Why is this happening?

eazybee

Murder is not the province of the poor any more than it is of the rich.Pure conjecture. You have absolutely no evidence for either of your offensive remarks.

The protection and care of children is the responsibility of any civilised society. Why is it OK for one set of 12 year olds to be wandering the streets whilst another set is safely ensconced in an expensive child care educational facility?
Murder and assault may not be the "province of the poor" but as Boris graphically illustrated the rich can hire people to do their dirty work-poor people of course.

One set of teenagers are wandering the streets in possession of a knife because their parents have failed to instill moral values in them.

Expensive private education is given to approximately 7% of the population; the remaining 93% , strangely enough do not go on to commit murder because they have been 'deprived.

That's because a lot of them aren't deprived, though.
Do you have figures to show how the genuinely deprived are affected?

DiscoDancer1975

Dickens

There are plenty of us...women, who also don’t want a female Dr. Who, or James Bond

When I talked about ‘ working women’ paperbackwriter, I wasn’t meaning those who have to put food on the table. I’m talking about the people who choose it over looking after their children.

I really don't quite know what to say - this is absurd.

Dr Who and Mr Bond are fictional characters - this is entertainment, literature, acting... a world that is separate from every day life. The 'arts' world is free to express itself in whichever way it chooses - that is the point of Art.

You have a choice - if you don't like the subject matter, you really don't have to watch, read or look.

And if men are so insecure that an entertaining piece of science fiction with a woman as the main character makes them feel threatened, then the problem is with them.

As for "working women" who have to "put food on the table". These women need well-paying jobs. How do they get them other than by entering into the professions, by studying, by taking exams, by getting degrees - by doing the same jobs that men take for granted?
And if they are married with a family, they have to fit this in with those commitments. Which means they might have to employ someone to look after their children.
What you are basically saying - and it can't be interpreted any other way, is that women with young children should only work if they have to, to make ends meet. If they have no qualifications, then what jobs should they do - cleaning, shop work, just the menial work that can be fitted around their duties at home? And low paid work at that.

This is the 40s / 50s mentality - where women were sometimes allowed by their husbands to work for 'pin' money, or to help out with the family budget. Is that what you want us to return to?

Finally, do you have any concrete proof that the children of women who work and are looked after by a child-minder or nanny, are statistically more likely to be the violent offenders?

I know plenty of women who would have given anything to stay at home and look after their children. The jobs they do are not careers. Working in supermarkets etc. They work because they have to.

Career women are generally about choice. They don’t necessarily need the money, they just want to work. In my opinion....and it is just that....my opinion, that’s fine, no problem at all if children are not involved. The children should have a choice too.

You would obviously disagree, and that’s also fine. We both have a right to our opinions.

I was one of those women who would have preferred to stay at home looking after my family. But I couldn't.

And I was lucky, because I was able to choose well-paying work. Because I had the choice to study and train to enter the profession I chose.

There is nothing wrong with working in a supermarket - nor being a cleaner - I've done such work myself when it suited. But that's the point - I had a choice.

You appear to think that women who choose careers whilst raising children should be denied that choice - you certainly are critical of them. We have female surgeons, doctors, barristers, solicitors - you name it. Under your 'dictum', these women would be denied these professions because they take years of study. It took years for women to become emancipated, to have a vote, to enter the professions that were largely the preserve of men.

If women took your 'advice' all these careers, these professions would gradually become prohibited to women - except the fortunate minority of single women. And then we'd be right back where we started with the only work available being low-paid, menial work. That would be basically all the choice we would have.

You say that career women don't generally need the money, they do it out of choice. The former is debatable. As for the latter - unless it's proven that children raised by career women are statistically more likely to be juvenile offenders - then please give me a good reason why women should not have that choice?

You do not have to be rich to keep your children safe. I grew up
In a poor family but we had rules. The war had ended when i was 11 and i went to school on the tram. I went to the library on Saturday and on Sundays we went to Grandma’s house in Knotty Ash where my mothers brothers and sisters would meet. We were allowed to play out but the rules were that we all went inside at dusk. Boys did not carry knives in those days. Such an innocent childhood! My children are 59, 67 and 68 and they followed the same kind of rules, even if I was working. I would bet many of you raised their children rather in the same way. I dont think you can blame poverty and in fact i find it rather patronising. Many good parents are not well off!

Boys did not carry knives in those days.

Glasgow had a huge problem with knife gangs in the 20s and again in the 60s.

Rose coloured specs, I think

The old Glasgow smile.

Anniel

You do not have to be rich to keep your children safe. I grew up
In a poor family but we had rules. The war had ended when i was 11 and i went to school on the tram. I went to the library on Saturday and on Sundays we went to Grandma’s house in Knotty Ash where my mothers brothers and sisters would meet. We were allowed to play out but the rules were that we all went inside at dusk. Boys did not carry knives in those days. Such an innocent childhood! My children are 59, 67 and 68 and they followed the same kind of rules, even if I was working. I would bet many of you raised their children rather in the same way. I dont think you can blame poverty and in fact i find it rather patronising. Many good parents are not well off!

Poverty is not intrinsically the cause of crime, but it can be a contributory starting point. Children lured into gangs - gangs that deal in drugs. But that is also another dimension of the problem - because it is complex, and there's no one single cause. The offspring of the wealthy can also be part of a gang, but the gangs are more prominent in impoverished areas.

The danger of looking back through rose-tinted glasses is that we forget and ignore the fact that the way crime is reported now is completely different to what it was then.

You say boys didn't carry knives? The boys (and some girls) might now be younger, but young men most definitely did carry knives - flick knives. And have you forgotten the 'razor gangs'? Where I grew up in north London, there was a fight virtually every weekend in our street. Some were minor scuffles, but others were not.

Children are now more independent and although that is a good thing, it can also cause problems. And one of the problems is that, for commerce, children and young adults are a market to be exploited. They are now more tuned to the world of possessions, they naturally want what they see advertised; they want the 'right' clothing, latest technology and gadgets. And, frankly, so did we if we're honest, although it was easier to deny these goods to us because the advertising was limited to mostly billboards, shops and newspapers, but we did aspire to own transistor radios, gun-metal pointy shoes, records, etc. It was also more difficult to obtain these things on costly 'hire-purchase'.

Times were different then, but what we have now is simply an expansion of those times because the world, and technology changes, constantly. Children are tribal, they joined groups and gangs then, and they do the same now. But now the gangs are more 'sophisticated', more connected to the world of commerce, more knowledgeable, and they have the technology that we didn't. And that has made them more fierce and more dangerous.

It isn't necessarily deprivation, it is certainly a lack of provision of suitable places and organisations where children can spend time . There are no longer youth clubs, scouts and guides are understaffed, after school clubs and other places closed down during covid. School staffing has been cut and provision for special needs reduced. In many homes there has been a huge increase in child abuse and domestic violence. So we have a generation who are just wandering the streets with occasional forays into shopping centres where they are thrown out by security guards. If you are wandering the streets and afraid you carry a knife because you think it will protect you, unfortunately it is then sometimes used. I would imagine there will be more instances of violence unless we find a way to help these children.

In many homes there has been a huge increase in child abuse and domestic violence.

A very good point. The effect on children growing up in such an environment must be dramatic, truly awful.

Poverty is no reason or excuse for child abuse .

As for knives, the era of the Teddy Boys and flick knives.

Anniebach

Poverty is no reason or excuse for child abuse .

As for knives, the era of the Teddy Boys and flick knives.

Poverty is no reason or excuse for child abuse

It certainly isn't. Children from wealthy families are, apparently, just as likely to suffer abuse as children from poorer families.

But wealthy families come under less scrutiny from welfare services than those from lower socioeconomic groups, which is probably what gives rise to the assumption that mostly poor people abuse their children.

Were these boys being abused? Was the little girl being abused? It’s all speculation. We don’t know what kind of families they came from, apart from that the girl’s mother apparently worked in Primark. I’m concerned about the child who was killed with a knife/knives. I just saw that one boy of fourteen has been charged with her murder tonight. What part did the other boys play? I’m shocked by the horror of it all. A child killed by children. It’s happened before, but it’s always overwhelmingly shocking when it happens.

Dickens, you are right in many ways. I don’t like women working when there is enough money coming in for there to be no need for both partners to work. I don’t think it’s fair on the children...who have no choice.

When there is a need, of course that’s a game changer, and obviously, if you were able to study and get a career from it before you had your children, then it makes sense to go back to that career. I have two daughters who could be in this position.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with working in Supermarkets. That not what I said. I said I know of plenty of women who couldn’t afford to stay at home, and took these jobs, because they hadn’t been fortunate enough to be able to get a degree or whatever, to have a well paid career.

My son had a friend he used to walk home from school with. This friend said to my son how lucky he was, that I was in when he got in from school. I know I was fortunate too. However, this friend was unhappy because there was absolutely no need for his mum to be working. His dad was a doctor...a Consultant in a hospital. His wife just didn’t want to be at home. Money wasn’t the issue.

This is the kind of thing I don’t agree with....but it is just my opinion, which is, I thought, what these forums are all about. We don’t have to agree....just agree to disagree.

