J
joinerjohn
Hey Thatbloke, I only linked to the report because of the nice coloured graphs and pie charts. Didn't think for one minute you'd read it. 
Yes it is interesting that the poverty riddled areas are where the minorities live and that they own their own houses. Notice too that in these areas , there are minorities claiming benefits (both unemployment and others) Notice too the amount of women who are not financially active, (whatever that may mean). In some deprived areas, minority females accounted for over 80% of the financially inactive women in those areas. Read into it whatever you will though, because like all statistical information, you or anyone can (and usually do ) put their own slant on it.
Example. A politician might say that "Over 80% of ethnic women, don't work." Fact taken from these statistics.
Now if a district nurse or health visitor were to see the same statistics, he/she would say, "Over 80% of ethnic women are bringing up children."
There you see, the same statistics but with a slightly different slant on it.
PS, I couldn't be a**ed to read the report all of the way through (a bit heavy going), but ,,,, "What did they use as a baseline for what is poverty?"
Was it a notional income? or perhaps how much available income they have after bills etc? Could it be a combination of factors such as income, diet, how many cars they have? How many claim free school dinners or what? I certainly didn't read where they got the poverty bit from.
Or could it have been the proportion of families earning below the National Average Wage, because if it was, then I'm afraid that most of the country earn far less than the National Average Wage. (another notional figure )
Yes it is interesting that the poverty riddled areas are where the minorities live and that they own their own houses. Notice too that in these areas , there are minorities claiming benefits (both unemployment and others) Notice too the amount of women who are not financially active, (whatever that may mean). In some deprived areas, minority females accounted for over 80% of the financially inactive women in those areas. Read into it whatever you will though, because like all statistical information, you or anyone can (and usually do ) put their own slant on it.
Example. A politician might say that "Over 80% of ethnic women, don't work." Fact taken from these statistics.
Now if a district nurse or health visitor were to see the same statistics, he/she would say, "Over 80% of ethnic women are bringing up children."
There you see, the same statistics but with a slightly different slant on it.
PS, I couldn't be a**ed to read the report all of the way through (a bit heavy going), but ,,,, "What did they use as a baseline for what is poverty?"
Was it a notional income? or perhaps how much available income they have after bills etc? Could it be a combination of factors such as income, diet, how many cars they have? How many claim free school dinners or what? I certainly didn't read where they got the poverty bit from.
Or could it have been the proportion of families earning below the National Average Wage, because if it was, then I'm afraid that most of the country earn far less than the National Average Wage. (another notional figure )
