It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain's child poverty disgrace

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
Well this is what we get for paying for a despicable underclass to raise their useless, bastard children to become chavs. They are not in poverty at all, they live quite well indeed (I have had extensive contact with that kind of culture, and I despise it) and trust me, they have plenty of money, they just don't work for it.

I imagine we're working up to another world war or something and need to shore up the numbers...


How do you explain this scenario then.

Your working hard in a full time job with a kid.

You lose your job, unfortunately you cannot find another one due to the economy being the way it is, your bank account goes over your overdraft limit, your account is closed and forwarded to a debt recovery department, your home is repo'd, your out on the street with no proof of address, no bank account, you cannot get a bank account or post office account due to credit checks and no deposit to open the account.

How do you get benefits?

How do you get a home?

How do you feed your kid or yourself without raking bins?

Think the system works? Ask a homeless person on the street what happened and if its a genuinely homeless person they will tell you a similar story to this. Once the systems abandoned you, your out for good unless you have a helping hand back in.

Its a very, very slippery slope. Britain's child poverty disgrace? Damn right its a disgrace!

There are always people who abuse any system but be careful not to confuse that with everyone.



[edit on 26-6-2009 by XXXN3O]




posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by XXXN3O

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
Well this is what we get for paying for a despicable underclass to raise their useless, bastard children to become chavs. They are not in poverty at all, they live quite well indeed (I have had extensive contact with that kind of culture, and I despise it) and trust me, they have plenty of money, they just don't work for it.

I imagine we're working up to another world war or something and need to shore up the numbers...


How do you explain this scenario then.

Your working hard in a full time job with a kid.

You lose your job, unfortunately you cannot find another one due to the economy being the way it is, your bank account goes over your overdraft limit, your account is closed and forwarded to a debt recovery department, your home is repo'd, your out on the street with no proof of address, no bank account, you cannot get a bank account or post office account due to credit checks and no deposit to open the account.

How do you get benefits?

How do you get a home?

How do you feed your kid or yourself without raking bins?

Think the system works? Ask a homeless person on the street what happened and if its a genuinely homeless person they will tell you a similar story to this. Once the systems abandoned you, your out for good unless you have a helping hand back in.

Its a very, very slippery slope. Britain's child poverty disgrace? Damn right its a disgrace!

There are always people who abuse any system but be careful not to confuse that with everyone.



[edit on 26-6-2009 by XXXN3O]


Exactly, and when more and more friends and family lose their jobs in the financial crisis many more will need benefits and could well do without the stigma associated with claiming them.

Why in this country do we get off on blaming poor people for all societies ills.
Last time I checked it was the MP's who have been defrauding the taxpayer and Bankers ruining the economey..



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
oh right, so this comment meant what, exactly?

Well this is what we get for paying for a despicable underclass to raise their useless, bastard children to become chavs.

you meant that kindly did you?
as i said, weather or not you class me as a chav, i'm certainly from that "despicable underclass" and still know plenty of people in it. more each day at this stage.


No, you are certainly NOT from that despicable underclass, and here is why:



i have morals but that's a different matter




i should have been in school, but i read a lot. i have a job, for the moment, who knows about next week


However, you still aren't getting it. You evidently don't actually know any chavs. You know poor people, which is different.


yeah right. take off the rose tinted glasses. "when i was a lad we knew how t'beehave". come off it.


Er, then why is the recent spate of teenagers stabbing teenagers so shocking? This is new behaviour. Oh sure, there were plenty of fights, etc, but it was fairly low-level stuff in comparison to what goes on now.


if they're a product of anything, it is the breakdown in community which occurred because of slum clearances and the decline of heavy industry manufacturing in the 60's and 70's.


The breakdown of community yes, but not because of the decline of manufacturing. It is only in recent years that this horrible counter-culture has emerged, since Labour have been in power, incidentally. There was no word for chav when I was a teenager (pre-1997), for example.

You can claim to do chavvy stuff if you like, but until you are hanging out on street corners intimidating old ladies and trying to start fights with all and sundry, then you aren't doing chavvy stuff. And if you are doing that, you lack the morals you claim to have.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by XXXN3O
 


I'm not suggesting people aren't supported, I'm suggesting they are employed. But again, your example is not what I was referring to. If an honest, hard-working man is put out of work and things spiral beyond his control, of course he should be helped because he just wants to get back into work and get his life back on track. Chavs just do not want this, at all.

If he's still on benefits three years later and has produced two more children, there's something a bit fishy about his whole story, don't you agree?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
reply to post by XXXN3O
 


I'm not suggesting people aren't supported, I'm suggesting they are employed. But again, your example is not what I was referring to. If an honest, hard-working man is put out of work and things spiral beyond his control, of course he should be helped because he just wants to get back into work and get his life back on track. Chavs just do not want this, at all.

If he's still on benefits three years later and has produced two more children, there's something a bit fishy about his whole story, don't you agree?


Yeah, I dont think people should be recieving benefits to the part that they only have to sit on their butts to get by while others are suffering in poverty etc.

I know what your talking about, where I come from they are labelled neds but I think that ties into education, environment, opportunities etc.

I remember when I was younger and im not exactly "old" (whatever age that is these days
)

The education I recieved left me standing with good grades outside my school but with an attitude that life is easy and within a few years I would retire, I mean WTF was I thinking???
The teachers encouraged debt but never explained consequences, maths was about calculating loan payments etc in a lot of lessons, encouraged ambition without explaining anything called greed and the education you get in this country is so vague that it would be much easier to just say, F this im getting pissed cause I dont have a clue.

Many of the teachers do not have any focus on the job and that does come across when you are shaping young people. Its not a job in my eyes its a responsibility as well.

See my point. Yeah chavs are a pain in the butt but what chance do you have when the systems in place fail you completely and your family does too??



[edit on 26-6-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
Er, then why is the recent spate of teenagers stabbing teenagers so shocking? This is new behaviour. Oh sure, there were plenty of fights, etc, but it was fairly low-level stuff in comparison to what goes on now.


the reason it's so shocking is because of hysterical tabloid newspapers. in the 60's there were gang fights between mods and rockers, in the 70's it was punks and skinheads kicking each other senseless, in the 80's there was football holigans. in the 90's, fair enough, there was a lot of E making everybody all lovely and sweet, but it seems meerly to have been an interlude.


There was no word for chav when I was a teenager (pre-1997), for example.
yes there was, a scumbag. a chav is a designation of a working class scumbag. for instance, harry enfeild, developed wayne and waynetta pre '97. obviously for them to be funny, the chav archetype was already established at that stage.


until you are hanging out on street corners intimidating old ladies and trying to start fights with all and sundry, then you aren't doing chavvy stuff.


teenagers always did this.

my primary school headmaster used to rant "when i was a young man, i knew boys who had given up school to stand about on corners smoking and spitting in the street and none of them ever ammounted to anything, is that what we wanted to do with our lives?"


he retired 20 years ago so that takes us back to the 20's or 30's, i bet i could find reports of it earlier too.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Lets forget about chavs for a minute, as this thread was around child poverty.

Many threads have mentioned people not working for lengths of time, and cutting benefits etc if they won't work.

4 years ago we ran a 2 year programme aimed at young people with no qualifications and unemployed..... giving them support into training - hand holding and also opportunites for work experience so they would be more employable. We worked with 1 group of 10 for the first year and 1 group of 10 the second year. They received minimum wage for the year they were on the programme...... all these young people lived on council estates in social housing.

So what happened:

The majority had appalling basic skills, we had to really work hard with them before they were even at a level to take the minimum qualifications. This frustrated them and was demoralising.

Many of them had never left the estate they lived on, never been on holiday or even into town shopping. The estate is huge and is almost a town in itself. When we got them placements and training off the estate they were scared of going and often didn't turn up - losing their placements.

Others lived with parents who had never worked, there was no work ethic and our worker often had to go round to their homes in morning to actually get them up to attend their placements... their parents would still be in bed.

4 had become pregnant and 1 had had an abortion, 4 went onto higher education and did eventually drop out because they couldn't be given the level of support they needed in the college environment. 2 went into employment. The successes came later and not at the time, we are still in touch with a few of them and they come to us now for guidance informerly.

These young people - male and female - had the best possible support they could get, they were vunerable, wanted to seize the opportunity given to them... but it was still very hard.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:28 AM
link   

For starters, having anyone on jobseekers for more than 6 months should make them immediately liable for service to the community in return for continued handouts.


You forget the mature adult people on Jobseekers have had a rough education - There are people in this country who can barely read and write (It is amazing what we take for granted) Perhaps that would stop them from getting a job? I wouldnt employ someone who could read and write, why should i? I could easily find someone who could and pay them the same wage.


They should be made to do 16 hours a week voluntary work in return for Jobseekers allowance. This would have many benefits, not least the effect of boosting community cohesion, a sense of pride and worth in the individual and get some much needed jobs done around the country. It also looks good on the CV, making them immediately more employable.


You want people to use there time doing "community Service" and looking for a proper job at the same time? I agree, 16 hours is 2 working days (8hr shifts) But again, what if the person cannot find a job due to being unable to read or write? Are they going to spend the rest of there lives cleaning streets? Other people have Addiction problems, alcohol abuse and drugs and such - Those people need help not a hard days work.


