Operations Director Howard Wardle said the health profile of Eastbourne shows that around 20 percent of children live in poverty.
He said: "Having a family and raising children is expensive, and we continue to see a rise in the number of families using our services; struggling to meet the basic needs of family life, from food to clothing to children’s essentials.
"We believe every child has a right to start life with their needs met; that no child should go without."
Then start educating their parents as to
their responsibility for this.
The project is being led by Anna Morse, Sarah French and Roisin Murphy, who will be hosting events across the town to promote the project and raise funds to be able to buy new mattresses and essentials. The project is not funded and relies solely on donations.
That's now. Want to bet that in time, it'll be a registered charity, and be in line for local authority funding?
At first I thought you'd written "freckles".
ReplyDeleteFFS, I used to live in Salford in the 1950s, and I saw what poverty was. It wasn't having last year's mobile phone model or only a 42 inch colour TV or even -- perish the thought -- second-hand games for your X-box. It was not having furniture, other than one hard back chair for dad alone to sit on and newspaper pasted on the windows because there was no money for curtains. Even in the 70s when my then wife taught in Sheffield there was one poor girl who always wore the same clothes everyday to school (though one day when she had a different cardigan on the kid said it must be because it was her birthday. It wasn't)
ReplyDeleteMy blood tends to boil when people freely band around the word poverty. They simply have no idea, though they do have very ell paid jobs that allow them to utter nonsense.
"...no child should go without..."
ReplyDeleteGo without what? Large TV? X-Box/Playstation? Mobile phone?
The figure of "20 percent of children live in poverty" leads me to think they have defined "poverty" as the first quintile of family income. So no matter what the actual material status is, they will always be poor.
ReplyDeleteBunny
ReplyDeleteI am with Mr Stengle here, it is a disgrace the way poverty is used today.
"I used to live in Salford in the 1950s, and I saw what poverty was. It wasn't having last year's mobile phone model or only a 42 inch colour TV..."
ReplyDeleteThat was the old definition of 'poverty'. This is the new version. So much easier to ensure we'll never not have it, and so guarantee jobs for progressives.
"...it is a disgrace the way poverty is used today."
And a further disgrace that journalists never question it.