Blair Enacts Brass-like Plan for Parental Training

[Brassmask]

All I can say is that it is a step in the right direction and one that should be enacted IMMEDIATELY here in the states.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/21/unanny121.xml

Blair proposes network of 'Supernannies'
By Ben Quinn
Last Updated: 1:55am GMT 22/11/2006



Where the 'Supernannies' will be sent
Tony Blair has unveiled plans to introduce nearly 80 “Supernannies” to help parents tame unruly children.

Up to £4 million is to be spent on creating a network of experts in a bid to tackle the roots of anti-social behaviour, according to the Prime Minister.

advertisementUnder the measures, courts will also be encouraged to order compulsory lessons in a wider number of cases, while classes may also be given to parents whose children have engaged in anti-social behaviour rather than in crime.

Laying the ground for the publication of proposals to force more fathers and mothers to attend parenting classes, Mr Blair said that an "overwhelming majority” of people would welcome outside assistance.

“This should be no surprise given the huge popularity of all those television programmes in which experts help parents with their problem kids,” he added.

“So I don’t believe any government, particularly one determined to tackle anti-social behaviour, can ignore parents’ cry for help.”

He added: “The nanny state argument applied to this is just rubbish. No-one’s talking about interfering in a normal family life.

“But life isn’t normal if you’ve got 12-year-olds out every night drinking and creating a nuisance on the street with their parents either not knowing or not caring.

“In these cases, a bit of nannying with sticks and carrots is what the local community needs.”

However, the proposals failed to impress Nacro, the crime reduction charity, which said that blaming parents was “unproductive”.

Its chief executive, Paul Cavadino, said that many parents were at their wits’ end to know how to control their children’s behaviour, and needed support rather than a “punitive approach”.

“Parenting courses have a proven track record in helping parents to exercise more effective control over their children’s behaviour,” he added.

“However, a voluntary approach is usually more likely to engage parents than compulsion, which can run the risk of breeding resentment.

“We should be cautious about extending compulsory powers to other types of anti-social behaviour without the procedural safeguards of a youth court hearing.”

The Home Secretary, John Reid, defended compulsory classes for the parents of undisciplined children, claiming that the measures would “change lives” and ultimately save thousands of pounds.

He said that the alternative to such orders would be to do nothing about the families of such children, with a future cost to society including thousands of pounds in court and social care fees.

“Getting the problem earlier and a combination of being robust on those parents who will not face up to their responsibilities and helping those who want to through these parenting classes is one of the elements - it is only one of the elements of tackling this,” he told GMTV.
 


Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

[Universe Prince]

Government enforced behavioral control. Wow. How sad.

[Brassmask]

Government enforced behavioral control. Wow. How sad.

What would you call a prison?  Or a police force?  Or laws for that matter?

It seems they are all forms of government enforced behavioral control.

[Amianthus]

What would you call a prison?  Or a police force?  Or laws for that matter?

It seems they are all forms of government enforced behavioral control.

Those are only supposed to be used when one person has violated the rights of others.

Or would you approve of locking someone up because someone thought they were going to commit a crime in the future?

[sirs]

What would you call a prison?  Or a police force?  Or laws for that matter?  It seems they are all forms of government enforced behavioral control.

Those are only supposed to be used when one person has violated the rights of others.  Or would you approve of locking someone up because someone thought they were going to commit a crime in the future?

Minority Report?

[Universe Prince]

What would you call a prison?  Or a police force?  Or laws for that matter?

It seems they are all forms of government enforced behavioral control.

Do you not see the difference between putting someone in jail for stealing and a government program for disciplining supposedly anti-social children? But after a fashion, you do make a point. Just not the one that you probably intended to make. Prisons, law enforcement and legislation are routinely used in this country for ridiculous levels of behavioral control. Example: the "war on drugs". But I'm not blaming the government. Nope, I'm blaming the people.

The people, us, the voters, we demand that government do something to fix this or that problem, as if life can be made fair and good via legislation. We demand that what we believe should be made into law to protect us from our neighbors and, naturally with all the best of intentions, to protect our neighbors from themselves. And I have little doubt that soon enough America will come to demand government run parenting classes mandated by law. Or perhaps Congressman Rangel's draft legislation will simply be expanded to include some language from Senator Kerry's idea to mandate volunteerism in schools. And who knows but that maybe some Republicans will get back on the mental health bandwagon and push again for all children to receive mental health examinations in schools so that the children can get the proper medications. All of this will be for the children, of course, so anyone who objects will be just a mean bastard who cares nothing about our children.

Yes, letting government decide what is proper social behavior and what is anti-social behavior, what is the proper mental attitude toward society and what is anti-social thinking will do wonders for our society. Think of the crime that we might stop by having our children trained and medicated properly from a young age. Yes indeed, I never cease to be amazed that the folks who holler the loudest about oligarchies and the wealthy elites seem to be so eager to have government interfere in life. It's almost as if they were complaining about arson and demanding to know why the government hasn't come to set their houses on fire. Or at least their books.

[Brassmask]

UP,

It seems that Blair is targeting kids and parents who have already run afoul of the law or are making trouble in schools and the like.  He's not sending supernannies door-to-door to force their way in to tell parents what they are doing wrong.

It's not like the British are going to have to deal with supernannies like the IRS. 

It strikes me as the same as Vermont's offering support to brand new mothers and allowing those mothers to accept the support or decline.

As my wife is part of this world in her daily job, it is more than sensible to suggest (or even compel) mothers or parents (in the odd case of an actual couple showing up to JC, most are single mothers) to avail themselves of some basic child rearing skills or even basic conflict resolution or communication classes.

This is not just kids making D's and not buckling down to bring their grades up.  This is kids staying out all night and drinking and lord knows what else.  And the mother is either powerless or unwilling to bring the child to heel.  This is breakdown of society kind of stuff.  This cycle must be broken.

So, get your panties all twisted if you like or you can go down and sit in JC court for a few days and get a real feel for how things are here in reality.

[Amianthus]

It seems that Blair is targeting kids and parents who have already run afoul of the law or are making trouble in schools and the like.

According to your article: "Under the measures, courts will also be encouraged to order compulsory lessons in a wider number of cases ... whose children have engaged in anti-social behaviour rather than in crime."

Doesn't sound like they've run "afoul of the law." The kids are just doing stuff that others don't like.

[Universe Prince]

It seems that Blair is targeting kids and parents who have already run afoul of the law or are making trouble in schools and the like.  He's not sending supernannies door-to-door to force their way in to tell parents what they are doing wrong.

The article says, "Under the measures, courts will also be encouraged to order compulsory lessons in a wider number of cases, while classes may also be given to parents whose children have engaged in anti-social behaviour rather than in crime." And "Laying the ground for the publication of proposals to force more fathers and mothers to attend parenting classes, Mr Blair said that an 'overwhelming majority' of people would welcome outside assistance." Words like "compulsory" and "force" sure make it look he wants the government to force its way into telling parents what to do.

As my wife is part of this world in her daily job, it is more than sensible to suggest (or even compel) mothers or parents (in the odd case of an actual couple showing up to JC, most are single mothers) to avail themselves of some basic child rearing skills or even basic conflict resolution or communication classes.

Sensible to suggest, yes. To compel by law, no.

This is not just kids making D's and not buckling down to bring their grades up.  This is kids staying out all night and drinking and lord knows what else.  And the mother is either powerless or unwilling to bring the child to heel.  This is breakdown of society kind of stuff.  This cycle must be broken.

Cycle? What is the cycle? If the child is breaking the law, then punish the child. I'm not even opposed to punishing the parents. But having the government decide what is and is not anti-social behavior and then to compel conformity, this is not the correct solution. If it were Pat Robertson and his pals trying to accomplish this, I think you would not be so gung-ho about it.

So, get your panties all twisted if you like or you can go down and sit in JC court for a few days and get a real feel for how things are here in reality.

Ah yes, the old "here in reality" bit. It's a dumb bit. No one said there were no problems or no children with behavioral problems. But that there is a problem does not make government and legislation the best and/or only solution. Because here in reality, that "solution" more often than not causes more problems than it solves, if it solves anything at all. I'm all for there being parenting classes and for encouraging parents and prospective parents to attend. Compelling attendance to such classes and attempting to legally mandate conformity to some group's preferred behavioral standards is, however, a really bad idea. Unless one likes fascism. And I don't.

[Brassmask]

Cycle? What is the cycle? If the child is breaking the law, then punish the childreferred behavioral standards is, however, a really bad idea. Unless one likes fascism. And I don't.[/color]

Dude, if a kid winds up in front of a judge then he's done something but not necessarily committed a crime.  That is how judges can compel and force people to do stuff.  MY wife is part of that system. 

As for the cycle, it is a continuous cycle that doesn't just begin when a kid throws a rock through a window or gets into fights at school.  The parents are responsible and it may be that they weren't properly instructed as a child.  It could be that they never even learned how to communicate from their own parents.  This is what a lot of people don't understand about the juvenile court system.  A lot of people think it is solely a prison system for kids who commit crimes.  IT AIN'T, chuckles.  It ain't just a jail for kids.  There is a difference between "troubled kids" and "child criminals".

