Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Marcus Rashford launches petition to urge immediate Government action on child poverty
Comments
-
its the blame culture we are now in, i cant feed my child so the government can do it, whether we like it or not we have a huge amount of people that are too happy to sit around on benefits and it really fucks me off, as those that are most in need do not get them.6
-
FFS don't let facts get in the way of prejudices.EmsworthAddick said:Child Poverty Action Group
The causes of poverty
· Poverty rarely has a single cause.
· A range of factors including rising living costs, low pay, lack of work, and inadequate social security benefits together mean some people do not have enough resources.
· 72 per cent of children living in poverty have at least one parent in work.
· The long-term deterioration of the terms of employment for workers in the lowest-paid 20 per cent of the UK labour market has been a major cause of enduring poverty in the UK.
· Low-wages, the high cost of childcare and part-time work all conspire to reduce incomes.
· Many low-paid jobs offer no opportunities to progress to better work and better wages.
· Others are insecure, with unpredictable hours and incomes.
· workers.
· Since 2006, there has been a 60 per cent rise in the number of people moving repeatedly between work and unemployment.
· 68 per cent of children in families with no working adults are in poverty.
https://cpag.org.uk/child-poverty/causes-poverty
2 -
But this happens so frequently these days that I am now convinced that TV journalists choose the people they interview carefully and deliberately in order to provoke this very reaction from the viewing public. The example you quote seems a favourite ruse. I find myself saying things to the TV like "so you can't afford to eat properly but clearly you are not reducing your expenditure on piercings, jewellery, hair dye, cigarettes or tattoos". I am sure they are just trying to get a reaction off social media.ValleyGary said:
There was an interview on tv not long ago about all this and they interviewed a kid and parent and some days, she said, she couldn’t feed her kid. This woman was easily 18st. I thought to myself surely they could of avoided that, as all it does is take away from the issue. I think it even went round WhatsApp with people taking the piss.KentishAddick said:At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest
If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen
Like everything else, education is the key. If all kids were told the truth in school: that you can run a Bentley for the cost of bringing up a child, there might be fewer uncared for kids around.4 -
We really don't. The vast majority of people claiming Universal Credit (the main benefit system now) are employed and receiving income. Of those who are not, a large proportion are those who cannot work for health reasons.palarsehater said:its the blame culture we are now in, i cant feed my child so the government can do it, whether we like it or not we have a huge amount of people that are too happy to sit around on benefits and it really fucks me off, as those that are most in need do not get them.
And immigrants (all immigrants) have to prove a right to reside and a genuine prospect of work to be eligible for anything other than the barest minimum to live.16 -
Have you not read The Sun or Daily Mail lately? Once they get to the white cliffs, every immigrant is given housing, £50,000 in cash and a free handbook on how to enrage old men.thenewbie said:
We really don't. The vast majority of people claiming Universal Credit (the main benefit system now) are employed and receiving income. Of those who are not, a large proportion are those who cannot work for health reasons.palarsehater said:its the blame culture we are now in, i cant feed my child so the government can do it, whether we like it or not we have a huge amount of people that are too happy to sit around on benefits and it really fucks me off, as those that are most in need do not get them.
And immigrants (all immigrants) have to prove a right to reside and a genuine prospect of work to be eligible for anything other than the barest minimum to live.15 -
Corporations must be laughing their tits off. They have managed to bring about a situation where they get away with not paying a decent living wage to those below the managerial class because they know that the Government (well, us really) will subsidise their meagre wages through tax credits etc. (thanks, Gordon, great idea). It is not surprising that many people are caught in this poverty trap, especially those with children.
So, us, the taxpayers are indirectly making sure their share prices stay nice and buoyant and their profits big and fat whilst they threaten to move their businesses abroad if we try to get them to do the right thing. As for them paying their fair share of tax....don't get me started!
The joys of globalisation, eh?14 -
^ this. Bringing in working tax credits and the like was a massive fail by the government, it was the start of the slide of wage erosion in this country. Once upon a time the lowest paid jobs were still enough to live on, but then we also had a lot more social housing back then so rents were considerably cheaper (which in essence was topped up by the tax payer which you could argue it still is with housing benefit).bigstemarra said:Corporations must be laughing their tits off. They have managed to bring about a situation where they get away with not paying a decent living wage to those below the managerial class because they know that the Government (well, us really) will subsidise their meagre wages through tax credits etc. (thanks, Gordon, great idea). It is not surprising that many people are caught in this poverty trap, especially those with children.
So, us, the taxpayers are indirectly making sure their share prices stay nice and buoyant and their profits big and fat whilst they threaten to move their businesses abroad if we try to get them to do the right thing. As for them paying their fair share of tax....don't get me started!
The joys of globalisation, eh?
4 -
Fixed it for you.bigstemarra said:Corporations must be laughing their tits off. They have managed to bring about a situation where they get away with not paying a decent living wage to those below the managerial class because they know that the Government (well, us really) will subsidise their meagre wages through tax credits etc. (thanks, Gordon, great idea). It is not surprising that many people are caught in this poverty trap, especially those with children.
So, us, the taxpayers are indirectly making sure their share prices stay nice and buoyant and their profits big and fat whilst they threaten to move their businesses abroad if we try to get them to do the right thing. As for them paying their fair share of tax....don't get me started!
The joys of capitalism, eh?10 -
Poverty quoted in the UK is often relative poverty, which means even if everyone had double (and adequate) income, there will always be a percentage in 'poverty' relative to othersse9addick said:
Is how “poverty” is measured consistent in NZ and UK?Dansk_Red said:One surprising fact is that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the world, and both candidates in the general election have promised to half child poverty by 2030.
Each year, the Government publishes a survey of income poverty in the UK called Households Below Average income (HBAI). ... This is the definition of relative poverty, whereas absolute poverty is where a household's income is less than 60 per cent of the median as it stood in 2011.
Whilst it won't help some children going hungry now, teaching both parents (for the present) and children (for the future) about priorities and budgeting; priotising accommodation, food (and nutrition), basic clothing and heating over other non-essentials would help many cases2 -
ElliotCAFC said:
Have you not read The Sun or Daily Mail lately? Once they get to the white cliffs, every immigrant is given housing, £50,000 in cash and a free handbook on how to enrage old men.thenewbie said:
We really don't. The vast majority of people claiming Universal Credit (the main benefit system now) are employed and receiving income. Of those who are not, a large proportion are those who cannot work for health reasons.palarsehater said:its the blame culture we are now in, i cant feed my child so the government can do it, whether we like it or not we have a huge amount of people that are too happy to sit around on benefits and it really fucks me off, as those that are most in need do not get them.
And immigrants (all immigrants) have to prove a right to reside and a genuine prospect of work to be eligible for anything other than the barest minimum to live.
19 - Sponsored links:
-
People do care, but don't want to just throw money where income is not best used. And want to differentiate between and help the truly genuine casesthenewbie said:Even if we do follow the logic that all parents are capable of providing but some choose not to it seems remarkably callous that anyone would be happy to clean their hands of the matter and let innocent children (the actual victims here) go hungry because of their parents choices/situation.
"That kid's health is really suffering due to neglect. Oh well, not my problem."1 -
I admire what Rashford is doing but think it is always better to look at reducing the cause rather than just the consequences. And think he could be influential regarding education to reduce the consequences5
-
But they're ALL genuine cases. That's the point. No child should be going hungry because their parents can't provide properly, whatever the reason.PrincessFiona said:
People do care, but don't want to just throw money where income is not best used. And want to differentiate between and help the truly genuine casesthenewbie said:Even if we do follow the logic that all parents are capable of providing but some choose not to it seems remarkably callous that anyone would be happy to clean their hands of the matter and let innocent children (the actual victims here) go hungry because of their parents choices/situation.
