• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Social Services could not have foreseen Shannon Matthews abduction...

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Social Services could not have foreseen Shannon Matthews abduction...

    No, of course, however, surely 'monitoring the family for thirteen years' says something and the general instability of the mother should mean children are removed and benefits not given for yet more children.

    #2
    Originally posted by Boudica View Post
    No, of course, however, surely 'monitoring the family for thirteen years' says something and the general instability of the mother should mean children are removed and benefits not given for yet more children.
    lazy council scum + benefits for kids = more labour voters

    fortunately it looked like they were too feckless to bother voting this time around
    Coffee's for closers

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Boudica View Post
      No, of course, however, surely 'monitoring the family for thirteen years' says something and the general instability of the mother should mean children are removed and benefits not given for yet more children.
      FFS applying that criterea would see half the children on that estate in care.
      But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition. Pliny the younger

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Gibbon View Post
        FFS applying that criterea would see half the children on that estate in care.
        I wonder what the difference in cost is?

        Sometimes social workers were visiting her twice a day, now she is in prison (that costs about 50k per year), would it be cheaper and better for society to remove children sooner than later...

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Boudica View Post
          Sometimes social workers were visiting her twice a day, now she is in prison (that costs about 50k per year), would it be cheaper and better for society to remove children sooner than later...
          Well that's the big question really, is being raised by the state preferable to abysmal biological parenting? The prevailing wisdom seems to be that even terrible parents do a better job in most cases, which doesn't say much for the "safety net" does it.
          While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by doodab View Post
            Well that's the big question really, is being raised by the state preferable to abysmal biological parenting? The prevailing wisdom seems to be that even terrible parents do a better job in most cases, which doesn't say much for the "safety net" does it.

            that is probably true i just wish i didn't have to pay for it

            Comment


              #7
              wife found the local feckless benefit recipient's 4 year old wandering half a mile from school again today. Her mum hadn't turned up and the lass had decided to walk home rather than get her mum in trouble. Doesn't say much for the school, social services or the mother. Second time its happened but its not a problem she has 4 spare kids by different dads poor sods.

              Her two year old is frequently found in the road playing unsupervised.
              Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Spacecadet View Post
                lazy council scum + benefits for kids = more labour voters

                fortunately it looked like they were too feckless to bother voting this time around
                Actually, that's largely true in general. The idea that Labour's main voting demographic are the benefit scroungers doesn't really hold up when you consider that they are the demographic least likely to vote. Public sector workers on the other hand...

                Comment

                Working...
                X