Theft on the rise in British schools

[Aimless]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/education-43611527

Fortunately, the govt. is already well on the way to tackling this problem, having commissioned a report on how to impose military discipline in British schools.

[RandBlade]

The UK defines households earning £25,000 ($35,000) as "in poverty".

[Aimless]

The UK defines households earning £25,000 ($35,000) as "in poverty".

How is that relevant or even informative?

I mean, apart from your claim being wrong or at the very least misleading.

[RandBlade]

The article is about those "in poverty". It is entirely relevant to define what "in poverty" is.

It is neither wrong nor misleading. Those on $35k per annum in the UK are defined as being in poverty. In America I believe for a family of 4 the equivalent threshold is $25,000.

[Aimless]

The article is about those "in poverty". It is entirely relevant to define what "in poverty" is.

It is neither wrong nor misleading. Those on $35k per annum in the UK are defined as being in poverty. In America I believe for a family of 4 the equivalent threshold is $25,000.

It's both wrong and misleading. The UK defines relative poverty--typically described as "low income"--as an equivalised household income below 60% of the median. That's because two households can have the same income while having drastically different living standards, eg. because one household has several teenaged children. The UK doesn't define relative poverty as an absolute figure. Even if it did, your number is not correct. In 2016/17, median household income in the UK, before housing costs, was around £25,700. Your claim is doubly wrong.

It is also irrelevant, because there are degrees of poverty, and those at the high end of relative poverty are probably not the ones stealing food from school because they're so hungry they look and feel sick. Your number says nothing about the distribution of income among those below the relative poverty threshold.

[LittleFuzzy]

It's both wrong and misleading.

:looks at your thread title and text:

[Aimless]

:looks at your thread title and text:

It can be argued that covertly taking food home from school constitutes theft, which is acknowledged by one teacher interviewed for the BBC article:

Children are filling their pockets with food. In some establishments that would be called stealing.

As for military discipline, that was a reference to this:

https://www.google.se/amp/metro.co.u...n-7434494/amp/


RB, meanwhile, made a factually incorrect claim about poverty in the UK.

[LittleFuzzy]

It can be argued that covertly taking food home from school constitutes theft,

It's both wrong and misleading.

[LittleFuzzy]

It can be argued that covertly taking food home from school constitutes theft,

It's both wrong and misleading.

[Steely Glint]

So, you're saying these families aren't poor, and these guys are filling their pockets with beans for a laugh?

[RandBlade]

So, you're saying these families aren't poor, and these guys are filling their pockets with beans for a laugh?

They are relatively poor yes. Whether they're too poor to afford food or they could afford food but prefer to spend their money on tobacco, alcohol and gambling rather than food is not demonstrated by the article.

[RandBlade]

£25,000 < £25,700

[Aimless]

£25,000 < £25,700

Is £25,000 60% of £25,700? Is it, RB? Help me understand your thought process. When you attempt to calculate 60% of £25,700, do you arrive at £25,000? Do you?

Let's put aside the fact that the UK doesn't define relative poverty as a single fixed number for all households in any given year. Let's start with the basics. What is 60% of the median household income, which was approximately £25,700 about a year ago? What's the number, RB?

[Steely Glint]

fucking what

[RandBlade]

Despite smoking being very expensive, the lowest quintile of households by income have the highest smoking rates. Over 30% adult in the lowest quintile of income smoke. That's against a national average of 19%.
https://digital.nhs.uk/media/28831/S...k-eng-2016-rep

The lowest decile of households spend the highest proportion of their income on gambling.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...osable-income/

Struggling to find the figures for alcohol.

I find it appalling if people are putting tobacco etc ahead of putting food on their childrens plate. If poverty in this country was real the smoking rate for those in "poverty" ought to be zero. Real poverty exists outside this country and it is ridiculous to call what we have "poverty" when real poverty is something completely different.

[Ominous Gamer]

Real poverty exists outside this country and it is ridiculous to call what we have "poverty" when real poverty is something completely different.

Its called working poverty, and schools acting as a safety net for such things is not sustainable. Families where the parents are working 2 or 3 jobs and end up worse off than those who end up mooching off a benefits system, but to proud to take advantage of the system. You're looking at a slippery slope toward civil unrest, no matter how much you manage to turn your nose up at them while simultaneously sticking your head up your ass. Moralizing being a poor as a fault of the parent/family does absolutely nothing towards actually fixing the problem.

[RandBlade]

I made a mistake, I misread the 60% of median earnings as being £25,700 rather than median earnings being £25,700.

Its called working poverty, and schools acting as a safety net for such things is not sustainable. Families where the parents are working 2 or 3 jobs and end up worse off than those who end up mooching off a benefits system, but to proud to take advantage of the system. You're looking at a slippery slope toward civil unrest, no matter how much you manage to turn your nose up at them while simultaneously sticking your head up your ass. Moralizing being a poor as a fault of the parent/family does absolutely nothing towards actually fixing the problem.

I agree that's a very real problem and we need to fix it. I truly despise the "poverty trap" that means that people end up being encouraged to stay on benefits by the State and I think its our fault for making that system and not simply the fault of those who take advantage of the system in a way that is logical to them.

The legacy of our benefits system is a very convoluted one and it means that people are encouraged to stay on benefits too often in the past - plus the figures were constantly massaged to eg insure that people were basically at "60% of median income + £1" to massage the statistics without giving them hope of progressing beyond that. One of the things I'm happiest with this government doing is for years it has been trying to implement reforms to a system it calls Universal Credit which has merged multiple benefits together into one and then is ensuring that work always pays rather than sometimes you being better off out of work.

One area where I'd be prepared to spend more money is being more generous on the withdrawal rate for benefits. Currently still when you combine the withdrawal of benefits with taxes then the effective real tax rate for low earners can be about 70-80% (it previously could be over 100%!) which doesn't encourage anyone to earn more and traps people on low earnings. I would merge benefits with tax altogether and have a single rate then that should be considerably lower so work always pays well.

[Aimless]

I made a mistake, I misread the 60% of median earnings as being £25,700 rather than median earnings being £25,700.

As a result of your mistake, which you doubled down on, you falsely claimed the poverty threshold in the UK is around 60% higher than it actually is (ignoring nuances about varying thresholds etc). And yet, finding out that you were wrong by 60% doesn't seem to have any relevance whatsoever to whatever point it was you were trying to make with your false claim. If the number doesn't matter, why bring it up at all?

One of the things I'm happiest with this government doing is for years it has been trying to implement reforms to a system it calls Universal Credit which has merged multiple benefits together into one and then is ensuring that work always pays rather than sometimes you being better off out of work.

Yes, that is certainly an extremely incomplete and, again, misleading account of Universal Credit.

[RandBlade]

As a result of your mistake, which you doubled down on, you falsely claimed the poverty threshold in the UK is around 60% higher than it actually is (ignoring nuances about varying thresholds etc). And yet, finding out that you were wrong by 60% doesn't seem to have any relevance whatsoever to whatever point it was you were trying to make with your false claim. If the number doesn't matter, why bring it up at all?

The number was to provide perspective, recycling through things now that you've pointed out my mistake seems pointless - I've made the point already but exaggerated it by mistake, better to acknowledge that and move on.

Yes, that is certainly an extremely incomplete and, again, misleading account of Universal Credit.

No its not.
https://fullfact.org/economy/univers...make-work-pay/

Overall, Universal Credit will strengthen work incentives for people claiming the benefit, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said. But certain groups, such as single parents, will see their work incentives weakened.
...
While under the previous system 2.1 million people keep less than 30% of what they earn when they move into work, due to the loss of benefits and the payment of taxes, only 700,000 will do under Universal Credit.

I think it is scandalous that under the previous system that over 2 million of our poorest people were able to keep less than 30% of what they earn when they move into work, nobody should face real tax rates of over 70%. I'm glad that for two-thirds of those people that has now been fixed thanks to Universal Credit. More still needs to be done.

I'm against punitively high tax rates, I believe they discourage work. Do you think putting millions of our poorest citizens on an over 70% tax rate is going to help or hurt them in improving their livelihoods?

[Steely Glint]

You're a nasty piece of work, you know that?

[RandBlade]

Because I want people to feed their kids before their nicotine habit?

Because I've seen real poverty?

Because I'm grateful we don't have real poverty in this nation?

Why?

[Steely Glint]

You read a story about kids going hungry and your first response is to be like 'yeah but what if the parents are buying tobacco instead of food for their children' apropos of nothing. Do you think poor children all have parents out of a Roald Dahl novel?

Sorry, that was your second response. Your first response was to post something totally irrelevant the level the government statistics use to measure poverty.

So, a sad story about children going hungry and two nasty, dismissive responses from you designed to a) change the subject and b) blame poor people.

That's why.

[RandBlade]

This is a Debate and Discussion forum not an Emo forum.

Aimless wasn't looking for an Emo response either which is why he used words like theft and discipline to draw a response rather than "how sad" or anything like that.

I can read between the lines. You can too so you can shove your high horse up your arse.

I'm glad everyone in this country gets the support they need to be able to afford food. I do find it sad some people don't. I find it sad that children suffer based upon the choices of their parents but am glad we as a nation provide free schooling and food at school to those who need it as well as financial support to their parents to be able to buy food at home ... whether they do or not.

[Aimless]

I can read between the lines.

Look, before trying to read between the lines I think perhaps you should start by trying to read the lines.

[Steely Glint]

I find it sad that children suffer based upon the choices of their parents

You're a nasty piece of work, you know that?

[RandBlade]

You don't find that sad?

[Aimless]

Not really. What's more, the details can be easily found in the linked article, and the sarcasm is clearly apparent in the OP. There is no meaningful comparison, but if you insist on trying to make this inane point then, by all means, have at it. When you're done, the claim about poverty in the UK being defined as £25,000 will still be wrong and misleading, and the observation will still be irrelevant.

[LittleFuzzy]

The way I see it, you set the tone. You've been setting this tone for a while now, and I'm starting to wonder if I need to start ignoring your threads the way I ignore Lewk's.

And no, there is no sarcasm apparent. It just looks like sensationalist lying to generate more thread-views. Which is one of the reasons I ignore Lewk's threads.

[Steely Glint]

And no, there is no sarcasm apparent.

fucking what

[Aimless]

fucking what

He was being sarcastic.