Young mothers should not be given social housing or child benefit. These two things are a major factor in why kids are having kids. It means a lifetime of dossing around at the expense of someone else. I know this, because I know people who think like this, including some relatives. You should not get housing or child benefit unless you are over 18 (or even 21). This would make the kids and babies the parents responsibility and will serve as a wake up call to any others who have this bright idea that life isn't quite so easy.


Why dont we take it one step further and take there babies away from them? Yeah, put em in the social services system and they'll be A-O-K!
No wait, we did that didnt we? And all it caused was pain for both parties. Call me liberal i dont care, i dont think you can denie someone social housing due to a change in circumstances. Get with it - Some people want to have kids young and the Government doesnt provide enough support for even COUPLES with kids to have a stay at home parent. I'm well aware that its more finanically better to be on the dole and have a child but you cannot solve this by taking away a small lifeline source of income. By doing so your just creating more poverty. Rules need to be applied indeed, but just taking it all away solves nothing.


I see no reason why I should go to work for 48 hours a week, pay £700 in income tax, £1000/month in rent and £150 in council tax, so that people round the corner can stay at home all day, do nothing, get their rent and C/tax paid for, plus free money and have a better life than I do.


I cant even get a 48hr a week job. I consider you lucky. I'm getting in a whole 15hrs a week and i'm 20 #ing years old. I've been searching for a new job for 3 months and its hard. There isnt much there. 16 hrs here, 20 there with over 50 applicants? At this point i am going to have to work two jobs. Which is going to cost me in tax and travel. This country sucks.
I would sit on the frigging dole if i knew it was as amazing as some people make out. Thankfully i know its a pile of #e, filled with tight-fisted conservative, biased, detached wankers who dont have a flipping clue what people have to do to live.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
There are ways to get round this benefit culture, but many would take some political will and backbone, which we all know none of them have.


there is a skill set required in normal life that is counter to the skill set required to live on a rough estate.

an easily understood example is this, if you are on a rough estate and somebody speaks down to you, unless you know he is tougher/stronger/physically more intimidating than you and allor most of your peers, you have to smack him in the mouth. otherwise you become a target.

if you go and get a job and your boss, who you know is a weak and flabby sap, speaks down to you, you are now expected to bite your tongue. this is counter to everything that has been ingrained in you since childhood.

the basic social skills required to progress through life are totally different at different social stratas of our society. the skill set in the working class is the same as it has always been, strength and toughness are the measure of a man, but the society in which it functioned properly has gone. it's become problematic but the culture itself is the problem, not the individual.

i understand your viewpoint but a carrot and stick approach will always fail because it doesn't take into account the complexity of the social conditioning involved in the situation.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
I've just spent two weeks in Egypt where I saw for the first time in my life, real poverty. Child poverty here is the life of royalty compared to children living in hovels and eating tourists scraps.

About five years ago I found myself unemployed, in a country of which I was a citizen but had not been in since I was a toddler, expected to speak a language I did not really know. It's a long story of how I got there but there I was, broke, alone, and pretty damn desperate. I had no choice but to go to the state for help. I got a weekly amount of money, very generous compared to UK and US standards. I got a personal advisor - truely a personal advisor, someone who took a keen interest in seeing me come off of benefits and be a productive citizen. I was enrolled in language courses, business courses, computer courses - my everyday was filled with activities to help me become employable. Most importantly, I was treated with respect and never once felt ashamed or embarrassed. I was empowered to make my life better. It took 9 months of intensive personal attention and I am sure many thousands of franks to get me back on track. But back on track I did get, getting a very well paid job, my own flat and my self respect back.

Benefits should be temporary, a hand in getting you back on track and not a way of life. In Switzerland, that is what they are - a way back to work. If I had children I would have gotten assistance with childcare, child ebnefit, whatever it took to make sure I could provide. I know the Swiss spend a lot of money on social benefits - their take on it is that people on benefits don't pay taxes, so it is imperative to get them back in the workforce -slackers are just not tolerated.

The UK needs to do a radical overhaul of the benefits system - child "poverty" can only be tackled when their parents are integrated back into the world of work.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Do you think drug dealers exist in a vacuum? Do you think there is some kind of drug dealer council estates, where all the "good" poor people are spirited away to whatever fantasy land you live in?


My council estate is actually kind of nice. (May be just my little world within it that is nice, never really considered it that hard.) It might have a drug dealer living in it, I don't know, but those of my neighbours that I do know are good, honest people who don't even come close to resembling what you describe.

I think it is a matter of perspective. It stands to reason that if you go to a council estate to get drugs you will see something which is not entirely pleasant.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not defending those who would rather sit around than work, far from it. I think a firmer approach would be good rather than these farcical initiatives they keep introducing that are just the same thing with different names and amount to nothing more than statistical calculations to show how hard they are 'helping' people while really it's all comfy chairs and free coffee.

