Big Families, Problem Children and Parenting (split from Is England Disappearing)

[Jimmymac]

This made me laugh so much, not for the 'vive L'Anglais' but for your pittyfull view of 'English traits'. Mate seriously?

But this could get onto a 'what does it mean to be english' bit, which frankly arguing with someone who has your view would be like hitting your head agaisnt a wall... not very productive and the only outcome... getting a head ache.

 

[conny]

I'm not convinced that is the case though, the system for allocating those things is complex, I dont understand it and frankly I dont think the people working it understand it half the time, but I doubt there is an automatic advantage given to foreigners, I am in favour of giving state support to the people who need it most, irrespective of where they happened to be born.

 

[Mercury]

you could hardly put up a family of 12 in a 3 bed terraced could you? 12 kids in a £300k house is a bargain.

 

[Dwarf]

No but my point is they simply had more and more kids to get a house like that. Neither of them worked, living off the dole. Which really is unfair. I swear england should have 'parenting' as a mandatory course at school that you have to pass and you have to pass some sort of check list [such as a job or whatever] to be able to have a kid. Just seems that so many young kids now are having kids just so they dont have to work and get money for nothing.

And dont have a clue how to raise them, so they turn out chavs.

 

[JollyKibbles]

I agree, I dont think that having children should be a right, I think you should have to demonstrate that you are capable of looking after the child, both literally and financially first.

 

[clintbankston]

Psymon your right i have read and heard that people have children so they get a flat and get money and dont have to work, and this includes teenagers.

 

[Brando]

I actually believe this strongly enough that im considering trying to get in touch with some of the 'higher powers' Mps, Pm etc to try and suggest what i said in an earlier post. It may come to nothing, they may not listen, but i reckon that if people have an idea they genuinely think could help, they should atleast try?

 

[wild7cherrypepsi]

Or kids should be maybe made aware of the perils and cost of parenting as we were at school (ironically living somewhere with a horribly high teenage pregnancy rate). You can't really say that only people can afford to should have children, how about the parents who are ok ,then lose their jobs (as happened to my family). I can see where you are coming from,but things are rarely as cut and dried as you think.

 

[Saw]

The point you say is "how about parents who are ok, then lose their jobs" but that means that they had jobs, and contributed in society which therefore by what i said would mean they could have kids. Making kids aware of the 'perils and costs' won't mean squat to them.

Not when they know for a fact if they have kids and never work they'll get more benefits and freeby's than anyone else.

 

[Jessbbabe]

I still say it isn't as simple to do as you suggest as you may think. Some people are victims of circumstance and can't work, should they be denied a family? How would you set the criteria and who would "police" it and make such fundamental decisions? Civil servants?

 

[nicolepratley]

So you believe in the principle of less eligibility? Because that went down really well in history *cough* work houses *cough*
You are suggesting makign parenting requiring a test. What happens if you get knocked up by accident? You going to force them to abort if they can't pass a test? Take the baby from them when it's born? You going to force people to get a job just because they are sponging? What job are they going to do?

 

[carlwhethers1212]

It would be down to people who make an honest contribution to society. Obviously people with disabilities whom can not work wouldn't be involved as they don't scrounge. The policing would be easy enough as people would 'pass' a form of parenting class at school, this would give them the understanding of how to bring up kids, the requirements of kids and generally how to deal with problems. The 'policing' of it would be quite simple aswell, when the mother of such baby realised she was pregnant the father and mother would have the available time to go to the parenting class and achieve the grade so to speak. They then have that time to [if they dont already work] find a job suitable for the upbringing of a child. This would then be shown to midwives etc when the baby was born, if the child was born and the couple simply did not achieve this then the baby would be under 'supervision' by a 'nanny' to help around the home untill such time became clear. This would also create jobs for people to become 'nannys' and offer advice and help out.

 

[TwilightFanatic]

Getting 'knocked up by accident' as you put it if became an issue the parents would have sufficient time in achieving the knowledge of parenting.

No, i've explained what would happen in my last post.

Ofcourse, if you sponge your nothing to society and therefore offer nothing, so why should you have the same rights and priviledges as people who actually work?

Anything that means they actually work.

The chav culture was never a problem in the past, now it is a problem it should be addressed and changed.

 

[foodieNY]

You're very idealistic Psymon and that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Ok,so I pass the "test" at school, what does that prove? That I can pass an exam.Doesn't mean I'm going to make a good parent OR that I am going to get a job either. You really wouldn't get every single parent to go to a class.Who is going to pay for this? The tax payer? Why should I fund that when I have decided to not even have children?

You'll be suggesting that families are only allowed to have one child before long.

 

[Liberalthushypocrite]

So give the dolites who you complain about having it easy a Free Nanny because they are incapable of passing a test/willing to turn up for lessons etc?
You don't think that's a bit of an odd doublish standard?
It would be down to people who make an honest contribution to society
Have you met any dolites recently? I only know ONE who makes an honest contribution to society (my aunty who is raising her grandkids because her daughter is an idiot).
Wondering if you do British Economic History? Speficially "welfare and the poor", might be worth looking into. This problem has been around for years, and for every few people who are on the dole and pumping out kids to make money there is a few who are just between work etc and 1 who has a genuine (non-medical) reason. There are "deserving" (old, disabled, insane) poor and there are "undeserving" (an impossible catergory to define really, as everytime they do innocents get swept up in the wake) poor.
I'm not saying your idea for passing a test and stuff isn't a good one, i like it. It's just ridiculous to try and implement on a national basis and even harder to actually figure out who's who.

 

[PACKERFAN4LIFE]

Good ole' china. No but in all seriousness, you say 'test' like its going to be 'pencils down' job. Its a way that parents can understand properly how to look after children, and what they need. The vast majority of the 'chav culture' has parents who don't know how to look after kids, they become 'stressed' because they dont know how to do specific methods of looking after children and thus 'go off the rails' which then means the kids aren't brought up but are 'dragged up'. This would just make sure that parents leave school with key knowledge and understanding in how to look after children no matter when they have them.

No its already semi in system with 'child studies' as a gcse at schools. This system would replace that by being 'parenting' and would be mandatory for all students. This means that its just 'an extra course' so really wouldn't cost the tax payer anymore. As for the nanny insentive i think that the money perhaps the government would save on not having to give people large houses and freebys because they've popped out loads of kids and refuse to work would cover it.

 

[Aisha]

Sorry, and i rarely do this but WRONG. The only time it wasn't popular was when they were forced into workhouses by the middle class, and we are getting round to that way of thinking again.

 

[SandyR]

My method would be to Support people who don't have the key tools in place to bring up a child, if they are found to not be even trying to work in either a job or at parenting then the result of thats simple. There are thousands of people who want to adopt children, and many who have to wait years and years before they get the chance. You get the chance to make something of yourself in this life, if you dont then its a simple method of putting the child with someone who is willing and perhaps can't have kids for whatever reason.

 

[vnethirajan]

So you are going to take the children off the people who are on the dole? Really? Therein lies a whole new moral debate.

 

[ShaynaP]

I am not saying there was never muggings, people breaking into houses etc etc. But the vast majority of kids felt 'safer' going out. There wasn't much of a problem with that, unless you were part of some sort of gang/trend such as if you were a 'mod' 'rockers' would have a problem etc. The main problem is that people now just enjoy beating people up and making people scared. In the past i doubt very few adults were afraid of children, now look at it you've got 12 year olds making peoples life a misery.