally. And there I think the losers would most definitely be the children. We as a cash-strapped country must look at all areas where we can reasonably cut costs, but perhaps we need to look at what we pay out for children with just a tad more reason and compassion - if that doesn't set ML on fire.

    Report message10

  • Message 461

    , in reply to message 460.

    Posted by SmoctusMole (U13882662) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    ..................................... Anyway, it'll have to be over and out now because I'm being reminded of wifely shopping duties. Not because I'm running away, I assure you !

    Report message11

  • Message 462

    , in reply to message 442.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    I am not wrong Shirley. I brought up 3 children on benefit.

    What is true is that people have different expectations of what they should provide a child.

    Report message12

  • Message 463

    , in reply to message 462.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    < I brought up 3 children on benefit. >

    But some people bringing up children on benefit aren't you, are they?

    Report message13

  • Message 464

    , in reply to message 463.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    No they arn't. however, they will (relatively) receive the same money as I did. This means they will have the same worry and struggle as I did.
    Some working people who consider themselves unable to provide for a child will have different standards and expectations of material care than those on benefits who do manage, but only to a certain level. That level might not be acceptable to some working people. One's expectations increase according to one's financial circumstances.

    Report message14

  • Message 465

    , in reply to message 460.

    Posted by Dee (U3082905) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    . And there I think the losers would most definitely be the children. We as a cash-strapped country must look at all areas where we can reasonably cut costs, but perhaps we need to look at what we pay out for children with just a tad more reason and compassion  

    That is true and would be very unfortunate but, in a fairly short space of time, I think that the number of children caught up in this would diminish prett rapidly. In the meantime, children who are disadvantaged because of the choices their parents have made could be helped in other ways. It might cost a little but I think it would help them in the long term. I mean things like after school additional tuition so that they are better educated and may be able to make better choices. Encouragement and support to attend other activitiies, be they sporting, cubs/brownies or music or other so that they get a broader outlook on life.

    In the USA, there is a "Big Brothers, Big Sisters" scheme where children and young teens are mentored. Maybe a governement backed similar scheme might be piloted?

    All of these incentives go directly to helping the child and not to the parents.

    Report message15

  • Message 466

    , in reply to message 465.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Most activities' entail 'some financial outlay. Will this be financed by the state? An interest in music is often very expensive.

    Report message16

  • Message 467

    , in reply to message 463.

    Posted by BryanLuc (U12989423) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    < I brought up 3 children on benefit. >

    But some people bringing up children on benefit aren't you, are they?  


    This must mean something to somebody, somewhere

    Report message17

  • Message 468

    , in reply to message 456.

    Posted by londonplug (U13638089) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    "So, if the "wrong" sort of people continue to have large families regardless of living conditions is that OK, and if not has anyone got a solution?

    I certainly haven't !"

    REPLY............. Its easy peasy,, just dont fund it or suport it in any way, tuff ,
    2 children is more than enough for the taxpayer to support

    Report message18

  • Message 469

    , in reply to message 468.

    Posted by Dee (U3082905) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    Regardless of conditions? Providing the property is sound, has hot and cold running water a bath or shower, a working loo, some form of heating (not neccessarily full central heating), public utilities, windows that fit and a front door that is in tact and lockable, then yes, to me that is OK. I would also add a bed & linen for each person, a working cooker, a fridge, somewhere to hang clothes (that could be a rail in an alcove) some chairs, curtains for privacy and a table as being standards that I wouldn't expect any family (or any one come to that, whether they are single, a couple or a family of 14) to do without.

    If by "conditions" you mean what some might term overcrowding by today's standards in the UK or maybe in an area that they don't like or in a property with a small or even no garden then that, to me, is OK if they are expecting me to help fund it. Not ideal, certainly, but acceptable.

    Report message19

  • Message 470

    , in reply to message 467.

    Posted by Shirley Knott (U14164156) on Thursday, 1st November 2012

    < I brought up 3 children on benefit. >

    But some people bringing up children on benefit aren't you, are they?  


    This must mean something to somebody, somewhere 
    Makes perfect sense to me, Bryan.

    What Morty is saying is that Locki is assuming everyone on benefits felt like she did. They don't. Some manage better, some just don't have the aspirations that perhaps people further up the scale would have.

