Boris Johnson on single mothers

Boris Johnson described the children of single mothers as “ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate”.

baby beside woman

Photo by Jonathan Borba on

And he suggested it was “feeble” for a man to be unable or unwilling to “take control of his woman”, arguing Britain needed to “restore women’s desire to be married”.

Amazing yet, when he accepted my support when he ran as Mayor, he even gave me a hand-signed t-shirt. I suppose he is not that choosy after all.

I shall defintitely not vote for that zynical man.

I am certain woman don’t mind being married, they dont’ mind having equal opportunities and they dont’ mind getting on in live.

It is more than contradictive to complain that men are unable or unwilling and then blame that on women’s lack of desire to get married.

Active discrimination against women Mr Osborne

Here we go again, whilst during Thatcher times we were openly put down and ridiculed for being single mothers, now we get the theory of equal treatment but get hit harder through fiscal policies instead. see source

At the time of Thatcher in principle I very much agreed with Conservative policies but for the public stance on single mothers, I never liked the witch hunts against single mothers. Even though I was married and had all my children within marriage, one cannot condemn a woman for having to bring up a child alone, I therefore take a stand for single mothers because at the moment technically I am a single mother too.

I get all the tough treatment, I get sent to employment courses even though I am a volunteer and get asked whether I want to work evenings and weekends. There is a work placement but I cannot be forced to work in the holidays. The whole concepts stinks of discrimination against single mothers.

The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for equality between women and men estimates that single mothers will lose 8.5% of their income by 2015.

The charity also said single mothers were being hardest hit by cuts to public services, estimating that these were costing them the equivalent of 18.5% of their net income – more than double the impact on couples with children.

Whilst we get big movements against forced marriage and domestic violence and women are actively encouraged to leave violent relationships, not at least for the sake of their children, women are at the same time financially and fiscally discriminated against. Another not so common sense policy I should say.

I am in principle for the furthering of family life but cannot agree to the fact that women are punished for raising children alone.


Of course I have got to make a remark about this latest bombshell that rocked the world of media and communications. Wikileaks seems to be, to be the new generation of high-tech protest, something to tell the world about the secrets and behind closed doors activities of political leaders and also how military actions do get carried out.

I watched an interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, you can watch it here too, where he tells us who finances his operations. He says it’s ordinary families with children who give him money and not businesses or organisations. I think this is significant because in my view its often ordinary families that are the most deprived of having a say in our society today. Running a community focussed group I find that parents of children are the least consulted about anything and our housing estates are dominated by non parent persons who have the time to come to meetings because families with children have to stay indoors to care for their children.

Also in the media families with children, especially if they are poor, are often portrayed as scroungers on society, being perceived as problems and in my view single parents are the most discriminated against group in society today, that it is people with children who fund Wikileaks the most. Of course I would  also like to know of what ethnic background those families with children are before being able to appreciate the situation fully.

Wikileaks of course is a new generation of protesters who want to do something about something they perceive as important.

As far as I understand Wikileaks has now been declared a terrorist organisation and as such has reached the status of subversive criminals. I remember not so long ago an autistic individual had great problems with extradition procedures to the US over his hacking into US military computers when he searched for evidence of aliens but this Wikileaks situation  is of course far more problematic because it displays findings to the public whilst the previous hacker was a private individual who did not widely publish his findings. Gary McKinnon I thought was a relative isolated one-off matter, but the Wikileaks situation shows that high-tech is the new widely used media by protestors around the world. I had experienced it that Chinese hackers were the most prominent group of people who tried to hack into my systems when I ran an online business some time ago.

This new generation of ‘revolutionaries’ is far more technology-wise than the old-fashioned warriors who excelled in causing physical damage mostly through bombs. I have several problems with this, one of which is that Wikileaks helps the Taleban. I read that Taleban leaders have now assigned a 9 strong group to sift through Wikileaks material to pinpoint US informers and then will want to go  out and kill them.

As a woman I find the Taleban abhorrent. They treat women as rubbish and as such I would not appreciate them at all. They are very sexist and would want to undo all progress western women have fought for so hard. Incidentally in Afghanistan single mothers are treated with the utmost contempt, women being made responsible for the rape by a man and punished, and then released with little chance of survival in the outside world. I fear there is a tendency in our society to make single mothers scapegoats for their status too.

