>>161729

Not really broken.

A child has a better chance of surviving birth if the mother is younger. 16-20 is probably the best time to give birth.

We have laws here in Britain that try to ensure that if their is a divorce the welfare of the children is given the highest priority. This isn't the case in other countries.

Also many single mothers do a fine job of bringing up children on their own.

We have child tax credits and working tax credits to help those on a low wage. Single working mothers could also apply for help with paying their rent and council tax.

Exasperated England.

I'm not meaning to knock single mothers, but it's not ideal, and to argue otherwise is just contrary; the father can be a hugely important role model to a child, as well as alleviating dependence on the state. No, not all single mothers are dependent on the state, but there is little doubt that having a parent in the house is better for young children than going to nursery five days a week, so that the parent can work.
Teenage mothers are an irrelevance; there's nothing inherently wrong with being young.
The divorce rate is unhelpful, not only for the same reasons as single parenthood, but because that sort of upheaval is simply not much fun, especially when a child is then expected to treat mummy's boyfriend as a father, and to love him.

>>161731
The 'child's best interest' thing is interesting, because a lot of the time, people act in an absolutely reprehensible fashion towards the other parent, because they know that they can provide better for the child if a break-up occurs. Of course, on paper, 'child's best interest' looks great, but it can be exploited most unpleasantly. Unless there is alcoholism/domestic unpleasantness/similar, whoever walks away should be entitled to 50% of the time at most, irrespective of how rich they are.

Nobody else slightly irritated that if I were to have a baby with my girlfriend, the cuntrag Mail considers it "shameful" because we're not married?

>>161743
I would be irritated if I were surprised, but this is the mail. You're hardly likely to find articles on 'where we stand in the league of fabulous' listing our GDP per capita, % of children enrolled in primary education and literacy rates, are you?

Also, can someone please explain why the age of new mothers thing is shameful?

>>161747

Because they're daring to go out and have a career first, instead of leaving it to the man!

>>161737

You do realise that some single mothers are not single by CHOICE, right? It would be nice if some legislation was brought in to force absent fathers to actually pay up.

Of course that would involve DNA databases and stuff, so it'll never happen.

Sigh.

>>161747
>please explain why
Because it's tenuously related and using a bigger font to fill the space would be too obvious.
Also, where it says "Teenage pregnancy rate" ? I'm not sure what 26 births in 1000 women has to do with that. Over what length of time, anyway? I'm confused.

>>161748
I refuse to believe this on the grounds that the 20th century happened.

>>161747
>Also, can someone please explain why the age of new mothers thing is shameful?
It is because older mothers are more likely to have complications during pregnancy and the children are more likely to have genetic disorders.

>>161749
>Of course that would involve DNA databases and stuff, so it'll never happen.
I bet Jeremy Kyle could sort it.

>>161750
Have a gander at this and you may find your answer

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297268/Britain-European-capital-broken-homes.html

>>161748
Because extensive medical research has shown an unequivocal link between older mothers and children coming out wrong at birth? This isn't about 30.7 year old mothers, it's about the ones who'll need care by the time their spawn want to fly the nest.

Girls having kids while they are young:

>BROKEN BRITAIN

Women waiting until they are older to have kids:

>BROKEN BRITAIN

Daily Mail:

>Full of shit

Illegitimate children? As in bastards? What is this, 1920?

>>161731

True. Younger parents are less likely to have children with genetic damage to the sprogs and there will be less complications. Nature expects us to have children young and leaving it to later only increases problems.

>>161755
>you may find your answer
Nope. Nothing in there that explains how the number of births in british women overall says anything specific about teenagers.
Don't be so flippant.

It's bizarre to have a 'teenage mothers' statistic and an 'older mothers' statistic in the same disapproving table. YOU MUST HAVE YOUR BABIES BETWEEN 20 AND 25 OR YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO THE COUNTRY.

>>161771
I'd assumed illegitimate children as in 'no-one knows who the father is'. But yes, I dare say you're right. It is the Mail, after all.

>>161774
>Don't be so flippant.
I wasn't. That is why I said you may find your answer.

Single parents should be looking after the bloody kids, not leaving them alone all the time to grow up to be foul teens and adults or latch-key kids.

This silly (often feminist) idea of having it "all" (career, kids, etc.) just doesn't work beacause we've only got so much time here on Earth. Reminds me of the dried up barren hags that try to use medical technology to force a baby out at 60 or so (after a lifetime of being a lonely money-grubbing bitch at work in a pale imitaiton of what she believes men are like) and then drop dead a short while later. Utterly selfish.

Have them while you are young and stay and look after them or else you've missed the boat and aren't suitable. No more half-arsed efforts raising new generations of people, please.

>>161783
>Single parents should be looking after the bloody kids, not leaving them alone all the time to grow up to be foul teens and adults or latch-key kids.
This. Even if I don't know what latch-key kids actually means.

I'm sure the government will pay 85% of nursery fees for single parents, I'm sure that costs far, far more than to pay them benefits.

>>161795
> latch-key kids
Kids who are given keys to the house so they can get in after school, as neither parent will be home when they return.

>>161783

>Single parents should be looking after the bloody kids, not leaving them alone all the time to grow up to be foul teens and adults or latch-key kids.

I agree with this. I was raised just by my mum, and I'm so glad she stayed at home for me as I was growing up. I was a 'latch key kid' at 15, but I don't think that counts, and by that time my mother had studied for an embarked on a career, but I was old enough.

But on the other side of the coin what my mother did was sit on benefits for a good long while, 'sponging' because she had a kid. The reality was she'd have made less money working, which is why she began to study when I was older, but I'm not sure what the Daily Mail would have said about it.

Either way, look at me now, I'm a young successful britfa.gs poster who is the epitome of style, class, and manners. I can't tell you for sure if I'd have been a better person or had a better childhood if my dad had been about, and I was too young to remember the divorce, but I suspect I would have. Not knocking my mum, but it's only natural. I'm lucky that I had a very good grandad to look up to as a role model and saw him all the time, but a household of traditional harmony, I'm sure, would have been better for me emotionally and financially. But saying all that, it's not like you can force parents to stay together. Divorces happen, that's that.

>>161804
>Divorces happen, that's that.

Spot on, and not entirely unrelated to the other thread we have on /b/ at the moment. As we grow up, we rightly think our parents are special. The truth is, they're just as shit at relationships as everyone else you know. All a person needs to grow up is be surrounded by some people who love them.

Teenage preggers-ness - Having kids earlier to save British companies paying maternity money and losing a possibly valuable worker for a prolonged period of time.
That's Great British economic thinking!

Children in single parent households - It's better this way than the other way. Would you like to see mulitple parents in single child households? No you wouldn't because it's DISGUSTING and PERVERTED
That's the Great British moral high ground!

Unemployed SIngle Mothers - The money they're sponging now will be replaced by their child's taxes.
That's Great British thinking for the future.

Divorce Rate - People say you're better off if you're divorced/single but is it true? Yeah, you might pay less in taxes but you're going to pay more in pubs, clubs and on taxis.
That's Great British propping up of the service industry.

Age Of New Mothers - It's the second best time to have them, innit? If you can't have them when you're 14 like the rest of the country, have them when your biological clock starts clicking like a Somalian.

Illegitimate Births - Erm, Great British way to get a cheap council house?

>Don't just sit there and complain,old people. Be the mentors that these young parents need.

>-47

>Stop all Benefits for single parents the only way for these people to learn.

>+218

>>161820

Oh, Daily Mail.

>>161807
Sort of. Wars happen, AIDs happens, Niсk Griffin happens, it doesn't mean to say that some constructive steps to counter these happenings wouldn't be well-advised.

>>161825

Does Gay Racist not filter to Gay Racist anymore?

>>161827
I thought it was only Gay Racists that filtered to Gay Racists?

>>161825

Well, yeah. You promote peace, give out free condoms, and ship people like Nick out of the county to make way for harder working immigrants, but if two people don't want to be together anymore, what can you do?

well worth a read
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/st_20100501_5904.php
its american so it's not as extreme here, and red vs blue is the otherway round

tl:dr
trend: start a family too early = you fail, and your kids fail

makes you proud to be british

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297979/Mother-makes-desperate-plea-help-control-Jekyll-Hyde-horror-year-old-son.html

>>162419

Bring back the death penalty, I say.

>>162419
Borstal amd the cane please.

He'll gete away with whatever he wants because "He's just a boy" And he knows it.

>>162419

Horrid boob to belly ratio on the mother, shame.

>>162425

Great idea. Make him an even worse and more dangerous adult!

Bring back the death penalty, but only for people who read the Daily Mail.

>>162427
Kids need discipline. Evidently there isn't enough in his life.

>>162427

The problem is, everyone's so different that net punishments such as 'reinstituting caning' would be beneficial for some whilst detrimental to others, same with 'quiet time' and confiscating items, and this goes for pretty much everything.
Is it too much to hope that someone will try and find a way to ascertain what kind of punishments work best for those involved?
In some cases though, such as this one, individuals may find themselves beyond redemption, although since he's still got a good 5-10 years before he's fully set in his ways, he may not belong to that group of cunts.

>>161729
24 divorces for 10000 individuals per annum. Isn't that pretty good?

If you assume 50% of individuals are married(I heard the figure mentioned on some website/newspaper a while back, and it seems reasonable.) and if you also assume that the daily mail actually means divorces and not divorcees then you get this.

(48/5000)*100=0.96%

So a given married individual has less than a 1% chance per year of being divorced.

(0.9904)^25 = 0.79 => 79% likelihood that a individual remains married at the 25 year mark. That's hardly evidence of "Broken Britain".

Either,
1. Daily Mail prints bullshit statistics.
2. I fail at maths.
3. Britain isn't broken after all.

p.s. How old does a thread have to be before it's no longer socially acceptable to post?

>>165754
It's not really unacceptable unless you haven't covered new ground. Do you think you have?