Labour workhouses for single mums?
Discussion
ascayman said:
correct me if im wrong but wasnt this originally a BNP idea?
In essence, yep.It's a remarkable turnaround from the last decade of throwing money at them. Although, in essence, it's simply a statement akin to 'it didn't work giving them money and houses, so what we'll do is given them money and houses in a slightly different way'
Edited by Dunk76 on Wednesday 30th September 13:36
No idea if winky said it or not, but i for one thnk there is something in the idea.
Not just for single mums though, anyone should be able to go there and do 30-40 hrs a week in order to get everything they need to live (studio flat, food/bills, pocket money).
I would choose that option rather than being on long term benefits with nothing to do all day.
Not just for single mums though, anyone should be able to go there and do 30-40 hrs a week in order to get everything they need to live (studio flat, food/bills, pocket money).
I would choose that option rather than being on long term benefits with nothing to do all day.
ascayman said:
correct me if im wrong but wasnt this originally a BNP idea?
Yes.Googling found this
Their policy from the closed BNP conference said:
Teenage mothers – the problem and the solution
Any amount of sexual health education is not going to reduce Britain’s high teen pregnancy rates, whilst the ‘rewards’ for becoming an unmarried teen mother remain so [relatively] attractive. The cycle of girls getting pregnant by man A, then being allocated a council flat & welfare benefits, then getting pregnant by man B, and being allocated a bigger council flat & more benefits, then getting pregnant by man C, and being allocated a council house & yet more benefits has got to STOP. It leads to all sorts of social problems, resulting from mothers who are not mature enough to parent effectively, and end up raising dysfunctional families in poverty. It also costs tax payers a lot of money, to fund these ‘alternative’ lifestyles.
Furthermore, people who have been on housing waiting lists for several years, and who conduct themselves in a responsible manner, find themselves being ‘queue-jumped’ by these feckless members of society.
So, I suggest that there be no council flats and no welfare benefits available to unmarried mothers under the age of 21. Instead they will be placed in ‘mother & baby homes’. Here they will receive academic education as well as parenting classes, plus courses covering all aspects of their social development. The homes will be run by ‘matron’ type figures. The homes should not be ‘institution’ like, but at the same time there will be rules which must be adhered to; such as a curfew of approx 9pm, a dress code which states skirts must come to at least the knees & no cleavage to be on show. Failure to comply with the homes’ rules will result in the mother being sent to prison, and the baby being taken in to care.
This is not a short-term remedy, but a long-term solution. Eventually I believe the implementation of this policy will result in a vast decrease in teenage girls becoming pregnant – as the consequences will be positively unattractive. Of course, teenage pregnancies will never be completely eradicated, and the homes will allow for the girls who do still become teen mothers to learn how to be good parents, whilst not being fast-tracked to the top of the housing queue.
If an 18-20 year old pregnant woman is married [marriage should not be an option available to 16/17 year olds, even with parental consent] and her husband has a job, then she will be exempt from going in to one of the homes.
Any amount of sexual health education is not going to reduce Britain’s high teen pregnancy rates, whilst the ‘rewards’ for becoming an unmarried teen mother remain so [relatively] attractive. The cycle of girls getting pregnant by man A, then being allocated a council flat & welfare benefits, then getting pregnant by man B, and being allocated a bigger council flat & more benefits, then getting pregnant by man C, and being allocated a council house & yet more benefits has got to STOP. It leads to all sorts of social problems, resulting from mothers who are not mature enough to parent effectively, and end up raising dysfunctional families in poverty. It also costs tax payers a lot of money, to fund these ‘alternative’ lifestyles.
Furthermore, people who have been on housing waiting lists for several years, and who conduct themselves in a responsible manner, find themselves being ‘queue-jumped’ by these feckless members of society.
So, I suggest that there be no council flats and no welfare benefits available to unmarried mothers under the age of 21. Instead they will be placed in ‘mother & baby homes’. Here they will receive academic education as well as parenting classes, plus courses covering all aspects of their social development. The homes will be run by ‘matron’ type figures. The homes should not be ‘institution’ like, but at the same time there will be rules which must be adhered to; such as a curfew of approx 9pm, a dress code which states skirts must come to at least the knees & no cleavage to be on show. Failure to comply with the homes’ rules will result in the mother being sent to prison, and the baby being taken in to care.
