[Kazanne]

Kizzy and Eyeball,do you really think people are starving? just curious as my idea of starving may be different to yours.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Kizzy and Eyeball,do you really think people are starving? just curious as my idea of starving may be different to yours.

I read the study kaz. The level of poverty in some areas is dropping to levels not seen since the 40s, if you're wanting to see images of people 3rd world stylee starving before you admit there's a problem that's your issue. It is not however the measure of poverty in the UK.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I read the study kaz. The level of poverty in some areas is dropping to levels not seen since the 40s, if you're wanting to see images of people 3rd world stylee starving before you admit there's a problem that's your issue. It is not however the measure of poverty in the UK.

Fair enough Kizzy,I haven't studied it so perhaps I shouldn't comment,but to me there is a difference between being hungry and starving and although I was not around in the 40s,people say they were the good old days,yes they struggled,but in those days people helped out each other,and cooked their own fresh food,sometimes in life we have to rely on ourselves and not other people,I am all for helping the very needy,hell, my mom has tried to get stuff for a disabled man she has looked after for years and he cant get it so she improvises,I am sure there are so many people worse off than us in this world,but as I say I haven't studied it , I don't want anyone to starve or even be hungry,but I do know people who would rather have a fag than a meal.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Kizzy and Eyeball,do you really think people are starving? just curious as my idea of starving may be different to yours.

I bet without the food banks some people literally would be starving.I'm not comparing now to the 1940's because i see that comparison as too extreme and there are alot of lazy *****ers about who get too much money for doing nothing but i've seen programmes where mothers have enough money to feed their kid but not themselves and can't even afford a Christmas present for the kid.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

I bet without the food banks some people literally would be starving.I'm not comparing now to the 1940's because i see that comparison as too extreme and there are alot of lazy *****ers about who get too much money for doing nothing but i've seen programmes where mothers have enough money to feed their kid but not themselves and can't even afford a Christmas present for the kid.

Dont mean to sound unfeeling here ,but,a bag of potatoes is a Ł1,tin beans 30p and maybe pack fishfingers for a quid,or similar,that would be roughly Ł3,that would feed more than one,so are people REALLY saying people aren't eating?

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Dont mean to sound unfeeling here ,but,a bag of potatoes is a Ł1,tin beans 30p and maybe pack fishfingers for a quid,or similar,that would be roughly Ł3,that would feed more than one,so are people REALLY saying people aren't eating?

Have you seen the price of baby milk,nappies,calpol,gripe water,wipes,baby food,clothes.After bills are paid etc some people are skinto.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by EyeballPaul

Have you seen the price of baby milk,nappies,calpol,gripe water,wipes,baby food,clothes.After bills are paid etc some people are skinto.

Ok ,and yes,I have 3 little ones,baby milk is probably the most expensive on that list and surely the things listed don't need buying every day,babyfood can be made along with your own food,it's not as though people have no money at all coming in,a lot of these people are skint as they are living above their means,NOT ALL but some.

[Kizzy]

Sanctions on families with children
On 19 February the DWP published Freedom of Information response 2014-4805 giving the
number of households with children in GB subjected to sanctions in the 12 months June 2012 to
May 2013 inclusive.6
This shows that there were at least 93,410 children in households affected by
sanctions, of whom at least 89,300 children in 46,160 households were affected by JSA sanctions
and 4,110 children in 2,290 households by ESA sanctions.7
FoI 2014-4972 shows that in financial
year 2012-13, which is almost the same period, the number of individual JSA claimants sanctioned
was 557,858. It can be inferred that one dependant child will be affected for approximately
every six JSA claimants who are sanctioned.

http://www.welfareweekly.com/wp-cont...sis.pdf?9d99d7

And this is before the proposed Ł12 million cuts, if it can be argued that the level of poverty isn't quite low enough now, it for certain will be by this time next year.

[Livia]

If you're on benefits and you have kids you are considerably more well off now than the average working man would have been in the 1940s. The Guardian have surpassed themselves with this one. It just shows that you can say anything if you massage the statistics hard enough.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

If you're on benefits and you have kids you are considerably more well off now than the average working man would have been in the 1940s. The Guardian have surpassed themselves with this one. It just shows that you can say anything if you massage the statistics hard enough.

Livia... You don't have kids and I'm going to make an educated bet that you've never lived on benefits either. So this is pure guesswork as you actually have absolutely no idea.

Whilst I will agree that if you wa t to break out a spreadsheet and look at the literal amount of money, then yes you would be right, however the world is a completely different place to the world of the 1940s making a like for like comparison of which was "worse" more or less impossible.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Livia... You don't have kids and I'm going to make an educated bet that you've never lived on benefits either. So this is pure guesswork as you actually have absolutely no idea.

Whilst I will agree that if you wa t to break out a spreadsheet and look at the literal amount of money, then yes you would be right, however the world is a completely different place to the world of the 1940s making a like for like comparison of which was "worse" more or less impossible.

No, I don't have kids and I've never lived on benefits. That doesn't mean that I'm not in touch with the real world and my post was in response to someone making the point about nappies.

And actually, you're right, the world IS a completely different place from the 1940s and making comparisons are more or less impossible. And that is the whole crux of this thread.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

No, I don't have kids and I've never lived on benefits. That doesn't mean that I'm not in touch with the real world and my post was in response to someone making the point about nappies.

And actually, you're right, the world IS a completely different place from the 1940s and making comparisons are more or less impossible. And that is the whole crux of this thread.

Not as to attitudes towards poverty though..

The point has I would say been made that in the 40s the poverty then could not be compared to now as there was in effect no welfare state.

However, I think even you said it too, people were in the same boat and had empathy with each other, so tried their best to come together to help too.
There was also the knowledge too that there was poverty at that time.

Now the attitudes seem to be, no one should be in poverty so there needn't be poverty and some don't think there is so dismiss it, despite others saying that they have seen and come across.

It is different poverty and the attitudes are different because now in the main, people don't pull together as much or look out for one another.

It is really startling to hear that people should be washing nappies and heading back to such times.
Especially when those who have had children, would have possibly hated themselves to do that,as to cleaning nappies, washing them and drying them,who will have bought constantly the pampers style of nappies for their children,to then think other children, just because they are in a poor family, should not have them too.

It is the more,'I'm alright Jack' attitude now that is bad as to poverty, rather than that coming together in the main that likely existed in the 40s.

I wouldn't deprive anyone of anything I have myself,I have already upgraded 2 TVs in the last 4 years and given the other 2 to someone who had smaller TV's,one person who had none even.
A daft example to some maybe but to some, seeing those people with that newer,larger TV that they never had to buy, would be seen as someone on benefits getting more than they should.
I know because I have heard it directly.

It is ridiculous the way attitudes are thrown out as to demonisation as to all on benefits, because I have yet to see from someone who calls or terms those on benefits scroungers, the real thing, that is in fact, that it is a minority and not the vast majority who likely are scounging as to benefits.

It is easy when all is going good for anyone to look down on those who are far poorer, it's the easiest thing in the world to do but for me it is totally wrong,that is my opinion.

Things I have come across as to how some people have to live in the UK now in this day and age, have made me really sick and the hardline attitudes of those who can just judge and condemn,well that really makes me feel even more sick as to the UK in the 21st century.

What some would expect and only give to their children, that should be their right,to then go on and say it should not be the same for all children,especially if they are part of a very poor family is unbelievale..
If anything, attitudes towards the poor and any poverty have got worse than likely in the 40s and that is really saying something and nothing to be proud of in my view.

I have no children, I may never have chidlren but I would never,if I had anything to do with things, give to one child what I would expect another child to be deprived of.
I prefer the word 'selfless' anyday to 'selfish',I hope I never change from that either.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Not as to attitudes towards poverty though..

The point has I would say been made that in the 40s the poverty then could not be compared to now as there was in effect no welfare state.

However, I think even you said it too, people were in the same boat and had empathy with each other, so tried their best to come together to help too.
There was also the knowledge too that there was poverty at that time.

Now the attitudes seem to be, no one should be in poverty so there needn't be poverty and some don't think there is so dismiss it, despite others saying that they have seen and come across.

