UKC

Just been reading an article about "kids of today" in a magazine, there seemed to be a lot of emphasis on the negative aspects of kids, (youth behaviour, discipline and the reasons for negative behaviour). I was just wondering, how many of us are untolerant, towards kids
and is it US who are the antisocial ones.

kids in my opinion are not that bad - even the "hoodie" thing has spiralled out of control,

An example of how intollerant some people are, is there is a play park in N.Yorks - where local residents are always complaining to police about kids gathering. EVEN AFTER 9 OCLOCK! - Big crime there then!

Kids in general don't have facilities they can access -
and the local places they go are complained about often for no reason.

Yes there is a minority intent on making trouble, but people should not be labelling every kid who sits in a park after 8 wearing a hoodie as trouble.

Personally people should wake up and smell what they are shovelling, because in a society where we preach about political correctness , surely the labels we give kids
could be deemed PREJUDGEIST!

Good call - it's simply the blame game - the Government don't want to put the time and money into solving the problems so they blame Schools, Parents, TV etc. If they actually listened to kids they'd see that they want something to do. Have somewhere to chill out and meet with friends - I don't think it's a massive crime! As usual it is the minority that spoil it for everyone else!

In reply to Richardjbarker:

My missus is currently looking for a new job. Minimum number hours most people are prepared to accept is 37.5 (one wants 40). Very conducive to raising a family.

When it comes to how we treat kids, Britain sucks.

I can't stand children but this has nothing to do with the current batch. Kids have been shits since time began.

, surely the labels we give kids

Is that a very intolerant Poltergeist? Throws things around the kitchen while its moaning about how young the police look, or writing letters to the editor of the local paper in green ink on your walls when you're out

In reply to gourd:

Oh yes, how true. We’re involved with a new school and we’ve been offered ‘wrap around’ childcare. This runs from 9-5pm because ‘that’s normal working hours’. The council have conveniently forgotten that people will have start work after 9am and leave before 5pm to take advantage of this. Apparently nobody would use the service if it ran for longer.

In reply to Richardjbarker:

A big part of the problem is the fact that they are rarely reprimanded or punished for bad behaviour and the cops are not interested. Running acrross car roofs, throwing stones at cars and buses, fighting, e.t.c the usual stuff. The difference is they know no-one can touch them, literally and legally. They are generally lazy, ignorant, and cossetted. Reality tv sets unrealistic targets, and when Jade Goodey "gets it all" for being thick as f*ck why should they bother. As for no facilities, they have never had so many to choose from.

PeterM

In reply to PeterM:

Do you have any idea how hilariously funny that was? I hope you were trolling.

In reply to Am Fear Liath Mor: The people I know that take advantage of this can only use if one of the parents drops them off and then goes late and stays late at work, whilst the other goes in early and then leaves early to colect. Only works if everyone is very understanding, not that usual in UK employers?

An old employer of mine was awful with childcare/ sick kids/ holidays etc - really hard on the parents. Then she had a baby and suddenly it all changed........

In reply to Am Fear Liath Mor:
There is a childcare provider near where I live where you can drop kids off from 7.30, they can have breakfast, then they have a bus that drops them off at the local schools. Then at the end of the school day they pick them up, give them a light tea and organise activities, the latest they cover is 7.30pm.

I know most parents wouldn't want to use this survice if they didn't have to, but our gov seems hell bent on getting both parents to work full time. They seem to be anti family (when people actually work) and seem to think it's best that children arn't brought up by their parents.

In reply to gourd:

Sorry dude, but I don't give a f*ck what you hope for. I guess you think having kids is a 'right'?

PeterM

In reply to Richardjbarker: kids today are spoilt little c*nts in my view the worst ones should be locked in there houses and not let out except for 2 hours on a sunday........and as for them having no where to go pi*h i had fun with rope swings and streams and never once felt the need to mug my granny!!!! bah kids

In reply to Richardjbarker: the kids who cause most of the trouble round here - three of them - are thrown out by their parents at around 6.30 and told not to come back until 10.30. They represent about 1 % of the teenagers in my area but they are responsible for virtually all the vandalism, verbal abuse, petty theft and graffiti. To demonise all the teenagers because of them is wrong, but it does seem that the only thing that will stop them is jail - and that's before they get into burglary when they get out. Apart from these three most of the other teenagers are at home or in someone's house.

