Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onwards

Karma said:
Would it help if I put it in crayon?

Possibly, depends on the way you word it though, keep it simple so simple sailors like me can actually understand what you really mean as quite clearly I am still having difficulty converting what you say in normal persons language
 

slim

War Hero
Re: Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onw

CRYSTALTIPS said:
Think its cuz people back then had morals and standards unlike today where no one gives a uk!!! Sad but there we go!!!

Also, people were more religious then and had strickter up bringings so anyone breaking these rules and they KNEW about it!!!!

Its just a shame that its only the minority now that has morals and standards and cares about their society.

While the majority are all chavs, knocking kids out as fast as they can as if its going out of fashion. And to gain more money off the welfare state!!!!
Personally I think if youve had 5 kids by the age of 20 you should be steralised cuz quite blatently the woman cant look after her body OR should i say Respect her body!!!!!!!!!


I don't thimk it was morals that stopped pregnancies in the 60s but the fact that girls were sh!t scared of the results of getting pregnent. No automatic house/flat or social security benefits then.
 

slim

War Hero
Karma
Sorry but you do not seem to have grasped the problem. Pensioners take 6.1% of GDP so where is the rest being spent?
Pensioners have a contract with this and previous governments to collect the pension from the fund that they paid into until they die. There is no similar contractualobligation to provide high levels of income to those who will not work (stand fast those who canot work). There is no contractual obligation to keep paying women to knock out sprogs who will in all probability continue the cycle. So these kids will not be contributing to the pot.
 
Re: Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onw

slim said:
I don't thimk it was morals that stopped pregnancies in the 60s but the fact that girls were sh!t scared of the results of getting pregnent. No automatic house/flat or social security benefits then.

Whilst I would agree there was a lot of pressure both for girls not to get up the spout, but also for boys not to do so either. On the other hand it was still seen as a meal ticket then, just the boy was 'obliged' to marry her, and then you got the council house and she got her hooks into his pay packet.
 

slim

War Hero
Re: Difference between teenage sex in the 60s and the 80 onw

Maxi_77 said:
slim said:
I don't thimk it was morals that stopped pregnancies in the 60s but the fact that girls were sh!t scared of the results of getting pregnent. No automatic house/flat or social security benefits then.

Whilst I would agree there was a lot of pressure both for girls not to get up the spout, but also for boys not to do so either. On the other hand it was still seen as a meal ticket then, just the boy was 'obliged' to marry her, and then you got the council house and she got her hooks into his pay packet.

Unfortunately where I lived council house waiting lists were long and pregnant teenagers did not jump to the top of the list. This meant living with parents or renting from the private sector (expensive). So though trrnagers wanted to bonk, the following few weeks could be an extremely worrying time (especially for the girl)
 
Up here in the sunny north being married with sprog still got you further up the list. There are still waiting lists today and certainly where I used to live the only stuff available at short notice tens to be in some of the distictly rougher areas, typically next door to 'drugs ar us', and where not pizza are delivered.

I agree about the panic that set in if she was 'late' happened to a mate of mine, turned out OK in the end, just as well as his father would have held the shotgun with his mother carrying the cartridges.
 

Karma

War Hero
slim said:
Karma
Sorry but you do not seem to have grasped the problem.

Ships Cat has already highlighted the figures which illustrate this, and I would suggest that I have grasped the problem and perhaps leapt a stage further by illustrating that it could be solved by taking a much broader view of public finance.

Pensioners take 6.1% of GDP so where is the rest being spent?

And it's increasing, that's where the problem lies. We have an ageing demographic, hence fewer paying into the public purse and greater numbers drawing on it. The increase in the pensionable population is pretty much unavoidable. Increasing the population paying into the public purse comes from three routes; increasing social fertility, increasing immigration or encouraging those who are currently net consumers of public funds to become net suppliers. This last segment is the one which contains the sub-segment which you started this thread by ranting about.

Pensioners have a contract with this and previous governments to collect the pension from the fund that they paid into until they die.

Whilsat I'd agree that there is a perceived contract, the practicalities are that our Tax and NI contributions are disbursed immediately, rather than being invested to create a fund. The reality is that no fund exists, we are dependent on a continuing income to actually pay the pension. I refer you to my previous paragraphs.

There is no similar contractualobligation to provide high levels of income to those who will not work (stand fast those who canot work).

Now I'd disagree with the point here. We have a welfare state, that means we have a perceived contract to support those who cannot support themselves. I'd agree that the state provided income should not be high, but the environment within which we live does provide. This expenditure comes from roughly the same pot that pensions, and health, and defence, and national security, and education etc all come from.

I've already made my position clear, several times. I think we pay too much into the welfare system, and just to be fully explicit, reducing welfare commitments would allow the available funds to be allocated elsewhere; education, defence, security etc.

There is no contractual obligation to keep paying women to knock out sprogs who will in all probability continue the cycle. So these kids will not be contributing to the pot.

I do think it would be worth investing in breaking that cycle, we don't do that particularly well at present though. I do believe that investing more in education would contribute to breaking the cycle.
 

slim

War Hero
Karma
I agree with you that we have a perceived contract to support those who cannot support themselves. What we do not have is a perceived contract to spport those who WILLnot help themselves. There are families in my area who do not work, but receive enough in benefits to run a car, take a foreign holiday every year, have Sky TV, and are never out of the local boozer.The welfare statewas not designed to support a lifestyle as good as this.

Education.
Many of my posts are on this subject. I am a beleiver in education for all, however how do you propose educating those who refuse to attend school, and those parents who actively encourage their children toskip lessons?
The British have a lot to learn from the Indian community when it comes to encouraging their offspring to strive for excellence.
 

Karma

War Hero
slim said:
What we do not have is a perceived contract to spport those who WILLnot help themselves.

The snag is identifying those who cannot and distinguishing them from those who will not.

however how do you propose educating those who refuse to attend school, and those parents who actively encourage their children toskip lessons?

Tricky one, and to an extent I would be more draconian than our politicians would be prepared to be.

The education systems needs root and branch overhaul, and that's not something for this thread. We need to look at what we teach, how we teach it, how we assess outcomes and how we resource and manage the education process.
 

CRYSTALTIPS

Lantern Swinger
Education.
The British have a lot to learn from the Indian community when it comes to encouraging their offspring to strive for excellence.[/quote]


That is a very fair point!!!!!!!

I have never ever seen an indian coming out of the doll office or more to the point a young indian lass pushing 5 prams with a fag hanging out of her mouth!!!!!!!!

At least they have dignity and strive to make themselves better!!!!!
 
slim said:
Karma
I agree with you that we have a perceived contract to support those who cannot support themselves. What we do not have is a perceived contract to spport those who WILLnot help themselves. There are families in my area who do not work, but receive enough in benefits to run a car, take a foreign holiday every year, have Sky TV, and are never out of the local boozer.The welfare statewas not designed to support a lifestyle as good as this.

Education.
Many of my posts are on this subject. I am a beleiver in education for all, however how do you propose educating those who refuse to attend school, and those parents who actively encourage their children toskip lessons?
The British have a lot to learn from the Indian community when it comes to encouraging their offspring to strive for excellence.

Certainly when I lived in your part of the world around Embrook there were no noticeable scroungers in our area, though there were always rumours about some of the Norreys residents, many of then in those days still had broad cockney accents.

As for education I fear we are still suffering from the affects of what has turned out to be an ill thought out ROSLA, left wing radicalisation of teachers in the 70s and an equally ill thopught out comprehensivisation of most schools. I fear one of the great problems is that subjects are taught because the benefit is passng an exam not that there is a real benefit in the learning. Equally most subjects are based on the concept that all will go on to academic further education which is inappropriate for many. We need a more flexible education system that not only teaches what kids need to know but also does not bore them to distraction with what they don't need to know, what does a kid who is going to be a manual worker need to know about calculus for example.
 
Top