One in five children in Bournemouth live below the poverty line (From Bournemouth Echo)

Phixer wrote:
No child in the UK or western europe is living 'below the poverty line'.

They may be living with families that have wrong priorities in how they spend their money or who can't be bothered to learn how to cook but, if the parents are not in work, there is plenty of time available to learn.

Flat screen TV's and takeaway pizza's do not constitute 'poverty'.

Nickolai wrote:

Phixer wrote:
No child in the UK or western europe is living 'below the poverty line'.

They may be living with families that have wrong priorities in how they spend their money or who can't be bothered to learn how to cook but, if the parents are not in work, there is plenty of time available to learn.

Flat screen TV's and takeaway pizza's do not constitute 'poverty'.

Exactly.

uvox44 wrote:
looking at the wider picture- is it just me that wonders why, in a time of supposed global economic downturn, that Sunseeker is building more boats than ever? Doesn't that raise any questions about the current economic system in anyone elses mind? Or are you all too busy condeming your next door neighbours to see what's really going on?

uvox44 wrote:
looking at the wider picture- is it just me that wonders why, in a time of supposed global economic downturn, that Sunseeker is building more boats than ever? Doesn't that raise any questions about the current economic system in anyone elses mind? Or are you all too busy condeming your next door neighbours to see what's really going on?

Phixer wrote:
No child in the UK or western europe is living 'below the poverty line'.

They may be living with families that have wrong priorities in how they spend their money or who can't be bothered to learn how to cook but, if the parents are not in work, there is plenty of time available to learn.

Flat screen TV's and takeaway pizza's do not constitute 'poverty'.

EGHH wrote:
All this suffering and even then the Govt. is borrowing more than Labour did. A totally incompetent Govt. overseeing a continuing omnishambles of policies

really?? seriously?? wrote:
Poverty and obeisity??, must be eating out of the bins???

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

EGHH wrote: All this suffering and even then the Govt. is borrowing more than Labour did. A totally incompetent Govt. overseeing a continuing omnishambles of policies

Instead of benefits there should be a child tax. In an over populated world we need to make people think before having broods they can't afford. . This is all just a product of the lazy thinking they can get an easy life on benefits if the have more children.

blahblahbleurgh wrote:
I live in west howe i work hard to feed,clothe and keep my family warm. i drives me mad when i hear moaning they havent got enough money to go shopping whilst they have a bunch of kids hanging aroung their ankles a cig hanging out their mouths and moaning about their hangover in the same coversation. PRIORITIES PEOPLE.

Hessenford wrote:
Instead of posting yet more stats why doesn't the echo get its reporters to do a proper investigation and find a couple of families to run a story stating how and why they are in poverty, how much they earn, how much in benefits and their lifestyle, I suspect that a family in true poverty will be extremely hard to find.

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

yasinac wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Instead of posting yet more stats why doesn't the echo get its reporters to do a proper investigation and find a couple of families to run a story stating how and why they are in poverty, how much they earn, how much in benefits and their lifestyle, I suspect that a family in true poverty will be extremely hard to find.

Really hard to find? You really need to pull your head out of the sand. If you think true poverty doesn't exist, spend a day with a midwife/health visitor/social worker/volunteer or care worker that goes into some of the homes in our area and get your eyes opened. There are elderly people blocking off all but one room in cold flats, with no money for heating and just a couple of tins and a bit of veg in the cupboards! Bet they'd love a seat up on your pedestal.

yasinac wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Instead of posting yet more stats why doesn't the echo get its reporters to do a proper investigation and find a couple of families to run a story stating how and why they are in poverty, how much they earn, how much in benefits and their lifestyle, I suspect that a family in true poverty will be extremely hard to find.

Really hard to find? You really need to pull your head out of the sand. If you think true poverty doesn't exist, spend a day with a midwife/health visitor/social worker/volunteer or care worker that goes into some of the homes in our area and get your eyes opened. There are elderly people blocking off all but one room in cold flats, with no money for heating and just a couple of tins and a bit of veg in the cupboards! Bet they'd love a seat up on your pedestal.

Phixer wrote:
No child in the UK or western europe is living 'below the poverty line'.

They may be living with families that have wrong priorities in how they spend their money or who can't be bothered to learn how to cook but, if the parents are not in work, there is plenty of time available to learn.

Flat screen TV's and takeaway pizza's do not constitute 'poverty'.

Wallisdown wrote:
As has already been said, and firstly the UK classification of poverty is nothing compared to alot of places in the world - just think what the locals live like when you all go on holiday to Egypt, Kenya, Tunisia, Morocco etc. So imagine what poverty is like in deepest, darkest Chad or Sudan. Not being able to buy little Johnny-Ray the latest version on Call of Duty is not poverty!!

Secondly about 5,999 of those 6,000 kids are in 'Poverty' because their parents are too lazy or fat to get of their benefits scrounging backsides and get a job! There's currently upwards of 2,000 job vaccancies in the Bmth/Poole area!!! No excuse!

speedy231278 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Sadly, this article does not state what the criteria for 'poverty' actually is. The fact of the matter is that you will find that these 'impoverished' people are far better off than the majority of the world's population. Of course, there will be some genuinely poverty stricken individuals, but the figures being slung about in this survey are just comical. After all, the papers will tell us that anyone out of work gets so many benefits that they live the life of Riley, and everyone who works is rolling in it. So how can they tell us one in five kids is below the poverty line? Somewhere along the line, all these stories about workers, alleged benefit scroungers and now impoverished kids simply don't add up.

The Liberal wrote:
Another thing: why on earth is a flat-screen TV considered the peak of luxury in 2013? Has anyone even made any other type for years?

justsayithowitis wrote:
Several families on benefits live in the same road as me and they all smoke, drink and own at least one car per family. If they would rather spend my hard earned money on these things instead of feeding their children that is their choice. Does not mean they are living in poverty. I work full time and am worse off than them

Dibbles2 wrote:

justsayithowitis wrote:
Several families on benefits live in the same road as me and they all smoke, drink and own at least one car per family. If they would rather spend my hard earned money on these things instead of feeding their children that is their choice. Does not mean they are living in poverty. I work full time and am worse off than them

ld suggest that if people are doing this then they are on the fiddle as trust me when I lost my job I could barely afford to feed my family let alone any of the other stuff. I also have a flat screen TV, a car, sky tv all of which I was bound into contracts over etc or paid for when I was working so please dont tar everyone with the same brush. It also beggars belief that people who sit on their backsides get paid to care for "sick" children? How the hell does that work? A parent gets paid by the government to look after their own child come on!

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

pauls55 wrote:
It seems to me by most of these comments that the secret agenda of the ConDems to pitch ordinary working people against each other to hide their own incompetence is working very well. They encourage their right wing extremist friends in the press to print huge generalisations of how everyone on benefits is a lazy scrounger flittering their money away while their neglecting their children to hide the real inequalities between the rich and poor. Whilst I agree you cannot compare poverty here with countries in Africa, there is something very wrong with families in one of the richest countries in the world having to rely on food banks to feed their children caused purely by political failure.

scrumpyjack wrote:
'The official definition of the poverty line in Britain is any family living on less than 60 per cent of the median income, which is measured by halving the difference between the highest and lowest incomes.'

The average wage of the UK is £26,500. 60% of this is £15,900.

Jon E wrote:
Some "Key Facts" from the website of the organisation which arranged this study:

Nearly 4 million children are living in poverty in the UK (after housing costs)

The proportion of children living in poverty grew from 1 in 10 in 1979 to 1 in 3 in 1998. Today, 30 per cent of children in Britain are living in poverty.

The UK has one of the worst rates of child poverty in the industrialised world

The majority (59 per cent) of poor children live in a household where at least one adult works.

