£30,000 per annum income.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
nath said:
Like I said on another thread a while back - if a teacher smacked my kid, s/he'd regret it.

If a teacher smacked my kid, I'd ask him/her why, and then probably smack the kid myself.

A bit of fear and retribution works wonders tbh.

I tell you what, when some 14 year old chucks a brick at your car, would you be happy if the police patted him on the head and sat him down for a few hours for some 'councilling'. Or would you want him breaking rocks at the side of the road in an orange jumpsuit?
 

nath

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
8,009
I'd probably want to kick 7 shades of shit out of him. Emotional responses are not often the right responses.


At the end of the day, what I would want done to him wouldn't matter. What should be done is whatever would be most effective at stopping him doing it again while not being some draconian punishment. Cutting his hands off would do the job, but that doesn't mean that's what should be done. If a pat on the head and some councilling is known to be effective, so be it. I doubt it is, but what the fuck do I know?
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
if kids are naughty and they get hit, then maybe im being stupid but surely they could work this out -

being naughty = punishment
punishment = not nice
not nice = dont do it again

even a dog can work this out, so i think a stinking chav or a little kid can also work this out. unless your going to say a dog is more intelligent than a 10yr old child?
the way i see it, if you do something wrong then accept it and take what ever is deemed to be deserved. i have too many views that not enough people here share, so i dont really wanna be out numberd and have everyone jump on a bandwagon. basically, i agree with tom and im half his age. the age at which such punishments would be given too. i dont read the sun either, except to look at some titties while i eat my dinner then it gets put back on the shelf.
maybe turamber, that we formed our own views? and yes, it is also very likely they would be different to yours. it doesnt mean we have shit for brains, maybe you have shit for brains because you dont agree with what i say.
 

Will

/bin/su
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
5,259
Ok, lets say for the sake of arguement that these mothers were not given benefits. Now, put yourself in their shoes. If your child was starving because you had no money to feed them, would you let them starve?

I'd be down the local post office with a shotgun and a baseball bat, and damn the consequences.
 

throdgrain

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
7,197
Will, put that wooley jumper away. Its all that bollocks that creates these problems in the first place :)
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
if they didnt have sex in a fashion that generally gets you pregnant, maybe they wouldnt have a starving kid.
if there was no such thing as benefits for these types of people, i expect there would be other schemes that are less shit for the standard person. obviously though the most easiest thing is to hand out money left right and centre.
 

Will

/bin/su
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
5,259
Did that sound like a liberal response? I'll be coming round your house with my shotgun and baseball bat if you say anything more. ;)
 

Will

/bin/su
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
5,259
tris- said:
if they didnt have sex in a fashion that generally gets you pregnant, maybe they wouldnt have a starving kid.
if there was no such thing as benefits for these types of people, i expect there would be other schemes that are less shit for the standard person. obviously though the most easiest thing is to hand out money left right and centre.
Think of one. If it would work in the real world, you'll get a medal.
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
it wouldnt, thats why i said the easiest thing is to etc. :)
 

Brynn

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
3,261
What happened to the old fashioned way of working for your money?

not sponging off the state.
 

Escape

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
1,643
Will said:
Ok, lets say for the sake of arguement that these mothers were not given benefits. Now, put yourself in their shoes. If your child was starving because you had no money to feed them, would you let them starve?

I'd be down the local post office with a shotgun and a baseball bat, and damn the consequences.

If teenage mothers didn't get benefits, you wouldn't see so many of them.

They raise kids for the money! Pop a child > instant flat > instant cash.
 

yaruar

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,617
Escape said:
If teenage mothers didn't get benefits, you wouldn't see so many of them.

They raise kids for the money! Pop a child > instant flat > instant cash.

As i said, make the fathers pay for the kid, and consider charging them with stat rape, especially the one who was nearly 40.
 

Lazarus

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,874
fecking hell. 70+ answers and still on topicish.

nice one guys (and girls_)
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
I have to say I'd totally support the reintroduction of corporal punishment. I don't think it did me any harm and don't think it'd do any of the current crop any harm either.

Whilst I was in school there was, of course, a fair bit of f*cking about. But all before and after lessons rather than during. Why?? Because teachers basically didn't give a stuff about what you did in between but you'd get a fucking big whack across your palm or the back of your legs if you fucked about when they were talking.

What did this achieve?

1) It meant that teachers could teach.
2) It meant that pupils could learn (if they wanted).

There's all sorts of fringe benefits, like that behaviour never got too extreme because, frankly, you never had the time to outdo each other at fucking about.

It also meant that female teachers were treated with much more respect because if things kicked off in their lesson there was always some designated hard bastard teacher who they'd bring in to give you a smack if you got out of hand. (Better than them getting raped eh?)

It also meant that even the thickest of thick kids did take some skills in, no matter how hard they tried not to.

