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.

 

Poor in UK dying 10 years earlier than rich

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 04:45 AM
link   
A rather depressing article on how the gap between rich and poor has grown in the UK. It shows how both Labour and the NHS have failed the poor over the last 10 years. The gap is bigger than the days when Charles Dickens was writing Oliver Twist.

I can't really so how this can be addressed, especially with the harsh cuts about to start biting


In Blackpool, for example, men live for an average of 73.6 years, which is 10.7 fewer than men in Kensington and Chelsea in central London, who reach 84.3 years. Similarly, women in the Lancashire town typically die at 78.8 years – 10.1 years earlier than those in the London borough, who reach an average 89.9.






www.guardian.co.uk...




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Don't believe everything you read!

Statistics and official figures are nearly always wrong.

Both my grandmothers lived to 90, my great granddad lived till 94. Though sadly both my grandfathers died just at 74 and 76.

I live in S#horpe, North Lincolnshire...

I lived in London for 10 years and moved away because the quality of life sucks!! The only people that have good quality of life in London are the mega mega rich, and even they don't live in London, just stay there when necessary.

Most of the English rich and famous live in and around the Home Counties such as Berkshire etc...

This article was written to scare you into believing you are under privileged and was written by a pro labour publication.

I re-iterate.... Don't believe everything you read!!

Korg.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 05:37 AM
link   
So quick to take a pop at the left leading Guardian you failed to read the part where they lay the blame for much of the problems on the failure of a Labour government. A government who's aim it was to reduce the gap between rich and poor.

sorry for providing official statistics from a respected news outlet. I'm sure people are far more interested in the anecdotal evidence of you and your grandmothers.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
So quick to take a pop at the left leading Guardian you failed to read the part where they lay the blame for much of the problems on the failure of a Labour government. A government who's aim it was to reduce the gap between rich and poor.

sorry for providing official statistics from a respected news outlet. I'm sure people are far more interested in the anecdotal evidence of you and your grandmothers.


You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet; I am not attacking you so please get down from your high horse.

I simply state that this statistic is utter rubbish.

Firstly, if you are 74 now, just think about the life of that person, he or she may have been rich in the past but poor when they died, they have experienced all manner of environmental hazards.

When I get to 74 the whole world would have changed. So this is a useless boundless statistic which is totally meaningless.

This is not a POP at you, it’s a pop at the stupidity of the study.

Korg.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I would believe this, do you know there are some parts of Glasgow were a man has a lower life expectancy of that of a man living in Bagdad? Health inequalities will always exist, which is incredibly unfortunate and unfair. Good thread nice to see someone who cares enough to bring this to our attention.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Yup there sure is. in 2006 the average life expectancy in Baghdad was 67. In Calton in Glasgow it was 54!

The average life expectancy for the whole of Glasgow is 77, and they want us to work till we're 70 soon. By the time i retire, if retirement even still exists then, it'll probably be 80.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by Nammu]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


I would tend to believe this.

And whilst one would expect to see deviation in regional mean's I must say this seems quite high.

As a qualified statistician and sometimes anally retentive bore when it come's to numbers and statistics etc, (that may come as a suprise to some) I would like to see the full report to see the standard deviation, range etc.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join