In reply to mattgc2:
You just remember/ see the bad ones missbehaving, don't tar them all with the same brush!

In reply to Pinky: if you want kids you pay for them! i do not go to work every day to pay for you to populate the place with kids. lets spend our taxes on something worth while like old people freezing to death in there houses even though they paid there taxes all there lives!

and as for them having no where to go pi*h i had fun with rope swings and streams and never once felt the need to mug my granny!!!! bah kids

come on mate - last time i heard of a kid trying to build a tree house or a rope swing - what happened the cops were called - Criminal Damage apparently - kid given repremand!

In reply to PeterM:

And you're giving kids stick? You're sounding daft as a brush.

In reply to mattgc2: How much does it cost to freeze an old person to death in there(sic) house?

In reply to Richardjbarker: thats a fair shout! you might have a point after-all!

In reply to David KS: about -100 quid

In reply to Pinky:

I quite agree with you there. I really don't want to bring children up in this country.

When I have a baby, I'd like to stay at home and look after it. Somehow I see that as the best possible thing that I could give my child.

Putting it in a nursery for 9 hours a day whilst I traipse off to some neon lit hell hole isn't exactly what I had in mind.

Perhaps if this country had a slightly more developed sense of family, the kids wouldn't suffer so many of the problems that seem to befall them these days.

In reply to mattgc2:


I fully intend to pay for my children. Funnily enough, my (not to distant future) husband has a job, and we work as a team.

In reply to mattgc2:

You know what, when you were a kid, I'll bet other similarly broad-minded adults were saying just the same thing.

About kids like you. Maybe it was true...

In reply to all:

Until very recently (I have just turned 20) I was a "youth of today". I would like to point out that neither I nor my friends have ever indulged in, to quote peterM:
I wore clothes I was comfortable wearing, including on occasion a hoody.

If I went to meet a group of friends, or even if I just bumped into someone on the street and stopped to talk I would get comments about "youth of today", and people would tend to avoid or even complain about us.

This, as I have given many hundreds of hours of volunteering to the community, was a little galling.

So yes, I agree with Richard in the OP, people are prejudiced against young people. They tend to judge us all on the actions of a few.

<end rant>

Jack

In reply to Greenbanks:

Thank God it wasn't just me. What a w**k!

In reply to moomin:

In france and Canada they pool the personal tax allowance (roughly speaking) for the whole family. So even if you don't stop work, but cut back on hours it means you will be better off than the system we have here.

In reply to PeterM:
>I guess you think having kids is a 'right'?

Soory dude, but I don't give a f*ck what you think. I assume you think being a w**k is a gift?

In reply to Jack B:



My point was that the behaviour today is not much different than it has ever been. The way it is dealt with is.

PeterM

In reply to Rock Kid:

The quote you used, was from another posting NOT by me!

My opinion is that kids generally don't get a fair deal, and are occassionally victimised by the over raction of todays antisocial society!

In reply to Rock Kid: i will have you know im not broad minded im very narrow minded...... what with having two kids of my own both at uni all paid for by me. i just hate the thought of these brats draged up by idiots causing mayhem where ever the go then there"parents" demanding more money off the goverment<ie me and you>to look after there wayword sprogs.its madness to the crazy degrees.money should be spent on educating mentaly underdeveloped adults not enticing them into having more children with the promise of more handouts.....thus the harshly worded rant on my view on people claiming that its the goverments job to fund child care ect.

In reply to mattgc2:

Here here...

In reply to moomin: you see i dont hate kids i just hope and pray our money gets spent better thus ensuring kids of the future get a better deal....as for the current lot its a shame but there doomed

In reply to mattgc2:

Not true - kids deserve a break in life - not to be critisiced for everything they do.
Even the offenders deserve funding - if targeted correctly they can acheive big things!

In reply to Richardjbarker: i agree in part but funding too cure rather than prevent costs a lot more money does it not?....and who decides what tarrgets they aim for?

In reply to mattgc2:

You adopt a pretty generalised view of kids...as a (small) example, there's lots of RT people who very sincerely must hope that their kids aren't 'doomed'.

In reply to Greenbanks: i joined this forum when people were talkin about delinquents soo i carried on i have never once said all kids and many times back refrenced myself and said them!

