Staatsorgane wollen den Kampf um Kinder gewinnen!??? Grossbritannien

Staatsorgane wollen den Kampf um Kinder gewinnen!??? Grossbritannien

Staatsorgane wollen den Kampf um Kinder gewinnen!??? Grossbritannien

Staatsorgane wollen den Kampf um Kinder gewinnen!???

Zum Unwort des Jahres werde ich beantragen, das Wort „Kindeswohl" zu wählen.

Kommentar von Franz Romer zum Telegraph-Artikel über den Zusammenbruch der Familien in Großbritannien vom 07.04.2008 - Düsseldorf, den 18.09.2008:

SPD-Politiker Olaf Scholz propagierte im Jahre 2002 die „Lufthoheit der Regierung über den Kinderbetten", im selben Jahr "Familie ist, wenn alle aus demselben Kühlschrank essen", verkündete 2002 die SPD-Bundesgesundheitsministerin Ulla Schmidt in Wuppertal. Bundesjustizministerin Brigitte Zypries (ebenfalls SPD) kündigte Anfang April 2008 laut einem Bericht der Tageszeitung „Die Welt" Eingriffe in die Familienstruktur an. So könnten Eltern künftig gezwungen werden, ihr Kind in einen Ganztageskindergarten zu stecken. Sie verwies dabei auf die Reform zur „Erleichterung familiengerichtlicher Maßnahmen bei Gefährdung des Kindeswohls". Sie spricht dabei nicht mehr nur von zerrütteten Familien, wo Vernachlässigung und Gewalt gegen Kinder vorkommen, sondern ganz allgemein von den Familien. Brandenburgs Justizministerin Beate Blechinger (CDU) hat den Bundesgesetzentwurf zur Erleichterung familiengerichtlicher Maßnahmen bei Gefährdung des Kinderwohls im April 2008 begrüßt. «Damit wird die Rolle der Justiz in der Jugendhilfe gestärkt, Familiengerichte können schneller als zuvor reagieren, wenn Eltern nicht willens oder in der Lage sind, sich ausreichend um die Erziehung ihrer Kinder zu kümmern», sagte Blechinger am Montag auf einer deutsch-polnischen Kinderschutzkonferenz im uckermärkischen Groß Pinnow.

So könnte gemutmaßt werden, dass diese Politiker keinerlei Ahnung mehr davon haben, was Familie und Kindheit bedeuten, auch kriegerische Worte, wie Lufthoheit klingen da hervor, auch technische wie Kühlschrank und Eingriffe und die einzig allein selig machende Wirkung von Familiengerichten, Was also sollen wir nun mit Politdiktatoren anfangen, die nicht mehr wissen, was Familie und Kinder sind?

Und zu fragen bleibt weiterhin: wäre eines der Kinder gerettet worden in Bremen, Iserlohn oder Rostock? Mitarbeiter von Jugendämtern, die aufgrund ihrer miserablen Ausbildung kaum in der Lage sind schwierigen Familien zu helfen?

Und völlig ahnungslose Richter, wie der in Schwerte lassen durch einen Gutachter feststellen, ob zwei kleine Geschwister besser getrennt werden oder lieber doch zusammenbelieben sollen? Was für eine Perversion!

Im Ergebnis trauen die Familien

Ihr besorgter Franz Romer

England: Zusammenbruch in den Familien so dramatisch wie die Erderwärmung

By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent

Last Updated: 2:43am BST 07/04/2008

telegraph.co.uk - © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008

Übersetzung: Olga Kroese und Franz Romer

Groß-Britannien leidet an einem Epidemischen Zusammenbruch der Familienstrukturen, die, angefangen von der königlichen Familie, bis nach unten hin, alle Gesellschaftsschichten betrifft, wie einer der dienstältesten Richter heute sagte.

Justice Coleridge, der den Vorsitz bei den Vorverhandlungen über die Scheidung von Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills führte, beschuldigt Gordon Brown, die Abschaffung von Plastiktüten der Unterstützung von Familien vorzuziehen und sagt, dass die Regierung noch „tanzt, während Rom schon brennt."

„Familienzusammenbrüche in allen Gesellschaftsschichten, von der königlichen Familie abwärts", sagte er.

„Ohne zu sehr zu dramatisieren oder gar Schwarzseher zu sein, meine Prognose ist, dass die Auswirkungen von Familienzusammenbrüchen auf das Leben der Nation, und auf die einfachen Menschen dieses Landes so markant und destruktiv sein werden, wie die Auswirkung der globalen Erwärmung."

Wir erleben eine Periode des Niedergangs der Familien, dessen Auswirkungen so katastrophal sein werden wie das Schmelzen der Eiskappen.

Richter bezeugen einen „nicht endenden Karneval" von menschlicher Not, und dass fast alle sozialen Übel der Gesellschaft ihre Wurzeln im Zusammenbruch der familiären Stabilität haben, sagte Richter Coleridge.

Mögen einzelne Mütter gute Arbeit bei leisten, aber tausende Kinder werden von Frauen großgezogen, die mehrere Kinder von unterschiedlichen Vätern haben, von denen keiner zu sehen ist.

Der Richter, der 37 Jahre Erfahrung im Familienrecht hat und Familienrichter für Trennungen im süd-westlichen Kreis von Hampshire bis Cornwall ist, wird in Brighton bei der jährlichen Konferenz der Resolution sprechen, bei der 5.000 Familienanwälte vertreten sind.

Seine Intervention, - eine der eindringlichsten seiner Art in den letzten Jahren als amtierender Richter zeigt,- wie neue Zahlen belegen, die Anzahl der Eheschließungen sind auf ihrem niedrigsten Level seit 1862 und die Zahl der Kinder, die bei einem Elternteil leben, hat sich in 20 Jahren verdoppelt.

Anwälte sagen, Familiengerichte sind überlastet bis hin zum Kollaps.

Von Justice Coleridge, 58, verheiratet, eine Tochter, zwei Söhne, wird erwartet dass er sagt, dass das Familienrechts-System, einschließlich Sozialarbeitern, örtlicher Behörden, Spezialisten für psychisch Kranke und Rechtssachverständigen, alles ist, was zwischen der gegenwärtigen grässlichen Situation und dem Chaos steht.

Es wird erwartet, dass er zu folgendem aufrufen wird: dass Rechte für unverheiratete Paare muss modernisiert werden, dem Lebensgefährten sind legale Rechte bei Trennungen zu geben, es muss einklagbare vorehelichen Vereinbarungen geben, Reformen bei Scheidungen und das „Schuldprinzip und das waschen schmutziger Wäsche aus den gerichtlichen " Verfahren herausgehalten werden.

Er fordert auch dazu auf, dass die Regierung Millionen in sorgfältig untersuchte Projekte steckt, die die Familienstabilität entscheidend nach vorne bringt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/nfamily105.xml

Breakdown in families 'as destructive as effects of global warming'


By Sarah Womack, Social Affairs Correspondent

Last Updated: 2:43am BST 07/04/2008

Have your say Read comments

Britain is suffering from an epidemic of family breakdowns affecting all levels of society from the Royal family downwards, one of the country's most senior judges will say today.

Mr Justice Coleridge, who presided over the preliminary divorce hearings of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, will accuse Gordon Brown of prioritising the abolition of plastic bags over support for families, and say the Government is "fiddling while Rome burns".

"Family breakdown is at all levels of society - from the Royal family downwards," he will say.

"Without being in any way over-dramatic or alarmist, my prediction would be that the effects of family breakdown on the life of the nation, and ordinary people, in this country will, within the next 20 years, be as marked and as destructive as the effects of global warming.

"We are experiencing a period of family meltdown whose effects will be as catastrophic as the meltdown of the ice caps."

Judges are witnessing a "never-ending carnival" of human misery, and almost all of society's social ills can be traced back to the collapse in family stability, he says.

Many single mothers do a good job, but thousands of children are being raised by women who have several children by several fathers, none of whom stick around.

The judge, who has 37 years of experience of family law and is Family Division Liaison judge in the south-west legal circuit, stretching from Hampshire to Cornwall, will speak in Brighton at the annual conference of Resolution, which represents 5,000 family lawyers.

His intervention - one of the most strongly worded of its kind by a serving judge in recent years - comes as new figures show marriage levels are at their lowest since 1862, and the number of children living with a single parent has doubled in 20 years.

Lawyers say family courts are overstretched to the point of collapse.

Mr Justice Coleridge, 58, who is married with a daughter and two sons, is expected to say that the family justice system - comprising social workers, local authorities, mental health specialists and legal experts - is all that stands between the present dire situation and "social anarchy".

It is understood he will call for laws relating to unmarried couples to be modernised, giving cohabitees legal rights on separation, enforceable pre-nuptial agreements, and for reform of divorce law to remove the "fault" element and blame from the process.

He also wants the Government to invest millions in properly researched projects which boost family stability.

Related articles

3 April 2008: One child in four has a lone parent, finds ONS

19 March 2008: Broken homes creating 'toxic circle' for children

15 March 2008: Pupils 'are struggling because of home life'

7 September 2006: Marriage is best for bringing up children, says Tory study

Comments

Mr. Justice Coleridge is to be commended on his desire to reform the archaic divorce and family proceedings in this country. However, before worrying about social anarchy in the wider society, he should start by addressing the anarchy that reigns within the family justice system over which he presides.

As Nordic National, I am flabbergasted at the primitive and adversarial processes that pass for being "family law" in England and Wales. Without any firm standards and rules, the family "industry" has an open field to interfere, complicate and prolong cases in the pursuit of own monetary interests. When families break up and are at their most vulnerable, the only response from the family justice system is to drop them into a legal vacuum in which lawyers can set about creating combatants out of man and wife, father and mother. The reported gathering of some 5,000 family lawyers at the Resolution conference this weekend is a testimony to the bloated money machine that family law has become in this jurisdiction.

What is needed is law in place of reliance on inappropriate precedents set by big money cases, which are utterly irrelevant to 99% of UK families. What is needed are courts that take their own due processes seriously as opposed to allowing perjury to go unpunished as so eloquently documented in the publication of the McCartney ruling. What is needed is a justice system that is held with respect by the people it serves as opposed to being subject to ridicule as amply illustrated by many of the other comments to this article.
Above all, what is needed is recognition that the most important thing for any child going through divorce is that mum and dad continue to cooperate about the children. How anybody can believe that subjecting families to a litigious and adversarial process benefits the children is beyond comprehension.

Posted by SL on April 6, 2008 11:15 AM
Report this comment

There's too much talk and not enough action.

We should all get together and ask Eward De Bono to help us solve this issue. Personal thoughts and feeling are important.. In De bono terms that red hat thinking. You've all stated what you think and feel... Now start doing something to help!!! Please pass this message on to Sir Paul. I'd love to help him and the rest of soceity... however we all have to think in the same direction and work together to put things back on track. Well done Sir Paul for starting this debate... and unlike one of the comments above.... I think you will be around along time.

Keep positive and God bless.

Kind regards,

Christine from Manchester.
Posted by christine Cowen on April 6, 2008 10:14 AM
Report this comment

When I was teaching History in the HS in Cottonwood, Idaho, USA, a few years back, one of the assignments was to separate Hammurabi's Laws into sections. I told the kids that we would probably end up with three sections. The main section turns out to be titled (more or less) "Laws to Keep the Family Together". About 3800 years ago, a king realized that the family was the basis of all civilization. Too bad we have so few in power today that could read or understand history.
Posted by Chuck Moody on April 6, 2008 8:44 AM
Report this comment

If you wish to destroy a society, destroy the family. To destroy the family, you must destroy marriage. To destroy marriage you must destroy the integrity of sex inside marriage alone. There's not a snowball's hope in hell we'll fix society's problems until we re-learn the truth that sex is life-giving only inside the strong strong bonds of life-long marriage ... outside of marraige sex is an acid that destroys everything. Every civilsation in history has known this. How far must we fall before we rediscover this truth?
Posted by Arthur Williamson on April 6, 2008 8:32 AM
Report this comment

The judge has correctly identified the problem - family breakdown - but has come up with the same depressing, tired "solutions" that have already been proved not to work.

No, we don't need any increase in the bloated army of social workers, local authorities, mental health specialists and legal experts; they are part of the problem, not the solution. Their existence and their fat salaries, paid by taxpayers, are dependent on a continuing stream of the very misery that the judge claims to want to end. These people are the ones feeding off the problem, hence they are the very last people with any interest in solving it. When families stuck together and had a father at their head, we didn't need this ragbag of "experts". So how can they be the solution to anything?

Nor do we need to spend yet more millions on "projects to boost family stability". We are already buried under such projects, and impoverished by their costs. They don't address the problem, for exactly the same reason given above -the research funding is always given to politically correct and feminist groups who define the family as any two or more people eating out of the same fridge, and who have a vested interest in keeping it that way. So their solutions will always be more state intervention, more money thrown at single mothers, and more funds for themselves to continue the grotesque social experiment on which they have embarked.
Posted by Paul Parmenter on April 6, 2008 8:02 AM
Report this comment

"giving cohabitees legal rights on separation, enforceable pre-nuptial agreements, and for reform of divorce law to remove the "fault" element and blame from the process."

Um, how the hell is that going to make things better? Basically the suggestion here is to treat cohabiting people as married? Does this mean if a man and woman are housemates, they are in effect cohabitating? That would have made the woman I once shared an apt. with my legal wife, wouldn't it, even though we had no sexual interactions at all. Well if anything that will pretty much end people living together, and already pricey apartments will get pricier as everyone tries to live in their own place for fear of being trapped by the law into being married!

And eliminating "fault"? We did that here in the US. The result has been devastating. We have a 50+% divorce rate and a single-motherhood rate catching up with that of GB. Folks, go down the same path we did, and it will only get much worse for you all.

I'll tell you what needs doing: You got to stop drinking like fish. That has to end. Things will improve dramatically if you people just had Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at every corner.
Posted by Matt on April 6, 2008 6:03 AM
Report this comment

1 in 3 children from poorer backgrounds do not believe their fathers are part of the immediate family if at all. 1 in 4 of all children similar.

That is 3 million + children without a biological father significantly in their lives if at all.

All the research shows the lack of a father in childrens lives generally leaves them substantially vulnerable to poor life chances throughout their lives. Far more Prone to alcohol and drug issues, pre-teen/teen pregnancy, mental illness, poorly educated, sexual abuse, low self-esteem, unemployment, offending etc etc etc

70%+ of those in jail are from single parent families.

Yet the labour govt has made it far more financially sensible for parents to go it alone, leading to a massive increase over recent years.

Most children in poorer backgrounds now live in 2 parent families, horrendously their financial circumstances would improve if their parents split under the UK Labour administration.

What on earth is going on.
Posted by Leonard B on April 5, 2008 11:30 PM
Report this comment

In one single word the root cause of all this terrible situation now in society generally - FEMINISM.
Posted by Damian on April 5, 2008 11:28 PM
Report this comment

The symptoms are essentially these: England's children are increasingly violent, poorly educated, and unambitious. Of those who survive the violence of their peers, many mature into unproductive parents and wards of the state--criminal or merely chronically poor. Americans can read the writing on the wall. We've been setting ourselves up for the same scenario for years.

The necessary conditions are all too common: households in which both parents work outside the home, children educated by the state and trained by their televisions, the proliferation of drugs, the confiscation of wealth by the state (i.e., taxes), the redistribution of private property by the state (i.e., taxes), the criminalization of self-defense (e.g., gun laws), and the proliferation of legislation.

It's a well-established formula for disaster: use coercion to take from the producers (taxpayers) and redistribute to the takers (tax eaters) in exchange for votes. The confiscation of private property increases the cost of living, so families that should have a parent at home to raise the children then need the income of both parents to make ends meet. The confiscation is used to fund mandatory, poor-quality education provided by the state, which uses its utmost influence to make obedient workers who are ignorant enough and scared enough to support the state with slave labor. Drug laws are used to enrich the state and control the populace. Freedom does not fit into the picture, so great effort must be expended to suppress it. In the resultant police state, prison, fines, torture, death, election fraud, and many other forms of coercion are used to keep the population under control. Rights are no longer acknowledged, and the proliferation of legislation is accompanied by increasing lawlessness, decreasing accountability of government, growing poverty, and vanishing economic opportunity.

On our way to oblivion we can expect governments to seek increasing control as their efforts to thrive at the expense of others meet the growing resistance of society's producers. This only aggravates deteriorating conditions throughout society, leading to the scenarios described.

...
Posted by Mark Yannone on April 5, 2008 9:37 PM
Report this comment

Interesting that this should come out at the same time as Ken Livingstone is reported as producing children in seemingly quick succession to women to whom he was not married and when he was reportedly in a relationship with someone else entirely! Couldn't help wondering if the people who were applauding him on TV the other night when he 'came clean' were equally as understanding of Shannon Matthews' mother apparently having seven children by five men ..... I hope none of these judges have any skeletons in their cupboards.
Posted by Marianne on April 5, 2008 9:19 PM
Report this comment

We start and end with family, but government after government are hell bent on destroying the bonds of love and loyalism's contained within the family unit, because it makes it easier for them to control the people.
Posted by dad4justice on April 5, 2008 9:00 PM
Report this comment

social policy-makers legislate in favour of single people. for example, there is a 25% discount on council tax for singletons. if anything, this should be the other way around! Basically, hard-working couples with children are forced to subsidise the self-indulgent lifestyles of the selfish ones. This doesn't exactly promote co-habitation does it. I blame the Feminists. This is all their doing.
Posted by leon on April 5, 2008 8:35 PM
Report this comment

The Government and all parents should listen to this judge for he is 100% correct. Children need 2 parents for support throughout their lives. If they did, a lot less youngsters would do drink and drugs.
Posted by sylvia macpherson on April 5, 2008 7:14 PM
Report this comment

When we were young and about to have our first child, we kept meeting couples who were also about to have a baby and in some cases already had a young baby, who were saying something new.
This wss, "This baby will make no difference to our lives, we will continue to live as we have been doing".
This was in 1965 which was about the start of living for yourself, instead of for your children, became more common. Somewhere the balance tilted in favour of mothers working and leaving their babies with child minders. It became acceptable and in time those who nourished their children and passed on their ideas of behaviour, thoughtfulness, kindness, knowledge of the world, language, etc, etc, were derided as stay-at-home mothers who clearly had no interests outside the house and nappies. Very insulting. And untrue.
If your child is crammed in a nursery with inadequately trained, not necessarily very intelligent staff, who do not share your ideals - "We do not hit another child; we do not snatch; we do not damage things deliberately; we do say "thank you"; we do share with others" - or even your table manners or how to hold a knife and fork, how do you correct this if you are working?
When the child has started school, someone has to be there to welcome him/her home and accept anything the child has to tell about his/her's day.
Incidentally, why do presentday children have roomsful of toys? And very few books?
Posted by Jan on April 5, 2008 6:15 PM
Report this comment

