Domestic violence 'school plan'

Just how fecking stupid can this lot get.

I've got another question for the head in the clouds modernisers:

Why have teenage pregnancies risen in line with the expansion of sex education in schools?

Yes thats a contributory factor, but its obvious that the more we "educate" them (in that revolting modernising way) the more pregnancies there are.

All kids know how to get pregnant ffs

Here's a couple of questions for the head-up-their-@rses, primary school empiricists.

If a kid experiences domestic violence what do you think it is that they 'already know'?

Why are teenage pregnancies much lower in the Netherlands, a country with extremely liberal ideas on sex education?

The correlation between proper Sex Ed and low teenage pregnancy has been established across Europe for decades now.

The reason the British score so badly is that every new Sex Ed initiative is viciously attacked by the Daily Mail and their staggeringly uncritical readership. Faith Schools don't help either.

''reading the Dail Mail causes teenage pregnancy'' SHOCK REVELATIONS

Were it not for the reactionary, right-wing British press, children could be educated better about sex and contraception.

They dont need educating on sex ffs, they all know what happens if you have sex they just dont give a toss.

They're not all naive as you were you big drip (actually some things never change)

A very good initiative by Harriet Harman and to be welcomed as long overdue. Young children can be abject bullies heavily influenced by the attitudes of their parents and I have seen this very much in action within families that I know of.

Why should other innocent children suffer because they are of a more genteel persuasion.

I suggest that is primarily the fault of the parents, the father in particular, who seems to insist as far as their sons go, that they wear a football shirt appropriate to their father's wishes, and kick a ball around the back garden all day long.

If only children would be encouraged to stand up to their ignorant parents who think of nothing else but football, then we might all, and they, have a better future.

Some things should be left to parents to teach thier children. If they can't bring them up properly, there are (or should be) remedy to punish them.

By making it the job of teachers to teach children violence is wrong, leaves the feckless parents free to say "not my fault, Harriet Harman said the school were going to teach them not to beat women"

When will they leave us to get on with our lives? We don't need the state to teach us the "bleeding obvious"!

Why doesnt the left look for solutions of why thick chavs are fertile and the law abiding smart are not?

Are there many spare hours left in the school week now? Can't we throw in some anti-discrimination and pro-European topics?

What about violence against men?

Diddums.

It's PC gone mad to pretend that domestic violence affects men as much as women. What's wrong with targetting the victims most in need of the help?

Well, I wouldn't resort to calling Pangloss names; however, objecting to measures designed to reduce domestic violence on the grounds that they're too women-focussed is absolutely pathetic.

Because it's better to address the real problem (men beating on women) than to be absurdly PC and claim that the everyone needs equal help. You may as well argue that the Winter Fuel Allowance is discriminatory against non-pensioners.

It's pathetic. There seems to be no argument, however mindless, you won't use to score points against the government, Pangloss.

I have conflicting views on this arising out of an experience I was had. I was asked, and I agreed, to be the auctioneer at a charity event. It was for a woman's refuge.

There were a couple of celebs and lots of well to do people in Alderley Edge. We had a talk before the auction from the Gvt. adviser to John Prescott on domestic violence.

Several times she emphasised the need to include psychological abuse, which was as bad, and very common. Fair enough.

Then a guy asked about abuse on men, and she said it was around 5 per cent of the total, and whilst serious, not the major issue to be addressed with the best will in the world. Fair enough.

But, I was dying to ask, are you seriously saying that 95% of psychological abuse is women on men; after all its you who said we must include psychological abuse, it being as serious.

I didn't ask, because it would have made her look stupid, and I was on the stage next, so it would have undermined the message of the evening.

Now I don't have a view on psychological abuse; it was her point not mine. My guess is women are more given to using psychological abuse than men, simply because it is a weapon available to them, unlike physical.

My only point is, and it bothers me, that this seemingly high up woman, hadn't thought of this, or had done and dismissed it.

I have reservations about all Gvt. stats and am certain they reach conclusions before stats are looked at, and I see this trend here. I don't like social behaviour being taught in schools in general - what if a party with different views get into Gvt. Its legitimised them putting what they want on the curriculum.

I don't like domestic abuse, but I don't like this approach to it.

I have reservations about all Gvt. stats and am certain they reach conclusions before stats are looked at, and I see this trend here. I don't like social behaviour being taught in schools in general - what if a party with different views get into Gvt. Its legitimised them putting what they want on the curriculum.

a valid point sib. everything they put in is a stepping stone to something else, you only have to look at the past.

Don, it was her point, not mine, so don't press me on it. I see her point, I have encountered women who are left to be feeling worthless and unable to leave a situation because theri self confidence is shattered by constant criticism. If that is what she means, its abuse and it is wrong, but I doubt it is illegal.
It happens to men as well of course, but leave that for a minute.

The trend that bothers me is the one you touch on. You are not going to get a conviction in a criminal court. You might get a civil court determining something, because the level of proof is power ("on the balance of probabilities").

More and more, the Gvt. seem to want to move to this second standard of proof, ie. you only need to show 51% probability, as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt".

I don't like it.

agree sib. for once :)

I forgot to say which gets more votes ?