Talking cock again

A major report by UNICEF found that children in Britain fare worse than in
any other developed country. The report looked at: material conditions such
as family income and housing; health; educational well being; relations with
family and other children; behaviour; and how children rated their own
situation. The UK scored low on all these factors and was on average last out
of 21 of the world’s richest nations.

That\’s amazing really. For here\’s a Unicef report into child poverty. Which shows the UK as eighth best out of 25 odd countries.

The one they\’re quoting is the one that assumed that inequality was, prima facie, something that made children fare worse.

Which it might be: but you cannot use a report that assumes it to prove it.

4 thoughts on “Talking cock again”

  1. Hmm. This rings a bell.

    From the report:

    ‘Two background papers from the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre
    support this Report:
    1. Bradshaw, J., Y. Chzhen, C. de Neubourg, G. Main, B. Martorano
    and L. Menchini (2012), ‘Relative Income Poverty among Children in Rich Countries’, Innocenti Working Paper 2012-01, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence. http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2012_01.pdf

    From Tim, April 21, 2009:

    “It’s essentially a dust off of the same report, based upon the same data, by the same person.

    Or, perhaps, a refelection of the same person’s prejudices, that Britain is the most eeeevilest place ever.”

  2. On the report you cite at fig.1a, items 13 & 14
    “13. The opportunity, from time to time, to
    invite friends home to play and eat
    14. The opportunity to celebrate special
    occasions such as birthdays, name
    days, religious events, etc. ”
    So parents who don’t like many visitors automatically make you “in poverty”

    Similarly item 10
    “10. An Internet connection”
    is denied to many rural people not because of cost but availability.

    The problem is how they define poverty is not how the majority of people in the world define it.

    He who sets the definition gets the result they desire.

  3. @ Barry S
    No, it only counts if the child is prevented from doing so because their parents cannot afford it. My younger son is autistic so my elder son felt that he could not invite friends home but that doesn’t count.
    FYI I grew up in a house without an internet connection – we were middle-class because we had a telephone rather than a TV! My underclothes were bought new but outer clothes were mostly hand-me-downs and sandals were mostly third-hand because clothing was rationed. People only bought new clothes if they could not use or buy second-hand ones. I was significantly privileged because my father got a First at Oxford (my mother nearly did) and spent his income for the benefit of his family* so I find all this “relative poverty” propaganda that deems I was in poverty as a child just ridiculous. It seems that those whose inflation-adjusted income is only modest amount more than a middle-class family in my childhood are deemed to be in absolute poverty.
    * he played hockey, where the cost was measured in shillings, not golf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *