Single parents 'must seek work to keep benefits'

Syl wrote:

Truthy wrote:

Tytonidae wrote:

Syl wrote:I do despair though that one parent familys seem to be the norm now. If people PLANNED their familys, instead of breeding thoughtlessly, their would be a lot less one parent familys, so a lot less people depending on benefits.

It's where my thinking is S yl. Something has changed in the mind-set of people and its high time it was changed back!

Syl - In many cases people do plan their families but with divorce and relationship break-up so common it is no wonder there are so many one-parent families. They are not all iresponsible young women as the media like to portray them. BLAME THE MEDIA AND THE POLITICIANS WHO CREATED THE SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Tytonidae - People's thinking will never change back to the way it was. We have the culture that the politicians, media and capitalists created and now as usual they attack the poor and defenceless when their vision of society has gone wrong. BLAME THE MEDIA AND THE POLITICIANS WHO CREATED THE SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Some one parent familys are there through divorce, death, or other circumstance beyond their control, I know that. Many are wonderful parents. I was brought up by a solo parent, and she did a marvelous job of rearing us, and juggling 2 or 3 cleaning jobs at the same time. She did,nt ask for or recieve state handouts.

Many one parent familys today, have one or more children, with different dads, some dont even know who the dad is!! I dont blame the media, I blame irressponsible parenting, and also bad teaching. Educate our kids to KNOW that there is a world out there, for them. Show them that there is more to life than pushing a buggy up the high street, with a couple of kids in tow.

Not all kids can be clever and expect to go to University. But sometimes I think the mainstream kids are undervalued, so they have no faith in themselves, and no future to look foreward to.

Sadly wether people realise it or not the one-parent family is here to stay. The nuclear family is dead and hardly likely to return. It seems that its only amongst the religious that it continues to exist. The equal rights and pay act had a lot to do with it. Men are no longer needed like they were as the social security system and the government have taken away a woman's need to depend on a man. A man as the head of the household doesn't have the same degree of respect and authority that it did years ago. That's what I mean when I say you can blame the politicians and the media for that.

Society is moving away from the 2.4 nuclear family certainly but are you suggesting that the tax payer should fund and facilitate it Truthful?

But unfortunately, if a woman is'nt depending on a man, she is depending on the state. I would guess that in the vast majority of one parent families, the woman is'nt earning enough to support herself, her kids, and pay for child minding fee's as well.

Tytonidae wrote:That's because there's a changing reality on the issues. You're stuck in the past Truthy. I believe in a decent welfare system, vote for it, argue for it, I've marched against and slated the same things as you;Thatcherism is a dirty word in my mouth but it's time you had a wake up call because there's an underclass in this country that takes the piss!! - and what do my view on immigration have to do with the rest of the thrust of your post - wanting free movement of people isn't right wing Truthy - you seem mixed up to me..

To be honest I think its you that seems stuck in the past or at least wants to return to it as your previous post stated. I am just highlighting the reality of the situation. The changing reality as you describe it is being touted by the media and politicians who got us into the situation in the first place.

Wanting free movement of people isn't right-wing and I never said it was I was just once again highlighting the reality of modern life in Britain. As for these underclass people you claim are taking the piss where are they?

I live on a council estate and don't see any I think you've been digesting the Torygraph/Sun/Heil too much

Tytonidae wrote:Society is moving away from the 2.4 nuclear family certainly but are you suggesting that the tax payer should fund and facilitate it Truthful?

They don't have a lot of choice do they unless you want to see children falling further into poverty.

Syl wrote:But unfortunately, if a woman is'nt depending on a man, she is depending on the state. I would guess that in the vast majority of one parent families, the woman is'nt earning enough to support herself, her kids, and pay for child minding fee's as well.

Lets one of my ex,s refused a penny from me in maintenance , She had a good job ; she even refused a divorce settlement (I paid exactly the same amount into an account for my boy as I paid for my other children) so not all single parents rely on a man /woman or the state! I think yet again the state and the media are concocting things to try to help thier own causes

thedelboy wrote:

Syl wrote:But unfortunately, if a woman is'nt depending on a man, she is depending on the state. I would guess that in the vast majority of one parent families, the woman is'nt earning enough to support herself, her kids, and pay for child minding fee's as well.

Lets one of my ex,s refused a penny from me in maintenance , She had a good job ; she even refused a divorce settlement (I paid exactly the same amount into an account for my boy as I paid for my other children) so not all single parents rely on a man /woman or the state! I think yet again the state and the media are concocting things to try to help thier own causes

The Telegraph is quite famous for making things up

thedelboy wrote:

Syl wrote:But unfortunately, if a woman is'nt depending on a man, she is depending on the state. I would guess that in the vast majority of one parent families, the woman is'nt earning enough to support herself, her kids, and pay for child minding fee's as well.

Lets one of my ex,s refused a penny from me in maintenance , She had a good job ; she even refused a divorce settlement (I paid exactly the same amount into an account for my boy as I paid for my other children) so not all single parents rely on a man /woman or the state! I think yet again the state and the media are concocting things to try to help thier own causes

how many ex's do you have , you jack-the-lad??





OP, this new law comes with a sting in the tail imo. all these "bright new ideas" dreamt up by think-tanks do!

we will produce a generation of latch-key kids. children will be dragged-up (not properly brought-up) without their mums there to supervise them after school and take an interest in their homework etc..


the government will save money on benefits, but what will be the price to society of the resultant mass delinquency?? it costs many thousands per week to keep young criminals incarcerated!!!!!

I did say earlier on that there are some brilliant one parent familys.

I think people are burying their head in the sand a bit though, to think that many many one parent mothers are husband/partnerless because they have had kids that they have not, and probably ever will have, any way of supporting.

Good grief Canny, they're dragged up now...

..wheres the harm in finding a job around your children and setting a good example - its not a think tank type of thing, its a morality type of thing..

CannyX wrote:

thedelboy wrote:

Syl wrote:But unfortunately, if a woman is'nt depending on a man, she is depending on the state. I would guess that in the vast majority of one parent families, the woman is'nt earning enough to support herself, her kids, and pay for child minding fee's as well.

Lets one of my ex,s refused a penny from me in maintenance , She had a good job ; she even refused a divorce settlement (I paid exactly the same amount into an account for my boy as I paid for my other children) so not all single parents rely on a man /woman or the state! I think yet again the state and the media are concocting things to try to help thier own causes

how many ex's do you have , you jack-the-lad??





OP, this new law comes with a sting in the tail imo. all these "bright new ideas" dreamt up by think-tanks do!

we will produce a generation of latch-key kids. children will be dragged-up (not properly brought-up) without their mums there to supervise them after school and take an interest in their homework etc..


the government will save money on benefits, but what will be the price to society of the resultant mass delinquency?? it costs many thousands per week to keep young criminals incarcerated!!!!!

oh, and another thing - when the tories were in power, they were always wittering on about one-parent families and demonising them.remember that peter lily's witchunt? he was horrific!!

then some bright-spark journo noticed that quite a few of tory MP's were producing one -parent families themselves (through extra-marital affairs), cos they could not keep it in their trousers! (egg-on-face..)

Tytonidae wrote:Good grief Canny, they're dragged up now...

..wheres the harm in finding a job around your children and setting a good example - its not a think tank type of thing, its a morality type of thing..

What do the Westminster politicians know of morality?

Dropping cluster bombs on Iraq and making many children motherless and fatherless not to mention limbless. They have the morals of the sewer or have you forgotten Cecil Parkinson and others of his ilk?

Syl wrote:I did say earlier on that there are some brilliant one parent familys.

I think people are burying their head in the sand a bit though, to think that many many one parent mothers are husband/partnerless because they have had kids that they have not, and probably ever will have, any way of supporting.

We know that Syl but with all due respect what is your solution to it?

Increased poverty for children which s what the politicians are obviously advocating or sterilisation?

Its a bit like climate change and nuclear weapons - something that we have to live with or go down a very authoritarian road that will in the long term have far reaching consequences.

Truthy wrote:

Tytonidae wrote:Good grief Canny, they're dragged up now...

..wheres the harm in finding a job around your children and setting a good example - its not a think tank type of thing, its a morality type of thing..

What do the Westminster politicians know of morality?

Dropping cluster bombs on Iraq and making many children motherless and fatherless not to mention limbless. They have the morals of the sewer or have you forgotten Cecil Parkinson and others of his ilk?

I blame baby C

Truthy wrote:

Syl wrote:I did say earlier on that there are some brilliant one parent familys.

I think people are burying their head in the sand a bit though, to think that many many one parent mothers are husband/partnerless because they have had kids that they have not, and probably ever will have, any way of supporting.

We know that Syl but with all due respect what is your solution to it?

Increased poverty for children which s what the politicians are obviously advocating or sterilisation?

Its a bit like climate change and nuclear weapons - something that we have to live with or go down a very authoritarian road that will in the long term have far reaching consequences.

I gave my idea's earlier on in the thread.

IF the benefits are to be dropped, when a child reaches 10, enable the parent to work by providing flexi hours and child minding facilitys, for eg.. open up schools for after hours activities..
But preceding ALL this, educate young people to strive for a better way of living.

Syl wrote:

Truthy wrote:

Syl wrote:I did say earlier on that there are some brilliant one parent familys.

I think people are burying their head in the sand a bit though, to think that many many one parent mothers are husband/partnerless because they have had kids that they have not, and probably ever will have, any way of supporting.

We know that Syl but with all due respect what is your solution to it?

Increased poverty for children which s what the politicians are obviously advocating or sterilisation?

Its a bit like climate change and nuclear weapons - something that we have to live with or go down a very authoritarian road that will in the long term have far reaching consequences.

I gave my idea's earlier on in the thread.

IF the benefits are to be dropped, when a child reaches 10, enable the parent to work by providing flexi hours and child minding facilitys, for eg.. open up schools for after hours activities..
But preceding ALL this, educate young people to strive for a better way of living.

What jobs though? Where are all these jobs people keep talking about?

As for educating children they can't even teach them to read and write nowadays never mind anything else.

..and remember guys, they're only being switched to Job Seekers Allowance, instead of Income Support - nobody is going to starve but they cannot now languish on a never ending soul destroying benefit, that a lot of them quite enjoy

Truthy wrote:

What jobs though? Where are all these jobs people keep talking about?

As for educating children they can't even teach them to read and write nowadays never mind anything else.

True, the standard of education has dropped in many areas. And unemployment is getting higher.
It all ties in with another thread where people were insisting we should welcome everyone into our little Island.
No, we should'nt. There are not enough GOOD schools for the kids we have already. Money needs to be spent on educating teachers to a better standard, so ALL schools are teaching our kids properly.

Tytonidae wrote:..and remember guys, they're only being switched to Job Seekers Allowance, instead of Income Support - nobody is going to starve but they cannot now languish on a never ending soul destroying benefit, that a lot of them quite enjoy

Do you have any data or statstics to prove the ridiculous attacks you are making on single parents?

I'd put money on it you don't like many of the other Torygraph/Heil/Sun reader type coments you have been making today

Syl wrote:I do despair though that one parent familys seem to be the norm now. If people PLANNED their familys, instead of breeding thoughtlessly, their would be a lot less one parent familys, so a lot less people depending on benefits.

Some do plan their families. The more kids , the more money they can claim and other benefits.

Syl wrote:

Truthy wrote:

What jobs though? Where are all these jobs people keep talking about?

As for educating children they can't even teach them to read and write nowadays never mind anything else.

True, the standard of education has dropped in many areas. And unemployment is getting higher.
It all ties in with another thread where people were insisting we should welcome everyone into our little Island.
No, we should'nt. There are not enough GOOD schools for the kids we have already. Money needs to be spent on educating teachers to a better standard, so ALL schools are teaching our kids properly.

It's questionable whether immigration has the impact you suggest S yl. If we had none, I don't think everything would suddenly be rosy, there would still be unemployment, still be a stretched education system -blaming immigrants is a bit easy imo. The British don't need much help 'draining' Britain...

Immigration is only part of the problem Ty.
It is a real problem though, where schooling is concerned.

For instance.....my son went to a small C of E primary school. Grades were good, and the teaching was excellent. That same school now, 20 years on, has roughly 40% Asian children attending. It will soon be 50%, then steadily rising. The reason being siblings get preference when applying for a place. (as is the norm) Asians have more children, so they get preference. My Son would have not had a chance of getting a place there today, as he has no older sibling there.

The general feeling in that school has changed enormously.
20 years ago a teacher taught the whole class, now that teacher has to concentrate on the children who barely speak English. The other kids are not getting the education they used to, because the teachers time is spent on the minority, which will soon become the majority there.

Its now a school that is'nt so much in demand, because grades have dropped. And thats sad.

Syl I have to disagree on that one where are the stats that say Asians have more offspring? I come from a Catholic Family we all have a few kids and a lot of cousins uncles etc etc. In some areas yes you do have a large percentage of immigrants but that is because they look out for each other and tend to group together , I remember when the British had proper communities; nowadays what has happened you get some idiots on an estate who terrorise not only the ethnic minorities but also their own culture !! Just look at the Poor woman who burned herself to death with her Daughter we can not blame anyone but the scum who terrorised her and her family. If they had been from a minority group the police and other authorities as well as there own ethnic group would have had it stopped before it got so far

My school everybody was white,
and everybody's parents were together.

While immigration has stretched education resources like all others the decline in education standards in British schools is largely down to the British themselves. Certain sections of the British population seem to be anti-education regardless of wether or not they are from 1 or 2 parent families.
Asians actually do better in education in Britain than the indigenous population or so results show and many Asians are now 2nd, 3rd or even 4th generation now and speak english anyway so the small problem with immigration in education is largely with newer arrivals.
The two-parent Asian families also put far more emphasise on their children to do well in education than the indigenous British do overall.

Although immigration has put a strain on schools I don't think the decline in educational standards has anything to do with immigration itelf, it is largely down to the British themselves and I don't think it makes a difference wether those kids come from one or two parent families either.

When I was a kid at school in the 1960's there were kids from all different backgrounds and of different nationalities even then and standards were much higher.