Too stupid to get married or have a baby

AnonoBoy · 21-10-2009 12:18PM

But these people are Scottish.....

.....who cares?

5starpool · 21-10-2009 12:19PM

caseyann wrote: »

So now not hot and unintelligent people shouldn't be allowed get married or have kids :rolleyes:

You should legally have to be one or the other. It would eradicate half the scobies around the place if this was law for the last 50 years.

Long Onion · 21-10-2009 12:22PM

5starpool wrote: »

You should legally have to be one or the other. It would eradicate half the scobies around the place if this was law for the last 50 years.

Right so, by law you legally have to be 1) Hot or 2) unintelligent

Que ..........?

Smart Bug · 21-10-2009 12:43PM

Humans have evolved beyond the confines of natural selection (the fit, i.e. smart survive) hence the profusion of stupid fugly welfare sponges prevalent in all 'civilised' first world countries.

For me, the answer is simple. Weigh the cost of these degenerates against that of a bullet. Shoot 'em all I saw, shoot 'em all.

Riddle101 · 21-10-2009 01:24PM

What's the legal age to have sex in Scotland? if she's 17 and he's 25 then wouldn't that be Statutory rape? even more so if she was pregnant she would have had sex with the guy when she was 16 or something like that. Does it say if the guy was being questioned or charaged?

buckieburd · 21-10-2009 01:30PM

16 is the age of consent in Scotland.

In fairness there has to be a lot more to this story than what's in the article.

Why would the council go to all that bother, just if she's a bit 'simple'?

Maybe it's something to do with the father? Who knows?

Cool Mo D · 21-10-2009 02:40PM

Smart Bug wrote: »

Humans have evolved beyond the confines of natural selection (the fit, i.e. smart survive) hence the profusion of stupid fugly welfare sponges prevalent in all 'civilised' first world countries.

No, we most certainly have not evolved past natural selection, and it totally wrong to say that natural selection means smarter, bigger, stronger and faster creatures will survive. You clearly don't have the first clue how natural selection works.
Natural selection means that individuals that are best adapted to their environment will survive to pass along their genes. It is perfectly possible that being smarter, bigger or stronger than average would reduce your chance of surviving in certain situations. Think about it.

Dudess · 21-10-2009 03:02PM

I'd rather a decent system of child protection, a guarantee of children being removed from homes where they are endangered, and given the exact type of home a child needs, rather than women forcibly getting their wombs removed/men forcibly getting the snip.

I reconsidered briefly in light of the Baby P case as I was so affected by it, but back thinking rationally: mass enforced sterilisation is ****ed up.

Just read the OP properly: that's a very sad story - they could at least give her a chance. Taking her baby from her after a few hours - the poor girl. Imagine how gut-wrenching that experience would be for her. It is indeed eerily reminiscent of The Magdalene Laundries.

Although as someone rightly pointed out, there's probably more to it than that.

Overheal · 21-10-2009 03:40PM

brendansmith wrote: »

You are off the hook this once dude.

Yes. Im sure its just once.

Myra Melodic Tuber wrote: »

You say that way too much, I am afraid it has lost it's "mojo"?

I don't think so.

caseyann · 22-10-2009 01:13PM

5starpool wrote: »

You should legally have to be one or the other. It would eradicate half the scobies around the place if this was law for the last 50 years.

What kind of education did Albert Einstein have? was born on March 14, 1879 in Ulm, Germany. His parents were Pauline and Hermann Einstein. It is interesting to note that neither of his parents had any knowledge in the areas of math or science. Even Albert, in his early years, was a very shy but curious kid that showed very little aptitude for anything. In elementary school, Albert was such an under achiever in all subjects other than math and science that his parents suspected that he might be retarded. As it turned out, Albert preferred to learn on his own and had taught himself advanced mathematics and science by the time he was a teenager.

Just because a parent hasn't excelled in intelligence levels of academic does not mean their children don't.:rolleyes:
I have seen some parents with schooling to level of 6th class only and their children excel because of the parents

Remember also intelligent and or good looking does not make you good parents.

Dudess · 22-10-2009 01:15PM

Yeah, and some educated people are ****ing dumb ("educated" as in, they have degrees).

Some of the smartest, most interesting people I know didn't do the leaving.

caseyann · 22-10-2009 01:20PM

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, and some educated people are ****ing dumb ("educated" as in, they have degrees).

Some of the smartest, most interesting people I know didn't do the leaving.

I agree

But because of class they come from that makes them the more accepted even if they are thick anti social idiots

And i note here,i am not talking about all in any class,because i don't consider richer people with degrees nor poorer with no education any different.All people.Scum parents and people are scum doesn't matter what education or upbringing they have.

pablomakaveli · 22-10-2009 01:36PM

wyndham wrote: »

I have investigated and she is not hot:

http://hurricanevanessa.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/article-1212867-0664297d000005dc-941_468x520.jpg

/thread.

Of all the posts in this thread this is the one i find to be the most controversial.

No right minded individual would find her hot. :eek:

Fad · 22-10-2009 01:37PM

caseyann wrote: »

So now not hot and unintelligent people shouldn't be allowed get married or have kids :rolleyes:

Gene pool cleansing FTW.

caseyann · 22-10-2009 01:41PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Of all the posts in this thread this is the one i find to be the most controversial.

No right minded individual would find her hot. :eek:

So i suppose you and your family and friends are all gorgeous :rolleyes:

Funny i know guys who would not date a girl who wasn't dressed up to nines,loads of make up and gorgeous looking.Now married,they married chubby normal looking girls majority of them.Remember this women nor yourself stay good looking forever.At least these girls know they are loved for been themselves

DarkJager · 22-10-2009 01:42PM

article wrote:

In May it was disclosed that Rachel Pullen, 24, had her three-year-old daughter taken away from her by social services when she was six months old after Nottingham City Council officials deemed her too stupid to look after the child.

I've re-read that part twice now and I'm still stumped. When was time travelling discovered??

hooradiation · 22-10-2009 01:45PM

And AH's love affair with social darwinism continues.

pablomakaveli · 22-10-2009 01:45PM

caseyann wrote: »

So i suppose you and your family and friends are all gorgeous :rolleyes:

Thankfully better than you and yours.:p

Dudess · 22-10-2009 01:47PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Of all the posts in this thread this is the one i find to be the most controversial.

No right minded individual would find her hot. :eek:

Wyndham said "I have investigated and she is not hot".

caseyann · 22-10-2009 01:48PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Thankfully better than you and yours.:p

You should leave this thread it is only for the ugly and unintelligent

caseyann · 22-10-2009 01:49PM

DarkJager wrote: »

I've re-read that part twice now and I'm still stumped. When was time travelling discovered??

Means baby was taken at 6 months and now three :rolleyes: I find possibly more to that story then has been published!

DarkJager · 22-10-2009 01:51PM

caseyann wrote: »

2 years and four months she has not had her baby :rolleyes: I find possibly more to that story then has been published!

Not very clear to see when that paragraph of the article is written with all the articulation of a heroin addict with 2 fingers.

pablomakaveli · 22-10-2009 01:55PM

Dudess wrote: »

Wyndham said "I have investigated and she is not hot".

Whoops. In my defence i've only got up an hour ago. My post reading abilities are usually impaired for a short while after waking up.

pablomakaveli · 22-10-2009 01:56PM

caseyann wrote: »

You should leave this thread it is only for the ugly and unintelligent

I think i'll stay. It'll help boost my ego.:D

caseyann · 22-10-2009 02:02PM

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think i'll stay. It'll help boost my ego.:D

Polish?

Moomoo1 · 23-10-2009 07:05PM

caseyann wrote: »

Means baby was taken at 6 months and now three :rolleyes: I find possibly more to that story then has been published!

yeah, there's a whold bloody long judgement available if you want to read it. http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed2355

basically, the child had medical difficulties and was born at 27 weeks, and the social services decided that the mother didn't have the intelligence to care after it. The mother (as well as her relatives), understandably, got very upset and very angry, which hurt her case even further. Subsequently another review said that she was too dumb to understand solicitor instructions, and she had to use an official solicitor who was in cahoots with the social services, and put up little fight for her.

independent reviews however claimed that Pullen was not in any way unable to care for her child.

however, what seems strange is that they want to deny her contact with the child. Ok, let the child be adopted if she is unable to care for it, but why deny her access? She is not abusive of dangerous.

Moomoo1 · 23-10-2009 07:12PM

cruizer101 wrote: »

Funny enough this is the way it worked for thousands of years, human are the first species to really mess with good old natural selection meaning we have kinda stopped evoling.

people like Robertson would have had two children already if this was the Stone Age. So I don't t think natural selection comes into this.

cruizer101 wrote: »

But anyway, ridiculous, they should definitly let her keep the kid some of the most caring people around are crap at traditionally academic subjects, give the couple a chance.

agreed. It is possible that there is more to this than meets the eye, but I think it's a case of some civil servant making a decision and sticking to it like a limpet.

Elliemental · 23-10-2009 07:13PM

jackncoke wrote: »

She's only 17,her fella is 25

Even at 17 shes` allowed to make her own mind up about marraige. And as for the baby being taken into care, there must be more to this than lack of understanding (for want of a better word), I mean kids barely in their teens seem tobe getting knocked up these days, and they`re allowed to keep their babies, even though you can tell they`d struggle to raise a cat.

Moomoo1 · 23-10-2009 07:32PM

Elliemental wrote: »

Even at 17 shes` allowed to make her own mind up about marraige. And as for the baby being taken into care, there must be more to this than lack of understanding (for want of a better word), I mean kids barely in their teens seem tobe getting knocked up these days, and they`re allowed to keep their babies, even though you can tell they`d struggle to raise a cat.

the reason is her learning disability. According to mencap, 60% of mothers with LD have their children taken away for some period of time.

That's how things are: if a SS psychologist finds you incapable, it's very hard to fight against that.

23-10-2009 07:41PM

Elliemental wrote: »

Even at 17 shes` allowed to make her own mind up about marraige. .

Have I missed something here?

The article states she is 24?

Rachel Pullen, 24, claims the authorities 'kidnapped' the youngster and put her into foster care when she was just six months old.

Actually, that article is from May 09, maybe you are all reading a more up to date report??

Too stupid to get married or have a baby

Comments