At Brighton I was only able to blog pretty sporadically due to real time commitments. But I was pretty horrified to note in Brown's speech yesterday a reference to what sounded like souped-up workhouses for teenage mums.
The very idea of "correcting" the behaviour of youbg mothers by putting them into some sort of supervised housing is worrying and nastily authoritarian, too. Punishing girls for getting pregnant is the kind of mentality which in Ireland saw them banged up with nuns and lectured on their immoral behaviour. Still, at least Gordon isn't proposing to give the babies away.
But it's an issue which needs addressing with more than punitive measures.
Why do so many girls get pregnant in an age when it's never been so easy to get contraception? When sex is taught in schools. When sexual acts I never knew existed at a similar age are advertised and discussed in glossy mags read by 12-year-olds. Yes, it needs looking at . But these "houses of correction" seemingly dreamt up on the back of a fag packet are not the answer,
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
MAGDALEN LAUNDRIES REVISITED........
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
If its the Foyer on the French model, which is a halfway house between staying at home and independence, then I wouldn't be concerned. Support and assistance is needed, after all.
Its a question of the detail. I don't actually think that a council or HA tenancy on a sink estate without support is much good either and that's what tends to happen now
I'm sorry, but this is the kind of stupid thinking that enrages me about the Labour left - this is about targeted, rigorous interventions with lots of different help to tackle the problems these kids are likely to suffer: it is exactly what social democracy should be about - caring, secure communities in which we do everything in our power to tackle the root causes of lifelong disadvantage. I'm truly surprised any socialist would oppose this. It's not punishment, it's help. To give an example, inner-city mothers given cloth carriers for their babies had 40%higher rates of secure attachment to their babies as those without - that's the kind of targeted intervention we'll be able to do here.
Unfortunately Brown's speech included this sweeping statement :
From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That’s better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run.
Does this mean that the mother who stays in her own family home will be refused income support? How long are these girls to be locked up? What about the fathers?
If they are receiving support from the taxpayer, then they won't be living at home.
I haven't changed my view. This is a good idea.
Post a Comment