This is not a short-term remedy, but a long-term solution. Eventually I believe the implementation of this policy will result in a vast decrease in teenage girls becoming pregnant – as the consequences will be positively unattractive. Of course, teenage pregnancies will never be completely eradicated, and the homes will allow for the girls who do still become teen mothers to learn how to be good parents, whilst not being fast-tracked to the top of the housing queue.
If an 18-20 year old pregnant woman is married [marriage should not be an option available to 16/17 year olds, even with parental consent] and her husband has a job, then she will be exempt from going in to one of the homes.
Dunk76 said:
ascayman said:
correct me if im wrong but wasnt this originally a BNP idea?
In essence, yep.It's a remarkable turnaround from the last decade of throwing money at them. Although, in essence, it's simply a statement akin to 'it didn't work giving them money and houses, so what we'll do is given them money and houses in a slightly different way'
Edited by Dunk76 on Wednesday 30th September 13:36
of course it wont work like it should for labour and is probably just another way to bloat further the public sector by having 264 on site workers for every single mum and child.
linky
NewsArse.com said:
Frantic bidding begins for Government’s new ’slag houses’
As the Government announced plans to house dozens of sexually promiscuous 16 year old girls in a shared home, the bidding to manage these properties began at a frantic pace.
The policy is seen as a way to stop teenagers having frantic monkey sex behind the supermarket before leaving the tax payer to pick up the bill.
A Government spokesperson said, “What better way to educate today’s gym clip mothers, than to make them live with lots of other gym-slip mothers. It was this chastity belts on prescription.”
“They will be much harder to target by randy teenage boys if they’re all living in exactly the same place, right?”
Opportunity
Entrepreneurial property developers have been quick to bid for the opportunity to run these new centres, and are offering many extra features for free.
“We would be delighted to run a facility such as this, what right-minded property investor with an active libido wouldn’t?” said 24 year old Shane Jones.
“We’ll happily install state of the art surveillance equipment so you can track the lithe young definitely-sexually-active females, wherever they are, 24/7.”
The role of house supervisor is likely to be one that requires a great deal of experience with promiscuous teenage girls.
“Wait, there’ll be supervisor jobs?” continued Mr Jones.
“You mean I could get paid to spend all day with these barely legal strumpets? How does one apply for such a role?”
Teenage boys around the country have reacted surprisingly well to the news.
“They’re going to put all the girls that absolutely definitely ‘do it’ in the same house?” asked 16 year old Kevin Watts.
“This is great! Think of all the time I’ll save not cycling round all the council estates looking for gash. Brilliant!”
As the Government announced plans to house dozens of sexually promiscuous 16 year old girls in a shared home, the bidding to manage these properties began at a frantic pace.
The policy is seen as a way to stop teenagers having frantic monkey sex behind the supermarket before leaving the tax payer to pick up the bill.
A Government spokesperson said, “What better way to educate today’s gym clip mothers, than to make them live with lots of other gym-slip mothers. It was this chastity belts on prescription.”
“They will be much harder to target by randy teenage boys if they’re all living in exactly the same place, right?”
Opportunity
Entrepreneurial property developers have been quick to bid for the opportunity to run these new centres, and are offering many extra features for free.
“We would be delighted to run a facility such as this, what right-minded property investor with an active libido wouldn’t?” said 24 year old Shane Jones.
“We’ll happily install state of the art surveillance equipment so you can track the lithe young definitely-sexually-active females, wherever they are, 24/7.”
The role of house supervisor is likely to be one that requires a great deal of experience with promiscuous teenage girls.
“Wait, there’ll be supervisor jobs?” continued Mr Jones.
“You mean I could get paid to spend all day with these barely legal strumpets? How does one apply for such a role?”
Teenage boys around the country have reacted surprisingly well to the news.
“They’re going to put all the girls that absolutely definitely ‘do it’ in the same house?” asked 16 year old Kevin Watts.
“This is great! Think of all the time I’ll save not cycling round all the council estates looking for gash. Brilliant!”
Hedders said:
No idea if winky said it or not, but i for one thnk there is something in the idea.
Not just for single mums though, anyone should be able to go there and do 30-40 hrs a week in order to get everything they need to live (studio flat, food/bills, pocket money).
I would choose that option rather than being on long term benefits with nothing to do all day.
They are called 'Foyers' and are not a new idea.Not just for single mums though, anyone should be able to go there and do 30-40 hrs a week in order to get everything they need to live (studio flat, food/bills, pocket money).
I would choose that option rather than being on long term benefits with nothing to do all day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/jun/18/hous...
whitechief said:
Hedders said:
No idea if winky said it or not, but i for one thnk there is something in the idea.
Not just for single mums though, anyone should be able to go there and do 30-40 hrs a week in order to get everything they need to live (studio flat, food/bills, pocket money).
I would choose that option rather than being on long term benefits with nothing to do all day.
They are called 'Foyers' and are not a new idea.Not just for single mums though, anyone should be able to go there and do 30-40 hrs a week in order to get everything they need to live (studio flat, food/bills, pocket money).
I would choose that option rather than being on long term benefits with nothing to do all day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/jun/18/hous...
whitechief said:
Hedders said:
No idea if winky said it or not, but i for one thnk there is something in the idea.
Not just for single mums though, anyone should be able to go there and do 30-40 hrs a week in order to get everything they need to live (studio flat, food/bills, pocket money).
I would choose that option rather than being on long term benefits with nothing to do all day.
They are called 'Foyers' and are not a new idea.Not just for single mums though, anyone should be able to go there and do 30-40 hrs a week in order to get everything they need to live (studio flat, food/bills, pocket money).
I would choose that option rather than being on long term benefits with nothing to do all day.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2001/jun/18/hous...
The manager at the time when questioned over one incident advised that the inmates are there because they have "issues".
f
k-wit central if you ask me & best avoided.Any such places should be run more along the lines of prison, whereby the freedoms & privileges as earned by those who contribute to society are just that - earned, they are not a birthright.
odyssey2200 said:
I thing the answer to the problem is self respect, restraint, accountbility and condoms!
If you fail all those criteria, fk your luck!
A modern society is not going to have children sleeping rough on the streets.If you fail all those criteria, f
k your luck!It is either modern 'workhouses' or free council flats there isn't really another option.
Single mums is a bit of a catch all phrase really. Mrs Devonshire was a "single mum" before we met, having been left by her partner of 14 years (on their daughters 5th birthday nonetheless,) and struggled to raise both J And B on her own. She received Government support in terms of Mortgage being paid, benefits etc (she had in the working week approximatley 4 Hours when she was Child-free) for the period she was a "single-mum".
As someone who had worked since leaving school, paid tax/nat insurance etc, contributed usefully to society, she is the sort of person the "system" was designed to cater for - whom through no fault of her Own was thrust into a world of st.
I think having been involved now personally in this sort of situation, there really should be a much stronger case to differentiate between those in genuine need and those which take the system for what they can ie the piss takers.
Fast forward a year - we now live together, both kids are full time in school/nursery and Mrs D is working towards opening her own Beauty Therapy business and once again start giving back to the system which supported her through tough times.
Not all "Single mums" take the piss - and its important this is recognised.
As someone who had worked since leaving school, paid tax/nat insurance etc, contributed usefully to society, she is the sort of person the "system" was designed to cater for - whom through no fault of her Own was thrust into a world of s
t.I think having been involved now personally in this sort of situation, there really should be a much stronger case to differentiate between those in genuine need and those which take the system for what they can ie the piss takers.
Fast forward a year - we now live together, both kids are full time in school/nursery and Mrs D is working towards opening her own Beauty Therapy business and once again start giving back to the system which supported her through tough times.
Not all "Single mums" take the piss - and its important this is recognised.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff