£200 bribe to bring your children up properly

[_angel_]

look angel are you telling me that in order to get this money given that it is linked to 'brining up your child' that the socail services will not be involved in at least some aspects of 'delivery'

are you saying that there will not be no 'interdepartmental sharing of information between different governemnt agnecies at a local an national level?

are you really suggesting that in order to get this money it will not be 'means tested' in relation to other benefits

if you have read the governemnt document on how this scheme is going to implemented and it does not allude to any of these points whatsoever that i have made them ok i will say i am wrong but if you are going by the story in the newspapers them like i said to many people are not asking enough questions or thinking about the reality of such polices


are you saying that this scheme has not created an impression that the poor are getting extra benefits at a time everyone is begining to feeel the crunch - look at andys post - any sympathy that did exsist towards these families is being eroded by the incompetence of fabians like brown and policies such as these

i am not suggesting kids will be taken into care for not eating greens you are taking me far to literally - the idea anyone would be taken into care for not eating greens is silly.

what i am suggesting this whole heres £200 pound with no strings attached arent nulabour nice is complete and utter nonsense its propaganda at most and ignorance at least

is this £200 pound a one off payment or a yearly payment? - can you apply for it take the money and not bother getting your kid vacinated while ignoring any recomendations made by the agencies involved without being 'sanctioned' and them claim it again ?what does the state get out of it ? who benefits from this scheme? what does 'hard to reach' mean? etc

If the governemt were really interested in the welfare of children they would ban all the junk food adverts aimed at kids and pass laws restiring those articicial things and high levels of sugar and salt in kids foods - but they dont do they and that is one of the reasons we have obese kids isnt it

i am not giving you the brasic treatment angel all i am saying is and asking people to do is maybe look at this in a wider context of the governments record with regards to the youth and anti poverty stragies as a whole and you will see it has got more holes than a string vest

i have to say i think there is some sort of left wing wish forfillment going on on these boards whereby people wnat some positive change from a labour government so much that when a scheme like this comes along the finer points of it are ignored and critcism of it ignored or interpreted as pro tory

errr I'm not trying to say I blindly support this just actually find out some more about it. Yes I'm suspicious of bossy nu labour wanting to control every aspect of parents lives that *they* have decided are feckless or 'at risk'.

I'm a single parent on a council estate with kids with disabilities and I know what it's like having these agencies breathing down your neck.

Some people genuinely mean to help in a nice way, some of them are downright interfering busybodies.

 

[brasicritique]

It's a joke you fuckin idiot, talk about sense of humour faliure

Well I'd rather you didn't quote me out of context, it's a bit of a silly thing to do tbh.

yeah your right my humor did fail me a bit there i was orginally commenting on a point you brought to the discussion which i thought could be used to enhance the discussion . Sorry that you dont like getting qouted out of context and that you find it a bit of a silly thing to do are you some sort of nulabour spin enforcer keeping 'urban' on message talk about sense of humour faliure

And why can't you seperate them?

becasue the schem is aimed at kids via parents the state is not giving the child the money is it hence the use of the phase 'hard to reach FAMILIES ' and not 'hard to reach children'

So you're a parent on benefits then? Cos that's the target audience, not those that can't be arsed to vote.

i would say if you look at the relationship between voter turnout in terms of those on benefits that it is very very low maybe you can prove me wrong but hey seeing as how your flaming is incapable of getting beyond 'fucking idot ' and as you like other people to do your thinking for you....

 

[brasicritique]

errr I'm not trying to say I blindly support this just actually find out some more about it. Yes I'm suspicious of bossy nu labour wanting to control every aspect of parents lives that *they* have decided are feckless or 'at risk'.

I'm a single parent on a council estate with kids with disabilities and I know what it's like having these agencies breathing down your neck.

Some people genuinely mean to help in a nice way, some of them are downright interfering busybodies.

i did not mean to be seem to be accusing you of blindly supporting this idea so i hope you dont take what i said in context of with you i was just sticking my oar in as usual was all

i am with a lot of other posters especially the ones who cant open there mouths without the words 'Marx said' its no suprise that when issues like these come up on the boards all the so called self appointed 'urban intellectual heavy weigth radical leaders' are visble by there absence