http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8034845.stm
I sigh with resignation of yet more taxpayers' money going down the drain.
What the country needs is not more social workers, but fewer mothers like Baby P's mother.
If they all wish to kill all their children, it is frankly no skin off my nose.
Why do we all hypocritically pretend to care?
It would be a good thing, wouldn't it, to have the next generation of feral children not conceived or if conceived then culled by unfit mothers who like taking up with sadistic child-killing partners?
It is but nature taking its course.
Why use taxpayers' money to prevent what is in fact a blessing in disguise for those of us who do not want to be the victims of the kind of adult Baby P would have become?
http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=104
has ideas more likely to prevent the increase in numbers of mothers like Baby P's than a whole battalion of social workers.
Let us get to the root of the problem, once and for all, instead of pretending helping vulnerable children, ie children who are going to become criminal adults, will help anyone at all.
Peter Hitchens also opines that more social workers is not the answer. He does not quite go so far as to suggest penalising slag and slapper single mums, as I do. But things have gone too far now to merely recommend marriage, as he does, without giving these unmarried women with their variously-fathered children the treatment they deserve.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1179848/PETER-HITCHENS-Marriage-dead-feet-best-safeguard-future-Baby-P.html
THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
5 comments:
Hey,
Sad thing is they are free to breed as much as they like - but lack the commonsense or basic skills to provide for the child - sod working, the state will pay for the bairn and me, who pays for the state? Us muppets!
Time people were prevented from popping out sproggs without the means to support them, the situation is dire and will continue to escalate unless policy is set and the population adheres to it.
CD
You are of course correct in stating that we need fewer mothers like Baby P's mother.
But the fact is that we are in the situation that we are in, and I'm not being hypocritical when I say that I care about the future of kids put in dangerous circumstances by their own mothers. Right now there are children in danger, so £58 million extra to Social Services to cope with this, in my mind, is small fry. Lets cut back on useless military spending to make up for it.
There are plenty of single mothers out there doing the best that they can, and being a single mother does not automatically make you a slag or a slapper or stupid and incapable of rearing a child.
Yes, we should encourage marriage, but I don't want to live in a state in which - as www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=104 suggests - charges people £1000 for having children out of wedlock. Sounds too much like fascism to me. People should be able to have as many kids as they want, but they have the responsibility of looking after them without state help, and if they don't want children the state can - and does - provide free birth control such as condoms.
Perhaps we should be moving towards a state of affairs where having a single child within wedlock is supported by the state (child benefit, Child Trust Fund, tax breaks, etc) but any more than that 1 child and you have to be able to support the child or care for it yourself, otherwise the state will take your children off you and you will not financially benefit through using your children as leeches on the state support system.
There is already availability of free birth control so there should be no problems in actually having sexual intercourse without having a child.
The other side to this is actually doing more to encourage adoption amongst those people who want more than 1 child. Sure, have another kid, but why not take on a child whose parents, for whatever reason, do not have the ability to rear it? This would be instead of giving birth to yet another child who will in turn increase consumption and the strain on global (note, not just UK national!) resources.
I suppose I am suggesting radical solutions because drastic solutions are in fact required to make people change their behaviour ASAP.
I don't think we have time to be nice about it any more.
That has been tried before, and it does not work.
Indeed, so soft is the line being taken on single mummery that most of us know single mums or know someone who is or was singly parented.
So soft is the line we have taken on it that it is now being encouraged by such people as Mary Pols whose book ACCIDENTALLY ON PURPOSE, is now out in paperback.
People who are single parents or who were born of single parents feel somehow unable to admit that they or their parents did anything wrong and actively condone illegitimacy.
What you have now is a conspiracy of silence or a chorus of disapproval screeching at you for being callous and intolerant.
No more Mr Nice Guy!
Just world hypothesis.
I suppose you mean "wild hypothesis". I hope you will come back to explain what you mean exactly.
Post a Comment