Save the Children launches appeal for children in the UK

[Vagaceratops]

BBC link

And it will get worse :(

My husband doesn't have an ex wife

Nor does he have any children except the ones that he is step father to that are mine.

I have never been married before, and have had only one serious relationship before, he is the wonderful father of my dc who is lovely and gets on well with my husband. As I do with his girlfriend. Whose children, including my children's half sibling, I babysit for.

If you want to know, you only have to ask

Anything else?

Custardo, I was not stating that all people on benefits don't want to work at all. I'm not sure how you got that impression.

I'm saying that it's very difficult for them to get into work because childcare is prohibitively expensive, and they end up no better off.

I wouldn't want to work all week for nothing either, but not nor would I want to do nothing and get paid.

I really don't see why people disagree with the idea of free childcare so much. It would create jobs in the childcare sector, and would help so many people. Obviously we need there to be more jobs available, but what's the point in having jobs available if families that need to get off benefits can't access them because of childcare?

I have no idea who outraged is. She seems to be making some unpleasant personal remarks about how POOR people live and how the hell dare they go around having kids etc however without being willing to earn 6.50 an hour and be fucking thankful that 'the state' pays 80% of the cost of that hour's childcare (that will be 80% of £3.70 where I live) .

Oh lucky lucky lucky overindulged lazy fuckwit poor people. With their tellys and their fags eh?

Maybe she thinks the way A Fine Balance ends would be a reasonable and economic way forward?

you have suddenly softened your tone outraged.

Why?

Let's face it, you don't like people having a kid if they can't pay for it. That's your jeremy kyle's opinion

Why is it assumed that a family with both parents working contribute more to society than one parent working or even no parent working?

The male friend I gave as an example previously I believe to be a fantastic role model for his children. He works tirelessley to support them in all aspects of their lives and is completely dedicated to his children. This would not be possible without benefit nor if he were working. His benefit to society will be providing 4 well adjusted, intelligent, talented and qualified individuals able to enter the workplace and contribute financially, even though he is not able. Since his wife left he kept the family home, paying the mortgage, no housing benefit and has made a huge difference to the kids coming to terms with the loss they have had. They still have issues but not nearly as bad now, and the outlook emotionally is much better.
Being close to this family has made me realise how important it is for them to be settled and certainly agree that if this man was to work the family would suffer. I know there are some that abuse the system but looking at the bigger picture work isn't always the best option.
No after school club could take these children to their after school sports clubs which again the boys play at county level. They have no car and their father walks miles to accompany them when they can't afford the bus fare. He never moans or expects more from life.

more than your post does prove somewhat that single fathers are hero worshipped. While single mothers are demonized.

There are many single mothers who are doing exactly the same as your male friend is.

Erm, where did I say people shudo be thankful?

As it goes, I think we should all be thankful that we have a welfare state and we woudo all have even more reason to be thankful if we coudk all access free childcare. Thankfulness is one of the keys to happiness, there is nothing wrong with that.

And you are right, I don't think people should have children that they can't afford. The welfare state is there for people who fall on hard times, not those that want to have children and want someone else to pay for it.

There aren't many opinions I share with JK, whose show I watched today for the first time in years incidentally, but if he speaks the ocassional bit of sense then so be it.

UnlikelyAmazonian Apparently, I agree with Jeremy Kyle too!

If you have a child, knowing that you can't afford to pay for it, what gives you the right to demand more money from those of us who put having a child off until we were in a position to be able to afford to raise it?

That sounds like selfishness to me.

Jeremy Kyle. The man who financially abused his first wife due to a gambling habit. A great big steaming hypocrite.
I suppose stealing it from his first wife was better morally eh? Jesus wept. Is this the sort of man people are taking seriously? Really????? Fuck me!!!!

Agree with Darkeyes on that.

You are implying that children who have to go to childcare are at some massive disadvantage, which is very unfair to the parents who have no choice and feel they should contribute more than their children and provide more than benefits.

About single mothers and single fathers being hero worshipped I mean.

Personally, I can't stand Jeremy Kyle but even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

judgeypants, you write this:

If you have a child, knowing that you can't afford to pay for it, what gives you the right to demand more money from those of us who put having a child off until we were in a position to be able to afford to raise it?

Not sure what you mean about the 'right to demand' here....

The money is offered and made available, by a compassionate 21st century state in a highly developed country. This is because we live in a democracy and have fought long and hard to maintain our welfare system. We no longer let women who get pregnant either accidentally or on purpose or who are abandoned by feckless bastard men when they are pregnant, die in stinking gutters or have back-street abortions.

If you think this money should be withdrawn then please exercise your democratic rights more vociferously and write to your MP and to all the broadsheets stating your name and address and demanding that this part of the welfare state should be dismantled immediately.

Personally, I can't stand Jeremy Kyle but even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day

CHRIST ALMIGHTY. So a man who financially abuses his wife is revered while others are demonized just for being claimants???!!!!!! Kyle broke the law FFS. Christ Christ Christ !!!!!!!!!!!

judgey I started reading that link then stopped when it said about every child being entitled to child benefit, because they are not, every child is not entitled to child benefit.

UnlikelyAmazonian I meant exactly what I wrote. If someone chooses to bring a life into this world, knowingly underfinanced to pay for it even with the current benefit level, it smacks of short term thinking to be complaining about how much money the state gives them once they've had that child. If I were to take on a financial commitment knowing I couldn't afford it I would be seen, rightly, as being irresponsible; therefore, whinging about the cost after the event would be dismissed as being a problem entirely of my own making. You say that the money is offered and made available, which is true, but there are plenty of posters on this topic who are demanding even more and it is that which I object to.

Darkeyes Yes, my comment was clearly a vindication of his financial abusiveness towards his ex-wife and nothing to do with the bit about having kids when you can't afford them - Muppet!

nailak you are right - If you provide well for your family you aren't entitled to child benefit - the rest of the post is pretty good though.

I hope that one of the children you waited to have does not grow up to marry a man who impregnates her then leaves her with no money MJP

Just small point about free breckfast idea.

The few schools who trialled this and some studies show eating breckfast improves concentration throughout the day therefore improving their education and giving poorer kids chance to get a decent education and hopefully allowing next generation to escape poverty.

Mine never miss brekkie even running late they have toast or crumpet in hand on way to school,cereal bar from poundshops or apple.

mostly they have cereal, toast and small pot value fromage frais.
brekkie doesnt have to cost a fortune.

Not allwil take it up as outs starts at 8am-im not a morning person always mad rush with 3 to be there by 9 .

Education should be an equaliser.

if parents are juddging a school by %of kids on free school meals.

if was free for all then they would have that figure they would have to rely on

stas, ofsted and school visit.

A school benefits from wide mix social groups as can help raise aspiration and outcomes of the poorer pupils rather than the affluent kids go leafy suburb primary and the poor ones go on sink school on estate.

until we break down barriers between the socio economic groups how can things change?

C4 did that tv programme think by makers oif secret millionaire called how the other half lives where a very wealthy family supported a poor family with mixed results. Both realised the had false misconceptions of one another.

The parents mostly got on
the kids got on.
the wealhy kids got exposure to real world
The poor fanily realised not all rich people snobs looking down on them and judging them.

Honestly think education is the key.

like jaimies ministry of food.

free cookery and food budget classes.

more debt advice help as cab snowed under

more credit unions

parenting classes.

drop in one stop centres-sure start only goes up to age 5.

more after school/youth clubs

improving schools.

maybe some mentoring and support to families struggling as some maybe need advice , shoulder to cry on or someone to listen.

Some of this will cost money

but surly long term will lead to better uk

less crime
better educated
better able to find paid worth
healthier uk.

Im not judging everyone on benefits as scrounger.
I want to see tax payers money spently wisely and greater need.
We need a safety net would hate to become usa.

Just fail to see how they think take more from the middle who currently dont get any benefits to up the income of the lower paid who are entitled to benefits helps as just means middles even more squeezed and our kids get less despite hubby working all hours to provide for them.

We wanted 3kids, we planned 3kids, we did that on basis we could afford them.

Things are tighter last few years but they dont go without.

Theres that old saying.

give a man a fish he has food for a day
teach a an to fish he has food for life.

how do we make the benefits a true saferty net and leg up to allow parents to independaly provide for their families and their kids to get jobs and break the cycle.

