lil peachums Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I hate it too, we got custody back of my partners daughter at a year old bot seeing her from the age of 6months..... And she had hers done didn't even ask of consent of my partner , her father. They are horrible chavvy and they hurt herso we take em out when we see her fortnightly but yet the mother puts em bk in. Time and time again, poor girl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 It wasn`t me that mentioned the word chav originally it was you and yes I can read and like I said its up to the individual whether or not they have the child`s ears pierced ,personally I don`t care if they do it or not . It would seem you do care. It would also seem that the term "chav" is important. On the whole if the term "chav" is distinguished as poor unemployed run down communities that have no future hope or work experience and live on a daily diet of pot noodles and Jeremy Kyle as a source of nutrition and lifes daily lot, then yes chav could be a significant pointer as not many working/middle class families experience those significant factors,..although as you say the term doesn't just apply to the above 1st catagory, although it is highly significant. IMO the point isn't "being a chav" as a result, but why chav has become the scapegoat as to why it's so without knowing and understanding why "chav's" exist? The usual return is "coz theyz fik innit"..well that's a useful analogy to take a debate further. IMO children are being abused and there is a reason why, the term chav isn't an answer, otherwise all child abuse would be carried out by "chavs". There is a selective section of society that does abuse and it abuses in a particular way...predominantly. What is the root cause rather than the perceived result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand_dollars Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 I actually don`t like the term chav ,end of and Like I said it is entirely up to the parent whether they have it done or not .I don`t want to get into an argument with anyone about this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Like I said it is entirely up to the parent whether they have it done or not . They shouldn't have that right. They shouldn't disfigure the body of their child for any reason beyond medical need. It's an assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Bickering and off topic posts and those quoting deleted. Keep it civil please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted January 13, 2013 Share Posted January 13, 2013 Chav means council housed and violent not everyone who has there child`s ears done comes from a council estate and in the end its the persons choice if they want to have the ears done or not and regardless of anyones opinion on here. The crux is it shouldn't be, it should be legislated against not protected with "a parent knows best" which clearly they do, but obviously not in MANY cases. You're saying it's not right, but it's equally not right for SF's to have an opinion on the rights of individual parents to abuse their infants, even if those with opinions are also likely to be parents? Effectively there are laws which protects an infant against sexual abuse specifically, but it seems not physically in the case of violent disfigurement. The argument of "reversible or not", and even clothing a child:huh: which has been made is a bit lame IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.