    The lady I have mentioned a few times is not struggling at all. Now perhaps that means she's a good manager. She's certainly a good mother, no arguments there.

    But her days are not spent worrying about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    Far from it.

    And I promise you, she's not alone.

    Report message20

  • Message 471

    , in reply to message 466.

    Posted by What larks (U14260755) on Friday, 2nd November 2012

    Most activities' entail 'some financial outlay. Will this be financed by the state? An interest in music is often very expensive.  Every child should have the chance to enjoy a hobby or join a club. I know many secondary schools provide after-school activities. I don't know if the parents have to pay, but every child from a low income family should be given the opportunity to attend at least one a week free of charge, or if they prefer, an out-of-school group like the Scout movement.

    OK, an interest in music can be very expensive. But a relation used to teach music in a very poor area of Glasgow, and instruments were lent to children to take home. She tells an amusing story of how one girl left a viola on the bus, and the driver kindly met her at the bus stop on the way home to drop it off. Somehow I can't see it staying further than the next stop these days.

    Report message21

  • Message 472

    , in reply to message 471.

    Posted by My Mum is turning in her grave (U13137565) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Why is it that so many here are prepared to believe that most people on benefits are *not* like Locki or me, who have experience of bringing up children on benefits, rather than the opposite? It's a long time since I was in that position but I don't believe that basic human nature has changed that much.

    Report message22

  • Message 473

    , in reply to message 472.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    My Mum, who are these < so many here > - can you name one?

    Here's how this topic has gone:

    Shirley Knott #439 asserts that there are benefit claimants for whom, thanks to the benefits, the cost of bringing up more children isn't something that they consider or have to consider.

    Locki #440 responded thus:
    "Life on benefits is no joke. For ANYONE.
    It is a MYTH that it is."

    No-one actually said it was a joke, but we must suppose she was addressing SK's point.

    Later, when challenged, Locki said that she knew it was true, because she had brought up three children on benefits.

    It was that that I challenged, saying that other people weren't her. That was my short and simple way of pointing out that her one personal experience did not give her knowledge of everyone in like circumstances, as she emphatically claimed. I'm sorry if that was too condensed or elliptical and demanded too much mental input from the reader; my excuse is that I was writing a post, not a brief for court; and that Locki herself was none too discursive or precise in her posts.

    So, who is < prepared to believe that most people on benefits are *not* like Locki or me >? Who has mentioned < most people on benefits > at all, in fact?

    Or, to put it another way (a way which I wouldn't normally use, but when in Rome, do as the Romans do): why is it that so many here are prepared to make remarks about other posters on the basis of purely imaginary posts?




    Report message23

  • Message 474

    , in reply to message 473.

    All this user's posts have been removed. Why?

  • Message 475

    , in reply to message 474.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Sunday, 11th November 2012

    As far as I understand, every baby costs taxpayers a quarter million, including two to three hundred a week just for school. It seems poor value.

    In fact, the average Working person takes out more than he puts in during a lifetime.

    Those on the public sector payroll would need to work hard, (does anyone think they do?) for their 27% earnings boost, cushy conditions and inflated pensions, while those funding them often have no pension at all.

    It astonished me to hear that an adult gets something like £65 a week, but if she gets a baby she gets an extra £100, plus a free pass to the top of the housing list, plus an extra room to earn an income by subletting. As has been said, a newborn just needs a drawer in the parental room.

    The second and subsequent children get £85 a week. Why do they need more than an adult, to stay alive? One woman with two jobs complained that her 17 year old son was sick of slumping daily in a schooldesk, but if he leaves it will cost her £100 a week.

    For some reason, nobody questions the forthcoming plan to force every adult into a schooldesk until 18, by which time he may have been twice married, perfectly capable of working, and have a collection of children.

    When anyone mouths phrases about quality of life, could I ask if they care at all about quality of life for old people? On rememberance sunday, it behoves us to think of those who have not wilfully bred themselves into what they consider poverty, but rather, have had truly hard and poor lives, and now face death as torture victims in segregated 'homes', or choose between hypothermia and starvation.

    We will all get old if we don't die young. Old people should be welcomed and included in mixed communities. Children should bring no breeding incentives at all. We Don't Need Additions to Population

    You like horses? Want to rent a field, stable, pay the purchase price, feed and vet bills? Fine, but it is your indulgence, for heaven's sake don't ask fellow taxpayers to pay for you. Although at least, the planet pollution will be far lower than breeding a baby, which should carry all possible official Disincentives.  
    I really don't know where to start with the awful contempt distorted reasoning and prejudice in this post

    It is not and never should be a divisive young versus old............

