|
Post by x emz x on May 23, 2005 15:15:53 GMT 1
yea its true,someone needs to say " ok maye im to blame here" but in things like this, its not that easy..... kids just dont want to sit down with their parents and talk about the birds and the bees, its not something we do these days-well the majority dont do it. if u had a survery of kids who were asked " has either of your parents had the chat about the birds and the bees with you?" id probably bet that over half havent sad but true, but its the way society is.... you cant blame schools and u cant blame parents for things like this, its not one persons fault, cant lay the blame at anyones door. its about the kids upbringing, but their school life has a massive impact on their upbringin. mum told me not to smoke, i went to school and i started smoking. even though id been told it was disgusting etc etc. and i know thats not perhaps as "major" as this, but u can see what im saying. school life has a massive impact on childrens upbringin, and will do anything to fit in, and if that means having sex-well they are going to do it, what ever the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Ant nli on May 23, 2005 15:16:01 GMT 1
That should be 'note' and not 'not' in the last post.
|
|
|
Post by Annoyed on May 23, 2005 15:17:38 GMT 1
What annoys me the most is if these kids are recieving £200 a week in benefits what motivation is there to find a job when they are 16 or after further education? surley they will see it as easier to have more children
If a working women gets pregnany maturnity pay is £60 odd pound a week for a certain period.
I know of people who say when they have left school that they got pregnant cause its easier that working!!!
|
|
|
Post by x emz x on May 23, 2005 15:24:09 GMT 1
What annoys me the most is if these kids are recieving £200 a week in benefits what motivation is there to find a job when they are 16 or after further education? surley they will see it as easier to have more children If a working women gets pregnany maturnity pay is £60 odd pound a week for a certain period. I know of people who say when they have left school that they got pregnant cause its easier that working!!! can see what your saying, but i dont think the government have much choice, what would you rather, the kids ( thats the mothers ) , not being able to provide for their kids, and thus leading to allsorts of situations? or making sure that the babies needs are catered for? in a perfect world, things like this wouldnt happen, but its not perfect, and i doubt it ever will be, so we have to try and tackle these things in a way we can, but what would be deemed the right way to lower the figures?
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 23, 2005 15:32:09 GMT 1
What annoys me the most is if these kids are recieving £200 a week in benefits what motivation is there to find a job when they are 16 or after further education? surley they will see it as easier to have more children If a working women gets pregnany maturnity pay is £60 odd pound a week for a certain period. I know of people who say when they have left school that they got pregnant cause its easier that working!!! They are not getting £200 a week, its £95. ish the info is on the net check for yourself
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 23, 2005 15:34:57 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. surely this is not what you really think? Last year over 180,000 unwanted children were destroyed in the UK I don't think making it compulsory is the answer at all? Why make the unborn child pay?
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 23, 2005 15:35:53 GMT 1
They are not getting £200 a week, its £95. ish the info is on the net check for yourself so is the article lying? Where do they get the £600 figure from?
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on May 23, 2005 15:41:19 GMT 1
yea its true,someone needs to say " ok maye im to blame here" but in things like this, its not that easy..... kids just dont want to sit down with their parents and talk about the birds and the bees, its not something we do these days-well the majority dont do it. if u had a survery of kids who were asked " has either of your parents had the chat about the birds and the bees with you?" id probably bet that over half havent sad but true, but its the way society is.... you cant blame schools and u cant blame parents for things like this, its not one persons fault, cant lay the blame at anyones door. its about the kids upbringing, but their school life has a massive impact on their upbringin. mum told me not to smoke, i went to school and i started smoking. even though id been told it was disgusting etc etc. and i know thats not perhaps as "major" as this, but u can see what im saying. school life has a massive impact on childrens upbringin, and will do anything to fit in, and if that means having sex-well they are going to do it, what ever the outcome. You talk a lot of sence Mrs T , but.... Yes it is difficult to sit down and talk about the birds and the bees. Its far easier to just turn a blind eye and hope that someone at school does it for you. I understand pier pressure, when my daughter came to live with me, i knew she was sexually active ( or had a strong suspicion), so i sat down and talked to her about it and said i would go with her to the Docs if she wanted to go on the pill. She did. It was not an option her mother ever gave her. So she was lucky. And believe me, it was far from a comfortable conversation , but i didnt want her to end up pregers. I also agree with the implications of some other posters on here, although its not seen as the left wing thing to do. Life is made to easy for them, make them go without nike trainers and nice clothes for a few years, make them work for their money, earn their place in society and the food on the table. Stop throwing money at these people. Sex is a choice (although their are exceptions not associated with this thread). Babies (or worse) are a consiquence. If people choose to have sex, then they should be prepared to face the consequences of thier actions, not sit back and let everyone else face those consequences for them.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 23, 2005 15:44:34 GMT 1
so is the article lying? Where do they get the £600 figure from? I don't know, the words "reported to be receiving" cheap shot from a cheap hack, you can find out what everyone is entitled too on the net, these girls get approx £35.?? for themselves and £44.?? for the child plus £17.?? child benefit, the only way they could get more is if the child is in care in the day whilst they are at school, there are one off maternity payments, which I haven't bothered looking for. I have doubts that they are getting the money due to thier age so thier mother must be recieving the benefits, they are not old enough to claim !!
