Does anyone else see what is wrong with this?


Families Tsar Blames Mums For Broken Britain
Mothers from problem families should stop having children, says a government tsar.

news.sky.com/story/963120/families-tsar-...s-for-broken-britain

What about a father's role in this? I'm pretty pissed off about this tbh.

Does anyone else want to help me articulate why this is so sexist, backwards and just plain wrong?

I'm assuming the 'Families Tsar' received a memorandum on her desk this morning that said something along the lines of:

INTERVIEW 9:30 AM TODAY WITH TORYGRAPH.

MUST DEMONISE BENEFIT CLAIMANTS AS WE WANT TO MAKE MORE BENEFIT CUTS.

WE HAVEN'T DEMONISED SINGLE MOTHERS FOR QUITE A WHILE SO THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.

TRY TO MENTION DRUGS IF POSSIBLE.

AFTER THAT I NEED MY BROGUES POLISHING.

AND WOULD IT KILL YOU TO PUT THE KETTLE ON?

D.C.

/\


I believe WUB just got it in one lesley, unfortunately.

Agreed, how bloody dare this clown focus on one sex as the scapegoat of the day. In fact, how bloody dare this clown use a scapegoat at all!!! If anyone thinks "broken britain" is all the fault of parents then they really haven't been paying attention for the last 30 odd years have they....

These Eugenicists are bloody cowards aint they. Grow some balls you wankers and come out and say "We want to get rid of the useless eaters".

dubmeup wrote:
Without scapegoats, there is no blame

Seeing as David Cammeron is into this big society thing, shouldn't he be babysitting and reading to them or some shit like that?

I think WUB might be right

What about fathers though? Seriously, they are parents too. I don't see why mothers are singled out as being to blame. People are quick to point the finger at women, but nobody wants to even begin to address the issue of absent fathers. Do they have some special immunity when it comes to parental responsibility?

This is gonna sound bad but hear me out....

I agree to a point with what is being said - women should take responsibility for not getting pregnant by abusive, unreliable men who don't stick around to help them raise the children they both had a part in producing. We should think more of ourselves then to allow that to happen.

Accidents do happen and women and men do let each other down unexpectedly - but when you have 10+ different kids with different men who are not a part of their childrens lives in any meaningful way then there is a problem. When you have women who have had 10+ children taken into care and refuse to take responsibility for their own contraception then there is a problem. Not least for the children.

Men most definitely have a part to play in it all dont get me wrong - but women should and for the most part do claim responsibility for birth control and for raising their kids. this article is drawing attention to those who dont leaving those prone to do so an opening to generalise unfairly against mothers fullstop.

I remember louise casey well from years ago and from what I remember of her I doubt she wants to scapegoat women as is being made out in the press - I suspect like me she would rather empower them. There are a lot of amazing mums and dads out their struggling to raise families without support or raising huge families in a responsible and meaningful way.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote: As a father who had to fight through the courts to get parental responsiblity in the first place and has then been back more than once just to maintain a working parental relationship...........no fathers do not have anything special working for them.

Please Lesley, I can see why you're drawn to the fact that mums have been singled out here but there is a far bigger issue that lies behind the "broken britain" agenda. Don't let the sort of tactics employed by this government advisor twatess distract you from that.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote: Mothers will have custody of the children and be in receipt of the benefit in, maybe, 95% of 'broken homes'. They can demonise men at a later date for some other ulterior motive. It works out even better this way because it's divide and conquer. Always play one group off against another. At a later date someone will say something along the lines of "fathers are ducking their responsibilities and not playing a big enough part in their children's lives, according to ....". They're just full of shit. They'll do whatever they're told to do. If she got a memo on her desk tomorrow telling her to go out and say the complete opposite, she would, and she'd claim that had always been her position on the subject.

Tbh they are now demonising single mothers in much the same way they have demonised disabled people. I can't remember where I read it now, but hate crime (although I don't like that expression) against disabled people has risen since the ConDems came into power. People have been wondering if this rise in violence towards disabled people is because of the way the press has handled things.

