Comments on: Should Lone Parents of Under 5s Have Their Benefits Cut if they Don’t Attend Government Courses? http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/single-parents-under-5s-benefits.html Cambridge, United Kingdom. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:51:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Cllr Amanda Taylor http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/single-parents-under-5s-benefits.html#comment-22156 Cllr Amanda Taylor Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:39:51 +0000 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=2271#comment-22156 I absolutely share your concerns about the Government bullying single parents in this manner. I would expect many of the mumsnet sorority would agree with you. However, their attitude to your post may be because they have had experience of being exploited by commercial orgs before. I imagine a group of mothers are a good target for all sorts of children's products. With a name like Richard you are obviously not a mum -- though if I was a mumsnet reader, I would welcome your support on this issue. I absolutely share your concerns about the Government bullying single parents in this manner.

I would expect many of the mumsnet sorority would agree with you. However, their attitude to your post may be because they have had experience of being exploited by commercial orgs before. I imagine a group of mothers are a good target for all sorts of children’s products.

With a name like Richard you are obviously not a mum — though if I was a mumsnet reader, I would welcome your support on this issue.

]]> By: Richard http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/single-parents-under-5s-benefits.html#comment-22093 Richard Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:03:41 +0000 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=2271#comment-22093 Phil, I've made all the facts I have public in the post. It may be there is a problem with the Mumsnet's in that users are aware that any suggestion a post is market research results in a post being removed, so users are able to manipulate the site's censorship / moderation policies to quash points of view they disagree with. As moderation is carried out silently on the Mumsnet site I thought, as I have my own site, I would republish my posting here in the interests of transparency. What their members did or didn't think about the post isn't relevant; what's important is the action taken by those running the site. I have not accused Mumsnet of acting in bad-faith. I am raising the possibility that the post might have been removed because of the viewpoint expressed within it; and the fact a number of Mumsnet users took an opposing view. How Mumsnet run their site is entirely up to them; I'm just commenting on their policy and practice in relation to my own experience. Phil,

I’ve made all the facts I have public in the post.

It may be there is a problem with the Mumsnet’s in that users are aware that any suggestion a post is market research results in a post being removed, so users are able to manipulate the site’s censorship / moderation policies to quash points of view they disagree with. As moderation is carried out silently on the Mumsnet site I thought, as I have my own site, I would republish my posting here in the interests of transparency.

What their members did or didn’t think about the post isn’t relevant; what’s important is the action taken by those running the site.

I have not accused Mumsnet of acting in bad-faith. I am raising the possibility that the post might have been removed because of the viewpoint expressed within it; and the fact a number of Mumsnet users took an opposing view. How Mumsnet run their site is entirely up to them; I’m just commenting on their policy and practice in relation to my own experience.

]]> By: Phil Rodgers http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/single-parents-under-5s-benefits.html#comment-22091 Phil Rodgers Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:48:08 +0000 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=2271#comment-22091 I am a bit surprised that you appear to be accusing Mumsnet of acting in bad faith; perhaps their members really did think you were conducting market research. You seem to be saying that they removed your post for political reasons and then lied about why they had done so. Do you have any evidence to back this up? I am a bit surprised that you appear to be accusing Mumsnet of acting in bad faith; perhaps their members really did think you were conducting market research. You seem to be saying that they removed your post for political reasons and then lied about why they had done so. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

]]> By: David Vincent http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/single-parents-under-5s-benefits.html#comment-22090 David Vincent Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:04:55 +0000 http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/?p=2271#comment-22090 It does seem fairly foolish, at a time of high unemployment, to be trying to force another swathe of people (largely young women) back onto the job market. It is possible, of course, for them to find "jobs", as we see from all those young European mothers in the UK, many of whom have to work as a condition of keeping any benefit entitlement at all. Of course, the child-care arrangements that are made in such cases can be bizarre (eg couples working hours that don't overlap, grandparents being brought over to the UK to act purely as unpaid child-minders, children left with friends on an exchange basis) and in some cases non-existent (babies taken along on early morning cleaning, toddlers left alone at home for a couple of hours). Surely there is a basic question as to whether this form of "economic activity" is actually of any intrinsic value to child, parent or society at large. The jobs we are talking about here are almost entirely low-paid and part-time. These parents are not going to be removed from a dependence on benefits, merely transferred into a dependence on more complex and unintelligible benefits (tax credits, housing benefits etc) with all the propensity for confusion, overpayment and "fraud". In essence, it is another arm of the assault on "teenage mums", which is so beloved of the tabloid (and other) press and their entourage. In the wider sense, what is really being said is that the poor should be made subject to enquiry into every part of their life, whilst the rich should be left alone to do what they want with their money. If anyone can explain what the Labour Party is doing on this side of the debate, I would be fascinated to know. It does seem fairly foolish, at a time of high unemployment, to be trying to force another swathe of people (largely young women) back onto the job market. It is possible, of course, for them to find “jobs”, as we see from all those young European mothers in the UK, many of whom have to work as a condition of keeping any benefit entitlement at all. Of course, the child-care arrangements that are made in such cases can be bizarre (eg couples working hours that don’t overlap, grandparents being brought over to the UK to act purely as unpaid child-minders, children left with friends on an exchange basis) and in some cases non-existent (babies taken along on early morning cleaning, toddlers left alone at home for a couple of hours). Surely there is a basic question as to whether this form of “economic activity” is actually of any intrinsic value to child, parent or society at large. The jobs we are talking about here are almost entirely low-paid and part-time. These parents are not going to be removed from a dependence on benefits, merely transferred into a dependence on more complex and unintelligible benefits (tax credits, housing benefits etc) with all the propensity for confusion, overpayment and “fraud”. In essence, it is another arm of the assault on “teenage mums”, which is so beloved of the tabloid (and other) press and their entourage. In the wider sense, what is really being said is that the poor should be made subject to enquiry into every part of their life, whilst the rich should be left alone to do what they want with their money. If anyone can explain what the Labour Party is doing on this side of the debate, I would be fascinated to know.

]]>