ChatterBank7 mins 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
My comments were meant to be ironic and tongue in cheek AOG, as I am sure you were able to see. It was in response to the suggestion that the children of feckless parents should have their kids snatched at birth. I seem to recall that similar methods were used in Germany not that any years ago.
And it is estimated that 130,000 children were removed against their will and transported to Australia as recently as the 1960's ...a quote from my earlier link from your beloved DM, so it must be correct ::::
"The Child Migrants Programme saw thousands of children sent with Government approval by church organisations and charities to Commonwealth countries.
From the 1930s, Britain transported children as young as three to farm schools in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
They were classed as orphans but most of them were just from poor families or born to unmarried mothers.
Once abroad, they were frequently used as cheap labour or became the victims of physical or sexual abuse"
Just how does that despicable practise differ from some peoples suggestions here on AB today ?
And it is estimated that 130,000 children were removed against their will and transported to Australia as recently as the 1960's ...a quote from my earlier link from your beloved DM, so it must be correct ::::
"The Child Migrants Programme saw thousands of children sent with Government approval by church organisations and charities to Commonwealth countries.
From the 1930s, Britain transported children as young as three to farm schools in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
They were classed as orphans but most of them were just from poor families or born to unmarried mothers.
Once abroad, they were frequently used as cheap labour or became the victims of physical or sexual abuse"
Just how does that despicable practise differ from some peoples suggestions here on AB today ?
AOG
Yes, there are indeed many children who manage to go on to lead productive lives, but there are many others who don't.
The proposed answer is too simplistic - if you can't afford to look after child number three, four or whatever, then he or she will be put into care.
But does the logic follow the formula?
What do we say to the family who have had the 'extra' child put up for adoption after they have sorted out their financial difficulties?
By what criteria should forced adoption be executed? Are we simply looking at the financial cost to the exchequer for social security payments?
Will the savings (child benefit, housing benefits etc) be outweighed by the cost of employing the hundreds of people needed to care for these newborns?
Can the foster service handle the hundreds of babies that will enter the care system?
Does the current care system have the computer infrastructure to ramp up to the levels to accommodate the increased numbers?
There's also the problem of perception - you can absolutely guarantee that there will be at least one extremely upsetting film of a mother distraught at her baby being taken by social services because she and her partner cannot afford it, due to redundancy.
I suspect a large number of people simply wouldn't feel comfortable with seeing that.
...and any politician who attempts to tell us "It's best for the child and best for the country" will have to face a large amount of public flak.
I just do not see this idea as credible.
Yes, there are indeed many children who manage to go on to lead productive lives, but there are many others who don't.
The proposed answer is too simplistic - if you can't afford to look after child number three, four or whatever, then he or she will be put into care.
But does the logic follow the formula?
What do we say to the family who have had the 'extra' child put up for adoption after they have sorted out their financial difficulties?
By what criteria should forced adoption be executed? Are we simply looking at the financial cost to the exchequer for social security payments?
Will the savings (child benefit, housing benefits etc) be outweighed by the cost of employing the hundreds of people needed to care for these newborns?
Can the foster service handle the hundreds of babies that will enter the care system?
Does the current care system have the computer infrastructure to ramp up to the levels to accommodate the increased numbers?
There's also the problem of perception - you can absolutely guarantee that there will be at least one extremely upsetting film of a mother distraught at her baby being taken by social services because she and her partner cannot afford it, due to redundancy.
I suspect a large number of people simply wouldn't feel comfortable with seeing that.
...and any politician who attempts to tell us "It's best for the child and best for the country" will have to face a large amount of public flak.
I just do not see this idea as credible.
Rubbish AOG...the program existed for many years and under many Governments. Its got nothing to do with politics, just extremely bad practise.
Don't try to highjack this thread by playing party politics. If you want to play petty party politics, start your own thread !
Some people have strongly suggested on here that children should be forcibly removed from their parents and I am pointing out that its been tried before and was a disaster which thousands of children, now adults are still suffering from.
Don't try to highjack this thread by playing party politics. If you want to play petty party politics, start your own thread !
Some people have strongly suggested on here that children should be forcibly removed from their parents and I am pointing out that its been tried before and was a disaster which thousands of children, now adults are still suffering from.
Radical ideas are often seen as not very credible.
I find the notion that the State can allow children to be born into circumstances where their parent(s) are utterly incapable or unwilling to bring them up properly, condemning them to a life a poverty (not only financial but emotional) far more abhorrent than removing them at birth to give them a better chance somewhere else.
It is not just the financial aspects of this problem that need to be considered. Every day you can see children who are victims of these circumstances. Whilst my suggestion may be fraught with problems (how many good ideas are straightforward?) I see the status quo as simply unsustainable. Unless, that is, the nation wants to continue to pay for the upkeep of an ever increasing number of children who are financially and emotionally bereft and who have little chance of escaping their lot.
I find the notion that the State can allow children to be born into circumstances where their parent(s) are utterly incapable or unwilling to bring them up properly, condemning them to a life a poverty (not only financial but emotional) far more abhorrent than removing them at birth to give them a better chance somewhere else.
It is not just the financial aspects of this problem that need to be considered. Every day you can see children who are victims of these circumstances. Whilst my suggestion may be fraught with problems (how many good ideas are straightforward?) I see the status quo as simply unsustainable. Unless, that is, the nation wants to continue to pay for the upkeep of an ever increasing number of children who are financially and emotionally bereft and who have little chance of escaping their lot.
I don't suppose it does very much Mikey. However, I'd like to think that the outcomes may be a little different to those of fifty years ago.
Many of the families affected would not suffer too much. Many of them see their children as nothing short of a nuisance so removing them would not be any great hardship. Of course we'd need to work on the levels of care provided for the children. I just find it ludicrous that we should continue to allow this situation to prevail (and actually worsen) and all that is done is more money is thrown at it (usually via the very parents who are causing the trouble).
Of course you never know, once mothers realise that they are going through nine months of pregnancy for nothing they may be disinclined to begin further pregnancies. That, of course, would be a bonus but could not be guaranteed.
Many of the families affected would not suffer too much. Many of them see their children as nothing short of a nuisance so removing them would not be any great hardship. Of course we'd need to work on the levels of care provided for the children. I just find it ludicrous that we should continue to allow this situation to prevail (and actually worsen) and all that is done is more money is thrown at it (usually via the very parents who are causing the trouble).
Of course you never know, once mothers realise that they are going through nine months of pregnancy for nothing they may be disinclined to begin further pregnancies. That, of course, would be a bonus but could not be guaranteed.
New Judge you speak total sense, have the knowledge of what life is about and I commend you for your reality check. Definitely the way to go with what you say but this too soft society and the do gooders will see that reality will not reign here. Shame really as things need to be done to make parenting accountable and I would go so dear as to say means tested...but oh dear...what have I said! Human rights et al....sorry guys but if you cannot afford something you cannot have it, be it children, animals, goods, services etc. I think a lot of people today need a reality check and learn to live within their means. Shame that they won't or don't as it might leave the coffers free for the REAL deserving cases!
mikey4444
/// Don't try to highjack this thread by playing party politics. If you want to play petty party politics, start your own thread ! ///
Wow that's rich coming from someone who is always doing the same, nearly everyone of your posts is about politics.
Must have hit another raw nerve again, how many raw nerve does this chap have?
/// Don't try to highjack this thread by playing party politics. If you want to play petty party politics, start your own thread ! ///
Wow that's rich coming from someone who is always doing the same, nearly everyone of your posts is about politics.
Must have hit another raw nerve again, how many raw nerve does this chap have?
Taking children into care is far from unusual.
Of the 92,000 uk children in care, over half are there because of abuse or neglect.
As to the child slavery of the 50s and 60s (one of my friends in Australia was a victim of such) I think the issue wasn't the taking into care; it was the exporting to the other side of the world and the associated lies and deception.
Parents weren't necessarily opposed to the taking of the children, but those who did sort themselves out and tried to retrieve their children were told they were happily adopted by a nice UK family when they were actually working as indentured servants somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
Just as bad, children were told their parents were dead, or hadn't made any attempt to contact with them when letters etc were being intercepted and destroyed.
Of the 92,000 uk children in care, over half are there because of abuse or neglect.
As to the child slavery of the 50s and 60s (one of my friends in Australia was a victim of such) I think the issue wasn't the taking into care; it was the exporting to the other side of the world and the associated lies and deception.
Parents weren't necessarily opposed to the taking of the children, but those who did sort themselves out and tried to retrieve their children were told they were happily adopted by a nice UK family when they were actually working as indentured servants somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
Just as bad, children were told their parents were dead, or hadn't made any attempt to contact with them when letters etc were being intercepted and destroyed.
It is a bad definition of poverty. Poverty should relate to not being able to afford the basics plus x, regardless of what others' income is.
Questions re fairness and social justice and the like are separate issues. When one measures poverty in terms of average income one is muddling the two aspects and getting useless encouragement to assume things are worse than they are. consequently any report that warns of failing goals is not worth the time reading.
Questions re fairness and social justice and the like are separate issues. When one measures poverty in terms of average income one is muddling the two aspects and getting useless encouragement to assume things are worse than they are. consequently any report that warns of failing goals is not worth the time reading.
Also having children you can not afford should be seen as wrong (I accept there may be a compassion issue to be debated re welfare and a first born). Again is is a separate issue though.
One should not just take children away thus absolving the parent's responsibility to provide for those they produce; but one could charge the parents with neglect regarding the children they could not provide for and had anyway because they didn't care: and give them a custodial sentence, thus necessitating taking the children into care.
But I restate it is a different subject to the OP, even if one thinks it related in some cases.
One should not just take children away thus absolving the parent's responsibility to provide for those they produce; but one could charge the parents with neglect regarding the children they could not provide for and had anyway because they didn't care: and give them a custodial sentence, thus necessitating taking the children into care.
But I restate it is a different subject to the OP, even if one thinks it related in some cases.
/It is a bad definition of poverty. Poverty should relate to not being able to afford the basics plus x, regardless of what others' income is./
I think OG you'll find that calculating whether someone can 'afford basics' is an unnecessary complication, create arguments on what the 'basics' are and how much of them a family should be expected to have and will change over time as a percentage of family spend e.g. energy over the past 8 years
Average income and the cost of living index are very useful benchmarks which are consistent and don't involve those complications
And it is almost certain that any family with an income below 60% of that average will in fact be struggling to 'afford basics'
I think OG you'll find that calculating whether someone can 'afford basics' is an unnecessary complication, create arguments on what the 'basics' are and how much of them a family should be expected to have and will change over time as a percentage of family spend e.g. energy over the past 8 years
Average income and the cost of living index are very useful benchmarks which are consistent and don't involve those complications
And it is almost certain that any family with an income below 60% of that average will in fact be struggling to 'afford basics'
New Judge
You position is based on the notion that these children will be adopted.
I want to point out that we currently have an adoption crisis in the country. This has already been widely documented.
Children are waiting years to be adopted right now.
How is adding more to that waiting list going to help?
We would simply be moving the problem, and I completely agree - we do have an unsustainable problem from one part of the State, to another.
We will not magically see thousands of willing adoptive families coming forward. If we did, then where are they right now?
No, what we will see with this social experiment, are dispossessed children, growing up in care.
It's unworkable.
You position is based on the notion that these children will be adopted.
I want to point out that we currently have an adoption crisis in the country. This has already been widely documented.
Children are waiting years to be adopted right now.
How is adding more to that waiting list going to help?
We would simply be moving the problem, and I completely agree - we do have an unsustainable problem from one part of the State, to another.
We will not magically see thousands of willing adoptive families coming forward. If we did, then where are they right now?
No, what we will see with this social experiment, are dispossessed children, growing up in care.
It's unworkable.
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.