It is different poverty and the attitudes are different because now in the main, people don't pull together as much or look out for one another.

It is really startling to hear that people should be washing nappies and heading back to such times.
Especially when those who have had children, would have possibly hated themselves to do that,as to cleaning nappies, washing them and drying them,who will have bought constantly the pampers style of nappies for their children,to then think other children, just because they are in a poor family, should not have them too.

It is the more,'I'm alright Jack' attitude now that is bad as to poverty, rather than that coming together in the main that likely existed in the 40s.

I wouldn't deprive anyone of anything I have myself,I have already upgraded 2 TVs in the last 4 years and given the other 2 to someone who had smaller TV's,one person who had none even.
A daft example to some maybe but to some, seeing those people with that newer,larger TV that they never had to buy, would be seen as someone on benefits getting more than they should.
I know because I have heard it directly.

It is ridiculous the way attitudes are thrown out as to demonisation as to all on benefits, because I have yet to see from someone who calls or terms those on benefits scroungers, the real thing, that is in fact, that it is a minority and not the vast majority who likely are scounging as to benefits.

It is easy when all is going good for anyone to look down on those who are far poorer, it's the easiest thing in the world to do but for me it is totally wrong,that is my opinion.

Things I have come across as to how some people have to live in the UK now in this day and age, have made me really sick and the hardline attitudes of those who can just judge and condemn,well that really makes me feel even more sick as to the UK in the 21st century.

What some would expect and only give to their children, that should be their right,to then go on and say it should not be the same for all children,especially if they are part of a very poor family is unbelievale..
If anything, attitudes towards the poor and any poverty have got worse than likely in the 40s and that is really saying something and nothing to be proud of in my view.

I have no children, I may never have chidlren but I would never,if I had anything to do with things, give to one child what I would expect another child to be deprived of.
I prefer the word 'selfless' anyday to 'selfish',I hope I never change from that either.

...I really don’t think it is more of an ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude now, Joey...I agree with you in that one of the fundamental differences was the absence of a welfare state back in the day ..you know, when people receive acts of thought and kindness directly from someone they know or even a stranger, that touches them so much more because it’s so personal so it would obviously create much more of a community and pulling together type feeling ..and obviously that’s all there was back in the day without any state help, so the feeling would be that people were kinder/more caring back then..but equally as in now, some people/neighbours etc would have been thoughtful for struggling families and some wouldn’t have been, I don’t think that’s something you can generalise about either because it’s just people and their different characters like everything in life and like then and like now... and I think that there was probably as much ‘judgement’ back in the day/the gossipy over the garden fence type thing... it’s just that it wasn’t media/internet fed and driven but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist, I think that it more meant that people were more only prone to be aware of their own small community/environment and very little beyond that...so really only had a much more limited perspective...

...hmmmmm, I remember a thread once on here and I think it was a single mum who was on benefits who had spent a huge sum of money on her children at Christmas..it was quite a while ago and I think you can imagine there where many judgements of her in that and many opinions etc...but those negative judgements of her if I recall came from both people who were in work and people who weren’t...hmmmm, should she really be spending all of that money on gifts when I have a job and I can’t afford or wouldn’t do that ..?..but also from those in a not too dissimilar situation to hers because her choices were different to those that they themselves would make and there was a large amount of disapproval with that...so there will always be and has always been judgements ..but from my experience many people do still pull together and think of others as you have shown with your old TVs etc, for some it might be something similar, or maybe making sure that someone is able to do their shopping if they struggle with transport, or making sure that they’re aware of all benefits that they’re entitled to, that they have the facilities to and are able to prepare hot meals for themselves etc...and just generally doing whatever they can if they see a family struggling or someone living on their own, someone who is less able etc...those things are still around, Joey because they’re to do with people and people’s character just as much as they always were and yeah equally there are and always have been people who don’t think about others so much or what they can actively do to help ....

