If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   UK government to criminalise classic British parenting   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 92
    More: Obvious, Conservative MPs, UK government, Brothers Grimm, Liberal Democrat MP  
•       •       •

6033 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Mar 2014 at 9:20 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-31 10:28:35 AM  
I'm glad that they've finally been able to define "love" well enough to make it legally enforceable.
 
2014-03-31 10:30:19 AM  

sendtodave: Miss Alexandra: My question is, who gets to define what's "emotional neglect"?

 Legislators and judges, I'd assume?


What I meant was...what if you have a judge that thinks that ignoring a kid asking the same question over and over again (that you've just answered) for a few minutes constitutes neglect?

I don't live in the UK but lots of times the crap they come up with manages to make its way over here to the US.
 
2014-03-31 10:32:38 AM  
I wonder
does shipping the kid off to a boarding school count
(you don't even have to talk to them)
 
2014-03-31 10:37:34 AM  

sendtodave: Changes to the child neglect laws will make "emotional cruelty" a crime for the first time, alongside physical or sexual abuse

Can we just make all children, everywhere, wards of the state and be done with it already?  I'm tired of waiting for this slippery slope to reach it's inevitable conclusion.


What do you recommend, that we continue to ignore emotional abuse?  I can see problems with the law's implementation, but doing nothing is not a solution.
 
2014-03-31 10:38:20 AM  

Miss Alexandra: sendtodave: Miss Alexandra: My question is, who gets to define what's "emotional neglect"?

 Legislators and judges, I'd assume?

What I meant was...what if you have a judge that thinks that ignoring a kid asking the same question over and over again (that you've just answered) for a few minutes constitutes neglect?

I don't live in the UK but lots of times the crap they come up with manages to make its way over here to the US.


Then you have a shiatty family court judge, and there isn't anything you can do about it.  You may even lose your kid.

Just like it is now.
 
2014-03-31 10:41:32 AM  

Graffito: sendtodave: Changes to the child neglect laws will make "emotional cruelty" a crime for the first time, alongside physical or sexual abuse

Can we just make all children, everywhere, wards of the state and be done with it already?  I'm tired of waiting for this slippery slope to reach it's inevitable conclusion.

What do you recommend, that we continue to ignore emotional abuse?  I can see problems with the law's implementation, but doing nothing is not a solution.


Which problem?   "Emotional abuse of children," or "freedom to parent as they see fit for adults?"

Doing nothing is a fine solution to the latter problem.
 
2014-03-31 10:41:39 AM  
You should really need to have a license to have children.  What do we need more people on this planet for?
 
2014-03-31 10:41:49 AM  

sendtodave: Jim_Callahan: but in reality there are some pretty strict rules about establishing patterns and how much of what it takes to cross the line.

You've never dealt with the family court system, have you?


Enough to know that parents being all self-righteous about how they didn't do anything wrong usually did something  massively more blatantly immoral than what they're actually getting in trouble for in addition to being flat-out guilty of what they're accused of.

Family court gets dodgy when dealing with shiat like divorces that don't directly involve children, but they're actually pretty good at protecting kids.  They err on the side of caution, but not really excessively.
 
2014-03-31 10:48:17 AM  

BilltheThrill: And here in 'Merkia, it's child abuse to force a kid to eat British food.


That's child abuse worldwide, internationally.
 
2014-03-31 10:50:56 AM  

Jim_Callahan: but they're actually pretty good at protecting kids


-_-

That's adorable.  You're adorable.
 
2014-03-31 10:52:42 AM  

Jim_Callahan: People can cherry-pick it and dramatically misinterpret it to sound like social workers just randomly take children, but in reality there are some pretty strict rules about establishing patterns and how much of what it takes to cross the line.


I'm a foster parent.  I've actually had kids in my care that shouldn't have been removed from their parents.

Doesn't matter how strict you make the rules, they will be stretched and abused by people, both inside and outside the system.  I've seen it happen first-hand.
 
2014-03-31 10:52:59 AM  

Miss Alexandra: My question is, who gets to define what's "emotional neglect"?


 A Jury, like with most crimes?
 
2014-03-31 10:55:28 AM  

sendtodave: Jim_Callahan: but they're actually pretty good at protecting kids

-_-

That's adorable.  You're adorable.


