IN response to Julie Chapman (1.11.11) child poverty, as with poverty itself, is a complex notion to define precisely.
A typical holistic measure of 'poverty' is the standard of life enjoyed by an individual, measured principally by their level of income, and then incorporating a number of factors, including environmental, social, material, health and educative indicators.
Child poverty is widely perceived as a particularly problematic and disturbing facet of poverty, as the innocence of youth and helplessness of children to change their situation generates social concern.
Therefore if the wards around the town are as bad as she states, how come we see the majority of children wearing designer clothing, including footwear, calling family and friends on top of the range mobile phones, and sporting gold and silver the old Greenwoods at North Ormesby would want a bit of? I tend to agree with Cllr McTigue, poor parenting is to blame and the way they manage their finances, putting themselves before the children, ensuring alcohol/tobacco is more important than offspring's needs.
And may I ask what she expects Cllr McTigue to do about her findings, we're ward councillors, not Jeremy Kyle or MPs.
KEVIN MORBY, Independent Ward Councillor, Park End Ward * * * IN response to the writer Julie Chapman, who tells us that in Beechwood ward, 44% of the children live in poverty, according to figures from the council.
I am very curious to know what she considers to be poverty. Is it the must-have things, like designer trainers, mobile phones, computer, nice clothes etc? Poverty to me, is when there is no food on the table and they don't know where the next meal is coming from.
With the benefit system in this country, and parents getting their priorities right, no children should be in poverty. …