Question of the Week: Children in Care

There are roughly 100,000 children who are in care in the UK with roughly 50,000 of those children being in care because they suffered neglect or abuse whilst at home.

It's by no means a given, but children who spend time in the care system are less likely than other children to achieve academic success.

When they leave primary school, 43% of children in care will have reached the national curriculum test level expected for their age - compared with 74% of all children.

Almost 35% of children in care leave school with no GCSEs. Only 13.2% of children in care obtain five good GCSEs - compared with 57.9% of all children.

Only 6% of care leavers go to university - compared with 38% of all young people

And things get worse for care leavers when looking at crime statistics. Less than 1% of the population have ever been in care yet over 33% of the prison population have been in care at some stage in their life.

Is enough being done to give children in care the opportunities that they need in life to succeed? What more could be done to help children in care be successful at school and help prevent them from entering prison?

76% of statistics are made up on the sport

9/5ths of people don't understand fractions and the other half aren't too comfortable with them either.

Criminals are been sent on HGV courses which cost several thousand pounds in a bid to get them back into the system yet the average van driver who wants to be a lorry driver has to stump up the cash himself.

I blame the parents!!!!!!!!!!

I suspect that the vast majority of people who work in the care system do a great job. I've no doubt its hard work and a relatively thankless task. IMO nobody gets a rawer deal than social workers who seem to be blamed for all the ills of the world.
The trick would seem to be to get kids out of care as quickly as possible, seems to take some local authorities 5 years per kid and some 6 months.
Maybe make the incentives for long term fostering better, that sort of home environment will always be better that a larger care home.

CS

You tell us as your the purveyor of all knowledge and truth

Questions like should we do more to help kids in care always amuse me. Of course we should, however we should also do more to help the homeless, the long term ill, pensioners, the disabled, students from under-privileged backgrounds to name but a few. We should also fund our universities, hospitals, police and fire services better and pay people who work in those fields better. The isssue is all of the above costs money, lots of it. As with most questions around the civil service the question is never should we do better (the answer is almost always yes) the more pertinent question is how do we afford to do better.

Rowley do you not think the civil service pays too little sometimes for experts? and outsources too much?

ie would it not be more pertinant for them to have a large IT department that can develop it's own systems rather than pay for the krud they usually get?

Rowley wrote:Questions like should we do more to help kids in care always amuse me. Of course we should, however we should also do more to help the homeless, the long term ill, pensioners, the disabled, students from under-privileged backgrounds to name but a few. We should also fund our universities, hospitals, police and fire services better and pay people who work in those fields better. The isssue is all of the above costs money, lots of it. As with most questions around the civil service the question is never should we do better (the answer is almost always yes) the more pertinent question is how do we afford to do better.

of course I agree but when it comes to children in care those children never asked to be placed in childrens homes, they were forced to live there and they were forced to accept their local authority as their guardian.

If you remove a child from the family home then the support and funding must be in place to offer these children a bright future.

Diggers wrote:I suspect that the vast majority of people who work in the care system do a great job. I've no doubt its hard work and a relatively thankless task. IMO nobody gets a rawer deal than social workers who seem to be blamed for all the ills of the world.
The trick would seem to be to get kids out of care as quickly as possible, seems to take some local authorities 5 years per kid and some 6 months.
Maybe make the incentives for long term fostering better, that sort of home environment will always be better that a larger care home.

I agree, fostering is key here. How can we (the gov't) make fostering a more attractive option for families in the UK? Financial payments is a must but I rarely see any advertisments regarding fostering. maybe more of a drive where the plight of children in care homes is highlighted so that people understand the situation and want to foster/adopt.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Rowley wrote:Questions like should we do more to help kids in care always amuse me. Of course we should, however we should also do more to help the homeless, the long term ill, pensioners, the disabled, students from under-privileged backgrounds to name but a few. We should also fund our universities, hospitals, police and fire services better and pay people who work in those fields better. The isssue is all of the above costs money, lots of it. As with most questions around the civil service the question is never should we do better (the answer is almost always yes) the more pertinent question is how do we afford to do better.

of course I agree but when it comes to children in care those children never asked to be placed in childrens homes, they were forced to live there and they were forced to accept their local authority as their guardian.

If you remove a child from the family home then the support and funding must be in place to offer these children a bright future.

All very laudable, but children don't choose to be born with disabilities or terminal diseases or into under privileged households that limit their chances of going to higher education, pensioners do not choose to be develop dementia. All are as equally worthy of better care than they are currently afforded. Still brings us to the question of how we pay for the care they deserve.

The main way public services are paid for is through taxations, so if we need to better support kids in care and ensure they are not disadvantaged educationally or in terms of opportunities lets put a penny on the pound for income tax. Problem solved, except it isn't really because we are already in something of a cost of living crisis so all this does is make it even harder for low income families to survive. Now what could be a consequence of such a problem funnily enough it is more kids in care, so in attempting to solve the problem we have actually managed to make it worse.

Even encouraging more parents to foster comes with its own problems. Two friends of mine are just in the process of adopting and the process is massively long winded, even for a young professional couple like them, the amount of vetting, interviews, home visits, family visits they had to endure are huge, but necessary. If you do manage to encourage more people to foster children (through a huge marketing/advertising campaign I would assume, more cost) you would be obliged to set on more civil servants to assess and process the applications and vet the applications, for yet more cost.

Far too easy to say throw more money at problems within the civil service, far less easy to answer where that money actually comes from.

Rowley wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Rowley wrote:Questions like should we do more to help kids in care always amuse me. Of course we should, however we should also do more to help the homeless, the long term ill, pensioners, the disabled, students from under-privileged backgrounds to name but a few. We should also fund our universities, hospitals, police and fire services better and pay people who work in those fields better. The isssue is all of the above costs money, lots of it. As with most questions around the civil service the question is never should we do better (the answer is almost always yes) the more pertinent question is how do we afford to do better.

of course I agree but when it comes to children in care those children never asked to be placed in childrens homes, they were forced to live there and they were forced to accept their local authority as their guardian.

If you remove a child from the family home then the support and funding must be in place to offer these children a bright future.

All very laudable, but children don't choose to be born with disabilities or terminal diseases or into under privileged households that limit their chances of going to higher education, pensioners do not choose to be develop dementia. All are as equally worthy of better care than they are currently afforded. Still brings us to the question of how we pay for the care they deserve.

The main way public services are paid for is through taxations, so if we need to better support kids in care and ensure they are not disadvantaged educationally or in terms of opportunities lets put a penny on the pound for income tax. Problem solved, except it isn't really because we are already in something of a cost of living crisis so all this does is make it even harder for low income families to survive. Now what could be a consequence of such a problem funnily enough it is more kids in care, so in attempting to solve the problem we have actually managed to make it worse.

Even encouraging more parents to foster comes with its own problems. Two friends of mine are just in the process of adopting and the process is massively long winded, even for a young professional couple like them, the amount of vetting, interviews, home visits, family visits they had to endure are huge, but necessary. If you do manage to encourage more people to foster children (through a huge marketing/advertising campaign I would assume, more cost) you would be obliged to set on more civil servants to assess and process the applications and vet the applications, for yet more cost.

Far too easy to say throw more money at problems within the civil service, far less easy to answer where that money actually comes from.

Actually I think it works out cheaper for a child to be fostered than to be in a childrens home. So a marketing campaign that is successful would be cheaper than not doing a marketing campaign.

A childrens home is very expensive. A childrens home housing 8 children and 20 staff for example who are on 20k a year would cost 400k in staff wages alone every year not factoring in any other costs such as food, bills, clothing, entertainment, furniture, upkeep, travel costs etc etc Much cheaper in fostering.

As highlighted above, children as young as 10/11 in care are failing in education. How can this be resolved? I think schools should do more especially at that young age to offer more support for the children. Homework clubs are a must.

