Clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair
oO
We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair
· Intervention 'could prevent later problems'
· Package of proposals courts controversy
Lee Glendinning
Friday September 1, 2006
The Guardian
Tony Blair has said it is possible to identify problem children who could
grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.
Setting out plans for state intervention to prevent babies born into
high-risk families becoming problem teenagers of the future, the prime
minister said teenage mothers could be forced to accept state help before
giving birth, as part of a clampdown on antisocial behaviour.
Mr Blair defended the need for state intervention and said action could even
be taken "pre-birth" if necessary as families with drug and alcohol problems
were being identified too late.
"If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early then there
are children that are going to grow up in families that we know perfectly
well are completely dysfunctional, and the kids a few years down the line
are going to be a menace to society and actually a threat to themselves," he
told BBC News. There could be sanctions for parents who refused to take
advice, he added.
Mr Blair's uncompromising remarks in a BBC interview come after the Guardian
revealed earlier this week full details of his wide-ranging plans for
tackling social exclusion.
The package, worked out at a Chequers summit meeting with ministers and
leading agencies such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Turning Point,
covers ideas on children in care, teenage mothers and mentally ill people on
benefit - those who have been "difficult to reach" in previous government
programmes.
The prime minister will set out his plans in a speech next Tuesday, but it
his trenchant language in his first broadcast interview since returning from
holiday which is certain to stir controversy.
He admitted many people might be uneasy with the idea of intervening in
people's family life but said there was no point "pussy-footing".
Official figures released in February showed the conception rate for girls
aged 13-15 was 7.5 per 1,000 in 2004. Ministers are looking at new
strategies to curb teenage pregnancy and compulsory 12-week programmes for
vulnerable young parents to improve their skills bringing up children.
The leader of the government's Respect taskforce, Louise Casey, is a strong
advocate of parenting classes for people whose children behave antisocially.
The radical proposal is believed to have come out of that meeting at
Chequers and a government policy paper on the issue is due to be published
soon.
While help had to be offered, Mr Blair said, "some sense of discipline and
responsibility" had to be brought to bear. "You either steer clear and say
that's not for government to get into, in which case you don't deal with the
problem. Or, and this is really what I'm saying, I think we need to deal
with these particular issues and we actually do intervene and we intervene
at a very early stage.
"If you've got someone who is a teenage mum, not married, not in a stable
relationship ... here is the support we are prepared to offer you, but we do
need to keep a careful watch on you and how your situation is developing
because all the indicators are that your type of situation can lead to
problems in the future," he said.
The Conservatives have objected to this course, saying the government should
not try to run people's lives.
Conservative policy director Oliver Letwin said: "The answer is not more
state intervention. It is to encourage the social enterprise, the voluntary
sector, community groups, to help people without trying to run their lives
for them."
One thinktank suggested it was almost "genetic determinism" to suggest
children could turn out to be troublemakers before they were born.
Norman Lamb, chief of staff to Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell,
said: "Empty threats to pregnant mothers will do little to restore
confidence in a government that has failed to tackle poverty, crime and
social exclusion for the last nine years."
Jan Panteltje
wrote in <4lrk23F...@individual.net>:
>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1862706,00.html
>
>We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair
>
>· Intervention 'could prevent later problems'
>· Package of proposals courts controversy
>
>Lee Glendinning
>Friday September 1, 2006
>The Guardian
>
>
>Tony Blair has said it is possible to identify problem children who could
>grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.
Yea, great, we could have prevented him being born.
Sound like all that accusing of the Third Reich finally hit him back.
Maybe he want only children that look and think like him.
What a moron world would result, 4 sure humanity would go extinct the day
Bush frowned.
allan tracy
> Tony Blair has said it is possible to identify problem children who could
> grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.
>
Muslims?
> Mr Blair defended the need for state intervention and said action could even
> be taken "pre-birth" if necessary as families with drug and alcohol problems
> were being identified too late.