SO how on earth do you clever people go about distinguishing between people who brought a child into the world knowing they would be underfinanced and the people who did not.

What about the families whose income is reduced through the death of one parent? (happened to two families I know) Is it the responsibility of a dead person to finance their family?

What about the ones who had the finances for a healthy child but not for a disabled or chronically ill one? Is it our responsibility to know that our child can never develope an expensive illness or have an accident that leaves them permanently disabled?

What about the ones whose finances were fine until their firm closed? Is it our responsibility to know if there is going to be a recession 10 years after our children are conceived?

What about the ones who were in good health when their children were born and no longer are? Is it our responsibility to know that we will never be in a car crash/develop cancer/lose the use of our limbs?

How can any of us know, the moment we decide to have children, that these things won't happen to us?

and as one poster, Xenia I think, pointed out, often difficulties with living on benefits are compounded by mental health problems

can we, any of us, know for sure that that will never happen to us?

and if it did, would we be happy for our children to starve because we should have foreseen that it might happen and not have had them?

There is no one on the thread against a welfare state so of course we all accept it is there if we fall in hard times. There really is very little difference between the left and right on all these issues. Labour was going to make 20% cuts and the Coalition 25% because the money is not there any more.

The difficulties all Govermnents have is how to ensure the benefits system is not so generous there is not much point in working but ensures chiildren (and adults) can be fed and housed and kept warm for periods when they fall on hard times. As Iain Duncan Smith says the huge majority of those claiming benefits do so for a year or under and then get a job.

I do think people need to be responsible for their actions although the borderline between what is your fault and what not is not that easy to assess. Addicts whether that be of cream buns and chocolate or alcohol or drugs or cigarettes cannot always just stop. However we can ensure that healthy living is cheap and easy and could ensure that all processed foods are very highly taxed to encourage the poor to eat the wholefoods such as carrots and tinned fish that the rich eat and which keep the rich at healthy weights.

the rest of the post is pretty good though.

No, it really isn't judgeypants, it goes on to say that most poverty is in the 20% of households where nobody works. Over 60% of families classed as living in poverty have at least one parent who works.

The last paragraph is pure bizarreness. The author seems to seriously believe that STC have just been waiting around to take pot-shots at the coalition government and sits on its hands during Labour governments, and therefore Eton deserves charitable status and STC should lose it.

Oh and the bit about minimum wage made me lol. The implication was that unskilled labourers have power to sell their labour for more than the minimum wage but that silly minimum wage keeps them stuck at a low income.

I agree MrJudgey. We would all be in a better position if the personal tax allowance was higher, both the working poor and the squeezed middle.

No, there would just be less income from tax and public services would suffer. The minimum wage family would probably lose that couple of hundred they're allowed to keep from their earnings by changes to WTC and CTC so they'd be no better off.

I've not read this whole thread god knows I'm trying I'm on page 8 at the mo.

But this whole thread is fuck all to do with the facts, it's all scrounger basing and get off your arse, i urge you all to read the bloody report.

This is about the working poor, wages are not moving yet everything else is getting more and more expensive, employers are increasing the numbers of zero hour and part time contracts as workers under those contract types have less rights and can be sacked easier.

For years the state has subserdised workers, why the hell should someone work full time and then need HB to help pay the rent its ridiculous, the whole system is heading more and more towards the US model, with the fat cat elite creaming off the hard work and giving nothing but scraps to the workers.

Now the governmrnt is changing all the benefits, without tackling the low pay and high prices of everything this is the obvious result.

I'd also like to point out that in this day and age internet access and pc skills are vital, the job centre endlessly tells people to apply for jobs online, and things are cheaper online if you check all the freebie voucher and deals websites every month, you will be saving more then a basic connection costs.

Mobile phones are a similar thing, there's a massive difference between having .sn iphone on a contract for 30 a month and having a mate's old phone on a pay as you go slim. I have a Samsung tocco, not bought a phone in over 8 years i just get old ones off mates and get thru about 5 to 10 in top ups for it a year.

Blackberries are the cheapest phone on the market thats why all the kids have them