They call this justice?

Story link here, linked to This Is Bristol because I refuse to link to The Sun.

A frightened Bristol mum who refused to give evidence against her partner was locked up while he was released.

Tina Connors is so scared of her partner that she was prepared to go to jail instead of giving evidence against him – and spent three hours in the cells for failing to testify.

Her partner Jerry faced trial for ramming her car as she fled to Bristol from him with their three children, threatening her, and later smashing up the car before torching it.

Yes friends, you read that correctly. This woman has already had to deal with the father of her children attempting to force her off the road while the children were in the car before he smashed up and set fire to the car and because she was too scared of him to testify in court, SHE was locked up while HE got to walk free from court. Because of course, it’s much better for the children to see Daddy let off with trying to kill them and Mummy locked up for being a victim. There’s a beautiful victim-blaming quote from the Judge (Judge Mark Horton)

You were more frightened of your husband than this court, which could send you to prison for two years. That tells me how frightened you were.

“If something now happens there’s only one person you can blame. The legal system of this country has tried to help you and you have spurned it.

FYI, the conviction rate for domestic violence last year was 6.4%. Not exactly inspiring for any woman who wants to live a life free from fear. This woman fought to protect her children, made a complaint to the police about her abusive, violent partner and followed it through only for her to be jailed because she should just get over being scared.

Advertisements

I blame the teenage mothers

Never a frown, is there Gordon Brown? Unless you’re frowning at teenage mothers that is.

(Thanks to Cath Elliott for the text from the speech.)

And I do think it’s time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken…

That’s right, Gord, it’s gone unspoken. Because nobody ever blamed teenage mothers before.

the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant,

She just “gets pregnant”? What, by herself? What, teenage mothers have some kind of parthenogenesis going on?

be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own.

Because why Gordon? Why can’t it be right? What are you so afraid the teenage mother will do?

And why all this talk of council flats anyway? Some teenage mothers rent privately, some live with their parents, some live with their partners (you didn’t say, Gordy, but are you talking about all teenage mums or just the wayward girls?) Surely you can’t be calling up that old trope “teenage mothers get themselves pregnant just to get a council flat” can you? To appeal to the Daily Mail reading contingent? No, can’t be that.

From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer

So, that’s all of them then? I mean, child benefit isn’t means tested but it comes from the taxpayer. And note the change from “mother” to “parent”. Is it parents, Gord? Or just mothers? Can you make yourself clearer please?

will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads,

“Will be placed” Gordon? That doesn’t sound very consensual to me, do these wayward girls young welfare queens teenage mothers teenage parents get a say in the matter?

These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads

Roof over their heads – but wouldn’t a council flat, you know, the same council flat you talked about earlier, wouldn’t that come with an added roof?

but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly.

They can’t be responsible without your help, Gordy? Without government help? Ah, here we come to the crux of the matter. Teenage mothers are all clearly irresponsible. After all, they couldn’t have chosen to have babies, at least, not for the Right Reasons. They couldn’t possibly be capable of bringing them up by themselves.

They need Golden Brown’s help via his network of borstals care homes to learn how to be Good Citizens and bring their babies up the NuLabour way. Maybe Claire Verity, Supernanny or Gina Ford can get them to tame the little tyrants and have them singing D:Ream to them to help them sleep through the night by two weeks.

ETA: when your policy is sounding suspiciously like BNP policy? It might be time for a rethink, Gordylocks.

Mothers who work have unhealthy, unfit children

Clicky clicky!

Back to this old argument again. A new study has discovered that children who have working mothers *shock horror* consume sweetened drinks between meals and even worse use their computers or watched television for at least two hours a day compared to the children of “stay at home” mothers who spend less than two hours on these activities. Wow! Who’d have thunk it, HOLD THE FRONT PAGES IT’S BREAKING NEWS. Kids like fizzy juice and tv.

This story has of course been picked up by the mainstream media and various talking heads have lamented the loss of the good old days when Dad would be the breadwinner and Mum wore an apron and had dinner ready for 5pm. How is this news?! And more to the point, when this country’s abysmal financial state has us with a budget deficit of 12% of GDP in the current financial year what more is expected of us because as we all know, as far as this Government are concerned we should all be working outside the home and spending money to fill the massive hole we’ve been dug into thanks to the credit crunch.

Of course another facet to this argument is that the report also asked about exercise versus sedentary activities. Could it be that years of media coverage of PEEDOS EVERYWHERE may well have resulted in parents being afraid to let their children have the freedom to play outside of the home without constant monitoring? No, of course not. It’s the Mothers’ fault for going to work. Bad Mothers.

You couldn’t make this shit up.

It’s only equality if the government can’t exploit it

When I was linked to this story on the Daily Fail yesterday, I assumed that it had been exaggerated because after all it was in the Daily Fail. Right..? Sadly not, as the same story was also published by the BBC:

…the case of two police officers told they had broken the law by caring for each other’s children.

Ofsted said the arrangement contravened the Childcare Act because it lasted for longer than two hours a day, and constituted receiving “a reward”.

It said the women would have to be registered as childminders.

Now let’s just clarify this here. Two women working in LAW ENFORCEMENT – where I’m fairly sure you have to be CRB-checked and be generally sensible people – have been told that babysitting for one another in their own homes so that they can go to work without being crippled by childcare costs is a REWARD and therefore contravenes the Childcare act.

Let’s just run that one again. A mutual agreement – which sees two young children cared for by someone who they are close to, who is both a parent of a similarly-aged child AND who is CRB-checked & trained to respond to emergency situations – is a reward and they have now been told to cease this arrangement unless they register as childminders and succumb to inspection by Ofsted.

I… I don’t even know where to start on this one so we’ll go for ye olde favourite, responsibility.

What has encouraged me over the last 24 hours has been the anger displayed by other mothers, fathers and grandparents responding to this. I have personally been long concerned that this Government does not trust parents to make decisions for their own children, that laws are enacted with scant consideration to those it covers. Ludicrous rules enforced in the name of “Health & Safety” have left our children incapable of assessing risk for themselves or – for the most part – able to play naturally without inhibition or worry about breaking the rules. But – and it is a big but – what gives Ofsted the right to intervene in a situation that is common practice the length and breadth of the nation? Ironically, it turns out that if Mother A had taken Child A to Mother B’s house to care for the children there (and vice versa) it would have been a non sequitur because the role of the carer changes from childminder to childcarer

Of course, if those women had accepted their subservient roles and stayed at home with their children instead of working then there would be no issue. I mean, how very dare they desire to leave their children to go out to the workplace? The government provides tax credits to contribute towards the costs of childcare, isn’t that good enough for these Mothers? So I throw it open to you – do you think this action is fair and equitable? Or absolutely ridiculous?

I think I’ve made my feelings quite clear on the matter but just in case – Mr Brown, stop blaming the Mothers.