Thursday, February 08, 2007

What is this report trying to say?

'Children of parents who have never worked or have been unemployed for a long time had 13 times the risk of dying from an accident and were 37 times more likely to die as a result of exposure to smoke, fire or flames than children of parents who worked in managerial or professional jobs.' Read the full story here.

We will never be able to monitor all the kids in time to help them or do enough to prevent them falling victim. An department set up to monitor these people will never manage to get a handle on this. Unless...... If the article is true then we can fix this by taking all unemployed people and giving them managerial or professional jobs. That will fix it. We can make them all Child Care Managers. Problem solved.

Or it it just that the accident rates are reduced by the fact that they actually spend less time with their kids. It's the parents that is doing in the kids. Less time equals less injuries. We need to take the kids away from the parents and give them child care for the unemployed.

What are they are trying to say? The conclusion I pick up is that those working can buy safety devices that the others can't afford. Does that mean we need to provide unemployed parents with more funds to stop this while government policy seems to be heading the other way?

I'm all for looking after kids but I'm fed up paying for everybody else to have as many as they want when they can't afford to feed or look after them and expect us to.


Post a Comment

<< Home