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 23, 2005 15:52:14 GMT 1
done a bit more calculating, The girls mother must be Claiming all the money, if she doesn't work then she will be getting just short of £600 a week inclusive of housing benifit and council tax payments. That is where the figure comes from
|
|
|
Post by Bilbo on May 23, 2005 15:54:56 GMT 1
I think anyone who believes its down to lack of Sex Education is naive. Its not about class either. I know of children from middle class familes who have had a child getting pregnant underage.
You take smoking as an example, look how many kids at school are shown graphic images of decayed lungs due to tobacco...... Yet the stupid sods still take up smoking. Its a way of rebelling.
The same applies IMHO with the underage sex problem, kids are now taught more graphic ways of sexual education and the dozy little buggers either want to experiment or rebel.
You go back 60 years ago when there was little or even no sex education they didn't have this problem hardly at all. The odd case of un married pregnancies were heard of , but not like it is now.
I think its time to go back to Victorian values, The less the kids know on Sex the better.
|
|
|
Post by x emz x on May 23, 2005 15:59:50 GMT 1
i understand pab, it is easy to turn a blind eye, but from my point of view, if my mum said " ok we need talk about the birds and the bees" id probably laugh,get up and walk away. but if someone at school said the exact same thing, id probably sit there and listen, for the pure reason, that they wud talk through it properly, and not judge you...where as parents ( no offence) have a tendancy to think that because your sexually active ure gonna get pregnant or ure gonna get a disease. sex is a choice, and i should imagine any law that is put in the way of kids, wont be taken notice of anyway!and i dont think all kids sit back and let them have money thrown at them, alot of teenage mothers do go out to work and put food on the table, my mates who had kids in their teens went back to work.not everyone is like that( meaning not all of the teenage mothers sit back ) as for "would to make abortions mandatory for any girl under the age of 16 who becomes pregnant," what a load of rubbish, that would be by far the worst decision made. as dave said, why make the unborn baby pay? sad thing is it doesnt have a say, and is always seen as the easy option, kids should be made to face up to reality if they get pregnant and decide to keep it. you wouldnt go round sayin perverts and peodophiles should be let free, but only being told not to go near children! because that the same thing ( ish), basically they do something they are bound to regret, and then they get told that they can get on with their life but they should be more careful next time! they should face up to what they have done and get on with it. it was their decision in the first place that led to it, so why should they have it easy? and anyway, it wud be like telling a child under 16 "dont worry if u get pregnant we will get rid of it for u" that way they wont take precautions and before you know it there will be a sudden rise in STI's. schools have got to crack onto this and "update" their way of teaching it to children, and parents, well parents have to make their children understand, and be quite harsh when talking about it, so they dont do what i wud do, and get up and walk away.
|
|
|
Post by annoyed on May 23, 2005 16:00:41 GMT 1
I agree with Sister Pap..........
no I don't won't to see the chilren suffer..but giving a 14 year old £600 a month, does not help diffuse the situation.
The thing that annoys me is if they have a couple more they will be in a council house by the time they are 18.
Yet theres people that have worked that can't afford at house.
Im sorry but it seems to be that the more they are given the more they are going to take.
If they are older enough to have sex then they know the consequences
|
|
|
Post by Norris on May 23, 2005 16:03:06 GMT 1
Perhaps they are claiming maintenance (in this case the fathers pocket/dinner money) or disability benefit or anything they can con the government out of.
|
|
|
Post by annoyed on May 23, 2005 16:04:41 GMT 1
theres also a lot of young girl that think having a baby is fasionable........or they want one cause their mates have one
I know it seems daft but its very true.
|
|
|
Post by Vicky Pollard on May 23, 2005 16:07:03 GMT 1
theres also a lot of young girl that think having a baby is fasionable........or they want one cause their mates have one I know it seems daft but its very true. I think the commen term is Scummers!!!
|
|
|
Post by x emz x on May 23, 2005 16:12:33 GMT 1
on the fashionable thing......it is very true. sadly, alot of people see people like jordan and look up 2 her ( ) yet they see that she isnt married, and she has a baby, now expecting another one. jordans first baby was all over newspapers etc etc, explaining how the situation came about-either a 1 night stand or a meaningless relationship wasnt it? i cant remember. but kids do look up to her as a role model, and think " well she did it" so then think they can
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 23, 2005 16:13:04 GMT 1
I agree with Sister Pap.......... no I don't won't to see the chilren suffer..but giving a 14 year old £600 a month, does not help diffuse the situation. The thing that annoys me is if they have a couple more they will be in a council house by the time they are 18. Yet theres people that have worked that can't afford at house. Im sorry but it seems to be that the more they are given the more they are going to take. If they are older enough to have sex then they know the consequences Its the mother in this case who is getting all the money www.newcastle.gov.uk/welfr.nsf/a/benefitrateshomeI can't be bothered to find a local page, all the rates are the same anyway, the kids are not old enough to claim anything. Its a shame it all comes down to money, girls from all walks of life get pregnant, where are the boys in this case, bragging with thier mates probably. I hope that the boys names have been passed on to the right authorities.
|
|
|
Post by x emz x on May 23, 2005 16:16:42 GMT 1
Its the mother in this case who is getting all the money www.newcastle.gov.uk/welfr.nsf/a/benefitrateshomeI can't be bothered to find a local page, all the rates are the same anyway, the kids are not old enough to claim anything. Its a shame it all comes down to money, girls from all walks of life get pregnant, where are the boys in this case, bragging with thier mates probably. I hope that the boys names have been passed on to the right authorities. the one girl was 16- so that father is protected by the fact that she was 16 at the time blah blah blah.. the other two i would imagine are also under 16, if so then what exactly can they do? if both "parties" are under 16, what exactly is the ruling on this? but i would expect that the parents would say that he is young and was vulnerable etc etc, didnt know wot he was doing etc. and as for matinence, hard to get money off a 14 year old child? coud get it off the parents i spose, but some would damn right refuse to pay anyway.
|
|
|
Post by wiganshrew2 on May 23, 2005 16:28:33 GMT 1
I honestly don't think there's JUST one single cause.
It's a problem, because by removing blame and shame, which stigmatized children, so was a bad thing,we've
gone the opposite extreme, and we've got one huge social problem; anfd it's become a vicious circle, because in a lot of these families, it's gone on for three generations.
I think they really ARE so ignorant and lacking in intelligence that they think it's acceptable; especially if it seems to be, as Dave said, prevalent in certain post-code areas. They can't help having no brains in a complicated society- but what can be done? Something needs to be done about it.
It shocks us, because we were brought up with codes of behaviour and moral values. If we broke them, we suffered the consequences and nobody bailed us out.
In fact, is there some truth in the idea that the poor were probably a lot more moral than the aristocracy years ago, because they were too afraid of the consequences!!!!
We just can't get our heads round people who have been brought up, for three generations, to believe that they should do whatever they feel like doing and the State will support them.
Schools? Not individually responsible but a part of the problem may be that young people who lack all the resources (lacking in innnate intelligence, unsupportive and irresponsible parents..etc) will fail at school in the present climate. How could kids from those backgrounds do their GCSE coursework? They would struggle even to do the paperwork required on vocational courses.
Peer pressure is a VERY big factor in all of this. I recently read an interview given by a young girl who said she was pressured into having sex at 15, because she was the "odd one out" in her group, and was laughed at. She hated it, she wasn't ready for it and said it made her feel dirty and used. She got over it and "grew up" and is now studying and making something of her life. But this is a more intelligent girl, obviously- and brave enough to use her experience to warn others.
Yes- meole shrew was right to. It's about relationships. Mrs tolley says they gave all the graphic details that made them cringe- but they leave relationships and feelings out.
Why does nobody warn young girls that sex without love WILL make them feel dirty and used?!!!!
Newspapers can be so hypocritical. On one page they have all the moral outrage stuff- then, on the FRONT PAGE of their colour supplement- there's Rebecca Loos. Rebecca Loos whose sexual adventures extend to men AND women.
What's the message then? Be an absolute slapper and you'll make a fortune, be praised for "being a woman who exhudes sexuality!" as one paper put it.
I tend to think that, after all, it was christian values that underpinned the "morals" in this country. And when these are REALLY understood, they are compassionate values. This country seems to have ditched this heritage and not replaced it with any moral framework as such.
The papers love to gloat and drag up people's past mistakes, but at least the founder of christianity said, " .. Neither do I condemn you- go away and sin no more!" Which may be why, in past times, young women only tended to have one baby out of wedlock.
(Also- these are the values of thinking about others as much as you think about yourself, which tends to make for more caring and responsible behaviour.)
Sadly- some tend to twist everything good- and we had terrible punitive institutions like The Magdelene Laundry run in Ireland by Catholic charities- a world away from real christianity that seeks to forgive and restore.
We need some more input here from the young people still at school. What do THEY think should be done?
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 23, 2005 16:38:41 GMT 1
the one girl was 16- so that father is protected by the fact that she was 16 at the time blah blah blah.. the other two i would imagine are also under 16, if so then what exactly can they do? if both "parties" are under 16, what exactly is the ruling on this? but i would expect that the parents would say that he is young and was vulnerable etc etc, didnt know wot he was doing etc. and as for matinence, hard to get money off a 14 year old child? coud get it off the parents i spose, but some would damn right refuse to pay anyway. Money should be last on the list of worries ! Sex ed in schools is not working, the whole family should have to go for "educational classes" thats not just aimed at the mechanics of sex, how to cope with peer pressure, that your not weird or a Lesbian if you say no, that a great one isn't it, your a Lesbian if you havent had 'it', kids, there own worst enemies, its still the in thing not to be a virgin, its still the in thing to smoke..............................it just goes on and on
|
|
|
Post by x emz x on May 23, 2005 16:39:30 GMT 1
i only left school two years ago, and have to have learnt more about sex and relationships etc during those two years than at school, and you cant learn everything at school, you have to experience it sometimes to be able to understand it better the currant way of teaching sex ed-videos and reading leaflets doesnt work, its very dated. I dont understand how the government can seriously think that it works but i spose they have to be seen to be doing something. however, yet again, something isnt enough! not really sure what CAN be done to prevent it....like ive said, any laws put into place are bound to be ignored, i mean kids break the currant one everyday, not like people find out kids have sex underage until they become pregnant anyway! you wont get parents being told how to brging up their children, that will never happen. so i think schools have to be a bit tougher, and i would think that would involve teaching it at an earlier age. that way its compensating for it-although it shouldnt have to- as kids shouldnt be having kids at the age of 12!!!!!!!!! but i dont think u will ever stop that happening-its sick, but if kids want to have sex they will, and if they are younger, they dont think about precautions alot of sex ed classes focus on STI's more than anything, and they are deemed far worse ( or they wud appear to be), as people go on the pill and dont use anything else, this stops them getting pregnant, but doesnt stop anything else. so schools probably feel the need to give out more warnings on STI's than pregnancy.
|
|
|
Post by x emz x on May 23, 2005 16:49:48 GMT 1
Money should be last on the list of worries ! yea it SHOULD be, but for some families its just not, because they arent exactly wealthy or what not, so would refuse to do it. you wouldnt get families going to such classes tho, thats the thing, i couldnt imagine me mum dad n jo all going for a class, id be too embaressed to go lol. imagine the kids saying " sorry cant come out to night got a sex education class with my family!" they'd get laughed at.the parents would definately go to protect their children, but if you have rebellious children....well ure up sh!t creak without a paddle coz they wouldnt go! yep the "in thing" is to lose your virginity, and smoke and drink and all the rest of it, like you say kids are their own worst enimies. but they CHOOSE to do these things....peer pressure is a major factor admittedly, but at the end of the day peer pressure or not, they still take it upon themselves to do it, and that,peer pressure, can never be stamped out, but family values can become more and more important. depends how u have been brought up i suppose, but you have to think about how different all the kids are these days
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 23, 2005 17:09:04 GMT 1
Sorry, but the education system is there too EDUCATE, it is where the majority of children spend the majority of their weeks for 10/11 years. Schools have special lessons called personal development classes etc, which cover everything from bullying, to cvs etc. It is not unreasonable to expect the education system to cater its sex EDUCATION lessons towards the pupils. But as has been said this is harder done then said. As for the belief that "we didnt have sex education in my day and we didnt have these problems" well your somewhat missing the point. Easiest way round this is to teach in a matter of fact way from the age of 11/12 that sex is best avoided untill in a long term relationship/mature enough to decide/married. BUT should anyone have sex or be thinking of having sex, FREE CONFIDENTIAL advice is available from the school nurse including the handing out OF FREE contraception. As for beneifts I'm sure thats the first thing on the mind of many of the pregnant school kids, "oh yeah I can now get £400-£600 per month". I feel for every child who is brought up soley on beneifts, because lets be honest single mothers benefits are normally so inadequate that single mothers hold down a fulltime job and sometimes a part time job as well just to keep a roof over their kids heads and cloths on their kids backs. If you don't believe me walk into Eden Vale, Palethorpes and Muller Factory and speak to the single parents working there
|
|
|
Post by True_Shrew on May 23, 2005 17:10:40 GMT 1
The crux of the matter is that girls of that age are sleeping around, why? becuase they can. It's a social ladder thing, girl sleeps with bloke x 'cos he's popular and he makes her feel good and lets face it, most of these kids have a hard upbringing so anything that feels good in there eyes (drinking, smoking, drugs) there going to do. Also some religions STILL outlaw the use of condoms, so some blokes can't (it's crap excuse but girls fall for it) use a condom Condoms do nowt for a bloke either so it's obvious the bloke is going to go gung ho at it and avoid using one. There are two issues here (pregnancy and STI's) and at the moment there is only one solution - at it's not working. New investment in contraceptives is needed to stop this going any further.