For example: I recently attended a group interview for a skills based course that leads to employment, a follow on for the foundation I have already taken. At the end of this interview, twenty-five people (most much younger than I) were referred for the second, private interviews on the basis that they met the two criteria that the organisers were looking for, namely motivation and reliability.

This might not seem strange, but the actual fact of the matter is that only myself and five other people where there on time for the start. Others wandered in 20 minutes late, half an hour, 45 minutes, one man actually arrived only a few minutes before the end, yet all were put forward as reliable. I was left feeling a little put out, since they have obviously changed the meaning of the word reliable but I failed to get the memo.

If this is the kind of message that is being put out, it is no wonder they're not getting work because in the real world you can't just show up 45 minutes late for an interview and expect to have any realistic chance of being considered.

Yes, support and help to get work and training should be made more available, I totally agree, but how many people will actually succeed in pulling themselves (and their children) out of that destructive cycle if they aren't told from the very beginning that they actually have to put some effort into it?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
i don't think it's as simple as just "work". some poor people will spend 80% of their money on clothes, drink, drugs, fags and phones and then complain because food is so expensive that they can't afford to buy fresh fruit and veg.


poverty in the UK isn't an issue of money or work, the money and work is there.

[edit on 26/6/09 by pieman]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
i don't think it's as simple as just "work". some poor people will spend 80% of their money on clothes, drink, drugs, fags and phones and then complain because food is so expensive that they can't afford to buy fresh fruit and veg.


poverty in the UK isn't an issue of money or work, the money and work is there.

[edit on 26/6/09 by pieman]


But surely thats the point. The work isn't there. In a capitalist society, you are always going to have unemployed people. Its about supply and demand. A way to maintain lower wages in the working class. If all these people were able to get jobs, there would be more competition for the positions, someone is always going to lose out.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

Originally posted by stumason
There are ways to get round this benefit culture, but many would take some political will and backbone, which we all know none of them have.


there is a skill set required in normal life that is counter to the skill set required to live on a rough estate.

an easily understood example is this, if you are on a rough estate and somebody speaks down to you, unless you know he is tougher/stronger/physically more intimidating than you and allor most of your peers, you have to smack him in the mouth. otherwise you become a target.

if you go and get a job and your boss, who you know is a weak and flabby sap, speaks down to you, you are now expected to bite your tongue. this is counter to everything that has been ingrained in you since childhood.


You hit the nail on the head...A persons attitude and outlook is solely a product of their social environment

So it makes me wonder, how could a productive business be created that takes that skill-set and turns it into a profitable asset for both employee and company??

Rather than struggle to get those individuals to radically adapt the way they have always lived, why not adapt a business model to take advantage of that potential workforce?



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
The work isn't there.


if the work wasn't there you wouldn't have immigration. as long as people are coming to a country and getting work you can be sure that there are available positions.

reply to post by citizen smith
 

crime i guess. military perhaps.

for hundreds of years, the set of values instilled in people, toughness, strength and the desire for the respect of your direct peers were hammered home as being the most important things in life, now machines do all that stuff that these values were needed for and no-one has bothered to offer people a new set of values outside of money and consumerism.

this chav thing is a manifestation of applying these old values to modern goals. the value set might well be made productive but the goals need to change.

[edit on 26/6/09 by pieman]



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 

I've got a bit of a headache but I stand by what I said last night.



Rather than struggle to get those individuals to radically adapt the way they have always lived, why not adapt a business model to take advantage of that potential workforce?


That's a good idea, why change the person when it's easier to change the model? Most companies can find the people they need, they discard the ones who need changing/developing but if it was a public government model of some sort that works to help people then it would work.
I really like that idea... I'm going to spend some time thinking about that. I'm also not going to be drinking for a long time.



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
This is stark proof that socialism works



posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I think that this thread is decending into finding excuses for them.
I'm not middle or upper class and I certainly didn't have any safety net when growing up.
The way I see it is very simple to understand the issue, chavs are the kids who wouldn't learn in school, they thought they knew it all stealing, coning, fighting and just acting generally like twats. Then they leave school with no education but that doesn't bother them because they're gonna make it as rappers, gangsters or drug dealers and the rest of us are mugs for knuckling down and playing the game.
These chavs made their bed early in life, they never left the playground that they dominated with their bullying ways.
Fast forward 5yrs suddenly they see that it takes alot more to make it in the real world.
No in the real world job market you need qualifications but instead of actually learning a trade or going in to education which is free, they bitch and moan and fight anything and anyone, convincing themselves that everyone's against them.
I'm bored of this thread now. I refuse to feel sorry for a bunch of loser chavs, I would rather society crumbles than it changes to fit these no-marks.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join