One in five children in Bournemouth live below the poverty line

Bournemouth Echo: One in five children in Bournemouth live below the poverty line One in five children in Bournemouth live below the poverty line

ONE in five children in Bournemouth live below the poverty line according to shocking statistics just released.

More than 6,000 youngsters in the borough live in families struggling to make ends and many are going hungry, said the Campaign to End Child Poverty.

Thousands of families are being forced to turn to hard-pressed food banks in the area to ensure their children have enough to eat, as reported in the Daily Echo in December last year. 

The official figure of children living in poverty is 19 per cent, compared with a national average of 20 per cent. The figure for Poole is 16 per cent and 14 per cent for Christchurch.

But some pockets of Dorset have figures considerably higher than the average with Kinson South in Bournemouth at a worrying 33 per cent, Boscombe West at 32 per cent, Grange in Christchurch at 30 per cent and Hamworthy West in Poole at 28 per cent.

Child poverty by parliamentary constituency

Child Poverty by local authority

In contrast, some of the lowest figures are in areas just minutes away from some of the country's poorest families They include Canford Cliffs in Poole, Littledown and Iford in Bournemouth, Broadstone and St Catherine's and Hurn in Christchurch.

Cllr Ben Grower represents Kinson South and said the problem is getting worse.

“This is something which is of concern to the whole of the council” he said. “Unfortunately the problem with child poverty is not being helped by the policies or the current government.

“They are making the problem worse by withdrawing benefits and making it harder for poorer families to exist. Council tax benefit is going and housing benefit is being reduced. The government needs to stimulate the economy so there are more jobs available for people to earn more.”

Head of Community and Economy for Christchurch and East Dorset Partnership, Judith Plumley said: “The Council is aware of pockets of relative poverty in the Borough and is working with other agencies to provide support and practical help where possible.

“We sit on the Dorset Children's Safeguarding Board to ensure that children are not vulnerable to neglect and have procedures in place to report concerns arising from home visits where children may be considered to be vulnerable.

“Our Housing staff also assist families in hardship to apply for grants to local charities and we also refer people to Dorset Reclaim for the purchase of second-hand white goods.”

Councillor Jane Kelly, Cabinet Member for Partnerships and Regeneration, said: "Every child in Bournemouth should have a chance for a happy, healthy and successful life. The Council is committed to investing funds in to improving Boscombe and Kinson and ultimately the lives of children living there.

"The Boscombe Regeneration Partnership has identified six key priorities - housing, employment & enterprise, environment, crime, health and Education & attainment - where positive action can and is being taken to make a real difference to improving the environment and neighbourhoods for people and families living there.

“This work includes more than 1,000 inspections of privately rented accommodation which have taken place to help raise the standards of housing in Boscombe and planning permission has been agreed for 11 new affordable homes.

"Furthermore, the Boscombe Children’s centre has been judged as ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, it works with vulnerable families and more than half of all under fives in Boscombe are now registered there.

“This work combined with the work on increasing employment and tackling crime over the next years will improve the lives of Boscombe residents and those households living in poverty.

“The Council is also leading a similar partnership looking at work that can be done to improve the lives of families living in West Howe.”

The chair of the Campaign, Enver Solomon, said families were often forced to choose between eating and putting the heating on and added: “Local authorities are having to deal with reduced budgets but they have critical decisions to make.

“We're calling on them to prioritise low income families in the decisions they make about local welfare spending.”

Child poverty is defined as children living in families receiving out of work benefits or in-work tax credits where income is less than 60 per cent of median income.

How the figures break down

  • Bournemouth: 6080 children, 19 per cent. Highest is Kinson South, 33 per cent, and lowest Littledown and Iford, eight per cent.
  • Poole: 4647 children, 16 per cent. Highest is Hamworthy West, 28 per cent, and lowest Canford Cliffs, eight per cent.
  • Christchurch: 1207 children, 14 per cent. Highest is Grange, 30 per cent and lowest St Catherine's and Hurn, five per cent.
  • New Forest: 5012 children, 15 per cent.
  • Purbeck: 1083 children, 13 per cent
  • North Dorset: 1433 children, 11 per cent
  • East Dorset: 1439 children, nine per cent

Top five local authorities for child poverty in the UK:

  • Tower Hamlets: 42 per cent
  • Manchester: 38 per cent
  • Middlesborough: 37 per cent
  • Derry: 35 per cent
  • Belfast: 34 per cent

Comments (151)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:38am Thu 21 Feb 13

EGHH says...

All this suffering and even then the Govt. is borrowing more than Labour did. A totally incompetent Govt. overseeing a continuing omnishambles of policies
All this suffering and even then the Govt. is borrowing more than Labour did. A totally incompetent Govt. overseeing a continuing omnishambles of policies EGHH
  • Score: 0

6:42am Thu 21 Feb 13

Phixer says...

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'.
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'. Phixer
  • Score: 1

6:47am Thu 21 Feb 13

l'anglais says...

What constitutes poverty exactly?

Percentage points mean nothing without details.

If someone could provide us with figures of the Calorie intake of each of these Children (in relation to their age), as well as whether they are clothed and living in heated homes.

Even if their Parents have income below a certain threshold, if they are fed, housed, clothed and warm, the NHS and School provides the Health and Education that they need.

Compare this to kids living a century ago.

Anything outside of this criteria surely can't be construed as Poverty.
What constitutes poverty exactly? Percentage points mean nothing without details. If someone could provide us with figures of the Calorie intake of each of these Children (in relation to their age), as well as whether they are clothed and living in heated homes. Even if their Parents have income below a certain threshold, if they are fed, housed, clothed and warm, the NHS and School provides the Health and Education that they need. Compare this to kids living a century ago. Anything outside of this criteria surely can't be construed as Poverty. l'anglais
  • Score: 1

7:36am Thu 21 Feb 13

justsayithowitis says...

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
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 justsayithowitis
  • Score: 1

8:37am Thu 21 Feb 13

Nickolai says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] 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'.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Nickolai
  • Score: 1

8:47am Thu 21 Feb 13

BIGTONE says...

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.
You forgot the obligatory Sky dish....
[quote][p][bold]Nickolai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] 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'.[/p][/quote]Exactly.[/p][/quote]You forgot the obligatory Sky dish.... BIGTONE
  • Score: 1

8:48am Thu 21 Feb 13

uvox44 says...

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?
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
  • Score: 0

8:56am Thu 21 Feb 13

l'anglais says...

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?
Sunseekers will receive even more orders once the millionaires get their 5% tax rebate in April.

That said, Kids in Britain aren't in Poverty.
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]Sunseekers will receive even more orders once the millionaires get their 5% tax rebate in April. That said, Kids in Britain aren't in Poverty. l'anglais
  • Score: 0

9:32am Thu 21 Feb 13

Morrigan says...

A report I read a few months ago suggested a child was classed as being in poverty if their home did not contain and I quote - "a washing machine, a freezer, a TV, a telephone (landline or mobile) and adequate clothing and food.

Now don't get me wrong, but when I got married just over 30 years ago both I and my husband worked full time - but we didn't have any of those things apart from food and clothing and we managed perfectly well without until we could afford to get a tv, freezer etc - so how come those items are now classed as "essential" to remain above the poverty line?

As has already been said, when parents chose to smoke, drink or use mobile phones *before* they buy food for their children, or heat the home - doesn't that say something about this "must have" society we live in today?
A report I read a few months ago suggested a child was classed as being in poverty if their home did not contain and I quote - "a washing machine, a freezer, a TV, a telephone (landline or mobile) and adequate clothing and food. Now don't get me wrong, but when I got married just over 30 years ago both I and my husband worked full time - but we didn't have any of those things apart from food and clothing and we managed perfectly well without until we could afford to get a tv, freezer etc - so how come those items are now classed as "essential" to remain above the poverty line? As has already been said, when parents chose to smoke, drink or use mobile phones *before* they buy food for their children, or heat the home - doesn't that say something about this "must have" society we live in today? Morrigan
  • Score: 1

9:49am Thu 21 Feb 13

Old Colonial says...

Statistics!

Unless there was precise parity amongst all earners; that is, if absolutely everyone in the country earned EXACTLY the same, there would ALWAYS be those at or below 60% of median earnings.
Statistics! Unless there was precise parity amongst all earners; that is, if absolutely everyone in the country earned EXACTLY the same, there would ALWAYS be those at or below 60% of median earnings. Old Colonial
  • Score: 1

9:55am Thu 21 Feb 13

live-and-let-live says...

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 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" live-and-let-live
  • Score: 1

9:56am Thu 21 Feb 13

aerolover says...

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?
The rich are still rich, that's just a fact of life.
When you have 7 kids and are on benefit have Iceland deliver twice a week, older kids and parents have mobiles, parents drink are they in poverty?
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]The rich are still rich, that's just a fact of life. When you have 7 kids and are on benefit have Iceland deliver twice a week, older kids and parents have mobiles, parents drink are they in poverty? aerolover
  • Score: 1

9:58am Thu 21 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

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. I can't help wondering how these people would fare in the early 1900s when there was no welfare to speak of, no NHS, no further education etc.etc. Poverty my a*se!
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] 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'.[/p][/quote]Exactly. I can't help wondering how these people would fare in the early 1900s when there was no welfare to speak of, no NHS, no further education etc.etc. Poverty my a*se! BournemouthMum
  • Score: 1

10:05am Thu 21 Feb 13

Seabeam says...

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.
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. Seabeam
  • Score: -1

10:48am Thu 21 Feb 13

really?? seriously?? says...

Poverty and obeisity??, must be eating out of the bins???
Poverty and obeisity??, must be eating out of the bins??? really?? seriously??
  • Score: 1

10:50am Thu 21 Feb 13

saynomore says...

Go to India and see kids picking through rubbish thats poverty not like the pretend poverty in this country.Food banks for the scroungers what a farce.
Go to India and see kids picking through rubbish thats poverty not like the pretend poverty in this country.Food banks for the scroungers what a farce. saynomore
  • Score: 1

10:56am Thu 21 Feb 13

HRH of Boscombe says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]EGHH[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 1

10:58am Thu 21 Feb 13

speedy231278 says...

I bet most of these kids in 'poverty' still have access to satellite TV, a games console, and eat junk food several days a week. Didn't a recent survey among kids at junior schools reveal they thought they came from an impoverished household if they didn't have their own mobile phone?

If you want to see poverty, I suggest a trip to Africa or Asia, or even parts of South America!
I bet most of these kids in 'poverty' still have access to satellite TV, a games console, and eat junk food several days a week. Didn't a recent survey among kids at junior schools reveal they thought they came from an impoverished household if they didn't have their own mobile phone? If you want to see poverty, I suggest a trip to Africa or Asia, or even parts of South America! speedy231278
  • Score: 1

10:59am Thu 21 Feb 13

speedy231278 says...

really?? seriously?? wrote:
Poverty and obeisity??, must be eating out of the bins???
No, eating cheap food that's full of sugar and fat, actually.
[quote][p][bold]really?? seriously??[/bold] wrote: Poverty and obeisity??, must be eating out of the bins???[/p][/quote]No, eating cheap food that's full of sugar and fat, actually. speedy231278
  • Score: 0

11:12am Thu 21 Feb 13

Rednax says...

Poole lowest in Broadstone at "under 5%" - not Canford Cliffs. Read the document please Echo!
Poole lowest in Broadstone at "under 5%" - not Canford Cliffs. Read the document please Echo! Rednax
  • Score: 0

11:14am Thu 21 Feb 13

Lord Spring says...

Those classed as in poverty could most likely be the children of those that do go to work.
Those classed as in poverty could most likely be the children of those that do go to work. Lord Spring
  • Score: 0

11:17am Thu 21 Feb 13

Hessenford says...

I don't believe there's any child poverty in this country, the benefits system sees to that, it's the way the parents spend the money on sky dishes, fag, booze, plasma tvs and the like
I don't believe there's any child poverty in this country, the benefits system sees to that, it's the way the parents spend the money on sky dishes, fag, booze, plasma tvs and the like Hessenford
  • Score: 0

11:40am Thu 21 Feb 13

tracy m says...

Come on!

Parental responsibility and lifestyle choices!!!!!!

There was a time when people worked hard at school, and would take work of any kind when they left.

A couple saved up to get married and provided a home, whether rented or mortgaged to prepare for their future family.

Call me Old Hat but a lot of the problems are down to the modern lifestyle choices.

Why should the rest of us pay for others irresponsible behaviour?
Come on! Parental responsibility and lifestyle choices!!!!!! There was a time when people worked hard at school, and would take work of any kind when they left. A couple saved up to get married and provided a home, whether rented or mortgaged to prepare for their future family. Call me Old Hat but a lot of the problems are down to the modern lifestyle choices. Why should the rest of us pay for others irresponsible behaviour? tracy m
  • Score: 0

11:46am Thu 21 Feb 13

Wallisdown says...

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!
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! Wallisdown
  • Score: 0

11:52am Thu 21 Feb 13

Wallisdown says...

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!!!
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EGHH[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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!!! Wallisdown
  • Score: 0

11:52am Thu 21 Feb 13

Hessenford says...

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.
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. Hessenford
  • Score: 0

11:58am Thu 21 Feb 13

blahblahbleurgh says...

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.
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. blahblahbleurgh
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Thu 21 Feb 13

yasinac says...

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.
Totally agree. I have a friend, widowed, doing a sterling job bringing up children alone. He works, not as many hours as he'd like, but let's not forget these children have already lost their mother. They ARE living in poverty, relying on hand outs, second hand furniture, clothing, no car, no internet and deserve so much more. But they are two fantastic children and their parent is doing a fab job.
[quote][p][bold]blahblahbleurgh[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. I have a friend, widowed, doing a sterling job bringing up children alone. He works, not as many hours as he'd like, but let's not forget these children have already lost their mother. They ARE living in poverty, relying on hand outs, second hand furniture, clothing, no car, no internet and deserve so much more. But they are two fantastic children and their parent is doing a fab job. yasinac
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Thu 21 Feb 13

yasinac says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Thu 21 Feb 13

The Liberal says...

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.
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. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Thu 21 Feb 13

speedy231278 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. speedy231278
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Thu 21 Feb 13

speedy231278 says...

And before all the comments about the definition of poverty actually being in the article - it isn't. All it goes by is how much someone is earning in comparison to average. I wonder how many people earning only 60% of the next-door neighbour's salary get by quite happily?
And before all the comments about the definition of poverty actually being in the article - it isn't. All it goes by is how much someone is earning in comparison to average. I wonder how many people earning only 60% of the next-door neighbour's salary get by quite happily? speedy231278
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Hessenford says...

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.
I think you'll find the story was about child poverty, pull your head out of the sand and read the article.
[quote][p][bold]yasinac[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find the story was about child poverty, pull your head out of the sand and read the article. Hessenford
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Thu 21 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

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.
True. Only this particular article is about CHILD poverty - which doens't exist due to generous benefits (tax credits etc.) in this country. The elderly - that's another matter entirely.
[quote][p][bold]yasinac[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]True. Only this particular article is about CHILD poverty - which doens't exist due to generous benefits (tax credits etc.) in this country. The elderly - that's another matter entirely. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Thu 21 Feb 13

polblagger says...

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'.
So true it makes me weep.
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] 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'.[/p][/quote]So true it makes me weep. polblagger
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Thu 21 Feb 13

The Liberal says...

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).
[quote][p][bold]Wallisdown[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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). The Liberal
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Thu 21 Feb 13

The Liberal says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It just goes to show that you should never believe what you read in the papers. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Thu 21 Feb 13

The Liberal says...

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?
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? The Liberal
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Thu 21 Feb 13

blahblahbleurgh says...

The poverty line moves with the average wage in the country so the people now concidered to be in poverty this week actually have the same as they did last month but the benchmark as moved
The poverty line moves with the average wage in the country so the people now concidered to be in poverty this week actually have the same as they did last month but the benchmark as moved blahblahbleurgh
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Thu 21 Feb 13

scrumpyjack says...

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?
Because have you seen the size of most of them in these 'poverty' homes?

