Lessons must be learnt.

[LadyOnArooftop]

Lessons must be learnt.
I'm waiting for this cliche to be trotted out over the death of this child that starved to death. I see the police are already being lambasted, but am I wrong to ask, where was the mother?

Any other lessons that need to be learnt? Feel free to sound off...

 

[Moriarty]

Lady, I love you to bits, but really.

We have been supplying Saudia Arabia with weapons to kill Yemeni civilians for almost a decade.
I know I watched the mass exodus via satellite doing charity work.

Yet now we are supposed to care because "rebels" are launching drones at ships in the Red sea and we send in the Navy, tis laughable.

We solved the homeless problem back in the 90's by prioritising peple on the street for council houses.

Look back at videos of Manchester or London back then, no beggers.

But then we had to import labour to pay taxes, which they mostly didnt, langauge barriers and they though it was a free ride, which we gave them.

I dont blame immigrants in any way, I blame our stupid government for thinking this would end well.

There is one simple fact in all those things.

The voice of reason, that maybe just because one can do something, does not mean one should.

Where is common sense?

 

[Kev45]

That will explain why a vulnerable and defenceless two-year-old was left in the care of an allegedly shouty father, with an absent mother and then abandoned by the authorities, who had repeated warnings from neighbours and other sources that this child was at risk.

Edited to include, my comment was probably unfair on the father, who had full custody, who asked for help, and who simply could not cope.

 

[LadyOnArooftop]

Yet now we are supposed to care because "rebels" are launching drones at ships in the Red sea and we send in the Navy, tis laughable.

Not forgetting those two Multi-billion £ useless Aircraft Carriers that were commissioned by Blair and endorsed by Cameron, that are so
vulnerable they can't be risked near any danger zone!

 

[Moriarty]

Not forgetting those two Multi-billion £ useless Aircraft Carriers that were commissioned by Blair and endorsed by Cameron, that are so
vulnerable they can't be risked near any danger zone!

They don't work well in hot water.
Plus one sprung a leak.
Are we still using borrowed aircraft for them because the USA couldn't deliver the F35C varients we asked for.
Which are sh** anyway.
Don't know have to check.

One story I did find funny was the MOD saying we can't build any more ships because we can't crew them.

No one wants to join the armed forces cause theres a war on the horizon, who would have figured.

Add to that, I know from someone who did basic training about a year or 18 months ago and left, the Army isnt what it used to be, they have classes on who should be called what and proper pronoun usage.

 

[Raining_Roses]

All the love and cheer I’ve been recently spreading around here is sullying my reputation, so back to what keeps me a piranha in this pond……

That will explain why a vulnerable and defenceless two-year-old was left in the care of an allegedly shouty father, with an absent mother and then abandoned by the authorities, who had repeated warnings from neighbours and other sources that this child was at risk.

Edited to include, my comment was probably unfair on the father, who had full custody, who asked for help, and who simply could not cope.

There are a few factors at play here and even the sister has now said that the authorities did all they could with the powers they had. As you well know, Kev, families come in all shapes and sizes and a ‘Child in Need’- which is what he was classed as- is not necessarily a child that is ‘At risk’. There are whole estates of children that are in need- should they all be on the child protection register?
In that case, children’s services need a hell of a lot more money than the pathetic part of the budget they usually get. The caseloads are already unmanageable and strangely (!!), no one seems to want to do the job, so getting good social workers that can endure more than 3 months before going off sick with work related stress is akin to finding gold in the sewers of HMP Brixton.

He had not been abandoned by the authorities. If it wasn’t for the authorities, how long would it have been until they were found? If others knew Dad was a shouter, where was the ADULT sister of the poor mite? Plus, lots of parents shout. No, it’s not the right way to speak to a child and it is emotional abuse, but it’s not a reason for a child be classed as ‘At risk’- there would need to be other signs of abuse to have significant interference from the authorities. If anything, it demonstrates that the parent needs support and help to manage stress, which is what they would have been getting, when classified as a ‘child in need’. Dad asked for help and he was receiving it or else the social worker wouldn’t have been visiting.

I don’t know the situation with the mother, so I’m not going to comment on her at the moment. From the pictures and what I’ve read so far, I gather she didn’t see him often, so there may have been a reason why she didn’t contact them during the period the poor child died. But this whole tragedy is a failure of the family and community as a whole. No one in his direct community was doing anything but sitting on their phones, running to the authorities. No one went to check up on them, bring them a dish of anything or a toy for the kid. No family members dropped by to check on them or raised an alarm after not receiving a reply to a message or missed call.

No one that was meant to love either of them cared enough to prevent his death and that’s feck all to do with the authorities. The ‘authorities’ have to abide by the right to a family life and despite a large section of Joe Public having the ignorant perception that social services willingly whip loved and nurtured children away from their adoring parents, there are many, many laws that prevent that. Nevertheless, when a child dies- because social services do not have the power to interfere in family life or have the powers to electronically tag and monitor EVERY SINGLE CHILD that MIGHT be at risk, they are once again evil and horrible and lessons must be learned!

 

[Kev45]

If others knew Dad was a shouter, where was the ADULT sister of the poor mite? Plus, lots of parents shout. No, it’s not the right way to speak to a child and it is emotional abuse, but it’s not a reason for a child be classed as ‘At risk’- there would need to be other signs of abuse to have significant interference from the authorities.

I did actually type "abusive" but edited it to "shouty" because I thought it was more appropriate in the circumstances. I originally typed abusive only because I read that, and there were so many different versions anyway. A neighbour apparently reported the father repeatedly shouting and swearing aggressively at the child whilst drunk, and the child crying long into the night. I have no ideas what or what isn't the truth, of course.

I tend to agree with the main thrust of what you say, but I would also argue (predictably) that an almost permanent austerity since 1998 (and in the 80s early 90s) has altered society in general beyond recognition. It has played a major role in how social services categorize and therefore respond to these issues. In terms of urgency etc, just like the priorities of the police and fire service etc have also changed. Society as a whole has also become much more mobile in terms of housing and the workplace (chasing work), and I'd have to give it some thought, but I am pretty certain it has played a major role in antisocial behaviour, lawlessness in general among once tightly-knit communities just as it did in the 80s when Thatcher was at it.

I fully understand you know more about this particular issue than I do, I am sure you can clarify if priorities and the rules, if you like, have changed over time. Where once a child was deemed to be at immediate risk, etc. Priorities and downgrading rules.

because social services do not have the power to interfere in family life or have the powers to electronically tag and monitor EVERY SINGLE CHILD that MIGHT be at risk, they are once again evil and horrible and lessons must be learned!

I don't blame social services individually, they should have the powers and the authority to do what they deem suitable in ALL scenarios, and funding should never be a consideration. When I said authorities, I was basically referring to central government (funding etc) hamstringing social services etc with cut after cut after cut, and which I probably should have typed, but I didn't want to go on a mini political rant on such a sensitive subject.

I just don't believe in a fantasy world where parents are all mills and boon. These adults, for whatever reason, are just not capable of taking personal responsibility.

If government creates these conditions and I believe it does, then it should take full responsibility for it, which includes properly funding public services and not selling the con austerity is a necessity and the economy is on a par to a "household" budget.

 

[Raining_Roses]

I did actually type "abusive" but edited it to "shouty" because I thought it was more appropriate in the circumstances. I originally typed abusive only because I read that, and there were so many different versions anyway. A neighbour apparently reported the father repeatedly shouting and swearing aggressively at the child whilst drunk, and the child crying long into the night. I have no ideas what or what isn't the truth, of course.

I tend to agree with the main thrust of what you say, but I would also argue (predictably) that an almost permanent austerity since 1998 (and in the 80s early 90s) has altered society in general beyond recognition. It has played a major role in how social services categorize and therefore respond to these issues. In terms of urgency etc, just like the priorities of the police and fire service etc have also changed. Society as a whole has also become much more mobile in terms of housing and the workplace (chasing work), and I'd have to give it some thought, but I am pretty certain it has played a major role in antisocial behaviour, lawlessness in general among once tightly-knit communities just as it did in the 80s when Thatcher was at it.

I fully understand you know more about this particular issue than I do, I am sure you can clarify if priorities and the rules, if you like, have changed over time. Where once a child was deemed to be at immediate risk, etc. Priorities and downgrading rules.



I don't blame social services individually, they should have the powers and the authority to do what they deem suitable in ALL scenarios, and funding should never be a consideration. When I said authorities, I was basically referring to central government (funding etc) hamstringing social services etc with cut after cut after cut, and which I probably should have typed, but I didn't want to go on a mini political rant on such a sensitive subject.

I just don't believe in a fantasy world where parents are all mills and boon. These adults, for whatever reason, are just not capable of taking personal responsibility.

If government creates these conditions and I believe it does, then it should take full responsibility for it, which includes properly funding public services and not selling the con austerity is a necessity and the economy is on a par to a "household" budget.

I can’t disagree with anything you have come back with here. You are right with what you say about the effects of austerity on society and in the changes in the priorities of the public services, such as police. Furthermore, it can’t be denied that people moving around more for work and housing depletes the community feel and changes the behaviour of society in general. People come and go, whereas many moons ago, families tended to stay around each other; raised families with friends they went to school with. A rogue one would jog off to America/London/Liverpool, but the whole street knew about his/her travels and gawd help the little sod that thought he’d get away with letting the tires down on Mr Jones bike! His mother would know about it before he washed the dirt off his hands- thanks to the Doorstop News. No ASBO needed- it was a case of Just Tell Dad.

Yet no one would be reporting Mr Smith for smacking his wife around and Mrs Smith’s constant black eyes would be because ‘she deserved it’. And, when the police finally caught up with the perv that flashed at little girls and boys in the park, they’d let him off with a caution and not bother investigating his family to find out that he was abusing his children. The good old times when child poverty meant bread and dripping for your 4th dinner in a row and no socks with split shoes, as opposed to frozen burger and chips from Farmfoods and a phone with no internet connection.
I don’t write the above to be argumentative, but as I wrote the positive of community and the good old times, the negative also come to mind. Sometimes, those in the community are reluctant to turn on their own and while it’s good to reminisce on the positive of times gone past, I recall a darker side to the ‘70s and ‘80’s (I wasn’t around in the ‘60’s, but from stories, it was worse!).

I won’t pull apart the Children’s Act 1989, which is the framework which Children’s Services work within. But from the date of the act, you can get an idea as to when the current policies came into effect. From various positions in safeguarding in the last 15years, in 3 counties (2 the opposite sides of the UK), reporting is getting more stringent. Professionals within education and those working with children are reporting and acting on more welfare & safety concerns, which may have been overlooked previously (such as aspects of poverty and family dynamics). But that’s a positive, because it’s usually the little things that build up a bigger picture and enable children’s services to get in and support the family.
However, to do that, you need the workforce. You need good, resilient social workers. Social workers have one of the hardest jobs going and despite much public opinion that they are sat on their derrieres most of the time, I can declaratively say with certainty that I haven’t met one sitting down yet, unless they were typing up one of the many streams of reports they have to submit.

I’ve gone off on a tangent for which I apologise. Priorities of safeguarding are higher than ever, especially from professionals. Within children’s services, there is a threshold of risk that referrals have to meet, so report of suspected or evidenced physical or sexual harm is immediately escalated and generally, would be a multi-agency investigation, involving a criminal investigation, and criminal and family courts. However, neglect and psychological/emotional abuse is harder to prosecute and mostly worked on within child welfare and if the children are placed by the authority, it would stay within the family courts. Unless, of course, the neglect was significant enough to warrant criminal prosecution, which once again would be multi-agency. When a child is on the Child Protection register under any category of abuse, they would be subject to regular statutory visits with the social worker visiting around once in every 5-10 days, and also have video and phone contact. They would also be in contact with their carer throughout the week and if the child is in a placement, their carer is expected to keep diaries to say what the child has been doing every day/week. For each child, either on the CP register or under a Wellbeing assessment, they would have regular contact with a social worker, who has to log every contact they have with the child. That social worker also has to arrange for whatever is needed for parents- parenting classes, drug & alcohol rehabilitation/testing, etc- and whatever is needed for the child- a placement with family or with a foster carer, clothes, taxis/transport to school, medical appointments and arrange and chair a variety of meetings regarding them- CP meetings, Core groups, family group meetings, etc. Plus, then, if the child is not with parents, contact has to be arranged and transport planned and booked.

