Jump to content

15-year-old has SECOND child! - What to do?


Recommended Posts

You don;t have to make it seems like the grossest thing, but in general western culture idolizes it. it makes it seem like you are a no body if you are a virgin and it is used everywhere and anywhere to sell things. it sells for a reason, but it doesn't mean it should be used...

I was joking about that in response to some of the things said earlier in this thread about discouraging sex/educating people about things that can go wrong as a result of sex.

I do wonder why it's idolised so much though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you decipher who is entitled to them and who isn't? Some people are struck with moments of misfortune that can be interpreted as stupidity. For example, losing savings on the stock market.

What happens if you don't have family to help? Would it be better for them to just be out on the streets? Plus, benefits aren't meant for luxurious living anyway. More people would gain more from working than getting money from the government. Whether that's a problem for making work pay more or something is not important.

It'd be extremely difficult for one to get a loan from a bank. If the government handed out loans, they'd either have to relax their periods or repayment and how strict they are otherwise no real progress will actually be made. It'd be better for them to have benefits and get a job later.

This situation occurs around the world in non-welfare States, people still survive. You have heard of those people that deliberately choose not to work because the welfare benefits are more than they would make in an actual job?

Give them loans, ones they have to pay back. And give them a cut off point on their loans. Incentivise them to actually search for jobs.

You're acting like she's being praised by the government for having children irresponsibly.

Why are you treating these payments like gifts?

Because that's what they seem like. A frickin' medal by giving unfettered, unquestioned support to a teenager with two kids, and 9k a year in costs for a good, hard working student who didn't screw up. Why is she getting money with no checks and balances? Why is she not actually getting help?

Where is the counselling? The self esteem classes? Where is the therapy and parenting support? Where are the steps being taken to ensure that it doesn't happen again?

No, taxes are being spent to give her a cheque and a house, where she is free to keep boinking until she singlehandedly populates a small island before she turns 20.

Edited by Arrowhead
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gambling away your life savings is a mistake as you'd put it. Yet I wouldn't argue that they shouldn't get financial help in the future.

Depends. Who's giving you the financial help? If your parents/friends/family support you when you're broke that's their choice and your luck. If the government supports you, well, I take issue with that. The government could give you a loan maybe, much like a student loan. Benefits? Those I don't like.

How would you decipher who is entitled to them and who isn't? Some people are struck with moments of misfortune that can be interpreted as stupidity. For example, losing savings on the stock market.

What happens if you don't have family to help? Would it be better for them to just be out on the streets? Plus, benefits aren't meant for luxurious living anyway. More people would gain more from working than getting money from the government. Whether that's a problem for making work pay more or something is not important.

It'd be extremely difficult for one to get a loan from a bank. If the government handed out loans, they'd either have to relax their periods or repayment and how strict they are otherwise no real progress will actually be made. It'd be better for them to have benefits and get a job later.

>Of course I make mistakes that i regret all the time, I've even made some mistakes when I was young that I still and probably will regret for all my life but I wont make that type of mistake. Legit I will definitely not have a child at 15. You hardly know how i've been brought up and it should stay that way. But if a person is repeated a thing 5-6 times, it should be weighted. I don't have the guts to do something or even think of doing anything like that. My parents will legit KILL me.

Gosh and the thing that makes me really mad is that even though she is wrong people just say that

the poor thing made a mistake, lets help her and give her a better life

NO! If she was a child, she would have learnt. Children make mistakes and mistakes and learn from then. They don't do them again and then they definitely shouldn't get benefits for doing that.

Everyone has different opinions. You have yours. I'm fine with it.

Don't question other people's personalities or completely rubbish their opinions.

I haven't had a child either. Should we get medals?

I haven't 'rubbished' your opinion. Plus, what on earth is wrong with questioning personalities? What does that even mean in this context?

You must be missing my point if you think that I'm doing this out of sympathy for her. It's rather silly to abandon her because she's made a mistake and hasn't learnt from it. She's more likely to if she's given help. You're acting like she's being praised by the government for having children irresponsibly.

On the point of weighting the mistakes. I agree they should be but if what she was doing was classed as extremely detrimental to them, the children would be taken away. Removing funding would accelerate that process... which isn't good for the government either.

Stop mentioning your background. I don't care, it's irrelevant.

