I-S
Good Evening.... Infidel
Lt Cdr Data said:
License people to reproduce. Make people work for it, so that offspring are truly valued and given the time, attention, love and discipline they need.
</contentious>
HOW MUCH MORE!? (Happy slapping)
- Thread starter domfjbrown
- Start date
License people to reproduce. Make people work for it, so that offspring are truly valued and given the time, attention, love and discipline they need.
</contentious>
Dev
Moderator
Not just contentious Isaac, impossible (well nearly) to police. How do stop a couple from er doing what comes naturally?
amazingtrade
Mad Madchestoh fan
It is important to remember that we are only talking about the very small minority here. As always though it is the minorities that cause all the problems.
If there was a clear solution then it would have been solved by now, lets also remember that this is nothing new, it happened my mums school as well in the early 70's.
I think one solution would be to offer more vocational skills at school such as brick laying, as you wouldn't have to take exams as such it might be seen as more cool and it would help solve some of the shortage in the construction industry.
I was very well behaved at school but when I had to Spanish I found it very difficult becuase of my hearing in the end I legally dropped out, but when I had to go to these lessons I could be slightly discruptive becuase I had no idea what was going on. It was highly frustrating.
I would imagine that it is the same of some of these kids, however its no excuse to behave the way they did, even in spanish I never talked when the teacher was talking, I just talked instead of doing my work.
The secondary school system is still failing 50% of 16 year olds so somthing clearly needs to be done.
Is it fair to blame the kids if their parents are dolers who care about nothing but where their next white lightening is coming from?
If there was a clear solution then it would have been solved by now, lets also remember that this is nothing new, it happened my mums school as well in the early 70's.
I think one solution would be to offer more vocational skills at school such as brick laying, as you wouldn't have to take exams as such it might be seen as more cool and it would help solve some of the shortage in the construction industry.
I was very well behaved at school but when I had to Spanish I found it very difficult becuase of my hearing in the end I legally dropped out, but when I had to go to these lessons I could be slightly discruptive becuase I had no idea what was going on. It was highly frustrating.
I would imagine that it is the same of some of these kids, however its no excuse to behave the way they did, even in spanish I never talked when the teacher was talking, I just talked instead of doing my work.
The secondary school system is still failing 50% of 16 year olds so somthing clearly needs to be done.
Is it fair to blame the kids if their parents are dolers who care about nothing but where their next white lightening is coming from?
amazingtrade
Mad Madchestoh fan
Dev said:
Yeah its impossible to police, I wonder if stricter social services is the answer? Parents seem to have too much rights regardless of how crap they may be.
I wonder if sending unrurly kids to boot camp is the answer?
I-S
Good Evening.... Infidel
Indeed Dev, it was an extreme suggestion.
However, I suspect that cutting benefits to those with more than 2 kids (similar to china) and making parents liable for their children's behaviour below a certain age, including potential loss of benefits would go some way.
However, I suspect that cutting benefits to those with more than 2 kids (similar to china) and making parents liable for their children's behaviour below a certain age, including potential loss of benefits would go some way.
Lt Cdr Data
om
add to that list
more lack of mutual respect, me culture
decline in religion/morals, coupled with the ascent of science?
alcohol culture..
my take is to return some equality, more draconian laws return things to the 70s, but I can only see things slowly getting better for some, others staying the same, and worse for others, the gaps will widen more and so with it, respect.....
more lack of mutual respect, me culture
decline in religion/morals, coupled with the ascent of science?
alcohol culture..
my take is to return some equality, more draconian laws return things to the 70s, but I can only see things slowly getting better for some, others staying the same, and worse for others, the gaps will widen more and so with it, respect.....
amazingtrade
Mad Madchestoh fan
Clearly they need to stop rare instances of local slappers getting up the duff simply so they can get a free council flat. This is very rare but I have heared of cases of it happening.
Vicky Polards do exist.
Vicky Polards do exist.
penance
Arrogant Cock
Rare?
Its a full time job for some places round here.
Its a full time job for some places round here.
amazingtrade
Mad Madchestoh fan
penance said:
I've been out of school for a long time now, so I've not seen much of it.
However going to university in Salford I am will aware of the yobs who have no respect. A female friend was called a bitch by a 10 year old as she got into her car, only to dicover her tryes had been nailed.
I would to meet their parents.
Its not even single parenting thats the problem. There was a girl in my class at school and her mother died of cancer so the girl had to look after her younger brothers, she was only 16 herself.
I saw her the other day with her youngest brother who is about 10 now (she is 23) and he was very respecful she has done a very good job. It must be so been so hard for her.
Yet so you see kids with two parents causing riots.
I really don't have a clue what the answer is, but it is very important that we don't stereotype. In general though it does seem to be the council estates the the problems are worse.
Dev
Moderator
I think there are some potential benefits (sicIsaac Sibson said:
) here.
amazingtrade said:
Council Estates? Stereotype? Me?
I dont know any stats but you are probably right as the socially deprived people tend to get stuck in the socialy deprived areas.
Personly I was raised on a council estate (Brookside! but not the liverpool one
) and I feel all the better for it. Life was hard (queue exerpts from Monty Python - Live at the hollywood bowl, yorkshiremen sketch (I was born in Yorkshire, but I digress)) and you had to learn from other peoples mistakes.Its even worse when Kids with no excuse misbehave and treat teachers and adults like dog dirt.
amazingtrade
Mad Madchestoh fan
lAmBoY said:Council Estates? Stereotype? Me?
I dont know any stats but you are probably right as the socially deprived people tend to get stuck in the socialy deprived areas.
Personly I was raised on a council estate (Brookside! but not the liverpool one
Its even worse when Kids with no excuse misbehave and treat teachers and adults like dog dirt.
Sorry I wasn't meaning you, I just talking generally. Sorry about that.
My mum was raised on a council estate as well, she was originaly born in what is now the roughest part of Manchester, all my grandparents kids have ended up with very good jobs and nice houses.
leonard smalls
GufmeisterGeneral
Bromide in the water.Dev said:
Or force them to watch Arthur Mullard and Hilda Baker doing "You're the one that I want".
Or just an old fashioned bucket of water.
And if they were both in the stocks they'd have some trouble.
Yeah all very good answers. Prob is this; a party who would include measures such as limiting benefits to no more than 2 brats etc would have no chance at all at gaining power, theyd be crucified in the media.
Its okay blaming thatcher for all this but tb and his buddies have only made matters worse. I said it before and i'll say it again, we're the 52nd state
Its okay blaming thatcher for all this but tb and his buddies have only made matters worse. I said it before and i'll say it again, we're the 52nd state
domfjbrown
live & breathe psy-trance
penance said:
...and people normally jump on me for bringing the slapper/free-everything/kids thing up - glad I'm not alone in this thinking (and I know personally of 2 cases where this has happened in Exeter/Exmouth).
Check this out - why aren't the mothers and "fathers" banged up in a prison unit for breaking the law:
"happy" slappers in the "family way"
If you conceive a kid under 16, it should be FORCE ABORTED. Simple as that. Sod pro-life. Sod all of that. The kid won't have a decent upbringing.
And yeah, I *do* have issues on this one. Natural mum - you reading this, you slapper??? At least she was legal when she was screwed by the Pirate of Penzance!
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2003
- Messages
- 510
- Reaction score
- 0
Ignore it chaps. It won't go away but you'll feel all the better for not getting involved. Things are no worse now than before, I'm 34 and my parents had to put up with getting bombed and all sorts of genocide. Makes you feel that some rough scrubber getting pregnant isn't really a big deal. As for the money I pay in tax 40% (well I'm supposed to anyway), frankly even at that level I'm still better off than 98% of the world. My observation is I find it odd that the media choose to report these things when I understand that hundreds of atrocious and very newsworthy events take place every day, without a line in the press. I have no issues with poorer people, I wish them well and find it shameful that they are villified like this. Feed the media and it just keeps growing. All in MHO of course.
amazingtrade
Mad Madchestoh fan
Jools thats pretty much what my mum said, there have always been unrurly kids in schools at least in the last 30-40 years. Its nothing new, the media as always just like to make new stories on it.
My mums school was featured on world in action in 1967 and it was all about poor behaviour in schools.
My mums school was featured on world in action in 1967 and it was all about poor behaviour in schools.
Going back to something we were talking about earlier regarding number of children. How about making child benefit a fixed sum say £100 per month or whatever no matter how many children you have. That would make smaller families better off rather than larger ones. As infant death rates are pretty tiny now there is no need to have a big family.
Last edited by a moderator:
stumblin
Kittens getting even...
Benefits should be set at the point that you go one them. If a family with one child falls on hard times (it could happen to any one of here, no matter how successful) then benefits should be set at the one child level and not rise. If you have another child, then you have chosen to support that child at that income bracket, just like the rest of us. If I had a kid tommorrow my wage wouldn't rise, so why should yours?
The main thrust of my argument is differentiating between misfortune, and a situation willfully brought about. If I get made redundant tomorrow, I think I should be given help to keep me alive *in my present circumstance* until I get another job. That's why I pay NI/SS. If I choose to have kids in that time, tough doody to me. I'm in a hard time and I chose to make it harder - why is it anyone elses problem?
The benefits that are given should be given in exchange for actions that increase your chance of no longer needing benefits. To receive full benefits a person would have to increase their "employability". Of course employability needs to be defined, and options created for people to do this, but the money to do this has been gained from wiping out the more children = more benefits equation.
If we are to have a benefits system, it should be there for genuine people (who fall on hard times and work damn hard to pull themselves out of it). It should not be there for scum who will set out to abuse the system, but likewise it should not alienate these people before they get to this point. If we block the route of their abuse, perhaps there is a chance of remaining/becoming valuable members of society. Of course there will always be the dregs with a sense of entitlement, and quite frankly if they maneouver themselves into a position where they cannot live on the benefits they are given, then they can stay there.
It should also be completely clear that it is a "stop-gap" measure, as mentioned in the article someone posted. There needs to be a time limit on benefits, giving an incentive to sort one's life out.
To address the understandable liberal concern of the children of such families:
If society truly has a concern about the children of these families then take them away. I'd prefer my taxes to go to the upbringing of an innocent child than to maintaining a deceitful benefit fraudster. If they were going to the parents it would like not reach the children anyway.
The main thrust of my argument is differentiating between misfortune, and a situation willfully brought about. If I get made redundant tomorrow, I think I should be given help to keep me alive *in my present circumstance* until I get another job. That's why I pay NI/SS. If I choose to have kids in that time, tough doody to me. I'm in a hard time and I chose to make it harder - why is it anyone elses problem?
The benefits that are given should be given in exchange for actions that increase your chance of no longer needing benefits. To receive full benefits a person would have to increase their "employability". Of course employability needs to be defined, and options created for people to do this, but the money to do this has been gained from wiping out the more children = more benefits equation.
If we are to have a benefits system, it should be there for genuine people (who fall on hard times and work damn hard to pull themselves out of it). It should not be there for scum who will set out to abuse the system, but likewise it should not alienate these people before they get to this point. If we block the route of their abuse, perhaps there is a chance of remaining/becoming valuable members of society. Of course there will always be the dregs with a sense of entitlement, and quite frankly if they maneouver themselves into a position where they cannot live on the benefits they are given, then they can stay there.
It should also be completely clear that it is a "stop-gap" measure, as mentioned in the article someone posted. There needs to be a time limit on benefits, giving an incentive to sort one's life out.
To address the understandable liberal concern of the children of such families:
If society truly has a concern about the children of these families then take them away. I'd prefer my taxes to go to the upbringing of an innocent child than to maintaining a deceitful benefit fraudster. If they were going to the parents it would like not reach the children anyway.
