To be surprised how many parents can't afford children's footwear?

[moita]

I must have been living under a rock but: I recently started volunteering for a charity that donates coats to children who need one.

I live in a village just outside a deprived city and we have lots of requests for coats from struggling parents.

It was eye-opening. We then started having the same request: for footwear, most specifically wellies. We put out social media messages for used but good condition wellies. Lots of people donated and they were all pretty much snapped up.

I've got to say: I was surprised, naively so? I felt guilty buying my toddler wellies from the supermarket but here were parents happy to take used ones away. And a lot of the people who came to use are single mums who have fallen on hard times.

I don't know. I just feel so sad that our service is so needed.

Where did I say it was the child's fault (and no need to shout) ?

But by perpetuating the 'feckless parent' narrative nothing will ever get fixed the inequality will continue and only those that either benefit from that inequality or are unable to use critical thinking seem to trot out that narrative, and yes it not being the childs fault does need to be shouted [shrug]

It's absolutely insane.
Not only shoes and jackets.
Specially when school begins and they need new uniforms and x pairs of shoes.

I have a twins, working part time- usually buying clothes from charity shops, as the retail prices are just too much, my kids grow very quickly lately so basically needs all new again.

We do buying new shoes, but apart from that trying to be thrifty.

I really love Boden and Joules clothes but cannot afford it.

My kids look well dressed, but it saddens me, that I can afford what I would like for them.

Anytime I try to give my child’s old clothes away on the local Facebook pages, I never get any takers. I end up throwing them in the clothes recycling bins in the supermarket car park. No idea where they end up.

It seems you have a problem with people speaking the truth ie that there are some 'feckless parents 'as you call them.

Getting all irate about doesn't make the facts go away.

I know of professionals such as Midwives, Health Visitors, Social Workers and Probation Officers who have spent their careers trying to help people, sometimes with poor results because some parents aren't motivated to better themselves. They'd sooner sit on their backsides and moan about perceived 'inequalities'.

So all those children living in poverty are all the fault of the parents riiiiiight, cool story bro

'So all those children living in poverty are all the fault of the parents hmm riiiiiight, cool story bro'

I never said that at all - just what is your problem with comprehension.?!

@AnitaB888

It seems you have a problem with people speaking the truth ie that there are some 'feckless parents 'as you call them.

Getting all irate about doesn't make the facts go away.

I know of professionals such as Midwives, Health Visitors, Social Workers and Probation Officers who have spent their careers trying to help people, sometimes with poor results because some parents aren't motivated to better themselves. They'd sooner sit on their backsides and moan about perceived 'inequalities'.

No-one has ever said that all parents are good parents. Mine certainly weren’t.

However, the vast majority of parents are good parents.

Allowing the belief that poor parents, poor people in general, are poor because they are feckless lazy fuckers who spunk their money on fags, booze and big TVs to go unchallenged is one of the reasons the decimation of the welfare state has gone on.

The small minority of feckless parents should not dictate policy for the rest. The small amount of drunk drivers should not have people judging all drivers as feckless and this is no different.

"the vast majority of parents are good parents."

I agree.

"Allowing the belief that poor parents, poor people in general, are poor because they are feckless lazy fuckers who spunk their money on fags, booze and big TVs to go unchallenged is one of the reasons the decimation of the welfare state has gone on."

I never made that generalisation.

But there is a hard-core of irresponsible parents who use up a disproportionate amount of resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
I have no problem pointing out this 'elephant in the room'.

IMO the problem is that some parents don't realise the amount of time, energy (mental & physical), money and resources that children take up.

I wonder how many prospective parents realise that it costs £79,176 to raise a boy and £108,884 a girl?

Perhaps we should be giving better relationship and parenting education to children, so they are aware of the issues/problems/challenges of bringing a child into the world?

Judging by the number of posts on this site from women who have chosen to have a child with someone, who could be called, kindly, 'a waste of space', indicates that there is a real lack of education in this area.
This is where we should be starting, not throwing money at the problem in the hope it will go away.

But there is a hard-core of irresponsible parents who use up a disproportionate amount of resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

You say you don’t generalise, but you did there. The majority of people using resources are not feckless idiots. However, on the (small) amount of money that is aimed at the children of feckless parents where could it be spent better? The children still need it so where else would it be spent?

I have no problem pointing out this 'elephant in the room'.

It’s not an elephant in the room. It’s a different conversation to general conversation about parents who live in poverty because, again, the vast majority of parents in poverty are good parents. Not the people you are talking about.

This is where we should be starting, not throwing money at the problem in the hope it will go away.

So we starve children and leave them barefoot because they’ve the bad luck to have shit parents? How is that a remotely progressive society?

And again, this is a tiny minority of parents so the discussion about the vast majority shouldn’t be swayed by them. You should never dictate welfare policy on the basis of the tiny majority of feckless.

"However, on the (small) amount of money that is aimed at the children of feckless parents where could it be spent better? The children still need it so where else would it be spent?"

You misunderstand.

What I said was But there is a hard-core of irresponsible parents who use up a disproportionate amount of resources that could be better spent elsewhere

The Health Visitors I have known spent 95% of their time servicing 5% of their caseload.

This often involves repeated visits because the client won't answer the door, tells them to f* off, is high/drunk/gone out. They get threatened by a partner/dog, the client themselves. They've had their windows smashed/tyres slashed when making a visit

They have to make special visits for developmental checks, because the client can't/won't attend the clinic. (Hearing tests take 2 people BTW)
There are numerous calls to other agencies, Case Conferences, paperwork etc.

I don't think some people on this thread have a clue in Hell how hard these agencies work to try and help parents.

