To wonder what the govt has planned to punish those NOT on benefits?

[Glitterknickaz]

News link

This is not the first time cutting benefits has been suggested as a punishment. How are the government proposing to punish parents who don't tackle truancy efficiently that aren't on benefits exactly? Just like the assertion that the rioters should lose benefits, yes because they were ALL on benefits weren't they?

Once again the government fuels the totally untrue daily mail esque belief that all of society's ills lie at the feet of benefits claimants. Apparently they are the root of all evil, eh?

Not one of the policies publicised has said what would happen to those who do not claim benefits.

Money designed for basic sustenance should not be removed imo. At the end of the day it is the children that will suffer from these measures.

An maybe if schools didn't lock all the bloody pupils' toilets all day long then some kids might not feel that they have to stay home three or four days every month out of sheer necessity or embarrassment.

What school does this happen in? As a TA I have worked with several children with severe health conditions. We have always made sure there are processes in place to deal with their health needs, it is part of our duty of care (in loco parentis) ! I am that this happens.

missy, In loads of schools. I have a pal whose son has CP and she was TOLD to be available in the lobby of the school all day in case he needed 'assistance'. That was the price she paid for wanting her son in mainstream.

Inhalers - that's a minefield, depending on which school.

UTIs - my DD suffers from these and still we have a battle to allow her use the toilets when she needs to go.

Fuck me Loudlass. (I try not to say fuck)

But you should really start a blog, My mother was a disabled parent (polio) and then practically a lone parent when my dad was working to keep us going and then when my dad got sick.

I skipped school so much and it wasn't her fault at all. I pretended to go to school. Thankfully none of the above was in place as it turned out I am Bi polar.

We relied on that help when my dad couldn't work to eat.

An maybe if schools didn't lock all the bloody pupils' toilets all day long then some kids might not feel that they have to stay home three or four days every month out of sheer necessity or embarrassment.

Just,

Yes.

No. These reasons are common, adamchic.

Why did your friends mum keep her off school? It's pretty curious behaviour.

AFAIK, her mum wanted her to help in the house and run errands. She got an education as an adult, but it makes you wonder doesn't it.

I was a terrible truant, sod all mum could have done, she was at work! Dropping me off didn't work, I just walked out again.

BTW, naice middle class family, no benefits.

Does indeed. And great that your friend was able to get an education eventually.

Maybe, a good example of a parent who would be vilified for 'being lazy' without knowing if there were any reasons why her mum wasn't doing her own housework and errands? Like ill health. As you say you don't know.

And my other concern in a situation like this (and also children who are ''kept at home for company'' ) would be whether there is hidden DV which can't/won't be disclosed. Either abused mothers keeping their children at home for 'protection' and/or children too anxious to be leave their mother alone and undefended. Or a mixture of both.

I also have a friend whose mother didn't send her to school so she spent her school days pottering about the house with her mum. For reasons which are still unclear involving the whole family's health and not wanting to be apart from one another. My friends lack of education still effects her to this day.

'putting the 'n' in cunts' is genius

Even if some people are just shitty parents with no problems such as disability, mental illness, dire poverty or whatever, how on earth does stopping child benefit help? It isn't magically going to transform someone who isn't very good at looking after their children into Mary Poppins, is it?

I don't think it is designed to make people better parents, is it? It's simply part of the agenda that says 'poorer people are shit' and we will do anything to make sure your children have an even less of a life chance than currently, by making you even poorer.
Not sure what the def. of repeated absence is, but unfortunately by the time absences are accrued to involve legal process intervention ( and hence fines), the parents have well and truly lost the battle with their children ( and so benefit loss is purely vindicative), and also some of the parents just really don't know how to give a shit.

There does seem to be an awful lot of that about, Pan. Feels like every day the government comes up with a new idea to stigmatise poor people and make their lives a bit worse. If they despise poor people so much, why are they so keen to plunge so many people into poverty, by strangling any signs of recovery?

Corn, I'm completing a phd and I work from home. Thanks for your interest.

Ah, so you ARE an indulged princess!

Yes because I work for a living, clearly.

edam - fwiw I don't think the govt has a great amount of control over the 'recovery' - we are too vulnerable to the situation of other markets, esp. Europe. But it can make better decisions about fairer use of resouces we currently have.

Oh, I think going entirely for cuts and austerity and strangling any prospects of growth is a choice the government is actively making. Which is clearly not working. We need a balanced approach. Sacking thousands of public sector workers really will not help at all. Threatening to sack thousands of public sector workers is already making people afraid to spend, hurting retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers and importers. (I am not a public sector worker myself, btw.)

LOTM - not so clear at all. But whatever employment status you enjoy, it doesn't stop you coming across as cornsilk so described.

I know it can do all of that, and there is signs that Osbourne is contemplating the dreaded "Plan B" which is more 'stimulus'-based. But even if that happens and there is growth, it certainly won't be going to support any sense of 'fair' - the govt has given notice that every area of public life is up for tendering - which means lower wages, and worse working conditions. And benefit levels aren't going to rise any time soon.

Yup, you are dead right about tendering, Pan.