It seems one boy has has been charged with the murder of Ava with the others being bailed. That suggests involvement but not actual murder with the other boys.
Poor little Ava.

When I first read your post DiscoDancer1975 I was tempted to respond quickly but you are correct, everyone is entitled to their opinion. So here’s mine.

You seem to think that the only justification for working is money, and I think, if I understand you correctly, you think that women with working husbands and children are being selfish and not putting their children first.

Nearly every set of parents I know both work. Most of them could probably “manage” on one salary. However most of them work for a whole range of reasons. I could speak at length about one couple I know who both have professional jobs and also have 5 children. The children are probably the most well balanced people I know. They were always their parents’ top priority and knew they were loved. Sometimes mum or dad wasn’t there when they got home from work but they seem to have survived unscathed.

Life, and work, is not just about how much money you have. It’s about having a fulfilled life and being able to provide your children with parents who are happy and who can provide for all their needs, not just the monetary ones.

DiscoDancer1975

*Dickens*, you are right in many ways. I don’t like women working when there is enough money coming in for there to be no need for both partners to work. I don’t think it’s fair on the children...who have no choice.

When there is a need, of course that’s a game changer, and obviously, if you were able to study and get a career from it before you had your children, then it makes sense to go back to that career. I have two daughters who could be in this position.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with working in Supermarkets. That not what I said. I said I know of plenty of women who couldn’t afford to stay at home, and took these jobs, because they hadn’t been fortunate enough to be able to get a degree or whatever, to have a well paid career.

My son had a friend he used to walk home from school with. This friend said to my son how lucky he was, that I was in when he got in from school. I know I was fortunate too. However, this friend was unhappy because there was absolutely no need for his mum to be working. His dad was a doctor...a Consultant in a hospital. His wife just didn’t want to be at home. Money wasn’t the issue.

This is the kind of thing I don’t agree with....but it is just my opinion, which is, I thought, what these forums are all about. We don’t have to agree....just agree to disagree.

I take your points DiscoDancer1975 and understand the importance of children's needs in the family environment. Children are a responsibility, and not one to be taken lightly. And, possibly, this very aspect of parental responsibility is neglected by some, to the point it contributes to the criminality of young offenders.

A child is the product of its environment - especially in the home environment. A mother who is there when her children arrive home from school, but then allows them to roam around the streets afterwards with no idea about who they are hanging out with, where they are going or what they are doing is not really protecting or nurturing her children. And this does happen. Being present in the home does not guarantee a child's wellbeing.

I don't usually use anecdotes because they are personal and subjective, but as you have, I will also. My son was collected from school by his child-minder, who later became a friend and part of the family. My son visited her and her family long after he'd outgrown the need for her care and we all remained friends until she died. On those rare days when I was able to pick him up from school myself, he asked to be taken to the minder, simply because she looked after other young children, and her house became another extended play-area which he enjoyed. But, like your anecdote, it proves nothing, because it's very much an individual experience. The woman in your illustration didn't want to be at home - she may have had her reasons, or none at all, but it means nothing because other women are the opposite, and will attempt to fit in their careers with their children's needs, some will fail, some will succeed. Some women will be at home with their children and still fail them, others will provide a nurturing and protective environment. Sometimes the father collects the children from school because his work means he's home first. One size does not fit all.

The genie is out of the bottle and he's not going back in. Women are now in the world of work, in the professions, in commerce, finance etc. They want careers, and they want children, too. Because they now have the choice to be both career woman and mother.

I'm glad we have that choice, I do not want to revert to the 40s / 50s culture where many women even had to give up certain positions when they married. In Norway, where I lived and worked for 12 years, both men and women are given equal parental rights in the workplace, because being a parent is seen as a joint responsibility. A father's role and his presence in the family home is deemed to be as important as a mother's. Many companies will allow a man to adjust his hours to fit around his family commitments. And Norway has a very successful economy so there is no logical reason why any country cannot be as forward-thinking.

I know that you will disagree with me, but that's fine, as you say, we don't have to agree, we can agree to disagree.

I could draw attention to the fact that for a large part of the past two years most children will have had one or even both parents at home during covid. At the same time they were deprived of the outside influences of school and their peer group. Quite what effect this has had on them is not known. The whole emphasis of the government has been to focus on the way the lock down might impact on academic achievement. It is in my opinion far more important to look at how the lack of social interaction, confinement to the home and no doubt increased time spent on-line, playing games and watching TV, has damaged children's social development and mental health.

Working parents may influence how a child develops, but care of a child is no longer the sole concern of the mother it is something which should be shared.

Sorry but I am astounded by that idea that women should only work if they “need the money” ! So in the scenario where the parents split up and wife suddenly “has to” go out to work….where is her work experience ?
What if the woman is actually a far better parent for having been to work ? I know I was when I went back to work after a three/four year break . I’m very maternal but not at all “house proud, domesticated”

Lucca

Sorry but I am astounded by that idea that women should only work if they “need the money” ! So in the scenario where the parents split up and wife suddenly “has to” go out to work….where is her work experience ?
What if the woman is actually a far better parent for having been to work ? I know I was when I went back to work after a three/four year break . I’m very maternal but not at all “house proud, domesticated”

^ So in the scenario where the parents split up and wife suddenly “has to” go out to work….where is her work experience ?^

This is the point isn't it? Adopting the principle of only working out of necessity would ultimately put women at the bottom of the ladder again.

Any woman, left to fend for herself and her children, would have so little choice in the job market that she'd probably end up finding it hard to make ends meet without state support. Especially if she was a deserted mother.

As much as I respect differing opinions, I cannot get my head round this one. It's regressive. Surely we should be looking at ways to make working and home life more compatible, like they do in Norway (and Sweden)? Fathers are parents too, why do women always have to make the sacrifice?

Dickens. I will make this my last post on this thread, although I have enjoyed our exchanges.

Does this mean then...that you would rather leave your children with childminders in case you split with your partner/ husband? How many other scenarios would you apply this to, where the commodity is so much less precious? Buying a house for instance? That I can’t get my head around.

I prefer to take the stance of ‘ crossing bridges when you come to them’, rather than let someone else look after my children, who of course will come to be loved by them....he / she is effectively their parent.

I always knew I’d never be able to return to nursing as an SRN, after 36 years out of the job...but there are jobs I could do. I’ve always had chances as a Healthcare worker. Even my local Sainsbury’s would take me on...they know me so well, and that’s now, children grown up. If something had happened with me and my husband when we were younger, I would still have had those options, maybe more. That is just me though...not everyone.

I may be in the minority in this thinking on here, but so glad I did it. My doctor once told me...she sees lots of women who regret going to work and leaving their children, but never once seen one who regrets staying at home.

Finally....of course this could be fathers who stay at home, while mothers work. Why not? It doesn’t matter which parent, but in my opinion, it should be one of them. Just in my case, my husband would never have wanted to do that, and he earned ten times what I would have done as a nurse.

trisher

I could draw attention to the fact that for a large part of the past two years most children will have had one or even both parents at home during covid. At the same time they were deprived of the outside influences of school and their peer group. Quite what effect this has had on them is not known. The whole emphasis of the government has been to focus on the way the lock down might impact on academic achievement. It is in my opinion far more important to look at how the lack of social interaction, confinement to the home and no doubt increased time spent on-line, playing games and watching TV, has damaged children's social development and mental health.

Working parents may influence how a child develops, but care of a child is no longer the sole concern of the mother it is something which should be shared.

Thanks trisher, I agree with you about the unknown impact on children’s social and emotional development due to lockdown. Mothers were disproportionally affected, more likely to furlough or face the task of home schooling and WFH. What a stressful home environment.
DiscoDancer, of course you can express your opinions. I find them offensive.

Dad goes to work. Mum goes to work. Who looks after the child? You have to PAY someone. Strange that we understand this but don't place any monetary value on the parent (mum or dad - although I would suspect most couples would agree with Discodancer that is should be mum) taking doing the job - the person best placed to nurture and love the child. Missadventure highlights current government policy to push parents into work.
Whilst some are high earners and can ensure 'good' childcare (as 'we' aspire to be like the 'elite'), care for the majority who are on mediocre wages it is case of passing the kids around. Does this lead to a generation of lost kids, a rise of gangs as somewhere to feel you belong with the resulting rise in knife crime. Just me musing... have there been any studies done?
I think it was around 1990 when the question to new mums changed from 'ARE you going back to work?' to 'WHEN you going back to work?'
(p.s. I fully support equal rights for women in the workplace)

I don't find DiscoDancer1975's views offensive, but I do find them antediluvian.

Both my parents worked full time on mediocre wages so I guess you could say I was "passed around". But it was the sixties then so nobody knew that being looked after by your extended family meant you would become a knife wielding criminal.

Far too many generalisations on this thread.

I agree with you holysox.
If my grandson comes "to no good", it will be no great surprise, despite my best efforts.
There is only so much parenting I can do when I am not at home, there is no other family, and I'm worn out by it all, and yet I have 10 years left to work.