asperity Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/csjxqk More money for the feckless Get yourself pregnant and the taxpayer will give you a ?190 reward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 a simple rational qualification would be - "the grant is only available on the provision of a current birth and marriage certificate"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted April 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 The problem is that the people who come up with these "initiatives" aren't rational Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Notice they're now giving vouchers to boys as young as 14 - for free condoms! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 The idea behind it is sound, but it is a fact the implemention is crap, they can spend the money on what they want not what it is there for why not give them vouchers instead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 It is "vouchers". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 The report I read said the Women were ro receive cash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Seem to be geared more towards 13 - 16 year old boys. Why are kids of 13 even thinking of having sex http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5468796/Condom-cards-for-13-year-olds-in-safe-sex-campaign.html Maybe some of them can pass the free condoms onto their mums and dads Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateoflymm Posted June 9, 2009 Report Share Posted June 9, 2009 Why are kids of 13 even thinking of having sex Because it is everywhere! I don't mean people are fornicating on the pavements, in shops etc. (well, they may be - in some quarters) but it's blatant on TV, in magazines and newspapers and it's flaunted in front of children. They think it's something they should be doing because everyone else is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Perhaps the kids take the lead from their parents - the best one I've heard lately about modern relationships is, "we were on a break" - meaning; they were fed up with each other, so broke up and resorted to other partners for a few weeks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzodog Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Across the road from our previous house were 5 households, 4 of which were occupied by single women (all divorced, I think) with children. 3 of these women chaged their boyfriends fairly regularly. Now I'm not saying they shouldn't have a life but I always wondered what it said to the children about relationships when the boyfriends "stayed over" frequently, then the relationship finished & the next boyfriend began to "stay over" frequently, then the relationship finished & the ....... ad infinitum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocky Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 its a fact there are 14 year olds having sex as sad as it is they are still children,its to discourage pregnancys to those who do...parents and schools should discourage primiscuity and encourage what choices they have in life when they havent got kids in tow from an early age...dont just throw condoms at them give them a reason not to cause unwanted pregnancys..its a fact of life your always going to get them....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 For some it is a "career" choice, with the paradox that those women who opt for education and employment are leaving having children until they are older. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 ..... which can prove more risky and expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 ..... which can prove more risky and expensive. Meaning what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 thought it was obvious?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 If it was obvious, I wouldn't be asking!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Pregnancies later in life can carry more risks to both mother and sprog - eg: Down's Syndrome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Thank you for the clarification. I understood that the modern trend is to have them in their 30's and so get the benefit of a career and then a family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Daily Mail: "A multi-million pound initiative to reduce teenage pregnancies more than doubled the number of girls conceiving. The Government-backed scheme tried to persuade teenage girls not to get pregnant by handing out condoms and teaching them about sex. But research funded by the Department of Health shows that young women who attended the programme, at a cost of ?2,500 each, were 'significantly' more likely to become pregnant than those on other youth programmes who were not given contraception and sex advice. A total of 16 per cent of those on the Young People's Development Programme conceived compared with just 6 per cent in other programmes. Experts said the scheme failed because it introduced girls 'at risk' of becoming pregnant to promiscuous girls they might not otherwise have met. Because of peer pressure, the more timid teenagers were more likely to have sex and become pregnant. The ?5.9million YPDP programme was also designed to slash cannabis use and drunkenness among teenagers, but made no difference whatsoever. Last night ministers pledged to drop the scheme after admitting it had failed. Around 40,000 teenage girls become pregnant every year in the UK, the highest level in western Europe. The failed YPDP, launched in 2004, was based on a similar scheme in New York claimed to have significantly reduced teenage pregnancies. However, attempts to replicate the work elsewhere in the U.S. did not lead to a fall in teenage pregnancies, casting doubt on the project as a whole. In England, 2,371 teenagers took part in the programme over three years. They were nominated by social workers, teachers or NHS staff who thought they were at risk of school exclusion, drug abuse and pregnancy" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Well after reading the article that in the North West and Warrington there is a major increase in HIV, maybe just maybe this might make the teens think. The main exposures for new HIV cases were heterosexual sex (4,446 individuals - 48per cent) and sex between men (382 individuals - 41 per cent). Forty-two percent of new cases were reported to be infected abroad and the majority were black Africans. No doubt with more immigrants coming in as well as natural progression this will only get worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Somebody obviously just got their A* in maths GCSE!! If 48% equates to 4,446 cases, how can 41% of the same thing be 382???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rifles Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Ask the author http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/6143/1/Major-increase-in-HIV-cases/Page1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 The figures are a total nonsense. If 4446 is 48% then the total must be 9262 therefore 382 is 4% which suggests the remaining 48% are druggies. However 31 (0.5%) died which suggest the total to be 6200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted August 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2009 You guys obviously don't understand scare statistics. The idea isn't to analyse them, you are only supposed to take them at face value and quake in your boots Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.