In the end, the parent is responsible for the kid that is underage.  IF that parent is not equipped to raise a child, then a judge may instruct the "system" to equip that parent. If that means a refrigerator or a paying the rent for a month, that can be done, but the "system" is about teaching people to fish rather than giving them a fish now.

Ignorance is the problem not malice.  People are not born to steal. 

This idea that Blair wants to just tell people the best way to raise a kid is simply wrong.  What they will be doing is helping parents who had parents who couldn't communicate with learn to communicate with their own kids so those kids aren't out looking for communication and connections with, say, gangs.  So, before you get all wacky with the "force" and "compel", think how much better life would be if everyone had a decent childhood instead of just some and then the rest having crappy ones that lead to people being sociopaths who think that the rules don't apply to them and they can carjack you a block from your house.  It's in your own interest.

Just punishing crimes never works.  Ask any parent.

[Amianthus]

Dude, if a kid winds up in front of a judge then he's done something but not necessarily committed a crime.

Yes, because we know that someone who is innocent is never brought before a judge. There is no such thing as false arrest, ever.

That was sarcasm, BTW.

[Universe Prince]

Dude, if a kid winds up in front of a judge then he's done something but not necessarily committed a crime.

And not necessarily something for which he should face a judge.

As for the cycle, it is a continuous cycle that doesn't just begin when a kid throws a rock through a window or gets into fights at school.

I got into a couple of fights in high school. What about it?

The parents are responsible and it may be that they weren't properly instructed as a child.  It could be that they never even learned how to communicate from their own parents.  This is what a lot of people don't understand about the juvenile court system.  A lot of people think it is solely a prison system for kids who commit crimes.  IT AIN'T, chuckles.  It ain't just a jail for kids.  There is a difference between "troubled kids" and "child criminals".

In the end, the parent is responsible for the kid that is underage.  IF that parent is not equipped to raise a child, then a judge may instruct the "system" to equip that parent. If that means a refrigerator or a paying the rent for a month, that can be done, but the "system" is about teaching people to fish rather than giving them a fish now.

Ignorance is the problem not malice.  People are not born to steal.

You seem to have an idealized view of it. But I do not share your confidence that the government is the best fishing tutor.

This idea that Blair wants to just tell people the best way to raise a kid is simply wrong.  What they will be doing is helping parents who had parents who couldn't communicate with learn to communicate with their own kids so those kids aren't out looking for communication and connections with, say, gangs.  So, before you get all wacky with the "force" and "compel", think how much better life would be if everyone had a decent childhood instead of just some and then the rest having crappy ones that lead to people being sociopaths who think that the rules don't apply to them and they can carjack you a block from your house.  It's in your own interest.

Just punishing crimes never works.  Ask any parent.

Before you get all wacky with "think how much better life would be", consider that not everyone agrees on what constitutes a decent childhood. Some people think a decent childhood means being raised by God-fearing people, by a man and woman only, no same-sex couples, no questioning the Bible. Passing through a room where my father was watching the O'Reilly show, some fellow was on the screen explaining that teaching evolution was partly to blame for the Columbine school shootings. While I have no doubt life would be better if every person had a decent childhood, I do simply do not trust government to be the best decider of what is and is not a decent childhood. I almost hate to bring this up, but if we are to follow this through, the Nazis had a plan for children having a decent childhood as well. Just wanting children to have a decent childhood is not good enough. And while I realize there is a notion that we can somehow make utopia happen where everyone has a decent childhood and food, et cetera, if we just pass enough laws, but I don't believe that notion is anything other than naive. No, there is nothing wrong with wanting to put an end to the bad things that happen in life, and nothing wrong with trying to accomplish that. But we won't accomplish that by trying to control life, no matter how good our intentions might be.

[Brassmask]

Well, then just sit in the backseat and try not to f it up for those of us who want to help and think that using the government as a tool to help all of society is a good thing.

Ok?

[Amianthus]

Well, then just sit in the backseat and try not to f it up for those of us who want to help and think that using the government as a tool to help all of society is a good thing.

What if we don't want you to f up our lives by using police state tactics of "mandatory parental training"?

Sounds like brainwashing to me...

[Brassmask]

How would you define ANY schooling you have had?  Is Home Economics brainwashing?  How about A+ Certification?  Is Sunday School brainwashing?  What about that nefarious US History?  Would you consider the directions that flash on the screen at the ATM as you withdraw money brainwashing?

The idea that training Americans how to communicate with their children as brainwashing is ludicrous.  I wish someone had offered my own parents classes in child-rearing.  It would have helped me a lot.

With more training in child-rearing, you would see a marked DECREASE in teen pregnancy and child abuse.  Prevention goes a long way.  The only people out to put the brakes on this kind of stuff are either stockholders in the prison industry or not really interested in a better society to live in.