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
Removing children because...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Their parents are too poor, or because their parents are too stupid.
Now, I know I read this in the mail (don't ask why I was reading the mail) but seeing as they provided numbers, I thought I'd ask if anyone else had heard about these alleged antics by social services.
BTW, 110 cases out of 61000 the main reason for removing the child was given as family poverty, not induced by a parental addiction. Source: (shudders) The Daily Mail.
Now, I know I read this in the mail (don't ask why I was reading the mail) but seeing as they provided numbers, I thought I'd ask if anyone else had heard about these alleged antics by social services.
BTW, 110 cases out of 61000 the main reason for removing the child was given as family poverty, not induced by a parental addiction. Source: (shudders) The Daily Mail.
0
Comments
Why were you reading the mail?
Why not give the parents the money that is spent on all the social services mumbo jumbo instead of splitting the family apart?
Ahh cos there is no control or interference that way....
There are certain parents who are just incapable. Money isn't always an answer. Sometimes you have to break the cycle of apathy and underachievement.
actually it was quite funny, just so simple made me laugh
So make them capable.
It is to the problem of not having any, which is what this is about.
By splitting families up and dehumanising children? Yeah GG mate.
Some people don't want to learn and won't no matter how much expense you go to training them. That's why most employers have capability proceedings to force out inept staff.
What are the underlying causes of poverty in a rich country with a strong economy? Failed education or motivation.
Who's to say that by placing them with a foster family, with a proven record of caring for children well you'll harm them in any way? Isn't it quite possible that with a supportive and capable family helping them they'll go on to achieve more than they otherwise would have and allow them to avoid similar social problems negatively impacting their own kids?
Utter bullshit.
Families aren't busiinesses, thank fuck.
Balls - talk to Blagsta about why this is wrong. Shit wages for essential tasks more like, allied with big business making sure that there is always a pool of people with fuck all to do to keep wages down.
No, possible yes, better solution, yes, so take it. "Social problems" horseshit - the only problem is that this shit is allowed to happen and actively encouraged.
Some people cant learn theyve spent their whole lives living one way and then in a week there susposed to wholehartidly change and learn new skills especially if there not too clever.
You might as well say that you could take all the violent people out of prison and teach them non violnce, and in a lot of cases you can but some people just cant or wont be helped.
Agreed. It's sad to dismiss people as beyond help but it's an unfortunate reality of life. In some cases the best we can do is avoid them taking others down with them.
There sure are. This is about taking families and splitting them up because they are poor. Whiah is wrong.
Exactly. Changing people takes time. And that's all usually. People changing is inevitable.
It's an unfortunate reality of life if you dismiss them. You have it arse about tit. once you give up then there is no hop, not the other way around.
No one is beyond help.
By showing them that quiting is an option. GG.
What does GG mean? Good going?
Are you testing the hypothesis that if you repeat the same point over and over eventually people will agree with you?
Agreement has no value in itself at least for me, I am well aware that most people think it's the be all and end all. You are asserting horseshit so I am responding by pointing out why you are wrong.
I am actually trying to do you a favour, believe it or not.
Ah, but some people can't be helped.
Add the word yet to more things mate, does you the power of good. I can't do "x", no one can do "x"....yet.
So you have a great deal of experience with failing parents?
It's just I don't know how you became such an authority on the subject. Yet.
Very little. First thing I would ask is failing according to who? Second thing would be "how would you know they were no longer failing?" and then make a plan to make that real.
I don't need to be an authority on the subject to know that it's possible to get one group of people to copy the actions of another group of people.
I also fail to see how my previous answer is even addressed by this comment.
Is it true that some people don't do parenting well?
yes.
Is it true that other people do parenting well?
yes.
So, how do we make/help etc group "a" become just like group "b"?
I don't know...yet. You aren't even asking the question. Yet.
In school, the kids who always played up and underachieved were from very working class families and I think some parents can encourage their kids to do better academically, especially with how the job market is going.
Also, as I've said before... When you go out on council estates you see kids running around in environments where there's smashed glass on the roads, derilict flats, a lot of drugs users and boy racers going around. That's not safe at all. For example when I lived out in the sticks this kid was locked outdoors all day and was let in of evenings, he ended up urinating in bushes ans causing trouble.
Doesn't lack of encouragement and attention make a young person feel rejected or unloved? Could that be partly the reason why so many young people turn to crime? Because they're angry and hurting?
The PRIMARY REASON given for the separation is because of the financial situation.
NOT because they are unloved, abused, or neglected.
Sorry, I know it's the mail, but this is a comment on the other story i was thinking of. Source
The rich/poor gap is growing...motivation has nothing to do with it. Education is one factor, I know a few parents who don't care too much for their childs education because they never really went to school. Most poor people also live in council estates, if you lived in one you would know that your average day isn't spent doing 4 hours revision to becoming the next top lawyer, you're more likely to be out joyriding or smoking spliffs...I think the problems are circular, they make each other worse.
ETA: I think it is a stupid evil idea. Money doesn't substitute for love.
My grandma gets the Mail so I'd read it when I was visiting for a laugh mainly Id tell her what I thought of it and she'd laugh.
No it was a legitimate question. Don't think you sweep us aside with a blaise comment and make us forget you were reading that rag. Unless of course it was for the sudoku
Ginner seems to think of a lot of backward silly things are acceptable.
poor people tend to go out on a lim to support there children, im sure they scrape together what they can to make there kids life a good one.. i dont think its right to take peoples children off them just because theyre poor. although i do believe that if the child is being neglected enough due the situation of being of being poor then something should be used to sort this out although seperating famlies is hardly the answer.
This way people wouldnt be worried about asking for help like they are now.
We should have the Lovey Dovey Helping Hand Service and then the Sponge Squad.