Tag Archives: Welfare

News

If you defend your home from armed intruders in the UK, you get arrested

4 Comments

Story here in the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Officers were called to Vincent Cooke’s house in the affluent Stockport suburb of Bramhall, just before 8pm on Saturday following reports of a break-in.

Mr Cooke, 39, a married father of one who has run a number of small courier and logistics companies, was relaxing alone in the detached interwar property when the two intruders struck, Greater Manchester Police said.

His wife Karen, 34, and 12-year-old son returned home during the incident but escaped unharmed. Police said that during the break-in Mr Cooke was threatened and one of the intruders, Raymond Jacob, 37, of was stabbed.

Mr Cooke, who is one of five children, was being questioned on suspicion of murder on Sunday night.

I thought the response of the police was interesting – self-defense is murder:

“Clearly this is a serious incident in which a man has lost his life and at this time we believe the dead man was one of two men who were attempting to carry out a burglary at the house.”

The other suspected intruder fled in a small white Citroen van. Police last night confirmed a second man had been arrested in connection with the incident.

On Sunday afternoon relatives of Mr Jacob, of Northern Moor, Greater Manchester, laid flowers outside Mr Cooke’s home.

One read: “To my baby boy who will always be my baby boy. I will miss you, but never stop loving you. Mum.”

Last night friends and relatives also left tributes for Mr Jacob social networking websites.

“Still doesnt feel real, cant believe your gone we will all miss you,” said Danielle Leach on Facebook.

Just to be clear about the facts, here’s the UK Sun.

Excerpt:

Two knife-wielding intruders burst into the home of company director Vincent Cooke, 39.

Burglar Raymond Jacob, 37, is believed to have been stabbed with his own knife.

Mr Cooke was later arrested in Bramhall, Cheshire. His wife and son fled the house unhurt.

Isn’t the mother’s reaction interesting? It’s not unexpected coming from the feminized UK, though, where no one is responsible for anything they do. In fact, the one who judges and refuses to bail others out is the bad one. How mean! Defending your home from armed intruders! Just let them kill you! After all, the government already takes your money, so why not not ban self-defense so they take your life as well?

This is not unusual in the new Harriet Harman-onized UK. It happens all the time.

Consider this story from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Miss Klass, a model for Marks & Spencer and a former singer with the pop group Hear’Say, was in her kitchen in the early hours of Friday when she saw two teenagers behaving suspiciously in her garden.

The youths approached the kitchen window, before attempting to break into her garden shed, prompting Miss Klass to wave a kitchen knife to scare them away.

Miss Klass, 31, who was alone in her house in Potters Bar, Herts, with her two-year-old daughter, Ava, called the police. When they arrived at her house they informed her that she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an “offensive weapon” – even in her own home – was illegal.

Jonathan Shalit, Miss Klass’s agent, said that had been “shaken and utterly terrified” by the incident and was stepping up security at the house she shares with her fiancé, Graham Quinn, who was away on business at the time.

He said: “Myleene was aghast when she was told that the law did not allow her to defend herself in her own home. All she did was scream loudly and wave the knife to try and frighten them off.

You can read more about how the 1997 ban on handguns in the UK doubled violent crime in the four years after the ban at Reason magazine. Similarly, in the United states, legalizing the concealed carrying of firearms resulted in dramatic declines in violent crime. But that is just common sense. The more people who own guns and can defend themselves, the less crime there will be. But I think that the feminized state is just hostile to men acting in their traditional role as protectors, and they don’t like the idea that anyone is judged for doing evil things – like criminals.

The left, feminism and “equality”

And I can tell you what’s behind this. The secular left believes in equality. So if one person has money, and another doesn’t, it doesn’t matter what their personal decisions were. The poorer person should be allowed to take things from the richer person, and without getting hampered by laws and “self-defense”. That’s their view. That’s why they are soft on crime and release criminals early instead of punishing them. And this doesn’t just apply to criminals – this attitude goes right into the education system (“we need to make sure that families have no choice except the public schools, that way all the children will be equal”) the day care system (“we need to nationalize day care so that all the children are raised equally instead of by their own mothers”) the health care system (“we need to nationalize health care so that chaste men who are saving for their future marriage and children can pay for the abortions, sex changes, breast implants, contraceptives and IVF”), and so on.

I think Christians need to be especially careful with this compassionate impulse for “equality”, and consider whether equality might not make achieving Christian goals like liberty, marriage, and family more difficult. I don’t think it’s good for families to vote for higher taxes and bigger social programs that make men unnecessary as providers, protectors and leaders. All the responsibilities of the man to provide, protect and lead morally and spiritually are being handed off to the government, via police, schools, etc. That’s wrong.

Replacing men with government is bad for children – you don’t want to make it easier for women to not prepare to be mothers and wives, to not be careful about choosing the right men for marriage and parenting, and to not perform as wives and mothers once they are married in order to support men in their male roles. And that’s not my opinion – single motherhood by choice is known to increase child poverty and child abuse. And I don’t think that replacing men with government helps God any, either, since fathers are important for passing religion on to kids. You don’t serve God by undercutting his goals just because it feels good to you. You serve God by delivering results. His goal is not for you to feel good, but to do good. I recommend that anyone who votes based on feelings read more economics to find out what really works, and what strengthens marriage and family.

Related posts

News

In the UK welfare state, single motherhood is passed from mother to daughter

1 Comment

Robert Stacy McCain has the whole story.

Excerpt:

Say hello to Soya Keaveney, shown in a bikini photo she posed for at age 12, when the British girl was featured in a July 2008 magazine article:

Wearing a skimpy bikini and flaunting herself in an overtly sexual manner, Soya looks every bit the wannabe glamour model. . . .
Soya never goes out without putting on eyeliner and mascara, although once at school she’s often told to remove it by her teachers. Shockingly, she also frequently wears padded bras, short skirts, cropped tops, high heels and fishnet tights.

And now, the sequel:

A SCHOOLGIRL who posed aged 12 for controversial bikini pictures in a magazine is now pregnant at 15 — to the joy of her mum. . . .
Soya got pregnant by a 17-year-old boyfriend who is allowed by Janis to stay overnight at the family home.
Jobless single mum Janis, 48, said she was delighted because the council will now have to give her a bigger house. . . .
She added: “Our three-bedroom place was already overcrowded with her sisters Coco and Ritzy, her brother Tarot, Soya’s boyfriend Jake and one of her sister’s babies.
“Once the new baby comes the council will have to find us a place with four or five bedrooms. . . .
“I’m sure she’ll make a wonderful mum and will teach her children discipline like I have.”

So “mum” Janis, 48, has apparently never had a husband or a job, and lives with her four children, one of them already herself a mother and the other now pregnant by the 17-year-old boyfriend whom Janis permitted to spend the night in their 3-bedroom public housing apartment. All of this social pathology is subsidized by the British taxpayer!

But there’s more. I just posted about this single mother of ten children who is receiving £30,000-a-year in benefits.

Excerpt:

A mother-of-ten who nets more than £30,000-a-year in benefits has begged for charity donations to help raise her brood – because her state ‘wage’ is not enough.

Moira Pearce, 34, has insisted her weekly government handout of £600 is insufficient to feed and clothe her children and she needs donations to survive.

The single mum – whose kids are fathered by four ex-partners – has insisted her range of child and family allowance benefits do not meet her weekly outgoings.

Her annual payments funded by the public purse work out at a staggering £31,200-a-year – or £3,120 per child.

Ms Pearce – who lives with unemployed ex-boyfriend Mark Austin, 19, seven daughters and three sons – now wants extra help to save her from going under.

Recall another recent story I posted about that has yet another example of single motherhood by choice – subsidized by the feminist welfare state.

Excerpt:

She tells her children to do as she says and not as she does.

But the words of mother of 14 Joanne Watson – who receives more than £2,000 a month in state handouts – have fallen on deaf ears.

Her 15-year-old daughter Mariah is pregnant, the father has ‘left the scene’, and the youngster is about to start living off benefits.

Mrs Watson, 40, is raising her giant brood alone after parting from her husband John, 46, three years ago, and breaking up with subsequent partner Craig le Sauvage, 35, last year.

Despite this, she has still managed to squirrel away enough cash for a £1,600 breast enhancement and a sunbed. She claims she has always encouraged her daughters to use contraception – but, inevitably, it seems they would rather follow the family tradition.

Mariah’s pregnancy comes after Mrs Watson’s oldest daughter Natasha, 22, got pregnant with her son Branford, now six, when she was 16. Her second eldest daughter Shanice, 19, also got pregnant at 16 with her 22-month-old son Marley.

Mariah says she has no concerns about becoming a teenage mother, as it seems the most natural thing in the world. Initially, she and her child will be supported by the taxpayer.

She is expected to move into a housing complex for single mothers and will receive supplementary benefit and child allowance for her baby.

The youngster, who is due to have a boy, said: ‘I’m not nervous. I’ve been around babies my whole life so I know what to expect and that I can handle it. The father isn’t involved and I don’t want him to be either. I’m really excited and think I will be a great mum.’

And studies show that this is being passed on from mother to daughter.

Excerpt:

Girls who grow up without their fathers are at more at risk of becoming pregnant while still teenagers, long-term studies in the US and New Zealand suggest.

Researchers say the absence of biological fathers from the home is the most significant factor for teenage pregnancy.

The link between a father’s absence and teenage girls having sex has long been noted, but many researchers have attributed it to factors associated with divorce such as poverty and family conflict. But the new findings suggest the link is more direct.

The study’s author, Bruce Ellis, said: “These findings may support social policies that encourage fathers to remain in families with their children.” This would not apply to families with high conflict or violence.

Dr Ellis, who teaches at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, said the findings warranted serious attention in Australia, which has the sixth highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world, according to an article published Medical Journal of Australia last month.

Dr Ellis worked with teams of scientists from the Christchurch School of Medicine and three US universities. Nearly 800 American and New Zealand girls were tracked from early in life to age 18.

The study revealed that the earlier a father left, the greater the risk of teenage pregnancy. Rates increased from about one in 20 in the US sample and one in 30 in the NZ sample for girls whose fathers were present, to one in three in the US and one in four in NZ for girls whose father left early in their life. Early absence was defined as the first five years of a girl’s life.

Girls who grew up in otherwise socially and economically privileged homes were not protected, Dr Ellis said.

When a woman grows up in a home where money is delivered by government check, she has no idea what men are for. She chooses men solely based on physical appearance, popularity, and peer approval, and she has no idea what love really looks like between men and women. That’s why they repeat the mistakes of their mothers. And it’s not a problem that can be solved by confiscating more money from working fathers and giving it to single mothers – even wealthy single mother homes are not immune. If men are not seen as protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders in the home they grow up in, then they will choose “bad boy” predatorial men as sexual partners, using shallow criteria to judge them – like the 180-second rule. This is exactly what feminism dictates, since feminism denies that men have the traditional sex roles of protector, provider and moral/spiritual leader. Young women growing up in single mother families have learned to resent men who make exclusive truth claims, especially about religion, and exclusive moral claims, too. They prefer the moral relativist men, who have postmodernist/universalist views of religion. The only difference in men that they know is strictly on physical appearance – what else are men supposed to do other that look good and be fun?

I think that this social trend is most reasonably blamed on Labor Party MP Harriet Harman, the most anti-family, anti-marriage, anti-father politician the UK has ever seen. Her militant feminist policies have taken money away from working fathers in intact marriages in order to redistribute it to women who choose to have premarital sex and then to get pregnant out of wedlock. This is now considered “normal” in the UK, and it’s because of Harriet Harman’s feminism-inspired push against traditional marriage, which she views as sexist. It is no surprise to anyone in the know that the fist generation of militant socialist feminists would raise the first generation of unmarried mothers. Single motherhood is the direct result of feminism – they want to replace men with government handouts.

Read more to find out more about how fatherlessness harms children, and leads to child poverty and child abuse. We have to stop this, and the only way to do that is to get informed and to persuade others. We can’t continue to hurt children like this.

Related posts

News

Unwed mother of ten says £30,000 per year in welfare benefits is not enough

3 Comments

A disturbing story about subsidized single motherhood from the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

A mother-of-ten who nets more than £30,000-a-year in benefits has begged for charity donations to help raise her brood – because her state ‘wage’ is not enough.

Moira Pearce, 34, has insisted her weekly government handout of £600 is insufficient to feed and clothe her children and she needs donations to survive.

The single mum – whose kids are fathered by four ex-partners – has insisted her range of child and family allowance benefits do not meet her weekly outgoings.

Her annual payments funded by the public purse work out at a staggering £31,200-a-year – or £3,120 per child.

Ms Pearce – who lives with unemployed ex-boyfriend Mark Austin, 19, seven daughters and three sons – now wants extra help to save her from going under.

Stephen Baskerville has noted some of the risks of this kind of arrangement in a Washington Times article.

Excerpt:

A British study found children are up to 33 times more likely to be abused when a live-in boyfriend or stepfather is present. “Contrary to public perception,” write Patrick Fagan and Dorothy Hanks, “research shows that the most likely physical abuser of a young child will be that child’s mother, not a male in the household.” Mothers accounted for 55% of child murders according to a 1994 Justice Department report (and fathers for a tiny percentage). As Maggie Gallagher writes in her 1996 book, “The Abolition of Marriage”: “The person most likely to abuse a child physically is a single mother. The person most likely to abuse a child sexually is the mother’s boyfriend or second husband. . . . Divorce, though usually portrayed as a protection against domestic violence, is far more frequently a contributing cause.” Adrienne Burgess, head of the British government’s Fathers Direct program, observes that “fathers have often played the protector role inside families.”

There was a time when society frowned on single motherhood and divorce – back when we put the needs of children over the happiness of adults. There was support available for those women who needed help from private charities, but the government didn’t get involved. Women chose to marry men who had moral character, so that they could teach their children right and wrong in these sexual matters. But then women began to prefer men who had less-defined ideas about religion and morality. Those men were “better” because they were more fun, and less judgmental. Somehow, women began to view men telling children about right and wrong as a bad thing. Setting up moral boundaries was no longer viewed as protective, but as incompatible with “liberty”.

Here is some research showing how single motherhood and divorce increases the frequency of child poverty and child abuse. Should we be subsidizing fatherlessness? The more we subsidize something, the more of it we will get. Do we want more of these things? Can we afford it? Is it what is best for innocent children?