£500 upwards. Can buy a tv for a lot less than that.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]Because have you seen the size of most of them in these 'poverty' homes? £500 upwards. Can buy a tv for a lot less than that. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Dibbles2 says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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! Dibbles2
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Thu 21 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Dibbles2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Thu 21 Feb 13

scrumpyjack says...

'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.
'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. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Thu 21 Feb 13

s-pb2 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. s-pb2
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Thu 21 Feb 13

blahblahbleurgh says...

I dont disagree there are children are suffering but the majority of this is due to bad parenting and poor choices and not down to income because benefits ensure that MOST people get the money they need. perhaps they need people to tell where it has to be spent
I dont disagree there are children are suffering but the majority of this is due to bad parenting and poor choices and not down to income because benefits ensure that MOST people get the money they need. perhaps they need people to tell where it has to be spent blahblahbleurgh
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Thu 21 Feb 13

pauls55 says...

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.
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. pauls55
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Thu 21 Feb 13

justsayithowitis says...

Most children who are suffering through lack of the basic essentials have parents who smoke and drink. Fact
Most children who are suffering through lack of the basic essentials have parents who smoke and drink. Fact justsayithowitis
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Thu 21 Feb 13

blahblahbleurgh says...

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.
How is someone choosing to spend their money on cigerettes and alchohol instead of feeding their families a political failure. Maybe food vouchers would be a better solution but im sure many would disagree
[quote][p][bold]pauls55[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]How is someone choosing to spend their money on cigerettes and alchohol instead of feeding their families a political failure. Maybe food vouchers would be a better solution but im sure many would disagree blahblahbleurgh
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Thu 21 Feb 13

speedy231278 says...

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....
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.... speedy231278
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Thu 21 Feb 13

keith milton says...

until the sheep stop voting for these criminals in government 'con/lab/lib',
and stop accepting slave wages and corrupt government,you deserve everything you get.
but unfortunately every prefers x-factor and eastenders instead of doing some research and getting off your backsides ,and doing something about it.
Hitler would be proud if he was ruling this country.
until the sheep stop voting for these criminals in government 'con/lab/lib', and stop accepting slave wages and corrupt government,you deserve everything you get. but unfortunately every prefers x-factor and eastenders instead of doing some research and getting off your backsides ,and doing something about it. Hitler would be proud if he was ruling this country. keith milton
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Jon E says...

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
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 Jon E
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Thu 21 Feb 13

l'anglais says...

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
It's fine quoting percentages, but what do they relate to exactly?
How many calories does a child consume, to be above the poverty line?
Do they need to have access to a heated house?

If you state that a child didn't have access to fresh veg, bread, protein, a warm house, the NHS or education.
Then ok, that child can be construed as impoverished.

Percentages mean nothing without the substance they relate to.
[quote][p][bold]Jon E[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]It's fine quoting percentages, but what do they relate to exactly? How many calories does a child consume, to be above the poverty line? Do they need to have access to a heated house? If you state that a child didn't have access to fresh veg, bread, protein, a warm house, the NHS or education. Then ok, that child can be construed as impoverished. Percentages mean nothing without the substance they relate to. l'anglais
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Thu 21 Feb 13

live-and-let-live says...

i recently heard someone in weatherspoons saying, with a pint in hand, that they couldnt afford to go shopping at the car boot sale.
i recently heard someone in weatherspoons saying, with a pint in hand, that they couldnt afford to go shopping at the car boot sale. live-and-let-live
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Jon E says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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. Jon E
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Thu 21 Feb 13

The Liberal says...

justsayithowitis wrote:
Most children who are suffering through lack of the basic essentials have parents who smoke and drink. Fact
Really? What percentage is that then? Care to provide a link to the data?
 
BTW Simply putting 'fact' at the end of your post does not make it true.
[quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: Most children who are suffering through lack of the basic essentials have parents who smoke and drink. Fact[/p][/quote]Really? What percentage is that then? Care to provide a link to the data?   BTW Simply putting 'fact' at the end of your post does not make it true. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Dr Strangelove says...

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!!!
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!!! Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Thu 21 Feb 13

blahblahbleurgh says...

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.
As part of a couple with 2 children our income is under the £19000 u quoted yet i dont feel im in poverty. we are fed andhave what we need. Dont get me wrong we r not living the life of riley we dont smoke or drink and dont go on holidays but we have everything we need and my kids are definatley not going hungry
[quote][p][bold]Jon E[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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....[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]As part of a couple with 2 children our income is under the £19000 u quoted yet i dont feel im in poverty. we are fed andhave what we need. Dont get me wrong we r not living the life of riley we dont smoke or drink and dont go on holidays but we have everything we need and my kids are definatley not going hungry blahblahbleurgh
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Thu 21 Feb 13

The Liberal says...

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.
Sadly, there are plenty of gullible folks who'll believe all those tabloid scrounger stories and think that life on benefits must be like that for everyone.
 
BTW Don't mention food banks. There's a certain Echo poster who hangs about outside them just to see who visits. He reported that one lady had furry boots and so she couldn't possibly be in need.
[quote][p][bold]pauls55[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Sadly, there are plenty of gullible folks who'll believe all those tabloid scrounger stories and think that life on benefits must be like that for everyone.   BTW Don't mention food banks. There's a certain Echo poster who hangs about outside them just to see who visits. He reported that one lady had furry boots and so she couldn't possibly be in need. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

2:54pm Thu 21 Feb 13

The Liberal says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]Dr Strangelove[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Thu 21 Feb 13

HRH of Boscombe says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wallisdown[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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).[/p][/quote]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. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Thu 21 Feb 13

s-pb2 says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wallisdown[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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).[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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? s-pb2
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Thu 21 Feb 13

juniperberry says...

Having a telly to watch and a fridge to keep food fresh isn't exactly a luxury and it matters not what it was like in 1960 and saving up for your first settee! This is 2013 and we live in as consumerist society encouraged wholeheartedly by the state. The state, whatever the colour wants its citizens under control and the best way to achieve this is the distraction of things they should be buying, watching and enjoying. So we've arrived at a point where its all crashed and the price is being paid for by children because along with this must-have society we hav bred total selfishness where parents make choices which put their kids at the bottom. This doesn't mean we can ignore it! Take the child benefit away in cash and either replace it with a debit card that can only be used to purchase specific items. I am really not in favour of big brother behaviour but if everyone in receipt of child benefit had to do it then there would be no stigma. Child poverty does exist and needs to be tackled, blaming poor parents and ignoring it will just develop a whole new generation of bad parents.
Having a telly to watch and a fridge to keep food fresh isn't exactly a luxury and it matters not what it was like in 1960 and saving up for your first settee! This is 2013 and we live in as consumerist society encouraged wholeheartedly by the state. The state, whatever the colour wants its citizens under control and the best way to achieve this is the distraction of things they should be buying, watching and enjoying. So we've arrived at a point where its all crashed and the price is being paid for by children because along with this must-have society we hav bred total selfishness where parents make choices which put their kids at the bottom. This doesn't mean we can ignore it! Take the child benefit away in cash and either replace it with a debit card that can only be used to purchase specific items. I am really not in favour of big brother behaviour but if everyone in receipt of child benefit had to do it then there would be no stigma. Child poverty does exist and needs to be tackled, blaming poor parents and ignoring it will just develop a whole new generation of bad parents. juniperberry
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Thu 21 Feb 13

speedy231278 says...

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.
Like this report, for example!
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It just goes to show that you should never believe what you read in the papers.[/p][/quote]Like this report, for example! speedy231278
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Thu 21 Feb 13

yasinac says...

@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.
@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. yasinac
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Thu 21 Feb 13

speedy231278 says...

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.
"Having a telly to watch and a fridge to keep food fresh isn't exactly a luxury"

Funny, not so very many years ago, both were indeed luxury. TV is still a luxury, for sure. The only reason people really need a fridge is because houses these days don't have larders to keep thing cool, and people don't want to have the fuss and bother of having to shop more regularly for perishable goods. Plus, perishables these days are of such poor quality that they go off very quickly if not refrigerated.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It just goes to show that you should never believe what you read in the papers.[/p][/quote]"Having a telly to watch and a fridge to keep food fresh isn't exactly a luxury" Funny, not so very many years ago, both were indeed luxury. TV is still a luxury, for sure. The only reason people really need a fridge is because houses these days don't have larders to keep thing cool, and people don't want to have the fuss and bother of having to shop more regularly for perishable goods. Plus, perishables these days are of such poor quality that they go off very quickly if not refrigerated. speedy231278
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Thu 21 Feb 13

HRH of Boscombe says...

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?
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.
.
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.
.
I don't propose sterilising anyone in a supposedly free country. I'm just saying they need to be made to think twice, thrice if they they can afford children because it's no one elses responsibility to look after them.
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wallisdown[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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).[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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. . 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. . I don't propose sterilising anyone in a supposedly free country. I'm just saying they need to be made to think twice, thrice if they they can afford children because it's no one elses responsibility to look after them. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Thu 21 Feb 13

speedy231278 says...

OK, why did that old quote appear in my last post??
OK, why did that old quote appear in my last post?? speedy231278
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Thu 21 Feb 13

CoogarUK.com says...

The 'poverty line' in the UK appears to be set too high. Way too high.
The 'poverty line' in the UK appears to be set too high. Way too high. CoogarUK.com
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Thu 21 Feb 13

The Liberal says...

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.
[quote]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.”[/quote] So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you. The Liberal
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Thu 21 Feb 13

speedy231278 says...

No, we fought about dictatorship, invasion and genocide, not attempting to prove Darwin wrong!
No, we fought about dictatorship, invasion and genocide, not attempting to prove Darwin wrong! speedy231278
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Dr Strangelove says...

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!
Yes and as a mainly conservative voting area it's says a tremendous amount about how nasty the nasty party supporters are. Thatcher groomed them well she should be proud. Waiting for the anti lefty rubbish to spew out we must all be communists.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Strangelove[/bold] 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!!![/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]Yes and as a mainly conservative voting area it's says a tremendous amount about how nasty the nasty party supporters are. Thatcher groomed them well she should be proud. Waiting for the anti lefty rubbish to spew out we must all be communists. Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 0

5:16pm Thu 21 Feb 13

HRH of Boscombe says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote]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.”[/quote] So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.[/p][/quote]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. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Thu 21 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]yasinac[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Thu 21 Feb 13

polblagger says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. polblagger
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Thu 21 Feb 13

BmthNewshound says...

Not much sympathy from Echo readers ! I wonder how many of the above contributors are in receipt of state benefits, tax payer funded bus passes and winter fuel allowances.
.
Why not just scrap all state benefits and reduce the tax bills for those of us who work for a living.
Not much sympathy from Echo readers ! I wonder how many of the above contributors are in receipt of state benefits, tax payer funded bus passes and winter fuel allowances. . Why not just scrap all state benefits and reduce the tax bills for those of us who work for a living. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Thu 21 Feb 13

HRH of Boscombe says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote]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.”[/quote] So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Azphreal says...

Once again we have a story about people in need and it turns into an attack on people on benefits the daily mail must be so proud. Many of these children will be in families who get basic wage or can only find part time work or heaven forbid a family that had an income but have been layed off (how dare they become unemployed). Could these posts be used to talk about a way that the problem could be helped? Yes of course but more fun to attack people isnt it!
Once again we have a story about people in need and it turns into an attack on people on benefits the daily mail must be so proud. Many of these children will be in families who get basic wage or can only find part time work or heaven forbid a family that had an income but have been layed off (how dare they become unemployed). Could these posts be used to talk about a way that the problem could be helped? Yes of course but more fun to attack people isnt it! Azphreal
  • Score: 0

6:10pm Thu 21 Feb 13

GAHmusic says...

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?
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? GAHmusic
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Thu 21 Feb 13

BackOfTheNet says...

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?
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? BackOfTheNet
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Phixer says...

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.
Steady on! The Echo doesn't do 'reporting'. Their school-leaver 'reporters' don't know how to ask a sensible question.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Steady on! The Echo doesn't do 'reporting'. Their school-leaver 'reporters' don't know how to ask a sensible question. Phixer
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Dr Strangelove says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote]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.”[/quote] So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Phixer says...

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).
Yes, but 'poverty' is not measured by whether or not you have the latest gadgets.

Poverty is hunger and poor health. The NHS and welfare benefits take care of the health issue; hunger is caused by poor parenting over recent generations so that few can now make their own soup or boil an egg.

It is not 'poverty' if you only buy processed food or takeaways.
[quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wallisdown[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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).[/p][/quote]Yes, but 'poverty' is not measured by whether or not you have the latest gadgets. Poverty is hunger and poor health. The NHS and welfare benefits take care of the health issue; hunger is caused by poor parenting over recent generations so that few can now make their own soup or boil an egg. It is not 'poverty' if you only buy processed food or takeaways. Phixer
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Thu 21 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

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?
Yes it is a kind of fraud because that money is meant for the purpose of supporting the children. The way around it would be an electronic card that could only be used to buy certain items, with a little cash for sundries such as repairs etc. Hopefully this government will introduce this type of payment system.
[quote][p][bold]GAHmusic[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]Yes it is a kind of fraud because that money is meant for the purpose of supporting the children. The way around it would be an electronic card that could only be used to buy certain items, with a little cash for sundries such as repairs etc. Hopefully this government will introduce this type of payment system. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Thu 21 Feb 13

s-pb2 says...

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
[quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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 s-pb2
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Thu 21 Feb 13

yasinac says...

@s-pb2, give up. Most of the people that are commenting aren't going to change their opinions. The charities and agencies supporting those families that are in need will have to carry on regardless.
It's a sign of the times that many no longer empathise with others due to conceptions formed by reading articles like these that don't put the point across properly.
Living isn't just about existing, it's about trying to achieve the best you can and hopefully realising some dreams along the way. Our quality of life is measured mainly by our happiness and a lot of people are existing unhappily, that's what needs addressing. Not all that are in poverty are on benefits, not all that are on benefits are scroungers but because we have stories of mums with 11 children rammed down our throats it gets everyone's backs up and it fogs what's the real issue.
@s-pb2, give up. Most of the people that are commenting aren't going to change their opinions. The charities and agencies supporting those families that are in need will have to carry on regardless. It's a sign of the times that many no longer empathise with others due to conceptions formed by reading articles like these that don't put the point across properly. Living isn't just about existing, it's about trying to achieve the best you can and hopefully realising some dreams along the way. Our quality of life is measured mainly by our happiness and a lot of people are existing unhappily, that's what needs addressing. Not all that are in poverty are on benefits, not all that are on benefits are scroungers but because we have stories of mums with 11 children rammed down our throats it gets everyone's backs up and it fogs what's the real issue. yasinac
  • Score: 0

7:23pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Hardy Lass says...

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!
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! Hardy Lass
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Wageslave says...

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!
And hard working people should be paying for this with their taxes - why exactly ?
[quote][p][bold]Hardy Lass[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]And hard working people should be paying for this with their taxes - why exactly ? Wageslave
  • Score: 0

10:04pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Hessenford says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. Hessenford
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Thu 21 Feb 13

HRH of Boscombe says...

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?
Have you fallen on your head? Is that why you're confused?
.
Letting mother nature take it's course and eugenics are the complete opposites.
.
BackoftheClass more like!
[quote][p][bold]BackOfTheNet[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]Have you fallen on your head? Is that why you're confused? . Letting mother nature take it's course and eugenics are the complete opposites. . BackoftheClass more like! HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

11:06pm Thu 21 Feb 13

HRH of Boscombe says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Strangelove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote]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.”[/quote] So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Which is it? Perfect or think the world's against me? I'm not interested in your druggy mate's story thanks. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

12:01am Fri 22 Feb 13

polblagger says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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. polblagger
  • Score: 0

12:27am Fri 22 Feb 13

sezzler says...

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).
[quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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). sezzler
  • Score: 0

12:47am Fri 22 Feb 13

Dr Strangelove says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Strangelove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote]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.”[/quote] So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Which is it? Perfect or think the world's against me? I'm not interested in your druggy mate's story thanks.[/p][/quote]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. Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 0

12:52am Fri 22 Feb 13

Dr Strangelove says...

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.
Ditch the sky you know your paying twice for sky. They make a fortune from add revenue which you pay for every time you buy something and you also pay the subscription. Oh and they sell your viewing habits to other advertisers so they're making a fortune out of you. Get freeview or the wonderful FREESAT we have it and if you get the HD PVR box its fab.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Ditch the sky you know your paying twice for sky. They make a fortune from add revenue which you pay for every time you buy something and you also pay the subscription. Oh and they sell your viewing habits to other advertisers so they're making a fortune out of you. Get freeview or the wonderful FREESAT we have it and if you get the HD PVR box its fab. Dr Strangelove
  • Score: 0

6:08am Fri 22 Feb 13

justsayithowitis says...

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
[quote][p][bold]sezzler[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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).[/p][/quote]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 justsayithowitis
  • Score: 0

7:27am Fri 22 Feb 13

Gastines3 says...

Having just read that the NHS paid out millions to shut-up whistleblowers it appears that virtually everything run in this country is siphoning off millions that could be put to use improving the lifes of the inhabitants. I believe we have gone so far down the behaviour ladder,in terms of general manners,education,re
spect,that we now have a generation of parents, not all but quite a lot, who haven't got a clue in how to bring up their children,to look after them or teach them the ABC. They expect someone else to take the responsibility,or blame, for their faults.Along with the benefits provided to feed and clothe their offspring,a supply of birth pills might help plus a few education classes on how to bring up a family.Sorry to say but we've all allowed this country to follow the money ,being led by our obsession with footballers/celebs etc and their excesses and poor example for the children/teens to follow.Now descending into a nation where crime does pay,for both sides,crooks,judges and lawyers.Lost priorities.
Having just read that the NHS paid out millions to shut-up whistleblowers it appears that virtually everything run in this country is siphoning off millions that could be put to use improving the lifes of the inhabitants. I believe we have gone so far down the behaviour ladder,in terms of general manners,education,re spect,that we now have a generation of parents, not all but quite a lot, who haven't got a clue in how to bring up their children,to look after them or teach them the ABC. They expect someone else to take the responsibility,or blame, for their faults.Along with the benefits provided to feed and clothe their offspring,a supply of birth pills might help plus a few education classes on how to bring up a family.Sorry to say but we've all allowed this country to follow the money ,being led by our obsession with footballers/celebs etc and their excesses and poor example for the children/teens to follow.Now descending into a nation where crime does pay,for both sides,crooks,judges and lawyers.Lost priorities. Gastines3
  • Score: 0

7:48am Fri 22 Feb 13

sue.ricket@gmail.com says...

They do not know true povery parents need to get there prioritys right they often smoke and drink They have Tv , heating they were all luxurys when I was a child we went cold and hungury no such thing as tv.
They do not know true povery parents need to get there prioritys right they often smoke and drink They have Tv , heating they were all luxurys when I was a child we went cold and hungury no such thing as tv. sue.ricket@gmail.com
  • Score: 0

9:04am Fri 22 Feb 13

l'anglais says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sezzler[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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).[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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. l'anglais
  • Score: 0

10:43am Fri 22 Feb 13

Dibbles2 says...

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.
I agree I have a child who was diagnosed and I have never claimed benefits for him as he is my child and therefore I SHOULD be looking after him.
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dibbles2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I agree I have a child who was diagnosed and I have never claimed benefits for him as he is my child and therefore I SHOULD be looking after him. Dibbles2
  • Score: 0

11:12am Fri 22 Feb 13

Ziggy starburst says...

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.
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. Ziggy starburst
  • Score: 0

11:23am Fri 22 Feb 13

justsayithowitis says...

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.
That would work. Shame it will never happen
[quote][p][bold]l'anglais[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justsayithowitis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sezzler[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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).[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]That would work. Shame it will never happen justsayithowitis
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Fri 22 Feb 13

HRH of Boscombe says...

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.
Can you provide a link to which ever story that is to support that accusation please? However I wouldn't spit on a druggy if they were on fire.
.
You can re-brand my strong opinions as prejudice, I don't really care. But then I'm not the one who resorts Nazi jibes as soon as someone doesn't share your liberal opinion.
.
You're so quick to jump on that bandwagon that you automatically assumed Freud's studies were the work of Hitler.
[quote][p][bold]Dr Strangelove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dr Strangelove[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] wrote: [quote]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.”[/quote] So you support eugenics – you do know that we fought a World War against a regime with that kind of policy? Shame on you.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Which is it? Perfect or think the world's against me? I'm not interested in your druggy mate's story thanks.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Can you provide a link to which ever story that is to support that accusation please? However I wouldn't spit on a druggy if they were on fire. . You can re-brand my strong opinions as prejudice, I don't really care. But then I'm not the one who resorts Nazi jibes as soon as someone doesn't share your liberal opinion. . You're so quick to jump on that bandwagon that you automatically assumed Freud's studies were the work of Hitler. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Fri 22 Feb 13

polblagger says...

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.
No one in this country can label poverty as failure as we don't have poverty.

Only a fool would label greed as success. However jealously labeling any kind of success as greed is equally foolish.

As for posters here being 'hating time wasters', this attitude is all that's wrong with this country.

When did anyone who points out that something is bellow par or could be better become 'hatters'?

Is it not worse to go through life in some kind of stupor pretending everything is rosy and deriding those who long for improvement?
[quote][p][bold]Ziggy starburst[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]No one in this country can label poverty as failure as we don't have poverty. Only a fool would label greed as success. However jealously labeling any kind of success as greed is equally foolish. As for posters here being 'hating time wasters', this attitude is all that's wrong with this country. When did anyone who points out that something is bellow par or could be better become 'hatters'? Is it not worse to go through life in some kind of stupor pretending everything is rosy and deriding those who long for improvement? polblagger
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Fri 22 Feb 13

stevobath says...

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!!!
So 'cause you can only grasp a simplistic view on things it means that you're right?


I feel for you.
[quote][p][bold]Wallisdown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HRH of Boscombe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EGHH[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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!!![/p][/quote]So 'cause you can only grasp a simplistic view on things it means that you're right? I feel for you. stevobath
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Fri 22 Feb 13

stevobath says...

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...
[quote][p][bold]live-and-let-live[/bold] 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"[/p][/quote]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... stevobath
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Fri 22 Feb 13

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Unless you're a hardline socialist / communist, you HAVE to accept that there's a triangle of life that puts some people at the top, and some at the bottom. Without those people at the bottom, there is nothing to support the triangle. Unfortunate, maybe, necessary, yes.
Unless you're a hardline socialist / communist, you HAVE to accept that there's a triangle of life that puts some people at the top, and some at the bottom. Without those people at the bottom, there is nothing to support the triangle. Unfortunate, maybe, necessary, yes. Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Fri 22 Feb 13

stevobath says...

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?
Here,here....to many 'scapegoaters' as always.Normally the poorest get blamed for being 'feckless' etc.



Seemed to remember Right Wing scapegoating in 30s Germany??????
[quote][p][bold]uvox44[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]Here,here....to many 'scapegoaters' as always.Normally the poorest get blamed for being 'feckless' etc. Seemed to remember Right Wing scapegoating in 30s Germany?????? stevobath
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Fri 22 Feb 13

Rocketdog says...

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!!
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!! Rocketdog
  • Score: 0

1:12pm Fri 22 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

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!!
Exactly.Those of us who have visited third world/developing countries will have seen what poverty really is. Even the USA has people who can't afford the basics. No one in the UK is in poverty. Fact.
[quote][p][bold]Rocketdog[/bold] 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!![/p][/quote]Exactly.Those of us who have visited third world/developing countries will have seen what poverty really is. Even the USA has people who can't afford the basics. No one in the UK is in poverty. Fact. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Fri 22 Feb 13

HRH of Boscombe says...

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...
Who controls most of the wealth in developing (3rd world) countries do you think then?
.
Comparing the UK with 3rd World countries is totally relevant because it reflects what a complete joke of a drama this headline is.
[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]live-and-let-live[/bold] 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"[/p][/quote]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...[/p][/quote]Who controls most of the wealth in developing (3rd world) countries do you think then? . Comparing the UK with 3rd World countries is totally relevant because it reflects what a complete joke of a drama this headline is. HRH of Boscombe
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Fri 22 Feb 13

kingstonpaul says...