A lot of money is pumped into childrens homes so your argument that it is a financial reason why those children 'fail' is incorrect in my view. I think it is the environment they are in. very often it is 1 member of staff per 4 kids on duty which results in a lack of attention to the children from an adult (attention such as help with homework or counselling etc) As mentioned above homework clubs at school or a secial arrangment with the school could solve that issue.

As mentioned above 50% of children are inc are homes due to abuse or neglect which can lead the child to behave in a negative way which can have an affect on the other children who live with him/her. Counselling/anger management courses or better housing of children so they are housed with other suitable children will help to solve this.

The main thing is fostering, it is cheaper and offers far better results.

rowley wrote:The main way public services are paid for is through taxations, so if we need to better support kids in care and ensure they are not disadvantaged educationally or in terms of opportunities lets put a penny on the pound for income tax.

Just to add that even if we went by the idea that to imrove the opportunities for children in care we need to spend more taxayers money that doesn't actually mean that it will cost the UK more money.

As highlighted above 35% of the prison population have been in care. It is awfully expensive to house inmates in prisons and if we could spend a little bit more money on children when they are younger on education or social programmes then it might result in fewer of those children committing a crime (costs money) and then going to court 9costs money) and then going to prison (costs money).

As highlighted above 35% of children in care leave schools with no qualifications and only 13% leave school with decent grades. I don't have the statistics so I am speculating (sure the stats could be found very easily though) but if children in care are leaving school with no education then I am sure that they will make up a large percentage of the people who claim social welfare which is very expensive.

Spending a few extra pounds on a child in cares education at a young age eg homework clubs with adult helpers (can find volunteers and many have them) or on other ideas to help improve the education will in the long run save the country money.

So going by the notion that it would cost extra money to improve the plight of children in care and so it is not feasable is in my view incorrect because yes in the short-term it will cost more but the long term effects eg less people committing crime and going to prison, more children in care getting an education and thus improving their chances of employment so not relying on welfare and thus paying tax will save the Uk money.

Would not argue that your ideas are largely admirable, but why do we select children in care for your largesse? Why not disabled children, why not children born with terminal diseases. My nephew is one such kid, he has Duchene's and will die at a young age. There are a number of pieces of equipment available which increases his comfort of life immeasurably, to say nothing of making my brother and sister in laws life easier. Problem is the NHS pay for virtually none of this, is it not reasonable we find the money in the public kitty for these things, and if not why not, as you said with kids in care, he sure as hell did not choose to be born with a terminal disease.

Should add I am not saying you are wrong, but these laudable enough intentions need paying for and prioritising and in trying to sort out the logistics of doing so you can virtually guarantee two things, firstly is there will never be enough money and everyone will have a differing opinion as to where the scant resources should be utilised.

DAVE667 wrote:76% of statistics are made up on the sport

9/5ths of people don't understand fractions and the other half aren't too comfortable with them either.

Criminals are been sent on HGV courses which cost several thousand pounds in a bid to get them back into the system yet the average van driver who wants to be a lorry driver has to stump up the cash himself.

I blame the parents!!!!!!!!!!

Its spot as in on the spot

SPOT

i blame his parents

WWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Thought'd you'd left???????????

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Rowley wrote:Questions like should we do more to help kids in care always amuse me. Of course we should, however we should also do more to help the homeless, the long term ill, pensioners, the disabled, students from under-privileged backgrounds to name but a few. We should also fund our universities, hospitals, police and fire services better and pay people who work in those fields better. The isssue is all of the above costs money, lots of it. As with most questions around the civil service the question is never should we do better (the answer is almost always yes) the more pertinent question is how do we afford to do better.

of course I agree but when it comes to children in care those children never asked to be placed in childrens homes, they were forced to live there and they were forced to accept their local authority as their guardian.

If you remove a child from the family home then the support and funding must be in place to offer these children a bright future.

