If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
We are ill equiped to deal with the people we have got. Ideally we would implement a 1 child per person system, like the chinese 1 child per couple system.
The population growth is only cuased by increased life expectancy? I'm not sure about this, but even if it is true it does not really matter what the cause is, the effect is population growth, and as I said, we have too many mouths to feed as it stands.
1 child raised in a good home, to good parents and with a good future is better than 5 children raised in a bad home, with bad parents and no future.
I agree with the sentiment. Maybe if you took out the "good home and good parents" part, as even with the best parents and home our society may not allow the individule to turn into the productive citizen that they could be....
The evil marketing of macdonalds may reach them too soon.....
I'm not saying the good parents and good home are meaningless, or irrelevent, but that there are so many other factors that are detremental to a persons development that it may not make the difference.
Incedentally, i think almost all of those detremental factors are only there to make other people money.
Well id completely disagree but thats a little OT
How do you define such things and are you admitting that the reason for such things is a product of society ie socio-economic circumstances?
Also I would like to point out the accursed Sun's nasty stance on things that we have fallen in with...........
The mother is living off benefits, seems to be saying that she is a lazy bad person. My mother lived off benefits, its called child-spport and nearly everyone gets it.
Where is the father, who knows, maybe he has left, maybe he is dead, maybe he lives in an area where he can't get a job.
Lts not condemn people when we don't know anything significant about them
Children under the age of 1 in 1971 = 898,000
Children under the age of 1 in 2000 = 685,000
If that isn't a declining birth rate then what is?
That is nearly a 25% increase whilst the whole time the life expectancy is increasing.
We are arguing that this is correlated to economic productivity of these populations, right? And that declining birth rates as you demonstrate (I don't question that data, I accept that), will naturally be accompanied by a decline in productivity.
Well, why don't we, for example consider the gross national income per capita (adjusted to present market values, otherwise the PPP wouldn't be equal), which would measure that, don't you think? For the same period, even? We'd expect a decline of, oh, 24%, according to your figures and logic.
Data:
1971: £1, 034
2000: £15, 998
Where's your argument disappeared? I can't see it
What I should have shown also is the size of the labour force which in fact has risen in that period due mainly to the introduction of many more women into the labour force and due to immigration.
I am not saying that birth rate is the over riding factor in determining economic growth but surely you can see that with the proportion of elderly people to working people growing we must either:
a) increase immigration
b) increase the birth rate
c) work for longer ie retire later in life
d) save more when we are working
e) spend less when we have retired
a) doesn't seem likely so for purely selfish reasons b) looks the best doesn't it?
The data does take that in to account; it's standardised across the PPP index. That's the point of it. And please capitalise Smug. ;)Cheers.
What we're seeing is an increased dependency ratio with a stabilised/Stage Five population. That's acceptable. It means that in the short term, we have a ratio of about 40% dependents to 60% working age. But, the standard of productivity and hence, the amount that each person produces has gone up in equivalent or greater numbers. Therefore, in this interim period, we will probably have a sustainable economy. Certainly, it's stable at the moment, although I can foresee a collapse in negative equity when the housing market cools.
However. Immigration does account for about 3m out of 58m (ONS Data), which partially answers your first point. Equally, if you look at the population pyramid for the UK, it's widening at the base. Don't forget there's a slight time lag, as generally the careerists of the 1970s - 1990s are choosing to have children later in life, hence there's a slight lapse.
You third point; I don't *have* data, but I think that the retirement age *has* increased. Certainly, a lot of people are working past retirement age of 65. It's not uncommon any more. I think the retirement age used to be 55? Am I wrong? *doesn't know*
Spending and saving is not a nationally acquired trend. The ONS data supports a conclusion that investment and savings (shares, PEPs, TESSAs, and ISAs) is an increasing phenomenon, and equally that the proportion of households saving is increasing; with only 27% of all households, including single people, having less than £1500 saved. Liquid assets.
I don't think that an increased birth rate, therefore, is viable as being the only, or indeed, preferred solution to this issue. Certainly, economic growth was linked to birth rates in Stage II of the DTM, really an economic model, but we've gone beyond that now. We don't need such a high population, and hence, the progression in to steady-state demographics is perfectly acceptable.
In other words. There is not a single economic reason why the 12 year old daughter of a woman who is 42 and has nine children should have a child. Let alone the moral issues of 12 year olds having sex, let alone being emotionally mature enough to look after a child. We're not talking about a little doll, we're talking about a living, breathing human being, who will grow up in the shadow of it's 12 year old mother. 12 year old mother. Does that sound right? All the facts and figures in the world on socio-economic data cannot be used to explain that.
This girl should not have that child. The boy in question should be slapped. So should she. They should ideally be locked away where they can be educated while being kept away from the opposite sex! He's not even old enough. She's 12; he could be prosecuted for statutory rape! Has that not come up? Lord above! The statistics can argue amongst themselves. That girl, her family, and the moralistic issues of this whole thing need help.
Shes a child,shes not even a teen yet.Children should not be having children.She should be worrying about which boy bands are splitting up not if her baby has colic or something.More sex education is needed to help educate these children who feel they are ready to have sex.Her body & mind is not ready for such a shock,its all very well making babies not when your up for a few nights looking after a sick child.Ideally maybe schools could adopt some program which a few other countries do & introduce young teens to young mums who had children at an early age.Perhaps this would set straight the rose tinted view so many young children have about having babies.That or they can baby sit mine that would put them off for life
though I still believe the LR consequences of low child birth will be very serious to the developed world economies if we wish to continue improving our lifestyles.............
Doesn't it take "two to tango" anyway?
That said, if the Mother is going to blame anyone, she needs to start with herself and the way she has brought her daughter up. Then she can look at the boys parents, then the children directly.
What she shouldn't be doing is blaming the school - she suggested that if the school had taught sex ed. more thouroughly...
Obviously, as appears normal with this type of story, parental responsibility hasn't been considered by her.
BTW Does anyone know if the mother & daughter went to the papers, or if the papers went to them?
Blame the parents thats what I say. What the hell is this girl doing having sex at 12. When I was 12 the closest to sex i ever got was looking up naughty words in the dictionary and looking at page three in the sun.
Whats the world coming too.
The young lady in question cant afford to keep the children can she????
We shouldn't let poor people breed?
ok so a twelve yr old shouldn't be having babies but whats the big deal ? it's been happening since the year fucking dot ! the legal age for sex up to the first world war was ...twelve !
she aint going to bankrupt you. i'm sure she'd prefer it if she hadn't got pregnant. what do you think we should do now then ?
drag her off to a clinic against her will and tear the little bastard out off her ? get fucking real.
fucking daily mail readers !
you should be more outraged that bazillionaires like micheal jackson can mysteriosly aquire childre from ..from where ? the internet ? or did he buy it off a poor person ! some of you people have got your heads that far up your own arse holes you've lost touch with reality. ANNITA RODDICKS words not mine.....
But I'll give you a little insight into my history...
In Jan 1994 I quit a job through stress - I was a Poll Tax Collector and I couldn't face the abuse etc anymore - and I sign on for Incapacity Benefit. As my wife was heavily pregnant and not working, we also got Income Support. To make ends meet I promptly sold my car and we started to rely on family and public transport.
A year later and I was fit for work, so I signed on, And we still got Income Support. Of course, we also had Child Benefit.
In a coupe of months I started working again, but on a low salary. So we qualified for Family Credit (effectively enough to pay for our food every week) and of course Child Benefit. This situation continued until recently when I got this job, and it's the first time since 1994 that I haven't been claiming any kind of benefit - except we still get Child Benefit.
The difference between me and many other Toady (and I suspect that this woman is one) is that I saw Benefit as a way of helping me get back on my feet and not as a divine right. I'm a so proud of the fact that I no longer claim and can stand on my own but other people don't have such approaches.
Having nine kids in a short period of time, when there is no wage coming in isn't beneficial to society. Its a drain. It certainly isn't responsible.
I think that's what people are getting at. I don't begrudge benefits to people who use it as a crutch to help them when they are down. I do get a little pissed off when people treat it as a wage, and sadly there are too many of those and even sadder is that they are the ones who get the publicity.
Oh God, Man of Kent, even you're at it, stigmatising benifits claimants, even though you were one yourself.
I bet that if asked, the vast majority of benifits claimants would say that they'd love to have a 'proper job' and not be on Income bloody Support. It really doesn't give you very much to live on - my Dad left almost 12 years ago, and Mum has been on various benifits for most of this time (she worked as a technician in a school for 4 years, and then gave up when she had my youngest brother). She has NOT done this out of choice, but because social security also pays for part of the morgage, milk tokens etc., it means having to take a bloody huge leap to get a job that pays enough to get by once the DSS stops paying for its part of the morgage - which is almost immediately. This is known as the poverty trap, and affects many many people. Living on benifits is not fun.
finally, someone being reasonable. some of the views expressed here scare me a bit.
top 3 scary views:
3. that we should have a limit of 1 child per family. This isn't china, y'know, and I'm personally very grateful for the fact that we actually have choice about things like how big our families are.
