one and a half million neglected children in uk

(143 Posts)
Longlost10 Thu 28-Jul-16 20:24:30

Action for children chugger in the shopping mall this afternoon, tried to convince me that there are one and a half million neglected children in the uk, relying on charity donations for education and medical care.

hmm can't get my head round that.

I think me skepticism offended him, but I didn't find anything he said convincing...

AIBU? or is it true?

AyeAmarok Thu 28-Jul-16 20:27:13

I would say that number requires a very loose definition of "neglect".

Possibly the "not having an ipad" definition.

Although there are probably 1.5million children in the UK who are not financially supported by their NRP father, and that's neglect in my book. So maybe!

mrsfuzzy Thu 28-Jul-16 22:01:39

your theory sounds about right aye, but then we hear a lot of that on mn.

PeekAtChu Thu 28-Jul-16 22:05:22

Why do they need charity for education and medical care, that's free to everyone.

PortiaCastis Thu 28-Jul-16 22:07:21

True Aye Exdh disappeared about 5 years ago and I have no idea where he is. Dd is 17 now and says she hasn't got a Dad. Fortunately my family have been very supportive so money wise we have been alright but why the hell should he get away with neglecting his responsibilities.

FreedomIsInPeril Thu 28-Jul-16 22:10:15

There are 3.7 million children living in poverty in the UK. 1.7 million of those are in severe poverty.

Believeitornot Thu 28-Jul-16 22:17:52

It's a poverty measure and I can well believe it.

They might not be wilfully neglected by their parents but are by the government who fail to provide a decent standard of living

CodyKing Thu 28-Jul-16 22:25:04

Have you added up the cost of 'free' education?

Uniforms, shoes, trips, bags, stationary, PE kit - and that's before enrichment weeks cake baked and such!

Yes I know you don't have to do the trips but charities offer funding for these kids to get out of inner cities and see things other kids take for granted.

Plenty of kids live in poverty due to alcohol or substance abuse or parents being unable to budget or things go wrong - benefits only cover the basics -

Don't get me started on absent parents - it should be a come to walk away from your kids.

manicinsomniac Thu 28-Jul-16 23:35:31

There's a huge difference between poverty and neglect though.

Neglect has to be either wilful or due to apathy, surely. You can't neglect a child while trying your best for them, can you? And most people living in poverty do do their best for their kids.

They might be using things like NRPs or government neglect but I don't think they should. Neglect is a word we now associate with abuse in children and it's dangerous to infer a link between poverty and child abuse.

CodyKing Thu 28-Jul-16 23:40:09

Yes there is a big difference between poverty and neglect - but in poverty children aren't beefing fed or clothed properly and not for the want of trying - or parents upset by it - I grew up in poverty - cold house, very few clothes no winter coat - we were loved but it deeply upset my mom - and we certainly didn't get any life experiences or holidays (or sweets or ice cream)

These are the children the government are neglecting - child abuse is different -

manicinsomniac Thu 28-Jul-16 23:45:31

Oh yes, I know, I'm not saying it's okay that children are living in poverty. But I think a charity should be careful and clarify as to whether they are campaigning for children in poverty or children being neglected. Because they aren't the same thing and people shouldn't be encouraged to think that they are.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WorraLiberty Thu 28-Jul-16 23:59:48

Oh yes, I know, I'm not saying it's okay that children are living in poverty. But I think a charity should be careful and clarify as to whether they are campaigning for children in poverty or children being neglected. Because they aren't the same thing and people shouldn't be encouraged to think that they are.

I agree 100% manic

I live in a London borough that has one of the worst rates of child poverty, and that is very different to neglect.

Don't get me wrong, far too many kids are neglected here but by no means all of them, and I don't think the neglect has much to do with poverty either.

CodyKing Fri 29-Jul-16 00:00:14

I think government guild lines are that children do better being kept with a family being supported rather than removed. That and lack of funding probably!

