I noticed that BBC favourite Justin Forsyth from the fake charity Save the Children was allowed a platform on the BBC this morning to put forward his curious views that there are 1.6m children in the UK living in “poverty” (No there is not; He was using the contrived left wing formula of relative poverty which is never corrected by the BBC since it too uses the same biased euphemism) Justin was there to tell us that thanks to the (imagined) wicked cuts by the evil Coalition, many parents (esp single parents) are struggling with childcare costs. It seems that in some cases, the cost of travel and childcare equate to the salary being earned. Justin’s solution is for the State to provide reduced costs, thus increasing Government expenditure. I don’t think Justin quite grasps the concept of economics, do you?
THE POVERTY OF THE BBC…
Bookmark the permalink.
I`m guessing because they`re all clones and interchangeable they just get given a name tag…must be J for Justin/Jeremy again.
There may be some impartial Justins and Jeremys out there…could we get a few and offer them to the BBC for interviewing purposes.
I was lucky to miss Jeremy Vines coming piece where he wants us all to ring in if “childcare costs stopped you from taking up a job offer”…but you can see where one Jeremy gets off the incessant Magic Roundabout that is BBC Current Affairs…and where one Justin gets on!
The wrong way round in this case?…but I say they`re interchangeable like eleven Paul Madelys( they`d rather be Richards…but they are to their friends!)
One million six hundred thousand children in poverty after thirteen years of Labour. Either Gordon Brown is responsible, or its a statistical anomaly caused by the fact that because its legal for adults to give children pocket money below the minimum wage, that is what 1.6 million parents do.
I don’t understand, Gordon Brown kept boasting about how many children he had ‘raised out of poverty’. Have all these 1.6 million been lowered into poverty by the nasty Tories?
To be honest they’re not alone. Every agency/charity/politician (depending which agenda they’re pushing) uses the same ridiculous 50% (nay…60%!) of the average wage (or is it median wage?).
Anyway, I doubt the real figure is even 160,000. Anyone with hot water and a working toilet most certainly aren’t in poverty. Most have hot meals and/or food as required, TVs, holidays, etc.
Using ‘relative poverty’ as the measure means that the poor will literally ‘always be with us’.
Applied to the population of Monaco, the principle of “relative poverty” consists of being second-homeless, and limited to just the one Ferrari. What a bunch of tossers these hand-wringing liberals bleating about “poverty”.
The unemployed mother of five kids by six different fathers (think about it) has tens on thousands of pounds of housing benefit, five state education school places at £6,000 a year, NHS unlimited care at £1,000 a head, contributes nothing to the cost of borrowing to fund foreign aid, the cost of fighting climate change (haha) or the police, army and judicial system to keep them safe from harm and their human rights looked after. But apparently they are very “poor”. Relatively speaking.
Laughable BBC and the hand-wringing well-paid fake-charity do-gooders.