ChatterBank1 min ago
Child Poverty In Britain Report
http://
The report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty (SMCP) Commission has now said that we will fail to meet our targets in this area by 2020. The report warns that it meant that the UK was at risk of being "permanently divided" with the poorest left behind.
As this is a non-party political issue, what do we think needs to be done ?
The report from the Social Mobility and Child Poverty (SMCP) Commission has now said that we will fail to meet our targets in this area by 2020. The report warns that it meant that the UK was at risk of being "permanently divided" with the poorest left behind.
As this is a non-party political issue, what do we think needs to be done ?
Answers
I too agree with much of what youngmafbog has written...up to a point. The idea of removing children from families is basically appalling. This is because when you remove a child and place him/her in care, you are increasing the likelihood that the child will do worse at school, obtain fewer exam passes and increase the likelihood of that child going off the...
13:13 Mon 20th Oct 2014
Mamy...fair point. But we have to sort the sheep out from the goats here. I live on the edge of a Council Estate, where most of the households are not working, and most of them appear to have no reason why they shouldn't. But they all have kids and I suspect they look upon these children as a way to earn money without working. If you have three children then the Child Benefit comes to £206 a month, tax free...say roughly £250 if you had to pay tax on it. This is on top of all the other benefits that they family will get.
Of course there will be people who are in straightened circumstance due to unfortunate circumstances. I have a brother that due to a dreadful head injury is now out of work and is surviving because the rest of the family has been paying his mortgage between us. Its a struggle but we are keeping our heads above water...just.
But I want something done about the rest. People should simply not be able to remain on the dole, claiming benefits for years and years. The main reason that people are feckless today is because they are financially able to be so. The system allows them to be feckless. Those children that were running around barefoot when we were children had no other choice, but today there is a choice and too many are taking the easy way one.
Of course there will be people who are in straightened circumstance due to unfortunate circumstances. I have a brother that due to a dreadful head injury is now out of work and is surviving because the rest of the family has been paying his mortgage between us. Its a struggle but we are keeping our heads above water...just.
But I want something done about the rest. People should simply not be able to remain on the dole, claiming benefits for years and years. The main reason that people are feckless today is because they are financially able to be so. The system allows them to be feckless. Those children that were running around barefoot when we were children had no other choice, but today there is a choice and too many are taking the easy way one.
Retrochic...this is the official way that poverty is defined and is enshrined in the Child Poverty Act of 2010. But if we don't use income as a basis, how else can we measure poverty in a way that would be fair to everybody ?
Because unless we can measure child poverty, how do we know whether a growing problem of not ?
Because unless we can measure child poverty, how do we know whether a growing problem of not ?
I too agree with much of what youngmafbog has written...up to a point.
The idea of removing children from families is basically appalling.
This is because when you remove a child and place him/her in care, you are increasing the likelihood that the child will do worse at school, obtain fewer exam passes and increase the likelihood of that child going off the rails.
There are many studies that indicate the gulf between achievements of children who have gone into care, as opposed to those who remain with their families.
Now...imagine how the social fabric of the country will look in 15 years time when these ten (or maybe even hundreds) of thousands of kids enter adulthood.
Ticking timebomb.
And the upside? Are we looking at saving money?
I highly doubt it...for all the extra time teaching professionals will have to spend giving extra tuition to failing students, extra man hours the police will have to expend dealing with the crimes committed by the increased number of youth offenders, extra resources that social services will have to expend housing these kids, extra resources adoption agencies will have to expend placing kids with new families....the costs may not be immediate, but they will be there, and we will be paying it.
It all seems like a very, very bad idea.
The idea of removing children from families is basically appalling.
This is because when you remove a child and place him/her in care, you are increasing the likelihood that the child will do worse at school, obtain fewer exam passes and increase the likelihood of that child going off the rails.
There are many studies that indicate the gulf between achievements of children who have gone into care, as opposed to those who remain with their families.
Now...imagine how the social fabric of the country will look in 15 years time when these ten (or maybe even hundreds) of thousands of kids enter adulthood.
Ticking timebomb.
And the upside? Are we looking at saving money?
I highly doubt it...for all the extra time teaching professionals will have to spend giving extra tuition to failing students, extra man hours the police will have to expend dealing with the crimes committed by the increased number of youth offenders, extra resources that social services will have to expend housing these kids, extra resources adoption agencies will have to expend placing kids with new families....the costs may not be immediate, but they will be there, and we will be paying it.
It all seems like a very, very bad idea.
And of course the Child Poverty Act is flawed (as is much government legislation). The government who introduced that legislation took it upon themselves to define poverty as a relative measure suggesting that people were in poverty automatically if they did not have as much income as everybody else, regardless how high that income should be.
The measure should be one of income but not a relative measure. It should be an absolute measure based on the cost of bare necessities such as accommodation, food, clothing and basic utilities such as water and energy. If a household has sufficient funds to pay for these basics then they are not in poverty. Measuring their income against those who work for a living is totally meaningless when attempting to define those in poverty. Poverty is not a comparison with everybody else. It is a comparison with an absolute set of requirements and the only movement in the level defined as the "poverty line" should be to accommodate the change in prices of the agreed basics.
If the government wants to continue with such a relative measure it should rename the Act the "Children whose parents don't have as much as everybody else Act", because that's what it is.
The measure should be one of income but not a relative measure. It should be an absolute measure based on the cost of bare necessities such as accommodation, food, clothing and basic utilities such as water and energy. If a household has sufficient funds to pay for these basics then they are not in poverty. Measuring their income against those who work for a living is totally meaningless when attempting to define those in poverty. Poverty is not a comparison with everybody else. It is a comparison with an absolute set of requirements and the only movement in the level defined as the "poverty line" should be to accommodate the change in prices of the agreed basics.
If the government wants to continue with such a relative measure it should rename the Act the "Children whose parents don't have as much as everybody else Act", because that's what it is.
In the 60s and 70s, if you and your children became homeless then you were not put up in a hotel or given a house. Your children were snatched from you and put into a council run home and the parent left to his/her own devices to find their own accommodation be it a park bench or whatever. Watch Cathy Come Home if you don't believe me.
And I'm not saying we should go back to those days I'm just pointing out for those who weren't around then how hard life could be.
And I'm not saying we should go back to those days I'm just pointing out for those who weren't around then how hard life could be.
I'm talking about removing them at birth, sp. The feckless parents can hang on to the first three or four (or whatever number is decided) untill it is determined they are feckless. Any future progeny should be removed at birth and put up for adoption forthwith. Then they'd never know the difference and wouldn't be any more likely to go off the rails than if they had been born to their adoptive family.
NJ
That could only work, if there were a surplus of people waiting to adopt. Whilst newborns are generally favoured by adoptive families, there are still a large number of children who are waiting to be adopted in the care system.
Also, a surge in the numbers of babies entering the books of adoption agencies might have the effect of guaranteeing the failure to match older children with families.
That could only work, if there were a surplus of people waiting to adopt. Whilst newborns are generally favoured by adoptive families, there are still a large number of children who are waiting to be adopted in the care system.
Also, a surge in the numbers of babies entering the books of adoption agencies might have the effect of guaranteeing the failure to match older children with families.
NJ
Putting these kids up for adoption would almost certainly see them living a life in care, and thereby exacerbating the social issues that are trying to curtail.
This is a report on the current adoption crisis in the UK:
http://
Now, imagine if we suddenly increased the number of these children as proposed...
I cannot see it working.
Putting these kids up for adoption would almost certainly see them living a life in care, and thereby exacerbating the social issues that are trying to curtail.
This is a report on the current adoption crisis in the UK:
http://
Now, imagine if we suddenly increased the number of these children as proposed...
I cannot see it working.
NJ...do you really think that people should have their children snatched away at birth ? Really ?
Didn't we try that in Britain and Ireland in the 60's ? When children were forcibly transported to Australia and put into orphanages 10,000 of miles away from any relatives, where a lot of them were abused both sexually and
physically by the very people that were supposed to be looking after them ?
http://
We have an appalling record of preventing our kids from being abused in care homes, as numerous incidents have shown, some of them active, ongoing Court cases. And you want to add 100,000 more kids to this black hole ? Really ?
Didn't we try that in Britain and Ireland in the 60's ? When children were forcibly transported to Australia and put into orphanages 10,000 of miles away from any relatives, where a lot of them were abused both sexually and
physically by the very people that were supposed to be looking after them ?
http://
We have an appalling record of preventing our kids from being abused in care homes, as numerous incidents have shown, some of them active, ongoing Court cases. And you want to add 100,000 more kids to this black hole ? Really ?
ladybirder
Undoubtedly...but think about it this way...what do you do where you have a couple who have sensible family planning considerations, have had three kids and then the local factory closes, throwing both of them out of work?
They struggle to pay their bills, downsize their house and pick up as much part time work as they can...
...but it isn't enough.
At this point, what are the Social Services to do?
It would almost be like 'Sophie's Choice' re-enacted all over the place every week!
I think we need to remember that there are feckless baby machines and then there are those who get caught up in circumstances beyond their control.
Fairness dictates that all children from families that can't afford them (otherwise, what's the point in bringing these rules?)
I would not like to be that social worker who turns up to the front door to say, "I know you've lost you job, self respect, house and stuff...but I need to take one of your kids away".
Undoubtedly...but think about it this way...what do you do where you have a couple who have sensible family planning considerations, have had three kids and then the local factory closes, throwing both of them out of work?
They struggle to pay their bills, downsize their house and pick up as much part time work as they can...
...but it isn't enough.
At this point, what are the Social Services to do?
It would almost be like 'Sophie's Choice' re-enacted all over the place every week!
I think we need to remember that there are feckless baby machines and then there are those who get caught up in circumstances beyond their control.
Fairness dictates that all children from families that can't afford them (otherwise, what's the point in bringing these rules?)
I would not like to be that social worker who turns up to the front door to say, "I know you've lost you job, self respect, house and stuff...but I need to take one of your kids away".
These Council officials that are going to call on the homes of feckless people, or perhaps hang around in the corridors of Maternity Hospitals...will they have to wear a special black uniform to make them stand out as different from the Police escorts that are going to be needed ? Would special dispensation be made for children with fair hair and blue eyes ?
sp1814
/// This is because when you remove a child and place him/her in care, you are increasing the likelihood that the child will do worse at school, obtain fewer exam passes and increase the likelihood of that child going off the
rails. ///
/// There are many studies that indicate the gulf between achievements of children who have gone into care, as opposed to those who remain with their families. ///
/// Now...imagine how the social fabric of the country will look in 15 years time when these ten (or maybe even hundreds) of thousands of kids enter adulthood. ///
/// Ticking timebomb. ///
There are many hundreds of children who go into homes that become educated responsible law abiding adults.
That is more than can be said for the products of some families especially from some one parent families.
Your 'Ticking time-bomb' has already exploded as can be seen from the street gangs that are now creating havoc and murder wherever they go.
Have all these been brought up in care, or are they from the loving arms of a family life?
/// This is because when you remove a child and place him/her in care, you are increasing the likelihood that the child will do worse at school, obtain fewer exam passes and increase the likelihood of that child going off the
rails. ///
/// There are many studies that indicate the gulf between achievements of children who have gone into care, as opposed to those who remain with their families. ///
/// Now...imagine how the social fabric of the country will look in 15 years time when these ten (or maybe even hundreds) of thousands of kids enter adulthood. ///
/// Ticking timebomb. ///
There are many hundreds of children who go into homes that become educated responsible law abiding adults.
That is more than can be said for the products of some families especially from some one parent families.
Your 'Ticking time-bomb' has already exploded as can be seen from the street gangs that are now creating havoc and murder wherever they go.
Have all these been brought up in care, or are they from the loving arms of a family life?
mikey4444
/// These Council officials that are going to call on the homes of feckless people, will they have to wear a special black uniform to make them stand out as different from the Police escorts that are going to be needed ? Would special dispensation be made for children with fair hair and blue eyes ? ///
Now you are being silly.
Do the present Social Service officials wear black uniforms and only call on families that have not got fair hair and blue eyes?
/// These Council officials that are going to call on the homes of feckless people, will they have to wear a special black uniform to make them stand out as different from the Police escorts that are going to be needed ? Would special dispensation be made for children with fair hair and blue eyes ? ///
Now you are being silly.
Do the present Social Service officials wear black uniforms and only call on families that have not got fair hair and blue eyes?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.