We should at least be given credit for not doing anything that stupid- let me take mine :)

well she is...she's getting funding which is unfair to many other people in 'pitiful' conditions

if she had to learn, she would have learnt before, I doubt shes gonna change

you have- i am insensitive to such people and I DO take pride in it and also my background (just popped that there to annoy you a little more hehe)

Let me feel smart coz economics isn't letting me at the moment, I'd like to feel that I have more common sense than her. Please don't reply to this post. Let me study!!!

Edited by cricketcrazynerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO it's a catch 22 once the damage has been done.

Take away or refuse benefits and you end up with a mother who has no education, no aspirations and no real idea of how to make something of themselves and therefore is unlikely to ever contribute in any meaningful way to society (i.e. will always be a benefits sponge or need some sort of support, versus becoming employed and giving back to the world at large) and a child who grows up in the same cycle of poverty, dis-engagement from education, low aspiration environment and, lacking any constructive education from the mother (who themselves received none), ends up living out the mum's life again.

Give benefits and you improve the situation of the child (who is not at fault for being born), possibly improve the aspirations of the mother and her ability to become a functional member of society - BUT you could basically achieve sod all at the same time. If the mum takes the money from the state, never gets their act together because the state is effectively endorsing and supporting their way of life, then the kid inherits the same messed up philosophy. The only real benefit is that you're not penalising the child in terms of basics: accommodation, food.

There is SHEDLOADS of sex education in British schools, and from a suitably young age. In my opinion becoming pregnant young stems from an ignorance of what it's going to do to your life and a lack of aspirations generally. Also a baby gives you a purpose: somebody to love and be loved by, and when you come from an emotionally unstable background at home, I can understand why that would be desirable (although I don't think any of these girls really realise what it's going to be like...).

Anyway, my solution is to give them all food vouchers and a bag of nappies instead of money. No kid wants to lack their mobile phone, their TV, the internet and so on. If you can give social support in a way which helps mother and child without actually giving anything more than the basics, it would discourage a lot of young mums whilst simultaneously not penalising them to the point of no return. I agree 100% that it's unfair we pay for our education when they get educated for free - but honestly, what else is going to happen? Better they receive an education and get a job so they can pay back into society plus act as a better role model for the child than they get side-lined and become useless spongers for all time.

And in schools, make the whole thing 100% more like a private school education. Kids need to be inspired, supported, encouraged, treated as individuals - yeah this does happen in some state schools, but there's something powerful about the 360 degree care that they try and do at private schools which I honestly thinks makes a big difference in terms of personal value, aspiration and so on. You need an individual experience, not to track through like a sheep in a flock.

For the record, I think the same thing should happen to the useless parents who have given rise to this generation of aspirationless kids. They too should live the food voucher lifestyle. Make their kids see that it's a rubbish way to live and want to grow up to be bigger and better than their mum and dad.

I like this idea proposed by sandwich. By giving them material goods you are sure that they won;t spend the money on other things. its kind of like giving a homeless drug addict a meal instead of money. Unfortunately they cannot be trusted with the money as they will likely give in to their addiction and buy drugs. Give them food and they will likely eat it...

Edited by Luka Petrovic
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two questions for debate:

(1) What is happening to the youth?

(2) Is this how I want government taxes to be spent? Supporting girls like her?

1) Nothing really. I'd say that there are way less teen pregnancies now than before. It used to be normal to get children at a very young age, so in that sense the current youth is doing much better than the generations before. And even the reactions on this forum show that this isn't something "normal" - it's not like there's a whole lot of fifteen-year-olds who have a baby, not to mention two (or more) babies. There will always be people who make mistakes, even very big ones.

2) I agree that some welfare benefits should not be as extensive as they are at the moment, or that there should be some accountability at least. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to support the mother with tax payer money, because there's someone, that being the baby, involved who is innocent of the mess. It's not right to make the baby pay for her mothers mistakes.

Arrowhead, you suggested that the support should be given through a loan. I'm not sure of how the law is in the UK, but here it's legally impossible for a minor to take out a loan. So I'm not exactly sure how this loan scheme would work out, in this particular instance at least. I think the idea that the support should be given mainly through material goods (like baby clothes, food, etc.) would work well, because that would ensure (to some extent) that the support actually benefits the baby.

1. I don;t think there were more teen pregnancies the way we see them. Yes people had children at a much younger age, but people also grew up faster. You would be out on your own functioning like a real adult much earlier than people today, the age with the exception of very very low ages is kind of irrealevant

2. As long as it doesn't go to waste feeding a cycle of welfare reliance. these people need help financially, but only to get back on their feet. Not to be given money for no work, very very unhealthy for the economy and very unhealthy for political support ( a concern for parties, not us so much).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Singapore's got a really great welfare system - none. Nobody gets any type of welfare payment for being unemployed (apart from pensions for ex-gvt officials), but instead, the government invests large amounts in training programs, job fairs, and education, so that people become self sufficient.

It works great for Singapore, i'm not sure how it'd pan out in large countries though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that is a good idea. Temporary reliance of the government where at most you receive meagre housing, food and of course some sort of job training/education and at least job training/education. The key thing is that people are not able to repeatadly use the system to sit at home and smoke drugs or feed their kids poor food and buy cigs or a new cellphone. I don;t think it is unique to singapore, but they dont do this in canada as far as I know

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really responding to the questions, but I have a very slight bit of input.

It seems that when people respond to #1, they are focusing on the mother and not really discussing the father. It takes two to tango! For the pregnancy itself, I'd say the blame rests equally between the mother and father.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that when people respond to #1, they are focusing on the mother and not really discussing the father. It takes two to tango! For the pregnancy itself, I'd say the blame rests equally between the mother and father.

It's universally accepted that the father is a sh!thead. But he's not the one receiving benefits.

Also, the girl screwed up when she slept with him the first time, however naivety is forgivable. Fool me once, shame on you. But then she slept with him again. Fool me twice, shame on me!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes give her forgiveness as she will lead a difficult life, but forgiving her doesn't mean supporting her 100% letting her off the hook, she still has to pull her weight.
We as a society have a hard time finding a balance between compassion and teaching a lesson and often think they are mutually exclusive.

Edited by Luka Petrovic
Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrifying government propaganda on teenage childbirth? Fear can be quite effective at times. Drill the message into the kids starting at a young age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing is many of these kids see horrors like this first hand because they live it in their own homes or they see it next door. Its a really deep issue. Kind of like if a child has alcoholic parents, despite seeing the poor example and how it can destroy your life, they are more likely to fall into the same addiction than someone who didn't have alcoholic parents. Really no quick fix to these kinds of social issues, takes a well thought out multi-generational plan...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Start sex ed in kindergarten, maybe...

I used to hear kids around the age of 6 and 7 talking about this kind of stuff. To me, I would think that changing the media and the way it is shown to kids would help, but how would we even start? It seems to me that a lot of youths do not have enough respect for themselves and will therefore fall easily under pressure when they actually have a lot of potential. As for supporting people like this, I would not give them money or approve of the government administering it to them; I support that the girl should get a job or pay off this debt sometime, and then after she has tried to a large extent to pay off what she needs to, I would help her but only then. Of course, it is not up to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that when people respond to #1, they are focusing on the mother and not really discussing the father. It takes two to tango! For the pregnancy itself, I'd say the blame rests equally between the mother and father.

It's universally accepted that the father is a sh!thead. But he's not the one receiving benefits.

Also, the girl screwed up when she slept with him the first time, however naivety is forgivable. Fool me once, shame on you. But then she slept with him again. Fool me twice, shame on me!

1) The youth of today are no different to the youth of the past, except

A) We have more options such as less risky abortions, medical care, a bit less stigma when unmarried and giving birth depending on where you live.

B) They realise they can be redeemed in these situations and their lives don't have to be over and take advantage of it.

C) Are probably more clueless than in the past when girl-childs were reared to be mums. Girls were given house keeping classes and in some cases weren't allowed to go to school. Who needs a proper education when you're learning to be a mum? You have husbands for that right.

D) As a consequence they knew more about babies and that one couldn't possibly "keep it hidden in their wardrobe and feed it bread and milk". WUUUUUT it's not a kitten or something.

E) Younger people nowadays seem to know everything, and therefore cannot be taught.

2) Yes I don't think the government should stop supporting girls like her. I actually feel sorry for her. Put yourself in her shoes, I mean not to judge her harshly but to try and understand . She was a 12 year old girl! At that age and with those hormones I think one still dreams about love, and forever and stupid prince charming. It doesn't help that society and a lot of crappy music seems to tell us that sex = love. Key words "no experience with boys" and "hadn't even had a boyfriend". This guy showed some romantic interest in her and she just "didn't know what to do". Let's remember her age, it sounds like at first she was pressurised as she was "uncomfortable" and didn't "encourage it".

Next she went to visit her dad and it seems without the intention of seeing her "baby daddy". Her dad then drops her off at baby daddies house for four days... You have to understand she may have some kind of emotional attachment to the father of her first child, moreover she claims to have been inexperienced with boys when he made a move, so he's possibly her first lover in which case emotions can run deep.

I just can't seem to get angry at the fact that the government is spending tax money on her because

i) I personally am not writing checks of lump sums of cash monies to her and "girls like her". And why just pick on these girls though. A percentage of tax money is spent on prisons and funding prisoners... just saying.

ii) I learnt a long time ago not to compare my situation to other people's and complain. It's futile. She gets freebies and I don't... oh well. I don't have to support another human being apart from myself.

iii) I personally value supporting human life over money... it's just money where is the love yo?

iv) She seems to be trying to get her life on track.

Not to mention from the second instance, the fact that baby-daddy told her he would use protection then didn't (deception) and "just said nothing" afterwards, speaks volumes.

Edited by ChocolateDrop
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.gagtroll.com/16-and-pregnant/ !!

All jokes aside, I really agree with chocolatedrop - There is no point, in my opinion, to resent her even though I can totally relate to the frustration that most people have expressed (except I don't think the mother deserves to suffer).

I am ALL for the redistribution of income and government intervention, especially when it comes to transfer payments because I think people in poverty deserve the chance to break from the poverty trap they are stuck in. Leaving the people that are worse off to die is just too American in my opinion (no offense, I love America as much as the next person). I can definitely relate to how awful it is to be forced to take a student loan and blablabla to get a proper education, but why are is this conversation going into the direction where ''since i have to suffer and take a loan, she should too!!''.

Sorry to burst your bubbles but there are many countries out there where education is relatively free and of a high standard. In Denmark people mostly complain about how much school textbooks cost.. of course there are private universities that cost more, but nothing in comparison to 9000 pounds a year. I think there is something seriously wrong with the notion that in order to get educated you must accumulate a huge debt. I'm not saying any of you can change anything about it, and of course there is the argument that schools in England or the US that cost a lot of money are simply better than other uni's but I am not really debating that..

Moreover, there are always other options than just giving someone an easy ride and free money from the government and cutting them off completely or turning it into a debt. Many systems are super strict about certain things people need to do before they get generous cash checks from the government, ensuring that someone is truly looking for work or actively educating themselves in the quickest possible way is very effective. If they are raising themselves out of poverty, why shouldn't they get help? It wouldn't be hard to enforce strict rules, such as having X attendance or minimum average in your grades.

There is a difference between encouraging people to develop a welfare mentality, and actively motivating them and enabling them to become productive members of society.

On a side note, the girl sounds like she was borderline raped. I feel so sorry for her, I would not want to be in her position and have children at her age (pregnancy at 12 years old!! no thank you) just because that would mean I could get a free education. Its not like she's going to Oxford.

Edited by Babydolleyes
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

My views are...

1) What is happening to youth? Well they are just getting bolder and bolder day by day ignoring the consequences and they are very weak minded ( can't control their desires). Well parents are becoming more and more liberal and many schools don't have Personality Development Classes. In a typical local school that I have observes ruffians are respected and they have huge friend circle whereas people who are very good ( having respect for all people and is aware of all the moral values ) are just blacklisted ! Completely opposite to what I read in novels and story books wherein the good people are very popular and the bad people are completely rejected in the society. Also nowadays I think that youth are constantly exposed to bad things and bad companies and that is why most of the youths are today might be intelligent but morally devoid.

2) My tax money to look after them? I would rather be happy if the government put them in jail especially boy. Even the girl must be punished because she was not forced into this and even her mother must go to jail for not inculcating moral values in her. I, as an economic student have some different theory. The government must confiscate all the property of both that boy and girl ( if the girl is raped, the govt must confiscate the property of boy and give it to the girl.). Then you will all see how these sort of stupidity will vanish from this earth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2) My tax money to look after them? I would rather be happy if the government put them in jail especially boy.

Why in the hell would you throw them in jail for?! That is super extreme and would be more detrimental to the situation. You know in jail there are ACTUAL criminals who could influence the young in the wrong way. Many have come out of jail more hardened, it's not the answer to everything. I don't even understand why you would throw a 12 year old girl in jail for that? Not the best role models in there you know. And this also does nothing in reversing the poverty cycle, this may in fact introduce them into a new tougher to get out poverty to prison/ prison to poverty cycle. By throwing them in prison you have now prematurely ruined potential earning power and have now made it even more difficult for them to get out of the poverty they began with. It just stunts social mobility.

Even the girl must be punished because she was not forced into this and even her mother must go to jail for not inculcating moral values in her. I, as an economic student have some different theory. The government must confiscate all the property of both that boy and girl ( if the girl is raped, the govt must confiscate the property of boy and give it to the girl.). Then you will all see how these sort of stupidity will vanish from this earth.

Whether or not she was "forced" or not is debatable. Again you're not thinking like a 12 year old girl, so obviously it would be harder to understand her. A 12 year old is primary school age in some countries! Let's also not forget this is the same guy who used deception at a later date when he said he would use protection.

Furthermore you miss the point, even if you did throw them in jail your tax money would be used to look after them and all the other inmates. I think in this case they would be more than dependent on you. This can prove to be even more costly for the tax payer. Most prolific adult offenders commit their crimes at a young age, and by treating something like this as a crime or criminal behaviour might in turn normalise criminal behaviour which could have more possible drastic effects.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/10/toxic_persons.html

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a view expressed by some in this thread that the girl should have simply refused to have--unprotected--sex, and that she will keep on having children in the future. I don't think that having so many children at a young age is a good/healthy decision (and may be the product of a lack of sexual education) but you can't just stop someone from having children. Forced sterilisation and forced abortions are against the law in the UK (presumably).

While I can understand the outrage at this situation, it is important to note that fifteen-year-olds with two children are not common in modern UK, and policies regarding financial support are (once again, presumably--I'm not British!) tailored to a larger group.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2) My tax money to look after them? I would rather be happy if the government put them in jail especially boy.

Why in the hell would you throw them in jail for?! That is super extreme and would be more detrimental to the situation. You know in jail there are ACTUAL criminals who could influence the young in the wrong way. Many have come out of jail more hardened, it's not the answer to everything. I don't even understand why you would throw a 12 year old girl in jail for that? Not the best role models in there you know. And this also does nothing in reversing the poverty cycle, this may in fact introduce them into a new tougher to get out poverty to prison/ prison to poverty cycle. By throwing them in prison you have now prematurely ruined potential earning power and have now made it even more difficult for them to get out of the poverty they began with. It just stunts social mobility.

> Even the girl must be punished because she was not forced into this and even her mother must go to jail for not inculcating moral values in her. I, as an economic student have some different theory. The government must confiscate all the property of both that boy and girl ( if the girl is raped, the govt must confiscate the property of boy and give it to the girl.). Then you will all see how these sort of stupidity will vanish from this earth.

Whether or not she was "forced" or not is debatable. Again you're not thinking like a 12 year old girl, so obviously it would be harder to understand her. A 12 year old is primary school age in some countries! Let's also not forget this is the same guy who used deception at a later date when he said he would use protection.

Furthermore you miss the point, even if you did throw them in jail your tax money would be used to look after them and all the other inmates. I think in this case they would be more than dependent on you. This can prove to be even more costly for the tax payer. Most prolific adult offenders commit their crimes at a young age, and by treating something like this as a crime or criminal behaviour might in turn normalise criminal behaviour which could have more possible drastic effects.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2010/10/toxic_persons.html

The one thing I am absolutely sure that they won't put 12 years old in jail but rather they would send them in juvenile detention center where they will be disciplined. Second thing is that they won't put such sort of an offender with the hard core criminals. Third thing is that now a days children are getting matured at the early years. ( If you notice the IGCSE 6 th grade books they have given full education of it and at least she must have realized it. ( Nowadays even 10 year old kid are aware of these things). I won't mind if the girl gets counselling but in future will it stop these incidents is the main question. ( Now a days the 9-10 year olds are in newspaper for murder, rape etc and that too they have done it with knowing what is right and wrong. So you can't just simply say that the girl is small and she must be pardoned. ( Personally I am against jail but in today's world you will have do deal it with hard hand.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

akash jishnu, on 08 May 2013 - 14:19, said:

The one thing I am absolutely sure that they won't put 12 years old in jail but rather they would send them in juvenile detention center where they will be disciplined. Second thing is that they won't put such sort of an offender with the hard core criminals. Third thing is that now a days children are getting matured at the early years.

Ok I'll rephrase, [criminal] confinement is not the answer to everything. Juveniles that commit crimes that aren't crimes when committed by adults eg (running away from home, alcohol possession) only stay for 24 hours, so who do you think is left in the centres the rest of the time? Take a wild guess. People who commit actual crimes! Also out of curiosity what happens to the baby? After it's born? Again you're still going to be paying for them, and now not only will you be paying for the mum but the dad as well! Moreover, there is reportedly a high rate of recidivism of Juveniles so the pattern continues. Not to mention these centres already suffer from overpopulation due to people who have actually committed crimes, adding more people like the girl in the story will further add to this overpopulation. Overcrowding in juvenile centres can often lead to violence and problems in providing services such as education and special help. If this policy was actually taken up, more juvenile centres would have to be built and guess who forks the bill? The tax payer!

Confining people can be sketchy especially when it comes to getting pregnant in unfavourable circumstances. If confining people just because their pregnancy isn't within what constitutes as the norm actually worked, by your logic we would have far less single mums. Why? Let's go back to Victorian times. Victorian politicians didn't approve of sex before marriage, so they came up with a brilliant way to try eradicate it. They would simply throw the destitute single mothers into Victorian workhouses and effectively ostracise them from society. This was done because these kinds of pregnancies were very rampant and prevalent and extremely common in society. Also it was a moral way of reforming people. So they would work, recycling rope and scrubbing floors and in their free time pray for forgiveness. Victorian workhouses looked like a jail and sounded worse, but alas it didn't stop people from having babies out of wedlock. Instead it imprisoned unmarried mothers, had their children taken away from them and the children were forced to grow up with the stigma of being born out of wedlock as well as grow up without their mothers. It's hard to physically put a ban on these kind of things. Also it's just cruelty and it won't stop these kind of things from happening.

Plus because there was such a thing as child prostitutes, some of the people pregnant out of wedlock would have been children as well. So pregnancies of the extremely young were not extremely non-existent, children were just property and objects in those times and adults, mostly old men, could do to them as they pleased. Many were pimped out by their own parents! The youth of past, and the youth of today are the same. Only difference is youth of today have more rights, more heard and seen as well as the lower class youth of the past were allegedly more streetwise. Also we now live in a society where females are punished far less for choosing sexual liberation and having out of wedlock children. I sincerely hope we don't regress to the past. I think it's the adults who have changed more to be honest. They started to care more about the well-being of the children and moral shifts in attitude as well as legal/ moral code of acceptable, appropriate ways to handle and view children. The past was more amoral than present times, especially when it came to the handling of females and children (the young). It was just so selfish, patriarchal and wrong. Life was tough if you were born into the wrong type of family and A) female and B) young, and it was even worse still if you were in the unfortunate predicament of being a female child. Hard times.

akash jishnu, on 08 May 2013 - 14:19, said:

Third thing is that now a days children are getting matured at the early years. ( If you notice the IGCSE 6 th grade books they have given full education of it and at least she must have realized it. ( Nowadays even 10 year old kid are aware of these things). I won't mind if the girl gets counselling but in future will it stop these incidents is the main question. ( Now a days the 9-10 year olds are in newspaper for murder, rape etc and that too they have done it with knowing what is right and wrong. So you can't just simply say that the girl is small and she must be pardoned. ( Personally I am against jail but in today's world you will have do deal it with hard hand.)

There's a difference about being aware of situations and how you actually react in them. I'm assuming you're referring to sex ed and what to do? Just because I'm aware that if I'm on fire I should "stop, drop and roll" doesn't mean that's exactly how I'll react in that situation. It would be ideal, but just because people know things it's not always how they respond to the situation. When you're not in control of your emotions, it's extremely hard to rationalise. Even things like following fire drill instructions in the face of a real fire becomes difficult. When faced with the situation although one has been taught is form a line and leave the building in an orderly fashion, this of course is not always how things turn out in reality.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/0/20097046

Sidenote: Child benefits used to be available to everyone (universal benefit) regardless of income until January 2013. People with high incomes could get benefits even if they didn't technically need it. No one said a thing. Young not particularly rich mothers need a helping hand, and it's a big deal. I do not understand. Frankly I'd be more pissed to be supporting the rich taking benefits even though they don't need it. Why is it so bad when people who need assistance make claims? Why is it such a big deal now that not everybody is not entitled to make claim?

http://www.child-benefits.co.uk/childbenefitamount.html

http://money.uk.msn.com/features/child-benefit-changes-explained

Edited by ChocolateDrop
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...