To think some people have their heads in the sand about poverty in the UK?

[MrsFlannel]

On here we see a lot about "Don't have children you can't afford" etc.

this article in the Guardian really brings home the effects of poverty today and it's really breaking my heart.

By rights I should be among those who are struggling so badly...and in one way we are...but because I managed to get a degree and get my DC into a school which is good despite living in a very poor area, we're not quite in the trouble many people around us are.

We live in a council estate...all around me is quite terrible poverty. The upsetting thing is that whilst DH and I have decent work...it's not enough to be able to donate to food banks etc....we only scrape by. I'm sick of the people who deny that there's a problem...or shove blame onto "feckless parents"

I don't donate to food banks because I don't approve of the restrictions that are put on people who receive the food. I know they can't just hand out food to anyone as perhaps they are not being honest about their situation but I've read you have to be on benefits, you can't go more than three times a year. Quite possibly it's the people not on benefits that are the most in need till they get themselves sorted out.

If you can't understand why children are in dirty clothes you have no imagination. No money for electric meters, broken washing machine with no cash to replace it, no accessible laundrette or transport. Can't dry clothes in damp unheated flat so hand washing difficult, no multiple sets of clothing to allow things to dry slowly - possibly no hot water anyway...I could go on.

Comforting

If you read my posts I do make reference to financial abuse. What my boggle is,is that on almost every thread talking about benefits/poverty/feckless parents someone always posts about being a teacher/support/nurse ect in a deprived area and there is often quite a emotive bit in the post about shocking stories about abuse. As if its something to be expected or typical in a household that fits the standard financially deprived and you would be safe from that risk if you were not poor deprived or feckless.

Household income or social class is not anything to do with safety from abuse.And implying it is boils my piss.

Vivienne.

When my house burnt down the trussel trust brought me food boxes. I'm not on benefits of any description and never have been.

sorry but sending your kids to school filthy dirty is not a sign of poverty it is a sign of neglect and should be treated as such

sorry but sending your kids to school filthy dirty is not a sign of poverty it is a sign of neglect and should be treated as such

ilove, try reading Didius's post a few above.

A bit of a sideways question: if we are going to care about the suffering of people we've never met, why does it matter which side of the UK border they are on?

I think it shouldn't. I don't think someone living in poverty anywhere else in the world is less deserving of help. And there are plenty who are in greater need and have no prospect of help from their own governments.

People discuss the extent of UK socialism as though it were a moral issue, yet a rational approach to taxing the UK better-off for the moral purpose of helping poor people they have no direct connection to would see most of the money go abroad, and the UK benefits system and even the NHS both possibly abolished, to free up money to go abroad.

To give a random illustration: A rational and moral approach might see not a single UK person funded for cancer treatment until there was no community in the world without safe drinking water.

It's tempting to think people who are angry with the meanness they perceive in UK socialism are hypocrites, cynically serving a UK left-wing agenda. Or maybe xenophobes, who value a British life more than an Indian or African one. However I know that would be wrong. Like religious believers, they were simply born into a belief-system that only makes sense when viewed from inside. They can't help their moral myopia.

(I won't actually abolish UK socialism when I'm dictator, however in the meantime I don't defend it as a moral enterprise. I suppose my reason for keeping it would be because it would be possible to derive more visible progress from perfecting it, which would be more satisfactory psychologically. Like someone who only tidies the tidiest room in the house, the one they spend most time in, while mentally trying to block out the mess everywhere else.)

(I'm not claiming the moral high ground. I just wish everyone else would get off their high horse, as their moral superiority is a figment of their limited imagination)

I think one of the problems is how "disadvantage" is seen and understood by people. At one time poverty was was something in Africa or something from our long a go history. However now what we see in Africa is absolute poverty and what we have in Britain is a mathematical equation of disadvantage dressed up as poverty.

Take away the homeless and we have no absolute poverty in Britain.

So whilst people and the media keep touting poverty folks will be turned off to some real problems.

Start talking about real disadvantage and more people will start to listen.

I'm glad to hear that Needsasock. I would donate if I knew there wasn't too much red tape and people like you who were genuinely in need at the time would benefit.

only dirty clothes are completely different to dirty houses and unwashed children.

You can be on your arse poor and still keep clean.

Dirty, lice ridden, smelly children are a result of neglect, not just the parents being poor.

I think one if the reasons that people might have a 'head in the sand' over poverty is that for many people, benefits are enough to not only sustain them, but are also enough to have a pretty good standard of living.

When you've never claimed benefits and barely anyone you know claims benefits, it's hard to understand why some people are ok on them and some people aren't. The limited understanding I have on that is only because reading MN in the past has pointed out that there's sometimes DV involved, but tbh, I don't really understand how some people end up in poverty while others have enough to go on holiday if they budget properly.

OP, I totally agree with you, there aren't many feckless parents and a huge amount of people who live in poverty.
The problem is that it makes some people feel better to blame the parents than to look at what has happened to these people in the first place.
It is such a sorry state of affairs when people refuse to see it, but they can justify voting conservative then, because they are ok, and it isn't happening to them. Of course, it does happen to them too sometimes through being widowed, divorced, redundant or ill and they too then try and raise awareness and it continues in a vicious circle.
There is no answer I'm afraid, just be happy you aren't as dim as those who can't see the problem.

sorry but i dont buy the dirty clothes argument that Didiusfalco states, it's exscuses and cant believe that people actually people will use this as a reason

but I've read you have to be on benefits, you can't go more than three times a year. Quite possibly it's the people not on benefits that are the most in need till they get themselves sorted out.

Not at all Vivienne , I know a lady who works for homestart, she just needs to go in and request a parcel, all the information that she needs to give is the size of the family. She then takes the parcel to the family...often they are working/not working/need more than 3 a year.

I think abuse might be less likely if you don't have the stress of being in poverty, but that's not to say it doesn't happen in wealthy families.

and as an example i was watching tv a few night ago about the war in Syria,large area's of rubbled buildings,hardly anything standing,the people that were living in the most awful way,no electric,no safe housing,rationed food still managed to make a washing line i kid you not

the local travellers that frequent the local football pitches each summer,hand wash and put their clothes on a make shift line,they seem to manage it and always look clean and well turned out,cant imagine its much fun for them to handwash but they do

may seem extreme examples especially the Syrian one but communities manage in less than adequate conditions so u think its possible for others

dons hard hat

YANBU. That article also broke my heart.

We penalise the poor in Britain. Their future is bleak.

I keep hearing about education being a solution, (teach first, teach USA etc) but really all this means is more educated people going for the same work.(which doesn't need much beyond basic math and English, the rest of the work is learnt on site). I don't have a solution, but spend on Education, ie doing the same thing as everyone else doesn't seem to work. Lets be honest and tell Students they need to find their own way, ignore school. ( again, having achieved basic math and English )

Theoretician: Is your argument that countries which are collectively wealthier should tax their own inhabitants primarily to assist the inhabitants of countries which are collectively poorer? Given that an ongoing problem in countries which are 'collectively' poor eg there are a lot of rural people starving, is that there is a small powerful elite siphoning off a lot of the aid money and/or deliberately impoverishing the masses in order to retain power, how do you think that could be managed in practice? Are you proposing some sort of world government which would ensure that everyone is adequately housed and fed? Good luck with setting something like that up in a way which would keep it free of corruption, sectarianism and administrative chaos...

ilove and banana, OK then. Can you address some of the points in that post

No money for electric meters, broken washing machine with no cash to replace it, no accessible laundrette or transport. Damp unheated flat, no multiple sets of clothing, possibly no hot water anyway

to explain how parents can reasonably keep their children clean if faced with some or all of the following problems? Genuine question. I'd really like to hear your answers.

Ilove the local travellers have more space than many people. Try hanging your washing out when you live on the 15th floor of a tower block! In some areas it gets stolen out of the communal drying greens.

Absolute poverty should always be the rule not relative of course. Labour shot itself in the foot with this because their silly relative thing meant when we all suffered in the recession the poor could have less money but be counted as much better off because the middle classes were poorer - only under socialism do you get such silly tests.

A good book for people interested in how to stay clean is the really nice 3 books in the series Tuppence to Cross the Mersey - the parents were the usual feckless set although posh turned poor and the poor oldest girl didn't even have the money for soap. True stories, several decades ago but do illustrate issues which never go away. She was so cross her parents would spend the money the children needed to eat on on cigarettes for example.

Lotus Helen Forrester comes across as insufferably judgy in those books.YES her parents were selfish but they were also traumatised by a war and by the complete loss of all their belongings. Her Mother was mentally ill and her Father had PTSD!

ilove

You live in an damp, unheated flat. You have only two sets of clothes. You cannot dry clothes in the house because the damp aggravates your poor health (see damp unheated flat). You have no garden. You hand wash all your clothes and hang them out of the window. You have no money for the laundrette. You meals consist of powdered soup bought in bulk from a shop where food is sold in plastic bins.

How do you have clean clothes for the next day?