Not clear whether this is about material poverty.
The biggest threat to our children is poverty of ambition.
Not clear whether this is about material poverty. The biggest threat to our children is poverty of ambition. kingstonpaul
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Fri 22 Feb 13

scrumpyjack says...

kingstonpaul wrote:
Not clear whether this is about material poverty.
The biggest threat to our children is poverty of ambition.
And of moral guidence.
[quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: Not clear whether this is about material poverty. The biggest threat to our children is poverty of ambition.[/p][/quote]And of moral guidence. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Fri 22 Feb 13

scrumpyjack says...

All this bickering.

It seems to me that there are people who have been unfortunate in life and are genuine 'benefit' candidates.

There are similarly a huge percentage who are lazy, feckless, good for nothings who abuse (nowadays sometimes for a whole lifetime) the system.

Until this latter group are dealt with there will be always disquiet and resentment from those who pay for this (those who get up every day and go to work).

The 'liberals' who deride this resentment will never 'win' until the system is clear of the people for whom benefits are a free ticket for an easy life.

The 'resenters' (made up word?) will never win because of the liberals who run the system.

Meanwhile those who abuse the system sit back with their toothless grins laughing at all of us.
All this bickering. It seems to me that there are people who have been unfortunate in life and are genuine 'benefit' candidates. There are similarly a huge percentage who are lazy, feckless, good for nothings who abuse (nowadays sometimes for a whole lifetime) the system. Until this latter group are dealt with there will be always disquiet and resentment from those who pay for this (those who get up every day and go to work). The 'liberals' who deride this resentment will never 'win' until the system is clear of the people for whom benefits are a free ticket for an easy life. The 'resenters' (made up word?) will never win because of the liberals who run the system. Meanwhile those who abuse the system sit back with their toothless grins laughing at all of us. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Fri 22 Feb 13

madras says...

What is the definition of 'poverty line' - my understanding (and I stand to be corrected) is it is relative to average incomes - therefore by definition there will always be people living below the average. Poverty should presumably be measured based on income vs. essential costs
What is the definition of 'poverty line' - my understanding (and I stand to be corrected) is it is relative to average incomes - therefore by definition there will always be people living below the average. Poverty should presumably be measured based on income vs. essential costs madras
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Fri 22 Feb 13

Wesoblind says...

I'll tell a little story of someone, he worked from 16 getting qualified in a very good job earning very good money, had big tv nice car etc etc untill someone slammed into the back of his car causing horendous back injuries.

Him and his wife had to sell everything, he was turned down for benifits as they said in some sort of medical he was fit for work? This man soils himself twice a day, cannot walk more than a few meters at a time, is addicted to morphine trying to keep the pain at a tolerable level and gets 24 hour care of his wife. The only money they get is child benifit and tax credits (i think about 60 a week) all this goes on there daughter and they eat scraps. I try and help them where i can but money is very tight and he has just learned he will get no insurace money due to the other driver not being coverd by her insurance and lieing saying he hit he (apparently reversed into her at 70 mph)

This is where the poverty is, but his daughter is the healthyest happyest little thing you will see, his wife needs and mbe or somthing.

The system has really left this family in poverty!
I'll tell a little story of someone, he worked from 16 getting qualified in a very good job earning very good money, had big tv nice car etc etc untill someone slammed into the back of his car causing horendous back injuries. Him and his wife had to sell everything, he was turned down for benifits as they said in some sort of medical he was fit for work? This man soils himself twice a day, cannot walk more than a few meters at a time, is addicted to morphine trying to keep the pain at a tolerable level and gets 24 hour care of his wife. The only money they get is child benifit and tax credits (i think about 60 a week) all this goes on there daughter and they eat scraps. I try and help them where i can but money is very tight and he has just learned he will get no insurace money due to the other driver not being coverd by her insurance and lieing saying he hit he (apparently reversed into her at 70 mph) This is where the poverty is, but his daughter is the healthyest happyest little thing you will see, his wife needs and mbe or somthing. The system has really left this family in poverty! Wesoblind
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Fri 22 Feb 13

Seabeam says...

They've got us all watching each other, one more srep towards a self policed state.
They're all scroungers one person says.
Then another says they are the greedy capitalists profiteering from the misery of others.
All the time the real enemy is ignored, those that bleed billions profit from others efforts.

Divide and rule, we are working against each other so easy to manipulate.
They've got us all watching each other, one more srep towards a self policed state. They're all scroungers one person says. Then another says they are the greedy capitalists profiteering from the misery of others. All the time the real enemy is ignored, those that bleed billions profit from others efforts. Divide and rule, we are working against each other so easy to manipulate. Seabeam
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Fri 22 Feb 13

ggrrrr says...

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.
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. ggrrrr
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Fri 22 Feb 13

polblagger says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]ggrrrr[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]LOL at the man hater with her own agenda. polblagger
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Fri 22 Feb 13

polblagger says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]live-and-let-live[/bold] 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"[/p][/quote]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...[/p][/quote]Poverty is not relative. Poverty as stated by any dictionary is 'a lack of necessities' it is not a relative term. polblagger
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Fri 22 Feb 13

BournemouthMum says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]live-and-let-live[/bold] 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"[/p][/quote]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...[/p][/quote]Poverty is not relative. Poverty as stated by any dictionary is 'a lack of necessities' it is not a relative term.[/p][/quote]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. BournemouthMum
  • Score: 0

8:22pm Fri 22 Feb 13

Benniestewart says...

The shame for Bournemouth is that for
such a long time we have all allowed
the containment of poorer people
in substandard housing reliant on
benefits to exist unchallenged
Why has land not been opened up in
Muscliffe and the Throop areas
Why has land not been opened up
in areas where children and adults
can aspire do not feel devastated defeated by their surroundings
This Report makes much of poverty
and not the cyclical cycle many
less well off, vulnerable people find
themselves when hemmed in an
overdeveloped sub culture having to
navigate and tackle the junkies,addicts and rougher element
of society everyday
Very few people have the reserves
have the strength and give up
The environment breeds behaviour
Which is why this Town has such
well established second generation
levels of poverty
The service providers that are employed to help, advise these people is blooming its quite simple
stop corralling people into environments that inhibits hope and
aspirations people give up stay on benefits, mismanage money and generally become hopeless
The demagraphics of reported levels of poverty would change immediately
The shame for Bournemouth is that for such a long time we have all allowed the containment of poorer people in substandard housing reliant on benefits to exist unchallenged Why has land not been opened up in Muscliffe and the Throop areas Why has land not been opened up in areas where children and adults can aspire do not feel devastated defeated by their surroundings This Report makes much of poverty and not the cyclical cycle many less well off, vulnerable people find themselves when hemmed in an overdeveloped sub culture having to navigate and tackle the junkies,addicts and rougher element of society everyday Very few people have the reserves have the strength and give up The environment breeds behaviour Which is why this Town has such well established second generation levels of poverty The service providers that are employed to help, advise these people is blooming its quite simple stop corralling people into environments that inhibits hope and aspirations people give up stay on benefits, mismanage money and generally become hopeless The demagraphics of reported levels of poverty would change immediately Benniestewart
  • Score: 0

3:29am Sat 23 Feb 13

guisselle says...

This is so true as there are ghetto
housing where people are isolated
with poor facilities.
This is so true as there are ghetto housing where people are isolated with poor facilities. guisselle
  • Score: 0

9:06am Sat 23 Feb 13

polblagger says...

Benniestewart's comments may well be true about the council's obvious use of Boscombe as a dumping ground.

Having said that, living in a ghetto still doesn't mean you're living in poverty.
Benniestewart's comments may well be true about the council's obvious use of Boscombe as a dumping ground. Having said that, living in a ghetto still doesn't mean you're living in poverty. polblagger
  • Score: 0

9:09am Sat 23 Feb 13

spooki says...

