This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Victorian poverty
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Previous Topic | Next Topic
chris123 hove actually 05 Apr 15 7.51pm |
 |
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 15 8.20pm |
|
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch In The Crowd 05 Apr 15 8.29pm |
 |
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?
Some people do struggle yes. In a way it should be so I.e. Anyone on long term benefits should struggle. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to afford food but equally it doesn't mean that they should have the life of Reilly.
the dignified don't even enter in the game
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
chris123 hove actually 05 Apr 15 8.53pm |
 |
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?
You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 15 9.01pm |
|
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?
You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.
The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
chris123 hove actually 05 Apr 15 9.11pm |
 |
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?
You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.
The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.
A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 15 9.18pm |
|
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?
You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.
The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.
A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.
So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
chris123 hove actually 05 Apr 15 9.31pm |
 |
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.18pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?
You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.
The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.
A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.
So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.
How much tolerance would you provide to a child abuser? I would punish any form of neglect and not providing for a child's basic needs is neglect.
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 15 9.35pm |
|
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.31pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.18pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?
You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.
The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.
A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.
So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.
How much tolerance would you provide to a child abuser? I would punish any form of neglect and not providing for a child's basic needs is neglect.
Is not having the means to provide for a child also neglect?
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
chris123 hove actually 05 Apr 15 9.44pm |
 |
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.35pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.31pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.18pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?
You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.
The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.
A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.
So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.
How much tolerance would you provide to a child abuser? I would punish any form of neglect and not providing for a child's basic needs is neglect.
Is not having the means to provide for a child also neglect?
Of course it is - child benefit is £20 a week, however low your money in is, not feeding your children is neglect - I'm astonished you need this explaining to you.
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 05 Apr 15 10.09pm |
|
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.44pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.35pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.31pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.18pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?
You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.
The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.
A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.
So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.
How much tolerance would you provide to a child abuser? I would punish any form of neglect and not providing for a child's basic needs is neglect.
Is not having the means to provide for a child also neglect?
Of course it is - child benefit is £20 a week, however low your money in is, not feeding your children is neglect - I'm astonished you need this explaining to you.
Deliberately not feeding your child is neglect. Many people forsake eating themselves in order for their kids to eat, however there are some people so hard up that they can't manage even that.
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
chris123 hove actually 06 Apr 15 12.03pm |
 |
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 10.09pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.44pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.35pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.31pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.18pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 9.11pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 9.01pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 8.53pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 8.20pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.51pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.39pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 7.21pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Apr 2015 7.06pm
Quote chris123 at 05 Apr 2015 6.01pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 05 Apr 2015 4.16pm
Sorry but that's not to do with poverty, that's s***ty parenting.
Times are tough for some people, no doubt and whilst you can argue the pros and cons of the current benefit system there's enough to stop this from happening.
This is clearly neglect, and any teacher not reporting it immediately is complicit to that neglect.
Really? Do you think people do this deliberately? As such, teachers are required to report this sort of thing and they do. However, are you expecting children to be taken away from their families because the family have to choose between food or clothes. Next you'll be proposing we bring back workhouses.
Well not meeting a child's basic needs is neglect - and a responsible adult, who is passive and does nothing, is complicit in my view. I can't believe you don't agree.
I do agree. However if you cannot afford to is it still neglect? People are too quick to judge.
I doubt you can price the cost of neglecting a child's basic needs, so of course it's neglect, people are too quick to adopt a slopey shoulder.
And some people genuinely struggle to get by financially. Do you dispute this? Or do you think it's made up?
You seem to think if someone is hard up, not providing for a child's basic needs might not be neglect - I cannot adequately express how much I disagree with you.
The child would be neglected, but not deliberately. Seriously, people on tight budgets face stark choices. Rather than tarring parents, why not focus on the cause of the poverty.
A neglected child is an abused child, there should be no other focus.
So what do you propose to do then? Make conditions in which some people are too poor to feed and clothe their families, then punish them for this.
How much tolerance would you provide to a child abuser? I would punish any form of neglect and not providing for a child's basic needs is neglect.
Is not having the means to provide for a child also neglect?
Of course it is - child benefit is £20 a week, however low your money in is, not feeding your children is neglect - I'm astonished you need this explaining to you.
Deliberately not feeding your child is neglect. Many people forsake eating themselves in order for their kids to eat, however there are some people so hard up that they can't manage even that.
And what do these hard up people spend money on in preference to providing for their child's basic needs? Not feeding a child is neglect, deliberate or otherwise.
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Previous Topic | Next Topic