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
When you work in schools you become aware that difficult children who don't value their education often have difficult parents who didn't value theirs and have been in poorly paid employment, or jobseekers since. These are the parents that are likely to blame the school for any less than desirable behaviour and are unwilling to put them time and effort into helping their children with their work at home. I think that suggesting they're willing to be re-educated as parents is very naive as they have a very negative reaction towards the education system and in a number of cases would refuse help. It's wonderful that you have these ideals, what you don't have is any sense of practicality.
For several years of my life I did live on a council estate. Whilst such surrounds and hardships might promote negative social behaviours they by no means force it. With parenting of a high standard and individual motivation it's very possible to go on and achieve a great deal. If parents fail to provide for their children then perhaps it's the most humane action to provide a better environment and parenting for the children. If you can't encourage the existing area or parents to change for the better then what's your next option?
Is that the article you referred to in your first post? Here it seems the children have been removed because the mother was considered mentally incapable. As the case is presented it seems unduly harsh and upsetting, however, given the vitriol shown towards the institution in general and the biased reporting offered by the Mail I think you need a secondary source to gain and informed perspective and judge it yourself.
Two obvious solutions come to mind for those "problems".
I am also one of those. If the child misbehaves at school, it is the schools fault, obviously. It's a prison for small people.
There would be a way for each individual to be convinced. There always is. You just don't know what it is...yet. Nothing you are saying negates any of the points I raised, btw. You are just offering excuses why things are as they are, which is a great way to achieve fuck all.
I am only practical, only realistic. They aren't ideals. idealism is when you see a world that doesn't exist yet and wish for it. I have given you the brief outline of a plan to get somewhere you want to go, which is pragmatism. Your "pratical" approach is to give up before you start. >sigh<
In that case, yes, it was the best thing for the kids. However, the kids were split into two pairs, so he lives with his 15 yr old sister in a foster home, but only gets to see his younger sister and brother once a year because they've been adopted, which is tough on him. The parents only get to see him and the 15 yr old.
His parents are still broke - they don't even have a place of their own, they move from mates house to mates house. My bf even had to give them £1500, which he had saved for the past year for his first car, because the friend they were living with owed someone a lot of money, and they were going to be homeless once again. He's not going to get that money back. I can't explain how much I detest his parents for what they have done to him. They constantly take but never give. He's always willing to help them out (well, they're his parents, and bloods thicker than water), but then his mother stabs him with an aerial, or his uncle gives him a black eye, etc etc. :mad:
Now Klintock, please put down the crack pipe.
Like that'll ever happen.
If a child misbehaves at school, it is the child fault. Punish the child. Duh. Logic here.
It was one of the articles, and obviously not the one that causes me particular concern, although I hardly see why a mother that was slow is reason to remove her children from her if she is capable of looking after them.
So not only do you think that lack of money is good reason to split kids and their parents up, you think that where they live is a good enough reason too?
Not as safe as it could be no.
But if I lived on one of these estates I wouldn't keep my kids locked up either.
I like you.
Taking a child away from parents is always the last resort and a child would never be removed due to lack of money. That's why benefits exist such as child benefit and child tax credit. However, an incapable parent may not use that money to buy things the child needs. Lack of money may be PART of the problem but it is never the sole problem, as you can see from the example above.
Agreed. I think poverty can be a cause of some other problems but a symptom of others. I also think we should trust social services. Anyone I know who's had contact with them has always found them to be very helpful and reasonable, even those accused of wrongdoing.
Still, even though it's not my primary concern, nor the primary reason for the thread. I'd probably threaten someone with pain if they tried to take my kids away.
Is personal achievement greater than a mother or fathers love?
If yes, then you are a tory twat!
For your information I live in the country's longest held Labour seat and vote Liberal! :cool:
Cool...so you'll agree that parental love means more than personal achievement and it doesn't matter how rich or smart the parents are...yes?
I mean who says we have to be high flying business men, most of my mates are joiners, brickies etc etc They're happy, that's all that matters imo.
I agree, to a point. I think children should be removed from only truly incompetant parents or from situations in which they are likely to be harmed, become prospectless or criminal.
:yes:
I agree wholeheartedly but where does money and intellect come into this?
People who refuse to reform their actions or can't understand what is asked of them when social services come for a chat are too stupid to keep them. People who don't provide for their kids because they refuse to seek employment and/or mispend their money and benefit so that their kids aren't adequately cared for.
But is that reflective of all poor and "stupid" families. Do rich people not neglect their kids aswell?
Of course they do but for the rich poverty isn't really an issue.
What I'm trying to say is that financial status is no way of saying how good a parent you are or how good you'll be able to raise your children.
Lovely.
Regardless of parental income or social class?
Yes, though I think there would be fewer from affluent families and areas. For people to make their money then they generally have to be successful in a career which necessitates the development of many of the same skills needed for parenting.
The parents are idiots AND
The parents are machiavelian geniuses using seasoned journos to get their kids back.
The parents don't care for their kids AND
The parents will threeaten interlopers with death, risk imprisonment etc for them.
Also they are said to have low IQ's but no evidence of testing etc is given.
Tha article is basically saying that they are unfit parents because of the actions they took when strangers invaded their home to take their children. Surely that must have been decided prior to large men being sent around to the house to idnap the kids?
The assault happpened after the kids were stolen.
One of the great thing about stupid people is that they, like me don't see the abstractions you lot cling to. They wouldn't see "social services" coming to take their kids, they would see men and women stealing what is theirs. And rightly fucking so when they decide they don't like it.
I took the opportunity to read through some of the threads you've started and I've come to the conclusion that the part I've highlighted isn't necessary.