Now I know that the left and right are just puppets, so this was probably due to happen anyway. Let's just assume that's a given!

I agree thoreau, they use an extreme example, but I don't think it's uncommon for women to become pregnant while being in complete denial about their relationship with an unsuitable man. When they use extreme examples like this they are harming all single mothers imo. Maybe it's easier to make an example of mothers because they are more visible. It's easier for men to father children and remain anonymous, idk? It still reeks of injustice to me though.

Sorry to hear about your custody issues dubs. In many ways you are right, this 'broken britain' guff is about scapegoating the vulnerable. Hopefully people will be suitably distracted enough not to notice the other shit that's going down.

dubmeup wrote:
This is the root of the issue as far as communities and families go. It takes about 15 years for each major progression to materialise because it's tied in to the education process. As each generation passes through the education system the deeper and more apparent the changes of social engineering become. The new Academies are the next stage in the process of manipulation and further control over the next generation in education. Each step is just small enough to prevent a public outcry while being effective enough to effect social change.

The influence of ether parent has been greatly reduced over the last 30 years. Schools pump kids full of politically correct nonsense and provide the bulk of a child's social skills. The TV and peer pressure resulting from what kids see in the media also has a far greater effect on the digital generations than at any other point in history.

The government gets the citizens it wants because it stage manages every step of the process and willfully imposes changes which society opposes. The primary influence on society comes from quangos and other unelected bodies of government which are also influenced or controlled by corporate foundations. Check out Common Purpose, Tavistock and other organisations involved in social engineering/eugenics. Brian Geerish has a site devoted to common purpose here www.cpexposed.com/ .

LesleyPumpshaft wrote: That's it. The age old divide and rule tactic.

IMO the reson why they are mentioning "mums" and not dads is for various reasons (mostly for psycholgical reasons for the reader) :-

- It's now the norm to not have a father (in the mainstream media) By mentioning "fathers" it creates a thought in the psyche that it is "normal" to have BOTH a mum AND a dad (and the PTB do NOT want that to be the norm any more)
- They dont want to create a situation where fathers are (albeit pressured) back into taking a part in the family unit, cos if the father took a big part in the family unit (even when the parents have split) the SS/Authorities would find it harder to take the kids away, or to steralise the woman (or to "ban" her having any more kids).
-Divide and Rule. When they blame "mums" ONLY, then the single mum would feel that she is standing alone (even if the father is seeing the kids at weekends) and will feel weak due to lack of moral support . If the article HAD mentioned mothers AND fathers, then BOTH of them would have morally supported each other, and would have therefore been a VERY STRONG UNIT. The family unit is the enemy of the New World Order, and therefore is being dismantled.

People are allowed to have as many kids as they want. End of story. The NWO should go f*ck themselvers and keep out of our lives.

Ive never been able to get into the common purpose stuff, for one fairly obvious reason, at least. I've no doubt it goes on, but it just doesn't sit right with me in parts, and seems to be being used for convenience more than anything else in some instances.

Not that this has much to do with the thread. Just sayin. Rep'in "da gayz", as I do. Would make for quite an interesting thread all its own...probably.

Oh, and never forget the following:

Heh..I thought it was going to be a link to the dailymail but nooo...denied.
Ah well, I guess sky tv is a close 2nd

Frog wrote:
Great post.

And for the record, I've never even looked into anything to do with common purpose or tavistock. I agree with everything frogs said above due to what I discovered whilst looking into the education system. It's all there and that's when your 'indoctrination' starts.

To change this, the education system has to go. Completely.

Ab Origine wrote:
Common Purpose are a major component of the social engineering/eugenics program. CP is pervasive throughout key areas of society such as Media (BBC), local and national government, policing, education, health service and social welfare.

Some people have no common sense or parenting skills no matter what their status in life is rich or poor doesn't matter.

humanspirit wrote:
Yeah people who work for the Social Services fall into that catergory - Usually cos they dont HAVE any kids of their own, but they like to act as though they are experts in the subject.