All very laudable, but children don't choose to be born with disabilities or terminal diseases or into under privileged households that limit their chances of going to higher education, pensioners do not choose to be develop dementia. All are as equally worthy of better care than they are currently afforded. Still brings us to the question of how we pay for the care they deserve.

The main way public services are paid for is through taxations, so if we need to better support kids in care and ensure they are not disadvantaged educationally or in terms of opportunities lets put a penny on the pound for income tax. Problem solved, except it isn't really because we are already in something of a cost of living crisis so all this does is make it even harder for low income families to survive. Now what could be a consequence of such a problem funnily enough it is more kids in care, so in attempting to solve the problem we have actually managed to make it worse.

Even encouraging more parents to foster comes with its own problems. Two friends of mine are just in the process of adopting and the process is massively long winded, even for a young professional couple like them, the amount of vetting, interviews, home visits, family visits they had to endure are huge, but necessary. If you do manage to encourage more people to foster children (through a huge marketing/advertising campaign I would assume, more cost) you would be obliged to set on more civil servants to assess and process the applications and vet the applications, for yet more cost.

Far too easy to say throw more money at problems within the civil service, far less easy to answer where that money actually comes from.

Actually I think it works out cheaper for a child to be fostered than to be in a childrens home. So a marketing campaign that is successful would be cheaper than not doing a marketing campaign.

A childrens home is very expensive. A childrens home housing 8 children and 20 staff for example who are on 20k a year would cost 400k in staff wages alone every year not factoring in any other costs such as food, bills, clothing, entertainment, furniture, upkeep, travel costs etc etc Much cheaper in fostering.

Got anything to back any of that up?

Also another classic case of someone who deliberately chooses to earn money in a manner that allows for almost zero tax exposure (despite, apparently, being eminently qualified to earn £50-100k in a 'proper job') whilst demanding that funding from treasury coffers is re-allocated elsewhere.

TopHat24/7 wrote:WWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Thought'd you'd left???????????

I have left the boxing forum.

Rowley wrote:Questions like should we do more to help kids in care always amuse me. Of course we should, however we should also do more to help the homeless, the long term ill, pensioners, the disabled, students from under-privileged backgrounds to name but a few. We should also fund our universities, hospitals, police and fire services better and pay people who work in those fields better. The isssue is all of the above costs money, lots of it. As with most questions around the civil service the question is never should we do better (the answer is almost always yes) the more pertinent question is how do we afford to do better.

Outside of my Peter Jackson threads, this is perhaps the finest thing written on this, or any other, forum.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:WWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Thought'd you'd left???????????

I have left the boxing forum.

Why? It's the only forum you contributed to??

Must have decided he needs to use all his time up by teaching us off topiccers about the illuminati and such.

The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:WWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Thought'd you'd left???????????

I have left the boxing forum.

Why? It's the only forum you contributed to??

One man's "contribution" is another man's "pointlessly spunked over"

I'd adopt a brown baby.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Sometimes the simple way is the best way.

Today's generation are confused when it comes to parenting. Parents today don't understand the responsibility that comes with being parents. There are so many cases of people having kids and continuing to live like singletons. Don't get me wrong families break up thats life but the rate that these families are dissolving is remarkable. The government should at least do more to safeguard the family unit. Education is the key.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Sometimes the simple way is the best way.

Today's generation are confused when it comes to parenting. Parents today don't understand the responsibility that comes with being parents. There are so many cases of people having kids and continuing to live like singletons. Don't get me wrong families break up thats life but the rate that these families are dissolving is remarkable. The government should at least do more to safeguard the family unit. Education is the key.

But what?

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Sometimes the simple way is the best way.

Today's generation are confused when it comes to parenting. Parents today don't understand the responsibility that comes with being parents. There are so many cases of people having kids and continuing to live like singletons. Don't get me wrong families break up thats life but the rate that these families are dissolving is remarkable. The government should at least do more to safeguard the family unit. Education is the key.