Wikileaks activities support those gross human rights breaches against woman in Afghanistan because they support the Taleban and woman should be very careful before supporting his cause. In effect Assange’s actions help the Taleban discover US military activities and weaken the US military effort. So at least  the women of this world who have a concern about their freedom should stop supporting Assange from that perspective alone. Sweden once issued an arrest warrant over rape accusations against Assange. Women have to be very careful whom they support because  if it is a male with underlying sexual motives, we need to think more cleverly.

Of course the matter of disclosing diplomatic incidents is most likely perceived with eager interest by the whole world and that is a totally different matter but it can also weaken diplomatic efforts throughout the world and play into the hands of dangerous leaders like the Iranian president.

benefit changes for single parents

Since 25 October 2010 single parents have to change from Income Support to Job Seekers Allowance and stay able to work at least 16 hours per week. Whilst I generally agree to that policy I still wonder how practical this is to keep up.

First of all will employers want single parents and under what conditions would  they have to be employed?

When many working contracts already deny responsibility for sick-pay what is a working parent supposed to do when the child becomes ill and has to stay at home  with Chickenpox?  Will employers be able to put up with it?  Will parents be able to claim the loss of earnings through the benefit system?  That seems to be forgotten in this benefit equation is the fact that parents are responsible to look after their kids around the clock and they have to be supervisedand especially so when they are sick. We cannot assume that working single parents have another family member that can take in a sick child whilst the parent goes out to work. I wonder where the answers to those questions are.

changing attitudes in fathers

Another way of looking at the welfare reforms, and in particular that single parents, and that will be mostly mothers, will have to seek work when their youngest child turns 7, is that fathers have become unreliable in that role.

It is not simply that lifestyles have changed and people do not get  married any longer, it is a broader problem in that many men do not wish to pursue their responsibilities as fathers and run away from the problem.

It would have been unthinkable 50 years ago to say a man suspected of domestic violence can be banned from the home for 4 weeks, but since men have become more violent, less reliable and more irresponsible, they load the responsibility of parenthood completely onto the mother (a few men are  the exception from the norm, in that they are left to care for the child alone) so that women have to seek solace in work instead of being able to rely on their partner as breadwinner till the child is older, as it used to be.

50 years ago women would have stayed at home until the child was well settled into school and often secondary school until they went out to seek work but now, their often, idly spent days as single parents can get them into more trouble by becoming vulnerable to volatile relationships or substance abuse.  Single mothers have to work harder to get basic child support today. For example fathers abroad have to be sued through the courts for payments. The wider decline in domestic living arrangements is also to blame, people do not marry, they have loose relationships, which encourages irresponsible fatherhood.

Fathers now find it easier to bring excuses as to why they cannot pay for a child, they do not have to put their name on the birth certificate even though they know they are the father.

I more than welcome the proposals that violent partners can be banned from the home if the other partner complains of domestic abuse. It is one step into the right direction. The problem of domestic abuse is rising in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships. But it still has to be made easier for women to claim child support from fathers. Fathers that fail to pay child support voluntarily should be made to pay the cost to administer child support claims. Foreign fathers have to be approached through courts in the 100 countries the UK has an agreement with.

With the measure of a benefit ceiling for families  with children, even if they are married, we get the clear message that lifestyles are changing towards less children per family for benefit recipients and more responsible planning of our lives. We do get those 2 types of problem families these days, the single parent and the multi-children married household who have children in abundance regardless of their ability to pay for their kids. Yet domestic abuse takes place in both instances of family life and it is a great step into the right direction to help people enjoy their private life without threats of violence from a partner.

I think it is up to men to proof they are not prats and up to men to change their behaviour because ultimately the men are more able to earn and plan family life when women sometimes can easily be made pregnant. Of course ideally girls and women would want to plan their own lives more consciously but that is the ideal and still not the norm in all social circles.

When anti-social behaviour is a crime

I just read through the latest Scrutiny Challenge Session of Tower Hamlets Council on the effectiveness of THEOs, which stands for Tower Hamlets Enforcement Officers.

In that report it says in page 401 that despite crime has fallen for the 6th year running the fear of crime remains the top priority for residents in 2009/10 and why? It is because the fear of crime that is the main concern. ASB, standing for Anti Social Behaviour is not always a top priority for the police but this Anti social behaviour is the reason for most residents to  feel their quality of life is considerably lowered. But it is this low-level crime that makes residents consider crime a major priority. Most people never come face to face with the hard crime but most of us see and feel anti-social behaviour on a wide scale.

It is with this in mind that I want to mention the very sad case of Fiona Pilkington again, whose family bring a court case because they think the authorities were negligent. Fiona called police 33 times but was only visited 8 times. Fiona had eggs, flour, stones thrown at her house by up to 16 youths over 10 years.

Mrs Pilkington then finally cracked and killed herself and her daughter from the strain and inability to cope.  It must have been particularly hard because there is learning disability involved. This case shows how vulnerable people need special protection and how much more needs to be done to root out anti-social behaviour to achieve a wide-spread and wide-felt improvement in the quality of life for our residents.

Neil King, Mayoral candidate in the forthcoming elections for Tower Hamlets Mayor on 21 October 2010 promises to take ASB seriously. See his newest election leaflet here.


is what I thought when I read Tony Parsons’ resume about Keith Macdonald. But the Dickhead in my view is not Keith Macdonald but Tony Parsons who takes pleasure in almost graphically describing Mr Macdonald’s reproductive organs as meat and two veg.

Again a mayor newspaper has to lower itself to belittle parents who get support from the state to raise their family. People who are the most helpless and vulnerable in our society and do nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. In fact the government likes people having children because if we all lived like some big earners then the population numbers would drastically drop.

Now to the morals. One can discuss the morals of course but its not like as if all wage earners are excellent examples in that department and are not exactly role models because they do not live model lives themselves. So what is it with Tony Parsons, why can’t he keep his mind on his own Sunday dinner instead of telling us what Keith Madcdonald has on his plate or in his pants.

Having children these days is not a question of money, as we live in a welfare state, the state subsidises those brave enough to have children without a wage but those who earn often do not want to get married and have kids and rather do other things instead. If we had a situation, in which all wage earners had 2.4 children, instead of living any which way they like themselves, I would give Tony Parsons some credit but because things as they are, I don’t.

Money is  not the law, Mr Parsons and not having a job cannot be blamed on the jobless but on the employers that don’t give them a job. We cannot force anybody to give a job to all who need it.

Mr Parsons calls all parents on benefits beady-eyed spongers and looking at his photo he is the one who is beady-eyed. I am so really fed up with the constant belittling attitude some wage earners publicly pronounce against those who have to struggle to raise their children and make the best of what they’ve got. It doesn’t give tax payers the right to rubbish parents just because they earn a wage and others don’t.

It’s just that those victims of publishers like Mr Parsons have no legal remedy available to them, that people like Mr Parsons write the most disgusting comments about struggling families and parents who have to live on very little. Is it any wonder that with such hateful attitudes in the public sphere Britain came at the bottom end of child-friendly countries in a study of the UN. See also HMRC targets tax-payers with Swiss bank accounts.

Not a Hurrah Henry

From this article about Raoul Moat I take it he had many friends who respected him for being a citizen of a certain integrity, like hard-working. He was the man that expected trust and integrity from those around him and most likely the old-fashioned type who wanted total integrity from his wife and family. Not the kind of man that would accept the freedom for his partner to stray into other bloke’s beds.

It’s most likely that attitude that brought mourners to leave cards on the spot where Moat got killed with words like “A good mate, a good dad, good at school, well-mannered, hard-working businessman. That’s the real Raoul Moat.”.

I think Moat was one of those men who thought that strict discipline is an essential part of life and necessary in today’s very liberal society that allows everything for anybody, and he most likely feared that too much freedom is bad for the mind. I can imagine the type of person he was but also cannot excuse the shooting of his former partner and her boyfriend, as well as a police officer’s injuries in trying to track him down.

Many people still have that mentality of “Stand by your man” for the women  and never grass on a mate for the men.

To avoid such problems as it happened with Raoul Moat I think more needs to be done along the line of helping those with behavioural learning disabilities. A man like Moat would have been happy in a Muslim marriage I reckon because the danger of his partner going astray would have been annulled. There are still very many men who expect their wives to be for live, until death do us part.

As a society we have to make a decision in how far we allow sexual liberalism to destroy our social fibre and reduce human bonding to mere casual relationships and/or make allowances for those who favour long-lasting marriages and discourage divorce for silly reasons.

A lot more work has to be done in school age children to detect learning disabilities, which also might play a role in those sudden outburst of mindless violence against others.

There is no excuse for Moat’s actions, but many of his friends see him as a hero who did what he was driven to do. and worship him as a martyr.

Our society has become very women oriented, that is very apparent in schools where boys often find it harder to fit in and girls do so well because its easier for them to follow the class discipline whilst boys need more outlet for their wild urges. Maybe we should try and revert away from the total women first thinking and allow men to take the lead in partnerships more authoritative then they can do now.

Asian woman can cope with a life in one marriage and learn to be obedient and modest and whilst I do not think that we have to return to arranged marriages we should encourage more marital fulfilment and not just personal ambition in women who work far too long before they allow themselves to have children and choose to pay the mortgage instead.

It is not just a matter of taxation to encourage marriage and motherhood in traditional family settings but a matter of morals and social cohesion that binds together people in an understanding of marital fulfilment and personal committment.

Moat is not so different a case from taxi driver Bird who also acted out of sexual frustration. It should be a warning sign to us as a society that such incidences seem to happen more frequently now.

Up-date and here we have it, Moat asked for psychiatric help

Labour discriminates against disabled & single mothers

It is very shocking that New Labour not only threatens single mothers with new-born babies to withdraw their benefits unless they attend a job interview but they now also refuse the disabled any disability benefits with the excuse that many have skills that are useful to find a job.

This “ability to work” is of course totally speculative and not based on real evidence. One cannot say that a person with skills that “could” be used for work actually makes them fit to hold down a job.

In this article we read that a man whose legs were smashed into 2 pieces was refused disability benefit whilst his treatment was ongoing. Others who have skills in certain circumstances, but never functioned in a working environment are assumed fit for work because of some abstract point scoring system that is not comprehensive.  Mood swings, autism, learning disabilities are important factors as well as other mental health considerations.

I think it takes a government of scoundrels to make the most vulnerable in our society suffer and make that an election focus.  We should despise this Labour government and all its ministers and MPs for sanctioning policies that severely discriminate against single mothers and the disabled.

We all want to see a reduction in single motherhood and teenage pregnancies but this is not the way forward. We never punished the victims of circumstances for the result of those circumstances. Indeed the Child Support Agency was introduced to combat men making a woman pregnant without due care and attention to their married status and what do we get now, punish the women that get pregnant.

So far young people and single women are encouraged to have babies because without them their chance of getting any home is almost nil.

We should concentrate on helping young people on low incomes to build a career without having to rely on pregnancy to get a home and give young couples homes to build a family as reward just for getting a job as well as giving homes to single women with children. We must provide the opportunity for an alternative career path for those who are on low incomes and want to start a family without initially having babies they cannot afford. Some couples want to set up home and wait a few years before they start having a child and concentrate initially on getting established in the workforce.

As for the disabled it is traumatic enough that many disabled have to manage without the direct support of relatives and families, living in single person dwellings and not even sheltered homes, why would we pretend they are fit to work when they have not yet proven that they can hold down a job?

There used to be a scheme whereby the disabled were able to continue to get their disability benefits for 1 year if they found a job and kept it. It’s much more sensible to use such incentives rather than a stick to beat the disabled with.  

Disabled people also far much better living in larger family units where they can get support from family members and help out within the family and so feel more useful and their skills can be incorporated on a personal basis. We need more localised family based entrepreneurship but Labour ensures that doesn’t happen.

If we, as a country are so hard up that we cannot afford any charity towards our own weak citizens then we should seriously reflect over our own social skills.

I do support that single mothers are discouraged on moral grounds but since our society does not have the moral fibre to make certain behaviours taboo, we cannot punish those falling victims to lose moral standards. We should overall raise the moral standards, as we used to know them decades ago instead punishing those who are the mere result of an overall decline in morality that is supported by all sorts of industries and coincides with a decline of church attendance of people who are no longer encouraged to go to church.

I think that Margaret Thatcher’s calls against single mothers had good intentions but I do not believe that Mrs Thatcher intended for single mothers to be punished by sending them to job interviews 1 week after birth. I cerrtainly never experienced any discrimination against the disabled under Conservative governments either.

Blog Stats

  • 55,047 hits
%d bloggers like this: