The big lie : 120,000 families who cost £9 billion a year

[TalkinPeace2]

There is no empirical evidence that these families or this amount exist.
Why is the government putting so much emphasis on it?

At one point, my family would have met the criteria wih bells on. A number of years later, at the age of 50, my DM found the courage to kick my EA father out and, of her two children, one works in a well paying, high pressured job in the city and I have a professional degree. Go figure.

I'm not saying there arent people out there who are drains on society, I just think people need to be a bit more careful about who they lump in to that category. I also think that 'problem families' are yet another thing for the government to hide behind and stoke the public ire just like teaching wages/pensions and other public sector workers

Vodafone and Amazon have never evaded tax. That's illegal.

They have avoided tax. You may find that immoral, but it's not illegal. Very important distinction.

It's illegal to murder your spouse so you can marry your lover. It is not illegal to take a lover.

THIS thread is about Eric Pickles and David Cameron diverting resources on a wild goose chase after people who do not exist.
And wondering why more of the press do not challenge them on the lies in the figures.

It has nothing to do with the HMRC large business unit being cosy with tax avoiders - please do a different thread for that.

Because we had no drunkenness and cruelty when sanctions like deportation and hanging existed, did we Josephine?

Who cares about the problem families who inflict suffering on their children and neighbours etc as long as they don't claim benefits?
Rape your wife and beat your kids as long as you don't live on a council estate and keep off the JSA.

There are a lot more problem families on benefit than not.

Rape is illegal. Beating kids is illegal. Whether or not the perpetrators are on benefits.

Wondering what families who have children first then get health problems and/or lose their jobs afterwards are supposed to do. Can't send the kids back for a refund.

Wondering what families who have children first then get health problems and/or lose their jobs afterwards are supposed to do. Can't send the kids back for a refund.
Try and get another job and raise their kids properly, and don't have any more.

As you say there is no evidence that the number of "problem" families is 120,000. It could be much less than that - but going by some of the stats for more deprived areas in my City it is likely to be much much higher.

How the hell do you know that?
How many studies have been done on dysfunctional families who have the means to cover up their issues?

What politics or any social programme has ever been based on statistics that are believable - most policies use figures to support them rather than be based on the actual happenstance???

And where are the Lib Dems in all this??

couple get married
he has low level disability
they have children
his health deteriorates so he stops work
one of the children becomes disabled
mother has to stop work to look after husband, poorly child and healthy child

no work, no chance of work till husband and daughter die, totally reliant on benefits for many years to come
Josephine look the mother in the eye and repeat your comment

It is always just too easy to point fingers at tax avoiders/evaders and big bankers ....

This is not about improving the lives of people caught up in this dyfunction.
This is about puff and bollocks and appealing to voters who believe this shite.

but why are the PRESS not standing up to the government and MAKING them spend money and resources based on evidence

the whole point of Levenson is that they were all in each others backsides
THIS story SHOULD be the subject of press inquiry

I think this is a good thread, to raise awareness Government's losing its way on this - offensively so and expensively so - but I wouldn't engage with 'JosephineCD'.

'There are a lot more problem families on benefit than not.'

Only cos of the stupid criteria. Drawn up by someone who has never lived in poverty and associates it with fecklessness.
So poor housing is one of the criteria. You end up on benefits through no fault of your own (you're not a 'problem' family) and your house falls into disrepair because you cannot maintain it or you have to move to some shithole with a bad landlord (we had mould on the walls, broken heating and broken windows)
Mental health issues - can happen to anyone but more common when you lose your job, end up in poor housing
Low income and cannot afford basics go together often. Life hands you a lemon, you end up on a low income job or benefits etc etc

None of these equal 'problem' family. Nor is being unemployed.

Yes there are anti-social families and families with poor and neglectful parenting but Pickles has widenend the criteria. And the 'problem' he is pointing at isnt poverty, he is tarring us all with a stereotyped feckless scrounging jezza kyle like label.
A lot of families who fit this stupid criteria are normal doing their best, often hardworking and nice people. But you wouldnt think it after the media splash.
And tomorrow it could be you. You or a child ends up disabled, within months you lose your job. Food becomes a problem to buy, you lose your house and move to a low rent dump or your owned house starts to fall into disrepair. You feel depressed and go to the doctor with your mental health problems.
Now YOU are a 'problem family'. And despised and derided by the media.

OP, I thought the pieces in the Guardian today were very good timely journalism; and also there have been challenges about this previously in parts of the press dealing with national politics and local government, and I remember contributing to a MN thread awhile ago saying that the criteria were flawed.

But the last few days it's become clear that the Government has seriously lost the plot on this one.

I think that this is why the Red Top media waited till the last couple of days to reveal the great Cameron Pub Child Story - some kind of tabloid payback juxtaposition.

But why should the press do this? No-one buys and reads papers printing opinions and details that go against the perceived opinions of the readership. It would be suicide ...

Couple get married.
Have children
One dies
They adopt a relative who would otherwise go in to care.
One parent is diagnosed with MS
One is still suffering the effects of the trauma caused by watching her child die.

Say that again Joesphine.

Woman gets married.
Has a child who is damaged at birth due to medical negligence.
Husband fucks off because 'this isn't what I signed up for'
Mother forced to move into rented because owned house is unable to be adapted for less than what it is worth.

What was that you said?

Couple married
Dad dies from cancer
Son gets brain tumor and is left severely disabled by treatment.
Single mum with said child and two other traumatised children

Huh?

I could go on all night just from the experiences of friends and family but it so much more comforting to go with the "'them and us' theory isn't it?

Also the Guardian did emphasise that the majority of families within these criteria are actually in work.

You know what, growing up we meet every single of those points.

I am failing to see how we were a problem family, we were never anti-social, never missed school, and never been in trouble with the police.

So how were we a problem family?

I agree, but this government regard the Guardian as litter tray liner
why are papers like the Times, Independent, Mirror, FT and the magazines not picking up on the fact that this will be a massive waste of resources at a time when people like MrsDeV need as much professional support as possible.

FFS they just changed the child protection guidance from 600 pages to 67 - implying "let the professionals decide"
and then they come back with "we know the families are out there, bring them to us so we may ASBO their first born"

Taking the people out of poverty will remove at least 3 of those "problems".

Taking people out of poverty is really easy, and alleviates so many social problems. I wonder why the government hasn't tried it yet.

Quite Blackout. Us too and we all went on to get degrees. Mind you, growing up on a council estate to a single mum on benefits, we did without food (and heat and light when the meter ran out) in a falling apart house and I recall the Tories attacking families like us in the 80's. Its like they dusted off the manual. Only this time they've added disabled people to the 'Tory list of hate'.

Closing Sure Start Centres, libraries, Community places, cutting support and social services. None of this is going to help. This year there are no playscheme places in the summer for kids with severe SN's. So parents cant work for 6 weeks. Only an understanding employer is going to put up with that when there's lots of unemployed waiting to take your place.