I don't see why the emphasis is being put on unborn children. The whole article is about identifying families with serious social problems sooner. We should be trying to help these people anyway, whether they are planning on having or children or not. Claiming to tackle "problem children" rather than all families with such problems will only drive away people who would otherwise be ardent supporters of social welfare.Families with drug and alcohol problems were being identified too late, said Mr Blair.
What's wrong with 'on the spot fines'?
I thought that was New Labour's answer to everything!!
The trouble is that Blair has said we need to intervene but he hasn't said how.
I don't agree with those who say that predicting who is likely to be a future problem is 'genetic determinism' - I'm sure it can be predicted from the background the child is born into.
And where I suspect the answer lies. It's the social conditions that such people live in that is the major problem and it's those conditions that need to be tackled.
Mother at 15 > Grandmother at 30 > Great-Grandmother at 45... I'm sure this cycle occurs all over the place in poverty stricken areas.
.
Problem is that many parents that do enroll on parenting classes tend to be the ones that don't need it the most.
Compulsory sterilisation should be an option in some cases (bit controversial)
I'm sure it was a Dogbert quote "There should be more tests to being a parent than just the practical"Originally Posted by median
Problem is that many parents that do enroll on parenting classes tend to be the ones that don't need it the most.
Compulsory sterilisation should be an option in some cases (bit controversial)
Call me a cynical brute if you like, but I can find no clear, testable, assertion of fact or of moral or political principle in anything that Blair says in the interview. He implies a great deal, but evidences nothing.
Hmm, must be a politician. :-\
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks