There aren't many stories that genuinely surprise anymore but today's splash in The Sun is a real shocker.
The Sun has photographs of a baby-faced thirteen year old boy holding the child that he has fathered with a fifteen year-old girl.
David Cameron has called the news "worrying" but was cautious. Iain Duncan Smith was more direct with this statement to the London Evening Standard's Paul Waugh:
"It exemplifies the point that we at the Centre for Social Justice have been making about broken Britain. It's not about being accusative, it's about pointing out the complete collapse in some parts of society of any sense of what's right and wrong in terms of children and relationships. There is no oppobrium any more about behaviour and quite often children witness behaviour that is aggressive, violent, rude and sexual. It's as if no one is saying this is wrong. I don't know about these particular families, but too many dysfunctional families in Britain today have children growing up where anything goes. It's utterly tragic."
There are things that Government can do to tackle family breakdown but IDS is largely right. The collapse of Britain's social order is a cultural crisis. Civilisations aren't maintained automatically but by constant efforts to discourage bad behaviours and encourage good behaviours. Parents today face a lonely battle to teach their children about right and wrong.
Tim Montgomerie
"The collapse of Britain's social order is a cultural crisis."
A social crisis that is mostly the result of the breakdown of the institution of marriage.
There is no chance that my children will be Fathering children at 13, why? Because their mother is at home looking after them.We are always aware of where they are, and who they are with.
Opprobrium, social network would have got the message across better IDS.
Posted by: Ross Warren | February 13, 2009 at 14:06
Well said IDS!
I agree also with Ross Warren. We should stop making life easy for unwed parents and divorce should be very difficult for parents with children under the age of adulthood.
Posted by: David_at_Home | February 13, 2009 at 14:16
"Parents today face a lonely battle to teach their children about right and wrong."
Too damn right! Oh, sorry. I must not be 'judgemental', must I.
Posted by: Rupert Matthews | February 13, 2009 at 14:21
Duncan Smith could not be more correct or put the problem better. More power to him. This is what happens when parents feel no responsibility
for their children, encouraged by politicians to believe the State takes all that. They have children when they can't afford them and without thinking. Small wonder that the next generation follows their examples. Both the boy and girl involved in this particular case are under the statutary age so why aren't they or the parents being prosecuted ?
Posted by: JS | February 13, 2009 at 14:39
"Both the boy and girl involved in this particular case are under the statutary age so why aren't they or the parents being prosecuted ?"
JS that is a very good question, although it has to be said what good would it do? In the end all that would happen would be that the baby (who is probably the main victim in all this) would be taken into care. This story sums up the tragedy of the collapse of family structures in Britain today. There is certainly no short-term answer.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 13, 2009 at 14:44
This country is going to the dogs.
Alongside an economic collapse Cameron will inherit a terrible social crisis too.
Posted by: Alan S | February 13, 2009 at 14:47
You should read the story before commenting -- not a broken family, but one (with 6 kids) living at my (taxpayer) expense, whats one more (albeit a grand-daugher) to them?...
No wonder I can only just afford to have two of my own.
However it is a warning to boys/young men (via their parents) about avoiding entrapment...
Posted by: pp | February 13, 2009 at 14:53
We should stop making life easy for unwed parents
You mean make life miserable? Surely whether someone gets married should be a choice, not for government to dictate. You sound very nanny-stateish.
and divorce should be very difficult for parents with children under the age of adulthood.
Disagree 100%. Parents with children rarely get divorced lightly. Normally it's because people change and they don't love each other anymore. A loveless relationship is not going to produce a happy environment for a child, especially with the sort of tension that can arise in such a situation. What's better for a child - two loving parents who no longer live together but share parenting duties, or two parents who live with their child but keep it up every other night with repeated shouting matches?
What I would do is possibly mandate that divorce can only be sought after marriage counselling has been tried and failed.
Posted by: Raj | February 13, 2009 at 14:54
I want to know how certain members of the medical and teaching professions hand out contraception to children without being prosecuted for being accessories to crime.
Anyway, the motto of the left wing sociopaths who infest the policy making institutions is "if it ain't working, do more of it".
N'er mind though. Teenage pregnancies ARE coming down though. Diddly squat to do with contraception and sex education, and everything to do with startling demographic change as highly patriarchal and conservative foreign cultures supplant the one that social and sexual libertinism destroyed.
Interestingly enough, the demographic that is still caught up in this nightmare of amorality and immorality - in other words "Old Britain" - is seeing an increase in the teenage pregnancy and abortion rates, whilst experiencing demographic collapse!
More condoms! More condoms!
Posted by: Hugh Oxford | February 13, 2009 at 15:07
"We should stop making life easy for unwed parents"
I tend to agree. No more jumping the social housing Queue for single mums. Keeping a closer eye on cohabitation and benefit fraud. It's not so much a case of marriage breaking down as it not happening at all.
Perhaps we should be looking to help those on lower incomes who have recently tied the knot to find somewhere they can afford to live.We should end the discrimination against married couples when it comes to benefit rates. Two may be able to live almost as cheaply as one, but that extra is their reward for doing it right. I really don't want to punish single mums but I do want to see marriage back were it belongs as the corner stone of our society. Well done IDS keep up the good work.
Posted by: Ross Warren | February 13, 2009 at 15:12
How often do 13 year olds become parents? Does anyone have access to statistics? If anything it shows the need for better sex/relationship education. Standards in pre-watershed broadcasting need to be tightened up, especially the soap operas, and people-exploiting shows like Jeremy Kyle and Trisha Goddard, both of which trivialize and make capital out of casual relationships.
Posted by: Tony Makara | February 13, 2009 at 15:12
Opportunism at its very worst. Perhaps someone at head office could change the age of the father to 10 to embarrass GB.
Posted by: Josh | February 13, 2009 at 15:23
Hugh in Oxford.
It's all about consent of the child. Check out Gillick competence test.
Posted by: Josh | February 13, 2009 at 15:24
Where have my comments gone?
Posted by: Josh | February 13, 2009 at 15:27
It's sufficiently unusual, that when it happens it's front page news. Last time it happened to a boy this young was 10 years ago. It's clear that the lad simply had not been taught the birds and bees. The idea that this is a "symptom of a broken society" and not a freak event is silly.
I do which that ConHome would stop jumping on these kind of tabloid stories and instead did some real research over at the ONS, which is packed full of useful data.
Posted by: Red Tory | February 13, 2009 at 15:30
To Red Tory,
You want data?
Stats today showing that married families are now in a minority in Britain for first time ever. That is a symbol of a society retreating from commitment.
Posted by: Social conservative | February 13, 2009 at 15:43
Another shocking result of the wonderful free society we live in today. I wonder if they got paid by the newspaper.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | February 13, 2009 at 15:45
Raj wrote, "What I would do is possibly mandate that divorce can only be sought after marriage counselling has been tried and failed."
Better still, divorce should only be granted if the parties mutually consent to it.
They married that way, so it should be their only exit route.
If they can't agree, they will have to put up with a legal separation imposed by a court.
Neither should be able to remarry until there is mutual consent to the divorce.
Posted by: Nick Gulliford | February 13, 2009 at 16:05
"Neither should be able to remarry until there is mutual consent to the divorce."
That is bound to lead to one partner refusing consent to the other out of bitterness or a wish to ruin their life! In the Orthodox Jewish Community there are numerous examples of wives not granted a religious divorce or "Get" by their husbands. These unfortunate women are known as "agunah" or chained for that is what they are.
My solution is education about marriage. Young people (and indeed older people!) should be made aware of exactly what it is they are taking on. The Church of England service contains the words that marriage is not to be taken on "unadvisedly lightly or wantonly" and perhaps this should be impressed rather more upon those entering into any form of marriage. Having said that I do wonder whether some form of renewable marriage might be possible (for those not religiously inclined obviously) whereby the contract is reviewed after 10 years or so with an option to dissolve it. If this were to happen of course provision would have to be made that both parents were jointly and severally liable for the welfare of their children.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 13, 2009 at 16:19
I think peoples thoughs on making marriage/divorce harder are quite quiant.
I know a number of families where the parent have never got married, or are even still married to former partners.
'Controling' marriage is for the church - it is state interference - particularly actively "subsidising failure" that causes many of the problems.
If the parents had the slightest worry about 'another mouth to feed' they would be far more careful about themeselves or their children producing one.
Not only is 'another mouth to feed' no worry to those on benefits, it is actually a great worry to me (in the wealth generating privatre sector) as I (and other taxpayer like myself) do have to find the money to pay for it...
On benefits with 6 kids? I work and can only afford two... Maybe I have got it all wrong...
Posted by: pp | February 13, 2009 at 16:24
I think ids should ask east sussex council what the hell they are playing at,to allow this to happen is plain wrong,east sussex is a conservative run council for christ sake.
Posted by: gnosis | February 13, 2009 at 16:26
Raj,
"Surely whether someone gets married should be a choice, not for government to dictate. You sound very nanny-stateish."
Quite agree that marriage is a choice for the individuals concerned but so is having babies. Since we / society/ taxpayers /the state are not prepared to let children starve and die in the streets, we give support for those who cannot properly provide for their own children. This should give us / society/ taxpayers /the state some authority in suggesting how such parents should conduct themselves.
It has been shown, time and time again, that a stable committed marriage is the best environment to bring up children. Sadly, this will not be possible in every case but and some single parents perform a heroic job in raising their children. This should be supported but, on the other hand, feckless irresponsible behaviour should NOT be encouraged. Having children out of wedlock or parents divorcing for selfish reasons IS feckless.
Posted by: David_at_Home | February 13, 2009 at 16:38
"I think ids should ask east sussex council what the hell they are playing at,to allow this to happen is plain wrong,east sussex is a conservative run council for christ sake."
And as such might not be interfering in everyone's lives...
Anyway, this is not unusual and never has been (sorry golden agers). Young people have a natural tendency and desire to have sex - I think it may be a survival thing for humanity or some such. So teenage pregnancy is hardly unusual in any society (although it is often hushed up) - remember, in most pre-industrial society the legal age of marriage for females was 12-14! It is not ideal, but as the sensible commentators have said, this is hardly common - hence the fact it is front page news (13 year old mothers may be more common, but only because girls reach sexual maturity quicker than boys). And the news is meant to shock and cause you to knee-jerk. Those of you that have, well done. You can do what the Sun wants you to do.
Posted by: Allan McKinley | February 13, 2009 at 16:39
The lad`s only 10 years old: no doubt a local hero now and in line for appearances on TV. Jonathan Ross show perhaps.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | February 13, 2009 at 16:41
"Civilisations aren't maintained automatically but by constant efforts to discourage bad behaviours and encourage good behaviours"
There speaks a nudging paternalist in full flow.
Posted by: GB£.com | February 13, 2009 at 16:43
"Neither should be able to remarry until there is mutual consent to the divorce."
And what happens in cases where than has been domestic or sexual abuse?
Posted by: josh | February 13, 2009 at 16:43
I think the most shocking thing about this story for most people is the youth of the father rather than the mother! This little boy (for that is what he appears to be) seems hardly biologically capable of fathering a child - apparently his voice has not even broken. In fact the first thought which occurred to me was to wonder whether he IS in fact the father. The girl is a couple of years older and seems distinctly more au fait with the ways of the world....
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 13, 2009 at 16:45
pp:
"'Controling' marriage is for the church - it is state interference - particularly actively "subsidising failure" that causes many of the problems."
Well summarised. All this preaching is based on the premise that people's private domestic arrangements should be officially endorsed by the State - an outrageous idea, inimical to the concept of individual freedom, something I thought Tories revered. You only get tied up in knotty moralising about it if you're (a) a chronic God-botherer who thinks men & women should have Church approval before they sleep together and/or reproduce; (b) a social authoritarian who believes marriage should be prescribed simply because people jolly well ought to, like eating up their greens; and/or (c) an unthinking devotee of Welfarism, a practice which with relentless inevitability is, from day one, bound to produce a client population of demoralised parasites who behave with total irresponsibility while sponging off everyone else.
Posted by: Malcolm Stevas | February 13, 2009 at 17:00
Oh for God's sake give these two kids (well, three kids now) a break. I was disappointed in David Cameron using this as a stick to hit Labour with. I agree with the broken society message, there are any number of ways to show Labour's varied failings on social policy, but using two teens in this way is wrong in my view.
Yes, encourage more responsible family planning, show that committed married couples are the best vehicle for raising happy and well rounded offspring. But ALL of us 'go off the rails' at some point in our lives - what we need is support, advice and compassion when that happens.
Perhaps it is because I am in my mid 20s that I first and foremost identify with the teenage parents and not the outraged middle-aged public, who seem to have forgotten what it is like to be young. Early-mid teens have the physiology to reproduce, often without the emotional development to compliment it. But many are not fortunate enough to grow up in an environment that is nurturing and stable as I and most other Consevatives were.
If you want to have a go at anyone, it's the parents you should be having a go at, not the teens.
Posted by: Chris | February 13, 2009 at 17:03
The great sage and wordsmith David Cameron may be “really worried” by a 13-year-old father in East Sussex, or at least by the pictures of him. But Cameron has not questioned those who have today used this case as yet another excuse to call for yet more “sex education”. In fact, this boy and his girlfriend have been brought to this situation precisely by that publicly funded grooming.
No one in this country over the age of seven or eight can now be in the slightest doubt as to where babies come from. Yet things like this go on happening, underage abortions are routinely recorded as other things in order to disguise the real rate of them, venereal disease (especially chlamydia) is at epidemic levels among the very young, and so on, and on, and on.
The real reason for public grooming is exactly the same as that for private grooming: to encourage children into sex with each other and with adults. And it is succeeding only too horrifically well.
Posted by: David Lindsay | February 13, 2009 at 17:20
I agree there are problems caused by Labour-led welfare dependency, and in particular the couple penalty, but don't agree that this has anything to do with marriage.
On to the real figures.
The countries with the lowest marriage rates in the world are Sweden and Finland - they are in the top five for divorce rates, too. They have good social cohesion and low teenage pregnancies.
The highest? Russia and the US. They also have lower divorce rates. I think that tells you something.
The United Kingdom does have very high lone parent family numbers, despite the relatively high marriage rate, and that's where you should look for the problem - not this silly religiously motivated obsession with marriage.
We need to forget the tax incentive to get married and concentrate on removing the penalties for committed couples, as well as taking money straight from the wallets of absent fathers, and passing it on, without deductions to the mother.
Posted by: Red Tory | February 13, 2009 at 17:20
Red Tory,
Marriage is nothing much to do with religion, certainly not Christianity. The Gospels seem almost in some ways to discourage marriage and St Paul was only lukewarm about it. Of course, Christianity absorbed marriage into its rituals, as it did other pre-existing customs and mores.
If you are determined to be fashionably anti-Christian you should at least bother to find out what you are against.
Marriage is but the public affirmation of commitment between man and woman. For either to walk away from such a commitment without very good reason, particularly where there are children, is an act of selfish fecklessness. Marriage is the cement that keeps our society together and a bulwark against excessive state power which is why extreme socialists are often so keen on undermining the institution.
By the way, I was under the impression that Conservatives were in favour of conserving things such as the nation, the Monarchy, our institutions and our traditions.
Posted by: David_at_Home | February 13, 2009 at 18:01
Moaning about "Broken Britain" will not get very far without asking ourselves what caused it, how did it come to this. I would suggest the problem is political, the left, now for decades, has derided "standards". "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" has been turned in to a figure of fun. TV is full of laughable characters hanging on to old fasioned standards and sensible, agreeable, people critisizing the standards and lauding "up to-date ideas."
If you havn't realised how far this has gone view Sir David Attenbourgh's programme on Darwen where he more or less says the theory of evolution has killed off god and religion. In fact, of course, the theory of evolution does no such thing and Attenbourgh must know it but, presumably, he must go with the trendy flow to get his programme on telly. It is that bad and a Conservative government isn't going to make much progress if many Conservative are going to spend their time nit picking about tax cuts and Europe.
Posted by: David Sergeant | February 13, 2009 at 18:06
This is one of those cases where we have to distinguish between general principle and handling individula cases. Any Catholic would be able to understand the distinction between the general and the particular, between papal teaching on a topic e.g on the subject of contraception and pastoral care in a local parish.
So while I agree in principle with what IDS says, my reaction to the individual case is heartfelt sympathy. I have to agree with Sally Roberts that it is hard to believe that this boy was biologically capable of fathering a child.
But what is done is done and we should all be trying to support the families concerned. Those of us at a distance can do that by not sniping and expressing outrage.
Who knows? The children might actually overcome the huge challenges they face, and with the support of their parents, school, and social services eventually cope with the responsibilities of parenthood. The father has, it seems, been caring and responsible within the limitations of his tender age.
Posted by: Martin Wright | February 13, 2009 at 18:10
Sally Roberts writea, "My solution is education about marriage. Young people (and indeed older people!) should be made aware of exactly what it is they are taking on."
You are not alone, Sally, take a look at some of the marriage education web sites.
Josh is right. Divorce should be granted in the cases of serious abuse, but if it normally requires mutual consent, couples are likely to behave better towards each during marriage.
And maybe lawyers will become less adversarial.
Posted by: Nick Gulliford | February 13, 2009 at 18:22
Call me cynical but something doesn't ring true here. 15 yr old girls don't have boyfriends younger than them. There are many 13 year olds these days that are old for their age and would pass for 16 but he would pass for 10.
Its a great story and presumably the Sun has paid accordingly. The boy, who must have been a bullied 13 yr old that size, has suddenly bigged up in a most impressive manner amongst his peers. Sex with a 15 yr old is illegal but I suspect the Police are too impressed to prosecute the boy. Has anyone DNA tested the "father"?
Posted by: Opinicus | February 13, 2009 at 18:23
"By the way, I was under the impression that Conservatives were in favour of conserving things such as the nation, the Monarchy, our institutions and our traditions."
I don't know where you got that one from. When, exactly? How, exactly?
Opinicus, the law is now that they have both committed the same offence, so they would both have to be prosecuted if either of them were.
Posted by: David Lindsay | February 13, 2009 at 18:28
Posted by: David_at_Home | February 13, 2009 at 18:01
I'm suggesting that it's the Editor who has religious motivations for his interest in the noble institution, not that marriage itself is inherently religious.
The evidence I posted should give you a clear picture - the country with the lowest marriage rate and highest divorce rate, also has the greatest social cohesion. Getting married doesn't make you committed to your partner; you get married because you are committed.
Posted by: Red Tory | February 13, 2009 at 18:39
David Sergeant
I find your reference to evolution interesting for a different reason in this context -- 'survival of the fittest' is about successful behaviour/characteristics bringing its own reward (no need for outside/overarching management/control), naturally at the expense of unsuccessful ones.
My behaviour (own small company - private sector - wealth generator - married etc...) allows me to have a two children - and I can just afford to pay to get them a decent education.
This couple on benefits have 6 children and now (at least) one grandchild.
Which behaviour is 'successful' here?
I might be disappointed, but I wouldn't blame my children for making the rational choice...
We dinosaurs (who work for our living - and working for the all the livings of all the spongers) are clearly not 'fit' to be 'successful' and so do not deserve to survive.
This can only be changed by a government with principals. Mankind evolved with out overarching social management - it is stupid to change the winning formula.
Posted by: pp | February 13, 2009 at 18:39
This is a valid debate and we have got to stop shying away from it. There is a significantly large underclass in the UK whose behaviour is irresponsible and bad for them and their neighbours, yet most of us are paying for it. The liberal middle class and lefties shy away from this issue the most. Ironically whats left of the working class are the most outspoken against it as often they have to live next to it and feel demoralised that they are working hard and others are riding on their backs. IDS and Cameron are right to comment.
Posted by: MG | February 13, 2009 at 18:51
I am rather more concerned that we know the name and age of the children at the centre of this tragedy. Are we going to move against the press, when we get the chance, or not? The gutter press doesn't have the right to flout the law, but it does excatly that day in day out. The public has a general intrest in the fact that a child of 13 has fathered another child, with it seems a further older child being the mother. We do not have a right to know who and we certainly don't have any need of photographs address and background details. We have to reform the press as a matter of urgency.
Posted by: Ross Warren | February 13, 2009 at 19:30
Its quite clear to me, we have "There is a significantly large underclass in the UK whose behaviour is irresponsible and bad for them and their neighbours, yet most of us are paying for it." The undeserving poor, we should declare a cultural war aimed at ridding ourselves of them one way or another.
Posted by: Marian | February 13, 2009 at 19:35
Yes, we've never had teen pregnancies before. Idiot.
If he said we should learn from other countries with lower rates and have better sex education, then he'd be on to something.
Posted by: David | February 13, 2009 at 19:53
Having children out of wedlock or parents divorcing for selfish reasons IS feckless.
Why is it feckless to have children out of wedlock? Being married doesn't make you more committed to your partner, nor does being unmarried make you less committed.
Furthermore, getting divorced because people change and/or don't love each other is not selfish. If marriage counciling doesn't work then there is something fatally wrong with the relationship that may well cause real harm to the child(ren). I like marriage, but I'm not willing to force it on people.
Having children and getting married are two choices that should and inevitably will be made independently of each other. What are you going to do, arrest unmarried couples for having children?!
Posted by: Raj | February 13, 2009 at 20:04
This particular case as nothing to do with marriage or broken societies its just about two badly educated kids doing something they really should have had the sense not to.
Educate kids properly, give them opportunities and they will not get into these sort of situations.
Posted by: Jack Stone | February 13, 2009 at 20:15
Young people have sex because it is enjoyable. The same reason that the rest of us do.
The important thing is knowledge and sex education needs to start earlier.
Posted by: will.b | February 13, 2009 at 22:10
IDS - and what the Editor says - is absolutelty right. Thank you, IDS, for being direct and speaking what needs to be said.
Posted by: Philip | February 13, 2009 at 22:21
"This particular case as nothing to do with marriage or broken societies its just about two badly educated kids doing something they really should have had the sense not to.
Educate kids properly, give them opportunities and they will not get into these sort of situations."
Badly educated? Apart from their biology homework, I hope they can spell better than you at a much more advanced age. "Has" needs a first letter and people have been telling you that for a long time!
Posted by: Super Blue | February 13, 2009 at 22:25
For god's sake Cameron, actually for all our sakes, start listening to voices of genuine conservatism like IDS rather than Californian resident Hilton and the Guardian's leader writers or there won't be a country left to save.
Posted by: Mr Angry | February 13, 2009 at 23:22
Children are just like any other human being - they learn things they do not know from others around about them, particularly from older people they look up to.
All I can say is, if you look around about you, sex is used to sell everything and anything. Teachers even dress in a sexually provocative manner. People seem to have forgotten that, less is more, and what is less obvious and upfront, is more appealing and attractive. The overt way sex is put across all the time on our TV screens, in films, in songs and in the press is just cheap, nasty and crass.
Is it any wonder kids are becoming sexually aware at exceptionally younger and younger ages? A 13 year old doesn't have the emotional capacity - particularly one who seems young for his age - to form a proper relationship. And why should it be worn as a badge of honour? Is that all certain types of people in this country have to be proud of? That their most base, primal and simplistic form of functioning is all that they have in life?
These things will continue to happen for as long as mainstream society is too cowardly to judge others when they do things that are wrong. We have lost our common 'moral compass' - and why should the regular Joe need one when his Prime Minister threw his away years ago?
Posted by: Andrew Morrison, Glasgow | February 14, 2009 at 00:15
Did the boy father the child because he didn't know about the birds and the bees? I wold have thought he certainly knew enough. What MORE sex education should our children have? I could have fathered a child atthirteen. I certainly knew how it was done. So did every other boy I knew. But willing girls were in short supply and we had to make do with each other. And no, I did not attend a public school and yes it was pleurable. Did I have any sex education. Not that I recall. But there were public libraries and books and I suppose for boys not of the reading persusion there were other boys who knew. This would be around 1958. I'm sure theere WERE thirteen yearold fathers but amongst the lowerorders, don't you know. As now. Personally I suspect that if the girl couldn't look forward to a life on the state she wouldn't do it. The boys, of course, will do whatever they can getaway with.Or that's my un PC view of it.
Posted by: Fergus Pickering | February 14, 2009 at 03:50
"Personally I suspect that if the girl couldn't look forward to a life on the state she wouldn't do it. "
Yes, a 15 year old, poorly educated girl knows the benefits system inside out.
Posted by: David | February 14, 2009 at 09:02
Of course this also happened years ago, the difference is that then the families would have sought privacy in their shame which would have been respected. It would not have been reported in the papers or on the radio - no TV then. Times certainly have changed.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | February 14, 2009 at 09:23
What an ignorant and condascendingly middle class comment from David at 0902. A teenage girl doesn't need to be a Guardian reading student of the benefits system to see how her peers are treated by the state when they become pregnant.
Posted by: Phyllis Crash | February 14, 2009 at 09:40
"What an ignorant and condascendingly middle class comment from David at 0902"
I have to laugh. One wonders what you'd describe a statement that she got pregnant to live off the state.
Posted by: David | February 14, 2009 at 09:58
Looking at the case of the 13-year old who has become a dad after making a baby at 12 made me think about the whole sex-edcuation thing. Do schools do a good job in this field. Well may be not in this case I thought.
But then I had to ask: How many days off school did this boy have? How much parenting took place? Is he so stupid not to know what happens if you have sex? - the vast majority of 12-year olds know full well that a+b=c! Does putting him on the front page of The Sun and making him naitonal news really help discourage none-too-bright celebrity-seeking teenagers from having babies.
In the end though, this is a non-story - the fact that it is news shows us how rare it is and therefore maybe not a problem. When politicians like Balls and Cameron appear on the news talking about it they give it an importance that it does not merit and maybe, like the Sun make some youngsters think this could be a route to attention and fame that they crave so much, but do not get at home.
Posted by: Chips of Brookfield | February 14, 2009 at 11:40
I knew quite a few old people, now all gone, who were brought up by grandparents believing their mothers to be their sisters.
Sometimes the evidence can be found clearly on the birth certificates, sometimes it can be deduced from the fact that the grandmother could not have given birth to two children within such a short time. In one case I know of the truth was not discovered until long after everyone concerned was dead.
This sort of thing is nothing new; but in those days the immediate family provided all the support that was necessary.
Posted by: John Anslow | February 14, 2009 at 12:41