I've talked to several of the same teachers since (I left school 15-odd years ago) and they say the single biggest factor that fucks up their day is that they've no effective method of maintaining discipline - so they can't even teach the trumped up shit that now passes for the national curriculum.

It doesn't take a genius to see that as these twats grow up they never learn that there's some things that you just don't do - like steal cars, beat up grannies (or anyone), steal from people, wear burberry caps etc...

Yes, that sort of shit has been happening for ages - but if you can't visibly see that behaviour in general is going down the pan then you're either:

1) blind
2) too young to know any better
3) fooling yourself (which is the worst one)



And if you ever wondered - I verge on the stupidly liberal most of the time.
 

throdgrain

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
7,197
Im in agreement with Scouse here. The cane was present in my school, and the very deterrent was enough to stop bad behaviour.
The PE teachers could also hit you, but only with plimsols and that. Quite a few were like Dynamo Digby off that 1970's tv prgram a while back :) Made me laugh.
Point is, all that stuff enforced some respect. Its all very well saying yer "respect has to be earned" stuff, but this is real world, and real world needs to be a bit harsh sometimes.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
yaruar said:
As i said, make the fathers pay for the kid, and consider charging them with stat rape, especially the one who was nearly 40.

How would you feel about charging all these girls who willingly have underage sex with just about anyone? Not as an alternative - but as an addition to the above.

Maybe not send 'em to prison but asbo-'em up the kazoo or something?

When I was younger I probably came a-cropper to a few girls who were lying about their age. Thankfully my single-parent mother was clever enough to tell me that if I must screw around I'd better be wearing a condom because if I EVER brought home a girl that was pregnant I was right out on my ear...and she wasn't joking...
 

Ch3tan

I aer teh win!!
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,318
Brynn said:
What happened to the old fashioned way of working for your money?

not sponging off the state.

I'd hardly class them as sponging, as thats not a lot off money considering how many mouths have to be fed. I think giving them money is preferable to them trying to fend for themselves. What do you think would happen if they didnt get any state help? It wouldnt end well. As long as they make an effort to educate themselves or secure a future for themselves or their kids, without just caliming benefits for the next 30 years I dont have a problem.
 

Nos

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
258
Ch3tan said:
I'd hardly class them as sponging, as thats not a lot off money considering how many mouths have to be fed. I think giving them money is preferable to them trying to fend for themselves. What do you think would happen if they didnt get any state help? It wouldnt end well. As long as they make an effort to educate themselves or secure a future for themselves or their kids, without just caliming benefits for the next 30 years I dont have a problem.

The thing is that a lot of these teen mothers have been brought up (poorly) by parents who were in the same situation and live off benefits. So they see themselves as having 2 options:-

1.) Work like a dog at Macdonalds/KFC/Burger King/JJB Sports etc for 10.5k a year (subject to taxes)
2.) Get pregnent and get a free house + £200 a month of tax free benefits

It's a bit of a no brainer. The welfare state needs SERIOUS reform.
 

haarewin

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
2,756
a (previous...) friend of mine (she's 17 now, she had just turned 16 at the time) got pregnant off some spanish 37 year old.
i've not spoke to her since she told me about it, and i said that i thought she should consider giving the baby for adoption because she could have a much better life, and she told me i should fuck off because it was her baby and she could get out of her mothers house.

and i cant say i blame her, if this is what these girls are getting.
 

Tilda

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
5,755
I agree with tris and Scouse, bring back corporal punishment!

What would happen, if;

- Benefits were removed for under 16 pregnant children. The child was removed, and put up for adoption after birth. At 16 and under, a child getting pregnant quite clearly isn't mature enough to look after herself, let alone a baby.
- The childs DNA was put on a database with a sample of the mothers dna, and then if the fathers dna emerged (ie if he had a blood test etc) then he could be charged/sued/arrested to pay for rape+ money spent by the state.

?

Tilda
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,179
Erm Tilda, I think what you're suggesting is much worse than simply offering disincentives to people not to become spongers. Forcible separation of child/parents from one-another is an extremely upsetting experience.

As for arresting the father, why is the onus always placed on the man when it comes to recrimination? Its not like his knob just 'fell in' (although tbh I imagine some of these girls are like a Wizard's sleeve).
 

Danya

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
2,466
People getting too caught up in the £600 thing - it's 4 single mothers there (the 3 young girls and their mother), that's £150 per mother. Would you scream outrage at a single mother getting £150/week (£7800/year) benefits? That's pretty much on the breadline you know (UK poverty line is currently about £190/week not including housing costs).
 

Paradroid

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
645
Tom said:
...
As for arresting the father, why is the onus always placed on the man when it comes to recrimination? Its not like his knob just 'fell in' (although tbh I imagine some of these girls are like a Wizard's sleeve).


heh, me thinks uncle Tom has been sowing his seed on many a pasture.

Beat some sense into them!
With cars!
That'll learn them!

tbh though, it's not the fact that they get all that money (they could all have their own homes too btw, thank feck they're sharing), as someone pointed out, it's financially better to sponge than work.

The answer, surely, is to increase the basic fekin wages for all workers! (ffs) The only alternative is to reduce benefits, which we can't - 'cause it's already on the breadline. Give everyone a decent minimum wage and even the chavs might drag their arses out of bed.

About 6 years ago I was working in a really low paid job (probably the min wage), and I was better off going back to uni as a mature student for a year - I would have been better off (for a while anyway) on unemployment benefit if I'd stopped working at that time. There's no incentive to work when you're better off on benefits than working. How can you coax someone off benefits and into a job when it's obvious it's enforced slavery (which I think we all live under, it's just more obvious when you have absolutely hee-haw in your wage packet at the end of the week).

In all honesty I sometimes think the chavs, the spongers, the career criminals etc etc, actually have it right! The ruling elite lord over us, their financial institutions are the vices that hem you in and squeeze you dry, but the carrot has replaced the stick. Look at it anyway you like, you have to work to survive. We can't all be on benefits ffs! But ultimately who benefits from your hard work? You? Did anyone see that program comparing ancient slaves to modern man? They were better off than us! (except for PCs'n'shit).

P.S. I see nothing wrong with DNA matching fathers and forcing them to pay, also chain-gangs of prisoners fixing fences, rescuing kittens and stuff (its got my vote).

;)
 

mank!

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
3,427
I can't be arsed reading the whole thread but I like the fact Lazarus (and Sky news, it seems) are more concerned with their benefits than the fact they all managed to get pregnant at ridiculous ages.
 

Lazarus

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,874
mank said:
I can't be arsed reading the whole thread but I like the fact Lazarus (and Sky news, it seems) are more concerned with their benefits than the fact they all managed to get pregnant at ridiculous ages.

nail-head-hit.

not sure if you are being sarky mank (not like you) but as has been mentioned in the thread previous, there is nothing in the story regarding the illegality of the situation.

someone had sex with these girls when they were underage, and nothin apparently has been done about it.

The money these folk are getting come out of the tax the normal working people pay.

bitter pill.
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
people have underage sex all the time. this is gonna sound real shitty but i will say it anyway - it doesnt effect anyone else (i.e. us) if people have underage sex. imo, this is why they didnt bother to really talk about it in the article. what effects us when they get pregnant and begin the road to benefit-dom.
if something effects you, you care. if it has no impact on anyone except the individual then really you dont care that much. or maybe thats just me?
 

Damini

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,234
It has an impact because we live in a society, not in isolated pockets. It is an established theory that extended life spans were fundamental to human evolotion, as the role of grandparents and social elders helped pass on knowledge and wisdom that was vital to younger generations. Once our physical evolution was no longer essential to our survival, everything boils down to social evolution. If children are raising children, then obviously they have less life experience and wisdom to pass on to their off spring.

It's de-evolution, baby.

That's not to say all older people are automatically better parents than younger people, or that they care more for their children, or that children should automatically be taken away from under age parents (which is barbaric) but all human knowledge and behaviour is accumalative and socially enforced. Drop a human baby from Clapton in deepest Peru with some undiscovered tribe, and that baby won't grow up wanting to become a lawyer and understanding electricity - it will grow up a mean hunter and able to do some funky fire dance. Drop a baby off with a group of wolves and it will grow up growling and running about on all fours. If children are raising children, then they will impart the knowledge of a child. This will be further impacted in one parent families, as only one person will be passing on what they know, how they behave, and so on.

So, these children that don't affect you will be living in the same community as you, hanging out with your children, working in your shops, and if it does have a social impact then everyone in that society will eventually feel it. If the trend is passed on, if we generally mimic in families the scenario we are familiar with, then these children will go on to have children when they are children, and so on and so forth.

I think its sad that they have no greater aspirations than to breed and live in a council house. THAT is what is wrong. When you are twelve years old and your future is no deeper than picturing a cot, an absent father, and a baby with a name bastardised from designer labels.
 

yaruar

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
2,617
tris- said:
people have underage sex all the time. this is gonna sound real shitty but i will say it anyway - it doesnt effect anyone else (i.e. us) if people have underage sex. imo, this is why they didnt bother to really talk about it in the article. what effects us when they get pregnant and begin the road to benefit-dom.
if something effects you, you care. if it has no impact on anyone except the individual then really you dont care that much. or maybe thats just me?

personally for me it depends on the age of the individuals. a 14 year old having sex with another person of a similar age isn't too bad, not particually preferable. However, if like in one of these cases it's an underage girl and a man of nearly 40, that's a lot more disturbing. Although the men should bear some responsibility for these actions, the girls did not force them, so they should pay any money they can towards the upkeep of the children rather than the state being forced to pay everything. As i said before, if you are willing to shove your meat into a girl then you have to be prepared to deal with the consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom