UKC

This country is the 7th largest economy in the world.

Given that fact, can anyone explain why there are children in need? Apart from the greed of those who already have?

In reply to moraldecay: Unless I've misinterpreted the news, it's because BBC reporters have failed at their jobs.

T.

In reply to moraldecay:
because money doesn't fix everything

In reply to stevieb:

Exactly. Money isn't everything.

But it sure keeps those who have happy, while excluding the poor.

But they tell you you can assuage your guilt by giving once a year.

Lets support change not charity!

In reply to moraldecay:

With any economy there are people at either end of the scale, its how capitalism works, the larger the economy the more people you have at either end of the extremes, more rich and more poor with fewer in the middle, look at china, more than a million millionares, millions in blistering poverty, the size of the economy has nothing to do with children being in need.

I'm pretty sure in the ideal communist state with no corruption and everything being perfect that there would still be the head case that thinks its OK to abuse children or a person who is addicted to drugs and spends the food stamps for the kids on another hit. The state in these situations would still have to step in, and if they have the means the child would be taken care of.

So your support for 'change' is for the state to do more? Where are they going to get the finance for this in an already stretched budget? We have one of the largest economies in the world but seem unwilling to run it properly and maintain a healthy bank balance, plenty of people abuse the welfare system that was designed to help the most vulnerable in society leaving it stretched and unable to help those who truly need it. asking people to give money and people taking the time to do what they can and show support and solidarity for the less fortunate in society is not a bad thing.

by all means support change if you want, you'll be waiting for some time, I'll be giving money to charity in the mean time and actually doing some good.

In reply to moraldecay:

What change exactly?
Even when the welfare state was at it's peak, child neglect and abuse was very high........ possibly much higher than now.

There's poverty and relative poverty. In most cases in the UK I think it's a case of relative poverty.

That said, if anyone comes up with a reasonable system which gives kids a chance at an equal shot in life, without being too intrusive to families in general and takes into account the myriad of problems social services have to deal with........ I'll support it.

In reply to moraldecay:


Good idea. I will keep my hand in my pocket and support change. Because change is what we need. Change is good. Change is progress.???

What exactly are you talking about?

In reply to moraldecay:

Some children are "in Need" at it's not for want of money - child abuse, illness, parental neglect, loss of parents, bereavement etc.

As far as I am aware CIN isn't just for UK children either

In reply to balmybaldwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_need

This suggests its just UK

In reply to jonfun21:

Some "interesting" official songs there.

1986 - Suzi Quatro with Bronski Beat and Various Artists doing David Bowie's 'Heroes'. God I hope that's on Youtube!

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Yes there are children in need for all the reasons you give and more.

The question is not whether there are children in need, but why in this very wealthy country do we allow the government to shirk its responsibilities in relation to those in need in our society?

I used to work at a special needs adventure playground, as a full time volunteer, before anyone accuses me of getting paid by charity donations. We had to beg every penny. At the same time they spent billions bombing people in Iraq.

Now there's billions for the banks. Bonuses and dividends for those at the top are up, wages at the bottom, and services and benefits for the poorest are down.

So they cut services for children who are in need, and rely on the poor to give more. They'll still be dining at the ivy.

The generous poor will raise what 25 million between them, when that's peanuts for the members of the cabinet and their obscenely wealthy pals.

That's why we need change, not charity.

In reply to roba

plenty of people abuse the welfare system that was designed to help the most vulnerable in society leaving it stretched and unable to help those who truly need it.

Govt figures say less than 1% of welfare claimants are fraudulent. So not much cause really, unless you read the gutter press.

A much higher proportion of mps fiddled their expenses. And much more is lost by rich corporations and individuals dodging tax.

Stop blaming the poorest. Open your eyes and see the real crooks.

In reply to moraldecay:

There is a difference between abusing the welfare system and making a fraudulent claim.

In reply to off-duty:

That's still attacking those at the bottom, least able to defend themselve. That's how they maintain their power and wealth. Turn the poor against the poor, while they laugh all the way to their tax dodged jersey bank accounts.

For those who ask what change, read rules for radicals by Saul Alinsky. A brilliant community organiser who got results. A guide for bringing about change for the have nots.

In reply to moraldecay:

They lost roughly 5bn in fraud over the previous tax year, seems to me if you compare that to the amount that the mps took it does seem disproportional…. I am by no means suggesting that the mps were acting in anything other than a criminal manner and I do believe that they deserve the prosecution that they are receiving. however I would suggest that the problem with money that was stolen by them in comparison to the masses that they are a smaller problem.

The rich corporations are dodging tax and again I agree that they need to be held to account however I think that you are looking for escape goats and other factors to blame when really actually, we need to look at ourselves as a society and see how we can improve things on a basic/community level.

Your not going to improve anything or spark change through posturing on a web forum…

Grow up.

In reply to robal:

I disagree. Debating with others, and engaging with people of varying opinions, on a forum or otherwise, is the way to spark change.

Why say grow up? Because my opinion differs from yours does that mean i am young? Or do you feel so challenged and uncomfortable by having your worldview questioned that you feel the need to personalise the topic and accuse me of being immature?

so out of the entirety of my response that's what you focus on, your outward perception to the rest of the world?

I think that debate is needed in every area in society, I don't find what you have said in anyway makes me question my views/values/beliefs it doesn't make me feel uncomfortable at all. I just think that your ideas are poorly formed, unrealistic, unbalanced and immature

In reply to moraldecay: Did you join the site just to talk 'politics' or are you an existing poster who thought you'd be taken more seriously if you were called moraldecay...?

In reply to robal:

In what way poorly formed, unrealistic, and immature?

Why say grow up? That is obviously intended to belittle the person you say it to.

Its nothing to do with my outward perception to the rest of the world (i am not even sure what that means)

In reply to moraldecay:

The issue I have with your views is that taken to their conclusions they appear to be either a bit simplistic.- "tax the rich harder and harder to provide a cushion for the poor" or unrealistic "have a revolution so everyone is in the same boat"

In reply to off-duty:

Is there. Could you explain.

In reply to moraldecay:

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

In reply to The New NickB:

I would say abusing the welfare system includes choosing welfare as a lifestyle choice rather than as support to get back into employment, whilst fraud is lying about your circumstances to claim more than your entitlement.

In reply to off-duty:

We could just try taxing the rich just their fair share, before taxing them harder and harder. Those with the broadest shoulders are using loopholes to avoid their basic social responsibilities.

Why is revolution unrealistic? Push people far enough into inequality and revolutions happen.

In reply to Steve John B:

I think im down for the politics? I can't remember. Maybe im the masked poster? Who knows?

Anyhow, my weekend lift is on the way. Its a weekend of heavy drinking, and heavier political/philosophical debate ahead. If im really unlucky i might have to touch rock.

Have a good weekend and easy now

In reply to off-duty:

Sorry I thought you had an official definition, which would inform and clarify the government numbers on abuse of benefits.

I was under the impression that benefit fraud costs around £1bn, people not claiming what they are entitled to saves £10bn+

In reply to moraldecay:
You need to remember that the UK is about 25th richest country in the world, out of about 200. By any world standards, financially, pretty much every single person in the UK is one of the haves not the havenots. In the history of the world, we have all won the lottery.

I was surprised to see that the top 1% of earners in this country pay 27% of all income tax, so the ones that don't find major loopholes are paying their share.

Revolution is unrealistic because the safety net in this country is very high. There is very little absolute poverty or restricted freedom in this country.

I think you're on safer ground on your 'special needs adventure playground'. I'm sure public facilities like this, or sports clubs etc. can be a very cheap way to help disadvantaged children, and I do think it's short sighted when these small initiatives are always the first to be cut.

If you really want to help children in need, the first place to look, as said higher up this thread, is how to help children from difficult homes, without being too intrusive? How do you help kids when their parents are; drug addicts, heavy drinkers, violent, have learning difficulties, are disabled, in prison, or have died? How do you help build community spirit, when many people from the age of 14 up just wants to go and drink heavily? The rich may be able to help fix some of this, but they are not the main cause of the problems

In reply to Bob Hughes:

The point of that is don't paint yourself into a corner. I haven't. I'm happy to respond.

Where does this 'rule' come from? I can find it on someone else's easily accessible website, but not in alinsky's book? What page is it on?

In reply to stevieb:

Tell that to the nearly 60 year old one legged fella who had his benefit cut to 20 quid a week because if didn't apply for a job he couldn't do, and has to return to thieving.

Tell that to the local schizophrenic guy who gets arrested for running naked in the street who's had his welfare cut.

tell that to the estimated 75% of inmates who are mentally ill.

Our welfare standards are ideologically driven.

We've been sold the lie that economy is king, and judge your compassion by cost

In reply to stevieb:

With the ever rising numbers of food banks in this country (to give a quick and easy example) to give food to people who otherwise steal or starve it can be seen that poverty in this country is very real. And it is naive to think otherwise.

I'm fed up of people thinking that just because the majority can feed and home themselves it means we can forget about those who cant.

Revolution is not so unrealistic as more people wake up to the situation across europe. Soon when people march they won't be marching under a socialist or communist banner, but a middle of the road 'hey, I reckon this is f*cked up' banner.

How are you going to build community spirit when folk grow up in shit places and become apathetic? By investing in their childhood, and allowing them to think they can achieve something. Which is what this revolution will be all about.

In reply to moraldecay:

Yeah, it's 0.1% of the claimants are doing so fraudulently. And the gov are cutting DA by 20%.

Which leaves a f*ck tonne of people who rightfully deserve it cut off.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

So why can't the government organize the things CiN do? What is the difference if a charity does it?

In reply to robal:

Hello. Are you suggesting that supporting change isn't doing good? Do you think that apathy is a better option? Or just not thinking about it?

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Sorry, been busy. Now then.

Im still waiting for that reference? I still can't find it? Where does alinsky say that?

Or are you misquoting from someone else's internet site in an attempt to discredit what im saying regardless of reality?