[Closed] Anyone see "Poor Kids" last night on BBC?

Depressing, especially as the kids were bright enough to realise that things are only going to get worse for them over the next few years.

very sad, the bit where one of the girls said she sometimes doesn't have lunch got me 🙁

i watched it too, reminded me of my own childhood.
but i have to say, just because they are poor, its no excuse for the filty houses that some of them lived in. it doesnt cost anything to tidy up.

I only saw the second half, but Sam's seemed a particularly depressing story to me as he was obviously so eloquent and intelligent.

Tidy, yeah. But when the walls are sodden with damp and covered in mould its quite hard to keep it clean.

I've got it recorded, sounds like a must watch.

Heartening to hear that poverty is being presented in a way that at least invites a bit of understanding and sympathy. Especially if people can see a bit of themselves in it. My girlf is off to meet the director later this week.

Commissioning editors just won't touch poverty because everything on TV, even documentaries, has to have a happy, hopeful ending. Poor people can only be shown if they are seen to be fixed as part of process - Keith Allen coming into their house and cooking them an organic meal - or Scary Spice buying them a Gym Membership, the Secret Millionaire buys a minibus (whether anyone wants one or not). So long as the poor have been shown to have pulled themselves together (and someone a bit like 'us' has learnt something about themselves and had a bit of cry) the ending is 'hopeful' and therefore digestible for the rest of us.

Anyway, sounds like its in marked contrast the "The Scheme" that viewers south of the border won't have been titillated by. That was a nasty piece of work - the sneering media classes turning the poor into zoo animals. BBC Scotland wave a flag for that as the most successful thing they've ever done, but its popular in the same way as happyslaps on Youtube are popular. Would happily stab the man that commissioned that.

Yeah, I was shocked & choked, the poor lad getting bullied for his clothes....just sad 🙁

i hear stories like that and worse most days. so sad.

What I find really quite disturbing is that many people have no idea about the reality of the level of economic hardship suffered by many people in the UK. Do you live such sheltered lives?

And this is hardly a new phenomenon; I grew up on a council estate in the 70s and 80s in the East End. Childhood poverty isn't something that's suddenly just happened...

The place in Bradford is about half a mile away from where I grew up, and about a mile from where I currently work. The change in the last 40 years is very depressing. In fact, the change in the last ten years is even more depressing - Bradford has become a dumping ground for poor people from the whole world. So, lots of very poor people arriving in an already poor part of the country = even poorer people and a council up to it's armpits in it. 🙁

Answers on a postcard please to:
City Hall
Centenary Square
Bradford
BD1 1HY

Childhood poverty isn't something that's suddenly just happened...

No, but it's something a civilized nation would hope to be reducing...

Its not a case of reducing poverty its a case making poverty bearable. Poverty is a much more sophisticated phenomenon than the money someone has in their bank account, its a poverty of choice, a poverty of voice and representation, and many, many other things. The damage that poverty does isn't done by the lack of money - being poor in some parts of the country is more harmful, even in pure mortality terms, than being poor in other parts, so money alone isn't the (only)problem. Theres the political attack hypothesis, but there must be lots of other forces at play.

It should be possible to have less than others and for that to be a happy, humble, nobel, healthy way to live.

Thats why it frustrates me that it features so rarely in the media, because its such a rich subject, its as complex and insoluble as great art. Totally facinating.

I still can't get the image of Sam out of my mind. Such a great kid too. As IanMunro said above (I think we were on the other thread at the time), he was so obviously intelligent. Yet, I don't foresee a good future for him. His stoicism in the face of such hardship was admirable. His birthday is also the anniversary of his mum walking out FFS (I accept that there is probably a more complex story behind that though). The little Scottish girl was a right sweetheart too...living in damp-ridden conditions. I shuddered as I saw the Bradford girl rubbing the cream into her eczema ("...it makes me feel calm when I scratch..."). All in all, I was pretty heartbroken by the end of it. The statistics "graffitied" on the Walls throughout the programme were sobering.

As we were saying last night, Life on benefits...great eh?!

Life on benefits...great eh?!

I believe its a "Lifestyle Choice" 🙂

a very sobering watch.

The maturity shown by most of the kids was what shocked me, kids that age should quite rightly be naive to problems of debt and unemployment. Those kids were clearly aware of the reasons for their poverty. Hope comes really from the possibility that given the right opportunities they can take their experiences and better their own lives further down the line.

Sadly the likelihood of those possibilities being presented to them in any meaningful way is pretty low.

Kids in that situation don't have a childhood to speak of, a life thats playful. I know kids like that who are now grown up (early 20s) its sobering - "I can't remember my childhood, but I know it wasn't good". You're grown up for an awful long time, being denied a childhood is bleak.

My wife grew up in poverty in communist Poland. She's said there were loads of times where her parents couldn't afford to give her lunch so she was relying on handouts from other kids. Didn't have any toys so used to make her own.I certainly think that some of those experiences developed admirable character traits in her. She's lucky because she was loved and taught well by her parents. Perhaps thats whats lacking in some of these cases? will watch and see...

HELP! I have no TV nor recording device. Just watching it oon iPlayer. If anyone could get to me a copy of that on a DVD I would use it in my teaching. Will happily pay costs, email in profile.

do you teach at an FE institution? If so the BBC will probably provide you with a copy for educational purposes.

Comprehensive school

Its not an inhouse BBC production, might be better to contact the production company -[url= http://truevisiontv.com/ ] True Vision[/url]

Very thought provoking indeed, as a country we should be ashamed that children still have to live in abject poverty. If there were a way to contribute directly I personally would be more than happy foregoing some of lifes little comforts that we take for granted just to help a little.

I didn't see it, but read the stuff in the Guardian on Monday. The profiles of the kids. One of the girls made a remark along the lines of "I think a lot of bad things are going to happen to me"

Imagine having that outlook as a child. Heartbreaking.

I personally would be more than happy foregoing some of lifes little comforts that we take for granted just to help a little.

Tell that to Frank Fields or the guy that used to be Ian Duncan Smith. A bit of equality would make [i]everybody[/i] happier and healther. Its a value a lot people hold but nobody will actually express with their vote. We know where we want to arrive but we won't take the steps to get there

makes me feel pretty fycking ashamed to be honest. how can we allow this to STILL be happening? As elfin says this is not new, how the fyck can it be that that my kids can grow up in relative comfort and sam has to endure that much shit? Its crushing for someone so young to undertsand and accept that much.

and this aint about giving money to charity. Charity does the job that government ignores

Thanks for that MC, it's not in their shop but I'm sure it will be soon.

whilst it is not a new thing, it is on the increase which is inexcusable.

The proportion of children living in poverty grew from 1 in 10 in 1979 to 1 in 3 in 1998

[i]source: endchildpoverty.org.uk[/i]

Thanks for that MC, it's not in their shop but I'm sure it will be soon.

Don't wait - just ask them, if its for a school chances are they'll send you a copy

and this aint about giving money to charity. Charity does the job that government ignores

theres more to it than that. To paraphrase Bob Holman - the best thing anyone can do to tackle poverty is to be the best friend of someone living in poverty.

That could be in quite a literal sense, but it seems to be that the success of this film is that we the viewer have befriended these children. They are one of our own. Lets try keep it that way.

I'll risk the inevitable flames with [url= http://www.capuk.org/home/index.php ]CAP[/url]
CAP helps families like those shown on the program to find a way out of debt in a way that government never could.

The high flats in the gorbals are being demolished over the next 18 months (don't know if that was mentioned in the programme? missed it, just saw a clip on reporting Scotland last night).

Couldn't believe how bad the flats were inside on the clip I saw.

They should move everyone out right now - it's a disgrace.

For those interested in what the Gorbals looked like before they pulled the worst of it down (yes, last night's example isn't the worst) then google Sir Basil Spence and Queen Elizabeth Square development. Awful stuff. Quite interesting to read that the Norwegians came to look at it while it was under construction in the ealry 60s and were totally horrified.

I guess this cant hurt to put up...

We've been contacted by many people wanting to help the families in the film. BBC guidelines in this area are very strict, as the BBC cannot single out or promote specific charities or funds. So there are details on the BBC Poor Kids website of various charities active in combatting child poverty and Save the Children has set up a specific fund here for families in similar situations. But if you really want to specifically help the families in the film, then email lisa@truevisionfoundation.org who can give you details.

Bill MC if it is on the iplayer I can record it to dvd for you. I understand this wnt infringe copyright as it is for educational purposes - cant get at my e-mail at work but e-mail me if you want a copy. I can do one tonight if you need it quickly

if you want to see real child poverty go to India, poor in this country means something very different than in the third world.

awwww i realy felt sorry for those kids. :cry:.. but how grown up they spoke... 😉
im so glad they pulled down that tower block.absolutely discusting to make familes live in those conditions,,.. ....that poor girl with excema.....it cleared up didnt it after they moved out....ruddy damp condtions....god awfull to sleep in...
that young lad too i felt sorry for - wearing his sisters blouse for school and ripped trousers.... i did like his new haircut...(at least thats one less name he would be called !

i do think to a certain extent they overplayed the bullying aspect, you can get bullied for all sorts at school, kids can be evil little ****ers although i guess there is a certain stigma attached to poverty

Some of those little uns were inspirational. They're so much wiser than they should be at that age. It was depressing at times but their resilience was uplifting. It is a shame that the majority of the UK population don't or don't want to see it happening here.

A brave programme for the bbc to air too as was said before there was no manufactured happy ending, just plain facts dropped in now and then. Very well made programme.

ilovemygears - Member
if you want to see real child poverty go to India, poor in this country means something very different than in the third world.

Thanks for hitting that nail so neatly on the head. Can I borrow your hammer?

I hope Wayne Rooney watched it then remembered how much his hairdo cost

I hope billusugger watched it then remembered how much his bike cost. 😉

I caught some if it but sap that I am I couldn't watch it as it was just too depressing.

I can't help thinking that having children is something that a lot of people seem to enter into without any thought to how they will provide for them or is that view too simplistic?

Yeah point taken.

I did feel a twinge of guilt when watching but then I've lived around poverty on and off growing up. My ol man used to live on Buttershaw.

I could have bought my bike 15 times over for the same price as Wazza's do. He could own half of Bootle for that.

Shame the red top rags such as the Mail and Sun don't focus on these appalling inequalities in our supposedly developed society rather than splash the odd family of spongers all over their front pages. There are many more families like those on the programme than those who are taking the p*ss of the benefits system. And the policies our Dave and George are introducing and the state of our economy are going to make those kids lives a whole lot tougher.

I didn't see the programme but I am all too familiar with the level of poverty described in this thread...
I think anyone who hasn't had first hand experience of this themselves would certainly gain valuable and in some ways vital experience from making sure that they try to befriend someone in the sort of situation being discussed..

Unfortunately the red tops have been at the forefront of the creating those inequalities. Political Attack on the poor started in the late 70's as part of the Thatche Neo-Liberal campaign. But that politcal attack continues through the printed press regardless of which party is power. Regardless of whether the winning party wears a red or blue rosette the majority (something like 7 out of the top selling 10) of newspapers have a right wing, neo liberal editorial. They drive the debate no matter whos in charge

Thats what make is so easy for Dave and George to say the things they do. And thats why I referred to Ian Duncan Smith as the 'the guy who used to be Ian Duncan Smith'

What I find shocking in the increase in inequality that this and the last few governments have encouraged - the top 1% are getting obscenely rich and the bottom 10% poorer and poorer with the safety nets being eroded as a sop to the middle classes to keep taxes low for the rich (quite how that works I've never figured out - vote to make the poor poorer so we can avoid taxing the rich, but seems to work every time).

Under the last government poor where better off in real terms than they had been, the gap that widened wasn't between the rich and the poor, it was between the very small amount of super rich and everyone else.

Those problem those kids have is that they are faced with two types of poverty - poverty of cash, and poverty of effort from their parents.

We live in a very poor scheme and are apparently living below the poverty line, but we sure as hell put the effort in to make sure that we make the most of the cash that we do have. Some people round here spend so much money on so much crap then wonder how they cant feed themselves.

The proportion of children living in poverty grew from 1 in 10 in 1979 to 1 in 3 in 1998

That's a shocking statistic and made worse/more confusing by the fact that food and clothing were relatively more expensive 30-40 years ago than they are today.

Its a difficult measure because the way we define poverty changes over time, which it needs to. But as a nation we've gotten significantly richer over time, so what it means to be poor has changed too. That seems like a huge shift - too big to a true reflection, even if it isn't factually untrue.

I'm from a single parent family, mother worked 3 part-time jobs, neighbours looked after us (me and my 2 handicapped brothers) whilst she worked and in turn she looked after the neighbours kids so they could work and no where near the benefits available today. In all that time we were fed and clothed, we cleaned the house between us and taught how to look after myself and my brothers from an early age.
I watched the programme too last night and most of it I could blame the parents for or more accurately lack of parenting. The only ones that I had praise for where the ones in Glasgow who tried to make the best of what they had. Leicester complained about money but had a huge tv, broadband, play station and then towards the end of the show another tv. Cut the broadband and they could have bought a few shirts for the lad each month. The girls in Bradford was terrible with what level of care the mother showed to her children with no bedding, house never cleaned and kids allowed to run feral.
I know I'm going to get flamed over my comments but like others have said I have seen real child poverty in other countries and last wasn't it more like child neglect 2 out 3 cases.

no where near the benefits available today

😕 What decade are you talking about ?

I spent my childhood in pretty dire poverty. And there was a period when during the school holidays, me and my siblings would walk to a school which was specially opened up at lunch times, so that we and other poor kids like us, could be provided with free meals - it guaranteed us one decent meal a day. No such provisions exist today.

The poverty stats speak for themselves, surely?

Benefits have not grown in line with average salaries. The poor are in relative terms poorer than ever before, even if absolute living standards have risen.

70s & early 80s.

Having watched it all the way through, I cant help but think we are only being told half a story. For example - the people in glasgow - probably temporary accommodation after an eviction. The guy with the TVs - benefits witheld due to something or another maybe. The full true story would probably be much less dramatic for want of a better word.

Benefits have not grown in line with average salaries.

Yup, I think you'll find that benefits/the welfare state isn't as generous today in relation to wages, as it was in the 70s.

Only set to get worse...

Although by abolshing public sector pay increases Dave and George can do something to help the statistics.

The poverty stats speak for themselves, surely?

yes and no - what are you meaning by 'average', the way the poverty threshold was defined changed recently because the form of averaging that was being used had become redundant.

It used to be measured and percentage of the mean income, but a handful of billionaire distorts the mean, so now its a percentage of the median. Thats why i was questioning such a radical change in those proportions above. I'm not denying either stat but its likely they are the result of two different measurements.

Can anyone give me a definition of poverty?

watching it now on the wii.

the kids all seem very switched on. probably too switched on. Things in my childhood dawned on me around 13, not when i was 6.

Converting back to the previous measurement would make it worse though... if the billionaires where a significant enough distortion.
Otherwise they'd have stuck with the old measure?

but what was the threshold being measured?

Don't know... I suppose my cynicism depends on who has created the definition... World Health Org... our Gov't??

Can anyone give me a definition of poverty?

Defined in purely financial terms its taken as a percentage of the average (however you measure that) income - in the UK I think its 50% of the median. You then make adjustments for the size of the household, (larger families are considered to be able to live on less per head).

But its something a bit deeper than that, theres a difference between being poor and being skint. Students are skint, struggling actors are skint, nuns are skint, dusty academics in the 23rd year of their phd are skint. Those are choices.

In absolute terms it's measured by the ownership or access to certain products / services.. a telephone etc.

IIRC a microwave is now on the list of 'essential items'... which means I'm on the verge of slipping into poverty.

So not really linked to leading a healthy and fulfiling life then? Just not able to lead a stereotypical materialistic life. In that case poverty is not necessarily a bad thing.

IIRC a microwave is now on the list of 'essential items'... which means I'm on the verge of slipping into poverty.

Thats interesting too - broadband is mentioned above, when does that stop being an indulgance and start being and essential

When you can't buy a shirt for your boy and have him wearing his sisters blouse then broadband is an indulgence

When you buy a shirt for your boy and have him wearing his sisters blouse then broadband is an indulgence

True. But I have a feeling that the definition of poverty as measured by standard of living / possessions might actually include a computer and access to the internet.

So not really linked to leading a healthy and fulfiling life then?

Well that too, the damaging effects of poverty: The whole gamut of nastys - poor health, social disorder, mental illness, addiction, child mortality, criminality, victimhood, and much more are tied to inequality. While its not true to say everyone of modest means is harmed by their modest means the threshold tries to represent when and where that damage occurs.

Not all the consequences of poverty effect the poor, some of them are problems for everybody. If we could eleviate the effects of inequality it would be better for everyone.

Then the measures are wrong.

In a way its trying to measure the unmeasureable, its more like art than science

In a way its trying to measure the unmeasureable, its more like art than science

... an economists wet dream.

But surely it should be based on the basics of food on the table, warm dry roof over your head, clothes on your back.

When you can't buy a shirt for your boy and have him wearing his sisters blouse then broadband is an indulgence

hand me down blouse or ps3 and a big screen tv

they made their choice

Can anyone give me a definition of poverty?

the poorer you are, the bigger your TV

See - all this is interesting. So why not have more TV like this (which I still haven't actually watched)

Then the measures are wrong.

No they're not wrong. It's just that poverty in 1750 manifested itself differently to poverty in 1950. But there was definitely poverty in 1950.

But surely it should be based on the basics of food on the table, warm dry roof over your head, clothes on your back.

And your health and happiness?

And despite all that tough upbringing craigxxl, you still manage to disparage others who are more disadvantaged. Maggie would be proud.