Where the fack have I ever written on here that I want to punish people who have done well for themselves?
You wrote 'seems' which is fair enough, however, I do feel that you are apportioning things that ain't there.

I got my info from here [Link]
a report from the child poverty action group. endchildpoverty.org

Child poverty has no hard and fast definition...

from [Link]

The European Union's working definition of poverty is:

'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'.

The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time:

Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices;

According to our definition, children are living in severe poverty if they live in a household with an income of below 50 per cent of the median (after housing costs), and where both adults and children lack at least one basic necessity, and either adults or children or both groups lack at least two basic necessities.

So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered.

[Link]
has some facts about those with home internet access..

While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not.

70% of people who live in social housing aren't online

It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation.
The ons state that 80% of households had internet access [Link] however it doesn't break it down into socio-economic groups.

Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)

I didn't say don't mention them. Just try and do so without all the heartstrings crap. Any cut to benefits causes people to lose money. Welcome to the real world. But picking on one individual case and using it to criticise a policy on the basis of emotion rather than reason and logic is sentimentalism, plain and simple.

And how the f*ck did we get onto child poverty? I'll tell you how - because you randomly decided to whack it into the mix because you think it supports your point, when actually it’s irrelevant. Because your argument isn’t based on facts and logic, it’s based on painting the Coalition as milk-snatching, grandads-in-cupboards-locking villains.

Oh and you can choose to believe as many statistics thrown at you by political parties as you like (“Labour reduced child poverty! Iron Production has reached all-time high!”) but I’m going to take them with a mountain of salt, thank you.

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

But the moment I say it affects such and such a group and here's an example, you use the 'heartstrings' trump card. I'm sure I could pull out loads of other examples of people affected (rather than just one individual case) if you want.
As for painting the coalition as 'milk snatchers'. To me, yes they are.

Just don't refer to it at all, none of us are buying that it will f*** up the lives of the disabled, elderly, armed services or children etc apart from you.

Optimistic as ever

Nick, apologies if that was not the case but it was the comment below that gave me that impression.

"Many second properties lay empty. Compulsory purchase them and use them as social housing. It's a travesty that there are more housing spaces than people who require housing, it's just they cant access them."