    How can anyone reason like that?

    Report message25

  • Message 476

    , in reply to message 475.

    Posted by goodbonnyblythe (U7646939) on Sunday, 11th November 2012

    The three hundred a week schooling cost is wasted on those who cannot grasp that the
    p l a n e t is p o l l u t ed by o v e r p o p u l a t i o n

    Our government gives a state pension (which may be the entire income) of approximately the same amount they use to incentivise production of a newborn baby to encourage yet more breeding. How many newborns have household bills and all the costs of living as an adult? None, so why do they need so much money?

    (Even if they did, it is the mother's free choice to, as suggested, keep a horse and pollute the planet not very much, or else to do the extremely antisocial thing of breeding yet more unwanted people. We don't need them. We don't want them. Our taxes and our planet cannot afford them.)

    Does every old person get three hundred pounds spent on him every week? But he might have started work at 14. Why should he die with no opportunity of subsidised learning, leisure and social contact opportunities? Emphatically n o t segregated, by the way, I agree that what was considered wrong in South Africa is equally wrong in England. Prejudice and apartheid against black people is neither more nor less obnoxious than against old people. They are e q u a l l y h u m a n, just like you, believe it or not.

    Going "ooh er, you shouldn't say it" will not make it less true.

    Report message26

  • Message 477

    , in reply to message 128.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 478

    , in reply to message 474.

    Posted by londonplug (U13638089) on Monday, 12th November 2012

    "We will all get old if we don't die young. Old people should be welcomed and included in mixed communities. Children should bring no breeding incentives at all. We Don't Need Additions to Population

    You like horses? Want to rent a field, stable, pay the purchase price, feed and vet bills? Fine, but it is your indulgence, for heaven's sake don't ask fellow taxpayers to pay for you. Although at least, the planet pollution will be far lower than breeding a baby, which should carry all possible official Disincentives. "


    REPLY............. Thumbs up!!!!!

    Report message28

  • Message 479

    , in reply to message 478.

    Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 12th November 2012

    Quick question...

    If none of us breed who is going to pay for the pensions!?

    Report message29

  • Message 480

    , in reply to message 479.

    Posted by NewEssexWoman (U9776561) on Monday, 12th November 2012

    Quick question...

    If none of us breed who is going to pay for the pensions!? 


    I don't think anyone is suggesting a ban on breeding! Some are suggesting that there should be no payments from government for any children you decide to have - a completely different situation.

    I am quite happy to see child benefits paid for the first two children but am opposed to paying them for subsequent ones (born in the future).

    We certainly do need children to pay the pensions of future retirees but we don't need more than simple replacement - which is why I'm perfectly happy to have benefits paid for up to two children but no more.

    Report message30

  • Message 481

    , in reply to message 473.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Monday, 12th November 2012

    If anyone only has benefit too live on, they will find it no joke. it will mean they live in relative poverty as I did, and that is no joke.
    I can still confidentally claim that!

    Report message31

  • Message 482

    , in reply to message 480.

    Posted by ruralsnowflakebliss (U8131914) on Monday, 12th November 2012

    Quick question...

    If none of us breed who is going to pay for the pensions!? 


    I don't think anyone is suggesting a ban on breeding! Some are suggesting that there should be no payments from government for any children you decide to have - a completely different situation.

    I am quite happy to see child benefits paid for the first two children but am opposed to paying them for subsequent ones (born in the future).

    We certainly do need children to pay the pensions of future retirees but we don't need more than simple replacement - which is why I'm perfectly happy to have benefits paid for up to two children but no more. 
    I am seeing a lt of really bad ecological theories here.......... if you want to save the planet cull us at 50 when our productive time is up (snark). The majority of growth on our part of the planet is longevity related

    You do know that the UKs birth rate is 1.7.... so a few 3s in the family are barely making up for the people who for whatever reason are not procreating

    To put this in context.. the UKs birth rate is BELOW replacement level.... discouraging third will not do that much given it is around 15% of family structures (see figure 3 in this link)

    www.ons.gov.uk/ons/r...

    On the other hand

    "Over the last 25 years the percentage of the population aged 65 and over increased from 15 per cent in 1984 to 16 per cent in 2009, an increase of 1.7 million people in this age group. Over the same period, the percentage of the population aged under 16 decreased from 21 per cent to 19 per cent. This ageing of the population is projected to continue. By 2034, 23 per cent of the population is projected to be aged 65 and over compared with 18 per cent aged under 16."

    Taken from relevant article here

    www.ons.gov.uk/ons/s...

    Over all inspite of the notoriously difficult to project accurately models of demography

    "The population is predicted to increase by 5.6 million to 64.8 million in 2031. This is 1.2 million more than an estimate last year, which used preliminary information from the 2001 census.

    The main reason for the change is a fresh assumption about future life expectancy, adding 18 months to previous estimates. It is now forecast that life expectancy by 2031 will rise to 81 years for men and 84.9 years for women.

    Men at the moment are expected to reach the age of 75.3 years (according to the 2002 estimate) and women 80.8 years. "

    Just look at the table in the link... deaths lower than births. the birthrate is a virtual irrelevancy on any meaningful timescale in human terms

    projectbritain.com/p...

    That BTW is leaving aside the issue of inward immigration being youthful (so at least keeping the birth rate steady and outward migration being significantly older with the exception of poor bluddy Scotland ... one of the few countries in western Europe not to grow in the last 50 years)

    The danger for me is that I can see why the two children message is superficially seductive and then I get completely annoyed because no one follows through on the copious amounts of data that already exist

    Demographics..... real, nasty, confound your own prejudices and look at the data (notoriously unreliable) give an oh so much more interesting picture that take the child benefit off future number 3s

    Anyway just for a nice muddy the waters............. has anyone heard of theVoluntary Human Extinction movement?

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    Ahhhh the extremes of following a hypothesis to its conclusion

    Report message32

  • Message 483

    , in reply to message 482.

    Posted by My Mum is turning in her grave (U13137565) on Tuesday, 13th November 2012

    Thanks for that dose of reality Rural. But not sure those who need to, will actually take any notice.

    Report message33

  • Message 484

    , in reply to message 481.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Tuesday, 13th November 2012

    If anyone only has benefit too live on, they will find it no joke. it will mean they live in relative poverty as I did, and that is no joke.
    I can still confidentally claim that! 
    Yes, it's no joke, I think we've grasped that. But still no-one has said it was.

    SK's proposition was that there are benefit claimants for whom, thanks to the benefits, the cost of bringing up more children isn't something that they consider or have to consider.

    Would you care to comment on that?

    If so, perhaps you would like to bear in mind that not all benefit claimants are in single-adult households, nor are all in the category you have now introduced into the discussion, namely those with only benefit to live on.


    Report message34

  • Message 485

    , in reply to message 482.

    Posted by londonplug (U13638089) on Tuesday, 13th November 2012

    "The main reason for the change is a fresh assumption about future life expectancy, adding 18 months to previous estimates. It is now forecast that life expectancy by 2031 will rise to 81 years for men and 84.9 years for women.

    Men at the moment are expected to reach the age of 75.3 years (according to the 2002 estimate) and women 80.8 years. ""


    REPLY.............. So what is the problem with that ??? Just simply increase the retirement age in line with the new life expectacy levels plus stop and reverse mass immigration untill the population of our country once again returns to a more sustainable level simples

    Report message35

  • Message 486

    , in reply to message 485.

    Posted by bigbad_don Est1886 (U3243025) on Tuesday, 13th November 2012

    Is this where the benefits culture has got us?

    www.shropshirestar.c...

    Report message36

  • Message 487

    , in reply to message 486.

    Posted by maggiechow- chained to the railings (U6630370) on Tuesday, 13th November 2012

    What about MPs who made up expenses claims? Is that the "benefit culture" (whatever that might be) or people taking advantage?

    Report message37

  • Message 488

    , in reply to message 487.

    Posted by londonplug (U13638089) on Tuesday, 13th November 2012

    What about MPs who made up expenses claims? Is that the "benefit culture" (whatever that might be) or people taking advantage?  REPLY..............Dont be silly , the answer is. neither as it is just just "mistakes" or "mere oversights" in their case, only the lowest paid in our society are capable of "Cheating" / "scrounging"

    Report message38

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.