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
erm...let me see now...opponents!
opponents=9 letters
lefties=7 letters
not really a shorthand term is it?
I rest my case.
But she didnt call anyone 'scum'. I fail to see you have made any valid point at all.
Of course other people use the word, just not to describe people.
Can you point out to me where she refered to anyone as 'scum'?
Though I'm sure you have a few ideas in mind though.
Ideas that were put in practice not too far away from this country, not too long ago...
Either you cant read properly or you are being a dick on purpose.
You will note that she says YOUR underclass seems to comprise of..., she does not refer to people as scum.
wrong yet again...did you play truant at english classes aswelll
she said YOUR underclass SEEMS TO compromise of pondscum and filth
a lot different than underclass comprimises of pondscum and filth don't you think
Oh dear...what a classic!
I think in most cases of juvenile delinquency the parenting is to blame, as it is with this case. School's got bugger all to do with it. I feel sorry for these babies. And I'm disturbed that an 11 year old girl wanted to have sex. I don't know about that license to have a baby but I'm starting to believe that some people need to go to "parenting classes".
The rambling endeth.
So we live in a classless society, a meritocracy do we? Are you serious;y suggesting that someone born on a rundown estate with crime, drugs and poverty around them, underfunded schools, no jobs and no prospects has the same life chances as someone born to a wealthy family in Surrey and sent to a top private school? Really?
Who has called for your banning because of your politics?
What do you think the causes of this "underclass" are?
So how can you say we have a equality of opportunity? A lot of kids from working class backgrounds are told by teachers and careers advisers not to even bother wanting more than a life on benefits or a job as a cleaner. What chance do some people have?
This is utter bollocks. Do you think people are born "optimistic or ambitious" or "pessimistic or idle"? Why do you think people are idle? What does that mean? What experiences have led people to that?
Oh yeah, loads of references to Charles Murray. Good one. A discredited racist.
Mist: I'll remind you that "parenting isn't a job, it's a lifestyle choice" when you have children. I'm sure Mrs Mist will find that very amusing when she has two toddlers to chase around after.
So this girl gets a grand total of £10,400 in benefits? So people in badly paid jobs get slightly less (I get about £300 less in my £5ph job, for the record, and that is considered below the breadline)- how shall we cope?
Simply because you are fortunate enough to earn enough money to be above the breadline is no reason to suddenly withdraw benefits from those who are unfortunate enough not to, even if you are right and you DO earn so much that you don't qualify for WFTC (which is limited at about £21,000 I believe). I can't believe that people feel that three innocent children should be condemned to a life of abject poverty simply because they happen to have parents who dared to get pregnant young, and three parents who dared to have nothing else to look forward to.
I can't believe that people don't realise that slagging these people off, and vilifying them, is completely counter-productive. People who feel like important members of society who will achieve things don't go and get pregnant aged 13, because a baby would prevent them from fulfilling their ambitions. Making people feel important, and giving them a chance in life, is how we curb the problems with teenage pregnancy- so what does most of this board suggest instead? Oh yes, cut them loose from society and let them starve. After all, they're only poor people, they don't count for anything.
It is a proven fact that ambition is the biggest contraceptive. If all we do is vilify generation after generation of people then they don't feel like a valued member of society, they don't feel looked after or loved or wanted, and so they go and have children so that they are looked after, they are loved and wanted and needed.
If all you ever have to look forward to is a child and a council flat (those bastions of palatial spendour that they are), then that is a tragedy. It also means that you might as well have one young, if you are never going to pass GCSEs to a high standard, or get a job beyond that of a till monkey in Tescos.
This entire case is a tragedy, and all people can do is abuse these girls. I think that sums up the state of this country at the minute, and it explains why the gap between the haves and the haven'ts is at a distance not seen since the 1830s.
Not everyone can have nin this current system of selfish greed. Not having doesn't make you lazy, it consigns you to the scrapheap for the rest of your life. I don't believe that most people are lazy, they lack opportunity and they lack social acceptance. If the whole of society condemns you as a lazy leech, why bother going out of your way to prove them wrong? Why work hard for people who despise you?
How many people here would be happy getting told that the most they will ever amount to is a cashier's job in Tesco and a damp council flat?
How many people here would be happy to work themselves into the ground for people who despise you?
How many people here would be happy knowing that, hard work or no hard work, you are destined to spend the rest of your life in poverty, unless you win the lottery?
You have no analysis of the term, what it means, whether it exists, what the idealogical reason for labelling a group of people is, the similarities with the Victorian notion of the deserving and undeserving poor etc. You consistently fail to place any of your views into a wider social, historical and political context.
Edit: But motivation is a problem, of course.
Here here.
Don't be so fucking simpleminded. Do you think that all schools are of the same quality? Do you think that a kid living on a deprived estate sees the point of exams when theres no jobs? Grow up for fucks sake. :mad:
Wealth provides opportunity. Having rich parents and going to a rich school (either private or a state school in a wealthy area) makes it a lot easier to achieve good grades. The school has the resources, the family home has the resources, and wealthy parents are more likely to have the time to spend with their children. Also, tellingly, wealthy parents are likely to be more academically talented, and so can teach their very young children the basic 3 Rs before they enter primary school.
It has been proven in study after study that the children of wealthy parents- who are at home more- are up to four years ahead academically than the children of poor parents, who are often acdemically weak and always at work. The poor children can never make this ground up, and are therefore labelled as "failures". "failures" don't work hard, they lose interest in academia, and the cycle begins again, given that there are no vocational alternatives to academia.
I am very lucky to have had parents who just had enough money, and felt it important enough to sacrifice things such as a sofa that wasn't decrepid, so that I had a bit of a head start. I got the best A'Levels in my school, but even those would look quite poor compared to my peers at Durham, especially those from private schooling.
She said something like ''i'd rather know about it and have her do it in the house than go wondering off''
But 11!!!!!! She could still be in primary school :shocking:
Young people don't decide to have sex in a social vacuum. They do it becaus eof social pressure and, even more importantly, because they don't have anything better to do. Jarvis Cocker summed it up perfectly.
It saddens me that people condemn the victims of the society, rather than the society. I guess it's easier for people to blame some "stupid" woman with three "slut" daughters, than to blame themselves for creating the society where having children is the pinnacle of a life.
Which generally ignores the point I was making, but nevermind.
You can disagree all you like, but it won't make parenting a job. You are not employed by someone to be a parent, if you are employed by someone to bring up kids then you are known as a nanny or similar and that is a job. Being a parent to your own kids is not a job, and it drives me to insanity when people talk about it as if it is.
At no point did I say that parenting is easy. It is simply not a job. Saying that it is a job actually demeans the amount of responsibility that being a parent encompasses. Some people that I know even talk about having "time off" from their "job" as a parent, and that is an absolutely obscene point of view to take in my opinion.
Oh well.
What is parenting if it is not hard work with a lot of responsibility?
Parenting is not employment, but that's not the same thing. Being a parent should be considered a full-time job, because it is full time, it is hard work, and there is a lot of responsibility. Or do you only think that something should be classified as a "job" if AN Other is prepared to pay you for it?