Like It Is

Police tell mother: Don’t scold daughter ‘because of Maddy’ | the Daily Mail.

Not that this is a childfree story, but it does take fuckwittery moronic behaviour to a whole new level of absurdity.

When mother Ruth Ball scolded her 4 year old daughter Leigha when she threw a tantrum for being refused sweeties, little did she know that some nosy parker was taking down her car licence number in order to report her to the police.

“Ms Ball was at a newsagent in Dunstable, Bedfordshire, when Leigha started screaming after being refused sweets. She swept her daughter out of the shop and put her in the car to calm down, standing a couple of feet away with her three-year-old son Jack.

A few minutes later she got into the car and drove the family home, thinking no more of it.”

Imagine her shock and outrage when a policeman appeared at her house the next day and told her off, telling her it was “inadvisable to shout at her daughter and shut her in the car after what happened to missing Madeleine.”

Because of what happened to Madeleine?! Now I am sorry that Madeleine was abducted and all, but hang on. Are we to believe that because of this girl being abducted, parents everywhere are to be castigated for disciplining their children who are behaving badly? I guess we now know why some children are so badly behaved.

Here is a mother trying to instill some discipline into a screaming child and what do we have? A policeman (who admittedly didn’t know why he was there anyway) telling the mother off for disciplining her child.

Meanwhile the child molesters and thieves must be laughing their heads off.

And I must be dreaming.

As for the member of the public that reported the mother? What a moron. Imagine having kids with the likes of these around. Shudder.

Technorati Tags: childfree

How about that then?

Not only can you claim benefits for your “real” kids – but you can also make up some imaginary kiddies and hey presto, you’ve made a fortune. It seems imaginary kids appear to have uses. Of course, you could get caught. Like these two thieves did.

Couple pretend to have 16 children to claim £125,000 in benefits

“ A couple claimed more than £125,000 in benefit payments after inventing 16 children, a court heard. Heavy gambler David Wilshaw, 57, and his alcoholic partner Nancy Stevenson, 58, launched their four- year assault on the system in 2003 before they were finally trapped by their greed.”

As I read this story several questions came to mind… such as:

• Why didn’t social services ask to see any proof of the children? No-one even checked. Nice to know where your tax money is going isn’t it?
• These two were a gambler and a drunk. Wilshaw was losing over £600 a week in betting shops. Partner was downing the brandy like there was no tomorrow. Why are these people even parents? Just because they can?
• They already received income support (that’s social assistance) of £113 a week. Of course, Wilshire was unemployed. Why work when you can rob the state?
• Completely shameless, Wilshaw claimed he performed a public duty by exposing the loop hole
• I wonder how many fine examples of parents are cheating the system with their imaginary kids? It would be a real shame if genuine claimants got shafted because of scams like this.

Original article from the Daily Mail by Christian Gysin.

Props to mercurior for yet another interesting link.

Technorati Tags: inventing 16 children

And, bringing up the rear, scraping the bottom of the barrel - the Media. In this case the Daily Telegraph. The UK’s Daily Telegraph headlines are rather misleading, but who cares when it sells papers? I guess we can tell where they’re coming from:

Humiliation of BP Chief over gay affair

There has been much made over Lord Browne’s resignation. Most broadsheet headlines both in the UK and in Canada imply that he resigned because he had a gay lover or his “gay affair”. Why? because they know that as much as we claim to “tolerate” gay relationships, many really only pay lip service. Otherwise, why is it still fodder for selling papers? Think, if this was a woman would the headlines have been quite as enticing? I wonder.

In fact, what really nailed Lord Browne wasn’t the fact he had a gay boyfriend – a relationship that had lasted over four years, until the boyfriend (Gawd, he’s Canadian!) apparently began making moves tantamount to blackmail. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: Lord Browne

Or, It Da Innanet Innit, What Made Me Do It! Wasn’t me, Mam!

I have to say when I read Police Arrest MySpace girl for party disaster, at first I thought – Just another MySpace story. Then I read on and couldn’t believe what I was reading. The gist of it is that Rachel Bell, who is 17, hosted a “let’s trash my house” party, inviting people to her parent’s house through her MySpace site. The resulting damage is hovering around £20,000. It also resulted in the police, coming to the house, trying to contain the disturbance. And criminal damage. Rachel’s lame attempt at trying to blame hackers for doctoring her site is almost amusing. Almost.

Actually, she blames her school friends for taking over her site to tempt those interested in a night of sex and drink at “Rachel’s place”. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: MySpace

Hurrah! Common sense has prevailed! All the papers are predictably full of the news, because, well it is headline news and a landmark decision.

Here’s my interpretation:

Waaah! Waaaah!!! I can’t get my baby!! I want my OWN baby! And he, Mr Johnson is a BAD MEAN MAN, for not letting me have my OWN WAY. He won’t let me have what I want! No, stupid, of course I don’t want to adopt. How DARE he exercise his right to be or not to be a father?!? What does he mean he wants to choose when or if he wants to become a parent? I want to be a MOTHER!! A baby is my RIGHT. Stuff his rights! I want him to change his mind. I’ve asked him to change his mind… but he just won’t do it. He said he wanted babies back then and now he doesn’t. He just changed his mind! And now I can’t have a baby. It’s not right.”

Here’s what Natalie Evans said: Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: Natalie Evans

My earlier article titled Fertility Treatment To Be Rationed touched on the changes the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) wants to make to IVF. I mentioned that some quarters are none to pleased at the changes. They see it as taking away their choice.

To summarise, the HFEA is proposing to limit the number of embryos a woman can have implanted to reduce the risks to the mother and, more importantly, the risk to the children. The regulator in particular wants to cut down the unacceptably high number of IVF-assisted multiple births, that occur because of assisted conception.

The more I read about fertility treatments – or rather the quest for them, the harder I find it to understand why women will go to these lengths to have a baby. It can’t possibly be because they are so desperate to bring another worker bee into the world to support them in their old age, or to keep the economy moving or even to keep the human race in existence. Can it? Even though these are the reasons (sorry, bingoes) routinely trotted out for why childfree women have no business being so, and should be pursuing IVF if it’s even remotely possible. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: IVF, multiple births, childfree

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has announced new restrictions on what form of treatment infertile couples can receive and the types of procedures that doctors are allowed to perform to help women have babies. The Observer article of April 1 states:

“The HFEA will unveil a series of measures based on an approach called ’single embryo transfer’ under which women normally receive only one embryo, except for a minority - including older women - whose medical condition means they need two embryos to stand a realistic chance of conceiving.”

The regulator wants to cut down on the unacceptably high number of IVF-assisted multiple births that are a result of women or their doctors choosing how many embryos to implant. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: multiple births

Or, welcome to snobbery, Stepford Wives style. This unbelievable piece of tripe that passes for “journalism” is so dismaying that it’s almost funny. Almost.

Called What is an ideal husband these days? it appears in The Observer Comment section on Sunday 11 March.

My first impression was that the writer Cristina Odone was being humorous, and I looked for the punch line. Alas, there was no punch-line. It looks like she’s deadly serious.

She begins with reminiscing over the fact that her mother wanted her to marry a doctor. Because of the prestige, good salary, gratitude and deference doctors engendered.

Particularly the good solid income, just right for securely supporting a wife and children she might spawn. She then says that the recent reality of doctors being amongst the unemployed has rather upset the apple-cart somewhat. Doctors are no longer a safe bet – certainly not for the guaranteed income. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: Stepford Wives, wife

I think if someone suffers from manic depression they should not be having children in their care. Maybe they shouldn’t even parent in the first place. Perhaps there really does need to be some kind of psychiatric evaluation for prospective parents, to see how how far people can be pushed before they go over the edge and kill their kids.

Of course nobody ever sees it coming, because children are always believed to be safe with their parents. There seems to be a long litany of stories to prove that isn’t necessarily the case. But imagine going out on the town and coming back to find your children are no more… at the hands of their other parent.

And the motive for murdering the children? Perry Samuel thought his partner might be having – and hiding – an affair. Read the rest of this entry »