Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Children in need

Does David Cameron even watch this?
3.6 million children living in poverty in the UK is a bloody shocking figure.
Him.His cronies. And any other past government that created this situation should be ashamed of themselves.
«13

Comments

  • Does David Cameron even watch this?
    3.6 million children living in poverty in the UK is a bloody shocking figure.
    Him.His cronies. And any other past government that created this situation should be ashamed of themselves.

    Well said Carly! One of the reasons I don't live in the UK anymore.
  • Yeah all well and good but blaming the government is the easy option. What about blaming the people that put them in position. I.e the parents.
  • ?
    Most if them still live with their parents.
  • edited November 2012

    ?
    Most if them still live with their parents.

    What's Cameron supposed to do about that? Give more hand outs to scroungers? Takeaway child benefits from honest people just because they have a job and earn a modest income and give that money to the ponces. The buck has to stop somewhere and it can't always be with the government. Parents have a responsibility and if there are that many children in poverty, the parents must take their share of the blame.

  • ?
    Most if them still live with their parents.

    What's Cameron supposed to do about that? Give more hand outs to scroungers? Takeaway child benefits from honest people just because they have a job and earn a modest income and give that money to the ponces. The buck has to stop somewhere and it can't always be with the government. Parents have a responsibility and if there are that many children in poverty, the parents must take their share of the blame.

    I take it you've never been unemployed?
  • Well, if your definition of poverty is a percentile of the national wage, then even if everyone earner one million pounds per week, we would still have poverty. The actual numbers are always exaggerated by those with a political axe to grind. Those who have created the 'something for nothing' culture and contributed to the poverty of aspiration are most responsible, in my opinion.

    Compared to third world countries, we don't have poverty in this country. We do have people who spend what (admittedly modest amount of) money they are given very unwisely - we have free education, free healthcare and we give money to people who aren't prepared to do f**k all in return. It's a model which is fast becoming unsustainable as we have created a situation which encourages non-productivity. That is national suicide and the chickens have come home to roost. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I have sympathy for those who do their best to help themselves and they need a hand up. However, for others it has become a handout and it was never supposed to be like that. That's why we are now effectively bankrupt.

    However, unless we do something about energy prices soon, then that really will push a lot of people over the edge as fuel poverty is fast becoming a reality. With winter coming, that is a disturbing thing. However, there are no politicians of any colour with the balls to do anything about it. If we could also get p*ss taking corporations (who have been given free reign to rip us off for years) to cough up a decent amount of tax, or get the f**k out of our country, that would probably help as well. Put the money into education (and other infastructure investment) and give people the chance to better themselves and then we just might get out of this mess.

    *dons tin hat*
  • ?
    Most if them still live with their parents.

    What's Cameron supposed to do about that? Give more hand outs to scroungers? Takeaway child benefits from honest people just because they have a job and earn a modest income and give that money to the ponces. The buck has to stop somewhere and it can't always be with the government. Parents have a responsibility and if there are that many children in poverty, the parents must take their share of the blame.

    sorry but that is quite possibly one of the most ridiculous things i have ever read in my life. it must have slipped my mind that people choose to live in poverty, silly me!
  • edited November 2012
    .
  • Bankers on £4m. bonuses, footballers on £ 100,000 + per week. People living in poverty. Something has gone bloody wrong somewhere.
  • Don't really care either way. But asking for hand outs on tv from people that are probably also close to poverty themselves really grates with me.
    The bonuses of 5% of the bankers that we bailed out because they were so cretinously bad at their jobs would probably wipe it out in one go.
  • Sponsored links:


  • The number will only increase unless people other than the government take some sort of responsibility for it. Granted, we have been screwed by the previous government and the banks but just maybe we should take some responsibility. Nathan has been slated on the work thread so how would people feel if he started a family. Surely being on the dole and starting a family would inevitably put the child in poverty. I'm sure that scenario is replicated around the country.
  • edited November 2012
    Nothing from me here.

    Just clicked 'Post Comment' instead of 'Home'.

    Obviously time for my Horlicks!
  • The number will only increase unless people other than the government take some sort of responsibility for it. Granted, we have been screwed by the previous government and the banks but just maybe we should take some responsibility. Nathan has been slated on the work thread so how would people feel if he started a family. Surely being on the dole and starting a family would inevitably put the child in poverty. I'm sure that scenario is replicated around the country.

    That's right. It was the last government's fault. Definitely not the one before or this one.
  • Obviously it's not fair for the part of that 3.6 million where the parents are decent people and in poverty through no fault of their own. But a large proportion of it is made up of, for want of a better term, pikey families who are ruining children's lives by choosing (or not) to procreate into families where there is no salary coming in, no intention of finding paid work, and 'part time parents' with very low morals and values. I'm no fan of the prime minister but aside from castrating our Jeremy Kyle generation, there's nothing he can do, the cycle just continues.
  • JaShea99 said:

    Obviously it's not fair for the part of that 3.6 million where the parents are decent people and in poverty through no fault of their own. But a large proportion of it is made up of, for want of a better term, pikey families who are ruining children's lives by choosing (or not) to procreate into families where there is no salary coming in, no intention of finding paid work, and 'part time parents' with very low morals and values. I'm no fan of the prime minister but aside from castrating our Jeremy Kyle generation, there's nothing he can do, the cycle just continues.


    Yep, well put

    Can't blame politicians for this, maybe they are a factor in allowing a blind eye to be turned regarding tax evasion but they are not the ones who see and live among the fallout of the gimme culture

    Poor kids, that's all
  • If a jobless family have a child then they shouldn't be able to reproduce again until they are earning over a certain amount of money.

    If you can't provide then you shouldn't be able to reproduce.

  • Any idiot can have a child unfortunately. Some don't even think of the consequences of bringing a child into this world when they've not got a pot to piss in. Heartbreaking.

    I've not watched children in need so don't have an opinion on that. But do have the opinion that too many fools dont think correctly when depositing their stuff. Depresses me greatly, it's supposed to be the greatest gift.
  • edited November 2012
    What a depressing view. Most people have children because of love not benefits.
  • edited November 2012

    If a jobless family have a child then they shouldn't be able to reproduce again until they are earning over a certain amount of money.

    If you can't provide then you shouldn't be able to reproduce.

    What an offensive comment.
    Reading your constant negative posts I suspect nobody would ever want a child with you anyway.
  • Not gonna bite to that you sad old man
  • Sponsored links:


  • No, who would want to reproduce with someone who sees the world as it is and has an ounce of common

    Beds, whilst I do not doubt for one second the majority of the population have children with love in mind, an awful lot do it either carelessly or cynically and these are the ones that cause the problem and I think you know that too
  • edited November 2012
    Carter you put it better than me. My post wasn't worded in the nicest way but it's aimed towards the careless and cynical people you mention
  • If a jobless family have a child then they shouldn't be able to reproduce again until they are earning over a certain amount of money.

    If you can't provide then you shouldn't be able to reproduce.

    What an offensive comment.
    Reading your constant negative posts I suspect nobody would ever want a child with you anyway.
    The only people who should be offended by that are people who DO have children they know they can't afford. I honestly can't imagine anything more selfish than creating life and then worrying later because you have to choose between nappies and rent.
  • some disgusting comments on here.

    The people on benefits are not the poorest in society, the poorest are the ones that work for a living but don't earn enough to pay for everything their family needs, but, earns just by a whisker too much to get sufficient help.

    When we first moved to sittingbourne, my husband was working in london, he worked 48hours a week at £10 an hour (before tax) we have 4 children. His wages were too high (only just by a couple of hundred a year) to get working tax credit and we had reductions to our child tax credits, no housing benefit or other help. With the rising cost in fuel he was paying about £80 per week just to get to and from work, neither of us smoke, we don't go out, only once a year on our anniversary, dont really drink but yet we struggled to even send our kids to school with a decent packed lunch. He then quit his job in London and got a minimum wage job in a local petrol garage, we are now much better off and he is working less hours and at a lower wage, doesn't do much for his self esteem though.
  • edited November 2012
    JaShea99 said:

    If a jobless family have a child then they shouldn't be able to reproduce again until they are earning over a certain amount of money.

    If you can't provide then you shouldn't be able to reproduce.

    What an offensive comment.
    Reading your constant negative posts I suspect nobody would ever want a child with you anyway.
    The only people who should be offended by that are people who DO have children they know they can't afford. I honestly can't imagine anything more selfish than creating life and then worrying later because you have to choose between nappies and rent.

    Complete bollox.Take a look at the unemployment figures in this country. Look at the jobs that have been lost.factories that have been shut in ONE industry towns. Should they have refrained from having kids just in case their source of income is suddenly cut short.
  • How can you give that child a life or look after it if you do not have the means though?
  • edited November 2012
    I don't understand at any point why people that are struggling and already have kids, feel the need to increase the size of their family knowing full well that child will suffer because they are unable to fully support them?
    You can give them all the love in world but that's not going to feed them or puts clothes on their back. It sounds harsh but it's true.
    People that already have dependants that they cannot fully support independently should not be able to have more children until they can afford too.
  • sralan said:

    Bankers on £4m. bonuses, footballers on £ 100,000 + per week. People living in poverty. Something has gone bloody wrong somewhere.

    That's called private enterprise. If employers want to pay people £100,000, they can and will

  • .

    When we first moved to sittingbourne, my husband was working in london, he worked 48hours a week at £10 an hour (before tax) we have 4 children. His wages were too high (only just by a couple of hundred a year) to get working tax credit and we had reductions to our child tax credits, no housing benefit or other help. With the rising cost in fuel he was paying about £80 per week just to get to and from work, neither of us smoke, we don't go out, only once a year on our anniversary, dont really drink but yet we struggled to even send our kids to school with a decent packed lunch. He then quit his job in London and got a minimum wage job in a local petrol garage, we are now much better off and he is working less hours and at a lower wage, doesn't do much for his self esteem though.

    Sounds to me like he's done the right thing for his family so should have no self esteem issues - those who judge 'achievement' by the job you do (or the car you drive etc. etc.) are shallow in the extreme as they fail to recognise different values.

  • sralan said:

    Bankers on £4m. bonuses, footballers on £ 100,000 + per week. People living in poverty. Something has gone bloody wrong somewhere.

    That's called private enterprise. If employers want to pay people £100,000, they can and will

    That certainly is what it's called, but that doesn't make it right.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!