2.That the kids in question should be locked up. I mean - words fail me. I don't even know how to argue with this. But consider this: if the possibility of having a kid at that age doesn't have an effect, why in god's name would going to jail? I really doubt this was planned. which brings me to
3: the idea that this was a deliberate scheme to get benefits. I mean, this girl has effectively lost her freedom during her teenage years. the odds are that she won't be able to get decent qualifications, that she'll be socially isolated, that she'll find it hard to get a job, and that she'll be pretty miserable. Naturally one would go for this for £15.75 a week, though.
Now that you mention it I will put my humble opinion across: Abortions are very often the best solution but are not being considered in many cases.
This is a sensitive issue, everybody knows that. But if we put aside religious beliefs aside- and in a tolerant, democratic society we should be allowed to- then abortion is often the most logical option. Why are so many girls in their teens having kids when they are not physically, mentally or financially ready to do so? Wouldn't the most humane and logical decision in most of these cases be to have a termination?
I realise that we must keep a lid on things to ensure abortion doesn't become another form of birth control. But with so many teenage girls becoming pregnant, most of them effectively ruining their aspirations in life and condemning their offspring to a miserable childhood, it's about time we grow up a bit. The fact is in pretty much 100% of cases a 12-year-old girl should have an abortion. She shouldn't be forced to, of course, but I feel that the option hasn't even been presented to many of these girls.
anita roddick of body shop fame is in the news at the moment. listen to her. she tells how our middle class lives and comforts have removed us from genuine compassion and fellow feeling. she reckons we no longer have true wisdom when it comes to dealing with our fellow man. we no longer SEE the reality of poor peoples love and compassion. we stand above them making judgements. making comments that are of no relavance to thier lives. we ...WE are the ones who are loosing the plot. not the poor. the poor have always and will always be with us.
the crass comments and judgements from above always will be as well pressumably.
Going back to bed !:)
Want to make that bet?
If what you say is true, then the many many jobs we have available in the building trades, and any other industry you would care to mention would all be snapped up.
There is a manual labour shortage in this country, and if some of the people who claim benefits as a way of making a living got off their arses and applied to the council to help maintain roads, or to a telecommunications company to help dig them up they'd be given a job straight off.
There are jobs out there, the only reason they aren't filled is because people can't be bothered to apply or they think they are somehow "above" digging holes in the road.
1. The mother is an irresponsible whore.
2. The daughter takes after her mother.
3. This could have been avoided if the government wasn't encouraging under-age sex with free contraceptives, and sex advice for children.
4. It also might not have happened if people would stop seeing under-age sex as the norm. It isn't; it is fucking wrong, disgusting and it should be stopped.
I suppose the "little girl" thinks she's all mature and responsible now she's got herself pregnant. Well she's not. She's still going to be out partying all the time and not want to change the baby's nappy and her stupid mother is going to have a nervous breakdown from coping with her daughter when she reaches adolescence and from looking after the poor baby.
It makes me so angry when there are wonderful, intelligent people out there with morals who can't have children, and this stupid little cow goes and gets herself knocked up just after one shag.
As for the 15 year old boy, he shouldn't get put in jail because he's also a minor but he or his irresponsible parents should take some of the responsibility. I feel so sorry for that baby, it should get put up for adoption.
Someone's in need of a shag !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I totally agree that if you need the benifits then use them thats what we pay taxes for, but dont use them as a wage its not fare.
Its the people that take the piss that dont deserve them!!!
Why is this woman on benefits?
She has children to look after, this in itself is a valuable contribution to society. Where is the father?
Possibly he has left
Possibly he has job but it is not enough to pay for all the kids
Possibly he can't get a job
Yes Whowhere it is actually possible, as hard as it may sound, to not be able to get a job.............
Hunnypot It is people like you who genuinely disgust me.......
M.Roll, well said again, very eloquent, Pru also..........
Hey Whowhere the royal family don't do anything why don't we make Charles dig holes, or maybe he thinks it is below him
:rolleyes:
Whowhere if you came out of university with a good degree but couldn't find graduate type work straight away would you start 'digging-holes' or would you go on job-seekers and try and find a job appropriate to your skills?
Ease off on Honeypot A-Hole !!!