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

[Bunk]

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...

[vetran]

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.

[Boudica]

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

[doodab]

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.

[Boudica]

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...

[Gibbon]

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.

[Spacecadet]

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

[Boudica]

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.