He reminds me of my niece Sally.  She's a dietician.
 
2014-03-31 10:56:36 AM  

xria: Miss Alexandra: My question is, who gets to define what's "emotional neglect"?

 A Jury, like with most crimes?


Family court doesn't have juries, not that I'm aware of.  You're pretty much at the mercy of the judge.
 
2014-03-31 10:58:23 AM  
Anyone else read the headline of TFA and wonder why they needed a law to prevent British families from starving their love-children?

/your mother's a whore and you lack my superior genes
//that's why you're hungry and your brothers are not
 
2014-03-31 11:03:15 AM  
Ah, methinks this is just the Tories getting some early general election fluffy stuff in. Social Services in the UK are so badly underfunded that there is no chance of anyone actually being prosecuted under this law.
 
2014-03-31 11:10:09 AM  

jst3p: Other new offences could include forcing a child to witness domestic violence, making a child a scape goat or forcing degrading punishments upon them.

That is one if my favorite parts of being a parent though! I told my 12 year old daughter that the next time she fails to turn in an assignment I would email her teacher asking that she be excused because she just started getting her period.

She hasn't missed one since.


I'm really starting to get flumoxed at these English Language Crazies.  Yes English is hard with all the punctuations.  Give the girl a break.  Even you say she is starting to get it.  Enough wit...er WAT?  Nevermind........
 
2014-03-31 11:14:25 AM  
Law To Stop People Being Mean To Kids

Is there an election next year or something?
 
2014-03-31 11:17:29 AM  
Create a parody in your head.
Treat the parody as the reality.

There needs to be a psychiatric term for this.
 
2014-03-31 11:18:48 AM  

jst3p: Other new offences could include forcing a child to witness domestic violence, making a child a scape goat or forcing degrading punishments upon them.

That is one if my favorite parts of being a parent though! I told my 12 year old daughter that the next time she fails to turn in an assignment I would email her teacher asking that she be excused because she just started getting her period.

She hasn't missed one since.


Thank god. You should hope your 12 year old daughter doesn't miss her period.
 
2014-03-31 11:20:41 AM  

Snubnose: I'm really starting to get flumoxed at these English Language Crazies.  Yes English is hard with all the punctuations.  Give the girl a break.  Even you say she is starting to get it.  Enough wit...er WAT?  Nevermind........


Of course in British English the end of a sentence has a "full stop" not a "period", so the joke doesn't really work in context.
 
2014-03-31 11:32:54 AM  
So will it be illegal to bring your child up to be racist, homophobic, intolerant, christian, vegan, etc etc?

It`s a pretty grey line...
 
2014-03-31 11:36:43 AM  

Graffito: sendtodave: Changes to the child neglect laws will make "emotional cruelty" a crime for the first time, alongside physical or sexual abuse

Can we just make all children, everywhere, wards of the state and be done with it already?  I'm tired of waiting for this slippery slope to reach it's inevitable conclusion.

What do you recommend, that we continue to ignore emotional abuse?  I can see problems with the law's implementation, but doing nothing is not a solution.


there are 100 criminals. One of them is innocent. Do you suggest we just let them all go and do nothing?

Emotional abuse is awful. But trying to erase it by using the force of law creates the problem of potential abuse. shiatty parents will happen. It's always happened. I've heard that even Thomas Jefferson loathed his mother for his upbringing.

We literally live in a world where some problems can't be fixed by piling more burdens upon law enforcement.
 
2014-03-31 11:53:20 AM  

Mrbogey: Graffito: sendtodave: Changes to the child neglect laws will make "emotional cruelty" a crime for the first time, alongside physical or sexual abuse

Can we just make all children, everywhere, wards of the state and be done with it already?  I'm tired of waiting for this slippery slope to reach it's inevitable conclusion.

What do you recommend, that we continue to ignore emotional abuse?  I can see problems with the law's implementation, but doing nothing is not a solution.

there are 100 criminals. One of them is innocent. Do you suggest we just let them all go and do nothing?

Emotional abuse is awful. But trying to erase it by using the force of law creates the problem of potential abuse. shiatty parents will happen. It's always happened. I've heard that even Thomas Jefferson loathed his mother for his upbringing.

We literally live in a world where some problems can't be fixed by piling more burdens upon law enforcement.


1 nnocent man in a group of 100 people and no way to sort them out?

Then let all 100 people go. Jesus farking Christ.
 
2014-03-31 11:58:49 AM  

Summercat: Mrbogey: Graffito: sendtodave: Changes to the child neglect laws will make "emotional cruelty" a crime for the first time, alongside physical or sexual abuse

Can we just make all children, everywhere, wards of the state and be done with it already?  I'm tired of waiting for this slippery slope to reach it's inevitable conclusion.

What do you recommend, that we continue to ignore emotional abuse?  I can see problems with the law's implementation, but doing nothing is not a solution.

there are 100 criminals. One of them is innocent. Do you suggest we just let them all go and do nothing?

Emotional abuse is awful. But trying to erase it by using the force of law creates the problem of potential abuse. shiatty parents will happen. It's always happened. I've heard that even Thomas Jefferson loathed his mother for his upbringing.

We literally live in a world where some problems can't be fixed by piling more burdens upon law enforcement.

1 nnocent man in a group of 100 people and no way to sort them out?

Then let all 100 people go. Jesus farking Christ.


I was thinking the same thing.  Here in the US, the system is designed as follows.

If you had 100 people being charged with a crime.  And each of them had the EXACT SAME facts in front of the same jury (think parallel universes or something).  The only difference being that 1 person was innocent and 99 were guilty.  Those facts would let all 100 people off.

Of course, that is the goal of the system, but not always the result.  1 in a hundred?  More likely, that is the case.  1 in 1000, less likely.  1 in 10,000?  Probably getting some false convictions.

Just realize that I am talking about the intent of the system not the results.
 
2014-03-31 12:06:18 PM  

plcow: Summercat: Mrbogey: Graffito: sendtodave: Changes to the child neglect laws will make "emotional cruelty" a crime for the first time, alongside physical or sexual abuse

Can we just make all children, everywhere, wards of the state and be done with it already?  I'm tired of waiting for this slippery slope to reach it's inevitable conclusion.

What do you recommend, that we continue to ignore emotional abuse?  I can see problems with the law's implementation, but doing nothing is not a solution.

there are 100 criminals. One of them is innocent. Do you suggest we just let them all go and do nothing?

Emotional abuse is awful. But trying to erase it by using the force of law creates the problem of potential abuse. shiatty parents will happen. It's always happened. I've heard that even Thomas Jefferson loathed his mother for his upbringing.

We literally live in a world where some problems can't be fixed by piling more burdens upon law enforcement.

1 nnocent man in a group of 100 people and no way to sort them out?

Then let all 100 people go. Jesus farking Christ.

I was thinking the same thing.  Here in the US, the system is designed as follows.

If you had 100 people being charged with a crime.  And each of them had the EXACT SAME facts in front of the same jury (think parallel universes or something).  The only difference being that 1 person was innocent and 99 were guilty.  Those facts would let all 100 people off.

Of course, that is the goal of the system, but not always the result.  1 in a hundred?  More likely, that is the case.  1 in 1000, less likely.  1 in 10,000?  Probably getting some false convictions.

Just realize that I am talking about the intent of the system not the results.


Yeah, but its the whole concept of acceptable collateral damage in things like this. No. Just... No.
 
2014-03-31 12:21:52 PM  
Is it April 1st in England already?
 
2014-03-31 12:22:36 PM  
I thought traditional british parenting was sending them off to boarding school at 8 and seeing them again 20 years later.
 
2014-03-31 12:25:22 PM  
Alright, I'll admit my ignorance; WTF is "children of love"?  It's undoubtedly a Brit euphemism or idiom for something or another, but the Googles do not help.
 
2014-03-31 12:27:12 PM  

GilRuiz1: Alright, I'll admit my ignorance; WTF is "children of love"?  It's undoubtedly a Brit euphemism or idiom for something or another, but the Googles do not help.


"starving children of love" means not giving your children love.
 
2014-03-31 12:28:07 PM  

GilRuiz1: Alright, I'll admit my ignorance; WTF is "children of love"?  It's undoubtedly a Brit euphemism or idiom for something or another, but the Googles do not help.


HR needs to see you right away to talk about your internet activity.
 
2014-03-31 12:32:49 PM  
ts2.mm.bing.net
I will love you long time.
 
2014-03-31 12:37:51 PM  

BilltheThrill: And here in 'Merkia, it's child abuse to force a kid to eat British food.


In Merkia? The coconut's tropical....
 
2014-03-31 01:02:55 PM  
But the meat, pudding and Wizard of Oz rules all remain the same?

picturestarts.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-31 02:05:29 PM  

Wooly Bully: The Name: Still creeps me the hell out just thinking about it.

"This Be The Verse" by Philip Larkin

They f*ck you up, your mum and dad.
    They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
    And add some extra, just for you.

But they were f*cked up in their turn
    By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
    And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
    It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
    And don't have any kids yourself.


Ooooor... recognize that we have the awareness and tools to start fixing these problems in ourselves and pass on fewer to our kids. Given enough generations, there will be markedly more humanity and less f*ckupedness in the world. Compassion, even.

/of course, that's going to hurt the far-right's recruitment efforts
//only the poorest get a pass, and that's because society, as currently constructed, doesn't allow them the time or resources to fix the issues. And yet, amazingly, I see it happening, a bit, anyway.
 
2014-03-31 02:12:58 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: I'm glad that they've finally been able to define "love" well enough to make it legally enforceable.


I imagine that, legally speaking, it'll be like "porn": a judge may not be able to define it, but will know it, or its absence, upon seeing it.

/and who doesn't "love" "porn?"
 
2014-03-31 02:19:57 PM  

GilRuiz1: Alright, I'll admit my ignorance; WTF is "children of love"?  It's undoubtedly a Brit euphemism or idiom for something or another, but the Googles do not help.


Yeah, this and other comments ITT makes me feel better about having to read tfa in order to understand the headline. I thought maybe it was a British euphemism for stepchildren or children conceived "outside the marriage." And maybe under-feeding them was a common British treatment of such children.
 
2014-03-31 02:22:17 PM  

brimed03: Ooooor... recognize that we have the awareness and tools to start fixing these problems in ourselves and pass on fewer to our kids. Given enough generations, there will be markedly more humanity and less f*ckupedness in the world. Compassion, even.



Meh.  I like the poem's approach better.
 
2014-03-31 02:23:46 PM  

brimed03: Ooooor... recognize that we have the awareness and tools to start fixing these problems in ourselves and pass on fewer to our kids. Given enough generations, there will be markedly more humanity and less f*ckupedness in the world. Compassion, even.


Of course that does happen (my own family's a good example of that, I think) but Larkin's poem is great because it reflects the truth of so many people's lives.

You see that sh*t all the time - some horrible little bully in school, and then you meet the parents and think, "oh, I see."
 
2014-03-31 03:14:18 PM  

brimed03: . I thought maybe it was a British euphemism for ...children conceived "outside the marriage."


The British term for an illegitimate children is "natural son/daughter".  Which is not at all an obvious turn of phrase for bastard, and led me to wonder what counted as an unnatural child to 18th century Brits.  Upon learning the definition, I went back and reread some of my research for my Masters thesis, and realized that this one particular guy seemed physically incapable of (a) farking his wife, and (b) not farking every other woman in the British Isles and British India.  Dude literally had an estate in the Cotswolds just to raise a small battalion of bastards sired by himself and his (legitimate) sons.  On the one hand, his dedication to raising all of his children, especially the mixed-race ones, was admirable; on the other, he really needed to grasp the concept that just because a woman was out in public (or hidden in some harem, for that matter) did not mean he was bound by the physical laws of the universe to knock her up.
 
2014-03-31 09:37:17 PM  

jst3p: GilRuiz1: Alright, I'll admit my ignorance; WTF is "children of love"?  It's undoubtedly a Brit euphemism or idiom for something or another, but the Googles do not help.

"starving children of love" means not giving your children love.



Dangit!  Eats shoots and leaves, indeed!

InterruptingQuirk: HR needs to see you right away to talk about your internet activity.


Posted during personal lunch break time, as per HR procedure.  Yep, I work for a huge corporation, so we've got procedures and manuals for everything.
 
2014-03-31 11:55:54 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: If I don't get cake for dinner, I'm turning you farkers in!


After having sampled British 'cuisine' on multiple occasions: the fish and chips are good but the rest should be considered cruel and unusual punishment.

DNRTFA
 
Displayed 42 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report