The whole purpose of a HV is to stop inequalities in Health but they cannot function effectively when people won't co-operate. The money spent on these non-compliant people is not providing a hands-on service, it is being used up on bureaucracy.

This is not the fault of either the government or the HV (or the child) But if a child, whose parents refused HV access has an undiscovered health problem and becomes ill, then all the blame is laid at the door of the HV or the Welfare State

"So we starve children and leave them barefoot because they’ve the bad luck to have shit parents? How is that a remotely progressive society?"
^I have no idea where that ridiculous comment came from.

"You should never dictate welfare policy on the basis of the tiny majority of feckless."
I really don't know what you mean by this but this 'tiny majority' you speak of consume an awful lot of resources.

That's why I said the problem needs to be addressed at the grassroots, via education.

@AnitaB888 I didn’t misunderstand.

You are extrapolating experience a small number of people and conflating them with the majority.

They are not relevant to the main conversation about the issue of family poverty despite desperate efforts by various governments and people like yourself trying to pretend they are.

I’ve worked in over 20 schools over the years in learning support as well as running out of school care and playschemes. The number of deliberately feckless parents is tiny. The number of parents experiencing poverty through zero fault of their own is large and growing. By pretending that the minority are the big issue it allows the major issue, poverty, to be glossed over and ignored.

Where I live there has been a "Boot Fund" since 1893. Apparently last year saw a big increase in applications.

@JustLyra

"The number of parents experiencing poverty through zero fault of their own is large and growing"

Please define "poverty"

@JustLyra

"I’ve worked in over 20 schools over the years in learning support as well as running out of school care and playschemes"

and how many were in inner-city areas?

[quote AnitaB888]@JustLyra

"I’ve worked in over 20 schools over the years in learning support as well as running out of school care and playschemes"

and how many were in inner-city areas?[/quote]
16.

[quote AnitaB888]@JustLyra

"The number of parents experiencing poverty through zero fault of their own is large and growing"

Please define "poverty"[/quote]
Poverty has a simple meaning as you well know.

It’s being in the situation where you don’t have enough money to cover all of your basic needs - food, clothing and shelter.

It’s quite clear what is meant by it on a thread about people being unable to afford to buy their children shoes...

@JustLyra

"Poverty has a simple meaning as you well know."

No it doesn't, and please lose the patronising attitude.

There is 'poverty' and 'relative poverty' - these are government definitions. I don't know which you mean.

"It’s being in the situation where you don’t have enough money to cover all of your basic needs - food, clothing and shelter.

It’s quite clear what is meant by it on a thread about people being unable to afford to buy their children shoes..."

'One size fits all' doesn't work here.
Parents that choose to drink, smoke and get smartphones can't claim to be in poverty because they can't buy their childrens' shoes.

Parents that buy a 5 bed house with a huge mortgage for them and 1 child can't claim to be 'in poverty' because they can't buy shoes.

Claiming to be in poverty because of unwise choices doesn't wash with me. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Unless you are a Social Worker and do house-calls you have no way of knowing what families are 'in poverty' and those that aren't.

The only person being patronising here is you @AnitaB888

You are determinedly trying to link feckless spending with the discussion of people being in genuine poverty. They are two very different discussions and the pathetic gaslighting done by various governments and people like yourself is disgusting.

People who choose to prioritise luxuries over their children’s basic needs are massively in the minority despite attempts by people like yourself to pretend otherwise.

And it’s not only social workers who know when families experience poverty. What hogwash.

Schools deal with families and children every single day, and often know far more about family circumstances (in huge part thanks to the underfunding of social work departments meaning that children who would previously have had assistance from social workers no longer meet thresholds for help).

Anita enjoys being ever more ridiculous on a range of threads. Best to pretend it isn't even here really.

@unmarkedbythat

"Anita enjoys being ever more ridiculous on a range of threads"

So what are you actually bringing to the discussion? Any relevant points to rebut my 'ridiculousness'? No, thought not

"Best to pretend it isn't even here really."

Ignoring the issues won't make them go away.

@JustLyrca

You do not even know the definition of 'poverty' so how you can make a judgement about a family's situation, I do not know.

You do not even know the definition of 'poverty' so how you can make a judgement about a family's situation, I do not know.

The dictionary definition of poverty is exactly as I gave you. If you meant relative poverty you should have said so because they are two different things.

You have a few pieces of “someone told me” data. I’ve worked with families for years (and have been at both ends of the scale financially) and have seen the situation get worse as people get poorer and services slashed.

You haven’t a clue because you think feckless spenders and people in poverty through no fault of their own are one in the same.

Your goadiness is as blatant as your cluelessness.

@JustLyrca,
"If you meant relative poverty you should have said so because they are two different things."

I did on 22/221 at 15.46

"You haven’t a clue because you think feckless spenders and people in poverty through no fault of their own are one in the same."

Where did I say that?

On my post 22/2/21 12.22

"the vast majority of parents are good parents."

I agree.

"You have a few pieces of “someone told me” data"

No. I worked in a government dept for 25 years and have seen the dedication of it's staff and the abuse of employees by some members of the public who seem to have had entitlement issues.

"and have seen the situation get worse as people get poorer "

again "poorer" is a just relative term without a baseline definition.

"Your goadiness is as blatant as your cluelessness."

If my 'goadiness is a problem then don't engage - simple.

I did on 22/221 at 15.46

Which was after you asked me to define poverty... which I did, accurately. If you wanted me to define relative poverty then you should have asked that. People aren’t mind readers.

Twisting things after the fact just makes you look stupid, and goady.

If my 'goadiness is a problem then don't engage - simple

I won’t be. You’re just another person buying into the myth that the small number of feckless parents should have an impact on the policies to support parents experiencing poverty.