|
|
|
Post by meoleshrew2 on May 23, 2005 17:16:28 GMT 1
yea it SHOULD be, but for some families its just not, because they arent exactly wealthy or what not, so would refuse to do it. you wouldnt get families going to such classes tho, thats the thing, i couldnt imagine me mum dad n jo all going for a class, id be too embaressed to go lol. imagine the kids saying " sorry cant come out to night got a sex education class with my family!" they'd get laughed at.the parents would definately go to protect their children, but if you have rebellious children....well ure up sh!t creak without a paddle coz they wouldnt go! yep the "in thing" is to lose your virginity, and smoke and drink and all the rest of it, like you say kids are their own worst enimies. but they CHOOSE to do these things....peer pressure is a major factor admittedly, but at the end of the day peer pressure or not, they still take it upon themselves to do it, and that,peer pressure, can never be stamped out, but family values can become more and more important. depends how u have been brought up i suppose, but you have to think about how different all the kids are these days The money thing I mean't that people react to the money side of the situation the most Like I said sex ed isn't working, so I'm not saying that its what needs teaching, to parents & children, most would shut off with embarresment, what I'm suggesting is something that would encourage disscusion, the mechanics can be left for biology classes, there are better ways than discussing sex than you do this and that, its the whole classroom hoodoo that surrounds the topic that needs addressing. H started coming home 10-11 yrs old with all sorts of stories the girls at school had told her & the swear words, did we have a fasinating talk for hours or what but I didn't need to describe anything, or show her any pictures or what ever, some of my friends have done the same now after I told them, addressing some of the myths and the basics when kids are young enough breaks down the barriers for when they are older.
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 23, 2005 17:16:46 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on May 23, 2005 19:05:19 GMT 1
Oh s**t yeh, i forget in my previous post, why not blame the church.
|
|
|
Post by morpheus on May 23, 2005 19:22:58 GMT 1
Sorry, but the education system is there too EDUCATE, it is where the majority of children spend the majority of their weeks for 10/11 years. Schools have special lessons called personal development classes etc, which cover everything from bullying, to cvs etc. It is not unreasonable to expect the education system to cater its sex EDUCATION lessons towards the pupils. But as has been said this is harder done then said. As for the belief that "we didnt have sex education in my day and we didnt have these problems" well your somewhat missing the point. Easiest way round this is to teach in a matter of fact way from the age of 11/12 that sex is best avoided untill in a long term relationship/mature enough to decide/married. BUT should anyone have sex or be thinking of having sex, FREE CONFIDENTIAL advice is available from the school nurse including the handing out OF FREE contraception. As for beneifts I'm sure thats the first thing on the mind of many of the pregnant school kids, "oh yeah I can now get £400-£600 per month". I feel for every child who is brought up soley on beneifts, because lets be honest single mothers benefits are normally so inadequate that single mothers hold down a fulltime job and sometimes a part time job as well just to keep a roof over their kids heads and cloths on their kids backs. If you don't believe me walk into Eden Vale, Palethorpes and Muller Factory and speak to the single parents working there Bollox that is my son..............the parents are soley to blame on this and no other, what on earth are they thinking lettinga 12 year old do what she has done(probably only 11 when it happend) Education is there but defo not to blame for some scutter lifting her skirt at such a young age
|
|
|
Post by john on May 23, 2005 19:24:22 GMT 1
Bloody hell this thread off I still blame the parents personally
|
|