Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Guest UK Debt Slave

Brown's Gulags For Slags Policy

Recommended Posts

Guest UK Debt Slave

From:

http://order-order.com/

Courtesy of Lancaster Unite Against Fascism this was the motion debated at the BNP’s Party Conference and adopted by Gordon at the Labour Party conference:

Teenage mothers – the problem and the solution

Any amount of sexual health education is not going to reduce Britain’s high teen pregnancy rates, whilst the ‘rewards’ for becoming an unmarried teen mother remain so [relatively] attractive. The cycle of girls getting pregnant by man A, then being allocated a council flat & welfare benefits, then getting pregnant by man B, and being allocated a bigger council flat & more benefits, then getting pregnant by man C, and being allocated a council house & yet more benefits has got to STOP. It leads to all sorts of social problems, resulting from mothers who are not mature enough to parent effectively, and end up raising dysfunctional families in poverty. It also costs tax payers a lot of money, to fund these ‘alternative’ lifestyles.

Furthermore, people who have been on housing waiting lists for several years, and who conduct themselves in a responsible manner, find themselves being ‘queue-jumped’ by these feckless members of society.

So, I suggest that there be no council flats and no welfare benefits available to unmarried mothers under the age of 21. Instead they will be placed in ‘mother & baby homes’. Here they will receive academic education as well as parenting classes, plus courses covering all aspects of their social development. The homes will be run by ‘matron’ type figures. The homes should not be ‘institution’ like, but at the same time there will be rules which must be adhered to; such as a curfew of approx 9pm, a dress code which states skirts must come to at least the knees & no cleavage to be on show. Failure to comply with the homes’ rules will result in the mother being sent to prison, and the baby being taken in to care.

This is not a short-term remedy, but a long-term solution. Eventually I believe the implementation of this policy will result in a vast decrease in teenage girls becoming pregnant – as the consequences will be positively unattractive. Of course, teenage pregnancies will never be completely eradicated, and the homes will allow for the girls who do still become teen mothers to learn how to be good parents, whilst not being fast-tracked to the top of the housing queue.

If an 18-20 year old pregnant woman is married [marriage should not be an option available to 16/17 year olds, even with parental consent] and her husband has a job, then she will be exempt from going in to one of the homes.’

Couldn't make it up could you?

Broon lifting policy ideas from the BNP!

:lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From:

http://order-order.com/

Courtesy of Lancaster Unite Against Fascism this was the motion debated at the BNP’s Party Conference and adopted by Gordon at the Labour Party conference:

Couldn't make it up could you?

Broon lifting policy ideas from the BNP!

:lol::lol::lol:

i say bring back debtors prisons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile the bankers get their billions of pounds worth of bonuses, courtesy of the generosity of the taxpayer. Which is the biggest moral hazard, giving money to scum in pinstripes or giving (less) money to women with babies?

Why are they always labelled in this ludicrous middle-class tag of "single parent drug addict on council estate" - it's pathetic and a distraction from the real criminals (the ones in government and their masters in the city).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice the option of less tax and more freedom with no benefits at all ain't on the table.

Just stuff that requires more intrusion, more control...more cash....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile the bankers get their billions of pounds worth of bonuses, courtesy of the generosity of the taxpayer. Which is the biggest moral hazard, giving money to scum in pinstripes or giving (less) money to women with babies?

Why are they always labelled in this ludicrous middle-class tag of "single parent drug addict on council estate" - it's pathetic and a distraction from the real criminals (the ones in government and their masters in the city).

yep its wrong but its a distraction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meanwhile the bankers get their billions of pounds worth of bonuses, courtesy of the generosity of the taxpayer. Which is the biggest moral hazard, giving money to scum in pinstripes or giving (less) money to women with babies?

Why are they always labelled in this ludicrous middle-class tag of "single parent drug addict on council estate" - it's pathetic and a distraction from the real criminals (the ones in government and their masters in the city).

So two wrongs make a right? So you see someone speeding past your local Primary School and think 'Well if he does it I can do it'.

Very strange way of thinking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I notice the option of less tax and more freedom with no benefits at all ain't on the table.

Just stuff that requires more intrusion, more control...more cash....

Yep. Don't give them benefits to incentivise getting pregnant. Give them a tax cut (tax exemption for low earners) to incentivise them to find work and take control of their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone point out to them that "get pregnant to get housed" was part of the rot of of the 1970s, and remind them what that led to?

Oh, and the 1970s National Front had policies mostly very similar to Labour at the time. Not surprising: both parties of the "working class".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like a pretty good idea to me. They have similar policies in Finland and pregnancies have plummeted.

Perhaps I'll secretly vote BNP - you know when asked , 'Did you vote today?' Yer - voted Tory (Big faced lie).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From:

http://order-order.com/

Courtesy of Lancaster Unite Against Fascism this was the motion debated at the BNP’s Party Conference and adopted by Gordon at the Labour Party conference:

Couldn't make it up could you?

Broon lifting policy ideas from the BNP!

:lol::lol::lol:

it really is awfully simple to sort out.

child benefit payable to MARRIED mother for FIRST child up to age 7....no council house etc.

And bigamy is illegal anyway,if enforced,should stop the jungle-bunnies breeding like rabbits :lol:

if people have to keep it in their pants a bit,then we get the double bonus of considerably less STD infection,plus the cost associated to such treatment.

it will,unfortunately,add to the unemployment figures as all these "chaos management" positions will have to be culled.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a fantastic policy and if it came from BNP then good for them.

We have an underclass of little sluts knocking out kids nobody pays for.

All this benefit and prison lark. If life was worse than normal peoples nobody would want to be on the dole or in the nick.

Good on GB.

Something has gone horribly horribly wrong in the world... Sibley's just posted something that makes a bit of sense, and I agree with him

I'm off to take a shower and try to scrub myself clean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave
I notice the option of less tax and more freedom with no benefits at all ain't on the table.

Just stuff that requires more intrusion, more control...more cash....

Quite

Another expansion of government is deemed to be the solution.

People just don't learn do they?

Government ALWAYS makes the problem worse, not better.

The answer is simple. NO BENEFITS! NONE! NADA! ZILCH! ZERO!

And no expansion of government to administer another social program that is guaranteed to create more problems than it solves.

Edited by UK Debt Slave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. Don't give them benefits to incentivise getting pregnant. Give them a tax cut (tax exemption for low earners) to incentivise them to find work and take control of their lives.

It's not rocket science!

Give people an incentive and if they dont take it then F***K em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And bigamy is illegal anyway,if enforced,should stop the jungle-bunnies breeding like rabbits :lol:

Five to eight? Bit early to be that pissed, ain't it?

Edited by Wario

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite

Another expansion of government is deemed to be the solution.

People just don't learn do they?

Government ALWAYS makes the problem worse, not better.

The answer is simple. NO BENEFITS! NONE! NADA! ZILCH! ZERO!

And no expansion of government to administer another social program that is guaranteed to create more problems than it solves.

makes sense to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it really is awfully simple to sort out.

child benefit payable to MARRIED mother for FIRST child up to age 7....no council house etc.

And bigamy is illegal anyway,if enforced,should stop the jungle-bunnies breeding like rabbits :lol:

if people have to keep it in their pants a bit,then we get the double bonus of considerably less STD infection,plus the cost associated to such treatment.

it will,unfortunately,add to the unemployment figures as all these "chaos management" positions will have to be culled.

Well done, I haven't heard that expression since at least 1979. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And bigamy is illegal anyway,if enforced,should stop the jungle-bunnies breeding like rabbits :lol:

Bigamy is being married to two people simultaneously, which is a criminal offence in Britain (although the Muslim Council of Britain has called for an exemption on religious grounds). The chavettes we're talking about have never been married to anybody or anything in their lives. Bringing a child into the world without making adequate financial provision to support its upbringing is not an offence as things stand. I think it should be.

If this proposal does originate from the BNP, I have to admit grudgingly that it's moderately clever. Should any of the mainstream parties condemn it as extremist the BNP can simply point out, as an earlier poster has noted, that such systems are in place and largely uncontentious in many western countries.

Edit - to correct split infinitive

Edited by The Ayatollah Bugheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every time this comes up morons like most of you on this thread say young women get deliberately pregnant to `get housing`.

there has never been any evidence, of one mother, anywhere who has done that. never.

basically you lot of fascists on this site, and there are plenty of you traitors about, not only espouse vile hate filled politics but you also hate women and children and especially the poor (aka `chavs`).

poor women with children, they disgust you. your fingers are beelding from your vile mysoginy and child hatred.

i would never leave my kids with people like you, we all know why as well.

note: the people who killed Baby P were racist scum as well. two sides of the same coin. racists, rapists and paedos.

you are nothing better than traitorous neo-fascist scum. please f off to Germany. :D

Edited by Coolfonz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
every time this comes up morons like most of you on this thread say young women get deliberately pregnant to `get housing`.

there has never been any evidence, of one mother, anywhere who has done that. never.

Karen Matthews?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE>>>
So, I suggest that there be no council flats and no welfare benefits available to unmarried mothers under the age of 21. Instead they will be placed in ‘mother & baby homes’. Here they will receive academic education as well as parenting classes, plus courses covering all aspects of their social development. The homes will be run by ‘matron’ type figures. The homes should not be ‘institution’ like, but at the same time there will be rules which must be adhered to; such as a curfew of approx 9pm, a dress code which states skirts must come to at least the knees & no cleavage to be on show. Failure to comply with the homes’ rules will result in the mother being sent to prison, and the baby being taken in to care.

So what is the crime? Why send them to prison and take their children away from them? If you tried to take my child away from me I'd cut your throat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave
every time this comes up morons like most of you on this thread say young women get deliberately pregnant to `get housing`.

there has never been any evidence, of one mother, anywhere who has done that. never.

basically you lot of fascists on this site, and there are plenty of you traitors about, not only espouse vile hate filled politics but you also hate women and children and especially the poor (aka `chavs`).

poor women with children, they disgust you. your fingers are beelding from your vile mysoginy and child hatred.

i would never leave my kids with people like you, we all know why as well.

note: the people who killed Baby P were racist scum as well. two sides of the same coin. racists, rapists and paedos.

you are nothing better than traitorous neo-fascist scum. please f off to Germany. :D

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

That's the funniest thing I read all day, and wow! There has been some pretty crazy stuff going on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   287 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.