In reply to Greenbanks: meaning the bad uns

In reply to mattgc2:

the individual decides his own targets, its up to agencys such as police, YOT, etc to assist.

on funding - is it not cheaper to assist the problem kids now, than see them spirral into a life of prison where it costs a lot more to keep them locked up?

In reply to mattgc2:

Sorry. I've been dipping in and out of this thread. It annoys me when generalisations get flung about: kids have always been easy targets.

Cheers

In reply to mattgc2: What I was saying that if the gov believed in families they would do something, maybe the same as Canada and France that could well prevent problems as parents would be able to spend more time with their children. You didn't seem to like this idea, siting that you would prefer your tax money to go elsewhere than the prevention, so it seems strange that you talk about costs of prevention and cure when you believe in neither.

In reply to Richardjbarker: you are correct thats my point entirely.

In reply to Greenbanks: ahhhh another thinker good on you my man !

In reply to Pinky: ohhh i strongly belive in prevention! but prevention is not handing anyone money for nothing.my whole argument is if you cant affored kids and all the expence it entails you should not have any at all

*looks up from Daily Mail*

political correctness gone mad

*grumble*

In reply to Richardjbarker:

I work in a weekly boarding school for boys with social, emotional and behaviour problems. For many of these boys home life is not good. Too much money spent on them but they are sent out of the way, violence towards them or others or they are sexuall abused, poor parenting, no decent role models in the family etc. I could so easily feel that all kids are the same. Most kids are great if you get to know them, even ours. Neither do I want to make excuses for the badly behaving children but I do think some families do not spend enough time with them. Do they sit and talk about everyday things and do activities together? Lots do, lots don't.

This government has reduced money to local authorities so many times the cuts are made for things like youth clubs where a lot of good work was done with children from all walks of life. They have tried to avoid spending money on the criminal justice system to the point where they are constantly thinking up new ways to avoid giving custodial sentences when they really should be given. In education not enough emphasis is put on teaching our children how to run a home and finances and how to function in a family. Lot's of them don't get taught this at home. Unfortunately the non-functioning families are the ones we notice and who often cause the problems.


Rant over!

In reply to Knitting Norah:

I totally agree - funding is definately a problem - my point is not only are kids given a rough deal in todays society, but not enough is done to assist those who find themselves in the position such as the ones you have described.
I too have worked with these groups in an outdoor environment, (YOT, etc) 90% I can honestly say I enjoy working with , some to the extent i have had talks with.

I have seen both sides of the arguement - my work as an outdoor ed worker, and a special police officer have enabled me to gain a 2 sided opinion. the students i have worked with, know my other work, and often respect that, and I hope they leave the centre i work at with a different opinion of some police officers -

Its not the Uniform, but the person who wears it!

In reply to mattgc2:

Oh F**k off!! You live in Fife FFS. You're 27!! It's the weekend, you're out drinking, she's a stunner, it's on the cards, the rubber bursts and 9 months later blah de blah......

Money has nothing to do with it.

Oh and PS You do realise you are advocating denying the poor a fundamental human rught?

In reply to mattgc2:

It says on your profile you're 27. How young were you when you had these kids?

In reply to Richardjbarker:

That's true, i'd gladly break their leg's.

In reply to smart guy:

And for that childish comment I’d offer to do it for you.

In reply to Richardjbarker:

I live in one of the worst areas in the North West, my school is the centre of anti-social behaviour in Merseyside and it's just full of little sh!tes basically.

Some of the teenagers are really nice, sensible, honest people, but because the school is surrounded by about 3 council estates, where the parents couldnt give an arse about their kids (no i'm not exaggerating, they chuck them out on the street, where they drink and sleep around...several girls in my year were pregnant during their GCSE's), there majority of teenagers are terrifying. There is nowhere to go for the kids chucked onto the streets by parents (nowhere safe anyway).

Im gonna sound really old here (despite being 16), but i do think teenagers are getting worse and worse. Even only 5 years ago when i joined in year 7, it was nowhere near this bad, we respected teachers, but the current year 7's are setting fire to things and vandalising teachers cars and attacking 6th formers, no respect at all!

It's a sore point with me, this is, because my school does nothing what so ever to punish or sort out these kids...the headteacher doesnt care if 2 pupils are fighting, so long as they're wearing the correct uniform, no joke!!

In reply to Richardjbarker:


Hey Richard, as you can see, I was replying to mattgc2!

In reply to Richardjbarker: im just glad that someone has finally woken up.

which play park is it btw?

In reply to Katy

It cannot be easy to be in a school like yours. Our school only caters for boys (who couldn't cope in mainstream) but sometimes we hear of ex pupils who have got their girlfriends pregnant not long after they left us.

In society today we have parents who were disaffected themselves as children so do not have the skills to pass on to their own. They did not have the example set or the role models to follow.

Also there are so many people who spend a lot of money, or have a lot spent on them, to keep up with peer groups. When they grow up they are used to getting what they want and have their priorities all wrong. How can they then show their own children how to be wise and economical. It just becomes a case of borrow more in this easy to get credit society that we have now.

Somewhere along the way we have to go back to discipline and the victims of crime having rights too. However first we have to sort out things like poor parenting by teaching those who do not have the knowledge passed on at home, how to function in and respect others in society. the golden opportunity is in school.

In reply to Knitting Norah: that is exactly correct.
but what i also think would be good is to bring back national service. i think that this would bring back the discipline and it would also mean that people would understand the value of trust etc. i dont mean like sending them straight to war but train them all as soldiers from around the age of leaving uni.

Will

In reply to 00spaw

For girls as well as boys. Good idea, lots of our boys want to go in the army because quite a few have fathers in it. Those that do join up usually get thrown out or leave quickly because guess what - they can't cope with the discipline. Not that we are surprised, that was the reason they were with us in the first place!

In reply to 00spaw:

Ah, right. Let's get all these lost, variously deranged, misplaced, amoral, sad, underachieving kids to beat the crap out of Iraq. That'll really sort 'em out.

In reply to Greenbanks: i noticed that your sarcasm was directed at me whilst you had omitted this.

"i dont mean like sending them straight to war but just training them up"

interesting point you tried to make though, i had already countered the argument.

In reply to Greenbanks: o and btw, i always like to read peoples profiles when i am replying to a post of theirs (BIG UP THE REDS).

In reply to Greenbanks

When we hear of one of our lads going in the army we usually say to one another "Would you give ***** ***** a gun?"

Seriously though the forces are probably the only places where discipline is so strict. Anyway it is easier to get out of now. But conscription now that really is a thought, but that is easy for me to say because my children are all well over the age to be called up.

In reply to 00spaw:

OK, fair point. But the 'straight to war' line in your post was a giveaway. 'Straight' being what? I'd put that down as a late winner - for united of course (not making light of a serious issue)

Cheers

In reply to Knitting Norah:

'Conscription' needs to be interpreted much more imaginatively to be progressive - what about bring pure water to copmmunities that ain't got it?

In reply to Richardjbarker:
Jeez! These kids really need a...
http://www.fsiproperty.com/?gclid=CLyXk8Hy7YkCFSoMQgodxQFJKg

In reply to gourd:


Nothing like a complete abdication of personal responsibility - if you decide to breed, it is up to you, not your fellow citizens, to deal with the consequences. Quite apart from the fact that there are ample and easy sources of contraception available in society.


So don't ask anybody else to supply any to bring up YOUR children.


Nonsense on stilts, like most rhetoric about "rights".

If you have the "right" to have children, does that mean that everybody else has the corresponding "duty" to help you look after them? Is the "right" unlimited in any way, so you are "entitled" to as many children as you wish? What sort of corresponding "rights" do the childless, single or infertile have, or do they just have obligations toward proud parents? Do I have the "right" to as many long distance flights to atractive parts of the world, irrespective of the consequences, environmental and other?

Human population is out of control, the planet can barely support its current level, let alone the level that it will inevitably achieve. Yet you seem to take it as self-evident that those producing children are entitled to subsidy and for the world to be re-arranged to support them. Not the least part of the error in this is that those people you would want to breed, the responsible, the prudent, will be unlikely to be influenced by government bribes to breed, they will take relatively thought out decisions about the number of children that it is sensible for them to have anyway. Then, because they are relatively higher calibre people anyway, they will make every effort to care for those children when they are born. The bribes will cause increased breeding of the feckless and imprudent, in fact it will reward failure and carelessness.

So obliging "society" to pay for children irrespective of number or the prudence of the parents has 2 effects, both of them catastrophic :

1) it continues to increase the population in an already dangerously overpopulated world/country
2) it encourages breeding from those least suitable to do so, in a sort of reverse natural selection

In reply to Simon4:

Good grief! I agree with your entire post... the overpopulation argument too. At a time when overpopulation is the basic cause behind all the worlds main problems it seem incredible that governments actually subsidise breeding.

Likewise, many people want children but consider that this should not impinge that much on their careers and leisure... they sub-contract a lot of the rearing process, and many even expect others to pay the tab through the tax system.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Sit down, have a cold drink and rest until you feel better ....


Unfortunately it seems horribly credible, like most examples of cognitive dissonance.

Basically parents are fast turning into a self-serving vested interest group, like 4X4 owners, but whereas that particular group are widely vilified and ridiculed, having children in numbers unlimited by sense or judgement is pretty much a sacred cow, witness endless references to "hard-working families" (does that imply that child benefit, etc is not given to lazy, unemployed families, or that all single people are lazy good-for-nothings?). Well, every age has its cant, its sacred shibboleths.


Not only that, no matter how much preferential treatment they are given, no matter how much their childless fellow tax-payers are forced to contribute, it is never enough - the bleating for yet more continues. Parents are selfish and self-centred - Just like other human beings. Just that as a lobby-group, they seem to believe, with some justification, that they are untouchable.

In reply to Simon4:

'Parents are selfish and self-centred'?

You do a nice line in generalisation. You also strike me as an extremist tw*t.

Can't carry on about this now as I'm just off (like a 'selfish parent') to:

(a) do some footpath clearance with my x3 kids
(b) jog with x2 of them to footie practice
(c) stick my head round the door of a 78 year-old near-neighbour to check if she's OK
(d) supervise my kids in writing their periodic letters (yes, writing) to various grandmas, great-aunts etc
(e) doing x3 homeworks
(f) ensuring that all school kit & correspondence is in place for Monday
(g) ...and finally joining a group of adults - some of whom have kids, others who are very much not wanting to go that way - in a social at our sailing club (and where the crass judgements of the kind you're tossing about are thankfully absent),

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Oh no. Don't you start Bruce.

In reply to moomin:


Child deprevation is among the highest in europe in this country,if you measure quality time with parents and diet and what children do in thier free time,i'm not sure if education is included as well.

Tim

In reply to Timmd:

so is our number of juvenilles in detention facilities!

I do think, as i mentioned earlier, that juvenilles are not assisted much, even those troubled, what they often lack in self esteem and confidence, they try and make up with "bravado". A factor easily quashed.

kids generally are not bad - its just a matter of sorting the sheep from the leaders.

In reply to Richardjbarker:

Kids are great....'cept the ones that walk around like they have a large hand cannon stuck down their pants making them limp slightly...they should be hit

In reply to Richardjbarker:

I work with young offenders. Young people offend for a variety of reasons, boredom, peer pressure, anger (often alcohol fuelled), for the excitement, for money, for respect, for attention.. I could go on. Often they come from deprived, broken and possibly violent family homes, sometimes from 'good' loving homes.
I work in a service where we see maybe up to a hundred young people on orders at any one time. There are thousands of young people in our area of Yorkshire, and many of these are thoughtful, considerate, hard working, ambitious people who want to do well and earn a living. And some of those are young offenders.
People may be intolerant and often this is due to fear and misunderstanding (and poor press.. 'chavs', 'hoodies', 'yobs' etc). Could be worth having a conversation with young people, find out what they think and what their hopes are, and what they want.. they are our future parents, employees, employers, politicians, climbers!! (they love climbing.. it's such an achievement, and all that adrenaline!).
Sarah.

In reply to mzzzv:

I absolutely agree - and have the highest respect for people like yourselves - As I mentioned earlier I work as a special police officer, and a outdoor ed instructor, in a couple of weeks I will be instructing a YOT group, i'm looking forward to it!
personally I find it relativly easy to talk to young persons, whatever their background,
I am particularly interested in seeing how the weekend is structured, and if successful use it as a template for "Outreach" work, in conjuction with police authorities, probation etc

In reply to Richardjbarker: I fully appreciate that I am an old git, but I am honestly baffled. We always had a core of bad kids who engaged in petty crime and anti-social activity, usually the ones in the lower academic stream at school, but they were a tiny minority.

I too do lots of outdoor work with loads of young people from colleges and the Youth/Community services, and I am astonished by the sheer numbers who now appear ineducable and unemployable in their mid - late teens.

Many go to college just to collect the EMA allowance, there is not even a pretence that they are actually learning anything. Its just a baby/yob sitting service to keep them off the streets for a few hours.

It seems as if adolescence itself is getting longer and longer all the time. I see so many 19 - 20+ youths riding bmx bikes that would fit a 12 year old, and to hear in the news that some guys in their early 20s were killed spraying graffiti on railway lines makes me despair, its what one expects from 12 year olds.

Well, that's my Victor Meldrew bit!

In reply to Hillwalker:

Have to say I agree with you here. But that's the world we' have created.

In reply to Richardjbarker:

Hi Dick,

Yes your quite right, dont you think a good idea would be to provide kids with a focus such as climbing or other sports/interests. There seems to be so much red tape and restriction on the outdoor facilities councils can provide due health and safety.

In reply to udunikabollockoff:

your very right - any sporting facilities kids today have "access" to cost a mini fortune - so any arguement that there are facilities they can use is deeply floored

In reply to gourd:

well brains its nice to know people care enough to read my profile shame about the typo eh!<27 indeed>! by the way money has everything to do with it brains! why ese would people ask for goverment handouts?,oh thats right coz they have no money. yet still feel the need to bring children into the world. and as for "you live in fife ffs" it just shows your own misjudged uneducated ignorance "ffs".

In reply to mattgc2:

Took you a while to reply.

And that's the best you could come up with? I'm cut to the chase. No really I am.

Oh and thanks for acknowledging my superior intellect. Brains I am indeed.

Now crawl off back to you're uneducated hole.

In reply to Richardjbarker:

I blame it all on TV.

In reply to gourd: crawl you might you slug! oh and i take it uneducated is a new word for you taken from my previous post?. well done brains!. your learning. and abuse is not argument or even debate its stupidity! your right though it did take me a while i was on holiday

In reply to mattgc2:
>and abuse is not argument or even debate its stupidity!

Who's debating. There's is absolutely no point engaging in such an activity with someone who believes that childbirth should only be undertaken at a time when you can 'afford' it.

Utter nonsense.

As for learning. Yes I am, as are you. We all are. So it's not exactly worth noting.

In reply to gourd: oh dear! you can have kids whenever you like. my point is if you cant afford to look after them properly why should i as a tax-payer fund them?

In reply to mattgc2:

Define 'afford' and 'properly'.

In reply to gourd: in this cont afford would mean giving children good food and suitable clothing and providing them with adiquit means for a proper education as for properly that depends on the parents. would you not agree?

In reply to mattgc2:

Not necessarily. It's far too complex. Many wealthy parents who have, in your opinion, every right to have kids are absolutley crap parents. They deny their children emotional nourishment or cultural opportunities. I would cite the girl on C4's Shipwrecked as an example. £20k/year education but culturally ignorant.

Given current house prices many couples are going to find themselves buying into sink areas with schools with poor reputations. So providing a proper education is already at a disadvantage.

As for good food unfortunately again all kids like chips. It's a hard parent who denies them that. And when they are at school etc it's virtually impossible. This is only an example of course.

I'll grant you clothing. It really f**ks me off with this whole designer label thing. Particularly in kids.

However, do you really want to go back to Dickensian times? Because that's the alternative. You're not going to stop people shagging.

As a footnote, my mother worked in a really poor neighbourhood beside people who relied on govt handouts. One woman's daughter still considers my mum to be the granny she never had and still buys my kids a Xmas present every year. There are spongers out there. But just as many are rich. You just don't see them because they don't register on the radar.

In reply to gourd: where to start? i know at the begining! the apparently racist girl on the t.v program shipwrecked was apparently put-up to being as she was,as told by fellow contestants this makes her guilible. and i have not once said paying for private education will make you "clever".

however in my experance children from wealthier backrounds cause less trouble for the communities as a whole.i am not saying this is right just my opinion based on experiance.

as for the chips and diet thing i think everything is good in moderation as long as you dont forget the basics.

house prices are indeed a lot higher than when i bought my house but surely you must prioritise and get these things stable before begining a family?.

oh and we agree on lables i refused my children these. untill they understood the value of money. now the brats are better dressed than me!

In reply to mattgc2:


Maybe the kids from poor areas cause more trouble because it's a reaction to being brought in crap areas. Wouldn't you 'kick off' if you knew everything was stacked against you? Perhaps not but I certainly would.


