One that is a bit stronger than the ones they are supposed to be taking now?
2006-09-10 06:51:23 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Sociology
The new school year is already a week old and where I live the children still aren't at school.
2006-09-10 06:59:55 · update #1
Go live on an estate for a few years, forget you asked this question, wisen up, and ask another question when your a little less ignorant...
... Society creates opportunities for people, and we are all a result of the society we live in, with people who have your attitude towards life, no wonder our civilization is going down the pan.
There are no council estate mums, only many individuals who need to survive, and its not a matter of how many children you have, but how well you look after them....
... Like I said, come back when your a little more aware.
2006-09-10 06:56:10 · answer #1 · answered by true_strike 2 · 6⤊ 6⤋
The demographic situation is this. Over the country as a whole the number of people having children is dropping. Numbers are increasing in certain sections of our community, but on the whole the trend is downward. Numbers of children coming through schools show this. Where I live teachers are being laid off or being made redundant or retiring teachers are not being replaced due to falling numbers. A school with a Yr R intake of 45 now only has an intake of 20. The school I did my final TP at had a school roll of 340 children. It has now just over 200 and is projected to become one form entry in the next 2 -3 years. And this is in an inner city underprivileged area. The children of today are the tax payers of the future. Their taxes will be paying for our pensions. The fewer there are, the less money generated by taxation, the poorer our pensions will be. Do your homework next time and stop opening your mouth to hear your stomach rumble.
2006-09-10 07:15:14 · answer #2 · answered by keefer 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why is it that Mums who live on a Council Estate in the UK are classed as baby poppers. I hasten to add that I do not live on a council estate but I hate it when people assume that all children come from mothers who live in houses provided by the Council. Your thinking is so wrong, who the hell do you think you are asking a question like this. This is question is a form of racism and should be deleted. If you can't ask decent questions then don't bother asking them at all.
2006-09-12 23:16:35 · answer #3 · answered by [deleted] 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not just council estate girls who get pregnant you know. What is wrong with council estates.
I live in my own home and chose it to be an ex council house, why? because we loved it, it didn't matter where it was, the houses on so called private estates (where girls & boys from council estates now live) were poky little houses.
My nephew was bought up on a council estate, now he lives in Richmond on a posh private estate. What does that make him.
People are people wherever they come from.
Leave council estates alone.
2006-09-10 07:36:14 · answer #4 · answered by Jayne 2 (LMHJJ) 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm...the social exclusion question. Seems you are not getting the support you yearn for. You missed out the act of daddy, who by now is far away.
But what about the children who have (as you succinctly put) 'popped out'? The present government is already taking on to the 'theory of probability', brought to it by the actions of (of all people) the New Zealand government taskforce. They are 'labelling' foetuses as 'potential young offenders'...this is a serious attempt to 'reduce' offending by targeting preventive services at children early on...and you can't get more earlier than still in the womb. The thinking is that 'enough' is known about the traits of people who go on to commit serious crime to to identify them before they are born. They suggest new mothers are to be surveyed in hospital, and children 'identified' as at risk should go onto a database where they would be singled out for 'extra intervention' before they get into trouble. It begs the question whether such technology can be used as an accurate measure.
Of course, it is in use here and now - and is advanced.
As drum_n_bass asks...would mothers take such a drug - the government (if of course that was discussed) may think not, hence the Orwellian method, but labelling a child, be it as 'antisocial' or as 'liable to truant' will truly be damaging to their self image and self-esteem...which in the long run may become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
2006-09-10 07:26:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Birth Control Pills
2006-09-10 06:56:26 · answer #6 · answered by skyeblue 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
YOUNG MUMS: MYTHS AND FACTS
------------------------------------------------
Myth:"There is an epidemic of teenage pregnancy in the UK today."
Fact: Despite media headlines, overall teenage pregnancies have fallen nationally by 9.4% since 1999.
Myth: "Young people are just too promiscuous."
Fact: In 2000, almost three-quarters of young women waited until they were 16 or over to have sex.
Myth: "Young people today are careless about contraception."
Fact: In a recent study, only 7% of young men and 10% of young women aged 16-19 said they had used no form of contraception the first time they had sex. The proportion of young people not using any form of contraception has decreased substantially in recent years.
Myth: "In my day, girls were much less likely to get pregnant."
Fact: In 1970, young women aged 15 to 19 in England and Wales were almost twice as likely to become mums as they are today.
Myth: "They only do it to get a council house."
Fact: Seven out of ten 15 and 16 year old mothers, and around half of 17 and 18-year-olds stay at home. In fact, most young mums have little knowledge of housing policy before getting pregnant - and what they do know often turns out to be wrong.
Myth: "They only do it to get benefits."
Fact: Pregnant young women under 16 are not entitled to any benefits; 16-18 year-olds get between £33.50 and £44.05 a week. When their baby is born, they get between £102.01 and £112.56 per week. This has to pay for equipment like cots and prams, nappies and clothes, as well as food, bills, and any extra costs like childcare.
However, as with housing, most young mums have little knowledge of social security policy before getting pregnant.
Myth: "They can't look after their kids."
Fact: Evidence suggests that young parents take the responsibilities of parenthood very seriously: the needs of their children are always high on the agenda. Several studies show young mums cope just as well as older women in similar circumstances.
Myth: "Young mums are all poor and have no education."
Fact: This one is a little closer to the truth. Young women from unskilled manual backgrounds are twice as likely to become teenage mothers as those from professional backgrounds. Young women with lower educational achievement - and low self-esteem - are also significantly more likely to become teenage mums. Unfortunately, this trend continues after young mums have their children.
2006-09-10 07:18:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm currently working on a council estate and I've seen it all ! The single mums who can dress their kids in designer gear, the Incapacity Benefit scroungers who cant work but can spend all day at their allotment digging ! The brand new people carriers for their kids to be ran to school in,Sky T.V. £350 dogs, and NO jobs !
Great innit !
2006-09-10 07:01:00 · answer #8 · answered by dontdoweekends 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is not only Council Estates, anyway it takes two to tango.
2006-09-10 07:01:20 · answer #9 · answered by rogerglyn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ASA held between the knees, unfortunately it tends to drop when inebriation sets in. Same as rich ones, but they can afford to go for a private (D)ust and
(C)lean if things get tacky.
2006-09-10 07:03:54 · answer #10 · answered by kellring 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