I'm assuming your talking about young and single mothers which is a different kind of problem. As for familes one of the reasons that some of them break up is because they are forced to be together as 'it's the thing to do'. I'm a big fan of the traditional family unit but there's no point in pushing people together because 'that's how it used to be done'.

As I stated an unhappy home is more likely to lead to an unhappy childhood rather than 2 loving homes with parents who have realised they don't work as the family unit.

1. How are the government supposed to safeguard the family unit? (I don't even know what you mean by this)
2. What are you talking about educating them in?

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Sometimes the simple way is the best way.

Today's generation are confused when it comes to parenting. Parents today don't understand the responsibility that comes with being parents. There are so many cases of people having kids and continuing to live like singletons. Don't get me wrong families break up thats life but the rate that these families are dissolving is remarkable. The government should at least do more to safeguard the family unit. Education is the key.

Arrogant and nonsensical in the extreme. We deal on a regular basis with young girls who are victims of Sexual Exploitation and many of them come from relatively affluent families and a strong caring supportive network yet these young girls are regularly going missing and are discovered in the company of unsavoury characters. A number of these girls are then moved away from the area and fostered out for their own safety. I've sat and watched the father of a teenage girl break down in tears as he is at a loss as to what to do for the best.

Where does this fit in with your near sighted vision of what a family is supposed to be?

More importantly, why don't you just **** off from the whole forum and not just the boxing board you waste of DNA

DAVE667 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Sometimes the simple way is the best way.

Today's generation are confused when it comes to parenting. Parents today don't understand the responsibility that comes with being parents. There are so many cases of people having kids and continuing to live like singletons. Don't get me wrong families break up thats life but the rate that these families are dissolving is remarkable. The government should at least do more to safeguard the family unit. Education is the key.

Arrogant and nonsensical in the extreme. We deal on a regular basis with young girls who are victims of Sexual Exploitation and many of them come from relatively affluent families and a strong caring supportive network yet these young girls are regularly going missing and are discovered in the company of unsavoury characters. A number of these girls are then moved away from the area and fostered out for their own safety. I've sat and watched the father of a teenage girl break down in tears as he is at a loss as to what to do for the best.

Where does this fit in with your near sighted vision of what a family is supposed to be?

More importantly, why don't you just **** off from the whole forum and not just the boxing board you waste of DNA

Big hard man sitting behind a keyboard throwing insults like the little p***Y that you are. If you don't like me unt don't comment or reply to me simple. Your insults aint impressive seeing as you aint saying sh*t to my face like a man. Keep it quite and respect the house rules you inbred half pint twerp.

[quote="Derbymanc"]

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Sometimes the simple way is the best way.

Today's generation are confused when it comes to parenting. Parents today don't understand the responsibility that comes with being parents. There are so many cases of people having kids and continuing to live like singletons. Don't get me wrong families break up thats life but the rate that these families are dissolving is remarkable. The government should at least do more to safeguard the family unit. Education is the key.

I'm assuming your talking about young and single mothers which is a different kind of problem. As for familes one of the reasons that some of them break up is because they are forced to be together as 'it's the thing to do'. I'm a big fan of the traditional family unit but there's no point in pushing people together because 'that's how it used to be done'.

As I stated an unhappy home is more likely to lead to an unhappy childhood rather than 2 loving homes with parents who have realised they don't work as the family unit.

1. How are the government supposed to safeguard the family unit? (I don't even know what you mean by this)
2. What are you talking about educating them in?

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Sometimes the simple way is the best way.

Today's generation are confused when it comes to parenting. Parents today don't understand the responsibility that comes with being parents. There are so many cases of people having kids and continuing to live like singletons. Don't get me wrong families break up thats life but the rate that these families are dissolving is remarkable. The government should at least do more to safeguard the family unit. Education is the key.

Arrogant and nonsensical in the extreme. We deal on a regular basis with young girls who are victims of Sexual Exploitation and many of them come from relatively affluent families and a strong caring supportive network yet these young girls are regularly going missing and are discovered in the company of unsavoury characters. A number of these girls are then moved away from the area and fostered out for their own safety. I've sat and watched the father of a teenage girl break down in tears as he is at a loss as to what to do for the best.

Where does this fit in with your near sighted vision of what a family is supposed to be?

More importantly, why don't you just **** off from the whole forum and not just the boxing board you waste of DNA

Big hard man sitting behind a keyboard throwing insults like the little p***Y that you are. If you don't like me unt don't comment or reply to me simple. Your insults aint impressive seeing as you aint saying sh*t to my face like a man. Keep it quite and respect the house rules you inbred half pint twerp.

Feel free to track me down and I'll quite happily say it to your face...and the rest!

And I think your whiny little "I'm leaving cos you're being mean to me" letter marks YOU out as the p*ssy sunshine!

You already proved yourself to be a wimp by quitting the board and now you're back flapping you gums pretending to be outraged when you're really just happy that anyone is talking to you. You'd happily let someone sh!t in your mouth as you'd consider it a form of human contact.

Jackass!

Derbymanc wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Sometimes the simple way is the best way.

Today's generation are confused when it comes to parenting. Parents today don't understand the responsibility that comes with being parents. There are so many cases of people having kids and continuing to live like singletons. Don't get me wrong families break up thats life but the rate that these families are dissolving is remarkable. The government should at least do more to safeguard the family unit. Education is the key.

I'm assuming your talking about young and single mothers which is a different kind of problem. As for familes one of the reasons that some of them break up is because they are forced to be together as 'it's the thing to do'. I'm a big fan of the traditional family unit but there's no point in pushing people together because 'that's how it used to be done'.

As I stated an unhappy home is more likely to lead to an unhappy childhood rather than 2 loving homes with parents who have realised they don't work as the family unit.

1. How are the government supposed to safeguard the family unit? (I don't even know what you mean by this)
2. What are you talking about educating them in?

Realising the importance of the family unit in relation to society is a starting point.

As a culture the British are lagging behind other nations refering to Asian, chinese etc who have a strong family ethic. Not saying they have it perfect but the way they go about things in regard to family is a million miles off British values.

I get you now, Unfortunately we have a completely different culture and as such it just wouldn't work and would probably convince people to stay together when they really shouldn't be.

As a society we seem to have lost the means to respect other people, from kids all the way up to the elderly a lot more people just don't seem to care about anyone else.

If parents don't respect other people how are the kids meant to learn it.

DAVE667 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Sometimes the simple way is the best way.

Today's generation are confused when it comes to parenting. Parents today don't understand the responsibility that comes with being parents. There are so many cases of people having kids and continuing to live like singletons. Don't get me wrong families break up thats life but the rate that these families are dissolving is remarkable. The government should at least do more to safeguard the family unit. Education is the key.

Arrogant and nonsensical in the extreme. We deal on a regular basis with young girls who are victims of Sexual Exploitation and many of them come from relatively affluent families and a strong caring supportive network yet these young girls are regularly going missing and are discovered in the company of unsavoury characters. A number of these girls are then moved away from the area and fostered out for their own safety. I've sat and watched the father of a teenage girl break down in tears as he is at a loss as to what to do for the best.

Where does this fit in with your near sighted vision of what a family is supposed to be?

More importantly, why don't you just **** off from the whole forum and not just the boxing board you waste of DNA

Big hard man sitting behind a keyboard throwing insults like the little p***Y that you are. If you don't like me unt don't comment or reply to me simple. Your insults aint impressive seeing as you aint saying sh*t to my face like a man. Keep it quite and respect the house rules you inbred half pint twerp.

Feel free to track me down and I'll quite happily say it to your face...and the rest!

And I think your whiny little "I'm leaving cos you're being mean to me" letter marks YOU out as the p*ssy sunshine!

You already proved yourself to be a wimp by quitting the board and now you're back flapping you gums pretending to be outraged when you're really just happy that anyone is talking to you. You'd happily let someone sh!t in your mouth as you'd consider it a form of human contact.

Jackass!

Where did I say that? My leaving thread is still up for all to see and read moron so you can retract this false information.

As for sh*tting in peoples mouths. I'm sorry I am not familier with you're families customs. Think I saw something on national geographic tho.

Some advice about modding for those that have not done it.

It takes less time to delete or lock a thread than it does to remove and archive offending posts.

It takes less time to ban someone than it does to enter into a PM discussion persuading them to ease up with the insults.

None of us signed up to clean up non sport related posts.

Derbymanc wrote:I get you now, Unfortunately we have a completely different culture and as such it just wouldn't work and would probably convince people to stay together when they really shouldn't be.

As a society we seem to have lost the means to respect other people, from kids all the way up to the elderly a lot more people just don't seem to care about anyone else.

If parents don't respect other people how are the kids meant to learn it.

Spot on

but this needs to be adressed somehow and I know the government do not want to become a nanny state but respect has all but gone as you say.

I actually don't think it's that difficult a thing to do 1/2, give some power back to teachers and schools (allow kids to be suspended/taught in seclusion etc,)

Allow the police to break up large groups of kids (especially in bad area's) and to check their bags etc etc. Start fining the parents for any damage caused by their brats and if need be take it directly out of their wages/benefits.

A lot of the time kids aren't inherently bad but most are followers, if the leader of a certain group is a git then the rest are going to follow. If you show that yes you will be dragged home by the police, you will all get split up and that their are consequence's for your actions most won't do it.

The world has changed in many ways and the nuclear family as it existed for many of us growing up just simply doesn't exist anymore.

When I have children myself and my other half will have to work full time to provide a similar lifestyle as I had growing up. Compared to my parents having less well paid jobs and mum working less than full time throughout our childhood. Well also be working 20% more hours.

I am sure children will benefit immensely from less time with their parents and less family time in general as my parents will be working until they are 68 (my grandparents did all my baby sitting when I was younger).

Whilst the standard of living, available entertainment options etx are better than ever in many ways modern life is absolutely pathetic.

 

Ent wrote:The world has changed in many ways and the nuclear family as it existed for many of us growing up just simply doesn't exist anymore.

When I have children myself and my other half will have to work full time to provide a similar lifestyle as I had growing up. Compared to my parents having less well paid jobs and mum working less than full time throughout our childhood. Well also be working 20% more hours.

I am sure children will benefit immensely from less time with their parents and less family time in general as my parents will be working until they are 68 (my grandparents did all my baby sitting when I was younger).

Whilst the standard of living, available entertainment options etx are better than ever in many ways modern life is absolutely pathetic.

  Spot on that Ent

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Sometimes the simple way is the best way.

Today's generation are confused when it comes to parenting. Parents today don't understand the responsibility that comes with being parents. There are so many cases of people having kids and continuing to live like singletons. Don't get me wrong families break up thats life but the rate that these families are dissolving is remarkable. The government should at least do more to safeguard the family unit. Education is the key.

I'm assuming your talking about young and single mothers which is a different kind of problem. As for familes one of the reasons that some of them break up is because they are forced to be together as 'it's the thing to do'. I'm a big fan of the traditional family unit but there's no point in pushing people together because 'that's how it used to be done'.

As I stated an unhappy home is more likely to lead to an unhappy childhood rather than 2 loving homes with parents who have realised they don't work as the family unit.

1. How are the government supposed to safeguard the family unit? (I don't even know what you mean by this)
2. What are you talking about educating them in?

Realising the importance of the family unit in relation to society is a starting point.

As a culture the British are lagging behind other nations refering to Asian, chinese etc who have a strong family ethic. Not saying they have it perfect but the way they go about things in regard to family is a million miles off British values.

Yeh, looks like that's working out great for them........

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hong-kong-son-cooks-salts-parents-095606061.html

TopHat24/7 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:The problem is the gradual breakdown and destruction of the family.

The family as a unit, even the ''idea'' of the family has been discarded to a large extent. Family should come first and should be a priority with the government.

That's a really simplistic way to look at it OneTwo and while family should be lauded you can't hold it above all else as some family's don't work out and some people just can't live together and it's unfair in the extreme for people to stay together 'for the kids'. The arguments, tension, atmosphere and general unhappiness does not help them kids in any way.

Sometimes the simple way is the best way.

Today's generation are confused when it comes to parenting. Parents today don't understand the responsibility that comes with being parents. There are so many cases of people having kids and continuing to live like singletons. Don't get me wrong families break up thats life but the rate that these families are dissolving is remarkable. The government should at least do more to safeguard the family unit. Education is the key.

I'm assuming your talking about young and single mothers which is a different kind of problem. As for familes one of the reasons that some of them break up is because they are forced to be together as 'it's the thing to do'. I'm a big fan of the traditional family unit but there's no point in pushing people together because 'that's how it used to be done'.

As I stated an unhappy home is more likely to lead to an unhappy childhood rather than 2 loving homes with parents who have realised they don't work as the family unit.

1. How are the government supposed to safeguard the family unit? (I don't even know what you mean by this)
2. What are you talking about educating them in?

Realising the importance of the family unit in relation to society is a starting point.

As a culture the British are lagging behind other nations refering to Asian, chinese etc who have a strong family ethic. Not saying they have it perfect but the way they go about things in regard to family is a million miles off British values.

Yeh, looks like that's working out great for them........

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hong-kong-son-cooks-salts-parents-095606061.html

I'm sorry but   

Aye the Chinese have a great family ethic don't they...only one child per family ta very much.

Don't get me started on the "unexplained deaths" and high abortion rates of baby girls in other parts of the world...yeah real sense of family values.

Like said, the boy's a....

DAVE667 wrote:Aye the Chinese have a great family ethic don't they...only one child per family ta very much.

Don't get me started on the "unexplained deaths" and high abortion rates of baby girls in other parts of the world...yeah real sense of family values.

Like said, the boy's a....

Still can't just let it go can you.

You should count the distance in miles between Bradford and London and give thanks I aint just around the corner pus.

I think Dave's won the slanging match with ease. Well done Dave.

Duty281 wrote:I think Dave's won the slanging match with ease. Well done Dave.

Still hugging Daves geriactric nuts I see Duty.

DAVE667 wrote:Aye the Chinese have a great family ethic don't they...only one child per family ta very much.

Don't get me started on the "unexplained deaths" and high abortion rates of baby girls in other parts of the world...yeah real sense of family values.

Like said, the boy's a....

Oh yeh, that old 'female infanticide' fly in OneTwo's ointment.....

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I think Dave's won the slanging match with ease. Well done Dave.

Still hugging Daves geriactric nuts I see Duty.

Please spell correctly, then I'll get back to you.   

Duty281 wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

Duty281 wrote:I think Dave's won the slanging match with ease. Well done Dave.

Still hugging Daves geriactric nuts I see Duty.

Please spell correctly, then I'll get back to you.   

No thanks

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Aye the Chinese have a great family ethic don't they...only one child per family ta very much.

Don't get me started on the "unexplained deaths" and high abortion rates of baby girls in other parts of the world...yeah real sense of family values.

Like said, the boy's a....

Still can't just let it go can you.

You should count the distance in miles between Bradford and London and give thanks I aint just around the corner pus.

It's only a couple of hundred...feel free to call up and make yourself known if you're THAT upset about things

You could hang around Centenary Square and talk to people, that way it wouldn't take long for news of the stupid southern frigstick talking nonsense but convincing himself he knows what he's talking about to reach me and we can hook up if you fancy it.

You might find me delightful company... on the other hand I will probably still think you're a plank but will have happily disabused you of any notions about how tough you think you are in the meantime.