The judge is right. Now watch Gordie and his chums deny all and smear the man's reputation.
Posted by Downwithbrown. on April 5, 2008 5:27 PM
Report this comment

The traditional family has been ignored in case it detracts from "alternative" families eg homosexuals, unmarried cohabitation, single parent etc - only the BNP has the courage to support the traditional nuclear family as best alternative. The judge shows us the symptoms but will he tell us the cause?
Posted by Fred Jones on April 5, 2008 5:00 PM
Report this comment

Divorces should be made incredibly hard to obtain and also very expensive, through a special divorce tax. Single Parents should have to pay a single parent tax. It will make these so called parents think twice before burdening society.
Posted by Tom on April 5, 2008 4:44 PM
Report this comment

When I read this article I nearly went into violent heart fibrillations. The morons in all manner of government organisations interfere with our lives on a daily basis and must bear the blame for a huge fraction of the woes relating to what's left of family life. Among them, judges are well accustomed to beating their gums together and to obliging people to listen to them. This is not courage. For heaven's sake, get the judges, lawyers, social workers and all the rest out of our lives.
Posted by Bill Bell on April 5, 2008 3:56 PM
Report this comment

Does anyone in this entire world honestly believe that any person in government can give them any helpful advice about anything? sorry folks, you are deluding yourselves big time. The first thing that you have got to accept is that this mob in government do not give a .... sorry cannot think of an acceptable word, about any of you. You should not discuss things as though they are there to help you, act on your behalf, care about your concerns, c'mon, waken up, they don't even know you are alive. They are POLITICIANS, examples of the filthiest English word that their is. Simple question. Can anyone, not related to the bod's destroying British society, tell me what beneficial thing they have ever done for you? you have until 30 June 2008. i understand that it will take a long time to analyse the pro's v the con's
Posted by Ed on April 5, 2008 3:24 PM
Report this comment

At long last here's a top judge who has had the courage to speak the truth about the seriousness of family breakdown in our society. This we as a National charity NSCFC have being saying for years but few would listen not even much of the media would take us seriously. Yet the facts speak for themselves and whilst there is lack of parity in family law it will continue and as always both children and society will be the ultimate victim. I would go further and say not only has the government "fiddled while Rome burns" but also church leaders who seek to serve two masters whilst putting the preservation of family life on the back burner. Now is the time for all such victims of government and family law to speak out with one voice for not to do so is to sit back and watch still another generation of innocent children fall prey to deprived beginnings.


Posted by Mike Ellis on April 5, 2008 3:16 PM
Report this comment

The biggest problem with peer-pressure amongst children is parents.

Why do children have to wear the most expensive clothes? Answer: because there are some parents who buy their 7-year-old the latest high-cost fashion clothes. Parents who don't want their children to be seen as outcasts do the same, buying expensive clothes for their children. In the end, children as young as 6 years old are loaded with laptops, game consoles, audio equipment, clothes, shoes, jewelry, etc.

While we are busy spoiling our children, giving them everything they want, and allowing them to do whatever pleases them -- because so-and-so gets to do it -- we are ourselves busy going out and getting drunk every weekend. I was sickened to hear grown women, mothers, on the train talking of how they were drinking until they threw up, and how they planned to do it again the next weekend. They were happy to condemn another woman who was interested in appearing 'posh' by having good cutlery. Oh yes, we're happy to condemn all and sundry as long as we can turn our children into monsters.

Society has become the most selfish it has been for years. The idea of 'happily ever after' is no longer in our vocabulary. Just look at TV commercials to see fruit being 'murdered' so that everyone will laugh. Children of years ago would have been horrified to see this!