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.
When I worked full time I had a resposible position. My colleagues & I worked 7-4, starting early to check the tills, change runs, opening the store, etc. (we were paid the same hourly rate as someone who worked in the tills but that's a different matter) and earned the princely wage of £12,000. Where do these 'average' salaries come from? I do believe that you are entitled to a bit of 'fun money' from your earnings but the rest should go towards more important things, by this I do not mean 50" tvs, consoles, fancy tv contracts, phone contracts for iPhones or Blackberries, cigarettes, alcohol, jewellery and tattoos! So many people have these things and paid for on credit cards. I do not have a credit card. The only luxury I have is a games console (with pre-owned games) and the occasional cheap nail varnish. If I can't afford it I don't have it.
My money goes on my child FIRST then I have what's left. Perhaps I'm one of the few to have my priorities straight?
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]When I worked full time I had a resposible position. My colleagues & I worked 7-4, starting early to check the tills, change runs, opening the store, etc. (we were paid the same hourly rate as someone who worked in the tills but that's a different matter) and earned the princely wage of £12,000. Where do these 'average' salaries come from? I do believe that you are entitled to a bit of 'fun money' from your earnings but the rest should go towards more important things, by this I do not mean 50" tvs, consoles, fancy tv contracts, phone contracts for iPhones or Blackberries, cigarettes, alcohol, jewellery and tattoos! So many people have these things and paid for on credit cards. I do not have a credit card. The only luxury I have is a games console (with pre-owned games) and the occasional cheap nail varnish. If I can't afford it I don't have it. My money goes on my child FIRST then I have what's left. Perhaps I'm one of the few to have my priorities straight? spooki
  • Score: 0

11:49am Sat 23 Feb 13

madras says...

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.
Quite possibly - but suggest equally more women should be a little more considered / controlled in their actions and with whom they chose to do them. It takes two to tango...
[quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ggrrrr[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]LOL at the man hater with her own agenda.[/p][/quote]Quite possibly - but suggest equally more women should be a little more considered / controlled in their actions and with whom they chose to do them. It takes two to tango... madras
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Sat 23 Feb 13

stevobath says...

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...
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]live-and-let-live[/bold] 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"[/p][/quote]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...[/p][/quote]Poverty is not relative. Poverty as stated by any dictionary is 'a lack of necessities' it is not a relative term.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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... stevobath
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Sat 23 Feb 13

stevobath says...

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!
So you know personally do you?

You can be living in a family whose parents both work' but are paid low wages,so its daft to assume everyone of the poverty stricken are on benefits.

As for jobs.Lots are part time& low paid, so people STILL have to get help with living costs.Are those that work but still need help, lazy & undeserving?

Your view is too simplistic.
[quote][p][bold]Wallisdown[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]So you know personally do you? You can be living in a family whose parents both work' but are paid low wages,so its daft to assume everyone of the poverty stricken are on benefits. As for jobs.Lots are part time& low paid, so people STILL have to get help with living costs.Are those that work but still need help, lazy & undeserving? Your view is too simplistic. stevobath
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Sat 23 Feb 13

alasdair1967 says...

I appreciate there are some families struggling but if they where to be means tested things may work out for them questions do need to be asked about expenditure lose the mobile phone contracts downgrade the sky/cable contracts give up smoking drinking down size the family car (less tax insurance and better fuel economy) our society makes me laugh people employed and struggling whilst some cuff the benifits and live the life of Riley others who by no fault of there own struggle by claiming the correct benifits the baby machines who have 11 kids and then have a purpose built 6 bed house built for them appreciate not in our county but makes sad reading
I appreciate there are some families struggling but if they where to be means tested things may work out for them questions do need to be asked about expenditure lose the mobile phone contracts downgrade the sky/cable contracts give up smoking drinking down size the family car (less tax insurance and better fuel economy) our society makes me laugh people employed and struggling whilst some cuff the benifits and live the life of Riley others who by no fault of there own struggle by claiming the correct benifits the baby machines who have 11 kids and then have a purpose built 6 bed house built for them appreciate not in our county but makes sad reading alasdair1967
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Sat 23 Feb 13

polblagger says...

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...
You cannot use the term 'poverty' in it's dictionary accurate form to overly dramatize a situation then decide to change its meaning to suit your views.

The heading of this article to match your view should read:-

'One in five children in Bournemouth live below the averagely well off line'.

Poverty, as myself and many other posters have pointed out is the lack of life's basic necessities.

The reason people keep mentioning large screen TV's and expensive mobile phones is because none of these constitute necessities.

Any family that has any of these items, a large screen TV, smart phones, Sky/Virgin TV or a car do not live in poverty.

The middle class or to be more accurate, the employed class, are bitter because they are paying for an entire group of society that contribute nothing to society yet suck most of it's resources.

Why do people demonize the well off when most pay more tax in a year than many people pay in a lifetime.

Society is just like budgeting a household or a business. If the money going out is greater than the money coming in you're going to end up going under.
[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]live-and-let-live[/bold] 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"[/p][/quote]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...[/p][/quote]Poverty is not relative. Poverty as stated by any dictionary is 'a lack of necessities' it is not a relative term.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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...[/p][/quote]You cannot use the term 'poverty' in it's dictionary accurate form to overly dramatize a situation then decide to change its meaning to suit your views. The heading of this article to match your view should read:- 'One in five children in Bournemouth live below the averagely well off line'. Poverty, as myself and many other posters have pointed out is the lack of life's basic necessities. The reason people keep mentioning large screen TV's and expensive mobile phones is because none of these constitute necessities. Any family that has any of these items, a large screen TV, smart phones, Sky/Virgin TV or a car do not live in poverty. The middle class or to be more accurate, the employed class, are bitter because they are paying for an entire group of society that contribute nothing to society yet suck most of it's resources. Why do people demonize the well off when most pay more tax in a year than many people pay in a lifetime. Society is just like budgeting a household or a business. If the money going out is greater than the money coming in you're going to end up going under. polblagger
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Sat 23 Feb 13

Seabeam says...

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.
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
  • Score: 0

11:23pm Sat 23 Feb 13

verityvita says...

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.
Oh yes and you can lead a gullible 'occupy' idiot to sit in a tent or occupy a building that nobody actually cares about but that makes them feel 'right on' and doing something against the 'politicians' and 'nobility' whilst inhaling their 'weed' and spouting Marxist cr*p and all the time the people who are egging them on are living safe, soft, life's in other parts of Bournemouth, etc, and some of them are living off of bringing in the low life that is pulling places like Boscombe down the tubes. Sick country indeed, sad people indeed! Look at who is REALLY pulling the strings and who REALLY benefits from all this! Who made £180,000, from selling a council house that should have stayed in public use should be your starter for one (now tell me who 'takes,takes, takes')!
[quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Oh yes and you can lead a gullible 'occupy' idiot to sit in a tent or occupy a building that nobody actually cares about but that makes them feel 'right on' and doing something against the 'politicians' and 'nobility' whilst inhaling their 'weed' and spouting Marxist cr*p and all the time the people who are egging them on are living safe, soft, life's in other parts of Bournemouth, etc, and some of them are living off of bringing in the low life that is pulling places like Boscombe down the tubes. Sick country indeed, sad people indeed! Look at who is REALLY pulling the strings and who REALLY benefits from all this! Who made £180,000, from selling a council house that should have stayed in public use should be your starter for one (now tell me who 'takes,takes, takes')! verityvita
  • Score: 0

10:43am Sun 24 Feb 13

polblagger says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. polblagger
  • Score: 0

11:20am Sun 24 Feb 13

justsayithowitis says...

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.
Very well said
[quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Very well said justsayithowitis
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Sun 24 Feb 13

Wizzle - UTCIAD says...

Relative Poverty is a measure of equality and not true poverty.

Anyone and I mean anyone saying there is poverty in the UK needs to have a walk round a township in South Africa. Once you see people living on less than $1 a day building houses from scrap and being unable to clothe themselves then you will know what poverty is.

Having seen first hand the level of support that is afforded to young single mothers who contribute nothing to Society it is simply mind-blowing! We have a country which is overpopulated, please stop paying people to have children!

There are other ways, look at the rates of teenage pregnancy in eastern Europe and look at their state aid. When there are no hand outs and no safety nets it's amazing how much more cautious people are.
Relative Poverty is a measure of equality and not true poverty. Anyone and I mean anyone saying there is poverty in the UK needs to have a walk round a township in South Africa. Once you see people living on less than $1 a day building houses from scrap and being unable to clothe themselves then you will know what poverty is. Having seen first hand the level of support that is afforded to young single mothers who contribute nothing to Society it is simply mind-blowing! We have a country which is overpopulated, please stop paying people to have children! There are other ways, look at the rates of teenage pregnancy in eastern Europe and look at their state aid. When there are no hand outs and no safety nets it's amazing how much more cautious people are. Wizzle - UTCIAD
  • Score: 1

6:09pm Sun 24 Feb 13

polblagger says...

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.
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. polblagger
  • Score: 0

11:52pm Sun 24 Feb 13

guisselle says...

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.
Some people are just living in a
bubble and think they are superior,
just walk around a council estate
and you'll see poverty next door to
wealthy.
[quote][p][bold]yasinac[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Some people are just living in a bubble and think they are superior, just walk around a council estate and you'll see poverty next door to wealthy. guisselle
  • Score: 0

1:17am Mon 25 Feb 13

guisselle says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]At last some empathy and understanding that is sadly lacking from some posters on here. guisselle
  • Score: 0

9:29am Mon 25 Feb 13

polblagger says...

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.
Neglect, which is what you're talking about, is not the same as poverty.

Let me say it one more time:-

With our excessively generous benefit system there is no excuse for anyone to be in true poverty.

Poverty is not having shelter, clothes and food despite a person or families best efforts.

Living in one room to save money or only having a few bits of food in the house, while unfortunate, is not poverty.

If you come across a child who is hungry, badly clothed or cold that is abuse by their parent, it is not poverty.

The real reason so many left wing people in this country like to categorize this as poverty is because they feel guilty about their own cushy lifestyle.

I am not suggesting that many people shouldn't genuinely be on benefit or that their aren't people in less desirable lifestyles in the UK but there is no such thing as genuine poverty in the UK.

I am sick to death of the abuse of the English language to further people's personal agendas.

We do not have 'poverty' in this country, telling someone they're incompetent at their job is not 'bullying' and having a differing opinion to some else is not 'negative'.
[quote][p][bold]guisselle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s-pb2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Liberal[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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[/p][/quote]At last some empathy and understanding that is sadly lacking from some posters on here.[/p][/quote]Neglect, which is what you're talking about, is not the same as poverty. Let me say it one more time:- With our excessively generous benefit system there is no excuse for anyone to be in true poverty. Poverty is not having shelter, clothes and food despite a person or families best efforts. Living in one room to save money or only having a few bits of food in the house, while unfortunate, is not poverty. If you come across a child who is hungry, badly clothed or cold that is abuse by their parent, it is not poverty. The real reason so many left wing people in this country like to categorize this as poverty is because they feel guilty about their own cushy lifestyle. I am not suggesting that many people shouldn't genuinely be on benefit or that their aren't people in less desirable lifestyles in the UK but there is no such thing as genuine poverty in the UK. I am sick to death of the abuse of the English language to further people's personal agendas. We do not have 'poverty' in this country, telling someone they're incompetent at their job is not 'bullying' and having a differing opinion to some else is not 'negative'. polblagger
  • Score: 1

11:07am Mon 25 Feb 13

stevobath says...

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.
You would be 'The Beedle' if/when the orphans workhouse comes back!


Are you one of those who feel 'guilty'?

Yes.Everyone on benefits has an amazing lifestyle.
[quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]You would be 'The Beedle' if/when the orphans workhouse comes back! Are you one of those who feel 'guilty'? Yes.Everyone on benefits has an amazing lifestyle. stevobath
  • Score: -1

11:11am Mon 25 Feb 13

rozmister says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]ggrrrr[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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. rozmister
  • Score: 1

2:43pm Mon 25 Feb 13

ggrrrr says...

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?
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ggrrrr[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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? ggrrrr
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Mon 25 Feb 13

stevobath says...

POLBLAGGER

If you are such an expert,then Im sure the Govt would love your'
help to sort the system, as you seem to know it all.Everyone else is obviously wrong!
POLBLAGGER If you are such an expert,then Im sure the Govt would love your' help to sort the system, as you seem to know it all.Everyone else is obviously wrong! stevobath
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Mon 25 Feb 13

polblagger says...

I would love to but people would never wear it.
I would love to but people would never wear it. polblagger
  • Score: 0

2:55am Tue 26 Feb 13

guisselle says...

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.
Remember gas lamps and tin baths.
[quote][p][bold]Seabeam[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Remember gas lamps and tin baths. guisselle
  • Score: 0

3:14am Tue 26 Feb 13

guisselle says...

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?
Good idea but most daughters would
see this as intrusive. Its hard to know
if the prospective husband is going to
be the right one as some hide their
narcissist personality well!
[quote][p][bold]ggrrrr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ggrrrr[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]Good idea but most daughters would see this as intrusive. Its hard to know if the prospective husband is going to be the right one as some hide their narcissist personality well! guisselle
  • Score: 0

3:19am Tue 26 Feb 13

guisselle says...

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.
The working class snobs are alive and
kicking, spouting their jealous venom at
their poor neighbours!
[quote][p][bold]Ziggy starburst[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]The working class snobs are alive and kicking, spouting their jealous venom at their poor neighbours! guisselle
  • Score: 1

3:21am Tue 26 Feb 13

guisselle says...

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.
Some mums have good ovaries lucky
them!
[quote][p][bold]BournemouthMum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yasinac[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Some mums have good ovaries lucky them! guisselle
  • Score: 1

1:11pm Tue 26 Feb 13

stevobath says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: I would love to but people would never wear it.[/p][/quote]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. stevobath
  • Score: -1

9:36pm Tue 26 Feb 13

polblagger says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: I would love to but people would never wear it.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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. polblagger
  • Score: 1

11:24am Wed 27 Feb 13

rozmister says...

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?
Some people don't have parents by the time they're old enough to marry so they'd be scuppered. On top of that not everyone's parents have good taste! I love my Mum very much but her taste in men is not good and her criteria for my boyfriends is far from similar to mine. My mum values a university degree over everything else whereas for me the most important thing is a really driven attitude - I went to uni and I know plenty of people with uni degrees but no oomph to get themselves off the starting block!

I think one solution is to stop paying benefits after 2 children and not pay for any children conceived whilst claiming JSA or short term sickness benefits (if you've got a lifelong condition that's another different dicussion) at least until you go into employment and can claim top up employment benefits.

Another would be to teach children about relationships alongside sex at school. When I was at school we learnt all about sex but nothing about what to expect from relationships with our partners.
[quote][p][bold]ggrrrr[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ggrrrr[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]Some people don't have parents by the time they're old enough to marry so they'd be scuppered. On top of that not everyone's parents have good taste! I love my Mum very much but her taste in men is not good and her criteria for my boyfriends is far from similar to mine. My mum values a university degree over everything else whereas for me the most important thing is a really driven attitude - I went to uni and I know plenty of people with uni degrees but no oomph to get themselves off the starting block! I think one solution is to stop paying benefits after 2 children and not pay for any children conceived whilst claiming JSA or short term sickness benefits (if you've got a lifelong condition that's another different dicussion) at least until you go into employment and can claim top up employment benefits. Another would be to teach children about relationships alongside sex at school. When I was at school we learnt all about sex but nothing about what to expect from relationships with our partners. rozmister
  • Score: 1

1:16pm Wed 27 Feb 13

stevobath says...

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.
I'll agree to a certain extent.
, but I don't see how anyone on basic JSA could live a life of luxury?

Just cause the media highlights odd extreme cases IE 'Lady' with 11 kids etc,is obviously an obscene abuse of the system,it then gives the impression anyone on benefits is taking the pi$$.

The 'moral majority' just don't seem to differentiate though.
[quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevobath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]polblagger[/bold] wrote: I would love to but people would never wear it.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]I'll agree to a certain extent. , but I don't see how anyone on basic JSA could live a life of luxury? Just cause the media highlights odd extreme cases IE 'Lady' with 11 kids etc,is obviously an obscene abuse of the system,it then gives the impression anyone on benefits is taking the pi$$. The 'moral majority' just don't seem to differentiate though. stevobath
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree