Sunday, March 16, 2008

Shannon Matthews Safe; Charles Darwin Spinning In Grave

Shannon Matthews the missing 9 year-old from West Yorkshire is safe. Which is obviously great news. I always get the feeling after 48 hours in these cases that if the kid hasn't turned up, the police will be looking at either an accident or murder.

So it's great news she has been found, apparently well after being missing for more than three weeks, and I am genuinely delighted for her family.

Yet it's hard to shake off the horrible feeling that her abduction opened a window into a society that shouldn't exist.

The family life of her mother, Karen Matthews, makes Shameless look like Brideshead Revisited. The statistics are mind blowing.

Age 32. Seven children. Five different fathers. Bloody hell!!

If the average British worker was as productive there would be no recession fears, no deficit worries, no trade gap. We'd be world beaters!

Should Karen fancy her chances as an entrepreneur, I'd suggest she looks into setting up an Internet dating site. She obviously has expertise in the meeting and mating market.

In a way you have to admire her inventiveness and time management skills. How she managed to get time for a social life once she'd got to four or five kids, while still in her twenties, is a puzzle to me.

It must really hurt for couples struggling to have just one kid they'd love unconditionally - marooned on NHS IVF waiting lists that measure in years - to be exposed to an alternative word where kids are produced on a production line, with little apparent regard for their welfare or the likelihood of giving them a stable upbringing.

On a more practical level, it must be galling for families where the parents both work but struggle to make ends meet due to child care costs, to witness a culture where work is a swear word and kids are utilised as a means of enhancing social security benefits.

It seems to me we've reached a point where flawed government policies, allied to a culture that really is shameless, has turned Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection on it's head.

If you are smart, motivated, and hard working, the odds are you won't have the cash, or more crucially the time, to raise a big family. This is especially true where the woman is keen to continue working. There aren't many Nicola Horlicks around!

Conversely, if you can't be bothered working, but think the world owes you a living, having loads of kids seems to be the fastest legal route to boosting your income.

The inevitable consequence of this situation is that survival of the fittest ceases to be the norm.

The smart and hard working will be out bred by the feckless, whilst simultaneously being screwed for an ever higher percentage of their income to fund the offspring of the benefit junkies.

All of which sounds perilously close to a Nazi-esque view of the world. Which makes me very uncomfortable, but I cannot see where else current trends are taking us.

I'm absolutely in favour of protecting the weak; a high standard of comprehensive education; free health services; and Gordon Brown's oft quoted desire to end child poverty.

However it's clear to me that current policies are not going to achieve that aim. There has to be a better way.

I've got some post-budget thoughts on the general economy, but here's a quick hit in the area of Child Benefit.

Currently child one gets a higher weekly allowance and all subsequent kids are paid at a reduced rate. Why not continue the taper so that child three gets less than two, etc? I'd imagine that by child four, condoms or The Pill would be a much more prominent part of the conversation with any prospective partners.

This could be kept revenue neutral by increasing the payments for kids one and two, so no stealth tax here.

I can't claim this as a perfect solution - and it has definite echoes of China - but it's a step ahead of current policy which is a licence to breed without any regard for the consequences.

3 comments:

junie6 said...

Oh my God I have not come across such bitterness in a long time. Just because one couple (smart motivated and hard working) are having problems with conceiving does not give them the right to look down on an obviously fertile woman.

I think the case has highlighted stereotypical attitudes towards the poorer larger families.
Shannon’s mum did not leave her children alone whilst she went for a meal, as the McCann’s did. Were you so vitriol when reading of what they did?

Please take a look at your dangerous attitude; it does remind one of Nazism.

Do you enjoy watching Shameless? If so are you not hypercritical?

Chill out woman. I am sure you are a woman, a bitter one at that.

junie6 said...

Oh my God I have not come across such bitterness in a long time. Just because one couple (smart motivated and hard working) are having problems with conceiving does not give them the right to look down on an obviously fertile woman.

I think the case has highlighted stereotypical attitudes towards the poorer larger families.
Shannon’s mum did not leave her children alone whilst she went for a meal, as the McCann’s did. Were you so vitriol when reading of what they did?

Please take a look at your dangerous attitude; it does remind one of Nazism.

Do you enjoy watching Shameless? If so are you not hypercritical?

Chill out woman. I am sure you are a woman, a bitter one at that.

Div said...

Let's deconstruct your so well thought out comments...

"Oh my God I have not come across such bitterness in a long time."

You haven't lived much, have you?

"Just because one couple (smart motivated and hard working) are having problems with conceiving does not give them the right to look down on an obviously fertile woman."

Not sure who you are referring to here. Clearly, it's not me.

"I think the case has highlighted stereotypical attitudes towards the poorer larger families."

They are poor because they don't have a job. They don't have jobs because they are too lazy. There's nothing stereotypical about it. It's a fact. I'm referring here not just to Karen Matthews but to thousands of others in the UK.

You don't even need to be clever to get a job that makes decent money. There are Eastern Europeans earning £25k a year picking vegetables, because they are willing to put in the hours.

If you want a fuller exposition of my thoughts on the non-working classes, I'd refer you to this article:

"Shannon’s mum did not leave her children alone whilst she went for a meal, as the McCann’s did. Were you so vitriol when reading of what they did?"

I felt terrible for her when Shannon went missing, and delighted when she was found. Exactly the same feelings I'd have for the McCanns if their kid was ever found - which she almost certainly won't be, because she was almost certainly abducted and murdered.

btw the word you were looking for is 'vitriolic'. Education these days is sadly lacking.

"Please take a look at your dangerous attitude; it does remind one of Nazism."

Can you kindly explain to me what is 'dangerous' about my disgust for a culture of non-working, benefit dependency? Particularly when using kids as a means of boosting ones personal income? Is getting a job and learning how to use a condom really such a risky business?

"Do you enjoy watching Shameless? If so are you not hypercritical?"

I don't, but my wife does. So I've seen a few episodes. Not something I set the V+ box for. It's 'hypocritical' not 'hypercritical' you are looking for here.

"Chill out woman. I am sure you are a woman, a bitter one at that."

Given I've already mentioned my wife, you will no doubt have deduced I am either a man, or a lesbian. I'll leave you to make up your own mind.