40 per cent of poor children live in a household headed by a lone parent. The majority of poor children (57 per cent) live in a household headed by a couple.

38% of children in poverty are from families with 3 or more children.

http://www.endchildp

overty.org.uk/why-en

d-child-poverty/key-

facts

speedy231278 wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:
'The official definition of the poverty line in Britain is any family living on less than 60 per cent of the median income, which is measured by halving the difference between the highest and lowest incomes.'

The average wage of the UK is £26,500. 60% of this is £15,900.

Isn't that figure per person, though? So these figures are suggesting that a household is in poverty if they 'only' have £31,800 coming through the door?

Quite how two people with a couple of kids are in poverty at anything vaguely approaching this figure is beyond me, unless they are trying to live above their means.

Now, if they had £10K coming through the door....

justsayithowitis wrote:
Most children who are suffering through lack of the basic essentials have parents who smoke and drink. Fact

Jon E wrote:

speedy231278 wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:
'The official definition of the poverty line in Britain is any family living on less than 60 per cent of the median income, which is measured by halving the difference between the highest and lowest incomes.'

The average wage of the UK is £26,500. 60% of this is £15,900.

Isn't that figure per person, though? So these figures are suggesting that a household is in poverty if they 'only' have £31,800 coming through the door?

Quite how two people with a couple of kids are in poverty at anything vaguely approaching this figure is beyond me, unless they are trying to live above their means.

Now, if they had £10K coming through the door....

Well it's a bit more complicated than scrumpyjack suggests.

It is true that poverty is defined as living on less than 60% of median incomes. But "median" income and "average" income are not the same thing.

The Guardian used data from the Institute of Fiscal Studies to show the distribution of income in the UK and created a calculator to allow you to find out where you stand.

You can view it here
http://www.guardian.

co.uk/society/databl

og/interactive/2012/

jun/22/how-wealthy-y

ou-compared

A single person with no children has a median household income of £15000 after tax. To be below the poverty line you would need to be on £9000 or less

For a single person with one child the poverty line is £11600

For a couple with one child the poverty line is £16000

For a couple with two children the poverty line is £19000

I won't take up more space with every permutation possible.

pauls55 wrote:
It seems to me by most of these comments that the secret agenda of the ConDems to pitch ordinary working people against each other to hide their own incompetence is working very well. They encourage their right wing extremist friends in the press to print huge generalisations of how everyone on benefits is a lazy scrounger flittering their money away while their neglecting their children to hide the real inequalities between the rich and poor. Whilst I agree you cannot compare poverty here with countries in Africa, there is something very wrong with families in one of the richest countries in the world having to rely on food banks to feed their children caused purely by political failure.

Dr Strangelove wrote:
Reading a lot of comments on hear it could be 1913 not 2013. Good to know Victorian values are still rife in this area send em all to the workhouse and stop any state education it's too good for em!!!

The Liberal wrote:

Wallisdown wrote: As has already been said, and firstly the UK classification of poverty is nothing compared to alot of places in the world - just think what the locals live like when you all go on holiday to Egypt, Kenya, Tunisia, Morocco etc. So imagine what poverty is like in deepest, darkest Chad or Sudan. Not being able to buy little Johnny-Ray the latest version on Call of Duty is not poverty!! Secondly about 5,999 of those 6,000 kids are in 'Poverty' because their parents are too lazy or fat to get of their benefits scrounging backsides and get a job! There's currently upwards of 2,000 job vaccancies in the Bmth/Poole area!!! No excuse!

I wondered how long it would be before someone brought up this old chestnut. Why should we measure poverty in the UK on the basis of that in the poorest countries in the world?   We still live in one of the richest economies in the world, so we should expect a much better standard of care for our children (and senior citizens, too).

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

The Liberal wrote:

Wallisdown wrote: As has already been said, and firstly the UK classification of poverty is nothing compared to alot of places in the world - just think what the locals live like when you all go on holiday to Egypt, Kenya, Tunisia, Morocco etc. So imagine what poverty is like in deepest, darkest Chad or Sudan. Not being able to buy little Johnny-Ray the latest version on Call of Duty is not poverty!! Secondly about 5,999 of those 6,000 kids are in 'Poverty' because their parents are too lazy or fat to get of their benefits scrounging backsides and get a job! There's currently upwards of 2,000 job vaccancies in the Bmth/Poole area!!! No excuse!

I wondered how long it would be before someone brought up this old chestnut. Why should we measure poverty in the UK on the basis of that in the poorest countries in the world?   We still live in one of the richest economies in the world, so we should expect a much better standard of care for our children (and senior citizens, too).

That's exactly the problem though. People here do EXPECT everything and moan when it's not on a silver platter.
.
I have news for you. It's not my job to support idiots who can't be bothered to work, don't work hard enough or lazy scroungers who think they can get an easy life on benefits by having more kids.
.
Things are changing and I for one am very pleased about it.

The Liberal wrote:

speedy231278 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Sadly, this article does not state what the criteria for 'poverty' actually is. The fact of the matter is that you will find that these 'impoverished' people are far better off than the majority of the world's population. Of course, there will be some genuinely poverty stricken individuals, but the figures being slung about in this survey are just comical. After all, the papers will tell us that anyone out of work gets so many benefits that they live the life of Riley, and everyone who works is rolling in it. So how can they tell us one in five kids is below the poverty line? Somewhere along the line, all these stories about workers, alleged benefit scroungers and now impoverished kids simply don't add up.

It just goes to show that you should never believe what you read in the papers.

The Liberal wrote:

speedy231278 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Sadly, this article does not state what the criteria for 'poverty' actually is. The fact of the matter is that you will find that these 'impoverished' people are far better off than the majority of the world's population. Of course, there will be some genuinely poverty stricken individuals, but the figures being slung about in this survey are just comical. After all, the papers will tell us that anyone out of work gets so many benefits that they live the life of Riley, and everyone who works is rolling in it. So how can they tell us one in five kids is below the poverty line? Somewhere along the line, all these stories about workers, alleged benefit scroungers and now impoverished kids simply don't add up.

It just goes to show that you should never believe what you read in the papers.

s-pb2 wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

The Liberal wrote:

Wallisdown wrote: As has already been said, and firstly the UK classification of poverty is nothing compared to alot of places in the world - just think what the locals live like when you all go on holiday to Egypt, Kenya, Tunisia, Morocco etc. So imagine what poverty is like in deepest, darkest Chad or Sudan. Not being able to buy little Johnny-Ray the latest version on Call of Duty is not poverty!! Secondly about 5,999 of those 6,000 kids are in 'Poverty' because their parents are too lazy or fat to get of their benefits scrounging backsides and get a job! There's currently upwards of 2,000 job vaccancies in the Bmth/Poole area!!! No excuse!

I wondered how long it would be before someone brought up this old chestnut. Why should we measure poverty in the UK on the basis of that in the poorest countries in the world?   We still live in one of the richest economies in the world, so we should expect a much better standard of care for our children (and senior citizens, too).

That's exactly the problem though. People here do EXPECT everything and moan when it's not on a silver platter. . I have news for you. It's not my job to support idiots who can't be bothered to work, don't work hard enough or lazy scroungers who think they can get an easy life on benefits by having more kids. . Things are changing and I for one am very pleased about it.

What about those with learning disabilities or with other problems? They have children too, and their children do need support, or do you propose sterilising any woman with an IQ less than a figure you see fit?

HRH of Boscombe wrote: “Please don't get me started on the gene pool or nature/nuture debate. We're not doing the over populated world any favours by preserving the weaker gene pool. Even worse encouraging it to reproduce.”

The Liberal wrote:

Dr Strangelove wrote:
Reading a lot of comments on hear it could be 1913 not 2013. Good to know Victorian values are still rife in this area send em all to the workhouse and stop any state education it's too good for em!!!

It seems that some people won't be happy until that happens. They must read Dickens and think it's a utopian vision. Child labour, workhouses, debtors' prisons… and a complete lack of health and safety regulations!

The Liberal wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote: “Please don't get me started on the gene pool or nature/nuture debate. We're not doing the over populated world any favours by preserving the weaker gene pool. Even worse encouraging it to reproduce.”

So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.

yasinac wrote:
@Bournemouthmum, sorry for the digress on to poverty of the elderly, another example that more relevant. Children without beds that have to rely on friends or the library to do computer set school homework as they don't have a computer. Parents regularly going without food to feed their children even though their parents both work. It's not about comparing our lives now to lives of those hundreds of years before.
With raising standards of living and improvements in health care and housing conditions in our country, there is an expectation of a certain level of existence and there are people out there, not necessarily on benefits that don't meet that level. For a 'bournemouthmum' you have a shockingly appalling amount of empathy.

s-pb2 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Your so right it appears MOST of the posters on here ARE idiots.

Yes its 2013 , its the UK and there IS child poverty, and it does exist here in Bournemouth.

I work with an organisation who are actually dealing with families NOW in Bournemouth. Helping them basic furniture, heating and even food.

Then theres the hundreds of children across the area currently in care proceedings with our councils. The vast majority are there because of neglect. Whether it be because of poor choices by their parents but also because some parents are not even feeding their children properly. The numbers of children coming into care across the region are continuing to rise at a terrifying rate due to neglect.

I do not deny that the figure would include those with the big plasma TVs and iPhones etc, but there are still children out there who are genuinely suffering because of poverty. If you think otherwise, you either need to get out more, are completely naive or just downright stupid.

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

The Liberal wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote: “Please don't get me started on the gene pool or nature/nuture debate. We're not doing the over populated world any favours by preserving the weaker gene pool. Even worse encouraging it to reproduce.”

So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.

Did you read any of my comment or just made up what you wanted to?
.
I clearly stated in a free country we shouldn't sterilise people. We just shouldn't support the weaker gene pool and more importantly fund encouragement for them to reproduce at the taxpayer's expense. Lets face it it just causes a pyramid of multiplication of plumbs that drain society. Let they breed but work for your living or bring back workhouses.
.
Desperate little twist as your liberal attitude is responsible for the feral gene pool we all have to pay for currently.

Hessenford wrote:
Instead of posting yet more stats why doesn't the echo get its reporters to do a proper investigation and find a couple of families to run a story stating how and why they are in poverty, how much they earn, how much in benefits and their lifestyle, I suspect that a family in true poverty will be extremely hard to find.

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

The Liberal wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote: “Please don't get me started on the gene pool or nature/nuture debate. We're not doing the over populated world any favours by preserving the weaker gene pool. Even worse encouraging it to reproduce.”

So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.

Did you read any of my comment or just made up what you wanted to?
.
I clearly stated in a free country we shouldn't sterilise people. We just shouldn't support the weaker gene pool and more importantly fund encouragement for them to reproduce at the taxpayer's expense. Lets face it it just causes a pyramid of multiplication of plumbs that drain society. Let they breed but work for your living or bring back workhouses.
.
Desperate little twist as your liberal attitude is responsible for the feral gene pool we all have to pay for currently.

Your comment is not only deliberately deceiving and stirring but completely ignorant too.
.
For your information the nature/nurture debate YOU decided to quote me on was Freud not Hitler. As I already said, a desperate liberal dig without a leg to stand on because you are wrong and have no other argument to the facts.

The Liberal wrote:

Wallisdown wrote:
As has already been said, and firstly the UK classification of poverty is nothing compared to alot of places in the world - just think what the locals live like when you all go on holiday to Egypt, Kenya, Tunisia, Morocco etc. So imagine what poverty is like in deepest, darkest Chad or Sudan. Not being able to buy little Johnny-Ray the latest version on Call of Duty is not poverty!!

Secondly about 5,999 of those 6,000 kids are in 'Poverty' because their parents are too lazy or fat to get of their benefits scrounging backsides and get a job! There's currently upwards of 2,000 job vaccancies in the Bmth/Poole area!!! No excuse!

I wondered how long it would be before someone brought up this old chestnut. Why should we measure poverty in the UK on the basis of that in the poorest countries in the world?
 
We still live in one of the richest economies in the world, so we should expect a much better standard of care for our children (and senior citizens, too).

GAHmusic wrote:
It is a serriously important question when it comes to how many of these parents prioritise how they spend the income they have and whilst I completely agree with the human right to spend your money how you like I think perhaps we need to look at how we address the issue of benefits as surely allowing a child to fall below the poverty line is a breach of the childs human rights. I guess the question is are we giving money to the parent or are we giving the money to the child, surely if the benefit is paid for the child buying fags, booze, tatoos, TVs, etc is tantermount to fraud?

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Your so right it appears MOST of the posters on here ARE idiots.

Yes its 2013 , its the UK and there IS child poverty, and it does exist here in Bournemouth.

I work with an organisation who are actually dealing with families NOW in Bournemouth. Helping them basic furniture, heating and even food.

Then theres the hundreds of children across the area currently in care proceedings with our councils. The vast majority are there because of neglect. Whether it be because of poor choices by their parents but also because some parents are not even feeding their children properly. The numbers of children coming into care across the region are continuing to rise at a terrifying rate due to neglect.

I do not deny that the figure would include those with the big plasma TVs and iPhones etc, but there are still children out there who are genuinely suffering because of poverty. If you think otherwise, you either need to get out more, are completely naive or just downright stupid.

Firstly using capital letters and abuse doesn't make your ill-thought out rant any more accurate.

What you're obviously confusing here is neglect and abuse with poverty.

There may be many children living in poverty like conditions but this is due to neglect or abuse, not because of failings in the benefit/tax credit system.

Even those on the most meagre income aren’t in poverty if they have shelter and food.

When did poverty in this country become 'not having the latest mobile' or 'not having a car'.

This idea of relative poverty is a blatant voter inducement system, it is the labour party equivalent of tax breaks from the conservatives.

The idea that huge swages of the population are in 'poverty' and therefore need tax breaks and benefits automatically buys their vote as it's in their best interest to vote labour to maintain their income.

Hardy Lass wrote:
The parents of these children have complicated lives, many children in one family have different dads.

They can't actually manage family life, and the routine that needs establishing.

These parents still smoke and drink though. AND look at these mothers who have their nails painted £25+ a time..

Women are bored once their babies leave babyhood.. their children become a nuisance and a tie.
Many mothers do not have maternal maturity , their children suffer.

Children have to be nurtured and loved and looked after.

These people are usually pathetically incapable of doing nothing but breed!

scrumpyjack wrote:
'The official definition of the poverty line in Britain is any family living on less than 60 per cent of the median income, which is measured by halving the difference between the highest and lowest incomes.'

The average wage of the UK is £26,500. 60% of this is £15,900.

BackOfTheNet wrote:
I'm confused by your comments HRH of Boscombe.

You clearly state "No mother nature would normally deal with that as they're not abled. Another term could be disabled. It's still not my place or job to financially support them"

Do you actually believe those unable to find employment because they are disabled should not be fed and housed? If so, why are you claiming you don't support eugenics?

Dr Strangelove wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

The Liberal wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote: “Please don't get me started on the gene pool or nature/nuture debate. We're not doing the over populated world any favours by preserving the weaker gene pool. Even worse encouraging it to reproduce.”

So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.

Did you read any of my comment or just made up what you wanted to?
.
I clearly stated in a free country we shouldn't sterilise people. We just shouldn't support the weaker gene pool and more importantly fund encouragement for them to reproduce at the taxpayer's expense. Lets face it it just causes a pyramid of multiplication of plumbs that drain society. Let they breed but work for your living or bring back workhouses.
.
Desperate little twist as your liberal attitude is responsible for the feral gene pool we all have to pay for currently.

Your comment is not only deliberately deceiving and stirring but completely ignorant too.
.
For your information the nature/nurture debate YOU decided to quote me on was Freud not Hitler. As I already said, a desperate liberal dig without a leg to stand on because you are wrong and have no other argument to the facts.

Your problem is you think the culture these days is it's the world and everything elses fault. Oh hang on that was from another story about a reformed drug addict. If only we were all as perfect as you.

s-pb2 wrote:

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Your so right it appears MOST of the posters on here ARE idiots.

Yes its 2013 , its the UK and there IS child poverty, and it does exist here in Bournemouth.

I work with an organisation who are actually dealing with families NOW in Bournemouth. Helping them basic furniture, heating and even food.

Then theres the hundreds of children across the area currently in care proceedings with our councils. The vast majority are there because of neglect. Whether it be because of poor choices by their parents but also because some parents are not even feeding their children properly. The numbers of children coming into care across the region are continuing to rise at a terrifying rate due to neglect.

I do not deny that the figure would include those with the big plasma TVs and iPhones etc, but there are still children out there who are genuinely suffering because of poverty. If you think otherwise, you either need to get out more, are completely naive or just downright stupid.

Firstly using capital letters and abuse doesn't make your ill-thought out rant any more accurate.

What you're obviously confusing here is neglect and abuse with poverty.

There may be many children living in poverty like conditions but this is due to neglect or abuse, not because of failings in the benefit/tax credit system.

Even those on the most meagre income aren’t in poverty if they have shelter and food.

When did poverty in this country become 'not having the latest mobile' or 'not having a car'.

This idea of relative poverty is a blatant voter inducement system, it is the labour party equivalent of tax breaks from the conservatives.

The idea that huge swages of the population are in 'poverty' and therefore need tax breaks and benefits automatically buys their vote as it's in their best interest to vote labour to maintain their income.

You really havent got the faintest idea what you are talking about have you. Neglect is a term used by authorities which encompasses poverty, if you cant feed your children its classed as neglect. There are many families in Bournemouth that need help with feeding themselves and they dont have cars or mobile phones either. You need to get out from behind your computer and go and view the real world! I write in capitals to get through to the idiots on here, i see it has clearly not worked

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Your so right it appears MOST of the posters on here ARE idiots.

Yes its 2013 , its the UK and there IS child poverty, and it does exist here in Bournemouth.

I work with an organisation who are actually dealing with families NOW in Bournemouth. Helping them basic furniture, heating and even food.

Then theres the hundreds of children across the area currently in care proceedings with our councils. The vast majority are there because of neglect. Whether it be because of poor choices by their parents but also because some parents are not even feeding their children properly. The numbers of children coming into care across the region are continuing to rise at a terrifying rate due to neglect.

I do not deny that the figure would include those with the big plasma TVs and iPhones etc, but there are still children out there who are genuinely suffering because of poverty. If you think otherwise, you either need to get out more, are completely naive or just downright stupid.

Firstly using capital letters and abuse doesn't make your ill-thought out rant any more accurate.

What you're obviously confusing here is neglect and abuse with poverty.

There may be many children living in poverty like conditions but this is due to neglect or abuse, not because of failings in the benefit/tax credit system.

Even those on the most meagre income aren’t in poverty if they have shelter and food.

When did poverty in this country become 'not having the latest mobile' or 'not having a car'.

This idea of relative poverty is a blatant voter inducement system, it is the labour party equivalent of tax breaks from the conservatives.

The idea that huge swages of the population are in 'poverty' and therefore need tax breaks and benefits automatically buys their vote as it's in their best interest to vote labour to maintain their income.

You really havent got the faintest idea what you are talking about have you. Neglect is a term used by authorities which encompasses poverty, if you cant feed your children its classed as neglect. There are many families in Bournemouth that need help with feeding themselves and they dont have cars or mobile phones either. You need to get out from behind your computer and go and view the real world! I write in capitals to get through to the idiots on here, i see it has clearly not worked

I don't care what rubbish local authorities say, it's inaccurate twaddle.

A family in poverty is one who even after their best efforts does not have the basic necessities of life.

If a child is deprived of that because their parent, drinks, injects, smokes or gambles the money they have then that is abuse, it is not poverty.

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

Dr Strangelove wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

The Liberal wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote: “Please don't get me started on the gene pool or nature/nuture debate. We're not doing the over populated world any favours by preserving the weaker gene pool. Even worse encouraging it to reproduce.”

So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.

Did you read any of my comment or just made up what you wanted to?
.
I clearly stated in a free country we shouldn't sterilise people. We just shouldn't support the weaker gene pool and more importantly fund encouragement for them to reproduce at the taxpayer's expense. Lets face it it just causes a pyramid of multiplication of plumbs that drain society. Let they breed but work for your living or bring back workhouses.
.
Desperate little twist as your liberal attitude is responsible for the feral gene pool we all have to pay for currently.

Your comment is not only deliberately deceiving and stirring but completely ignorant too.
.
For your information the nature/nurture debate YOU decided to quote me on was Freud not Hitler. As I already said, a desperate liberal dig without a leg to stand on because you are wrong and have no other argument to the facts.

Your problem is you think the culture these days is it's the world and everything elses fault. Oh hang on that was from another story about a reformed drug addict. If only we were all as perfect as you.

Which is it? Perfect or think the world's against me? I'm not interested in your druggy mate's story thanks.

Hessenford wrote:

scrumpyjack wrote:
'The official definition of the poverty line in Britain is any family living on less than 60 per cent of the median income, which is measured by halving the difference between the highest and lowest incomes.'

The average wage of the UK is £26,500. 60% of this is £15,900.

Oh right, my take home pay after tax is approx £15.500 so that puts me in poverty does it, well it certainly doesn't feel like it.
I support my wife and son, have enough food, pay my utilities, can afford to use my central heating, I have sky tv in 3 rooms and own a car, just how exactly am I in poverty.
Live by your means, there are plenty of benefit claimants out there who get double what I earn for doing nothing and still say they cannot afford to live, absolute rubbish.

sezzler wrote:

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Your so right it appears MOST of the posters on here ARE idiots.

Yes its 2013 , its the UK and there IS child poverty, and it does exist here in Bournemouth.

I work with an organisation who are actually dealing with families NOW in Bournemouth. Helping them basic furniture, heating and even food.

Then theres the hundreds of children across the area currently in care proceedings with our councils. The vast majority are there because of neglect. Whether it be because of poor choices by their parents but also because some parents are not even feeding their children properly. The numbers of children coming into care across the region are continuing to rise at a terrifying rate due to neglect.

I do not deny that the figure would include those with the big plasma TVs and iPhones etc, but there are still children out there who are genuinely suffering because of poverty. If you think otherwise, you either need to get out more, are completely naive or just downright stupid.

Firstly using capital letters and abuse doesn't make your ill-thought out rant any more accurate.

What you're obviously confusing here is neglect and abuse with poverty.

There may be many children living in poverty like conditions but this is due to neglect or abuse, not because of failings in the benefit/tax credit system.

Even those on the most meagre income aren’t in poverty if they have shelter and food.

When did poverty in this country become 'not having the latest mobile' or 'not having a car'.

This idea of relative poverty is a blatant voter inducement system, it is the labour party equivalent of tax breaks from the conservatives.

The idea that huge swages of the population are in 'poverty' and therefore need tax breaks and benefits automatically buys their vote as it's in their best interest to vote labour to maintain their income.

You really havent got the faintest idea what you are talking about have you. Neglect is a term used by authorities which encompasses poverty, if you cant feed your children its classed as neglect. There are many families in Bournemouth that need help with feeding themselves and they dont have cars or mobile phones either. You need to get out from behind your computer and go and view the real world! I write in capitals to get through to the idiots on here, i see it has clearly not worked

I don't care what rubbish local authorities say, it's inaccurate twaddle.

A family in poverty is one who even after their best efforts does not have the basic necessities of life.

If a child is deprived of that because their parent, drinks, injects, smokes or gambles the money they have then that is abuse, it is not poverty.

I'm losing faith in humanity here! There is no getting through to some people. It is really very sad at how little compassion is displayed on this message board. What a lot of very judgemental people too! I hope they never find themselves in the position some of these families are in. How can you tar families in poverty with the same brush? What is more shameful is that sadly, so many of you have lost sight of the victims here, the children. Perhaps the problem is that it is just too horrible a thought for some of you to be able to face the terrible fact that poverty does exist in this day and age (and in a relatively affluent area).

justsayithowitis wrote:

sezzler wrote:

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Your so right it appears MOST of the posters on here ARE idiots.

Yes its 2013 , its the UK and there IS child poverty, and it does exist here in Bournemouth.

I work with an organisation who are actually dealing with families NOW in Bournemouth. Helping them basic furniture, heating and even food.

Then theres the hundreds of children across the area currently in care proceedings with our councils. The vast majority are there because of neglect. Whether it be because of poor choices by their parents but also because some parents are not even feeding their children properly. The numbers of children coming into care across the region are continuing to rise at a terrifying rate due to neglect.

I do not deny that the figure would include those with the big plasma TVs and iPhones etc, but there are still children out there who are genuinely suffering because of poverty. If you think otherwise, you either need to get out more, are completely naive or just downright stupid.

Firstly using capital letters and abuse doesn't make your ill-thought out rant any more accurate.

What you're obviously confusing here is neglect and abuse with poverty.

There may be many children living in poverty like conditions but this is due to neglect or abuse, not because of failings in the benefit/tax credit system.

Even those on the most meagre income aren’t in poverty if they have shelter and food.

When did poverty in this country become 'not having the latest mobile' or 'not having a car'.

This idea of relative poverty is a blatant voter inducement system, it is the labour party equivalent of tax breaks from the conservatives.

The idea that huge swages of the population are in 'poverty' and therefore need tax breaks and benefits automatically buys their vote as it's in their best interest to vote labour to maintain their income.

You really havent got the faintest idea what you are talking about have you. Neglect is a term used by authorities which encompasses poverty, if you cant feed your children its classed as neglect. There are many families in Bournemouth that need help with feeding themselves and they dont have cars or mobile phones either. You need to get out from behind your computer and go and view the real world! I write in capitals to get through to the idiots on here, i see it has clearly not worked

I don't care what rubbish local authorities say, it's inaccurate twaddle.

A family in poverty is one who even after their best efforts does not have the basic necessities of life.

If a child is deprived of that because their parent, drinks, injects, smokes or gambles the money they have then that is abuse, it is not poverty.

I'm losing faith in humanity here! There is no getting through to some people. It is really very sad at how little compassion is displayed on this message board. What a lot of very judgemental people too! I hope they never find themselves in the position some of these families are in. How can you tar families in poverty with the same brush? What is more shameful is that sadly, so many of you have lost sight of the victims here, the children. Perhaps the problem is that it is just too horrible a thought for some of you to be able to face the terrible fact that poverty does exist in this day and age (and in a relatively affluent area).

Why should I show compassion for adults who choose to squander my hard earned money on non-essentials rather than feed or clothe their children properly. My neighbour is on benefits and she has a party at hers most weekends. When drunk she laughs and jokes about the idiots who go to work to pay for her lifestyle. Her children are only on this earth because they bring in the money. The older ones are now teenagers and they can bring their one night stands home. She is obviously hoping for grandchildren to keep the money rolling in. Her children do not live in poverty. Their mother abuses them. A very big difference

BournemouthMum wrote:

Dibbles2 wrote:

justsayithowitis wrote:
Several families on benefits live in the same road as me and they all smoke, drink and own at least one car per family. If they would rather spend my hard earned money on these things instead of feeding their children that is their choice. Does not mean they are living in poverty. I work full time and am worse off than them

ld suggest that if people are doing this then they are on the fiddle as trust me when I lost my job I could barely afford to feed my family let alone any of the other stuff. I also have a flat screen TV, a car, sky tv all of which I was bound into contracts over etc or paid for when I was working so please dont tar everyone with the same brush. It also beggars belief that people who sit on their backsides get paid to care for "sick" children? How the hell does that work? A parent gets paid by the government to look after their own child come on!

They acheive that by getting their child diagnosed with ADHD. I'm not saying the condition doesn't exist because it does, but a lot of it is made up in order to obtain disability benefits and carers allowance by scroungers. It's scandalous that these people who know how to scam the system get money thrown at them when genuine people who have lost their jobs get hardly anything.

l'anglais wrote:

justsayithowitis wrote:

sezzler wrote:

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Your so right it appears MOST of the posters on here ARE idiots.

Yes its 2013 , its the UK and there IS child poverty, and it does exist here in Bournemouth.

I work with an organisation who are actually dealing with families NOW in Bournemouth. Helping them basic furniture, heating and even food.

Then theres the hundreds of children across the area currently in care proceedings with our councils. The vast majority are there because of neglect. Whether it be because of poor choices by their parents but also because some parents are not even feeding their children properly. The numbers of children coming into care across the region are continuing to rise at a terrifying rate due to neglect.

I do not deny that the figure would include those with the big plasma TVs and iPhones etc, but there are still children out there who are genuinely suffering because of poverty. If you think otherwise, you either need to get out more, are completely naive or just downright stupid.

Firstly using capital letters and abuse doesn't make your ill-thought out rant any more accurate.

What you're obviously confusing here is neglect and abuse with poverty.

There may be many children living in poverty like conditions but this is due to neglect or abuse, not because of failings in the benefit/tax credit system.

Even those on the most meagre income aren’t in poverty if they have shelter and food.

When did poverty in this country become 'not having the latest mobile' or 'not having a car'.

This idea of relative poverty is a blatant voter inducement system, it is the labour party equivalent of tax breaks from the conservatives.

The idea that huge swages of the population are in 'poverty' and therefore need tax breaks and benefits automatically buys their vote as it's in their best interest to vote labour to maintain their income.

You really havent got the faintest idea what you are talking about have you. Neglect is a term used by authorities which encompasses poverty, if you cant feed your children its classed as neglect. There are many families in Bournemouth that need help with feeding themselves and they dont have cars or mobile phones either. You need to get out from behind your computer and go and view the real world! I write in capitals to get through to the idiots on here, i see it has clearly not worked

I don't care what rubbish local authorities say, it's inaccurate twaddle.

A family in poverty is one who even after their best efforts does not have the basic necessities of life.

If a child is deprived of that because their parent, drinks, injects, smokes or gambles the money they have then that is abuse, it is not poverty.

I'm losing faith in humanity here! There is no getting through to some people. It is really very sad at how little compassion is displayed on this message board. What a lot of very judgemental people too! I hope they never find themselves in the position some of these families are in. How can you tar families in poverty with the same brush? What is more shameful is that sadly, so many of you have lost sight of the victims here, the children. Perhaps the problem is that it is just too horrible a thought for some of you to be able to face the terrible fact that poverty does exist in this day and age (and in a relatively affluent area).

Why should I show compassion for adults who choose to squander my hard earned money on non-essentials rather than feed or clothe their children properly. My neighbour is on benefits and she has a party at hers most weekends. When drunk she laughs and jokes about the idiots who go to work to pay for her lifestyle. Her children are only on this earth because they bring in the money. The older ones are now teenagers and they can bring their one night stands home. She is obviously hoping for grandchildren to keep the money rolling in. Her children do not live in poverty. Their mother abuses them. A very big difference

This is why benefits should not be given in hard CASH.
A needy family should be given a Home, heating, a weekly food parcel and a free bus pass to help them find work.
Take money out of the equation and give them the essentials only, then and only then will you see a change in their priorities.

Dr Strangelove wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

Dr Strangelove wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

The Liberal wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote: “Please don't get me started on the gene pool or nature/nuture debate. We're not doing the over populated world any favours by preserving the weaker gene pool. Even worse encouraging it to reproduce.”

So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.

Did you read any of my comment or just made up what you wanted to? . I clearly stated in a free country we shouldn't sterilise people. We just shouldn't support the weaker gene pool and more importantly fund encouragement for them to reproduce at the taxpayer's expense. Lets face it it just causes a pyramid of multiplication of plumbs that drain society. Let they breed but work for your living or bring back workhouses. . Desperate little twist as your liberal attitude is responsible for the feral gene pool we all have to pay for currently.

Your comment is not only deliberately deceiving and stirring but completely ignorant too. . For your information the nature/nurture debate YOU decided to quote me on was Freud not Hitler. As I already said, a desperate liberal dig without a leg to stand on because you are wrong and have no other argument to the facts.

Your problem is you think the culture these days is it's the world and everything elses fault. Oh hang on that was from another story about a reformed drug addict. If only we were all as perfect as you.

Which is it? Perfect or think the world's against me? I'm not interested in your druggy mate's story thanks.

Well you had plenty to say on the echo website about them a few months ago. I don't think I've ever read so much prejudice rubbish in all my life but you are coming very close again on this one.

Ziggy starburst wrote:
I occasionally pop along to this site to chuckle at the hate and sheer time wasting drivel written by smug self absorbed people. This thread is in a class of its own. We are all citizens in this "civilised" country but there is a very worrying trend in labelling poverty as failure and greed as success. We're in a recession so there will be more poverty. The contempt for people less fortunate than others on this thread is shameful. You can't generalise (although you will) with something like poverty.

Wallisdown wrote:

HRH of Boscombe wrote:

EGHH wrote: All this suffering and even then the Govt. is borrowing more than Labour did. A totally incompetent Govt. overseeing a continuing omnishambles of policies

Instead of benefits there should be a child tax. In an over populated world we need to make people think before having broods they can't afford. . This is all just a product of the lazy thinking they can get an easy life on benefits if the have more children.

Yes there are too many people in the world as me speak, there is no reason in this world or the next why anyone should want more than two or three children? I just don't get!!!

People like that idiot women with 11 little monsters having a mansion built for her are driving our country into the ground.

Its easy to blame Banks, the Government but at the end of the day if every had a good working attitude and wanted to drive the country forward there would be no need for Austerity or for the 100's of thousands of people to enter the UK to fill positions that should be filled by people who are British!!!

live-and-let-live wrote:
poverty doesnt exist in britain. perhaps the headline should be
"one in five children are not very well off".
or, " four out of five children have more than enough"

uvox44 wrote:
looking at the wider picture- is it just me that wonders why, in a time of supposed global economic downturn, that Sunseeker is building more boats than ever? Doesn't that raise any questions about the current economic system in anyone elses mind? Or are you all too busy condeming your next door neighbours to see what's really going on?

Rocketdog wrote:
Do me a favour, I've travelled around India and South America and that what proper Poverty is ,seeing liitle kids living on railway stations & under subways having to beg for food and go through bins for scraps. This makes me sick reading this, the people that are in these statistcis are the typical chavs that want it all handed out to them on a plate. GO OUT AND GET A BLOODY JOB LIKE WE HAVE TO..STOP LIVING ON HANDOUTS & STOP MOANING!!
YOU HAVENT GOT A CLUE WHAT POVERTY IS!!

stevobath wrote:

live-and-let-live wrote: poverty doesnt exist in britain. perhaps the headline should be "one in five children are not very well off". or, " four out of five children have more than enough"

Poverty is relative.Comparing UK with 3rd World countries is totally pointless. We're living in one of the richest countries in the World..Oh wait.Most of the wealth is owned & controlled by people like Cameron.IE Very rich,well off privileged right wing hypocrites. The simplistic 'Sheeple' who comment on here...Gullable...

kingstonpaul wrote:
Not clear whether this is about material poverty.
The biggest threat to our children is poverty of ambition.

ggrrrr wrote:
Men need to take more responsibility for their offspring, I know of plenty of women in Bournemouth who are no longer with the father of their children and get no financial help from them. So many people live for the moment nowdays with no financial planning.

stevobath wrote:

live-and-let-live wrote:
poverty doesnt exist in britain. perhaps the headline should be
"one in five children are not very well off".
or, " four out of five children have more than enough"

Poverty is relative.Comparing UK with 3rd World countries is totally pointless.

We're living in one of the richest countries in the World..Oh wait.Most of the wealth is owned & controlled by people like Cameron.IE Very rich,well off privileged right wing hypocrites.

The simplistic 'Sheeple' who comment on here...Gullable...

polblagger wrote:

stevobath wrote:

live-and-let-live wrote:
poverty doesnt exist in britain. perhaps the headline should be
"one in five children are not very well off".
or, " four out of five children have more than enough"

Poverty is relative.Comparing UK with 3rd World countries is totally pointless.

We're living in one of the richest countries in the World..Oh wait.Most of the wealth is owned & controlled by people like Cameron.IE Very rich,well off privileged right wing hypocrites.

The simplistic 'Sheeple' who comment on here...Gullable...

Poverty is not relative.

Poverty as stated by any dictionary is 'a lack of necessities' it is not a relative term.

scrumpyjack wrote:
'The official definition of the poverty line in Britain is any family living on less than 60 per cent of the median income, which is measured by halving the difference between the highest and lowest incomes.'

The average wage of the UK is £26,500. 60% of this is £15,900.

polblagger wrote:

ggrrrr wrote:
Men need to take more responsibility for their offspring, I know of plenty of women in Bournemouth who are no longer with the father of their children and get no financial help from them. So many people live for the moment nowdays with no financial planning.

LOL at the man hater with her own agenda.

BournemouthMum wrote:

polblagger wrote:

stevobath wrote:

live-and-let-live wrote:
poverty doesnt exist in britain. perhaps the headline should be
"one in five children are not very well off".
or, " four out of five children have more than enough"

Poverty is relative.Comparing UK with 3rd World countries is totally pointless.

We're living in one of the richest countries in the World..Oh wait.Most of the wealth is owned & controlled by people like Cameron.IE Very rich,well off privileged right wing hypocrites.

The simplistic 'Sheeple' who comment on here...Gullable...

Poverty is not relative.

Poverty as stated by any dictionary is 'a lack of necessities' it is not a relative term.

Exactly. The 'poverty is relative' argument is pathetic. Poverty is lack of necessities which means food, shelter and clothing, it doesn't mean the latest iphone, 60 inch TVs, etc.etc. No one needs to be in poverty in this country unless they are misappropriating funds meant for these essentials.

Wallisdown wrote:
As has already been said, and firstly the UK classification of poverty is nothing compared to alot of places in the world - just think what the locals live like when you all go on holiday to Egypt, Kenya, Tunisia, Morocco etc. So imagine what poverty is like in deepest, darkest Chad or Sudan. Not being able to buy little Johnny-Ray the latest version on Call of Duty is not poverty!!

Secondly about 5,999 of those 6,000 kids are in 'Poverty' because their parents are too lazy or fat to get of their benefits scrounging backsides and get a job! There's currently upwards of 2,000 job vaccancies in the Bmth/Poole area!!! No excuse!

stevobath wrote:

BournemouthMum wrote:

polblagger wrote:

stevobath wrote:

live-and-let-live wrote:
poverty doesnt exist in britain. perhaps the headline should be
"one in five children are not very well off".
or, " four out of five children have more than enough"

Poverty is relative.Comparing UK with 3rd World countries is totally pointless.

We're living in one of the richest countries in the World..Oh wait.Most of the wealth is owned & controlled by people like Cameron.IE Very rich,well off privileged right wing hypocrites.

The simplistic 'Sheeple' who comment on here...Gullable...

Poverty is not relative.

Poverty as stated by any dictionary is 'a lack of necessities' it is not a relative term.

Exactly. The 'poverty is relative' argument is pathetic. Poverty is lack of necessities which means food, shelter and clothing, it doesn't mean the latest iphone, 60 inch TVs, etc.etc. No one needs to be in poverty in this country unless they are misappropriating funds meant for these essentials.

Well we're not talking 'dictionary definitions'.

Culture Capital is often lacking in poorer homes.

All this obsession with the '60" Tvs I Phones etc. is rather boring.Anyway why shouldn't a poorer family be able to have access to a PC or TV for instsnce?

We live in an age where certain tech etc is essential for education etc.

The crazy thing is even the so called 'well off Middle CLasses' are feeling bitter, cause theyve saddled themselves with huge debts & are struggling & in good old Thatcherite ways look for some group to blame & scapegoat.

There are those who obviously abuse trhe system etc.

Those at the very top do it EVERYDAY...

Seabeam wrote:
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
You can lead a man to slaughter, but you can not make him think.

If your family worked and payed taxes, fought in wars, died in wars, you paid for the cold war, war debt to america, the euro fiasco. All this and if you fall on hard times you are made to feel loke a beggar if you claim something back.

Seen politicians and nobility taking all my life, just take take take. We fought in wars so they could remain in their privilaged positions. They give nothing back.

Sick country, sad people, so sad.

Seabeam wrote:
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
You can lead a man to slaughter, but you can not make him think.

If your family worked and payed taxes, fought in wars, died in wars, you paid for the cold war, war debt to america, the euro fiasco. All this and if you fall on hard times you are made to feel loke a beggar if you claim something back.

Seen politicians and nobility taking all my life, just take take take. We fought in wars so they could remain in their privilaged positions. They give nothing back.

Sick country, sad people, so sad.

polblagger wrote:

Seabeam wrote:
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.
You can lead a man to slaughter, but you can not make him think.

If your family worked and payed taxes, fought in wars, died in wars, you paid for the cold war, war debt to america, the euro fiasco. All this and if you fall on hard times you are made to feel loke a beggar if you claim something back.

Seen politicians and nobility taking all my life, just take take take. We fought in wars so they could remain in their privilaged positions. They give nothing back.

Sick country, sad people, so sad.

We're discussing the misuse of the term 'poverty' here not suggesting people be denied access to benefits.

Having said that I do find that people who kick off about the wrong subject matter do tend to be overly sensitive as they have a guilty conscience.

Also I doesn't matter in the slightest if your families previous generations paid into the system, only what you've paid in.

You can no more claim credit for your relations contributions than be blamed for their crimes.

yasinac wrote:

Hessenford wrote:
Instead of posting yet more stats why doesn't the echo get its reporters to do a proper investigation and find a couple of families to run a story stating how and why they are in poverty, how much they earn, how much in benefits and their lifestyle, I suspect that a family in true poverty will be extremely hard to find.

Really hard to find? You really need to pull your head out of the sand. If you think true poverty doesn't exist, spend a day with a midwife/health visitor/social worker/volunteer or care worker that goes into some of the homes in our area and get your eyes opened. There are elderly people blocking off all but one room in cold flats, with no money for heating and just a couple of tins and a bit of veg in the cupboards! Bet they'd love a seat up on your pedestal.

s-pb2 wrote:

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Your so right it appears MOST of the posters on here ARE idiots.

Yes its 2013 , its the UK and there IS child poverty, and it does exist here in Bournemouth.

I work with an organisation who are actually dealing with families NOW in Bournemouth. Helping them basic furniture, heating and even food.

Then theres the hundreds of children across the area currently in care proceedings with our councils. The vast majority are there because of neglect. Whether it be because of poor choices by their parents but also because some parents are not even feeding their children properly. The numbers of children coming into care across the region are continuing to rise at a terrifying rate due to neglect.

I do not deny that the figure would include those with the big plasma TVs and iPhones etc, but there are still children out there who are genuinely suffering because of poverty. If you think otherwise, you either need to get out more, are completely naive or just downright stupid.

Firstly using capital letters and abuse doesn't make your ill-thought out rant any more accurate.

What you're obviously confusing here is neglect and abuse with poverty.

There may be many children living in poverty like conditions but this is due to neglect or abuse, not because of failings in the benefit/tax credit system.

Even those on the most meagre income aren’t in poverty if they have shelter and food.

When did poverty in this country become 'not having the latest mobile' or 'not having a car'.

This idea of relative poverty is a blatant voter inducement system, it is the labour party equivalent of tax breaks from the conservatives.

The idea that huge swages of the population are in 'poverty' and therefore need tax breaks and benefits automatically buys their vote as it's in their best interest to vote labour to maintain their income.

You really havent got the faintest idea what you are talking about have you. Neglect is a term used by authorities which encompasses poverty, if you cant feed your children its classed as neglect. There are many families in Bournemouth that need help with feeding themselves and they dont have cars or mobile phones either. You need to get out from behind your computer and go and view the real world! I write in capitals to get through to the idiots on here, i see it has clearly not worked

guisselle wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

polblagger wrote:

s-pb2 wrote:

The Liberal wrote:
Some might disagree with the government definition of poverty, but anyone claiming there is no child poverty in the UK has clearly led a sheltered life. Or is just an idiot.

Your so right it appears MOST of the posters on here ARE idiots.

Yes its 2013 , its the UK and there IS child poverty, and it does exist here in Bournemouth.

I work with an organisation who are actually dealing with families NOW in Bournemouth. Helping them basic furniture, heating and even food.

Then theres the hundreds of children across the area currently in care proceedings with our councils. The vast majority are there because of neglect. Whether it be because of poor choices by their parents but also because some parents are not even feeding their children properly. The numbers of children coming into care across the region are continuing to rise at a terrifying rate due to neglect.

I do not deny that the figure would include those with the big plasma TVs and iPhones etc, but there are still children out there who are genuinely suffering because of poverty. If you think otherwise, you either need to get out more, are completely naive or just downright stupid.

Firstly using capital letters and abuse doesn't make your ill-thought out rant any more accurate.

What you're obviously confusing here is neglect and abuse with poverty.

There may be many children living in poverty like conditions but this is due to neglect or abuse, not because of failings in the benefit/tax credit system.

Even those on the most meagre income aren’t in poverty if they have shelter and food.

When did poverty in this country become 'not having the latest mobile' or 'not having a car'.

This idea of relative poverty is a blatant voter inducement system, it is the labour party equivalent of tax breaks from the conservatives.

The idea that huge swages of the population are in 'poverty' and therefore need tax breaks and benefits automatically buys their vote as it's in their best interest to vote labour to maintain their income.

You really havent got the faintest idea what you are talking about have you. Neglect is a term used by authorities which encompasses poverty, if you cant feed your children its classed as neglect. There are many families in Bournemouth that need help with feeding themselves and they dont have cars or mobile phones either. You need to get out from behind your computer and go and view the real world! I write in capitals to get through to the idiots on here, i see it has clearly not worked

At last some empathy and understanding
that is sadly lacking from some posters
on here.

polblagger wrote:
For many in England the benefit system has gone from a short term social support system to a lifestyle choice.

And don't get me started on Scotland's disproportionate vacuuming of tax revenues.

ggrrrr wrote:
Men need to take more responsibility for their offspring, I know of plenty of women in Bournemouth who are no longer with the father of their children and get no financial help from them. So many people live for the moment nowdays with no financial planning.

rozmister wrote:

ggrrrr wrote: Men need to take more responsibility for their offspring, I know of plenty of women in Bournemouth who are no longer with the father of their children and get no financial help from them. So many people live for the moment nowdays with no financial planning.

And I know plenty of women who are no longer with the father of their children and get no financial help from them because they made poor relationship choices. If your partner is an idiot when it's just the two of you why would you have a baby with them? There are plenty of women who have a baby to try and tame/keep their boyfriend and then seem surprised when they boyfriend ups and leaves them. These men should pay for their children but the children's mothers should take responsibility for the choices they made as well not blame it solely on the father. You get your life in order BEFORE you have kids not have kids in the hope it'll force your life into some sort of order. Contraception is free in the UK so there's no excuse for having a child before you and your partner are emotionally and financially ready. If you can't manage your money don't have a kid. If your relationship is rocky don't have a kid. It's not rocket science. And before you say anything I'm a woman not a woman hating man. I take responsibility for my life and so I don't have a baby because I know I couldn't give it the best possible start in life.

Seabeam wrote:
The establishment turn us against one another, neighbour against neighbour.
The commies did it, every man an informant or a dissidant.
Create a scapegoat to divert attention away from the true parasites, the government and the established elite in their select club.
So the unemployed are the target, often the case, easy pickings.

Poverty is subjective, no starvation just an abundance of junk food hardly fit for swine.

All this complaining about unemployed people having flat screen tv, can you still get the old type.

I hate tv, didn't have one when I had children, read books, did activities, art, science projects. Was informed by the school that I had to get one, it was a form of abuse to deprive my children of television.
The children where doing stuff at school which required them to watch a particular program etc.
The rules of their game change constantly and we must adhere to every whim of fashion.
Today the unemployed, tomorrow it could be you, your neighbour will always have more in common with you than those that pull your strings, and your strings are being tugged at now, aren't they.

So easy to manipulate the poor fools.

ggrrrr wrote:

rozmister wrote:

ggrrrr wrote: Men need to take more responsibility for their offspring, I know of plenty of women in Bournemouth who are no longer with the father of their children and get no financial help from them. So many people live for the moment nowdays with no financial planning.

And I know plenty of women who are no longer with the father of their children and get no financial help from them because they made poor relationship choices. If your partner is an idiot when it's just the two of you why would you have a baby with them? There are plenty of women who have a baby to try and tame/keep their boyfriend and then seem surprised when they boyfriend ups and leaves them. These men should pay for their children but the children's mothers should take responsibility for the choices they made as well not blame it solely on the father. You get your life in order BEFORE you have kids not have kids in the hope it'll force your life into some sort of order. Contraception is free in the UK so there's no excuse for having a child before you and your partner are emotionally and financially ready. If you can't manage your money don't have a kid. If your relationship is rocky don't have a kid. It's not rocket science. And before you say anything I'm a woman not a woman hating man. I take responsibility for my life and so I don't have a baby because I know I couldn't give it the best possible start in life.

I totally agree.
Perhaps parents need to resume the role of approving of a potential partner for their sons and daughters? Does anyone still ask the father for permission to marry their daughter apart from the upper classes?

Ziggy starburst wrote:
I occasionally pop along to this site to chuckle at the hate and sheer time wasting drivel written by smug self absorbed people. This thread is in a class of its own. We are all citizens in this "civilised" country but there is a very worrying trend in labelling poverty as failure and greed as success. We're in a recession so there will be more poverty. The contempt for people less fortunate than others on this thread is shameful. You can't generalise (although you will) with something like poverty.

BournemouthMum wrote:

yasinac wrote:
@Bournemouthmum, sorry for the digress on to poverty of the elderly, another example that more relevant. Children without beds that have to rely on friends or the library to do computer set school homework as they don't have a computer. Parents regularly going without food to feed their children even though their parents both work. It's not about comparing our lives now to lives of those hundreds of years before.
With raising standards of living and improvements in health care and housing conditions in our country, there is an expectation of a certain level of existence and there are people out there, not necessarily on benefits that don't meet that level. For a 'bournemouthmum' you have a shockingly appalling amount of empathy.

Perhaps it's because I have always provided for my children so that they have never gone without and have never expected others (taxpayers) to do that for me. For me it's a little difficult to understand the mindset of those who don't do that - work to ensure their children are well provided for, doing multiple jobs if necessary.

Unfortunately we live in a country that encourages those who cannot afford to provde for their offspring to breed - the more children they have, the higher their benefit entitlement. Only this week we have seen reports in the media where a woman with ELEVEN children is having a house built for her!

Then there are people who behave responsibly and only have the amount of children they know they can adequately support and they're left to fend for themselves with little State help, which I (and many others) find extremely unfair.

polblagger wrote:
I would love to but people would never wear it.

stevobath wrote:

polblagger wrote:
I would love to but people would never wear it.

Wait.We have a Prime Minister with your kind of outlook....Anyone on benefits is a parasite & must be living it up.

Have to scapegoat some group or another.

ggrrrr wrote:

rozmister wrote:

ggrrrr wrote: Men need to take more responsibility for their offspring, I know of plenty of women in Bournemouth who are no longer with the father of their children and get no financial help from them. So many people live for the moment nowdays with no financial planning.

And I know plenty of women who are no longer with the father of their children and get no financial help from them because they made poor relationship choices. If your partner is an idiot when it's just the two of you why would you have a baby with them? There are plenty of women who have a baby to try and tame/keep their boyfriend and then seem surprised when they boyfriend ups and leaves them. These men should pay for their children but the children's mothers should take responsibility for the choices they made as well not blame it solely on the father. You get your life in order BEFORE you have kids not have kids in the hope it'll force your life into some sort of order. Contraception is free in the UK so there's no excuse for having a child before you and your partner are emotionally and financially ready. If you can't manage your money don't have a kid. If your relationship is rocky don't have a kid. It's not rocket science. And before you say anything I'm a woman not a woman hating man. I take responsibility for my life and so I don't have a baby because I know I couldn't give it the best possible start in life.

I totally agree.
Perhaps parents need to resume the role of approving of a potential partner for their sons and daughters? Does anyone still ask the father for permission to marry their daughter apart from the upper classes?

polblagger wrote:

stevobath wrote:

polblagger wrote:
I would love to but people would never wear it.

Wait.We have a Prime Minister with your kind of outlook....Anyone on benefits is a parasite & must be living it up.

Have to scapegoat some group or another.

What you've mentioned are 2 different things.

As far as parasites go, there are many people on benefit who realistically shouldn't be. Not only are they costing those that work additional tax, they are also sucking up funds that should be spent on those who really need it.

An able bodied person who could work but wont isn't just costing me tax, they're also stopping a tax funded respite holiday for a carer or additional facilities for the disabled.

Regarding 'living it up', many on benefit seem tot think that their benefit payments should allow them the same lifestyle as those working, it shouldn't.

The welfare state is there as a safety net so that we don't have real poverty, not so that people can have all mod cons without working.