Most social workers have around 20+ children on their list and despite me listing some of what they do, it’s not exhaustive and I haven’t even included what social support workers do. They are usually studying to be social workers and they also go out with the children from families- take them out on activities, do school runs, help with cleaning when Mum needs it, transport and supervises contact when needed.

Honestly, I don’t think children’s services can do much more with what they have, but they need more people that can do the job and are resilient enough to stick at it and that’s the biggest issue right now. We can hypothesis about austerity and community, but the reality is that the job has changed massively over the past 30 years, and while influencing factors with the amount of monitoring and paperwork they have to complete, plus the increase in children going through the system is all relevant, it’s relevant that no one seems to want to do the job and I don’t blame them.

Every day, they walk into volatile, aggressive situations- after all, no parent wants to be told that they are risk to their child and many won’t acknowledge it. You’ll be surprised how many ‘innocent’ parents leave their kids in the care of an abuser/takes drug around their kid/lets them wander around the streets in the early hours/lets them watch porn- and then accuse the government of being a ‘Nanny state’ and selling children. And of course, social workers get the brunt of that. Some stories from social workers include getting pinned up against a wall and punched by a parent; slapped repeatedly by one older child, locked in a house and threatened with petrol going through the letterbox. These are from the past few months and just from the small portion of social workers I’ve spoken to.

Of course, many parents are grateful for the help and despite some families starting off as difficult to support, there are the huge rewards in watching a family turn their lives around, especially when the core issues are mental health, addiction, etc. Because ultimately, that’s what a child’s social worker does- they work with the family, because that’s what’s best to protect the child.

 

[Kev45]

Thanks for the detailed response, I don't agree with all your points, maybe another time I'll give a more detailed response, but again I do agree with the main points you raise suggesting why and how the system is failing. Some of which I was unaware off and so an interesting read for me, hearing from someone with real experience of these issues, on a wet and windy Sunday.

I grew up in a similar community you mention, a slap, a fist and even a damn good thrashing with a bamboo cane were the norm, while mum constantly got a back hander or worse. I don't have rose-tinted glasses on, but for the life of me, in regard to community adhesion, can't recall children, or adults come to that, being found dead weeks or months later in their own homes and including in densely populated urban towns and cities. It would have been extremely unusual and in a time long before ideological austerity, real effort would have been made by the authorities to seriously tackle it.

As children, we could just saunter into a neighbour's house, a quick knock and the door would always be open, to scrounge a cup of sugar or 50p for the meter. There was absolutely no finger wagging about who had what or didn't, those attitudes began to change in the 80s, but that's for another time. We grew up in poverty, but we were genuinely happy as children because our community stuck together, and we supported each other.

Regarding lessons learned, sweet fu/ck all lessons will be learned over the long term and simply because of a much larger more mobile population, who are scrabbling for and continually fighting among each other, a pot of resources (housing etc) that gets smaller and smaller over time, such is the sh/itty (failed) economic model and political system that is directly responsible for it.

 

[Moriarty]

I can’t disagree with anything you have come back with here. You are right with what you say about the effects of austerity on society and in the changes in the priorities of the public services, such as police. Furthermore, it can’t be denied that people moving around more for work and housing depletes the community feel and changes the behaviour of society in general. People come and go, whereas many moons ago, families tended to stay around each other; raised families with friends they went to school with. A rogue one would jog off to America/London/Liverpool, but the whole street knew about his/her travels and gawd help the little sod that thought he’d get away with letting the tires down on Mr Jones bike! His mother would know about it before he washed the dirt off his hands- thanks to the Doorstop News. No ASBO needed- it was a case of Just Tell Dad.

Yet no one would be reporting Mr Smith for smacking his wife around and Mrs Smith’s constant black eyes would be because ‘she deserved it’. And, when the police finally caught up with the perv that flashed at little girls and boys in the park, they’d let him off with a caution and not bother investigating his family to find out that he was abusing his children. The good old times when child poverty meant bread and dripping for your 4th dinner in a row and no socks with split shoes, as opposed to frozen burger and chips from Farmfoods and a phone with no internet connection.
I don’t write the above to be argumentative, but as I wrote the positive of community and the good old times, the negative also come to mind. Sometimes, those in the community are reluctant to turn on their own and while it’s good to reminisce on the positive of times gone past, I recall a darker side to the ‘70s and ‘80’s (I wasn’t around in the ‘60’s, but from stories, it was worse!).

I won’t pull apart the Children’s Act 1989, which is the framework which Children’s Services work within. But from the date of the act, you can get an idea as to when the current policies came into effect. From various positions in safeguarding in the last 15years, in 3 counties (2 the opposite sides of the UK), reporting is getting more stringent. Professionals within education and those working with children are reporting and acting on more welfare & safety concerns, which may have been overlooked previously (such as aspects of poverty and family dynamics). But that’s a positive, because it’s usually the little things that build up a bigger picture and enable children’s services to get in and support the family.
However, to do that, you need the workforce. You need good, resilient social workers. Social workers have one of the hardest jobs going and despite much public opinion that they are sat on their derrieres most of the time, I can declaratively say with certainty that I haven’t met one sitting down yet, unless they were typing up one of the many streams of reports they have to submit.

I’ve gone off on a tangent for which I apologise. Priorities of safeguarding are higher than ever, especially from professionals. Within children’s services, there is a threshold of risk that referrals have to meet, so report of suspected or evidenced physical or sexual harm is immediately escalated and generally, would be a multi-agency investigation, involving a criminal investigation, and criminal and family courts. However, neglect and psychological/emotional abuse is harder to prosecute and mostly worked on within child welfare and if the children are placed by the authority, it would stay within the family courts. Unless, of course, the neglect was significant enough to warrant criminal prosecution, which once again would be multi-agency. When a child is on the Child Protection register under any category of abuse, they would be subject to regular statutory visits with the social worker visiting around once in every 5-10 days, and also have video and phone contact. They would also be in contact with their carer throughout the week and if the child is in a placement, their carer is expected to keep diaries to say what the child has been doing every day/week. For each child, either on the CP register or under a Wellbeing assessment, they would have regular contact with a social worker, who has to log every contact they have with the child. That social worker also has to arrange for whatever is needed for parents- parenting classes, drug & alcohol rehabilitation/testing, etc- and whatever is needed for the child- a placement with family or with a foster carer, clothes, taxis/transport to school, medical appointments and arrange and chair a variety of meetings regarding them- CP meetings, Core groups, family group meetings, etc. Plus, then, if the child is not with parents, contact has to be arranged and transport planned and booked.

Most social workers have around 20+ children on their list and despite me listing some of what they do, it’s not exhaustive and I haven’t even included what social support workers do. They are usually studying to be social workers and they also go out with the children from families- take them out on activities, do school runs, help with cleaning when Mum needs it, transport and supervises contact when needed.

Honestly, I don’t think children’s services can do much more with what they have, but they need more people that can do the job and are resilient enough to stick at it and that’s the biggest issue right now. We can hypothesis about austerity and community, but the reality is that the job has changed massively over the past 30 years, and while influencing factors with the amount of monitoring and paperwork they have to complete, plus the increase in children going through the system is all relevant, it’s relevant that no one seems to want to do the job and I don’t blame them.

Every day, they walk into volatile, aggressive situations- after all, no parent wants to be told that they are risk to their child and many won’t acknowledge it. You’ll be surprised how many ‘innocent’ parents leave their kids in the care of an abuser/takes drug around their kid/lets them wander around the streets in the early hours/lets them watch porn- and then accuse the government of being a ‘Nanny state’ and selling children. And of course, social workers get the brunt of that. Some stories from social workers include getting pinned up against a wall and punched by a parent; slapped repeatedly by one older child, locked in a house and threatened with petrol going through the letterbox. These are from the past few months and just from the small portion of social workers I’ve spoken to.

Of course, many parents are grateful for the help and despite some families starting off as difficult to support, there are the huge rewards in watching a family turn their lives around, especially when the core issues are mental health, addiction, etc. Because ultimately, that’s what a child’s social worker does- they work with the family, because that’s what’s best to protect the child.

If adults actually acted like adults and took responsibility for their own actions, both morally and legally, this would not be a problem.

Thats what pisses me off so much, don't have a kid if your not emotionally and generally stable.
As a mother, it is usually the kids life that is important, ask why not fathers.

I dunno, I just see a lot of weak men who don't care for what they created, so sad.
Or is it women who see having a kid a route to social help.

Yep, I know, gonna hate the questions.

Some girls are better off getting social housing by getting pregnant, that is true.
Seeing some of the sh** that inner city girls have to go through with step parents, I would support this.
It does not solve the problem though.

Both girls and boys need to be safe, which they aren't.

Only thing we can do about it.
I have no idea, people tend to be more fucked up than society wants to admit.

I actually talked to a father who abused his daughter, he had all the usual excuses, his wife wasnt putting out, she wore sexy clothes, she was very close to him..
When i asked him what sex was he didnt know, he said it was something he needed, but couldn't describe it.
Then asked him what love was, he said, love is sex.

People tend to not know wtf they need.

 

[Raining_Roses]

If adults actually acted like adults and took responsibility for their own actions, both morally and legally, this would not be a problem.

Thats what pisses me off so much, don't have a kid if your not emotionally and generally stable.
As a mother, it is usually the kids life that is important, ask why not fathers.

I dunno, I just see a lot of weak men who don't care for what they created, so sad.
Or is it women who see having a kid a route to social help.

Yep, I know, gonna hate the questions.

Some girls are better off getting social housing by getting pregnant, that is true.
Seeing some of the sh** that inner city girls have to go through with step parents, I would support this.
It does not solve the problem though.

Both girls and boys need to be safe, which they aren't.

Only thing we can do about it.
I have no idea, people tend to be more fucked up than society wants to admit.

I actually talked to a father who abused his daughter, he had all the usual excuses, his wife wasnt putting out, she wore sexy clothes, she was very close to him..
When i asked him what sex was he didnt know, he said it was something he needed, but couldn't describe it.
Then asked him what love was, he said, love is sex.

People tend to not know wtf they need.

This is idealism and nature doesn’t work to ideal standards. Most people are not emotionally ready and stable enough to have children, because parenthood can throw up all kinds of situations that you thought you were ready for but weren’t.

There’s no denying that there is something wrong in the breakdown of the family unit- I’m not skirting that; however, there is also something wrong in the way that the wider culture and society is impacting on parenting. What used to be acceptable parenting isn’t any more and children are influenced by the wider world at an earlier age, which impacts on the amount of control the parent has. Childhoods used to be fairly isolated to what was learned from school and the inner community until young adulthood. Now, they are exposed to the world from birth.

There is a reduction of young women of the current generation having a child to secure social housing, not only because of more opportunities in education for girls and women, and more encouragement to stay in education, but also because there is little incentive. Social housing lists are years and no matter where you are in the country, you would be expected to be registered as homeless or in a hostel/B&B before being considered for emergency housing. Also, kids don’t always guarantee a property anymore- in fact, it’s easier to accommodate a single person than a person with child/ren, because 2+ bed properties are like gold-dust. If you were writing this 20 years ago, you’d have a point, but in this day and age, it would be quicker to get a call centre job and move into a bedsit to get out of a horrible home.

The reason for young girls and pregnancy is not as shallow as ‘I want a house’. My experience of young women pregnant as a teen is because they want love. They usually want someone/something to unconditionally love them; not leave them. Some have grown up around children and having them at a young age has been normalised- their parents were young parents or siblings have had children at a young age.
And in this day and age, teens have more pressures placed upon them to be sexually active, resulting in consequences that they’re too young to handle. Like it always has been, it’s easier for the male to walk away and deny.

