Bloody kids.

What has happened to the children in our country? Why do they hold the laws of the land in such scant regard?

Take a look at this little blighter:

A criminal. Thankfully, he appears to have been given the sack already.

Sam starts work at 6.45am every day, but because he’s only 15 legally he cannot begin work until 7am – and if he does that, he could miss the start of school.

He'll have to give up work then, won't he? If he misses the start of the school day, his parents must be prosecuted. Of course, if he misbehaves at school, disrupts lessons, bullies smaller children and intimidates female members of staff, that's fine, it's his human right to express himself.

He won a national award last year for looking after a terminally ill pensioner.

He should be forced to give the award back, and the terminally ill pensioner must be prosecuted for incitement to employ a child before 7 am. Did the terminally ill pensioner undergo a CRB check? I doubt it. This is a scandalous exploitation of child labour.

Thankfully, a public spirited civillian contacted the local council and tipped them off about this. This stout yeoman of our green and pleasant land should be held up as a public hero, stopping the abuse and exploitation of children is a sacred duty for all of us. Perhaps he or she should be given the award handed out to the criminal little mite in recompense?

Now he could be forced to ditch his round after CEO [Child Employment Office] officials threatened the shop owner that employs Sam.

Vicky Onions, from Vicky’s Convenience Store, could be taken to court if she continues to employ the 15-year-old.

Well now, hang on. Why are we just going for the employer here? Certainly she's had a major part in facilitating the offence here, but then there's the people who paid her for the service, they should all be fined. There's the parents who have aided and abetted their progeny being used in the manner of a child being sent up the chimney. There's the lad's friends and their parents, are we to believe they weren't aware of this flagrant breach of the law? They are all accessories in my eyes. Then there's the boy himself. He has wilfully broken the law here, he has drawn in people to have contact with him, in direct contravention of child safety protocol, he has endangered his chances of getting a drone certificate from his local school, and has knowingly put himself in an environment where he is likely to be snatched from the street by a paedophile, exposed to non-approved literature and to see products containing tobacco, alcohol and high levels of sugar and salt.

Look people, it is perfectly simple, if we have children, their parents and local employers talking and making decisions without the benefit of the State's Solomon like wisdom, where will it all end? They should all be fined and imprisoned before this sort of thing gets out of hand.

The One That Sees Two Problems and Two Solutions. . .

There was a 'news' story on the BBC last night which was talking about subcontractors to high street 'fashion' store Primark employing child labour to finish off articles of clothing off site from their Indian factories.

OK, 1st problem, and the easiest:-

Dear BBC, it is your job to report the news, not to make it. Please don't insult us by dressing up a trailer for Panorama as a news item. A news story is influenced by the events surrounding it, this story could have been broken at any time, it is a magazine feature not news. Please stop it.

Right that's the first problem identified and solved.

Secondly, I have a real problem with child labour, I want to live in a world where children have the opportunity to go to school and just be kids. However we do not live in such a utopia. I can't help wondering that if by cancelling these suppliers' contracts that they have just placed more people in worse poverty. A more pragmatic and real-politik view is needed with this situation.

Firstly you have to ask the question, 'why are these kids working like this?' I'm betting it is because there is an economic and family financial imperative that the wages, no matter how meagre, earned by these kids are coming in. I'm also betting that as the kids specifically included in the Panorama report are Tamil/Sri Lankan refugees living in a camp, there is no school for them to go to. What happens to these families now the income generated by the children has gone? There is no welfare state to look after them. My concern is that we are judging these practices from the viewpoint of a developed Western economy with social security. A luxury these people do not have. I am not supposing that these families want their kids to work, I don't believe any responsible parent wants this for their kids, but if it is the difference between the kids eating and not eating, then what choice do they have?

Would it not be better to accept that child labour, whilst being highly undesirable is a fact, and that by removing the job the kids are doing you may be removing the labour, but not the cause behind it?

Here's a solution I've been mulling over for a few hours. I decide to open 'Snowolf's Gentlemen's Clothing Emporium - competitively priced clothing with a conscience'. Just as with Primark, I want to keep prices low, however I accept that some items of clothing will be made by child labour. Would it be acceptable for me as the proprietor of this outlet to promote the fact that:

a: We use child labour.
b: The cost of the clothing is displayed on the item's price tag.
c: Additional to this is a displayed amount of x% that goes toward the funding of schools for the kids that make the clothes, and enables them on a 2 day, 3 day split either way in a five day week to be paid to go to school as if they were producing the clothes.
d: Perhaps a surplus from the x% means that the company can sponsor the brightest kids working for them to attend university.

I don't know, I don't have the answers, merely suggestions and would be interested to hear what you think.