... to feel angry about single mother of 11 getting new house built for her!!

Me neither Movedalot most people have 2-3 children, some have 4 or even 5, maybe a few have 6,7 or more but in a civilized society I think it our duty to ensure that ANY child born to any parent is cared for, kept warm and fed. Surely that is the measure of civilization.

I know it really gets people going when they read in the press or see TV documentaries about huge families living off state benefits etc. but are there really that many of them? What we need to be looking at is breaking the culture (now 3rd and 4th generation) of work-shy and trying to engage with young people in order to give them some pride in themselves.

Gillybob no-one has suggested not supporting children who already exist but surely we can explore options.

I'm neither a politician or sociologist but something along the lines of, if the future likes of Philpott knew that he would be forced to maintain his children either through paid work of his own volition, or through a state system of some sort of enforceable work, I'm sure that very few men would father umpteen children.

When this terrible tragedy happened, you knew instantly that this man did not work - it was a foregone conclusion.

I think such families are very rare. When I was school governor in a secondary school with a very deprived catchment there were a few larger families but nothing like that kind of size. But there were a lot of very poor kids that came to school in the winter very inadequately dressed for instance. They led very limited lives . It feels as if the government are warming up the electorate to accept restriction of child benefit to larger families and that would really hurt such children. It is, in any case, unworkable if you start to think about it. But that does not usually stop them (pasty tax etc spring to mind)
What happened to the reduction of child poverty as an important national goal?

But there again, how do you define 'child poverty'? We've had this discussion before, I think, but various governments' definitions of it seem to change all the time.

I think anyone who comes up with solution would be a genius Riverwalk . I still think engaging with young people is the answer (although not sure how). Why is it that some young people have little of no aspiration? What can we do to change that? Imagine you are a young boy man of say 15. Your parents do not work and neither do your grandparents. You couldn't be bothered with school much as there's not point you are not going to take exams. Around your estate most people are on benefits and they manage okay.

What can we do to make that young person break the cycle?

I think everyone agrees that the abuses of the welfare system have to be stopped, but how to do this without hurting those who are in need and protecting children is a problem I'm afraid I don't have the answer to. In this day and age no child should go hungry without adequate clothing and a safe and warm place to live.

gilly I think that is one of the problems with social housing. Before we moved here I lived in a 'posh ghetto' and didn't think much of it. If we all lived in mixed housing, some large, some average and some very small, some owned, some shared ownership and some rented it would lead to greater understanding among different people. I don't know how this could be achieved quickly but it could over time.

We went out recently to a very local event, just people from a few roads getting together and I have no idea about the backgrounds of most of them. I was sitting next to a plumber but that came out during another discussion. Our conversations never came round to what sort of house we had or what we did for a living.

I often find I can have a better chat with a working class man than a middle class businessman. The chap who was here last week fitting windows had more conversation in his little finger than people I have been stuck sitting next to in business dinners.
gillybob - really good comprehensive schooling for all including a curriculum that appeals to kids that are less academic in their interests. Under Gove's so called reforms of the curriculum a lot of the practical subjects are losing out in favour of his beloved 1950s style curriculum. "my" school provided: construction, motor vehicles, hairandbeauty, childcare, sportscoachingqualificaton etc from 14 for the less academic kids. Combined with more focus on literacy and numeracy before the kids start to see themselves as failures.

The British education system certainly has a lot to answer for - and it is getting worse, not better. So very divisive.

I just couldn't stand living in one of those 'posh ghettos' either - and we had to move to a very mixed community before I felt comfortable with living in England.

Back in my home country, I meet up with old school friends of all 'classes' and professions/jobs- that I shared my schooling with.

jess further to your comment at 1626: Minibags goes to school inadequately dressed in winter (no coat). It has nothing to do with poverty in her case. DD2 was the same. The mother of one of her friends even rang me to ask if DD2 had a coat!

Posted too soon...

As someone else with a teenage daughter said: it's not cool to be cold.

Child benefit was, I understand, introduced to encourage an increase in birthrate in the aftermath of WW11. It is no longer required for that purpose but is arguably needed to assist families on low incomes. One assumes the administration is incapable of determining need or assumes it to be political suicide to limit payment to one or two children. Sadly laws are not designed to be fair they are designed to reflect the will of society at the time they are formulated giving due consideration to all interested representations and the treasury coffers. If the law requires a large family to be housed then we must abide by it. I don't agree with it but it is what the law dictates. On the up side the family in question could be housed in a 5 star hotel if suitable accommodation was not available to them. Human rights and all that.
I'm afraid we reap what we sow as much as we might dislike it. I wish it was changed as the system is an almighty mess.

Ana
For the information you are looking for, try the Child Poverty Action Group who have been in existence for the last 47yrs.
They should give you the information and the myth busting you require.

www.cpag.org.uk/

Thanks, Nelliemoser. I had heard talk of holidays, mobile phones and computers bandied about as being included in the calculation, which was why I asked.

You're a hardy lot up there bags - Scotland? in the winter? with no coat? Do you mean just a blazer, kilt and blue knees?

I bet she has breakfast though.

ps Child allowance was introduced to encourage and help those having babies following WWII. Child benefit was introduced when the Government did away with the tax allowance for children on the grounds that it wasn't fair to low earners who hadn't reached the tax threshold. Mrs Thatcher did a grand job on freezing it. These days, child benefit has reached the point in the public consciousness where it is described as a handout.

No blazer. Camisole top, shirt, cardigan usually open. Trousers. She's bonkers!

It got to freezing temperatures before she wore her very good jacket for her riding lesson too.

Completely bananas!

But, yes, she does have breakfast.

Blimey bags - she'll be one of those hardy northern lasses that goes out for the evening with a bare midriff when there is snow on the ground in a few years time
People do acclimatise though. I remember when I was working in the water depot "the lads" would be walking around out of doors with their short sleeved shirts on while I cowered indoors next to the heater with about 4 layers on.

Ana regarding anything to do with benefits there is so much rumour about it is always best to check the facts.
Also see

https://www.facebook.com/#!/KeepCalmBritain
An anti rumour campaign.

My daughter and friends used to go out to clubs in a near by town dressed like that! 15 yrs ago. We once drove a posse of them up there in our two cars with snow falling.

Sorry! that was in relation to Bags post.

Sorry, can't access that link, nelliemoser, but the information I referred to wasn't rumour, it was actual government criteria for poverty at the time.

Just read this:
www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jonathanfreedland

article, and I think this paragraph says it all, about how one welfare recipient horror smears everyone on any benefit:-

Jonathan Freedland
When George Osborne linked the sickening case of Mick Philpott – now jailed for the manslaughter of six of his own children in a house fire he started – to the state of Britain's benefits system, he knew what he was doing. A student of US politics, he was deploying a favoured technique of the American right, honed during the decades-long culture wars. Dip your hands in the slime of an episode that stirs revulsion – and smear it all over your opponent.