Save the Children launches appeal for children in the UK

[Vagaceratops]

BBC link

And it will get worse :(

Two fingers it wasnt on the news it was on a docu and the reason why they were showing it was to highlight theire are so many familes like this

The children live in poverty because of their parents inabilty in all areas Of life

They have a dog but no bed for their child the giverments fault or theres

why they were showing it was to highlight theire are so many familes like this

They were not. They were showing it because of the shock value it offered. Because its so alien to most people. If there were so many families like this there would be no need to show it because no-one would want to watch. it would be too 'ordinary'

wordfactory thank you people may not like my views but it shows more about them when they challenge my spelling rather than my view

I have dyslexia a but these who are so quick yo defend disabilty will mock seemingly you are only not mocked if they like your views

Two fingers it wasnt on the news it was on a docu and the reason why they were showing it was to highlight theire are so many familes like this

Failing to convince through fair means, he now turns to foul. Liar liar pants on fire.

Vagaceratops are you aware how many children are removed form there parents each year due to neglect

And the chikdren who are on the at risk register due to what sw call casual neglect i can assure you its not a small amount

We have challenged your views, but you ignore them and just bluster on.

SmellsLikeTeenStrop what the hell are you talking about

The show was called protecting our children so you stand to be corrected

bojangles I'm perfectly well aware it wasn't on the news. I saw the documentary series. FFS hasn't anyone ever used the term 'newsworthy' before. It doesn't only mean 'on the news' you know.

They were not. They were showing it because of the shock value it offered. Because its so alien to most people. If there were so many families like this there would be no need to show it because no-one would want to watch. it would be too 'ordinary'
Thanks vagaceratops - thought I was losing it for a minute

Just in case anyone wants to get this thread back on track...

This is an extract from the article linked by OP

"The study draws on Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) figures which estimate that there are 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK and predict a steep rise in the numbers in coming years."

In no way, shape or form is this acceptable in a wealthy, industrialised country in the 21st century.

The show was called protecting our children so you stand to be corrected

I saw it. You completely misrepresented the purpose of the program in order to pint benefit dependent households as feckless, wasteful and abusive. That is way uncool.

I am yes - 10,199 in the year April 2011 - March 2012.

*paint

Okay bojangles if there are 3.5 million children living in poverty, do you truthfully believe that all of them have cider-drinking, drug-addicted parents, who would rather feed their dogs than their children?
If not, what percentage, in your opinion, do live like this?
What support do you think the children of these unworthy cider-drinking, drug-addicted poor people should get? Or would it be better to leave their children to fend for themselves or bung the lot of them in care?
What support do you think the children of the worthy poor should get?
Because it seems to me that this is what we're returning to in this country: the Victorian notion of deserving and undeserving poor. Lots of evidence for it on this very thread.

Yes Mr bojangles lets see some proof of this. Some statistics to prove that these 3.5 children living in poverty all have "feckless" parents.
After all you are not shy about asking others to provide links to back up what theyve said in their posts.
Im merely asking you to practice what you preach and do the same!

"The study draws on Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) figures which estimate that there are 3.5 million children living in poverty in the UK and predict a steep rise in the numbers in coming years."

In no way, shape or form is this acceptable in a wealthy, industrialised country in the 21st century.

Totally agree. But now we're back to what are the causes and what are the solutions?

And for what it's worth, I have been assessed by SS and they are more than happy with my parenting skills. I have been told by the school, and Homestart and my HV that I am a particularly good parent, that I provide an enriching environment, feed them a great diet, and make sure they are clean, healthy, happy and educated.

I have met very few "poor parents" who fit the stereotypical "scrounger" idea, and lots of people who have had very tough lives.

It was a damn site easier when there was the concept of the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.

It's a shame we got so squeemish!

In Victorian times you were undeserving poor if you could work, even if you couldnt find a job.

Which is great if there are plenty of jobs, but there are not.

I just think that it would be useful for the discussion (as well as those who conflate 'disabled' or 'full time carer' with 'benefit claiming scum') to seperate those who end up in penury through no fault of their own - the deserving poor - with those who vist their miseries upon themselves through idleness, criminality and wantonness - the undeserving poor.

So how many children do you think 'visit their miseries upon themselves through idleness, criminality and wantonness', thus deserve to be malnourished, mrjudgey.

The largest section of the 'welfare' budget is pensions.

Why should anybody who is poor be undeserving?
I can remember the same reports circulating about 10 years ago as I read them during my degree.
It was a labour government then, not sure if that makes any difference.

I think the problem with many people on these threads is they forget how societal attitudes change and that whatever is acceptable to one generation may not be to another.

I choose not to work, although my husband does. We are not poverty stricken but have a low income and have as much benefit as we are entitled.
Some may think this is wrong and that I should work if we have dcs and not receive benefit.
However, when I was growing up a mother who went out to work was negligent and society termed the dcs as "Latch key kids".
It was not acceptable to leave your kids to provide for them, one income was supposed to be enough.
To those who believe the rich pay the most tax and have a go at those who smoke and drink, well they pay a fair amount to the government in tax for this life style choice, most of the price of these goods is tax.
I'm not saying this is always the lowest income that is stereotyped but to point out even the feckless ones pay tax.

Totally agree. But now we're back to what are the causes and what are the solutions?

Inequality. Less inequality.

So full time working mothers' taxes are going towards a family (above) where they would not need state benefits to top up the husband's low wage if the mother were not at home but she chooses to be there?

The sooner we move to a low flat tax, small state and no tax credits or child benefit the better.