>
No doubt all the smokers will be first on the list.
banana
>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1862706,00.html
>
>We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair
>
>· Intervention 'could prevent later problems'
>· Package of proposals courts controversy
>
>Lee Glendinning
>Friday September 1, 2006
>The Guardian
>
>
>Tony Blair has said it is possible to identify problem children who could
>grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.
>Setting out plans for state intervention to prevent babies born into
>high-risk families becoming problem teenagers of the future, the prime
>minister said teenage mothers could be forced to accept state help before
>giving birth, as part of a clampdown on antisocial behaviour.
>
>Mr Blair defended the need for state intervention and said action could even
>be taken "pre-birth" if necessary as families with drug and alcohol problems
>were being identified too late.
What an outright fascist aim this is.
Today's 'Daily Mail' front-page headline:
"BLAIR TO TARGET THE ASBO BABIES"
<http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365300-details/Blair%20to%
20target%20the%20ASBO%20babies/article.do>
For those who don't know already, an 'Asbo' is an "Anti-Social Behaviour
Order". An Asbo may not legally be served on anyone under the age of 10.
'Asbo baby' basically means 'poor baby' - the kind of baby who the New
Labour scum, like the rest of the bourgeoisie, believe shouldn't be
allowed to be born in the first place; or, if they are allowed to be
born, should be brought up in grinding poverty with rats in the bedroom,
a restricted water supply, and a high chance of getting killed by
infectious diseases.
It's so disgusting to hear middle class tossers talk about 'teenage
pregnancy' in the working class as if it's a great social problem. Many
working class single mothers aged 18 or 19 have a fucking damn sight
more sense in their heads, and sense of responsibility, than many of the
similarly-aged (or older) 'OK yah' ambassadors' sons and admirals'
daughters, who go to polo matches or posh Oxbridge 'drinks parties',
will EVER HAVE IN THEIR LIVES. The latter have often never taken
responsibility for anyone, and don't even know how to do the washing up
or otherwise clean up after themselves.
Worth mentioning too that the much greater frequency of abortions among
middle class women than among working class women is something I have
never seen feminists even try to come to grips with.
The filthball Blair is apparently set to make a 'keynote' speech urging
'Fasbos' (foetus Asbos) next week. Apparently it will be the pillock's
third 'lecture' in the 'Our Nation's Future' series.
The text (which may well be edited) of Blair's interview with the BBC
where he ranted in favour of 'Fasbos' is at:
<http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10023.asp>
Anyone who believes in the 'freedom of the press' should read the
questions as well as the answers.
One of the questions included the words:
>>>"I'm interested in how early [intervention is sought] because a lot
>>>of the evidence suggests that you need to be getting in there while
>>>the child is still in nappies frankly.
And Blair's answer began:
>>>Or pre-birth, even.
Later 'questions' included the words:
>>>how are you going to ensure that the support packages that you may be
>>>able to put in place will actually be taken up?
and...
>>>Obviously you will want to intervene and that support to be taken up,
>>>to cajole, to try and encourage people to take the help that is on
>>>offer but at some point you have to think about sanctions.
This kind of journalist is little more than a stage magician's
assistant, helping with the show. Very probably this unnamed journalist
got their script from the same place Blair got his.
Here is the whole of the transcript, as published at the 10 Downing
Street website:
<http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page10023.asp>:
***BEGIN***
Interviewer:
Prime Minister, 9 years after describing social exclusion as the
greatest crisis of our time, we learn that one million and more of the
most excluded people in Britain are in as bad or possibly even a worse
state than they were when you came to office.
Prime Minister:
Well the first thing is to describe the progress always because there
has been massive progress. I mean the New Deal has lifted hundreds of
thousands of people out of unemployment, we have got I think three
quarters of a million of children in relative poverty, not simply
absolute poverty, two million pensioners out of acute hardship. If you
look at inner city regeneration or the investment in the public realm,
there has been massive progress. What I am really talking about now,
however, are the group of people that maybe have multiple problems, who
we need to identify far earlier and who the general policy of the New
Deal, Sure Start, the investment in the schools and so on really hasn't
helped and those people I think, we can learn from the lessons of the
past 9 years, aren't necessarily reached by the same policies that have
done so much for other low income families.
Interviewer:
It is a sign of failure in a sense, isn't it that you put so much, tens
of billions of pounds into social exclusion, and yet the ones who need
that support most don't get it.
Prime Minister:
Well I really think it is a mark of the fact that as you move on you
develop policy and the policies that have worked enormously well like
the Children's Tax Credit and the New Deal and Sure Start and as I say
the investment in local communities have helped hundreds of thousands,
millions of people, but you have always got to be looking at the next
stage, and the next stage I think is to recognise that some families,
maybe they have got drug and alcohol abuse problems, maybe it is a
teenage mum who is not in a stable relationship, those families we tend
to identify too late and intervene too late when the problem has already
grown to an extent and then of course we spend tens of thousands of
pounds, sometimes actually hundreds of thousands of pounds trying to
deal with it.
Interviewer:
Early intervention is clearly the message that has been given to you by
your advisers and agencies in this area. I'm interested in how early
because a lot of the evidence suggests that you need to be getting in
there while the child is still in nappies frankly.
Prime Minister:
Or pre-birth, even. You see I think if you look at this realistically
and I think in some ways society has been a bit reluctant to face up to
these questions fully for very obvious reasons, but let me try, and
choose my words carefully, I mean in my view if you have a teenage mum
who is not in a stable relationship then you have got a pretty good
chance, it doesn't follow absolutely - of course I'm not saying that,
but there is a pretty good chance that that child will grow up in a
difficult set of circumstances and then it maybe only at the age of 7 or
8 that the behavioural problems are so severe that something happens.
Now perhaps we should be intervening far earlier making it clear that in
those circumstances from a very early age there is going to be support
but also some sense of discipline and framework put in place in order to
make sure that that child gets a better start in life because I think if
you talk, as I do, to teachers sometimes they will tell you, and I know
it sounds almost crazy to say this, but at age 3, 4, 5 they are already
noticing the symptoms of a child that when they are 14 or 15 is out on
the street causing mayhem.
Interviewer:
People will be worried about this. They don't like the idea that
government, in whatever form it takes, looks at some baby, some toddler
and says there is the problem of the future. We need to go in and sort
this out. That is a worry, isn't it?
Prime Minister:
Yes, it is a worry and it is why it is difficult to deal with this
because in the old days, if you go back, if you go back even when I was
reasonably young, the term anti-social behaviour wasn't in use. You had
even at that time communities were relatively fixed, family patterns
were relatively stable. The world has changed. Now if we are going to
face up to the change then that group of families that are severely
dysfunctional, that have multiple problems, there is no point in pussy-
footing around the issue. You might as well face up to the fact. As I
say if you got a teenage mum, and 20% I think of the teenage mum's kids
are actually born to mums who are already teenage mums. In other words
you are talking sometimes about ...
Interviewer:
.... the older generation.
Prime Minister:
Yes and there is not going to be a solution to this unless we are
sufficiently hard-headed to say, I am afraid, from a very early age you
need a system of intervention and a system where families are being
offered support but where there is also some sense of responsibility and
discipline injected into the situation. Now I think if you want to deal
with this problem that is what you have got to do and I think the danger
is because, as you rightly imply, people get very worried about the
implications of that, then we just don't deal with the problem.
Interviewer:
The difficulty comes though that the very people that you have not been
able to reach, you have not been able to reach because they don't want
to engage with authority very often. That's the problem, so how are you
going to ensure that the support packages that you may be able to put in
place will actually be taken up, that they won't just say this is none
of your business. Get lost.
Prime Minister:
Well again that is a very good point. I mean the Sure Start programme
has been very, very successful ..
Interviewer:
But they don't do it properly that's the problem.
Prime Minister:
The very point I was about to make is, the trouble is some of the
Families, what we call the 'hard to reach families' - aren't going. Now
they may not be going because they don't want to go. That is one
problem. They may not be going because their problems are such that they
are simply not focused on it and then that is when you have to bring the
help to them. And actually the evidence from other countries, and there
is now some basis of evidence that we can draw on, is that the majority
of the families, not all of them, but the majority when you offer that
help at a very early stage, for example with their drug and alcohol
abuse problem or in the case of the teenage mum, actually they do take
it, but you have to bring the help to them. You have to target it and
bring it to them in a more interventionist way.
Now for those that simply refuse to have any help we already have
through the Anti-Social Behaviour legislation parenting orders,
individual support orders and so on. So you have a range of sanctions
there if you have to use them but the evidence from other countries is
that actually if people do know how to get the help they do want to take
it because they realise that their life is being improved.
Interviewer:
We are not talking about anti-social behaviour here. We are talking
about a mum who is finding it hard to cope with a baby. You know, there
is no anti-social behaviour, there is no truancy, there are no kids
wandering around late at night. And your critics will say this isn't
what government should be doing. They shouldn't be getting in the way of
people bringing up their kids as they see fit. Unless there is evidence
of real abuse, you should steer clear.
Prime Minister:
That is the issue. But the question is, if you do steer clear then by
the time when all the indicators are that this kid is going to have a
difficult time and be a problem later. If you do steer clear then you
end up with what we have now and every community knows it. Small groups
of families whose kids are completely out of control, whose families are
dysfunctional and actually causing a nightmare for the whole
neighbourhood and also for those children that then end up going into
kids homes and multiple foster parents and so on, and so you either
steer clear, as you say, and say well that is not for government to get
into, in which case you don't deal with the problem or, and this is
really what I'm saying I think we need to do with these particular
issues, we actually do intervene and we intervene at a very early stage
Interviewer:
Even if they don't want to be 'intervened' as it were?
Prime Minister:
I think you have to do that because otherwise you are in a situation
when the problem then grows and at some point society has to deal with
it. Now when I say intervene even if people don't want it, I don't think
it is too much to say if you have got someone who is a teenage mum, not
in a stable relationship, not married and not in a stable relationship,
well look here is the support we are prepared to offer you, but we do
need to keep a careful watch on you and how your situation is developing
because all the indicators are is that your type of situation can lead
to problems in the future. Now as I say I know it is a very difficult
thing to say, but I think if we are realistically going to deal with
this problem, then that is what we are going to have to do. And you know
as I say in the past few years we have done everything we can to improve
people's material prosperity at the lower end of the market, so people
who are low income families have benefited enormously from the Working
Families Tax Credit, from all the help that has been given and so on and
many of those families can sort themselves out and do well, but for that
small group that that doesn't really work for because their problems are
not simply about low income, they are also about this multiple range of
other social and personal problems, I think for those you have to be
prepared to intervene earlier and before the problem has reached the
height it often then does at a later stage.
Interviewer:
Obviously you will want to intervene and that support to be taken up, to
cajole, to try and encourage people to take the help that is on offer
but at some point you have to think about sanctions. Would you lower the
bar, as it were, for the point at which Social Services can go in and
look at the welfare of the child, and perhaps removing that child from
that situation. Is that where you end up?
Prime Minister:
Well I think that is one of the things you have got to look at because
again I think the danger is and social workers and others are often put
into a very difficult situation. They intervene early people say this is
the nanny state. They intervene late people say why didn't you recognise
there was a problem. Now what I am saying, and I think this is one of
the benefits of what we can draw on, not just with our experience in
government, look at the experience in other European countries, in the
United States and places like New Zealand and Australia which have
similar types of society and where there is now a very clear body of
evidence that you can predict reasonably accurately although nothing is
100%, but reasonably accurately - the kids and the families that are
going to be difficult for the future.
Interviewer:
For some people, this is Big Brother. This is, 'that kid there is a
problem of the future, we must go in'.
Prime Minister:
Yes but you are going into offer help and support. For example
Interviewer:
You may be going into say well you are not going to accept our support,
so we will take your child away.
Prime Minister:
Well you have got to look after the interests of the child. These are
families, for example supposing you have got a family in which one
parent or maybe two are heavy drug abusers of hard drugs. Do you just
let the kid be brought up in that family with no help and no support, no
intervention with the parents to say that your lifestyle is going to be
a problem. Maybe the particular person as a result of the habit that
they have got they are either into crime or prostitution. The child is
being brought up in those circumstances. Now I don't think it is Big
Brother to say look this is a situation in which this child is being put
at risk in being brought up in a household where these problems exist
and no-one is going in there to offer help and support and an
intervention to say look you have got a problem here and you have got to
take responsibility in dealing with this problem and if you are not
prepared to take responsibility then we have got to try and make sure
that the interests of the child are protected.
So I know, as you rightly imply, we are intervening in an area that is
very, very difficult, there are many really hard questions about that.
That is why we are at the stage, if you like, of starting a debate about
it, but my own judgement is based on the experience we have accumulated
in government but also the experience in other countries is that if we
are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early then there are
children that are going to grow up in families that we know perfectly
well are completely dysfunctional and the kids a few years down the line
are going to be a menace to society and actually a threat to themselves.
Interviewer:
Do you think looking back that perhaps you should have been bolder on
social exclusion, that the efforts that you put in place when you first
came to office were fine in the wide situation but that actually you
should have been more radical, bolder in those early years to actually
deal with this problem?
Prime Minister:
Well I think it is partly that I don't think we would get the consent
for that more radical action until we can show them that all the general
intervention, through tax credits, through Sure Start, through the
investment in the schools and communities and so on, wasn't the rising
tide that was going to lift all the ships, and I think in a way you are
at the point now where you are able to say, look. no-one can say to us
it is just a problem of poverty because we are dealing with poverty
insofar I think probably more than most governments in Europe and around
the world, but we have still got this problem.
Interviewer:
We talked about public health recently and you were saying, you know I
don't think we should worry so much about the nanny state. I just
wondered whether, looking back across your time in office, you felt well
maybe we should have been a bit bolder earlier. Do you have regrets?
Prime Minister:
Well you can always look back in hindsight and say this and that. But I
think the very conversation we are having now is an indication of how
you are crossing quite a serious threshold when you are talking about
these issues in this way and I think it is probably only now when people
can see, no-one now talks about poverty through mass unemployment in
today's society. If you look at unemployment now, even though I grew up
in politics with the march for jobs and all the 1980s and 3 million
unemployed, it is not what people think about today. So I think it is
only now really that you are able to get the consent to say OK we have
lifted many people out of poverty. Those people that needed some help
with income or a job or skills, we have lifted them. Forget about the
rest.
Interviewer:
This is an initiative that is going to take some years to resolve. Can
people have confidence that it is ever going to come to fruition. After
all, you will have almost certainly will have left office before the ink
is barely dry on the plan.
Prime Minister:
Well you know I think for us as a Party and a government I mean this is
something we are passionate about and have developed over a number of
years and it will continue long after I have gone.
Interviewer:
Can we be sure of that though? How do you know that your successor is
not going to say well that was Tony Blair's idea, but I have got my own
views.
Prime Minister:
Well you can never be sure about anything in politics since it is up to
people to elect governments and they can elect different governments
with different perspectives. Funnily enough though I think in what I
have been talking to you about over these last few minutes, I think most
sensible people, really whatever their political persuasion, will at
least say well yes this is a debate we need to have and I am confident
enough that we can lead people to the point at which they say OK maybe
we do have to intervene in that way and I think that in the end the best
basis for your policies continuing is that people believe they are
right.
Interviewer:
But there is an issue, isn't there, about the fact that Ministers in
your government, there is no new money for this, they are going to have
to shift resources to put this plan into action, and they may already be
looking and saying well we know that Tony is not going to be around
perhaps in a year or two, and they are looking at the next guy, aren't
they?
Prime Minister:
Yes but I think that anybody who looks at this problem will come to
pretty much the same type of conclusion.
Interviewer:
Really?
Prime Minister:
Oh I think so and the work that we have been doing recently has been an
indication of that. If you take for example the help that we are
targeting, trying to get kids to stay on at school. This is the
development of policy that has been going on throughout the government
over this last decade, so I am pretty confident it will continue, yes.
Interviewer:
Thank you very much indeed.
***END ARTICLE***
--
banana "The thing I hate about you, Rowntree, is the way you
give Coca-Cola to your scum, and your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, and expect us to lick your frigid fingers for the
rest of your frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
MM
<thunderb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And all non-Labour voters.
MM
MM
<banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "BLAIR TO TARGET THE ASBO BABIES"
Totalitarian. Fascist. Authoritarian. No matter what word is used, it
aptly describes Tony Blair now. He is utterly mad. The fact that he
referred to "Big Brother" in his interview makes it plain that this is
never far from his mind. A bit like the Nazis assuring the Jews that
the showerheads were for having showers.
MM
Jupiter
Good analogy. He's getting like Hitler in the final days. Rallying
his non-existent armies, fantasising that he's going to change the
world and go down in history as the greatest Leader ever. Meanwhile,
his minions scramble for high office after he's gone. Like a bucket
of frogs. Mind you, Hitler's invasions to spread the 'New Order' were
a bit more successful than Blair's, at least in the short term.
Dave
> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1862706,00.html
Why stop with just babies and children? Surely the government has
enough statistics to know who is likely to offend, have mental health
or drug issues.
Wouldn't state intervention as prevention be better than cure, whatever
the age of the client? I image, though, the biggest predictor to
offending is previous offending, so these people should have already
been processed.
hummingbird
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:35:51 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>Totalitarian. Fascist. Authoritarian. No matter what word is used, it
>>aptly describes Tony Blair now. He is utterly mad. The fact that he
>>referred to "Big Brother" in his interview makes it plain that this is
>>never far from his mind. A bit like the Nazis assuring the Jews that
>>the showerheads were for having showers.
>Good analogy. He's getting like Hitler in the final days. Rallying
>his non-existent armies, fantasising that he's going to change the
>world and go down in history as the greatest Leader ever. Meanwhile,
>his minions scramble for high office after he's gone. Like a bucket
>of frogs. Mind you, Hitler's invasions to spread the 'New Order' were
>a bit more successful than Blair's, at least in the short term.
The great thing we must all fear is that Blair launches a national
crises and uses it to suspend democracy, thereby keeping himself
in power. For sure if he did such a thing, our spineless Parliament
would roll over and go along with it.
--
"I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery"
"We may acquire liberty, but it is never recovered if it is once lost"
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in shackles"
...Jean-Jacques Rousseau 1712-1778
Energy
oO wrote:
> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1862706,00.html
>
> We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair
>
> · Intervention 'could prevent later problems'
> · Package of proposals courts controversy
>
> Lee Glendinning
> Friday September 1, 2006
> The Guardian
>
>
> Tony Blair has said it is possible to identify problem children who could
> grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.
> Setting out plans for state intervention to prevent babies born into
> high-risk families becoming problem teenagers of the future, the prime
> minister said teenage mothers could be forced to accept state help before
> giving birth, as part of a clampdown on antisocial behaviour.
>
Wouldn't this be indirect discrimination against blacks, in the same
way that height restrictions in the police were judged to be indirect
discrimination against Chinese?
There's a Pandora's box in a hornet's nest if ever there was one (to
mix my metaphors).
Dave
sematics. Hopefully some of the millions of outsourced IT workers can
develop this. (neo-techo-colonialism)
Cleverbum
many fewer black teenage mums than white ones in mine. The only un-even
split is between the family income of the teenage parent's families. I
would suggest that a very large majority are very low income families
and so it could be seen as a class war?
Energy
Cleverbum wrote:
> Energy wrote:
> > oO wrote:
> >
> > > http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1862706,00.html
> > >
> > > We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair
> > >
> > > · Intervention 'could prevent later problems'
> > > · Package of proposals courts controversy
> > >
> > > Lee Glendinning
> > > Friday September 1, 2006
> > > The Guardian
> > >
> > >
> > > Tony Blair has said it is possible to identify problem children who could
> > > grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.
> > > Setting out plans for state intervention to prevent babies born into
> > > high-risk families becoming problem teenagers of the future, the prime
> > > minister said teenage mothers could be forced to accept state help before
> > > giving birth, as part of a clampdown on antisocial behaviour.
> > >
> >
> > Wouldn't this be indirect discrimination against blacks, in the same
> > way that height restrictions in the police were judged to be indirect
> > discrimination against Chinese?
> > There's a Pandora's box in a hornet's nest if ever there was one (to
> > mix my metaphors).
> Don't think so really, I dont know about your area but there are many
> many fewer black teenage mums than white ones in mine.
There are probably a lot more white guys shorter than < 5' 8" than
Chinese guys < 5' 8" in my area. Of course that isn't the point.
From,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5202532.stm
"Even when social deprivation was taken into account, black girls were
still over-represented in the numbers of teenage pregnancies."
"2001 census data has showed that rates of teenage motherhood are
significantly higher among mothers of mixed white and black Caribbean,
other black and black Caribbean ethnicity than other groups.
And in 2004, black ethnic groups accounted for 9% of all under 18
abortions despite representing just 3% of the population."
Clev...@hotmail.com
Fair point, I guess you can't always go by personal experience I just
thought that my area would be fairly representative - it seems to be in
a lot of other respects.
Thanks for correcting me though.
noel....@webtribe.net
Don't be under the misapprehension that it's confined to the UK.
One of my most depressing 40 minutes occurred when on holiday in
Antigua and I had to take my wife to a clinic with an ear
infection.............there were four heavily pregnant local girls in
the waiting room and none of them could have been a day older than 14.
Jupiter
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:28:30 +0100 'Jupiter'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:35:51 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Totalitarian. Fascist. Authoritarian. No matter what word is used, it
>>>aptly describes Tony Blair now. He is utterly mad. The fact that he
>>>referred to "Big Brother" in his interview makes it plain that this is
>>>never far from his mind. A bit like the Nazis assuring the Jews that
>>>the showerheads were for having showers.
>
>
>>Good analogy. He's getting like Hitler in the final days. Rallying
>>his non-existent armies, fantasising that he's going to change the
>>world and go down in history as the greatest Leader ever. Meanwhile,
>>his minions scramble for high office after he's gone. Like a bucket
>>of frogs. Mind you, Hitler's invasions to spread the 'New Order' were
>>a bit more successful than Blair's, at least in the short term.
>
>The great thing we must all fear is that Blair launches a national
>crises and uses it to suspend democracy, thereby keeping himself
>in power. For sure if he did such a thing, our spineless Parliament
>would roll over and go along with it.
A very valid concern. I think his deceitful and devious predecessor,
Wilson (a man whose duplicity and corruption I thought would never be
surpassed. It has been) actually came close to doing just that.
Blair could claim that an Enabling Act was necessary to deal with the
Islamist threat. Perhaps there would be a fire in the Houses of
Parliament to be blamed on a Muslim plot. Then on the death of the
Sovereign he could have himself declared Head of State.
hummingbird
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
Quite so. He already has his enabling act - the Civil Contingency Act
passed in 2004. All he needs is a reason to invoke it......
MM
<RHBIYD...@spammotel.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 12:28:30 +0100 'Jupiter'
>posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 09:35:51 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Totalitarian. Fascist. Authoritarian. No matter what word is used, it
>>>aptly describes Tony Blair now. He is utterly mad. The fact that he
>>>referred to "Big Brother" in his interview makes it plain that this is
>>>never far from his mind. A bit like the Nazis assuring the Jews that
>>>the showerheads were for having showers.
>
>
>>Good analogy. He's getting like Hitler in the final days. Rallying
>>his non-existent armies, fantasising that he's going to change the
>>world and go down in history as the greatest Leader ever. Meanwhile,
>>his minions scramble for high office after he's gone. Like a bucket
>>of frogs. Mind you, Hitler's invasions to spread the 'New Order' were
>>a bit more successful than Blair's, at least in the short term.
>
>The great thing we must all fear is that Blair launches a national
>crises and uses it to suspend democracy, thereby keeping himself
>in power. For sure if he did such a thing, our spineless Parliament
>would roll over and go along with it.
According to the Sunday Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/57730 Blair
has told his whips to prepare for him staying till 2008, so perhaps
this is the first stage of his cunning plan.
MM
hummingbird
posted this onto uk.politics.misc:
I think an engineered plot remains a relatively low possibility but
obviously Blair still believes he's got a lot more damage to do to
Britain before he goes...
Turk182
Astonishing ...... of course race and feeling of belonging in a society
are relevant, but the overiding significant relationships are those we
have with parents. I am in danger of being over-exposed to pure white,
loud mouthed, aggressive "families" where 80% abuse there children by
default (sexual, physical, emotional or neglect). I'm talking about
parents with few parenting skills, no boundaries for themselves or
their children, ignorance and the type of angry, snapping, snarling
screwed up face that is present for the majority of each episode of
Eastenders.
And would someone tell me please, is there a bouncer gene. I am
increasingly noticing four-wheel drives where the driver flops out,
bald and with the square jaw and swagger of a door control executive,
and cor blimey, if all his little sprogs, even the baby, doesn't have
the same 'bouncer' appearance too. I don't wish to be too cruel here,
but please will somebody tell me there is a gene or is it just an
astonishing coincidence. To my knowledge there is only one famous
person with that appearance who ISN'T a boxer, and that's the DPM John
Prescott. I imagine he looked just the same in the cot.
Turk182
noel....@webtribe.net
Turk182 wrote:
>
> And would someone tell me please, is there a bouncer gene. I am
> increasingly noticing four-wheel drives where the driver flops out,
> bald and with the square jaw and swagger of a door control executive,
> and cor blimey, if all his little sprogs, even the baby, doesn't have
> the same 'bouncer' appearance too.
Same goes for the totty that gets out of the passenger side; always a
tiny waist, wearing a croptop, the obligatory tattoos (the mandatory
one is the one across the nape of the back, just above her backside),
french manicure, holiday skin/fake tan, belly button piercing, mobile
phone in the left hand (never seems to put it down) and the piece de
resistance - blonde hair (not always natural of course).
In every respect a real hottie, the knowing look, the cheeky smile, the
subtle lick of the lips..............
They seem attracted these days to fat, bald thugs?
As you allure to, perhaps a genes issue?
Summut for Our Tone to pass some more legislation against perhaps?
Logician
And Conservatives would be first on that list.
Turk182
> Same goes for the totty that gets out of the passenger side; always a
> tiny waist, wearing a croptop, the obligatory tattoos (the mandatory
> one is the one across the nape of the back, just above her backside),
> french manicure, holiday skin/fake tan, belly button piercing, mobile
> phone in the left hand (never seems to put it down) and the piece de
> resistance - blonde hair (not always natural of course).
>
> In every respect a real hottie, the knowing look, the cheeky smile, the
> subtle lick of the lips..............
You cad ...... you've been stalking my wife !
> They seem attracted these days to fat, bald thugs?
Oh ...perhaps not !
Turk182