tetleys Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 RMWeb is blessed with a good cross section of members with a wide age group so can anybody help an ageing Ludite? We keep getting bombarded by Politicians, pressure groups and The media into feeling guilty if we are financially solvent and only had children we could support. I'm actually being serious here for once, can somebody please define Child Poverty, what is the criterior ? As a member of the Post war baby boom born into a Council House with no central heating until I was in my late teens, a bath once a week followed by a change of clothes on Monday, well actually pants and socks and clean shirt since we only had school clothes and playing out, ex school clothes. MacDonalds were the Scots family in the next street and a (Brand) 'X' Box was what cheap wash powder came in. I could go on but my parents were in work as was everybody's except those maimed or killed in pit accidents so we were fairly comfortable. I really do want to know what level of deprevation must exist out there so come on you younger, more informed members put me out of my misery so I don't have to shout at the tele when the news is on. Confused of Ancaster Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Metr0Land Posted February 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 9, 2012 No need to be (too) confused. The definition keeps changing. The trouble with successive goverments setting up departments, quangos and so forth is that these monoliths are then predicated on there being a problem. No problem, no need for the multi million pound organisation that's meant to be dealing with it. Do you really think child poverty, race relations, sexual inequality etc etc etc are getting worse or are they constantly being redefined to keep organistaions bloated? In relation to child poverty - why child poverty? What's wrong with these organisations qutoing poverty? No need to answer, the answer is that by calling it child poverty we feel more guilty and are much less likely to challenge whatever is being proposed. Cynical? Moi? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortliner Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I look at it this way - all the politicians get a hell of a sight more than I do as a pensioner - when they decide to put large amounts towards their so-called good causes instead of taking their inflated salaries and moving it to offshore accounts, I will START feeling guilty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Dave, Have you always paid your due taxes on time? Thought so. No reason to feel any guilt at all: you have been putting significant money into the relief pot all your working life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Torper Posted February 9, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 9, 2012 Presumably poor children will usually have poor parents. Thus child poverty also means parental (ie adult) poverty. But calling it child poverty obviously makes it a more attractive proposition. DT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 30801 Posted February 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 9, 2012 I think it's more of a social problem than not being able to afford to eat etc. I've lived on a couple of crappy estates around Leeds and it's a pretty toxic environment for kids to grow up in. It's not like the housing was bad. In fact the houses would be very desirable if you were to move them to Surrey. But if you're a kid and your neighbours are all burglars and junkies and you have no prospect of getting away from it then your future doesn't look very bright. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Its Relative Poverty they speak of and that is defined as living on less than 60% of the national Median Income. Its something like £250 per week for a couple with two kids and £150 for a single person with two kids - Those figures are after tax, NI, Council tax etc so its the actual available cash you need to live your life. I suspect that may assuage your guilt a little What 30801 talks of up there ^^^^ is now called Social Exclusion This is possibly a much worse situation than relative poverty to find ones self in...... IMHO of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 There isn't any real poverty in the UK any more. As Mickey says, when politicians/churchmen/chuggers talk about "poverty", they actually mean relative poverty. A small but significant section of society have incomes well below the average level, and as a result they struggle to pay all of their bills, buy the latest toys for their kids and so on. There's an article about UK Poverty on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom which must claim the prize for stating the bleedin' obvious: Low pay was also a major cause of poverty Life can't be brilliant for these people (and especially their kids) but there's a big difference between somebody in the UK struggling to pay their water bill, and somebody in Africa who has to drink filthy polluted water. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Taz Posted February 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 9, 2012 The problem I have with the definition of poverty is that it is derived from income. This doesn't account for the extra help you can get if you are unfortunate enough to be in this position, such as housing benefit, free school meals etc. So a child who is technically in poverty could actually be better off than, for example, a child who has working parents who don't qualify for housing benefit and have to pay their own rent / mortgage. The second family may have a lot less disposable incometo spend on their kids than the first, but by the current definition the first is the one in poverty..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'm afraid it is all nonsense. Anyone claiming to be in poverty in this country with a raft of benefits and support systems should be made to liveexist for a couple of weeks in one of the many areas of the world where true poverty exists. Where dependency on begging is the virtually only option. I've been to some of these places and those conditions do make you feel guilty. However, there is more to it than that. As so often the same country spends a fortune on expensive items (space race, high tech weapons, unrealistic infrastructure projects ...) and has a percentage of the population as super-rich earning more in a minute than the poorest earn in a year. Now a definition of poor, or relatively poor, could be defined as a percentage of one nation's income or probably more correctly a percentage of the local income. As always it could be seen as the amount of money left at the end of the day after buying all essentials. However essentials is certainly not what the majority of "the poor" in this country define as "essential" (mobile phones, tv, central heating, take-a-way eating, the latest fashion ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debs. Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Whilst carefully noting the forum`s guidelines on politics/beliefs etc......... I can`t recall seeing shoeless, 'rickety' waifs, shinning-up chimneys, recently! However, I have personally seen the most ignorant, appallingly thoughtless, anti-social, lack of care parenting; which I would deem to be utterly neglectful both to the needs of the 'poor' child, and also to 'we', in the wider society........Poverty of mind and soul is sadly all-too extant. I was shocked (recently) to see one organisation`s definition of 'poverty' as: "not being able take a family foreign holiday once a year!" My particular 'leanings' guide me down the path of daily (practical) charitable action......but even with careful, thoughtful direction of effort and resources; "we can do, only what we can do" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Take a trip to Nepal, other countries are available, then you will see poverty. About half the population exist on an income below the UN definition of poverty. I was there about seven years ago and the rate for a porter was between £3 and £4 a week. They had to pay for their own board and lodging out of that. We were told not to pay more as it would upset the balance of the economy. Stayed with a family on the way to Everest Base Camp where they burnt yak dung soaked in kerosene and could only have the fire alight for four hours a day, with tempeatures down to -15 c. The kids had to walk three miles and climb around 500 metres to get to school. Boots? No chance, sandals cut from old car tyres was all they had. Child poverty in the UK, don't make me laugh. Bernard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 House with no central heating.... a bath once a week followed by a change of clothes...... You had a house, a bath, clothes!! You were lucky, we ..... Sorry, somebody had to I'd get me coat if I had one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pH Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I can`t recall seeing shoeless, 'rickety' waifs, shinning-up chimneys, recently! I would agree with that sentence, taken as a whole. However, my sister-in-law is a teacher in a de-industrialising part of Britain (I won't identify it further), and the schools there have been amazed and appalled in the last few years when cases of kids with rickets have started to turn up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Williams Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 It has always puzzled me that the poorer the area, the greater the number of satellite dishes in evidence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I would agree with that sentence, taken as a whole. However, my sister-in-law is a teacher in a de-industrialising part of Britain (I won't identify it further), and the schools there have been amazed and appalled in the last few years when cases of kids with rickets have started to turn up. More on rickets in the UK here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14256950. It sounds more of a cultural problem than one caused by poverty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Williams Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I would agree with that sentence, taken as a whole. However, my sister-in-law is a teacher in a de-industrialising part of Britain (I won't identify it further), and the schools there have been amazed and appalled in the last few years when cases of kids with rickets have started to turn up. Likewise nits, since the demise of the school nurse, and the cost of the special shampoo is ridiculously expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Rickets may have been a problem when we were growing up but we were encouraged to play out in the sun all day to get the vitamin D I think it was, which prevents rickets. Now we are told not to let our kids out in the sunshine because it causes skin cancer. You can't win. Back to the definition of poverty being a percentage of the average wage; if those at the bottom are given more money to raise them out of poverty the average will rise also. Then they will be back where they started, so give them money etc......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 We don't have poverty in the UK? Sorry but when you make the acquaintance of a family of four, where the mother and kids walk the streets, outwith school hours at any rate, scraping enough money (from sources unknown to me) to go into Lidl for pretty much only a packet of bacon for dinner... well, I'm afraid true poverty does exist. What little money the father earned paid the (I suspect) slum landlord. Nicer kids I've never met either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium skipepsi Posted February 9, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 9, 2012 Child poverty exists in this country, there are children neglected so the adults around them can consume more heroin more cigarettes more alcohol etc mainly they are picked up by dedicated social workers who have to get enough evidence to face down a QC in court and take them into care about a year after starting. The ones they don't find are the ones in the news, on TV and have serious case enquiries opened about them. There are others born to the mentally ill, the feckless and those ground down by a violent partner. There are people out there breeding children to increase their income from benefits not to mention those who prostitute their children. There are people out there who can walk under the belly of a snake wearing a top hat and they have children who live in all sorts of poverty. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arran Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 HI All I thought the defination of poverty was if you were recieveing a proportion of avrage income, so by that there will always be people in povery !! I take the point about the satilight dishes, id only have the Job channel on between 8am and 5pm, still theres always plenty cash for the drink and Fags . Regards Arrn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Donw Posted February 9, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 9, 2012 I think the real criteria for poverty is not being able to afford all the nice things that can be afforded by those who have worked hard all their life and been careful with their money. On my pension I would probably qualify as poor if I hadn't saved a bit over the years. Perhaps I should have spent it all on trainsand now be looking for handouts. Don Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
royaloak Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 It has always puzzled me that the poorer the area, the greater the number of satellite dishes in evidence. Its for the Jeremy Kyle show in HD innit. Probably the only time they see their relatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Child poverty exists in this country, there are children neglected so the adults around them can consume more heroin more cigarettes more alcohol etc mainly they are picked up by dedicated social workers who have to get enough evidence to face down a QC in court and take them into care about a year after starting. The ones they don't find are the ones in the news, on TV and have serious case enquiries opened about them. There are others born to the mentally ill, the feckless and those ground down by a violent partner. There are people out there breeding children to increase their income from benefits not to mention those who prostitute their children. There are people out there who can walk under the belly of a snake wearing a top hat and they have children who live in all sorts of poverty. To be fair I think what you're describing is not child poverty, it is purely and simply child neglect (regardless of reason). It's something that could apply equally to millionaires as to the jobless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 ....Do you really think child poverty, race relations, sexual inequality etc etc etc are getting worse or are they constantly being redefined to keep organisations bloated? In relation to child poverty - why child poverty? What's wrong with these organisations quoting poverty? No need to answer, the answer is that by calling it child poverty we feel more guilty and are much less likely to challenge whatever is being proposed. Cynical? Moi? The poverty of language? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.