British Expatriate Network

Tony Blair that is. This article off the BBC suggests that in order to deal with problem kids who are a 'menace to society' is to intervene before a problem arises, even before birth because these problem kids are generally from problem/disfunctional families or teenager mothers.

http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5301824.stm

I need time to think about this one because even though I know there are links between the behavior of the parents and the behavior of the kids, I have met some of the most amazing mothers who have been young single mothers for one reason or another and their children are great. Is it right that they be put under scrutiny too? And I know plenty of families where both parents are around and would not fall into the catagory of 'disfunctional' but their kids are terrible.

Here's a thought....

put something in the water that stops everyone breeding until they pass a series of tests to prove they would make fit parents. Then give them a dose of something that reverses the effects of the additive to the water supply in order for them to conceive.



Damn! I'd be good in government!!! wink lol


Debs xrazz

:lol: You'd put the world to rights, wouldn't you Debs! :lol:

This is awfully difficult for me to make up my mind on.

On the one hand I think it's far too much gubberment intrusion.

On the other hand, I look at society turning to pot in the UK and I think he has a point. I think in a lot of cases tomorrows troublemakers have already bred and got themselves a council flat complete with asbo.

I'll put my thinking cap on and get back to you.

Didn't Hitler try something like this? The only difference is that there is no proposal to bump off the unsuitable people. Some wonderful people have risen out of horrible environments. Next step, genetic selection.

They already do. Well no, they don't take it out. Estrogen finds its way into our drinking water and is not removed or tested for by the water authorities.

As for this idea, does Blair not think his siding up to Bush was enough to remove him from power? Hitler would be proud of him...

During training camp, everyone swore they put something in the tea, because libidos took a dive. The MO said it was simply because they worked us from wake up to lights out, and we got too tired. Still don't believe it.

Off subject. One guy from up north and his girlfriend got married on the spur of the moment, the day before he had to report. They were virgins but it was the wrong time of the month so they didn't get to "know" each other. He couldn't get home and back over a weekend so he missed the first 48 hour pass after six weeks. Two weeks after that, they needed him for the Suez invasion (He was a printer and the REs update maps and print new ones as they go). They gave him only three days to travel home do what he had to do and get back, The timing was unfortunate and he went to the transit camp, still frustrated. He went to Suez and then had to really pressure for leave because they were going to send him to Germany without a leave because Germany was considered a "home posting". I lost contact so I never learned whether they got to know each other, and if the process was enjoyable.

No and neither do I. I stopped drinking tea in 1987, part way through basic training and never went back to it until the turn of the century :wink:

I agree that intervention is the best remedy. However, how do you do this without single pointing at single mothers? First, I think the government should stop giving help to everyone in terms of housing, if they were to do it, limitations had to be implemented. Sometimes, I see the housing issue as an incentive for people not get a job and for teens to leave home.

Also, I think schools should do more to help "at risk kids" and encourage after school programs such as trade, arts, music or something else in poorer areas. The government needs to put more money into the schools and pay teachers better, get counselors involved with repeated offenders + parents + psychologists.

There was a study done about the number of pregnancies in a particular poor neighborhood in America, and it was surprising to see that the these kids were sometimes in search of acceptance and love. The study suggested that a combination of behavioral training and counselling worked best on self-esteem. Labeling has never worked and it doesn't with teenagers, the more you do, they are less likely to join in.

The U.K. should have a program in place from early childhood through high school, the problem is, every single mother will be seen as a potential problem and this is discrimination. For those that are already causing hell around the neighborhoods, more needs to be done to get into the roots of the problems. Kids look for trouble when they are bored, maybe sports should be taken more seriously. I believe that sports of all sorts teach a lot of good about self discipline and cooperation and I would like to see more kids playing outside and help the parents feel that they can make a difference in society, encouragement is key!

Just a thought! :wink:


http://www.hbns.org/news/pressure01-13-03.cfm

Is it possible that the government needs to concentrate less on the education/whatever of the potential parents of the potential troublemakers and more on their definite neighbors and the parents of their peers?

Is is possible that single mums etc have such a bad rep that everyone expects their children to turm out bad, so steer clear rather than offering help, suppiort and advice?

What would happen if we managed to persuade society that we were all responsible for these children?

The following is strictly. IMO

A couple of points here,; I'm bouncing off posh2's good post.

I think the African/American problem is a separate issue because of the history, they basically built a culture that didn't include marriage back in the times of slavery. That is not to say that a general solution wouldn't work for all races.

The trouble with troublemakers in the UK and here in the caucasian peoples are due to our failure to adapt to excessive capitalism, and to some extent to feminism. These things have contributed to the breakdown of the close knit family. Add to that the busy busy extracurricular schedules, and few families sit down to eat a meal together. Studies have shown that families that have a meal together even just a few times a week have many fewer problems with drugs and with negative behaviour, I can't quote the studies, I know they exist because I sometimes listen to a programme by a local shrink. I don't think it is just the meal but the family interactions that accompany it.

With both parents working, the close and continuous involvement, both the monitoring and the demonstration of love and/or deep interest is diminished. Children, left to their own devices will start building the culture over again from scratch. See "Lord of the Flies".

It is clear that the troubled young are getting the "say" before they are mature enough to use the authority wisely.

That's a bit meager for a big subject, but I think my main points are there.

Obviously this is a plot by women who get ordered around by men and decided to take the initiative..... :wink:

I totally agree. and well said.

Children are the future and should be respected as such. Mothers have a hard enough job as it is (and fathers at times too). Society is so quick to label single mothers, but get a single father and everyone feels sorry for him and can't offer enough help.