"That kid's health is really suffering due to neglect. Oh well, not my problem."PrincessFiona said:I admire what Rashford is doing but think it is always better to look at reducing the cause rather than just the consequences. And think he could be influential regarding education to reduce the consequences
Which is an admirable sentiment, truly. But blameless children are going hungry right now. Why should they suffer now so that others don't later? By all means I agree that treating the disease is as important as treating the symptoms. But we can't ignore the symptoms.2 -
They are different reasons and should be addressed differently. You cannot just keep throwing money ar some familiesthenewbie said:
But they're ALL genuine cases. That's the point. No child should be going hungry because their parents can't provide properly, whatever the reason.PrincessFiona said:
People do care, but don't want to just throw money where income is not best used. And want to differentiate between and help the truly genuine casesthenewbie said:Even if we do follow the logic that all parents are capable of providing but some choose not to it seems remarkably callous that anyone would be happy to clean their hands of the matter and let innocent children (the actual victims here) go hungry because of their parents choices/situation.
"That kid's health is really suffering due to neglect. Oh well, not my problem."PrincessFiona said:I admire what Rashford is doing but think it is always better to look at reducing the cause rather than just the consequences. And think he could be influential regarding education to reduce the consequences
Which is an admirable sentiment, truly. But blameless children are going hungry right now. Why should they suffer now so that others don't later? By all means I agree that treating the disease is as important as treating the symptoms. But we can't ignore the symptoms.3 -
That should not be on the part of a footballer though, 100% agree but the issue is the system.PrincessFiona said:I admire what Rashford is doing but think it is always better to look at reducing the cause rather than just the consequences. And think he could be influential regarding education to reduce the consequences0 -
True, but to educate people and change mind sets you need role models that people look up to and will listen to. He cares and want to make a difference. As I mentioned before, always good to deal with the causes to prevent the consequences rather than just look to deal with the consequences long-termjacob_CAFC said:
That should not be on the part of a footballer though, 100% agree but the issue is the system.PrincessFiona said:I admire what Rashford is doing but think it is always better to look at reducing the cause rather than just the consequences. And think he could be influential regarding education to reduce the consequences1 -
PrincessFiona said:
They are different reasons and should be addressed differently. You cannot just keep throwing money ar some familiesthenewbie said:
But they're ALL genuine cases. That's the point. No child should be going hungry because their parents can't provide properly, whatever the reason.PrincessFiona said:
People do care, but don't want to just throw money where income is not best used. And want to differentiate between and help the truly genuine casesthenewbie said:Even if we do follow the logic that all parents are capable of providing but some choose not to it seems remarkably callous that anyone would be happy to clean their hands of the matter and let innocent children (the actual victims here) go hungry because of their parents choices/situation.
"That kid's health is really suffering due to neglect. Oh well, not my problem."PrincessFiona said:I admire what Rashford is doing but think it is always better to look at reducing the cause rather than just the consequences. And think he could be influential regarding education to reduce the consequences
Which is an admirable sentiment, truly. But blameless children are going hungry right now. Why should they suffer now so that others don't later? By all means I agree that treating the disease is as important as treating the symptoms. But we can't ignore the symptoms.
So because someone is a neglectful parent, it's fair to make their child go hungry? Not sure I agree with you I have to say.
Just throwing money at it won't help. I agree with that much. But neither will dismissing children who have done nothing wrong. The system needs to be tested, and it needs to be thorough and it needs to be fair. But above all it needs to exist.1 -
But it isn't just food (and nutrition) that the children are lacking. It is so much more, so the system needs to be reformed to protect them including reducing the causesthenewbie said:PrincessFiona said:
They are different reasons and should be addressed differently. You cannot just keep throwing money ar some familiesthenewbie said:
But they're ALL genuine cases. That's the point. No child should be going hungry because their parents can't provide properly, whatever the reason.PrincessFiona said:
People do care, but don't want to just throw money where income is not best used. And want to differentiate between and help the truly genuine casesthenewbie said:Even if we do follow the logic that all parents are capable of providing but some choose not to it seems remarkably callous that anyone would be happy to clean their hands of the matter and let innocent children (the actual victims here) go hungry because of their parents choices/situation.
"That kid's health is really suffering due to neglect. Oh well, not my problem."PrincessFiona said:I admire what Rashford is doing but think it is always better to look at reducing the cause rather than just the consequences. And think he could be influential regarding education to reduce the consequences
Which is an admirable sentiment, truly. But blameless children are going hungry right now. Why should they suffer now so that others don't later? By all means I agree that treating the disease is as important as treating the symptoms. But we can't ignore the symptoms.
So because someone is a neglectful parent, it's fair to make their child go hungry? Not sure I agree with you I have to say.
Just throwing money at it won't help. I agree with that much. But neither will dismissing children who have done nothing wrong. The system needs to be tested, and it needs to be thorough and it needs to be fair. But above all it needs to exist.1 -
My wife’s a social worker of 15 years and I was going to say exactly the same, plenty out there like that.SantaClaus said:
My wife's worked in education (mainstream and PRU's) for 15 years. Based on what she tells me I'd say a significant minority of parents do behave like that and just because the Mail gets a kick out of highlighting the extreme cases doesn't mean it isn't true.jacob_CAFC said:JaShea99 said:
Yes it is the parents’ job, but too often they don’t do it properly or at all. Even if they do have the money, some would rather spend it on phones and clothes than feeding their children.KentishAddick said:At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest
If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen
Comment straight from the Daily Mail3 -
Right. But it doesn't have to be only one or the other. We can have this scheme while also at the same time working to reform the system. It's not binary.PrincessFiona said:
But it isn't just food (and nutrition) that the children are lacking. It is so much more, so the system needs to be reformed to protect them including reducing the causesthenewbie said:PrincessFiona said:
They are different reasons and should be addressed differently. You cannot just keep throwing money ar some familiesthenewbie said:
But they're ALL genuine cases. That's the point. No child should be going hungry because their parents can't provide properly, whatever the reason.PrincessFiona said:
People do care, but don't want to just throw money where income is not best used. And want to differentiate between and help the truly genuine casesthenewbie said:Even if we do follow the logic that all parents are capable of providing but some choose not to it seems remarkably callous that anyone would be happy to clean their hands of the matter and let innocent children (the actual victims here) go hungry because of their parents choices/situation.
"That kid's health is really suffering due to neglect. Oh well, not my problem."PrincessFiona said:I admire what Rashford is doing but think it is always better to look at reducing the cause rather than just the consequences. And think he could be influential regarding education to reduce the consequences
Which is an admirable sentiment, truly. But blameless children are going hungry right now. Why should they suffer now so that others don't later? By all means I agree that treating the disease is as important as treating the symptoms. But we can't ignore the symptoms.
So because someone is a neglectful parent, it's fair to make their child go hungry? Not sure I agree with you I have to say.
Just throwing money at it won't help. I agree with that much. But neither will dismissing children who have done nothing wrong. The system needs to be tested, and it needs to be thorough and it needs to be fair. But above all it needs to exist.
6 - Sponsored links:
-
Of course, but they need to work in tandemthenewbie said:
Right. But it doesn't have to be only one or the other. We can have this scheme while also at the same time working to reform the system. It's not binary.PrincessFiona said:
But it isn't just food (and nutrition) that the children are lacking. It is so much more, so the system needs to be reformed to protect them including reducing the causesthenewbie said:PrincessFiona said:
They are different reasons and should be addressed differently. You cannot just keep throwing money ar some familiesthenewbie said:
But they're ALL genuine cases. That's the point. No child should be going hungry because their parents can't provide properly, whatever the reason.PrincessFiona said:
People do care, but don't want to just throw money where income is not best used. And want to differentiate between and help the truly genuine casesthenewbie said:Even if we do follow the logic that all parents are capable of providing but some choose not to it seems remarkably callous that anyone would be happy to clean their hands of the matter and let innocent children (the actual victims here) go hungry because of their parents choices/situation.
"That kid's health is really suffering due to neglect. Oh well, not my problem."PrincessFiona said:I admire what Rashford is doing but think it is always better to look at reducing the cause rather than just the consequences. And think he could be influential regarding education to reduce the consequences
Which is an admirable sentiment, truly. But blameless children are going hungry right now. Why should they suffer now so that others don't later? By all means I agree that treating the disease is as important as treating the symptoms. But we can't ignore the symptoms.
So because someone is a neglectful parent, it's fair to make their child go hungry? Not sure I agree with you I have to say.
Just throwing money at it won't help. I agree with that much. But neither will dismissing children who have done nothing wrong. The system needs to be tested, and it needs to be thorough and it needs to be fair. But above all it needs to exist.0 -
As of this morning Sat 17 Oct we’re up to over 243,000 signatures. Twice as many needed for a parliamentary debate. Thanks to all on this site who’ve taken the trouble to sign and who got involved in the interesting debate. Let’s see what our MPs have to say.1
-
This. Never read DM in my life. It’s called experience.SantaClaus said:
My wife's worked in education (mainstream and PRU's) for 15 years. Based on what she tells me I'd say a significant minority of parents do behave like that and just because the Mail gets a kick out of highlighting the extreme cases doesn't mean it isn't true.jacob_CAFC said:JaShea99 said:
Yes it is the parents’ job, but too often they don’t do it properly or at all. Even if they do have the money, some would rather spend it on phones and clothes than feeding their children.KentishAddick said:At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest
If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen
Comment straight from the Daily Mail3 -
I do think that a society where the norm is 'accumulate as much as you can for yourself, by whatever means necessary' at the highest, systemic level doesn't help to foster an environment of responsibility, community and care. Both on the part of parents who *may* not be taking responsibility and of people who would make generalisations about people on universal credit somehow not deserving help. The culture of society, like any institution, starts at the top and that's where the long term change needs to happen. In the meantime thank goodness for the Marcus Rashfords, both the famous and the unseen.4
-
Who is saying anyone doesn't deserve help? That is often levied at people who believe in a different approach. We had school dinners when we went to school so maybe that is the best way of ensuring every child gets a substantial meal 5 days a week, without differentiating.Addickhead86 said:I do think that a society where the norm is 'accumulate as much as you can for yourself, by whatever means necessary' at the highest, systemic level doesn't help to foster an environment of responsibility, community and care. Both on the part of parents who *may* not be taking responsibility and of people who would make generalisations about people on universal credit somehow not deserving help. The culture of society, like any institution, starts at the top and that's where the long term change needs to happen. In the meantime thank goodness for the Marcus Rashfords, both the famous and the unseen.
But the reasons why income is not best prioritised for the benefit of many children still need to be addressed.
I don't believe the norm is 'accumulate as much as you can by whatever means necessary'. Isn't it 'make the best you can with what you have' and if you want something more you have to strive/aspire to do the best you can for your family4 -
For anyone interested especially those who may have signed Marcus Rashford’s petition (306500 signatures and rising) the debate in Parliament will be held today at 4pm. The debate can be accessed by following this link:-
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9953142c-b63e-4140-9912-db2bf9f0597e
0 -
Tough one this. I have had to work in houses where there are families in "poverty", adults are on the dole but have sky TV, playstation, smoke and wear £100 trainers.
I have also seen the other side of poverty where its genuine and the families have nothing at all.
For anyone saying either comment isn't true or rife then they need to wake up.
Either way we, as a society need to help these kids for the sake of future generations
10 -
A quote from the actor Jeff Bridges who has recent announced he is being treated for Lymphoma
“Poverty is a very complicated issue, but feeding a child isn’t.”14 -
The government has voted down – by a majority of 61 – a motion put forward by the Labour Party calling on the Conservatives to extend free school meals over the holidays up to and including the Easter break next year.
Following an opposition day debate in the Commons yesterday evening, the government declined to support the proposal that would have seen the same level of support afforded to families as was provided over the summer break.
Closing the discussion, Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey claimed that the government was trying to “make sure we continue to put the vulnerable first” but also said that “work is the best way out of poverty”.
1 -
Agree with thiscafc999 said:Tough one this. I have had to work in houses where there are families in "poverty", adults are on the dole but have sky TV, playstation, smoke and wear £100 trainers.
I have also seen the other side of poverty where its genuine and the families have nothing at all.
For anyone saying either comment isn't true or rife then they need to wake up.
Either way we, as a society need to help these kids for the sake of future generations0
