Is Govt to blame for poor *** educashun ?

quote:

Originally posted by BrianD:
We have seen policies introduced that have brought about a situation where, to have a roof over you head, kids have to be neglected.

I would suggest it's more about choice. There are plenty of jobs that allow just one parent to work (or allow one parent to work full time and the other part time) and to still have a decent roof over their heads.

The problem is that expectations are high so people want a really big roof, two new cars, expensive holidays etc and for that both parents do have to work full time. It's a choice they make though.

I would also suggest that many of those teenage girls deliberately becoming pregnant (as a springboard to a life on welfare) are far more likely to be the offspring of parents who have themselves demonstrated that welfare is an acceptable lifestyle choice, rather than that of full time working parents (who are demonstrating by example that you can actually get what you want if you are willing to work hard for it).

Matt.

I would imagine that most teenage births are due to stupidity and ignorance on a number of peoples parts. Like the Non Existant UK voters numbers, I'd be interested to see the figures realated to here, and wouldn't at all at all be suprised if they are in fact quite low ? but as we all know with stats (as with dosh) folk like to portray them how they see the world, innit.


Fritz Von I hear a £250,000 first time buyer house today requires a couple with an income of some £70 K (no kids) Thatcher did revive the early greed, debt-society, and two income households for a mortgage became the norm, in contrtast to previous times; Tory too.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
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

I understand where you're coming from entirely me old China, and wether you're provoking an old argument, or actually saying what you believe I think maybe a change of tack is required. With all the social ups & downs & ins & outs of British society over the last century or so, non of it would have been in the slightest way possible without a measured from of powerful military defence approopiate for that period in time, applicable to most modern day established Nations I feel.
Comparing the submarine and its costs is not an argument, there is no alternative, and a measured modern 'affordable but realistic' military is a fact of life to protect ourselves from ourselves if you see what I mean, it being, as always the very nature of 'our' beast, innit.


Fritz Von Is the Govt to blame for poor education

Good post Fritz.

In an ideal world a nuclear deterrent wouldn't be necessary. Unfortunately we don't live in such an ideal world.

And we can't rely on Bushyanks to bail us out if we don't contribute to a common defence on which we need to have our say.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
Good post Fritz.

And we can't rely on Bushyanks to bail us out if we don't contribute to a common defence on which we need to have our say.

Amen! A submarine full of nuclear missiles is essential against a passenger-filled aeroplane flown deliberately into the Post Office Tower!

Nime

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:

And we can't rely on Bushyanks to bail us out if we don't contribute to a common defence on which we need to have our say.

Steve

Can you imagine any circumstance in which the UK would use it's nuclear weapons without the Americans being involved?

Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark, Holland....countries without nuclear deterrent. Countries with a high standard of welfare.

I don't see the argument for Britain retaining our weapons. It's a costly small penis size substitute. 'Look at us, we're important, honestly!'



Stephen

PS Not to mention the hypocrisy of us telling other states that they must not develop the weapons. It's like a smoking parent trying to persuade their children not to smoke.

As major weapons producer Britain has to protect itself against those who might turn our home-made weapons on ourselves. The close association with Ammewwica makes us an enemy of a lot more people. Add in our history in the colonies and you get compound interest in taking a pot-shot at us.

Fortunately the "terrorists" are now being pacified by being tortured in foreign lands rather than in the cellars of Whitehall. So that's alright then.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Until you make everyone stand on their own two feet and cut out social security, you will get scroungers taking advantage.

What if you don't HAVE two feet to stand on, like my mate who has cerebral palsy (and does voluntary work) or another friend who has had two brain tumours, and now has a shunt and is nto able to to be employed due to not being insurable, or the hundreds of people with dibilitating diseases like MS?

THESE sorts of people SHOULD have access to social security.

Lowlife sluts who can't keep their femininity to themselves should NOT, however. Why is it a basic "human right" to reproduce? It's a lifestyle choice. If you can't afford it you shouldn't do it.

In the old days, offspring such as these would be taken into care. WHY should the mother have the ability to bring up her kid at 12 years old - she's not bloody fit to do it. The kids should be fostered, or, preferably, adopted.

My birth mother couldn't keep her legs shut, and I was adopted. If it had been 2005 rather than 1975, I'd have been brought up by a wanton and unfit parent. Thank god for the good old days when people had morals and realistic ideas about society, rather than giving £££££ in free handouts to undeserving spongers.

As for THESE mothers, the 12 and 14 year olds hould be in care themselves as their mother is unfit and unsuitable for the task. ALL THREE babies should be in care.

Makes my blood boil, I'm afraid. 9 years down the line when the first offspring becomes sexually active, the seeds will be sown (bad pun!) for another generation of even MORE decayed social responsibility.

EDIT: why aren't the 12/14 y/o being done for breaking the law? Likewise the fathers - hope they get cobbled by the CSA for this one - assuming any of them have jobs. Or are the fathers pre-schoolers???

EDIT2: I've never met my birth mum. Not sure I want to either. Got pretty preconceived ideas on that one. The father is less than nothing.

A nice rant that Exeter, good to see some good up & coming competition on the floor ? I recall not so many moons afore (irrespective of which religion one happened to pay dues to or be ex-communicated )many a family across Europe & The Western World in fact, had many children to bare (no pun there) the majority of which died either at birth or not long afterwards.

As I said afore, I bet the actual stats for under 15 year old mothers in UK is actually quite low, let's find out from somewhere shall we ! and that doesn't automatically equate to them or their families claiming benefits either does it (Asian families come to mind) who like the Turks here are very self reliant from the State, and contribute lots of taxes fopr Mick & his ilk to enjoy spending at their behind the scenes leasure.

Fritz Von Who's read 'KISS KISS' about a very happy mother & father who's sixth child finally survived babyhood so to speak, all of its predecessors having died early. The lovely baby was known as Adolf wunnit

quote:

Originally posted by domfjbrown:
Why is it a basic "human right" to reproduce? It's a lifestyle choice. If you can't afford it you shouldn't do it. .

Dom

It's not a 'right'. It's a basic biological necessity and drive. You can't stop it (anymore than you could stop humans from eating or farting or urinating or being violent).

Trying to stop people having children just wouldn't work. So we live with it as best we can.

The sad thing isn't that young people have kids too early; it's that we live in a society that makes them believe it's th only option in life.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
Yeah ! All my ten kids got pregnant under the age of 14 (even the boys) and it's the bleedin governments fault innit, said the single mother from somewhere in Britain, who's own hands are still as soft as mild green gin & Lime, but insists she's nearly 30, and it's her right to claim State benefits as her kids will pay our future pensions ?
A government spokesperson was quoted as saying "Unfortunately we're all tied up with the Israeli claim that NHS Doctors killed a man our soldier accidently shot with his high powered telescopic sighted weapon at 50 paces at the moment, but as soon as that's over we'll be able to open more maternity wards, and PFI funded benefit offices to deal with the problem, innit"

Fritz Von So that's allright then, innit ? BBC never heard of them, this is now a Murdoch Forum, and I dinnee mean the A Team

All In All It's Just a kid up the Hall

Good to see that Thai Law put a copper inside for life for killing two Brits, if they'd been Thai nationals, like the Israeli 'soldier' mentioned above he may well have been freed.


Fritz Von Good to see some legal systems occasionally seemingly dish out justice, innit (a photo caught him out, innit )

I take full responsibility for believing that all the 'elected' etc prats cocking up society might actually have done everyone/thing in world some good, rather than as it often seems, the reverse.

Ex-teacher
Ex-health service
Exactly

I [B]Imagine[/B] the two Scaasers on the field felt the same last neet, innit, Ringo ?

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:

quote:

Originally posted by domfjbrown:
Why is it a basic "human right" to reproduce? It's a lifestyle choice. If you can't afford it you shouldn't do it. .

It's not a 'right'. It's a basic biological necessity and drive. You can't stop it (anymore than you could stop humans from eating or farting or urinating or being violent).

OK - well, let's continue to allow exponential growth. Who's going to moan when water and food get scarce? I guess we could always eat the welfare babies... (joke!)

Maybe people could be a bit less selfish and a bit more socially responsible, but then, hey, that would also involve sacrifices like selling the polluting tin box used to drive the kids to school, amongst other things.

BTW - my parents are Catholic (uuugh) as is my brother. I'm supoosed to be too, but am not. My brother and sister in law have 4 kids (nice kids, admittedly!) but I feel they've been highly irresponsible. If they are hardline Cath, they'll not have been using johnnies. This'll explain the number of kids. However, his wife had to have a C-section on all four kids, so they can't "do it" now. If it's easy enough to not "do it" now, why not before?

That family are always skint, despite him having a reasonably decent teaching job, and his wife having a headship. Madness. Wouldn't 1 or 2 kids do max?

I think that condoms' have a groundless high price.

quote:

Originally posted by domfjbrown:

That family are always skint, despite him having a reasonably decent teaching job, and his wife having a headship. Madness. Wouldn't 1 or 2 kids do max?

According to an article on Danish Radio yesterday the number of kids in *affluent* families is now a clearly recognised status symbol.

The ability to survive on a certain income is not inherited.