14 Comments »

1. Well, if it is so, that’ll be the first time ever that Beverly Hughes has responded intelligently to anything. She’s been blessed with the intellect of an amoeba. And actually we don’t ‘need to recognise’ anything. What sort of patronising claptrap is this?

   The government has thrown large amounts of taxpayers’ money at this problem, without it having any effect. Now the government is seeking to offload responsibility for failure of yet another of its crackpot schemes on to parents.

   Yes, parents do have responsibilities. Equally governments have the responsibility to spend our money wisely and on things that will actually work.

   It’s no good just chucking money about without proper prior consideration of the likely success or failure. All too often it’s the panic reaction to the headlines – witness Rover and any other number of failed schemes and ‘initiatives’.

   Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 27 May 2005 on 1:14 pm | Link

2. So what does Chuck think the Government should do? It is easy to abuse politicians – and there a lot of them less smart than Bev Hughes – but social change is difficult to achieve.

   Comment by Martin Rathfelder — 29 May 2005 on 4:34 pm | Link

3. That’s true – but that’s what the government is supposed to be there for; it’s their job. And you’re right; it IS easy to abuse ministers – they make it very easy. A lot of the time they make it unavoidable.

   And as we know by now there’s no point in suggesting what ministers should do; they’ve demonstrated all too often that they don’t listen. Back to square one.

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 30 May 2005 on 12:48 pm | Link

4. So young people have changed since I ran a youth club.

   Parents were NOT the ones that young people felt comfortable talking to about sex and relationships.

   We used to hold special sessions to explain how things happen and how they go wrong – or right.

   The kids knew all about sex but nothing about emotions and relationships – it was a real eye opener for them.

   Or is it that politicians – as ever – are out of touch?

   Comment by Roger Huffadine — 30 May 2005 on 6:44 pm | Link

5. It’s my understanding that politicians run for office because they say (and may even think) they have something to offer our society. I’m not convinced that any of them genuinely believe they will achieve ‘social change’ – whatever that may mean – but I’m prepared to suspend that disbelief for the purpose of debate.

   No doubt others are profoundly impressed with the results produced so far by the likes of Ms Bev Hughes, but I am not. This lady is a professional politico, and she knows the game. By her own admission she has not managed to achieve her brief – and here we’re discussing reduction of the levels of teenage pregnancy – so why should we regard that as anything other than failure?

   Worse, she now wishes to blame others for this.

   Of course it may actually be that Ms Hughes was given the poisoned chalice by her boss, but that is an entirely different debate. If she accepted the task she should get the results – or stand aside.

   And, incidentally, critics are not (and should not be) obliged provide solutions for highly paid and privileged politicians and officials. They take our money – they should do the job.

   Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 31 May 2005 on 12:18 pm | Link

6. "it was parents that teenagers felt most comfortable talking to about these issues"

   That’s ********! (I can’t think of a better word for it, so excuse the asterisks). I’m 17, I have a good relationship with my parents, don’t spend each night shouting the house down etc., but they’re the last people I’d talk to about sex and boyfriends! There’s a programme in some parts of the country (possibly parts of London? I can’t remember…) where teenagers work in conjunction with a nursery, and they’re each allocated a two-year old to supervise, in conjunction with talks about contraception and where/ how to access it. This, I would have thought, is a far more direct way to make teenagers aware of the risks and consequences involved, and has certainly been effective in that area. It’s a practical approach, not just preaching at bored teenagers who have ‘heard it all before’ anyway.

   Comment by Katie Adams — 1 Jun 2005 on 3:40 pm | Link

7. Apologies – I just couldn’t resist the urge to comment further.

   Possibly in Ms Hughes’ household they do all sit around discussing these matters over the dinner table. No doubt there are lengthy ‘sharings’ of information about sex, drugs, possibly rock n’ roll, and even ‘issues’ of personal hygiene.

   Unlikely, I know, but if I were ever to receive an invitation to visit Ms Hughes in her delightful bijou residence I might just run screaming into the night.

   Comment by Chuck Unsworth — 2 Jun 2005 on 9:23 am | Link

8. I have a problem, when prospective councillors/MPs knocks on my door do they say,"If you give me your vote I will listen""No",they go off in their own direction following Party Policy how farcical,now one teenage pregnacy is a mistake,I as a tax payer will support them,there after, they must recieve nothing from the likes of me,a tax payer all my life,never asking the state(my money)for help,if this policy is not forth coming we are doomed,does not Britain have the largest
   single mother senario? So what does that tell us ( Government you have got it wrong!Parents must take responsibility,not the state,not all these groups set up to conteract hiccups,Parents,we have to give back to the family unit,the moral being if you breed, you take responsibility,easy.

   Comment by P Crane — 30 Jul 2005 on 10:04 pm | Link

9. This is crap! YOU r doing nothin my child who is 16 got pregnet last year! we went though everything but fianlly we got there shes fine with her 1 year old doughter maggie i hope you do as much as u can to stop this!
   thank you!
   bob

   Comment by BOB — 13 Nov 2005 on 12:36 pm | Link

10. Martin Pathfinder is wrong. It is not easy to abuse politicians. Politics is show business for ugly people. They have skins of rhino thickness. Everybody hates them. Decent people cross the road if they see some grubby municipal thug councillor approaching them, throw things at the television when they appear. They are vile and it gets harder to be abusive about them, all of them, every one of them, their wives and families too. Think of Steven Byers, or Peter Mandelson, they are like something you’d step in, they are worse than effluent. So Martin, it isn’t easy, especially with a monster like Bev. But I’ll do my best:

    This Beverly Hughes, wasn’t she one of the sightless one’s grunting embittered lesbians, forced to resign over telling lies which were indefensible even by home office standards? Who gives a fuck what she says about anything? I think Ossie Osbourne said that.

    Comment by tasty macfadden — 14 Nov 2005 on 12:57 am | Link

11. Martin Pathfinder is wrong. It is not easy to abuse politicians. Politics is show business for ugly people. They have skins of rhino thickness. Everybody hates them. Decent people cross the road if they see some grubby municipal thug councillor approaching them, throw things at the television when they appear. They are vile and it gets harder to be abusive about them, all of them, every one of them, their wives and families too. Think of Steven Byers, or Peter Mandelson, they are like something you’d step in, they are worse than effluent. So Martin, it isn’t easy, especially with a monster like Bev. But I’ll do my best:

    This Beverly Hughes, wasn’t she one of the sightless one’s grunting embittered lesbians, forced to resign over telling lies which were indefensible even by home office standards? Who gives a fuck what she says about anything? I think Ossie Osbourne said that.

    Comment by tasty macfadden — 14 Nov 2005 on 1:15 am | Link

12. In this issue the family and community should be blamed -not the GV. Teenagers need guidance till they reach 18 years old
    <a href="http://www.skillipedia.com">http://www.skillipedia.com</a&gt;

    Comment by jobs — 15 Nov 2006 on 3:11 pm | Link

13. I am just wondering what the actual ‘problem’ of young motherhood is here. Is it because everyone assumes they are going to be welfare dependent? Fifty years ago we wouldnt bat an eyelid at young women having children but suddenly it is an issue of social exclusion. Perhaps the Government should concentrate on resolving the reasons why these young women feel they have no reason to defer motherhood- because of their lack of prospects, opportunities and the fact that many come from low socio economic backgrounds.

    Comment by Charlie — 2 Apr 2007 on 3:51 pm | Link

14. Its amazing where all of this political correctness is leading us
    There is only so much limited funding and medical attention available
    What is amazing how so much is demanded and yet so few questions or attention is given to asking the real questions
    It can be said that the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions

    Comment by Saper Agency — 27 Aug 2008 on 9:19 am | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.