Teen pregnancy down - but that's not enough for some MPs!

Another article in the Guardian caught my attention today http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/16/anti-sex-drive-nadine-dorries about MP Nadine Dorries' proposal that we should teach abstinence only as a compulsory part of the sex education curriculum?

My concern is that she is focussing on girls, that somehow it's always down to the females to say no and forgetting that sometimes boys are pressured into having sex before emotionally ready. In fact, many teenage boys feel under pressure to act "the man" and get with girls.

Teen pregnancy is at the lowest rate in the UK since the 80's, at the moment we have an evidence based curriculum that gives young people the facts. Meanwhile, in the US in states where abstinence only sex education curriculum is taught teen pregnancy is at a much higher rate. The evidence is that ABSTINENCE ONLY SEX EDUCATION DOES NOT WORK!! If we give young people the facts, they tend to make up their own minds. They are already taught that they have the right to say "no" and to only do it when they are ready, and that's not necessarily going to be when they are married. I completely disagree with Dorries when she says it could combat sexual abuse, because it hasn't worked that way for America either!

I have a feeling that Nadine Dorries is just trying to enforce her own personal and religious view into parliament and into law. Just like how she proposed that women having abortions should receive pre-abortion "counselling" from pro-life and religious organisiations, she's now trying to push her religious opinions into education with no real evidence at all to back up what she has to say. Personally, I see her as a chauvinist who's trying to limit the choices women have over their own bodies.

Big companies exploiting young jobseekers?

Hello everyone!

I read another article in the Guardian (I read this one a lot, you probably guessed) it's titled 'Young jobseekers told to work without pay or lose unemployment benefits'

I think unemployment is awful but making people work for big companies for free is probably the worst way to go about this situation. If big companies like Asda, Tesco, Poundland et al can get free labour from the government they are far less likely to recruit more people into paid positions. Also by sending people on these work experience placements and stopping their benefits if they pull out the government are taking away time they could be spending on going to interviews and finding a suitable job. This is taking advantage of poor people who would have no option but to provide big companies with free labour, this is exploitation at it's worse. This offers no solutions.

If the government want to bring in a work for your benefits system they should at least be sending job seekers to charitable organisations, this way at least they will be doing something worthwhile with their time not just put into a supermarket and told to just work. Technically at the government the government are saving big businesses money on recruitment and paying employees, it could be argued that the government are providing private organisation state subsidies they could be in breach of EU law.

I think as usual the government are looking out for big companies and not the "little people".

Fighting For The Hardest Hit

Hey everybody!

I'm very late in writing this but I think everyone, especially those based in the UK should know about The Hardest Hit Campaign. This campaign has been organised by both Disabilities Benefits Consortium and UK Disabled People's Consortium to fight against the proposed cuts to services and benefits received by disabled people. Those with disabilities and their families or carers may struggle enough as it is to get the services they need, for some the benefits and services are needed to maintain some independence.

I can't help but sometimes feel that the way disability benefits are portrayed in the media is detrimental to the disabled people themselves. Most media stories seem to focus on benefit fraud and people given disability living allowance are in fact fit to work, but this is actually rarely the case. There have in fact been cases of people who have severe disabilities declared fit for work. It's not right for disabled people to be portrayed as scroungers or lazy people who just want to live off benefits.

The truth is that living with a disability or an impairment can be very expensive, there are extra costs for wheelchair accessible transportation, specialist wheelchairs (they come in a range of different, makes, shapes and sizes), hearing aids, glasses, adaptations (including hoists) in housing amongst other things that may be needed depending on the individual's needs. For the government to reduce aid to just "those of the greatest need" would be taking away people's independence, quality of life and in some cases health and wellbeing. Everybody has the right to live a fulfilling life and to have a good quality of life, it's wrong for any government to take this away from anyone.

Please visit the hardest hit blog http://thehardesthit.wordpress.com/