ChatterBank1 min ago
Dad at 13?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/arti cle2233878.ece
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! WTF is going on? the lad's kin 13 for christ sake and it's game over! A miserable existance on benefits for him and his older woman for the rest of their natural. What's the legal position?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! WTF is going on? the lad's kin 13 for christ sake and it's game over! A miserable existance on benefits for him and his older woman for the rest of their natural. What's the legal position?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The way it works, dot is this:
Chantelle (the 15 year old mother), lives with her mother, jobless father and five brothers in a �rented� (i.e. free) council house. All eight of them are maintained by benefits. As has been pointed out, Chantelle will not (yet) receive benefits in her own right. Instead her mother�s benefits will be increased to accommodate new arrival Maisie.
And thereby hangs the rub. If Chantelle�s parents were working, her father Steve could not have gone to his employer and said �My stupid 15 year old daughter has just had a baby. Can I have a rise please?� They would have had to accommodate the new child from their existing income. So whilst the occurrence of underage pregnancies is not exclusive to families on benefits, it is more prevalent among them because the financial effects are not so severe.
As I said earlier, the 13 year old father will be unaffected by this and he and his eight siblings (at least that�s the number his father is said to have sired) will go about their business largely undisturbed.
I don�t actually hold that �society� is responsible for all of this. Nor do I blame manufacturers for marketing unsuitable clothes for children (after all, they only make what people buy). Parents are responsible for bringing up their children and for buying their clothes. If they don�t know what their children or up to or they buy totally unsuitable apparel for their children, that�s their fault, not mine. But I do blame successive governments (of all persuasions) for making this type of lifestyle so attractive.
It seems a number of people responding to this question agree with my outrageously harsh stance (for a change). Could the credit crunch finally be having some effect?
I think I�ll go for a lie down.
Chantelle (the 15 year old mother), lives with her mother, jobless father and five brothers in a �rented� (i.e. free) council house. All eight of them are maintained by benefits. As has been pointed out, Chantelle will not (yet) receive benefits in her own right. Instead her mother�s benefits will be increased to accommodate new arrival Maisie.
And thereby hangs the rub. If Chantelle�s parents were working, her father Steve could not have gone to his employer and said �My stupid 15 year old daughter has just had a baby. Can I have a rise please?� They would have had to accommodate the new child from their existing income. So whilst the occurrence of underage pregnancies is not exclusive to families on benefits, it is more prevalent among them because the financial effects are not so severe.
As I said earlier, the 13 year old father will be unaffected by this and he and his eight siblings (at least that�s the number his father is said to have sired) will go about their business largely undisturbed.
I don�t actually hold that �society� is responsible for all of this. Nor do I blame manufacturers for marketing unsuitable clothes for children (after all, they only make what people buy). Parents are responsible for bringing up their children and for buying their clothes. If they don�t know what their children or up to or they buy totally unsuitable apparel for their children, that�s their fault, not mine. But I do blame successive governments (of all persuasions) for making this type of lifestyle so attractive.
It seems a number of people responding to this question agree with my outrageously harsh stance (for a change). Could the credit crunch finally be having some effect?
I think I�ll go for a lie down.
Nor do I blame manufacturers for marketing unsuitable clothes for children (after all, they only make what people buy).
Catch 22 - I doubt some of the council house tenants that you love to describe went to the chief buyer of some department stores and said i would like my daughter to dress up as a **** - please can you make something!
More likely that a marketing bod came up with it and then advertised them to children using pester power to get their parents to buy them.
With regards the benefit system, I agree that it is completely flawed and needs an overall.
But I also believe that 'society' needs to help the whole - not be as insular as it has become.
Catch 22 - I doubt some of the council house tenants that you love to describe went to the chief buyer of some department stores and said i would like my daughter to dress up as a **** - please can you make something!
More likely that a marketing bod came up with it and then advertised them to children using pester power to get their parents to buy them.
With regards the benefit system, I agree that it is completely flawed and needs an overall.
But I also believe that 'society' needs to help the whole - not be as insular as it has become.
-- answer removed --
No I think looks are totally unimportant but I think to lust after a child that looks about 8 is unhealthy and unnatural
You don't see the hypocrisy it your statement?
What about a 50 year old man lusting after a 18 year old girl? Is that unhealthy / unnatural?
What about a 20 year old boy lusting after a 18 year old girl who looks only 14?
You don't see the hypocrisy it your statement?
What about a 50 year old man lusting after a 18 year old girl? Is that unhealthy / unnatural?
What about a 20 year old boy lusting after a 18 year old girl who looks only 14?
-- answer removed --
I cannot see that is is normal for someone to lust after a child who looks about 8. You may well think otherwise. Your examples are not relevant. Looking 14 is a bit different to looking 8.
Can you see it as normal for the examples I mention above?
I don't consider it normal to fancy another bloke - but there are plenty of gay men who do.
Can you see it as normal for the examples I mention above?
I don't consider it normal to fancy another bloke - but there are plenty of gay men who do.
Does anybody on this site remember a poster called Ruby?
You may remember she lived in the toy town world of Toynbee and she'd've said something along the lines of "this as a result of the maleocentric phallic demograph and the fault lies solely with Thatcher" or some other such b0lo0cks.
New Judge has succinctly summed up the problem (not for the first time) that this country has with the chav underclass who breed for no reason other than profit.
We need to overcome this problem, and I believe one way to overcome it is to take the children away and to give them to decent people, and by decent I mean not the scum underclass.
Kelin Mackenzie, in yesterday's Sun (and before anybody rips in to me for reading The Sun I was waiting to get my hair cut - hand wringers take note) he described a scum female who, at 17, was having her third child and stated "it is nobody's business how many children I have". Mackenzie, quite rightly, said it is the business of every taxpayer how many kids she has, because it is us mugs that pay. And as sure as eggs are eggs, her children will go on to have kids that they exprect decent people to pay for because they know no different.
They are scum. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
Anybody who tries to argue to the contrary is utterly delusional.
You may remember she lived in the toy town world of Toynbee and she'd've said something along the lines of "this as a result of the maleocentric phallic demograph and the fault lies solely with Thatcher" or some other such b0lo0cks.
New Judge has succinctly summed up the problem (not for the first time) that this country has with the chav underclass who breed for no reason other than profit.
We need to overcome this problem, and I believe one way to overcome it is to take the children away and to give them to decent people, and by decent I mean not the scum underclass.
Kelin Mackenzie, in yesterday's Sun (and before anybody rips in to me for reading The Sun I was waiting to get my hair cut - hand wringers take note) he described a scum female who, at 17, was having her third child and stated "it is nobody's business how many children I have". Mackenzie, quite rightly, said it is the business of every taxpayer how many kids she has, because it is us mugs that pay. And as sure as eggs are eggs, her children will go on to have kids that they exprect decent people to pay for because they know no different.
They are scum. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
Anybody who tries to argue to the contrary is utterly delusional.
