Teen abortion girl pregnant again

[Brovion]

... and you Gwylan.

 

[caz99]

While I've been having a couple of fillings (and trying to ignore the dentist's tits in my face) I tried to work out how much of my tax goes to people who 'choose' not to work.

Obviously, it's hard to work out exact amounts, as Voroshilov and Duncan H have pointed out, it's very hard to separate the people who want to work and people who don't, but my guess was about 5% of claimants didn't want to work. That's probably a bit high but I'll play conservative, Given that, I estimated that about 5p a month of my taxes is spent on what the Littlejohns of this world would call the workshy. I'm really not going to get worked up about that and those of you who are angry about so little an amount really should examine your priorities.

But the question I'd like answering is what should happen to these teenage mothers if they shouldn't get a flat and benefits. Should they be thrown out on the streets to beg? Should we do what they do in Burma and other countries and introduce child labour? Should the babies be taken away from their mothers and taken into care (a much more expensive option incidentally)? Should the mothers be forced to work, and if so, who should pay for childcare? That would probably end up as a more expensive option as well.

I've heard all these arguments before and no-one who fulminates against teenage mothers (or single mothers generally) has got a rational answer for this. Or one that doesn't cost the state more money, which rather destroys their argument about looking after taxpayers' interests.

Oh and Easy, saying that supporting teenage mothers is akin to wanting pensioners to freeze is a shameful argument. It's not a zero-sum game, wanting to protect children does not mean neglecting pensioners.

we are not getting worked about how much we are getting worked up with someone who thinks its alright for the rest of us to work our arses off, to simply support people who dont want to work cos they want a better life.

oh and i dont read the daily mail

 

[Man of Harveys]

And it still exists here and now because the state CONTINUES to fund this handouts lifestyle that people choose to fall into. That "tiny minority" that you speak of is costing us billions[/i] of pounds a year.

What a load of Victorian self-help drivel - especially so coming from a person who said that a football match was more important to them than the re-election of a warmonger that really is draining the exchequer of billions of pounds to sustain a ludicrous campaign in Iraq.

Just think: do you really imagine that most of the papers in this country that bang on about this sort of shite really strive to convey an accurate impression of the amount of "spongers" that exist versus the amount of genuinely needy people who are receiving help?

Because I doubt very much that the Daily Mail or Telegraph are full of at least as many "Labour government helps out the genuinely needy"-type headlines as they have "look at how these chavvy spongers piss away your hard-earned readies" - it's not the kind of news that appeals to the kind of simple-minded selfish - and generally affluent - arsefeeders that read those blimpish rags.

 

[Meade's Ball]

You may not be MERRILY advocating it, but you are indulging it by turning a blind eye to those who are deliberately milking the system because they can, and dressing it up as nothing more than a "lifestyle choice" as if this is in some way justifiable and ok.


Life-long education and encouragement is all well and good, and I would agree to that as a way of addressing this issue in the long term. But this problem still exists here and now. And it still exists here and now because the state CONTINUES to fund this handouts lifestyle that people choose to fall into. That "tiny minority" that you speak of is costing us billions[/i] of pounds a year.

And I just don't understand your point about the ever-widening poverty trap. You're right to be concerned about it, but surely its the spongers who are an intrinsic part of this very problem. Their lack of motivation and drive is the very thing which drags the whole system down, and leads to a downwards spiral of boredom, desperation, poverty and crime.

I simply cannot get my head around your way of thinking on this one.

I suppose it's what you think the causes of this lack of motivation are. I think it's down to a lack of education and clear options for those raised in poverty. Hope is the preserve of those who can afford it.

Would you refuse support for women who are "deliberately" having babies?

 

[caz99]

i am now going to throw a big spanner in the works but i am getting more and more pissed off with the hippy horse shit. my 20 sister has a 2 year old. therefore being a teenage mother. however apart from 6 months when my nephew was a baby she has worked and got a job cos she didnt want to be sitting on her arse wasting her life. i didnt want that for my sister either. she gets really angry about young mothers who simply choose to claim benefits cos its the easy option instead of trying to get a job and make something of her life as well has bring up my nephew.

no one is saying we shouldnt have support for the unfortunate ones but i wont agree to pay for spongers who want to live the life of riley while i bloody work my arse of paying for it

 

[London Calling]

And I just don't understand your point about the ever-widening poverty trap. You're right to be concerned about it, but surely its the spongers who are an intrinsic part of this very problem. Their lack of motivation and drive is the very thing which drags the whole system down, and leads to a downwards spiral of boredom, desperation, poverty and crime.

I simply cannot get my head around your way of thinking on this one.

MMMMMM

First Point. There are more single mums in their 30's than teenage mums. These women have very difficult choices, like all good mothers, they want to work, want independance, want to be with their baby.

But childcare in this COUNTRY iS f***ing ridicolous. I and Ms LC had a choice £220 a week for a nursery place i.e £11,000 a year or nothing.

Basically if you are a mum on a low income or as it happens not a bad income, most of your wages will go on child care. Yes there are child credits. But like in our case because we are considered to be good earners. We get bollocks.


There is some amazing figure in LOndon that about half of 30 something mums do not return to work.

Are they social scoungers. Perhaps they are! But what is more important this country is losing out on all of this talent!

In France, Sweden, Germany childcare is subsidised, cos women are seen as an intergral part of work,

also as I said earlier these countries have got there social reponsibilities and work responsibilities at the right level.

Lammy you and you're missus will have to get prepared for the costs! Actually give us a call if you need stuff!

For a lot of you get living not in the real world, cos that's quite nice.

If anyone interested I give them a tour of local hell holes around Hackney, that some people call homes. On another debate it was voted as one of the worst places in the UK. And it can be. For a lot of people living here, on low incomes. The average HOUSEHOLD income in Hackney is £12,000 a year. Yes that's £12,000 for a household, including parents and kids, in London.

For a lot of you just trying that in Brighton let alone here.

I can get out of this area. But imagine being brought up in bleak estates where not so long ago 80% of people were unemployed, nearly everyone was on benefit. And crime was absolutely mental.

Imagine an area where no one in your family had worked for years. Imagine that there were no jobs "suitable£" for you.

Its life in these areas. Yes depression is a big factor, long -term sick is prevalent.

Its bleak kids its bleak.

Of course there are people out there exploiting the system.

Of course there are business people with their accountants who rip more of the state than a scounger will ever get away with. A few years ago the DTI released a report on the tax dodges and how much it was costing the Country. It failed to be implemented. But the costs were far higher than benefit fraud. The Tories were in Office then. Guess which target group they went for?

They didn't just go for the poor they went for single teenage mums and it has stuck ever since.

Ms LC and I are considering another one. Finance will have to come into the decision, if we do, it is likely that Ms LC will give up work. Cos what's the point of working all week to pay out £22,000 for two kids.

LC

 

[Gwylan]

Told you: none of these people who go on about scroungers will answer the question about what should happen to mothers with babies. They'll skirt around the issue or like Caz, ignore the question altogether.

Oh and great post, LC.

 

[Meade's Ball]

i am now going to throw a big spanner in the works but i am getting more and more pissed off with the hippy horse shit. my 20 sister has a 2 year old. therefore being a teenage mother. however apart from 6 months when my nephew was a baby she has worked and got a job cos she didnt want to be sitting on her arse wasting her life. i didnt want that for my sister either. she gets really angry about young mothers who simply choose to claim benefits cos its the easy option instead of trying to get a job and make something of her life as well has bring up my nephew.

no one is saying we shouldnt have support for the unfortunate ones but i wont agree to pay for spongers who want to live the life of riley while i bloody work my arse of paying for it

Why would the basic principle of wanting people to be happy with their lives make you angry?
Because it's to your cost?

I'm not sure i would call raising a child wasting your life.

You clearly have a work ethic that's important to YOU. That's fine, but why should everyone share that?

 

[caz99]

Why would the basic principle of wanting people to be happy with their lives make you angry?
Because it's to your cost?

I'm not sure i would call raising a child wasting your life.

You clearly have a work ethic that's important to YOU. That's fine, but why should everyone share that?

no one is saying everyone should share a work ethic however if you choose not to work you should find alternative means to support your lifestyle not make me pay for it cos i choose to work.

i meant waste her life as young mother sitting at home with my nephew having no social interaction, no money, not going out. the child raising itself is not a waste not but her sitting around when she is 18 is

 

[caz99]

Told you: none of these people who go on about scroungers will answer the question about what should happen to mothers with babies. They'll skirt around the issue or like Caz, ignore the question altogether.

Oh and great post, LC.

yes but the whole thread started about teenage mothers having children at 14 - 15 which shouldnt be happening should it. you changed the thread to mothers altogether which is not what is about.

my nephews father pays for his nursery fees like i imagine everyone esle does.

you changed the thread to something different

 

[Easy 10]

Told you: none of these people who go on about scroungers will answer the question about what should happen to mothers with babies. They'll skirt around the issue or like Caz, ignore the question altogether.

Look, what happens happens. Of course I wouldn't want to see single mothers (of whatever age) out on the street with no means of support. We live in a civilised society, and people cannot just be left with nothing to live on. I accept that a proportion of my wage HAS to go towards funding these peoples lifestyles.

But it doesn't mean I don't have the right to resent it.

 

[Lammy]

yes but the whole thread started about teenage mothers having children at 14 - 15 which shouldnt be happening should it. you changed the thread to mothers altogether which is not what is about.

my nephews father pays for his nursery fees like i imagine everyone esle does.

you changed the thread to something different

Exactely. I think it has already been said time and time again that no one would deny GENUINE cases for benefit. That is, after all what it is for.

No one is going to deny a young mother benefit or take the child into care etc...

It is easy to win an argument if you keep moving the goal posts of that argument. It's a classic woman ploy and is very affective!

However, there are two points of discussion here that I can make out.

1) Is it ok to DECIDE not to bother work irrespective of whether you are a single mum in your teens or your thirties. Meade's Ball and Fatboy believe it is a lifestyle choice. Caz, Easy and I believe it is scrounging. I don't believe it is cost us more than the war in Iraq but that is irrelivant to the argument. Is it right?

2) What is to be done to prevent young women from getting themselves pregnant for the wrong reasons e.g. a fashion assesory or to jump the housing queue?

If we could stick to these points please.

It has nothing to do with social depravation or how much we each pay a month to cover it.

For the record (I was wondering how long it would take for some idiot to say it) I have never in my life purchased the Daily Mail to actaually read it. Only when they are giving away 'free' CDs!

 

[caz99]

Exactely. I think it has already been said time and time again that no one would deny GENUINE cases for benefit. That is, after all what it is for.

No one is going to deny a young mother benefit or take the child into care etc...

It is easy to win an argument if you keep moving the goal posts of that argument. It's a classic woman ploy and is very affective!

However, there are two points of discussion here that I can make out.

1) Is it ok to DECIDE not to bother work irrespective of whether you are a single mum in your teens or your thirties. Meade's Ball and Fatboy believe it is a lifestyle choice. Caz, Easy and I believe it is scrounging. I don't believe it is cost us more than the war in Iraq but that is irrelivant to the argument. Is it right?

2) What is to be done to prevent young women from getting themselves pregnant for the wrong reasons e.g. a fashion assesory or to jump the housing queue?

If we could stick to these points please.

It has nothing to do with social depravation or how much we each pay a month to cover it.

For the record (I was wondering how long it would take for some idiot to say it) I have never in my life purchased the Daily Mail to actaually read it. Only when they are giving away 'free' CDs!

agreed

 

[Gwylan]

Look, what happens happens. Of course I wouldn't want to see single mothers (of whatever age) out on the street with no means of support. We live in a civilised society, and people cannot just be left with nothing to live on. I accept that a proportion of my wage HAS to go towards funding these peoples lifestyles.

But it doesn't mean I don't have the right to resent it.

A sensible answer. I accept your right to resent it just as, I hope, you accept mine that it doesn't particularly bother me.

What I don't accept is the argument that "something should be done" to prevent single mothers from jumping the housing queue. I keep asking what "should be done" to prevent this but
Caz and Lammy have studiously ignored this question.

 

[Easy 10]

What a load of Victorian self-help drivel - especially so coming from a person who said that a football match was more important to them than the re-election of a warmonger that really is draining the exchequer of billions of pounds to sustain a ludicrous campaign in Iraq.

WHOA, now THERE'S an almighty tangent to chuck into this debate. Just because I found myself personally more focussed on an upcoming Albion match than I did about the result of the US Election, that doesn't mean that I actually believe that in the great scheme of things that the Albions next match is somehow a more important world event. Jees.

Just think: do you really imagine that most of the papers in this country that bang on about this sort of shite really strive to convey an accurate impression of the amount of "spongers" that exist versus the amount of genuinely needy people who are receiving help?

Who said anything about newspapers ? I won't pretend to have the facts and figures to hand as to what percentage of our taxes goes towards funding this black hole, nobody offering opinions on this thread has. But we all know these people exist, some of us know them personally. Or are we at the stage of denial now, where we're saying that it really is such an insignificant number who work the system, so few as to be not worth worrying about ? Head in the sand time I guess.

Because I doubt very much that the Daily Mail or Telegraph are full of at least as many "Labour government helps out the genuinely needy"-type headlines as they have "look at how these chavvy spongers piss away your hard-earned readies" - it's not the kind of news that appeals to the kind of simple-minded selfish - and generally affluent - arsefeeders that read those blimpish rags.

Sorry, but there's no point to this. We don't NEED to know about the genuinly needy who ARE being helped, and yes, no doubt there are plenty of them. But they're not the problem are they ? Thats not "NEWS" because its not a problem. Are you basically saying that the "chavvy spongers that piss away our hard-earned readies" do not exist ? Or that the papers shouldn't write articles about them ?

Sorry, but I really must be missing something here.

 

[Lammy]

A sensible answer. I accept your right to resent it just as, I hope, you accept mine that it doesn't particularly bother me.

What I don't accept is the argument that "something should be done" to prevent single mothers from jumping the housing queue. I keep asking what "should be done" to prevent this but
Caz and Lammy have studiously ignored this question.

The question you asked was "What should be done about all these mothers with babies"

To which I replied

"Let them have the benefit"

The question is "What should be done to AVOID all these very young mothers with babies"

 

[caz99]

A sensible answer. I accept your right to resent it just as, I hope, you accept mine that it doesn't particularly bother me.

What I don't accept is the argument that "something should be done" to prevent single mothers from jumping the housing queue. I keep asking what "should be done" to prevent this but
Caz and Lammy have studiously ignored this question.

better sex education, better parenting skills, if my sister and i had had a decent upbringing i am sure that she would not have got pregnant. not an excuse but i expect she will admit herself that it was one of the reasons for going off the rails. stop making it so easy for them to claim benefits, more housing but with conditions not just free housing. child care costs to be brought down saying that they get free child care anyway. to be honest it is not easy to solve the problem and no one is saying it is.

and all the more reason she didnt want to sit on her arse and become another statistic. BTW we were still talking about teenage mothers arent we?

once again i shall repeat myself cos your obviously choosing to ignore posts. no one is denying genuine cases of benefit for people who are unable to work cannot work.

MB's wasnt saying this he thinks its perfectly acceptable just not to work if you dont want to, then you come on here changing the thread completely

 

[Hunting 784561]

a) The original point, was whether it was right for 14 & 15 year old girls to deliberately have babies.

b) The second point was Meade Ball's right not to have to work, at other peoples expense, in order to make his life a happy one.

c) Has predictably dengenerated into the usual Guardian v Daily Mail argument attacking or defending the state benefits system.

Please state either A), B) or C) in any anwser...

 

[caz99]

a) The original point, was whether it was right for 14 & 15 year old girls to deliberately have babies.

b) The second point was Meade Ball's right not to have to work, at other peoples expense, in order to make his life a happy one.

c) Has predictably dengenerated into the usual Guardian v Daily Mail argument attacking or defending the state benefits system.

Please state either A), B) or C) in any anwser...

 

[Meade's Ball]

I do think it's acceptable not to work, yes.
But, as i said, i do work and will carry on doing so because it suits me best and i get the opportunity to help one or two people. One day, i'll give that up and put all my efforts into being a writer.
I have no problem with those who claim as many benefits as possible because i see it as irrelevant to what i consider the "bigger picture".