PortiaCastis Fri 29-Jul-16 00:01:28

To me neglect is not giving a child food or bathing them or abusing them. Poverty needn't equal neglect as children can still be loved. My dd has been neglected of love by her absent Father but it's better for her not to have to see the abuse he inflicted on me.
She seems well adjusted and is certainly loved by me and my family. I have overcome poverty but only because I work and because my own Father died and left a legacy for me and dd and we now have a decent home and standard of life. Things were very different a few years ago when I struggled to admit to my family that my exdh was an abuser. I fina!ly ran to them after my arm was broken by him.
To conclude lack of money in a loving family is far better than being in a monied family with an abuser.
Just my personal opinion

WorraLiberty Fri 29-Jul-16 00:06:42

I completely agree Portia

Atlas15 Fri 29-Jul-16 00:20:40

I had that charity knock at my door talking about 15p be so little to me but so much to a starving child. If I gave £10 a month how much would actually go to the helping the people and not paying the chugged wages and bonuses for signing people up?

I wish charity was more volunteer driven and less hiring people for minimum wage to harass people on the streets and on the door step.

But, charity is big business and whilst there are still people trapped in poverty the CEO of the charity will be earning a 6 figure sum.
I like charities that pay staff that actually benefit the cause like McMillan nurses ect.
My dh joined a charity and left after one day. It was basically speeching people on their doorstep, guilt tripping them to sign up then when the door shut the team would high five and say got another one or that was easy. It totally destroyed my faith in charity.
I know they need to raise funds somehow but there has to be a better way surely?
Also I hate when they send you a letter asking for money and then complaining about how much it cost to send the letter in the first place!

PortiaCastis Fri 29-Jul-16 00:24:32

Thank you worra Im glad my post made sense and I did wonder if I had worded it correctly but don't suppose it really matters, you understood what I meant.

WorraLiberty Fri 29-Jul-16 00:38:26

I'm sure lots of people understood, Portia thanks

I think WRT neglect, it's more about parents not putting their children first, rather than poverty.

For example I know parents who will count every penny to put food on the table and clothes on their children (even if they're secondhand).

I know parents who will struggle to feed and clothe their children, but will think nothing of spending £40+ on a tattoo/other treat for themselves.

I know parents who will get into debt (a tiny amount but still a struggle) so their kids can have a present or two at Xmas, and then find it difficult to pay back...thus causing feeding/clothing/heating issues.

I (as a lollipop lady) see more and more 4 & 5 year olds being taken to school on the bus, by their 11 & 12 year old siblings...not because their parents are lazy or neglectful, but because travel is free for kids here in London, and the parents literally can't afford the bus fare to take their kids to school every day.

This is often because they've been put in emergency accommodation (through a landlord putting the rent up/selling property and evicting them), outside of the borough and miles away from their kid's school.

I could go on and on...

antiqueroadhoe Fri 29-Jul-16 00:44:47

What this doesn't cover are all the kids who are not in financial poverty but who are time impoverished - parents who are unable or unwilling to spend time talking to their kids. Many never eat as a family or spend time talking.

PortiaCastis Fri 29-Jul-16 00:57:47

Oh yes I agree with you as well worra I don't live in London but have had a friend to stay and she more or less says the same as you. Bit silly getting into debt for an x box and such like if repaying the credit card or loan stops food on the table.
I know we can't live on love but children thrive when they are with loving Parents who care and look after them.
Rents and accommodation seem out of reach for a lot of people. I have been very very fortunate to have inherited from my Father who btw was very caring and I really miss him. Sometimes think I'd rather have him back than his money.
He worked and worked and died at 56 from a heart attack. Life is precious and I think we are all wealthy if we have our health.
I'm going on a bit here.
Bottom line is yes I have material things because I lost my lovely Dad....

MaisieDotes Fri 29-Jul-16 01:02:24

My child gets no support from her nrp and she is not neglected.

So I would reject that definition, aye

AyeAmarok Fri 29-Jul-16 07:50:32

She's neglected by her father though Maisie.

The fact that you support her well yourself so she has no idea is great, but there should be criminal punishment IMO for parents who decide not to support their children.

If you also treated your DD the way he does, would you say that she was then being neglected? Social Services would say so and probably charge you with neglect. Why should he get away with it but you wouldn't?

Longlost10 Fri 29-Jul-16 08:06:51

Ayeamorok, that isn't the question though, the question is whether one and a half million uk children are actually experiencing neglect in their lives, not whether you think the care the are receiving should come from somewhere else. Are they cared for or not?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now