|
Post by john on May 23, 2005 9:42:02 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 23, 2005 9:45:19 GMT 1
£600 a week each?
a combined household income of £1800 a week?
I thought the legal age was 16? Why aren't the Dads in trouble?
|
|
|
Post by Dan F on May 23, 2005 9:45:46 GMT 1
Well it is Derby...
|
|
|
Post by El Huracán!!!! on May 23, 2005 9:47:01 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by MeoleShrew nli on May 23, 2005 9:53:59 GMT 1
£600 a week each? a combined household income of £1800 a week? I thought the legal age was 16? Why aren't the Dads in trouble? Those benifit quotes always make me laugh, not even £200 each a week, its approx £95 each inc child benefit. As they live with mother there will be no housing monies etc
|
|
|
Post by theriverside on May 23, 2005 10:35:03 GMT 1
Those benifit quotes always make me laugh, not even £200 each a week, its approx £95 each inc child benefit. As they live with mother there will be no housing monies etc But they will still be out into the big wide world, and into their own council houses all expenses paid, when they are old enough. And anyway £95 each a week is bad enough for taxpayers don't you think, for something that with responsible parenting should have been avoided? Individually benefits do not seem like much to them I'm sure, but when you add together all the thousands in that situation it's a serious amount of cash. I'm looking forward to seeing if Tone's promises to do something about it come to fruition.
|
|
|
Post by MeoleShrew nli on May 23, 2005 10:47:49 GMT 1
But they will still be out into the big wide world, and into their own council houses all expenses paid, when they are old enough. And anyway £95 each a week is bad enough for taxpayers don't you think, for something that with responsible parenting should have been avoided? Individually benefits do not seem like much to them I'm sure, but when you add together all the thousands in that situation it's a serious amount of cash. I'm looking forward to seeing if Tone's promises to do something about it come to fruition. Hey, I never said it was all ok, but facts first, What do you want him to do, some one come up with the answers, or would a repeat of history do , lets have another king Herod, which sex to be culled first
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2005 10:55:32 GMT 1
I thought the legal age was 16? Why aren't the Dads in trouble? I don't understand, is there a legal age of concent for both lads and lasses or just for lads? Surely it should be the same for both, if so why aren't the teenage mothers being prosecuted? It's disgusting that any girl can have a child at under the age of 16. Personally (awaits backlash) I can't see how anyone would consider themselves mature or responsible enough to have a child even at the age of 18 let alone 16 or younger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2005 11:07:00 GMT 1
Just read this from the story:
"Their mother Julie Atkins, 38, who said the girls were too young and had ruined their lives, blamed schools for providing poor quality sex education. "
Yes, some of the blame does lie with education in schools, however, without a doubt, the main responsibility here lies with the parents.
|
|
|
Post by MeoleShrew nli on May 23, 2005 11:07:33 GMT 1
It's disgusting that any girl can have a child at under the age of 16. Personally (awaits backlash) I can't see how anyone would consider themselves mature or responsible enough to have a child even at the age of 18 let alone 16 or younger. With few exceptions you are spot on, we don't live in the dark ages anymore, under age sex for both parties should be against the law, no point just laying the blame at the lads door, again its family education thats is lacking, perhaps it should be taken out of schools hands and into a body that could look after family life in general, similar to social workers, but without the stigma that is so often attached in troublesome cases.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 23, 2005 11:17:45 GMT 1
If the girl isn;t old enough to raise a child then is she old enough to choose to have an abortion?
|
|
|
Post by theriverside on May 23, 2005 11:29:56 GMT 1
And it's too easy an option to take as well Dave, taking away the need to address the bigger issue of providing adequate sex education.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 23, 2005 11:40:05 GMT 1
I don't understand, is there a legal age of concent for both lads and lasses or just for lads? I am pretty sure you can only get a conviction if one of the couple is over the age of consent if the lad was 14 then I have no idea what they can do
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 23, 2005 12:05:19 GMT 1
I blame surely lies with the the health authorities and nimbies who between them prevent/deter schools providing decent (partially graphic if needs be) sex eductation to young children.
As I keep saying whats the point of waiting untill children are 15/16 and then talking to them in depth about sex and the consequences when we all know that there has been for many years and will continue you to be a large minority of children who have had sex or partaken in some serious sexual interaction before they reach 16.
Unfortunatly though, a lot of paraents are not prepared to speak to their kids about sex, and schools are prevented from handing out contraceptice measures, and even worse addressing the issues with 12 +13 year old kids in depth.
If a 13 yearold is old enough to have sex, then with the guidance of her family or a family planning clinci I think she is old enough to know when to have an abortion.
Its not the easy rout out people make it to be. Its traumatic to both mother and family and can have severe consequences on future plans to have children.
I also find it ironic that people who whinge that abortions are 10 apenny are often the same people who whinge at the benifits that these young mothers recieve via council housings, childcare benifits etc...
Society is as much to blame as the mother. The whole issue is just full of contradictions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2005 12:10:29 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 23, 2005 12:19:12 GMT 1
I blame surely lies with the the health authorities and nimbies who between them prevent/deter schools providing decent (partially graphic if needs be) sex eductation to young children. As I keep saying whats the point of waiting untill children are 15/16 and then talking to them in depth about sex and the consequences when we all know that there has been for many years and will continue you to be a large minority of children who have had sex or partaken in some serious sexual interaction before they reach 16. Unfortunatly though, a lot of paraents are not prepared to speak to their kids about sex, and schools are prevented from handing out contraceptice measures, and even worse addressing the issues with 12 +13 year old kids in depth. If a 13 yearold is old enough to have sex, then with the guidance of her family or a family planning clinci I think she is old enough to know when to have an abortion. Its not the easy rout out people make it to be. Its traumatic to both mother and family and can have severe consequences on future plans to have children. I also find it ironic that people who whinge that abortions are 10 apenny are often the same people who whinge at the benifits that these young mothers recieve via council housings, childcare benifits etc... Sex education starts in primary school, I've always felt that school is not the best place for sex education anyway, teaching kids the mechanics is not enough, there is not enough time in the school day to address the whole relationship issue, the same tittle tattle exists today in the playground as it did ** years ago when I was at school, some of it is incredible. it is a circle that needs breaking, single mums have to go to work, people up in arms over benefit levels, thier kids are left to thier own devices because there mums are at work, kids roam the streets etc, blame the parents, again they are often at work, this also is a problem for two parent families. pay one parent to stay at home and look after the kids. Alternatives, school breakfast clubs, same in evening. Pay grandparents childcare allowances. School councilors for children same confidentiality as Dr's. It all comes down to money, i'm sure the benifits would be felt if the right help was there, on the streets and in schools so eventually it would pay for its self
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 23, 2005 12:20:14 GMT 1
. If a 13 yearold is old enough to have sex, then with the guidance of her family or a family planning clinci I think she is old enough to know when to have an abortion. Its not the easy rout out people make it to be. Its traumatic to both mother and family and can have severe consequences on future plans to have children. It is not an easy route out at all, which is why i am concerned when girls this young are advised in that direction It is weird, but a girl at 12 can have a child but has to wait 6 year to vote there is something wrong there, it does not stack up. She can choose to bring a life into the world (or prevent it) but not elect a borough councillor? at what age are we "mature" enough to make decisions?
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 23, 2005 12:33:52 GMT 1
The school day starts at 8.55am and ends at about 3.45pm.
There is plenty of time to discuss sex education in school.
I do agree though that things such as youth clubs, which have in the past played a vital role in the upbringing of local children within communities are being sorely missed.
To break the cycle? Thats another big one. On the one hand you have people saying "rahrahrah being soft on them, encouraging them, paying them to have kids". Maybe they could work part time? maybe not. lets not forget that single mothers are often the but of generalisations and misguided aspertions.
Indeed Dave things don't stack up.
People blame the parents, yet the doctors dont have to tell the parents their 13 yearold kid is pregnant.
People blame the schools, yet a lot of parents are disguested at the thought of their children learning about sex in school.
As I said the system is full of contradictions.
Do you tell the childs parents, even if its against their wishes?
Do you hand out contraception in school, and risk being blamed for encouraging sexual promiscuity?
Do you preach abstinance, as has been done in AMerica and pay scant regard to contraception issues, and altho' delaying the age at which kids have sex (about 18/19/20) increase the likelehood of them having unprotected sex?
Do we invest in community clubs, school clubs, and have people moaning about a waste of taxes and paying taxes that dont apply to them.
Maybe we should go to Sweeden or some other European nations wth low teenage birthrates, analyse their system and learn from them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2005 12:59:43 GMT 1
Sex education at Welshpool High school was pretty basic. It went along the lines of "don't do it". It seemed to work though as I can't remember anyone in my year getting caught pregnant.
On the other hand, the sex education at my niece's school in Telford seems to be pretty graphic (as I unfortunatley volunteered to type up some of her homework not long back). Many of her friends are pregnant, a couple have had kids and she too is now pregnant. All this and they are 14/15 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by timgallon on May 23, 2005 13:05:10 GMT 1
Are those the chaviest names though that they've given the kids Funny how this kinda thing runs in certain families and between different generations as well.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 23, 2005 13:07:29 GMT 1
Funny how this kinda thing runs in certain families and between different generations as well. very good point Tim It is interesting how these things do relate to 1) Income 2) Education 3) Post Code There is definitely a societal issue that is beyond any individual case that needs to be addressed
|
|
|
Post by x emz x on May 23, 2005 13:47:45 GMT 1
sex education at wakeman was always mingingly graphic! but we didnt get our first "lesson" in sex ed until late on in year 10. by that point we were all 15, or nearly 15. what use is it then? i know by that point, in my circle of friends, all had taken part in some sort of sexual contact, and that went for the majority of my year group.having said that, when it came down to the lessons, you dont learn anything more than what you could learn by watching tele, or going on the internet,and the sad thing, is once u have " done it", u kinda think you know it all blah blah blah, but u never do.
with cases like this one, its a tough one, because you cant lay blame at anyones door? u can say the school should have done more and so should the parents? but if schools introduced sex ed in year 8 or 9 when kids were about 13, there would be uproar, and everyone would be up in arms about teaching kids about sex at a young age. yet when u say the mothers should do more, they should have the comfort of knowing that their kids are bein suitably educated at school-including this subject. and kids dont want to talk to their parents about these kind of things- i know i dont and most of friends are exactly the same. i personally never "had the chat" with mum, because i didnt feel comfortable talking to her about it, but you always feel more comfortable talking to your mates or someone who doesnt know you personally-like a doctor or something.then when you taslk to your mates, noone has the right information, because you dont really know what you are talking about. i remember "rik" coming to our school to give us a chat about it, that was in yr 11, when we were 16 years old, and more and more people had had sexual contact in one way or another, and they only really gave out leaflets and make you watch videos, and thats boring enough as it is and you get bored watching them, and dont even listen. maybe if more "practical" education was involved, like making kids produce role plays of the consequences of having unprotected sex, would make them think, but i dont know..
i do think its awful that these kids have effectively thrown their lives away at a young age, 12 years old? thats digusting, but it happens. but this is an extreme case, friends i went to school with were pregnant, but they have gone back to work a year or two on. the mother in this case in derby, should have drummed it into the other two that they didnt want to end up like their older sister, who they probably look up to, but lets face it, it never happens the way it should.
dave made the point of kids can have a kid of their own at 12 but cant vote until they re 18. thats because there are laws in place to say you cant vote until your 18, and even if kids went along to try and vote they wouldnt be able to. however, when it comes down to having sex,if they go along to try they can, theres nothing phyisically stopping them. kids can and will do it when they think they are ready. the fact that there is a legal age doesnt matter to kids these days,well the majority of kids i'd say. its usually that kids feel they have to do it before they turn 16, a kind of peer presure thing. sad but true. i dont really know wot can be done about it.
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on May 23, 2005 13:48:49 GMT 1
Having one child who has a child might be understqandable, but 3 kids, who all have kids at a very young age? Parental guidance/supervision is partly to blame. Other things that struck me, the boy's seem to have got away with having a major impact on two lives - the teenage mother and their child. Sex education has to to a better job on putting responsibility on the male side of the equation. Another thing that struck me, was that on the photograph, the three mothers looked proud of thier accomplishment. When I was at school, I remember pregnancies were frowned upon and something to be avoided. One one of the links on the BBC site - it said that 20% of teenage pregnancies are 2nd children. I can't help but feel that it's the kids who are the biggest losers here. Parents have to be more proactive in preparing kids for adolescence. Bottom line though - males have to be more responsible, especialy with contraception. PS writing as the father of two girls
|
|
|
Post by x emz x on May 23, 2005 14:00:18 GMT 1
Another thing that struck me, was that on the photograph, the three mothers looked proud of thier accomplishment. When I was at school, I remember pregnancies were frowned upon and something to be avoided. you cant really hold that against them, because im sure when you two came along you were made up? even tho they are young im sure that feeling wont be any different and they wont love them any less that what they would if they had them 10 years down the line.
|
|
|
Post by CuyahogaBlue on May 23, 2005 14:21:43 GMT 1
you cant really hold that against them, because im sure when you two came along you were made up? even tho they are young im sure that feeling wont be any different and they wont love them any less that what they would if they had them 10 years down the line. Correct - I hope that the pride, love and care lasts a lifetime for the 3 mothers. No fathers in the photo though
|
|
|
Post by x emz x on May 23, 2005 14:29:10 GMT 1
Correct - I hope that the pride, love and care lasts a lifetime for the 3 mothers. No fathers in the photo though yea but thats common these days, and not just with teenage mothers. shame really, i couldnt imagine growing up without my dad, knowing he didnt want anything to do with me. but i think that teenagers dont really look beyond the 9 months, they know they are going to have a child, but think that the being pregnant is the hard bit, whereas, we all know,whether your a parent or not, thats its definately not they might also see it as an easy way out of the "real world" of having to work etc etc, and everything that goes with it, i mean stayin at home all day long looking after a child can be seen as easier than going to work 9-5 everyday, but they dont find out how much hard work it is until they have the child. i dont really know, im just guessing as to why some kids will have kids and put them, and their children through it
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on May 23, 2005 14:54:37 GMT 1
I find this incredibly sad, but i fail to see how anyone can blame the government for this kind of thing. This is a trend that started decades ago and has little to do with the policies of New Labour and/or Tony Blair.
For the mother to blame the education system is utter bollox, and the same applies ( sorry in advance ), to anyone on here who thinks the same.
What this boils down to is a complete lack of moral up bringing. Once in a family could be seen as an accident but three? No way. Ask the mother if she knows where her children are at nights and what they are doing (i accept that she may now). Ask the mother what sex education she gave her daughters. How many times did she sit them down and tell them about the birds and the bees.
What about the childrens fathers, what about their parents.
How hypocritical of the press! The right wing rags that rage in disgust at these things, yet will equally rage in disgust if 11 and 12 year olds get shown sex education videos in school.
Everyone these days want to blame someone else for everything, and absolutely no one is prepared to put their hands up and accept any responcibility for their actions.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on May 23, 2005 15:11:22 GMT 1
Create a reverse-viagra drug and put in in Coco Pops .
|
|
|
Post by aleix on May 23, 2005 15:15:12 GMT 1
Create a reverse-viagra drug and put in in Coco Pops . I read somewhere that one type of food gave you boners.....but I can't remember which one it was
|
|
|
Post by Ant nli on May 23, 2005 15:15:37 GMT 1
Parents to blame no question.
A hard line opinion on this would to make abortions mandatory for any girl under the age of 16 who becomes pregnant, but then in rare cases I'd imagine these girls do turn out to be good parents.
Not the 'rare cases' emphasis in that last paragraph.
|
|