...the technology that we have now and the information available now is a great thing and a really positive thing but obviously there will always be some negatives as well with that, and one of those is the often negative portrayal and judgement of anyone who is unable to work for whatever reason...but virtually no one I know in real life or indeed on the forum ‘buys into’ thinking that it’s any more than the small percentage of what could be described as ‘scroungers’ than it actually is ..in the same way though, I think it’s also equally wrong to generalise in an ‘I’m alright Jack’ kind of way because that’s lumping together and judging a huge amount of people wrongly and it makes me sad that you feel that’s your overall experiences of the many people you have met... because some with less will still give and do whatever they actively can and think of others and some will not..some with more will give and do whatever they actively can and think of others and some will not and I think really that’s always been the way through times and times and times....

[Kizzy]

That is not the issue, it's whether comparisons can be drawn in relations to attitudes to poverty, the Guardian did not compile the study they just reported on it.

[AnnieK]

This is a serious question but do parents on benefits still get milk tokens? My sister in law was on benefits when she had my nephew and she did get milk tokens then (he's 15 now). She could spend them on her local shop on anything...

There are many many families living close to the breadline now, if not over it. In many ways things are harder now for families whose children see their better of friends with all the technology there is and hard for kids to understand if their parents can't afford it. I know people who feed their kids and eat virtually nothing themselves but leftovers to try and save money and keep their kids on trend. It's shameful really but just goes to show how times have changed. In the 40s most people who lived in close nit communities were in the same boat financially and there was more of a community spirit, now it's very much every man for himself and who can get the newest gadgets etc....

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

This is a serious question but do parents on benefits still get milk tokens? My sister in law was on benefits when she had my nephew and she did get milk tokens then (he's 15 now). She could spend them on her local shop on anything...

There are many many families living close to the breadline now, if not over it. In many ways things are harder now for families whose children see their better of friends with all the technology there is and hard for kids to understand if their parents can't afford it. I know people who feed their kids and eat virtually nothing themselves but leftovers to try and save money and keep their kids on trend. It's shameful really but just goes to show how times have changed. In the 40s most people who lived in close nit communities were in the same boat financially and there was more of a community spirit, now it's very much every man for himself and who can get the newest gadgets etc....

That's a very good point actually Annie. "Community" is certainly not what it was

[Livia]

in the 1940s poor people wouldn't have bought disposable nappies, wipes and special baby food even if they had been around then.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Livia

in the 1940s poor people wouldn't have bought disposable nappies, wipes and special baby food even if they had been around then.

Yes Livia,didn't the nappies get washed and used time and time again

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Yes Livia,didn't the nappies get washed and used time and time again

They did Kaz and continued to do so until the 80s when disposables became more prevalent even though they add massively to landfills etc as they take something like 10 years to break down. It's a crime really but again it's another way in which as a society we have moved on to just look for quick convenience rather than economise etc

A breast fed baby in the original terry nappies would cost far less than a bottle fed baby in pampers. (Although I know not all women are able to breast feed)

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

They did Kaz and continued to do so until the 80s when disposables became more prevalent even though they add massively to landfills etc as they take something like 10 years to break down. It's a crime really but again it's another way in which as a society we have moved on to just look for quick convenience rather than economise etc

A breast fed baby in the original terry nappies would cost far less than a bottle fed baby in pampers. (Although I know not all women are able to breast feed)

My mom was on about this the other day ,she said nappies were soaked in a bucket of Napisan overnight,then boiled and hung on the line,and a little off topic,maybe people are heavier today as they don't know what hard work really is like.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

My mom was on about this the other day ,she said nappies were soaked in a bucket of Napisan overnight,then boiled and hung on the line,and a little off topic,maybe people are heavier today as they don't know what hard work really is like.

yeah my mom used them with me and my older brother I think, they were awful she said

[user104658]

Would also point out that if I was a single working man, I could live on next to nothing. Things are a lot less simple once a family is involved.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Would also point out that if I was a single working man, I could live on next to nothing. Things are a lot less simple once a family is involved.

these people choose to have children so they are ultimately responsible for raising for their kids and paying for them....however in the case of benefits they should be paid for child benefits in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens goods.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by the truth

these people choose to have children so they are ultimately responsible for raising for their kids and paying for them....however in the case of benefits they should be paid for child benefits in vouchers that can only be spent on childrens goods.

No.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No.

hell yes. why not?