Thanks for your little story about the abuser. Made me throw up in my mouth a little, but highlighted a relevant mental schema of a sexual deviant- the illogical reasoning that their victim was somehow instigating the abuse. It takes responsibility away from them. Additionally, going back to my primal comment, men appear to be going backwards in how they view themselves on a physical level. Of late, with help from gorillas such as Andrew Tate, men seem to be back to viewing themselves as animals- they need sex, they have no free will to control themselves, they feel they have the right to resort to violence when they don’t get what they want and resort to playing the victim when no one is paying attention to them.

People are indeed very fucked up. More so now as a media world collective.

 

[Moriarty]

This is idealism and nature doesn’t work to ideal standards. Most people are not emotionally ready and stable enough to have children, because parenthood can throw up all kinds of situations that you thought you were ready for but weren’t.

There’s no denying that there is something wrong in the breakdown of the family unit- I’m not skirting that; however, there is also something wrong in the way that the wider culture and society is impacting on parenting. What used to be acceptable parenting isn’t any more and children are influenced by the wider world at an earlier age, which impacts on the amount of control the parent has. Childhoods used to be fairly isolated to what was learned from school and the inner community until young adulthood. Now, they are exposed to the world from birth.

There is a reduction of young women of the current generation having a child to secure social housing, not only because of more opportunities in education for girls and women, and more encouragement to stay in education, but also because there is little incentive. Social housing lists are years and no matter where you are in the country, you would be expected to be registered as homeless or in a hostel/B&B before being considered for emergency housing. Also, kids don’t always guarantee a property anymore- in fact, it’s easier to accommodate a single person than a person with child/ren, because 2+ bed properties are like gold-dust. If you were writing this 20 years ago, you’d have a point, but in this day and age, it would be quicker to get a call centre job and move into a bedsit to get out of a horrible home.

The reason for young girls and pregnancy is not as shallow as ‘I want a house’. My experience of young women pregnant as a teen is because they want love. They usually want someone/something to unconditionally love them; not leave them. Some have grown up around children and having them at a young age has been normalised- their parents were young parents or siblings have had children at a young age.
And in this day and age, teens have more pressures placed upon them to be sexually active, resulting in consequences that they’re too young to handle. Like it always has been, it’s easier for the male to walk away and deny.

Thanks for your little story about the abuser. Made me throw up in my mouth a little, but highlighted a relevant mental schema of a sexual deviant- the illogical reasoning that their victim was somehow instigating the abuse. It takes responsibility away from them. Additionally, going back to my primal comment, men appear to be going backwards in how they view themselves on a physical level. Of late, with help from gorillas such as Andrew Tate, men seem to be back to viewing themselves as animals- they need sex, they have no free will to control themselves, they feel they have the right to resort to violence when they don’t get what they want and resort to playing the victim when no one is paying attention to them.

People are indeed very fucked up. More so now as a media world collective.

Theres a lot which you post which is spot on.

However, your not a man as much as I am not a women and cannot imagine being either, both or something I am not.

Lets be honest about the problem.
We have no idea wtf to do with working women.
Especially when they earn more than their partners.

It is seen.. as a non masculine state to earn less than your female partner, why?

Because it's bullshit.

Women are more than capable of having high powered jobs, earning in the millions per year.
Why do they do it?
Why do men do it?


Power?
Choice because they income based?
Fear of the future?

The problem is how you can take those questions and then say.. "Ok the falling birth rate isnt a problem"
Which it is, due to our aging population and pensions.

The argument for equality is actually bringing down our economy to the point where we have to import labour.
Which changes the demographic of the country we live in.

Thats very abstract and very debatable, I would be happy to be challenged.

Personally I think we are going to either lose this fight and go full multiculturalism, or have a small victory and regulate it.

Which is so sad, because immigrants made this country what it is today 30 years ago, when we had proper curry houses and a corner shop owned by a pakistani.

They became British.

Adoption not invasion will at some point become some a**h**** phrase.