Rant - "Social Protection"

[aclivity]

Originally Posted by Mark Davies

'T-Jay', 'Amani' and 'Lita'. Now that's the real crime - says it all.

Came across a J'Lo the other day. It really is only a matter of time before I find baby Chlamydia.

It’s sad but you have to laugh when you hear people using completely made up names. I mean – T-Jay. Amani (did she mean Armani?). Lita – I wonder if that is short for ‘Lolita’, and the link with Nabukov was completely missed?

I read somewhere else on this site about twins called ‘Dolce’ and ‘Gabbana’ (I suppose it’s a blessing that they didn’t have a slip of the brain and call them ‘Dollond’ and ‘Aitchison’). If she had triplets the middle one could have made up the ‘&’ in the middle:

Originally Posted by Letter to the Dilbert Newsletter

My wife manages a convenience store. Yesterday a mother and daughter (maybe two years old) came into the store. When the mother was ready to go to the register, she called to her daughter, "Ampersand! Ampersand! Let's go honey."
My wife couldn't believe what she heard, so she asked the customer, "What's your daughter's name?" and the Induhvidual replied, "Ampersand. I don't know what it means, but I think it's a lovely girl's name."

There was another example in a later newsletter:

Originally Posted by Letter to the Dilbert Newsletter

The story in your last newsletter about the kid named Ampersand reminded me of another version I heard recently. One of my relatives met a woman who wanted to call her kid LATRINE. It took me an hour to stop laughing long enough to ask if anybody had pointed out what a latrine is. They had. She was apparently still intent on using it.

Has anyone else ever wondered why, if 'Chardonnay' is an acceptable name now for footballers wives, why 'Liebfraumilch' never took off as a name? 'Blue Nun'? 'Pomagne'? I look forward to the day I meet up with a chav child called 'Asti Spumanti'.

Maybe it's just me, then.

[SoggyFox]

what about 'Stella' and 'Artois', great for twins.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by aclivity

I was musing on this too.

You gotta stop that mate - look where it's got us

Originally Posted by Aclivity

The father is now 14, so was 13 when the baby was conceived.

And should have been pinged by Social Services then for underage sex and been given a 'life course' in getting his shit together. Ditto his parents.

Originally Posted by Aclivity

When I was 13 all I was interested in was derallieur gears. Girls were things that were at the school next door (I went to an all boys school) and more often then not to be ignored or to throw rocks at.

Aye, skinned knees and climbed trees.

Originally Posted by Aclivity

I'm coming over all 'Daily Mail' as I write this, so I must end on a bleeding heart liberal note to satisfy my internal scales ...

Rue the day I'm ever referred to as a 'liberal', but I concur about trying to imbue some balance into this whole sorry mess.

Originally Posted by Aclivity

to echo a point above, the babies (all 6 of them) should be supported and if that requires benefits then so be it. The smallest 3 shouldn't have to suffer for mistakes they didn't make, and the larger 3 should be helped to understand the enormity of what they have done, to try and stop history repeating and making them grandparents at the age of 24.

Agree totally. The three children, at least those under the age of 12 in this case, should not have the sins of the fathers visited upon them - they did not ask to be here. If we ever needed a working example of just how to allow the sins of the fathers to f*ck things up for their children, all we need do is look at Norrthern Ireland.

So whilst every female of child-bearing age in this piece might be as thick as two short planks (and the matriach a granny - thrice - at the tender age of 38 FFS!), we have to ask oursleves who's to blame here: the pubescent protaganists/baby-factories, or the society which allows it (through making it easy/creating every incentive) to propagate with such alarming ease?

In a different age the fathers would be taken to one side and horse-whipped for their crimes - nowadays, we see two distinct sets of the fathers: those who dress as Batman and either scale Tower Bridge or Buckingham Palace because of the ludicrously lopsided and biased (towards the mothers) rules governing access to their progeny, or those who spray their population-paste liberally with no thought for the consequences and have no intention of facing up to their responsibilities.

And in all this, the (and, given the ages of some of those in this piece, I'll use the word deliberately) babies are the most shocking kind of afterthought.

Alas, on this form, it is highly likely that those here now in swaddling clothes and on their mother's breast (that's if they're lucky enough to be breast-fed) will gambol into the same pitfalls as their mothers.

And so it goes, and so it goes...

Infelix ego homo.

[AirHog]

Originally Posted by aclivity

It’s sad but you have to laugh when you hear people using completely made up names. I mean – T-Jay. Amani (did she mean Armani?). Lita – I wonder if that is short for ‘Lolita’, and the link with Nabukov was completely missed?

I call my son A-J at times, but that is because his name is Alexander James Woods. As a parent, I found it quite a responsibility naming my son as he will have to live with my choice for the rest of his life. (yes, I know it's only about £20 to change using deed poll - not the point )

We took time, considered people we knew, past and present, with the names we liked and finally chose how we did. At no point was I tempted to open my mum's Littlewoods catalogue and look for a name amongst the clothing brands.

What's the betting these kids with the 'strange' names (for want of a better word) grow up to be a little ill-fitting in society themselves.

Regards

Mark

[tootricky]

Originally Posted by Wacker

Caption Competition:
Latest "must chav" accesory

Have you met our new boyfriends?

[londonsean69]

In the paper this morning they are now looking to prosecute the fathers for having sex with under-age girls!!
2 underage teenagers having a fumble is a bit different to what this law is really meant to prevent. Although I think there is a special law when they are under 12.

Well, that will be in the public's interest, and cost an arm and a leg, wonder who dreamed that one up?

[londonsean69]

[londonsean69]

[SoggyFox]

Originally Posted by londonsean69

In the paper this morning they are now looking to prosecute the fathers for having sex with under-age girls!!
2 underage teenagers having a fumble is a bit different to what this law is really meant to prevent. Although I think there is a special law when they are under 12.

Well, that will be in the public's interest, and cost an arm and a leg, wonder who dreamed that one up?

Isn't it something like Statuory rape, i think this applies to all case of under age sex, even if consensual.

[ahar]

Originally Posted by londonsean69

In the paper this morning they are now looking to prosecute the fathers for having sex with under-age girls!!
2 underage teenagers having a fumble is a bit different to what this law is really meant to prevent. Although I think there is a special law when they are under 12.

Well, that will be in the public's interest, and cost an arm and a leg, wonder who dreamed that one up?

Unless there is a complaint by one of the kids or parents, the police don't usually bother with this kind of prosecution where they are both under age. However, I think the article said one of the fathers was 38 so he might get done.