But what if you never can? You're brought up in a children's home, have poor exam results as a result of a crap upbringing and so can't get a decently paid job. And so you end up having to make a choice, kids or no kids. People born into wealthier families are not forced into this position why should people like I've just described?

What if the kid who will discover the cure for cancer never gets to do so because we would rather keep our taxes to ourselves (which initself is anti-social) and so more people (dare I say our own kids!!) die due to our selfishness?

Sorry, I understand your frustration but I've met some of societies poorest and some make much better parents than many of the priviliged, who sit in judgement on them.

In reply to mattgc2:
because they will keep the country and services you need going in your old age fool

"why should i as a tax-payer fund them? "

In reply to Simon4:
"Basically parents are fast turning into a self-serving vested interest group"

can you provide evidence to support this, accompanied by the statistics of the proportion of parents to which this assertion and the evidence apply?

it seems a pretty foolish thing to say

In reply to Anonymous: read all my past posts on this forum instead of just one you damn fool

In reply to the two main Girls:

Gosh this is a funny thread. Get you two!

Please, someone: teach the difference and correct meanings of the words "your" and "you're".

PS: Thick common people will always have kids. Intelligent Affluent people will always have kids. That's life.

Keep arguing though, it's comical.

(My plan is to stop the thread in it's tracks, and everyone abandon their computers and storm off in a huff, because no-one understands just how deep you all are).

Even if my plan doesn't work then I will still have provoked a response. Ha! You can't win!

Pop Quiz hot shot! What do you do?



<insanity rools>

In reply to just wanna climb: Ooooh, posted at 0000 hrs.

Cool. Goodnight

In reply to Richardjbarker: I am a "Kid" and i'm sick and tired of all these stupid generalisations about "kids" being hooligans. I just want to point out that not all football supporters are hooligans, not all women are bad drivers and not all asians are terrorists. So why do people seem to think that all teenagers are "hooligans." We're not. Infact a MINORITY of teenagers are "yobs and hooligans."

I'm sick of being classed as part of a group of "yobs" simply because i'm a teenager.
It isn't fair that everytime i walk into a supermarket with my friends i get funny looks from Security guards and they seem to think i'm going to steal something because i'm a teenager.
I think that people should stop making generalisations about teenagers as a whole and start to think about how they would like it if they were discriminated against, because that's what it is, DISCRIMINATION.

In reply to Katy: I am twice your age, I went to a school which got pretty good results, but half a dozen girls in my year had babies well before GCSE's, so it's nothing new. One girl had two kids before she took her GCSE's.

I don't see things being much different to what they were like 15-20 years ago when I was a teenager.

In reply to Richardjbarker:

After 9.00. Should be doing homework or in bed!

In reply to mattgc2:

Read through this thread with interest, I can see where you're coming from, not sure I agree with all you say though.

This seems to be case, but is this because they have less to do? Are wealthier kids stuck indoors getting fat playing their computer games and less likely to be out getting into bother? Poorer kids in run down areas are maybe just copying what their elders have done in the past and in their minds it's OK.



Exactly, we have a rule in our house, (whether its good or not I don't know), Friday night is chippy night. The rest of the week we eat a good balanced diet and try and avoid the junk. (polishes halo!) The schools food is bloody good too and she gets very little crap there.


we don't own our own property and are not likely to for a while yet. I don't really see that means we shouldn't have started a family.

The kids I come in contact with are generally a good bunch, the school they go to is a good one, class sizes are relatively small and the parents take an active interest. There's plenty of clubs and events to go to and there's a real sense of community. The kids seem to respond to this very positively and there is a lot less trouble associated with these kids.

In reply to Simon Pelly:

- I'm 24 mate!

In reply to Kieran:

- Exacxtly my point - like I just said i'm 24, wear hoodies, caps, trainers etc. I still get the "looks", even got id' D for alchohol this week.
I was even in a shop and was asked to take off my hooded top, (got my back right up). So I spouted some bovine excrement, which followed the lines of descrimination, and Section 24a of the human rights act - (NO IDEA WHAT IT SAYS BY THE WAY) - Confused the living hell out of the shop guy, and he allowed me to keep on wearing the top.

Seriously though, No wonder young people dont respect adults when we don't respect them.