Who wants back in the good old UK?

Blog
61

I wrote:

“Firstly, my lady in example 2 will get back together with her violent and abusive boyfriend (who is the father of only 1 of her 3 children) because 'she loves him' and this time he has promised to stop twatting her every time he has had 6 pints of stella stolen from the local co-op. She will break up with him and get back together on at least 3 occasions. The police and the social services will be involved. Each time she will seek to prosecute him and then withdraw the allegation after they have got back together. The police have now got so sick of women doing this that they have a policy of forcing these women to come to court to pursue the prosecution against their will.”

Both you and Hilary told me that my experiences were wrong, in your case because your mum and dad worked somewhere in the legal system (quite where or what their experiences were remains undefined) but on the strength of that you are in a position to tell me that my experiences do not reflect the common experience of lawyers. I was told that I ought to do a little research on the subject (presumably because I am wrong about what I have said).

I therefore cited several studies from across the world which reflected precisely what I had said:

“Prosecutors managing these cases face a constant problem of victims who are unable or unwilling to cooperate with prosecution. In jurisdictions with aggressive enforcement of domestic violence laws, approximately 65-70% of victims do not cooperate with prosecution. This occurs for a variety of reasons and includes seeking dismissal of charges, lying to prosecutors or police, recanting statements about the abuse, refusing to talk about the abuse, perjuring themselves in court to protect the abuser, or refusing to come to court altogether.”

And:

“research findings and estimations range from around 50 to 90% - victims
withdraw their initial complaint and their support for the prosecution. Due to
this phenomenon attrition rates in domestic violence cases are high in many
jurisdictions, because prosecutors tend to automatically dismiss the case if the
victim withdraws the complaint; there is often no evidence other than the
victim's statement which would allow them to proceed.”

You are probably quite right Brian, this discussion has descended into point-scoring ! I was merely pointing out that I was right when I said what I did, but I knew that all along……

RM.

62

Eh? So far off topic that I think you have just broken the SFN record Richard.

63

I don’t understand your point? Points even!

64

Hilary / Catherine,

It took me all of about 12 seconds to research the position on the 'net. The following extract comes from wikepedia and relates to the US, but it represents exactly the same thing as goes on in the UK:

Evidence-based prosecution' (sometimes termed "victimless prosecution") refers to a collection of techniques utilized by prosecutors in domestic violence cases to convict abusers without the cooperation of an alleged victim. It is widely practiced within the American legal system by specialized prosecutors and state's attorneys and relies on utilizing a variety of evidence to prove the guilt of an abuser with limited or adverse participation by the abuser's victim, or even no participation at all.

Evidence-based Prosecution arose from the unique challenges facing prosecutors in domestic violence cases. While domestic abuse has been prevalent throughout history and its impacts severe, only in recent decades has prosecution been undertaken aggressively.[1] Since the 1970s, increased public awareness has led to tougher laws and an ever-expanding role for law enforcement and the criminal court system in what had previously been regarded as "a family matter". While in the 1980s as little as 5% of domestic abuse cases with injuries would be routinely prosecuted, in 2010, the rate in some jurisdictions approached 80%.[2]

Prosecutors managing these cases face a constant problem of victims who are unable or unwilling to cooperate with prosecution. In jurisdictions with aggressive enforcement of domestic violence laws, approximately 65-70% of victims do not cooperate with prosecution.[3] This occurs for a variety of reasons and includes seeking dismissal of charges, lying to prosecutors or police, recanting statements about the abuse, refusing to talk about the abuse, perjuring themselves in court to protect the abuser, or refusing to come to court altogether.[4]

Evidence-based prosecution arose from the desire to prosecute individuals in domestic violence cases either without placing pressure on the victim to cooperate when she or he might face retaliation or other dangers from doing so, or when such pressure is applied but ineffective. It was first used in the 1980s, but did not become widespread until the 1990s. By 2004, it was actually preferred by some prosecutors, who reported higher conviction rates without victim cooperation than with it.[5] As of 2010, the use of evidence-based prosecution is strongly encouraged, if not mandated, for agencies receiving federal funding through the STOP Violence Against Women Act.

In its infancy, evidence-based prosecution was often called "victimless prosecution," although this has since become a slang term only, neither factually accurate nor politically correct. As prosecutors and victim advocates frequently point out, evidence-based prosecution often does not deal with a "victimless" crime, nor does it seek to remove the victim or her interests from the case, but rather seeks to focus on the crime and its impact without relying on the victim's participation. Of course, all prosecutions are based on evidence, so the term "evidence-based" prosecution, while politically correct, is not at all descriptive. In context, "evidence-based" prosecution is best understood as a prosecution without any testimony from most or all of the principal witnesses and instead making effective use of all remaining or alternative forms of evidence.

An Anglo-German study states the following at http://www.abdn.ac.uk/law/aslr/Volume2Issue1/EvidentiaryBarrierstoConvictionin.pdf :

In a number of cases –
research findings and estimations range from around 50 to 90% - victims
withdraw their initial complaint and their support for the prosecution. Due to
this phenomenon attrition rates in domestic violence cases are high in many
jurisdictions, because prosecutors tend to automatically dismiss the case if the
victim withdraws the complaint; there is often no evidence other than the
victim's statement which would allow them to proceed.

I think that my observations appear to be pretty much in line with the experience of lawyers and prosecutors across the world. Sorry to utter un-pallatable truths..... do I need to do any more research ?

65

@ Hilary - quite. And having two parents who have worked within the legal system, I can safely say that not everyone shares Richard M's experiences.

66

Dear Richard - I'm very pleased that your observations are based on 15 years working in the legal system and not from personal experience.

Perhaps you'd like to do some research about victims of domestic abuse (men and women), in particular, victims of psychological abuse.

67

OK, we must agree to differ. Since I was told about this I have done what researchers do and look. Here in France there is a growing number of those people, not big, but growing and mainly rural so nobody 'notices'. In the UK it is happening. The use of the word 'No' appears to have been strongly empowered into public servants' vocabulary by the present government albeit it they are only following in step and reinforcing what the previous one started.

My informant is, as I said earlier in this thread, also in law. By qualification she is a barrister, her post is as the co-director of an institute in a university. However she does not hide in her comfortable law department but also gets out and about and was recounting the fact that where she lives there are food queues. She knows the difference between drug users and non-drug users, so that is not the starting point. She has not seen young children, that appears to be reserved for London, but homeless and disenfranchised adults. She is not so stupid that when she talks to the people she takes soft soap, but is rather streetwise and is herself shocked by what is happening. We lived there until three years ago and there were no food queues then. Sure, there was the Sally Ann kitchen for vagrants but not what she is writing about to us.

If you do not accept it now happens then fine. I cannot and why should I try to convert you to my way of thinking? Apart from that, I wonder why on earth you wish to attach this to what you consider the 'looney left', whereas I might say that even the 'reactionary right' are seeing this and the so-called mantra could well come from them as well, albeit in a rather pejorative manner to be followed by a street cleaning exercise to remove them from public view. See the world through your eyes, live and let live and let people see and act for those who need help without you needing to see. Basically, I see this post as now becoming a 'point scoring' exercise where I acknowledge I am no better than the other Richard or you for defending my view of the world. Our point scoring will not end poverty, will it?

68

Brian,

I'm sorry but your non-answer betrays a wilful misunderstanding of the various safety nets in place to catch those in difficult circumstances. I base my answer on 15 years working in the legal system, dealing at many times with those who are in the process of being evicted from housing or made bankrupt. Frankly it is only those with an addiction that compels them to spend the money that is given to them on the wrong thing that end up in such dire circumstances. The number of decent people who actually end up on the streets is so few and for such a short period as to be ignored:

Example A: a nice working class chap with a family and children is made redundant at age 53 and cannot find re-employment in no small part due to his age and the fact that he has been a manual worker all his life. He will already be housed, let's say rented. All he has to do is sign on: the state will give him housing benefit with which to pay his rent, his council tax will be paid. He and his wife / partner will receive about £130 per week cash with which to pay the water bill and feed / clothe themselves. It isn't a lot, but you can survive on it. His credit card bill mount up and he has no means to pay them. He ends up with CCJ's against him. If he submits an explanation to the court he will be ordered to pay each card at about £1 per week, if that. If he doesn't organise himself he may be made bankrupt by the credit card companies (he may even seek bankruptcy himself). Even during bankruptcy you must be left with the basic means of survival. As a rule of thumb this means that none of your benefits will be touched - you are already living on 'rock bottom'. Our friend's benefits will continue to be paid and his cards written off. It won't be a pleasant experience, but he will continue to live perfectly satisfactorily.

Example 2 - a woman runs out on her husband with 2 children in tow because he is a violent drunk. In the vast majority of cases they will have a friend to go and stay with, but lets assume that she doesn't. She will that night be put up in a shelter for abused women. She will be provided with emergency cash to live on until her benefits come through (within 2 weeks). She will use the hostel's address or a charity's as an address to claim benefits (there are several charity's that provide an address for the homeless to get around the problem of having no address - it is a well trodden path). She will be homeless and as such the local authority will have a legal duty to house her. She will be put at the top of the housing register and will be put into a (not very nice but adequate) flat within about 6 months. Eventually she will do a swap or move up the housing register and get a better flat.

There may be a short period of discomfiture when anyone's life collapses, but within weeks the problem is sorted out. Any notion that there is an ongoing problem with families 'forced onto the street' is a myth. There may be occasions where families spend one night on the street, but that is very rare.

Now, the reality that I see from the coal face time and time again:

Firstly, my lady in example 2 will get back together with her violent and abusive boyfriend (who is the father of only 1 of her 3 children) because 'she loves him' and this time he has promised to stop twatting her every time he has had 6 pints of stella stolen from the local co-op. She will break up with him and get back together on at least 3 occasions. The police and the social services will be involved. Each time she will seek to prosecute him and then withdraw the allegation after they have got back together. The police have now got so sick of women doing this that they have a policy of forcing these women to come to court to pursue the prosecution against their will.

Having got herself into a housing association or council house flat with 3 children our lady will become a life-long benefits claimant and probably go on to have more children by other men. A perennial problem that happens is that the council pays the money for the housing to the claimant personally and she is then meant to hand it over to the housing association that provides her flat. However at Christmas she doesn't and instead uses the rent money to buy christmas presents and go out on the razzle. The housing association then sues for possession but the court will not kick her out instead she will be ordered to pay 'current rent + £3.45 per week'. It is only after she has broken this agreement about 6 times (literally that or more occasions) and is about 6 months in arrears of rent that the court would consider making a possession order. Once that order is made the local authority becomes under a duty to house her again and the cycle starts again. It rarely ends up at that stage because everyone realises it just costs more to kick her out, re-house her and her children etc. etc. the money in unpaid rent (which was given to her by the state but which she has spent on other things) just gets written off.

If you don't believe this scenario then go to a county court in January and you will see dozens and dozens of cases exactly the same being dealt with in January and indeed throughout the year.

To flip your own comment back to you:

"Does it need to become more common before people are willing to accept it is a real phenomenon or do people just keep their blinkers on and pretent it does not exist at all. If there are a dozen such children in the UK then that isa dozen too many."

Why is it that the loony-left deny the existence of this vast swathe of feckless claimants who abuse the system ? Is it because they have their blinkers one ? Why is it that the loony-left proposes no solution but just comes out with a mantra like "If there are a dozen such children in the UK then that is a dozen too many" in support of a wishy washy argument that we should throw money at all the feckless just on the off-chance that there are a dozen genuine cases out there. Can you not give us a proposed solution that looks after these dozen children that doesn't involve throwing free cash at the lazy ?

69

Richard, in principle you are right. The rare but nonetheless real problem comes when people lose homes (can't pay rent of mortgage) because they have nothing left, then have no address, if they are in any kind of crashdown like a derelict or squat they do not get benefits. I am not even referring to those who ought to be able to get their act together and even scrape through. There are some people who are out of everything. Nick Ord wrote about seeing a couple of families 'evicted' from the doorway of a department store on another post. They exist, totally dispossessed people who fall outside the system who will neither beg nor steal because they have some pride left. That's what Kids Company are reporting. Does it need to become more common before people are willing to accept it is a real phenomenon or do people just keep their blinkers on and pretent it does not exist at all. If there are a dozen such children in the UK then that isa dozen too many.

70

Brian,

I'm going to have to throw this back at you and ask for your answer:

"My question is therefore we do about the very few five year olds who family do care but also have nothing and the child is consequntly in the food lines."

For those who's family DO care then, like you, the state provides free education, access to the internet is available for almost all. Nutritious food is available cheaply to those parents who can be bothered to cook it. If the family do care then the five year old will be fine. I personally am a believer in grammar schools (possibly at 13 not 11), but I'm out-voted on that point. That isn't the problem, it is families who DON'T care about the 5 year old that are the problem.

Everyone agrees that those who are truly awful parents should have their children swiftly taken away from them, and in many cases most would agree that this ought to happen sooner than it does. That seems to me to be an argument for improving social services however and is unrelated to food-queues. It is the children of those that DON'T care but who don't actively abuse their children that are the problem category - they just take no responsibility for them and breed into them their own lazy feckless values. They fall above the social services intervention level, but do nothing to properly raise their children. This seems to me to be the mythical golden child we all see going un-aided but deserving of assistance.

In relation to families that DON'T care but don't actively abuse their kids frankly I think we are out of options. Throwing money at ALL the underclass will not solve the problem. It is your lot in life if you are born to weak parents, just as it is your benefit if you have great ones. The state cannot solve this, nor frankly should it have to. It is just a fact of nature just as if you are born good looking, strong or ugly. At present we throw huge sums of money on the (false) premise that there are scores of bright and willing children out there who, but for weak parents, would all be getting into Oxford. There aren't - if you are brought up in a family that reveres education and sticks by moral values you will do better than if you have the opposite. For the most part weak parents breed ferral children who are never going to be interested in doing well. They have their parents genes and upbringing. How do you propose that we save them without simply throwing more and more (wasted) money at the problem ?

71

Richard, two of us but grew up like you, father was a builder who never took a day off, often worked all weekend even. Difference for me was 11plus, 'O' levels, 'A' levels and university entrance exam all went very well. I disagree in your 'underclass' and would make far more divisions anyway along similar lines. I actually agree on class three up although one and two lack some detail. There are some absolute 'have nots' in every society, nation and so on in this world who are there for no fault of their own. They may even be well educated and trained but there is simply nothing on offer so they go on the skids. My question is therefore we do about the very few five year olds who family do care but also have nothing and the child is consequntly in the food lines. They are the exception but that they exist and however few, there are more now than before is not a good reflection on where a nation has gone and is still heading for, be that the UK, France or wherever. That there are also people who are bad, lazy, addicted to something or whatever else is not in the question at all. I differentiate as well - I am by no means a 'tree hugger' as mentioned earlier. I have made my livelihood, in effect, from the suffering and hardship of children for four decades and know the whole spectrum exists, I have seen it where it could not be faked or fudged.

72

PS.... on a number of times when driving over to France I have stopped at a UK supermarket to do a shop for basic supplied (a) because it is cheaper, (b) because they are open (e.g.) on a Sunday.


I've just had a flyer dropped through my door from the Co-Op, the substance of which can be found on the internet so I shan't scan the flyer....Look at these offers: http://www.co-operative.coop/food/deals/Shopping-List/all-deals/

You wouldn't find prices like this anywhere in France.....

73

It seems to me that whenever a debate such as this starts up (here or elsewhere) that people seek to draw a distinction between the hard working but poor ‘lower class’ (I grew up with 6 brothers in a 2 bed house but we worked hard and paid our taxes etc. etc.) and the ‘underclass’. I think that is the wrong distinction. It seems to me that you could divide the country into four classes (ignoring the old C1, B2’s etc.):

1) The super-rich, the aristocracy and the banking fraternity;

2) The upper-middle class: professionals and those earning up to about £100, 000;

3) The lower-middle class: bus drivers, builders and skilled workers falling short of ‘professionals’;

4) The underclass – made up of the bad and the vulnerable (the disabled and the just plain stupid who can’t cope for themselves but who are not wilfully ‘bad’).

It seems to me that we all have a tendency to cite the distinctions between the ‘bad’, those in my category (3) and ‘the vulnerable’ indiscriminately, but this is a false distinction. The real distinction we would like to draw is between the ‘bad’ and the ‘vulnerable’ in category (4). Those in category (3) don’t really come into the equation.

By far the greatest burden of taxation falls on those in categories 3 & 4, i.e. the middle classes bear the yoke of paying for the whole country – by dint of the fact that the vast majority of people fall into these categories. If we brought in a tax for the super-rich it would not actually raise that much money as to make a significant difference because there are comparatively few of them – we tax them at 80% would mean the middle classes all paid 1% less tax (or something along those lines). By attacking our best entrepreneurs however we may do more damage than good to ourselves. So we look to the underclass and decide to pay them less, at which point somebody will point out that if we do this children will suffer (so we mustn’t do it).

The likes of Richard P and I get irate because we don’t believe that the bad and the lazy in category (4) are incapable of making it into category (3). Every bus in London has an advert on it enticing people to become a bus driver and earn £350 to £400 p.w. (about £20, 000 per year). If both parents work an income in this vicinity will fund a family such that they have a 3 bed house in a (not top, but perfectly adequate) town such as Bexleyheath, Raynes Park, Maidstone or any other suburban town. They won’t live in the best parts of the centre of any metropolis. They will be able to afford 2 weeks in Majorca and generally be perfectly content citizens. The brighter, harder working or determined ones can easily do better. The average income in the UK is £27, 000 – it follows that there are people on £18, 000 who can by no means be considered destitute.

When we see brand new ‘Academy’ schools being covered in graffiti we get annoyed, when we see council estates with satellite TV, new windows door and heating, yet the residents dropping litter on their own front doorsteps for somebody else to clean up we get narked, when we queue in the supermarket and see the chav in the queue behind us buying stacks of (expensive) ready made pizzas we look at our pile of (relatively cheap) fresh vegetables and get annoyed etc. etc. We also see evidence with our own eyes of people on benefits but comparatively well dressed and driving nice cars – we suspect that they are cheats. We see nothing but Polish and other east European staff behind the counters of McDonalds and half the bars in England and we wonder why our home-grown benefits claimants aren’t taking these jobs rather than signing on. This is why you get articles published like the one (very funny) one pointed out by Brian.

If you lose your job then you can go to any CAB and discuss your credit card debts. If you write to the county court and you are on benefits your debts will be frozen and you will be asked to pay £1 a week towards the county court judgment. The state will pay your rent or mortgage interest and so long as you keep up payment of the current rent plus £3.45 towards any arrears no court in the land will kick you out. The safety net saves those transient unemployed.

A couple of us have commented that we seem to think that the state provides enough money to live a basic life in terms of food clothing and shelter. Given the relative cost of food and clothes I would say a better standard of living than a working class family in France for that matter.

Those who arrive in the UK and claim asylum get financial support pending the outcome of the asylum process. Only those who arrive in the UK and don’t claim asylum or stay on after their claims have been rejected don’t get benefits.

Arguments concerning children who are abused are arguments to improve the social services system, not an argument to give every person in my category (4) an extra £20 per week. Observations over the inadequacies of the fostering / adoption system amount to the same – improve the adoption system, not the benefits system.

So who are the people standing in these food queues ? I don’t see a convincing argument that it is the ‘vulnerable’ who have slipped through the safety net………

74

Listen to French news, read French papers - the same situation exists in France. In actual fact, the welfare state still gives out more handouts in Britain than in France. It's easy to knock a country when you don't live there and as I've said before in a previous posting there is good and BAD in both countries. I am fortunate enough to be able to live in both places. I also have one of my children who is married to a French girl and they have three young children. They have suffered hard times due to the economic recession in Europe and the high unemployment in France and I have witnessed first hand how tough it's been for them. No child should go hungry in Britain as there are free school meals available for low income families. Most senior schools now offer childcare/parenting classes - a step in the right direction. We as a society, have encouraged the break down of the family unit and poor parenting by condoning single parents (lifestyle choice rather than family break up), same sex parenting and little discipline. We are now seeing the results. This will probably get some members jumping up and down but it's a common problem in Europe. Look at Singapore, a very good example where a bit of discipline, respect and belief in children within marriage works.

75

Perhaps Carol one of the biggest problems are the exspensive habits.

So what can we do about the huge drug and booze problems.

More police? Better training for police?

Like you Carol I know that life can and does continue with simple pleasures and

about famalies which just managed. And they kept their heads up high proudly and supported their

country.An honest days work and tax paid.

Since greed came into fashion there have been nothing but problems.

76

Actually Richard...I agree wholeheartedly with a lot of what you say. My mother is on a state pension...and having no savings or any capital, also benefits (not paying council tax and full rent)...she says she is better off now than she has ever been. Living in the UK can be done much more cheaply than here...the cheap but decent food you mention and the cheap clothing are freely available. She has an ordinary tv...but now has 100 free view channels..(which she loves and provides her with hours of entertainment)..with her free tv licence. She has free travel on buses with her travel card... but that is a pensioner. It is absolutely possible to bring up a family in the UK very cheaply...I would say more cheaply than here (many of the young people I know who have kids here cant afford kids clothes...in the UK supermarkets provide a great choice at very low prices). The problem arises...when there is insufficient finances coming in for those going out...and that often means those in debt because of credit cards...debts with rent/mortgages etc. Once you get caught in owing money, many never climb out of that pit... and of course those who have expensive habits, drink, drugs etc. Child poverty is a fact...but in asmuch as some parents will not spend their money or cannot spend where it should be spent, on their family security and food in the first instance. The more a government tightens its belt and austerity is introduced, the more families will be pushed into the poverty trap, and it will happen in all the other countries who have introduced austerity measures...

77

Celeste talks about living on the wrong side of the fence.

She also believes that people have to want to change ....their attitude, their

lives. Yes...I agree.

I lived in a working class enviroment with gangsters for neighbours and little or

no encouragement from my parents to persue the roads which ventured towards

adventure.

But I found my way.

My parents lived each day paying their way....each bill payed on time, providing

adequate food without extravagance and our outings were usually a bus ride to kent

armed with a picnic bag. We would sit in a field and admire the tranquility before

walking for several miles through the empty villages.

Everything was simple back then.They bought what they could afford.

If they could not afford it...it remained in the shop.

Going back to to dear old London now....

or even UK.

Why ?

Because I have memories of the good old days or because I long to spend time with my

old pals who are stilll there...wishing and hopeing that something really great will happen.

It will only happen if you try to make it happen.

Richard...I agree with much of what you report.

Most people will get by in UK if they so desire.

Life is not a composition if flat screen T.Vs , fancy phones,fags, booze

and designer clothes. The goverment in any country needs to provide stability.
Stability seems to arise from balance, adequate policing, comitment with social services

and well run hospitals.

Do you run back to UK to eat Aunt Bessies ready mades and jammy dodgers or

to a country which will provide a sense of stability?

78

Richard M. There are no 'hordes' of hungry children but even a few is not a good indicator of where society is going. Partly because of big changes in the benefits system and partly because of people simply going broke despite having access to the safety net, there are increasing numbers of homeless people. Under 25s are highly vulnerable. The myth of every asylum seeker and illegal immigrant being supported by the state distorts everything. The illegals cannot claim, a few have in the past as they tried to be legit, that has been more or less stopped. It is the visibility of poverty that is attracting attention and by all means only relatively few people out of the entire population make up the entirely dispossessed. The point is that they do exist and are not all faking it. In fact, some of them are too proud to admit how down and out they are skavenging instead. Raiding bins outside restaurants and shops, so bins are now being locked. TV people often make a mess of reporting and do exactly as you say. It does not alter the fact that there are some people completely on the skids and some of them are children. I certainly never mentioned hoards, nor did any of the media.

79

Brian (et al),


I've seen a number of similar articles over the last year and I'm afraid I just don't buy the idea that there are hordes of hungry children who's parents can't afford to feed them. As a yard-stick my parents are on the state pension. The amount dished out to pensioners, those on unemployment benefits and funded illegal immigrants (pending resolution of their appeals) all end up with roughly the same amount to live on (give or take 20% per week). It pays your housing and council tax and leaves a modest amount to spend on living. Any person who is reasonably thrifty can live on it and indeed have a de-facto more luxurious lifestyle than most of us enjoyed growing up before the 90's. You can go to ASDA and buy 3 chickens for a tenner, a bundle of vegetable, rice, pasta and potatoes and feed a family of 4 for week for £35. A pack of 4 mars bars is currently on sale in every small or large supermarket for a £1. Everybody in the country has (at least) 100 channels on Freeview. Few houses don't have double glazing or central heating (something I never had as a child). A pair of jeans costs £4 in Matalan.

I'm not saying that living on state benefits is in any way luxurious, but as a safety net it provides a perfectly satisfactory standard of living. Frankly, looking at my parents they have a perfectly satisfactory standard of living - and they receive the same sums as the people queuing up in these food hand-out places. I've seen a number of articles on these food hand outs and the TV crew will quickly cut to a relatively middle class family living in a nice clean flat with a newish kitchen and lots of childrens toys in the background whilst pointing out that the family is now 'reliant' on these hand-outs ever since mum or dad lost their job. They aren't 'reliant' on them in the sense that they are starving, they are 'reliant' upon them so as they can keep the heating on rather than put on a jumper and to keep being able to send their children to swimming lessons. Of course it is hard to drop from being a working middle class family plunged into unemployment, but it isn't real starvation or penury. It is also normally short lived: the unemployment queues are falling. Yes, people may be spending more time between jobs in these hardened times - but it is nothing like the north of England in the late eighties.

I'm afraid that if you open a charity dishing out food boxes to anyone prepared to come and collect them and giving away £10-£15 of groceries you are going to get a lot of people joining the queue. I accept that amongst these people will be one family genuinely in need for one reason or another, but it is very very few.

We then immediately hear the cry "think of the children" like that woman in "The Simpsons" (aka Catherine's post below). Of course any reasonably intelligent person agrees that it would be nice if a child wasn't sent into damnation because he or she has weak parents.

However it seems to me that for years we have had a social policy directed towards saving this one bright mythical child on an estate born to bad parents: get rid of grammar schools and replace with comprehensives so as all have an equal opportunity because amongst all those noisy disruptive children who are just like their parents there might be one bright child desperate to learn. What next ? Give every family an extra £20 a week because of the one five year old in the food queue of 50 born to foul parents ? I'm afraid this viewpoint has been proven not to work: there is a feckless underclass out there that just cannot be changed: they will take the extra £20, spend it on beer fags and lottery tickets and still send their five year old down to the food queue. If you are born into a family that eschews work and education you are going to grow up the same. If your parents are both teachers they may not be rich but you'll probably grow up with good values. I'm afraid we can't afford to carry on funding ALL the feckless because of a few families who are truly awful. It simply isn't the state's job to give you a better mum and dad. Yes, in extreme cases, we should have an effective social service to intervene but that has little to do with these food queues: I doubt that the parents who are stubbing fags out on their children are in these food-queues, they are too drunk...

Anyway what's all this got to do with people leaving France to go back home ? Citing the Sun as an authority on the state of affairs in the UK is stooping to the level of tabloid scare-mongering rather than making a constructive argument isn't it ? I agree with the observation that 'me thinks you do protest too much'.....go on, admit it, you're itching to get back home and treat yourself to some pork pies and rich tea biscuits aren't you ?

80

I'm going home, because whatever else it holds, my family are there.