I find it weird too, but I guess its just because its something 'different' with them being the biggest family here. Its like how the Duggars are popular in America amongst other hardcore Christians. (Personally I find the Duggars worse though because the poor girls can't have a life outside of being a mum/wife even if they wanted to. Its like a cult.)I find it quite bizarre that they have ‘fans’ in the first place (although I guess that goes for any social media ‘star’ who’s managed to become famous simply by allowing us a window into their lives). ‘Oh, you’ve had sex and managed to reproduce? Well done’What makes it fascinating is the ‘fans’ defence of them. Why would you get yourself so het up over people you’ve likely never met? (Obviously that doesn’t apply to any real life friends, but when you put yourself out there everyone will have an opinion and it’s not always going to be a good one. Also, why would you alert someone to a thread or forum where they’re getting slagged off?).
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It's very interesting from a social science perspective to watch the comments of the fans, some of them are so adoring it is funny to watch. Most of them I gather are very young and have larger than average families (and heavily rely on tax credits too). They also seem obsessed with buying all of the baby paraphernalia such as prams and personalised outfits. Someone once asked Sue to be a surrogate in the comments 
I do think children are neglected (that word sounds to harsh!) Tilly seems to crave attention and I don't think Archie gets any attention either. He is the first boy after Alfie and I think she struggles to love him because of that.
Every time they show him he just shrieks, starts crying and chucks himself onto the floor.
I don't think she struggled to love him at all, more she got pregnant with Bonnie very quickly (which was such a shock apparently
) and the focus moved onto Bonnie. When a new pregnancy is announced Sue's attention seems to shift to it. I must say that the Mother's Day vlog was really nice, Sue made a real effort to thank each child and give time opening their presents. The younger children in large families are always the 'winners' though, it is the children in the middle that are often lost in a sea of siblings.
The saddest thing is Alfie has more time allocated to ‘him’ than any of the others. She needs help.
And the clothes she gets sent are absolutely awful. Such unpleasant colours and designs. I always want to comment lol
I agree you can tell a lot of the kids are craving attention. Sue has had a pram for every child, that's 21 prams!! I think we should create a instagram page basically slating them, they need to realize people find them bleeping annoying!
I’m not sure that’s necessary?!
Technically he was 17 when she got pregnant so maybe be just avoided it, he was 18 not long after. Disgusting behaviour. She was his friends little sister. What the f***. I have a child of 13 and if some asshole 17 nearly 18 year old came round sexually assaulting her id kill him (or go to the police)
The Radfords tried to take legal action against MN therefore most threads mentioning them get deleted. They know that there are haterz out there but just think that they are jealous.
I read that Sue's family were advised not to press charges or prevent Sue and Noel from seeing each other. I suppose the fear was that they might run off together with no means of supporting themselves and Sue would not have had recourse to benefits at 14.
So so wrong. An abused child let down by the system now risking her health and her kids having a mother time and again for what? Having a well used vagina. It’s sad and sick and the older girls make me feel sad too.
Using benefits and the NHS is a tired argument. There are benefit caps. Whether they apply to the Radfords is neither here nor there.
The media would have you believe that every second family is scamming the state. Throwing out babies for council houses and not working. But the figures don't back any of that up. Most benefits go to families in work. Topping up wages (so employers who pay a pittance to the workforce while earning large profits are the real winners there) and helping with expensive childcare and sky high housing costs (private landlords get their mortgages paid for by the state effectively). The governments own fraud figures are less than 1%. The amount of unclaimed money by people that would be eligible is higher than fraud.
Very few people are net contributors to the system so very few people actually have a right to say anything about people claiming what the government says they are entitled to.
That being said, having that many kids is madness just for the fact that they aren't able to get adequate time with each child. Which is a real shame. I have two kids and I'm run ragged doing my best to keep us all happy. Not to mention the risk they take each time with Sue's health.
The media would have you believe that every second family is scamming the state. Throwing out babies for council houses and not working. But the figures don't back any of that up. Most benefits go to families in work. Topping up wages (so employers who pay a pittance to the workforce while earning large profits are the real winners there) and helping with expensive childcare and sky high housing costs (private landlords get their mortgages paid for by the state effectively). The governments own fraud figures are less than 1%. The amount of unclaimed money by people that would be eligible is higher than fraud.
Very few people are net contributors to the system so very few people actually have a right to say anything about people claiming what the government says they are entitled to.
That being said, having that many kids is madness just for the fact that they aren't able to get adequate time with each child. Which is a real shame. I have two kids and I'm run ragged doing my best to keep us all happy. Not to mention the risk they take each time with Sue's health.
Blimey - bet he doesn't touch the sides these days.
I agree with your points but it’s not a tired argument simply for the fact they claim to be self sufficient and don’t rely on the government, which is a lie. To get headlines in the paper stating he supports them solely on his job is misleading and rude to many working parents in a similar boat.
It'll be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway
It is only since Austerity began in 2010 that Tax Credits and other in work benefits began being lumped in with out of work benefits such as Jobseekers or Income Support. Before that time, Tax Credits and Child Benefit were largely missing from the rhetoric that vilifies working families for needing top ups in a society that they have no power in. In fact, in the late 1990's, Tax Credits were promoted by the government in a series of advertisements on TV.
I have always understood their "claim" that they don't claim benefits to mean that they don't claim out of work benefits (JSA/IS) and since they own their house they don't claim housing benefit. The shift in rhetoric has allowed many people to slate them for claiming money that many families also claim.
Most tax payers in the UK aren't even covering their own financial burden on the state, never mind being able to say that they are paying for someone else's kids.
Believing that rhetoric is just a way for people to feel superior, and it doesn't matter if the family in question has two kids or twenty. People like to judge and they like to find fault. So it is a tired argument because it is a system problem and nothing to do with them. If they had four kids they would still be a drain.
I don't have a problem with anyone claiming what they're entitled to whether they have 1 child or 30. What annoyed me is that the 'tired argument' was initially started by the Radfords. Their first program came on with Sue saying they wanted to show the nation how it is possible to have a large family without any help. It was the tabloids that went on about benefits, the Radfords used to wax lyrical about being self sufficient, doing it all themselves etc when that is clearly not true and never was. They have received a lot of help over the years whilst denying it. What is worse is that Noel has slated other large families and even said that most people have large families to get a bigger council house or to stick them in front of the telly. They both have a holier than thou attitude and are extremely evasive and defensive about their financial situation.
Slightly OT, but I believe introducing Tax Credits (or the rate at what they were previously paid) were one of the worst things the government did. It simply gave big businesses an excuse not to pay a living wage, knowing that they were always going to be propped up by government funds. They were never going to keep increasing at a rate that was feasible and it gave some families an excuse to play the system and could blame them? Why go out to work full time when you could work 16 hours a week and get more for doing that than if you worked 40? And unlike a wage from an employer, the more kids you had, the more money you received. It was a ridiculous system and served only to divide the population.
I disagree and it’s not about being superior. It’s not the system this was and has been in the last 10 years. Sue used to state on her blog they got tax credits but when they started getting newspapers fawning over how amazing they are she took that down and claimed they got no state help which is bullshit. There are many, many hardworking large families who claim tax credits and work (I live on a road with 5 families of 6+ kids and they all claim tax credits) and they simply claim their entitlement. There is no system problem at all they just want to pretend they don’t pocket £50000 plus in tax credits because they would be vilified.
Interpreting their claim to be that they don’t claim out of work benefits is ludicrous. Why would anyone need to have that as something to be proud of? It’s not like most large families are out of work.
I agree about the defensiveness and the holier than thou attitude. In the beginning I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt and put it down to the way the programmes were edited, and I do think that is a factor still, but the way they act on social media deleting comments etc reinforces that they are like that. I still think that they believe they don't have help because they don't get housing benefit or out of work benefits. They are wrong to claim self sufficiency of course, but that thinking has a foundation as I already outlined.
One of the programmes that they did had another large family. The mum was run ragged and the dad was long term out of work. That family was really criticised. Setting themselves apart from that would be understandable. So no, not something to be proud of...but you can't deny the association is there and that they would want to distance themselves from it.
I completely agree. (Though the division in the population has been a direct result of Austerity, not from Tax Credits themselves.) The media has a lot to answer for really. The government made these policy decisions, propped up wages, bailed out the banks, sold off social housing causing an increase in private landlords having their mortgages paid for by the state, did nothing about high rents and expensive childcare costs, and then the media made sure that everyone pointed the finger at ordinary working people. Now everyone judges every other person that is in the same boat they are, when the true problems are within government and the richest in the country.
Last edited:
- Status