What a selfish and desensitised society we live in.
Posted by Chris on April 5, 2008 2:38 PM
Report this comment

What do people expect when, in the modern West, cash should be the only thing holding our society together. Of course families are going to break down, that is what happens when money becomes the only thing that people can agree on to believe in. It's only a wonder that things aren't a whole lot worse.
Posted by David Matcham on April 5, 2008 2:34 PM
Report this comment

I am firmly of the belief that when a man and woman marry it ought to be for the long haul. If they have children and a marriage falls apart then BOTH parents should have as close to equal access to those children as possible, as they created them together. I do not believe single women should be catered to financially by the state as the state should always be kept out of the bedrooms of the country. It is not up to me or anyone else who holds a job to provide for women, via my taxes, a lifestyle that allows any woman to stay at home with her child until they reach the age of 7, otherwise, then they must also allow working women who are married the same privilege-with pay. If a single woman wants to have a child, then she and her boyfriend must be in a position to afford one, and if they in turn separate then she must also share the upbringing of this child with the father as long as he is fully interested in this. These are adults making this decision, not government ministers, so they had better be very clear of the costs and outcome of such decisions as the world is mighty sick and tired of tossing cash at such lame brained ideas. As for those women who have multiple children by different boyfriends, what the hell are you thinking of? Do you believe you have a right to foist the cost of your love life on me and others who end up paying for your fun? You don't, and I deeply resent you lazy way of slithering through life in such a degrading way. Time to get off your bum and finally do the right thing by weaning yourself off the public breast, as no one with an ounce of respect for themselves would live in such a degrading and shiftless way with little thought of how your children will see you when they are of an age to understand you lifestyle, and who could blame them?
I read the post from Doc, and apart from the bitterness that seeps through his words, ((Wimmin?) I have to side with him. Here is a man who is at the very least fighting to see his children yet is deprived from doing so by a woman who has the politically correct law on her side. She is no victim of society, yet she apparently made dammed sure he is by withholding their children from him. This is simply not right in any sense of the word unless the man beat her or abused the children in any way. Obviously I don't know the entire story yet the fact that he has written here of the loss of his children tells me that he has somehow been wronged. The law needs to see both sides equally in these matters and not casually side in the majority of cases with the woman- by virtue of the fact she is a woman. This is not good enough in the 21st century.

Posted by Maura Collins on April 5, 2008 2:20 PM
Report this comment

The government thinks that anything a family can do it can do it better. Schooling, child rearing, benefits, care for the elderly, laws and police to enforce their view of the world and all expanded endlessly to cover everything that needs to be done at the same time as paying for it all by taxing us so much that we cannot do it for ourselves. It is the marxist way. We should not expect anything else. We must be the most supine electorate in the world.
Posted by R Mason on April 5, 2008 2:15 PM
Report this comment

Remember that great Socialist slogan of the 1960's and 70's "Say 'NO' to the nuclear family" Or the slogan from even earlier about how the State would care for all its citizens "from the cradle to the grave", so there was no need for anyone to care about their children, grandchildren or ageing relatives any more, the responsibility for all care of everyone was now that of the State, and the only responsibility that the inhabitants of that State retained was to pay their taxes and keep their heads down?

The destruction of the family is fundamental to the social engineering experiment that has been in progress by the Socialist political class (which was by no means confined to the Labour Party incidentally) since WWII.

Paralleling this of course was the drive throughout the 1960's onward to destroy communities by knocking down the terraced houses with their corner shops, pubs and back yards where people could congregate and talk, and their replacement with the disastrous inhuman developments such as Kirkby, Speke and the Scottish 'Schemies', specifically designed to absolutely and utterly prevent their inmates from communicating amongst themselves.

That is the philosophy of the Party ideologists such as Brown and the rest of his nanny statist Class Warriors, a creed based on the three columns of sloth, greed and envy that form the support for the whole inhuman Socialist belief system.
I don't expect any amelioration to come from the so-Called "Conservative" party either, 'Call me Dave' and his acolytes have fully bought into the same insane Leftist control freakery, the fount of which has now of course moved to Brussels.
Posted by David Walker on April 5, 2008 2:07 PM
Report this comment

This government presurises women to go out to work so they can pay taxes, they have to hire indifferent child minders who also have to pay tax etc.

No wonder their children are neglected, their marriages tired. All to give this government
money to throw away on initiatives and ego trips that often do not benefit the natives of this country.

How about spending some of that tax money on paying women to stay home and raise well behaved children? Only responsible educated married women to be considered. It would be a start. Many parents have no idea what is best for their children, they need educating as their parents hadn't a clue either. Small examples: you have to be told it's impolite to eat in the street or to swear in front of elderly ladies.



Posted by A. Poet on April 5, 2008 1:58 PM
Report this comment

Justice Coleridge has spoken the truth....Someone at last who has the 'guts' to speak out.
What's the betting he's out of a job real soon.
Posted by Susannah on April 5, 2008 1:22 PM
Report this comment

Labour have virtually made it economically senseless to marry, for many people.

Marriage is at the heart of our society - the effects of the skewed tax and benefit systems which encourage single parent families and actively discourage parents from marrying in some cases, is at the heart of our breaking society.

The Tories need to be absolutely clear about their fiscal support for marriage - and not just their usual half-way measure of proposing tax breaks for those married...with children.

Having taught for 30yrs, there is absolutely no doubt that children from divorced or single parent families were generally at a disadvantage, mainly psychologically, reflecting insecurity - very difficult to quantify, but very obvious to the observer.

All the research on absent fathers and benefits of marriage now unswervingly point to the potential detrimental effects upon children and to the breakdown in society caused by not getting married.

Labour's mindless, "Metropolitan" policies and utter mismanagement of the economy and benefit system and distortion of Society and family values ( which is still very much happening)present clear consequences visible to even the trendiest Marxist.
Posted by Paul Butler on April 5, 2008 1:11 PM
Report this comment

People who care need to take a stand.

Parliament only reflects the voters wishes. With most people making their choices based on social norms and laws, if we continue with our present course we will perpetuate broken hearts and destroyed lives into the future.

We have seen religious belief wane and its leaders cower leaving adults to marry for short term reward which they swap as they percieve a better deal. The decline in marriage openly related to the fear of a divorce taking assets.

Yet children thrive best within stable married relationships. Women and men live longer and healthier in protective partnerships. Children are killed literally as partners argue.

As a society we should have the moral strength to make our marriages work, to campaign to our religious leaders and politicians to support fidelity. Making divorce easier will not strengthen marriage. Society (that is you and I) should ask for laws and promotions to strengthen marriage, increasing direct costs and stigmatisation on those that choose to be unfaithful, divorced or single parents and removing the indirect costs from the victims.
Posted by christine hemming on April 5, 2008 12:59 PM
Report this comment

The opinion of Mr Justice Colereidge is such a harsh truth which came over after the recent row of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills. Paul is after all a renowned personality in the world and because it concerned him so the decession is necessary to show the world that family bond is toppling like global warming and it should not be so.Some other living creatures other than man enjoy good and happy family tie for entire life is man not superior to them ? I thank Mr Justice Colreidge very much. Lastly thanks to Sarah Womack for this report.
Posted by SATYANARAYAN MOHAPATRA on April 5, 2008 12:50 PM
Report this comment

An important reason for family breakdown is the need for both parents to work in order to lead a decent life. 50 years ago it was unusual for a mother to work. We were poorer and most lived in rented acommodation but to buy a house there was a mortgage limit of 2.5 times the main income which had to come from deposits. This restricted inflation. The liberalisation of mortgage terms and the sourcing of funds by Lawson unleased house price inflation. Now houses are out of reach but are the only way to ensure financial security as private pensions are broken and even pensions are means tested. My daughter and her new husband are big earning city lawyers but cannot afford a child because both work too hard servicing their mortgage whilst a teenage girl with no qualiications who has a baby will instantly move into council provided flat and as long as she keeps having babies and never marries will never have to work again. It is a mad, mad world we live in.
Posted by R Mason on April 5, 2008 12:46 PM
Report this comment

And of course it is all the fault of the 'feckless men'.
What about all those feckless wimmin who push fathers out of their lives by lying in court and smearing their ex's names because THEY don't want them in their lives!
Oh, of course, forgot Labour has been told all about this by Fathers 4 Justice - but do they listen?
NO - because that means the wimmin can't be seen as 'victims'.
Stop the War on Fathers and males in general - this is all the result of Rad-feminism and their mantras "all men are bad, all men are rapists and wife beaters.
All they ever seek is privilege.
Unless the Law accepts equal parenting this will just continue.
If you are a female and count yourself a true equalitist then join the Equality-feminists brigade. THEY are fighting for REAL equality and will work with the Mens Movement to bring about a more just society.


Posted by Doc on April 5, 2008 12:42 PM
Report this comment

I agree with everything he said about the problem but I cannot agree with him about the solutions proposed particularly the Government funded research projects.
The Government would at some stage following any review come up with yet another of their "initiatives" which,like all their other initiatives,would achieve exactly nothing except waste another substantial amount of taxpayers money.
There are numerous reasons for the problem not least of all the lifestyles promoted on the T.V.and in the tabloid newspapers. In the soaps fidelity is as common as a pork butchers in a mosque.
The Liberal party leader brags of having had sex with up to 30 women which is hardly promoting family life.
Changing attitudes will be extremely difficult and not happen overnight.One action which could have an effect is to tackle the widespread misuse of the Welfare System which is clearly out of control and swallowing up more than the total amount paid in Income Tax.This meams that every taxpayer is keeping someone else well as themselves.
Unfortunately whilst meaningful action to tackle this misuse has been proposed by the Government it will not have any effect.Neither are the Conservative proposals workable in practice.Their proposal that single mothers be forced to seek work when their child is 7 is just laughable.Those single mothers who see the State as being their breadwinner will simply get pregnant again---probably by a different father than the one used previously.

There is one big problem preventing the tough action required to really force people to work being enforced, by eviction or withdrawal of benefits. That is the HUMAN RIGHTS ACT which is nothing more than a scroungers and criminals charter. I am not aware of it ever having been used by an ordinary,decent,law-abiding citizen.But we cannot scrap this Act whilst we remain in Europe and as action in many other problem areas cannot be taken because of the Act we MUST GET OUT OF EUROPE.If we dont society's problems will just get worse.
For this reason we should only vote for a political party committed to withdrawal from Europe.This gives us just 2 options and I would suggest you view the websites of both the BNP and UKIP and make up your own minds who you will support.
Please forget all economic arguments about the pros and cons of being in europe as economic benefits are of little use to a country in social meltdown.
Posted by Ron Fort on April 5, 2008 12:01 PM
Report this comment

Government policy seems to be reinforcing this tend rather than trying to reverse it. The benefits system and the education system are in favour of promoting a plethora of different lifestyles rather than supporting marriage. Not all of this family breakdown can be blamed on the Government, however, as some of it may be due to social trends that would have happened regardless of which political party was in power. Many of New Labour's policies, however, have only made the situation far worse and therefore at least part of this trend must be attributed to the present Government.
Posted by Mark Kenneth Owen on April 5, 2008 11:53 AM
Report this comment

I would like to see the social stigma faced by a mother who decides that her child(ren) can live with their father removed. It is not always about which sex is best to care for the child, but which parent. If you heard that a mother had 'lost' custody of her child you would automatically think there is something very wrong with her. This is not necessarily the case.
Fathers are good parents too. We're not all irresponsible, uncaring idiots.
Posted by Jonathan on April 5, 2008 11:14 AM
Report this comment

Since when has this been solely the responsibility of the Government? I mean since when does feckless father, high divorce rates and broken homes make the government solely responsible?

I do not understand and this issue is being overplayed and is somewhat alarmist as most people are living in happy marriages and the like with children growing up in good homes. Sure the problems of single mother, multiple fathers etx might be increasing but thats an issue for the parents and not the government. Look to our own conscience and get the school sorted out.
Posted by Pete Best on April 5, 2008 10:48 AM
Report this comment

Family breakdown IS tremendously harmful to children, but I don't think you can legislate against it. To me, the main cause of family breakdown today is that when a couple has children they fail to properly commit to make the relationship work, even when things get difficult.

We need a new attitude to parenting that recognises that a whole family gives more to the child than the parents can give when living separately. The marriage ceremony emphasises commitment in the lines "to love, cherish and protect, in sickness and in health, in poverty or in wealth".

Is it too silly to suggest that, for those agnostic, hippy types like me who feel uncomfortable about the whole ceremony of marriage, there could be a Parents' Ceremony at the time the woman becomes pregnant, to reinforce the parents' commitment to each other?
Posted by Gideon Mitchell on April 5, 2008 10:43 AM
Report this comment

I'm surprised the judge has been allowed to live after saying this. I would really have expected a SWAT team composed of Guardian "Wimmins" page readers to have summarily executed him by boring him to death with non-stop readings from Erica Jong, Margaret Drabble ns that Australian Harpie whose name I can never remember but looks like she is a bull-dog sucking urine off a nettle.
Surely to be a good parent today one has to be a single, disabled, lesbian, muslim feminist with a job in a town hall ?
I mean, come on, you can't have MEN actually involved with children. They are terrible influences on kids, what with their interest in competetive sports and cars and Terminator films.
And some of them eat meat and drink beer and smoke.
And they're MEN. It's so wrong.

Posted by paul atherton on April 5, 2008 10:36 AM
Report this comment

So long as we have state funded system positively promoting single parent family; family breakdown will continue.

In the mean time, this government spends its time in trivia such as plastic carrier bags and on issues of ethics and morals forces its MPs to toe the line.
Posted by Mr MK Oak on April 5, 2008 10:36 AM
Report this comment

Nu Labour has used its peculiar social engineering experiment in this country to destroy family life.
It rewards those financially for breaking up and penalises those with crippling taxes who stay together.
We are on the edge of a major family disaster as peoples finances are placed under extreme pressures by taxes and greedy banks a lot more marriages will crumble under the weight.

Posted by Huw williams on April 5, 2008 10:33 AM
Report this comment

We have had no fault divocrce in oz for over 25 years- it dose'nt work.

Posted by coco on April 5, 2008 10:11 AM
Report this comment

He's absolutely right, of course. Shame too, that
such (blindingly obvious...!) views could have
taken so long to be widely articulated...! - and
even seem to have come as such a shock to so
many people...!!

All because we have a so-called "governement"
that doesn't "govern"... Oh, you stupid Brits...!
Can't you see that if ever a state, anywhere in the
developed world, needed "nannying" - IT'S THIS
ONE...!!!

Posted by John Jay on April 5, 2008 10:00 AM