Skip to content or view screen version

Curfews, knee-length skirts and no cleavage will save the world as we know it

Thumper | 19.08.2009 18:04 | Anti-racism | Repression | Social Struggles | Liverpool

Single teen mums - the BNP hates you.

Don't you sometimes wonder what kind of lunacy goes on at BNP conferences? Not the bits where they're all falling out with each other or just standing around talking about the 'plight of the indigenous people of Britain', but the parts where they actually sit down and try to formulate policies. Not that the BNP does much of that but to keep up the pretence that it's a real political party, they have to have a go every now and then.

So where do these policies come from? I'm told the model is based on that of (shock, horror) the Labour Party. That is, someone at a branch will suggest a policy, the branch will vote on it and if it approves it, the policy goes through a number of similar stages until it reaches conference level. There, it is spoken to - that is, presented to conference - amendments are made or rejected, it's voted on and, if approved, it becomes party policy.

The BNP varies that slightly, in that only voting members (the BNP elite) can attend the conference and the Advisory Council will chop the number of proposals down from two per region to a single proposal to go on to the conference.

Fair enough. But what are the policies that are presented to the BNP conference? We're never told because, unlike the Labour/Conservative/Lib-Dem and Green conferences, the BNP's is a closed event. And why would that be? Because they talk a load of shite, frankly.

Take a look at the conference proposals from the London region of the party. The first is to demand a fixed-term Parliament. Okay, I agree with that and I'm sure a lot of other people will, too. The third regards nuclear fusion but gets off to a bad start by stating 'I believe that global warming is real...' Well, Nick Griffin doesn't, so that one will almost certainly fall flat on its arse. The second of these proposals is a classic though:

'Teenage mothers - the problem and the solution

Any amount of sexual health education is not going to reduce Britain’s high teen pregnancy rates, whilst the ‘rewards’ for becoming an unmarried teen mother remain so [relatively] attractive. The cycle of girls getting pregnant by man A, then being allocated a council flat & welfare benefits, then getting pregnant by man B, and being allocated a bigger council flat & more benefits, then getting pregnant by man C, and being allocated a council house & yet more benefits has got to STOP. It leads to all sorts of social problems, resulting from mothers who are not mature enough to parent effectively, and end up raising dysfunctional families in poverty. It also costs tax payers a lot of money, to fund these ‘alternative’ lifestyles.

Furthermore, people who have been on housing waiting lists for several years, and who conduct themselves in a responsible manner, find themselves being ‘queue-jumped’ by these feckless members of society.

So, I suggest that there be no council flats and no welfare benefits available to unmarried mothers under the age of 21. Instead they will be placed in ‘mother & baby homes’. Here they will receive academic education as well as parenting classes, plus courses covering all aspects of their social development. The homes will be run by ‘matron’ type figures. The homes should not be ‘institution’ like, but at the same time there will be rules which must be adhered to; such as a curfew of approx 9pm, a dress code which states skirts must come to at least the knees & no cleavage to be on show. Failure to comply with the homes’ rules will result in the mother being sent to prison, and the baby being taken in to care.

This is not a short-term remedy, but a long-term solution. Eventually I believe the implementation of this policy will result in a vast decrease in teenage girls becoming pregnant – as the consequences will be positively unattractive. Of course, teenage pregnancies will never be completely eradicated, and the homes will allow for the girls who do still become teen mothers to learn how to be good parents, whilst not being fast-tracked to the top of the housing queue.

If an 18-20 year old pregnant woman is married [marriage should not be an option available to 16/17 year olds, even with parental consent] and her husband has a job, then she will be exempt from going in to one of the homes.'

The rest of the article is here
 http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2009/08/curfews-knee-length-skirts-and-no.html

Thumper

Comments

Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments

mothers

19.08.2009 22:11

i agree with the observations and analysis, but not the solutions

There are plenty of women popping out 5 or 6 kids around the estate i live on. Just don't seem to care how they are going to look after them - "its the governments problem, init!"

How many times have i heard: "I need more money for my kids"
- Yes, they need more money. And you are in charge of your own life so basically it is your fault.
- Stop popping kids out if you can't afford to look after them
- And while you are at it, stop smoking and drinking booze and spend the money on your kids welfare instead.

Why should a responsible set of parents limit themselves to 2 kids because they know they can't afford to look after any more, and then have to pay taxes for an unemployed woman to have 6 kids from 6 different fathers?

A solution is needed. I'm pretty much for leaving them to deal with their own responsibilities.

arp arp


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Hate

21.08.2009 02:19

Nobody hates single mothers but everyone dislikes paying for them and their propensity to open their legs without thinking how they'll provide for the children produced as a consequence.

Get rid of the benefits and not so many legs will be opened.

Let's stop some women acting as state financed baby makers. The quality of their offspring isn't an asset to the nation.


Pete


Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments