one and a half million neglected children in uk

[Longlost10]

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.

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?

The woman in the article applied for UC back in the middle of June.

She will apparently recieve her first payment on the 1st September.

Helena That is all kinds of wrong and disgusting. Surely thae woman in questions MH must be at breaking point

Letter from a school threatening to put a child in lunch isolation if owed lunch money isnt paid.

twitter.com/Alison_Inman/status/758953074895433728

• the woman

Shes talked about her situation a lot more in the comments underneath.

IF they are going to single children out for being poor to punish them for the parents economic status then why are they making parents fork out God knows how much for uniforms so they dont "look poor" and cant be singled out for it.

For once I am lost for words except for Unbelievable!

I use the definitions of poverty set out by people who are experts at doing just that

err, no you don't , because there isn't one agreed by experts, and many of the ones used for statistics are measures of relative poverty, and you don't seem to understand whatthat means.

Supposing you are the governor of a street with 100 houses, and you have £100 for poverty relief every week, and you have to decide how to spend it. Strangely, in your street, the households are numbered in order of income, with the household at no 1 having the lowest, up to 100, the richest. So roughly, according to the government stats, the families 50% below the median are households 1-25, so you give them £4 each to help out. ( we are imagining the make up and outgoings of each household is identical.)

Now supposing households 81-100 move out. Nothing else changes. According to the government, households 21-25 are no longer poor! Because this is relative measure, and what these people actually have is not relevant at all, to the calculation. so households 1-20 get £5 each that week

now suppose house number 81 gets a new resident, who is twice as rich as the last richest resident in the street. Households 1-40 could now be poor. Nothing has changes at all for those people, and the definition of poverty has not changed either.

That resident didn't stay long, and we are back to households 1-80, with households 1-20 called poor. They all work at different grades in the same factory, and the company has just struck commercial gold, and decides to put everyone's wages up. They double the wages of everyone in the street. According to the relative definition of poverty, households 1-20 are still poor. Next, they multiply everyone's wages by 10, household number 1 is now as rich as the shortlived resident at no. 81.

However, according to this classification, households 1-20 are still poor. I am exaggerating, to make it clearer, just to make it clear that the relative measures of poverty give statistics, but do not in any way define poverty, so saying this is the definition you use, does not in fact have any meaning.

The question was what would YOU call poor, but no need to answer if you don't want to.

and in any case, NONE of this has much relevance to neglect.

Thats an awful lot of waffle, but since you were wrong at the start I zoned out. There IS one agreed by many experts, and its the one used by the government.

You are exaggerating, as you say. So much so that you skew your point so much it makes no sense.

You do realise the chugger probably learnt the stat for poverty and just got it confused with neglect, yes?

A lot of projection and ignorance on this thread. Poverty isn't a competition to see who can survive on the least.

If you live hand to mouth- you don't have any financial space for an emergency or disaster- repair, need for clothing, emergency transportation ( to ie get to hospital or visit a sick relative) you are in poverty.
If you don't have the spare money to obtain a pension or save for similar future financial security, basic insurances and so on- you are in poverty.
And yes, if you can't afford a washing machine you are in poverty.

Many people who aren't in poverty can't afford things right this second. But if you have no affordable loan options and no opportunity to save you will never get out of the cycle.

Why the need to believe these people aren't in poverty? Shouldn't we expect more than that? Shouldn't we expect that everyone could buy a washing machine or a dressing gown? Or a car if they need one?

OP seems determined to preach that no-one is really in poverty. Why is an interesting question?

I was brought up by my parents still together. We had a nice house, two cars, lots of holidays. I was still neglected in many ways. Plenty of money but very little attention and supervision which meant I was vulnerable to unpleasant experiences.

I reckon most landlords would want ppl to have a washing machine. Because i seriously doubt they want dripping wet washing everywhere. You can only wring out an item so much.

And not every place has a garden. Our flat has a car park and no balcony.

OP seems determined to preach that no-one is really in poverty no I'm not, I haven't said that at all, just that the figures mean nothing. You can be officially poor without actually being deprived of anything at all, there is real poverty, but that is not what this is about anyway, it is about neglect.

And yes, if you can't afford a washing machine you are in poverty that really is a very silly thing to say, as you have to be in the richest 25% of the world's population to have any access to a washing machine at all, and more than half of that 25% use a laundrette rather than a private machine.

Porg That is exactly what I meant in my post late last night. Have a read if you can find it.

There IS one agreed by many experts, and its the one used by the government. you completely misunderstand this statistic and its use.

Porg, that is what I am talking about. Neglect. This talk about poverty is totally off track, and irrelevant, the two are not related at all.

From your bad experience, can you identify something such a charity could actually do with its money to help children in a similar situation?

Neglect can be not being able to teach a child how to wash or not feeding it nutrient rich food. Or leaving the child unattended while the parents work. Or serious mental health or substance abuse, alcohol problems etc.
Some adults are vulnerable and unable to manage money or themselves. This is compounded by not living near extended family......in the end the child suffers and it isn't necessarily the fault of the parent. I guess charities try and address this a little.

longlost you completely misunderstand the stats. Household income of 50% of the median does not equal the poorest 25%.

And poverty and neglect are related in the poverty is a risk factor for neglect.

There IS one agreed by many experts, and its the one used by the government. you completely misunderstand this statistic and its use

I really don't, I use it for my job and you've demonstrated not only your misunderstanding but also your bias.

This talk about poverty is totally off track, and irrelevant, the two are not related at all

This shows your complete lack of misunderstanding off the issues at hand.

longlost you completely misunderstand the stats. Household income of 50% of the median does not equal the poorest 25%. no, of course it doesn't. That was just an oversimplified illustration for the posters who aren't clear on the difference between poverty and a relative poverty measure.

Longlost it is all too easy for a thread about neglect to turn into a benefit bashing thread.

A lot of us have seen it happen on here too many times before.