Is Govt to blame for poor *** educashun ?

Ah! That's the new Monolopy "Get out of <fill in the blank> free" card innit. In this case, it's the "Get out of parental responsibility card".

The sooner we get a change to the "It ain't my fault guv, giz a 6 pack of 8-ace, spent all me rent on me fags, go aaaan, giz a drink" mentality, the better.

Let the social services be there for those who really have taken a bad fall and can't get back up again rather than the spongers and skivers.

Steve (Cor, dat Thunderbird iz a top drink m8).

Chaps

It is no good moaning about teenage pregnancies, we have brought it on ourselves.

If we choose to pay social security payments to the unemployed, the long term sick and unmarried mothers then they will take the money as fast as they can.

Until you make everyone stand on their own two feet and cut out social security, you will get scroungers taking advantage.

The rule should be simple, if you don't work you don't eat and if you don't eat you die.

That is the only way to get rid of the chavs.

It is your choice.

Regards

Mick

Quite right Our Mike: Choice is what we need, ie. those that don't wish to pay NI shouldn't have to, and only those that benefit from them should pay into them, obvious innit, as Tom would say.

Fritz Von Abolish all National Childrens Homes as well & put em to work for the rich kids of comfortably off parents so they learn & remember their place in 'society'

Mick on this one i'm more than with you
Martin

Bring back the Empire.


Fritz Von Just supper for two tonight Mrs Bridges, Yes Mr Udson, ov corse Mr Udson

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

The rule should be simple, if you don't work you don't eat and if you don't eat you die.

Just what do you call "work" Mick.

Perhaps all the bloodsucking "consultants" and the management class who earn twenty times what the lowest paid employee of the company earns should die too?

Deane

I was at the Gym this evening when on the tv in the changing room (yes really) this article came on.

I was incredulous.

I couldnt help laughing.

I joked to the guy next to me that:

I bet it was the teachers who did it

He said that this kind of article made him mad as he has to teach these expletive deleted children.

I added that as an NHS employee the public is always looking to blame anyone as long as it is not themselves.

We both became speechless as the Parent insisted that it was the crap education that the GOVT provided caused her Virginal Duaghters to drop their knickers and let some Skank shaft them behind the bikesheds.

What kind of role model is the parent?

What kind of personal self respect has this waster of a parent instilled in their offspring.

One way to get a flat for each child i suppose.

I despair at this .

As an NHS employee speaking to kids who wish to waste their lives, sorry train for a career in the health care professions what do i say.

Get your a levels go to uni for 3 years come out with £10k debt and take a fabulously paid job where you need 10 x your salary to get a mortgage.

in future i will advise them to let me roger them so that they can get straight on to the housing list after their first menstrual cycle.
Which these days seems to occur at about 7-9 years of age.

How does the teaching profession deal day in and day out with this kind of hopeless neglectful abusive parenting.

How can a parent condone this kind of behaviour from what are basically fertile children. I use the term child to identify the difference between being able to child bear and having the life skills to make an intelligent decision to have a child when circumstances are right.

Judgemental yes.

But what is wrong with being judgemental.

A very sorry story with i presume a potentailly woeful end for the innocent babies born into this hell.

What about the rights for a child to be born into a suitable environment.

regards David

Deane

No one is forced to pay consultants or managers anything. They get paid what they are worth.

There is nothing to stop the lowest paid employee becoming a consultant or manager.

It is all down to drive and ambition.

Regards

Mick

Dave

I could not care whether those little scrubbers care to "drop their knickers" or not.

What I do object to is the fact that they are taking £30k pa out of the system which could be spent on recruiting a nurse who provides a useful service.

Regards

Mick

quote:

Originally posted by DAVOhorn:
As an NHS employee speaking to kids who wish to waste their lives, sorry train for a career in the health care professions what do i say.

Get your a levels go to uni for 3 years come out with £10k debt and take a fabulously paid job where you need 10 x your salary to get a mortgage.
.
.
.
How does the teaching profession deal day in and day out with this kind of hopeless neglectful abusive parenting.

A breakdown in social standards, brought about by 19 years of selfish Tory government that has taken this country so far back it will take generations to restore some kind of moral accountability and respect toward others.

Teachers have the kids for 7 hours their parents for 17 you do the math.

Thatcher started the "whats in it for me?" culture and as Brian says will take ages to correct. Its a shame the fascists don't know that.
Bring back transportation and public hangings for the theft of a loaf, I might even include 12 /14 year old mothers and travellers.

Howard

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:

Thatcher started the "whats in it for me?" culture

Howard

Aye. This is a huge problem in my opinion.

quote:

Teachers have the kids for 7 hours their parents for 17 you do the math.

It is about quality of time, not quantity.

Tory policies have brought about a situation where in a huge number of families both parents have to work full time.

In many cases I'm sure parents set off to work before the kids go to school and get home after the kids. They are totally knackered and can't devote the quality time they should to their kids, so the kids go off the rails.

It's simple really. We have seen policies introduced that have brought about a situation where, to have a roof over you head, kids have to be neglected.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:

It is all down to drive and ambition.

I dispute this.

I very much doubt that employers in the UK select their management purely on the basis of drive and ambition.

Nobody should be left to die in a rich country such as ours.

However, there should never be an incentive for the lower orders to breed and consume at the expense of the rest.

It's a tough call but I wouldn't want to leave anyone to rot.

Bring back the cat-o-nine-tails I say - thrash those chavs within an inch of their lives and then send them to the workhouse.

Chavs is not terminology I am familiar with.
I see it many times in the forum used in what would appear to be a disparaging way. Does it aquate to dole bludger or perhaps the lower middle class or just generally people who should in your opinions have never been born?
Unfortunately we our now full up with the above in OZ and cannot take anymore.
Try the Falklands.
Regards Lomo

In Holbeach, Lincolnshire, the master of the workhouse told the story of an unmarried girl who was leaving the workhouse after giving birth to her fourth child. As she was leaving, she said to him, 'Well, if I have the good luck to have another child, I shall draw a good sum from the parish; and with what I can earn myself, shall be better off than any married woman in the parish.'

Some while later, the master saw her again and she had got her wish. She was five months pregnant with a fifth child.

This was in the early 1830s. There was a Royal Commission in 1834 which shocked the governing class of the country and brought about a fundamental change in the law, effectively slashing the benefits given. This resulted in a dramatic reduction of births outside of marriage.

In fact, this story of 'higher benefits leading to higher birth rate outside of marriage leading to reduction in benefits leading to lower illegitimate birth rate, etc.' has been going on since the time of Henry VIII.

That was pre-Thatcher.

The problem is one of our society's memory loss.

Regards
Steve M

I work in areas of urban deprivation and there is no doubt that some national and local policies encourage (or do not discourage) young girls, and unemployed single young women to have children.

Generous benefit payments, compared to what could be earned in paid employment, and priority access to housing.

There is to my mind some merit in revisiting the "Workhouse" principle. Rather than pay benefits to these people and give them flats, let them live, if they chooese, in a Local Authority run facility which provides basic accommodation and 3 meals a day and give them a small alowance as pocket money. Provide education and training and job seeking skills. Provide creche facilities so that those who do find paid work can have their children cared for whilst at work, for an appropriate fee. Those that find work could then be put back on the housing lists etc.

quote:

Originally posted by 7V: The problem is one of our society's memory loss.

Good post! But the problem is actually the memory loss of each new generation that they are actually fertile.

They are given the matching kits to make babies (though I'm not sure which part of the anatomy a "bike-shed" is) and their clumsy fumbling will often produce rug rats without very much effort.

"Shagging makes babies and gives you nasty diseases!" is easily understood by all. Even the educationally challenged.

The drive to have sex is inbuilt. Why not simply recognise it instead of closing our eyes to the obvious reality?

"Not my girl" is simply not an intelligent response from *any* parent.

While Mick's heart is in the right place I think the fatherless baby institution may be quite a good idea. No automatic Council flats. Just sharing noisy accomodation with a mass of other girls all with babies. They could learn from each other instead of being on their own in a flat and in need of constant help and supervision from Social Services.

The word would soon go round that having a baby is a serious business and ought to be avoided. But instutions are renowned for becoming places of abuse. How do you avoid the inevitable corruption they usually bring? How many girls will choose to live in a squalid doss, become a traveller or seek a rented flat in a rough area and sell themselves to survive? Or deal small time in drugs to have enough to live on?

Girls have been having accidental babies out of wedlock since they wore sabre-toothed tiger skins. Even without social support girls will always get pregnant while experimenting with their newly-discovered sexuality. It goes with the territory of being young and seeking a partner and wanting to love and be loved. They just don't know that their first sexual partner is very unlikely to be their partner for life.

Of course the term latchkey kid is brand new isn't it chaps ?

I wonder if the fathers of these kids have been arrested and charged with underage sex, or sex with a minor, or been brought to task to pay for it's updike ? Earlier children machines were useful for producing soldiers or (cannon fodder) if you prefer, and like it or not, without them today your precious so-called demockery is not worth a hoot (across the board, just look at the US makeup, Miss England for instance).

I agree with Mick on folk being pissed off at having to pay for others, so as he's often said that he loves Private Health Care, etc, and all of its advantages, and can afford it (good on him), he'll have absolutely no qualms in the future when 'ABSOLUTELY NO' Doctors, Nurses, Consultants, Etc, Etc, under contract with the NHS are allowed to even step foot into a Private Hospital/Clinic unless they leave the NHS (Totally), ie. Private costs will soar through the roof, and you'll have to have loads of Private Insurance company's just like here, innit (too many in fact, but that's something else).

This is a theme only because of the age of these kids getting pregnant, though hardly new, and only racked up by Murdochs Super Soaraway Sun to tell the truth, as with speeding camera's, and his great glee over Auntie Beeb eventually falling by the wayside, so Mick & Friends will only get the real truth and nothing but, so help them God. If people openly (eg on internet forums) tell the whole world that they regularly give money to charity at their local lodge, I can only in my own experience put it down to their guilt at getting so many Tax Breaks at Public expence through their contacts and who they know, rather than what they know, and strangely enough many of these people are simply not qualified for what they do in the real world, they just pretend and imagine that they are, as everything around them seems to be going OK, but it's just an illusion to keep them and their offspring/ next generation, sweet, innit.


Fritz Von Markets & Sales is all it is, innit

P.S. I believe Berlin has one of the highest single parent (mainly mother) populations in €urope for your information

I see no problem at all in supporting those who want to have children. but whose social situation mean they'll find it hard to get the chances in life that people like Mick had.

As a person from a very poor background who was lucky enough to have parents who wanted to help me achieve the best I could from life, I sympathise with those kids who come through generations of poor treatment to become good parents. It's a hard struggle against tall odds.

There's nothing wrong with supporting those worse off than ourselves, alongside measures to help people out of those situations they find themselves in. But in the long run, you can't force people to 'improve' themselves - only provide the means which gives them a chance to do so.

If you're worried about the cost, remember; just losing our pointless nuclear 'deterrent' would easily pay for this (and more) social policies.

'The cost of permanently maintaining a British submarine at sea with 48 warheads and 16 missiles is £1.5 billion per year' (1998 figure)

Stupid, stupid

Stephen

Without your post Fritz I had already changed my mind on institutions for unmarried mothers.

The best chance their offspring will avoid the same pitfalls as their mother is by experiencing a reasonable upbringing in a decent flat on a resonable income.

Provided the mothers can be persuaded to work and socialise normally after the child is old enough for play school they can form more lasting secure relationships.

This is their best chance of escaping the tyranny of a life on Social Security. I have no idea how much support a girl will receive but it is an absolute certainty that they will not be enjoying even the most basic Naim hifi starter system. Unless they actually nick it!

Turning the thread on its head you could always argue that the "let them eat cake" CDS3/500/DBL brigade are an obscenely vociferous example of the gross inequality of life.

And if that doesn't get me thrown off the forum nothing will!

It's a duty to help others less fortunate, it's an intrinsic part of our so-called society, or maybe you'd all forgotten ?


Fritz Von When I'm on the bones of my arse (again) I know where my true allegiance lies, and it's not the benefits office, innit


Ps: Young kids playing don't think twice about sharing, until some one 'else' tells them it's wrong, innit

I think we need radical policies on this.

Make a one off £2000 payment to all women who reach the age of 21 having not reproduced. This would seem to be a lot cheaper than providing welfare for life to the teenage mothers and their offspring.

The amount payable might need a bit of adjustment to dissuade the Vicky Pollards of this World away from pregnancy but I would have thought £2K would buy a fair few Bacardi Breezers, Primark tops and a lot of Argos jewellery.

Matt.

quote:

Originally posted by BrianD:
A breakdown in social standards, brought about by 19 years of selfish Tory government that has taken this country so far back it will take generations to restore some kind of moral accountability and respect toward others.

Oh, of course, it's all Mrs Thatcher's fault.

Blaming Thatcher for this is equivalent to the Mother of these 3 children blaming the school for the pregnancies.

I thought Thatcherism was about people looking after themselves (and reaping the rewards), not relying on the state to support for them - maybe I misunderstood.

Matt.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt F:
I think we need radical policies on this.

Make a one off £2000 payment to all women who reach the age of 21 having not reproduced. This would seem to be a lot cheaper than providing welfare for life to the teenage mothers and their offspring.

The amount payable might need a bit of adjustment to dissuade the Vicky Pollards of this World away from pregnancy but I would have thought £2K would buy a fair few Bacardi Breezers, Primark tops and a lot of Argos jewellery.

Matt.

I get your gist Mattt, but would suggest that any person over the age of 16 (who's recieved their NI Card Number) can decide for them selves. This forum being a 99% Homophobic set up is hardly likely to mention needing males of all ages to procreate, though Maybe if all girls were kept away from males until the age of 21, both boys and girls could develope (children free) and find out 'hopefully' what their true sexuality was all about before it was maybe far too late down the line (as well as getting the best education they're 'capable' of handling. Of course certain Religions should be still allowed to maintain their own traditions and as tax payers also required to form their own large British Regiments when the need arises which it undoubtledly and unfortunately will do to protect their so hard faught for Democracy & Social Justice that nobody in reality gives a two-penny shit about until it actually affects themselves, innit mate