Posted on 02/14/2007 3:56:18 AM PST by Tulsa Ramjet
Britain and the United States are the worst places in the industrialised world for children to live, according to a report by the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef).
They ranked among the bottom third in the study which looked at overall well-being, health and safety, education, relationships, risk and their own sense of well-being.
The study said that child poverty - defined as the percentage of children living in homes with incomes below 50 per cent of the national median - remains above the 15 per cent mark in Britain, the US and Ireland, as well as Spain, Portugal and Italy.
"The evidence from many countries persistently shows that children who grow up in poverty are more vulnerable," the report said, especially in terms of academic underachievement, chances of unemployment and low self-esteem.
Child well-being was rated highest in northern Europe, with the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark leading the list.
"All countries have weaknesses that need to be addressed and no country features in the top third of the rankings for all six dimensions," David Bull, the UK executive director of Unicef, said.
Risk behaviours
Britain lived up to its reputation for "binge-drinking," hazardous sexual activity and drug use, with the report putting the country at the bottom of the rankings for risk behaviours "by a considerable distance".
(Excerpt) Read more at english.aljazeera.net ...
LOL
Let's see - a home with no father versus a home with a murderous jihadist father ... hmmmm
Which might be more detrimental to a kid's welfare ?
No kidding - this is another B.S. report from the U.N. I wonder how many tax dollars went to create this?
That skewed ratio occurred to me as well. What about countries where a greater number of people are wealthy, like Kuwait? Would someone be considered living in poverty if they couldn't afford two luxury yachts?
Sooooooooooooo does this mean the UN will start giving us money instead of taking it??
It's for the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren
Uh, my math is a bit fuzzy, but isn't this definition sort of like what Garrison Keillor says about the children who live at Lake Woebegon - they are all above average!
The name of UNICEF official in charge of this report is David BULL. Enough said.
I'm sure that if you've ever been to India or China (or Indonesia, or most of Africa) you'd probably be less quick to dismiss the idea.
That wasn't my point.
The whole study in this article is about industrial nations. The comparison didn't touch India or Angola.
It's neither about wealth alone - it's about education (own desk - time to learn etc. etc.) health and so on.
I've always had the idea that scandinavian nations are just a better place to bring up kids. There's more help organized in the neighborhoud either. The UK people tend to live apparrt from their neighbours. So do we germans.
Certainly that's not for every individual but that's the tendency.
How about your neighborhoud - are your kids been looked after by the neighbours time by time ?
Jesus H. Christ.
Poverty is now defined as anyone at the 49th percentile of national median incomes.
Xcrew it. Let's go whole-hog. Let's define poverty as anyone who makes 1 dollar less than 100,000,000,000.00 dollars.
Per hour.
"in the industrialised world "
They did not include third world countries. So attack the report where it deserves to be attacked. The use of irrelevant statistics and non measurable feel good ones.
One thing not mentioned here is that the 3rd world is immigrating to the industrialized world, which is probably what accounts for the results of this report.
Muslims in Europe, Mexicans in US, they all have something in common; poverty.
It also ignores the fact that it's the propensity of government stepping in to handle the basic necessities of life that has contributed to the dismantling of broader society and the family. There is no need for a father if the state is willing to fill that role, but when the state does take on that role there are consequences which the study doesn't mention.
It's just more short sighted liberalism, explaining to all us idiots how we'd be better off if we just shut up and let them make all our decisions.
It wasn't about giving a solution.
they asked questions like : " To what degree do children have access to a desk to do homework on - do they have all the literature they need to learn - are they healthy - do they get the time to work focused on homeworks, wich part of the income do parents spend for their upbringing etc.
it was'nt about "are they taken away from parents long enough to be indoctrinated"
You know, if every person in this country who thinks the UN is the greatest thing in the world would take this study to heart and move out of the US to one of those paradises in the industrialized world that UN is so fond of, a lot of our problems would go with them.
Poverty can't be bought off; the price goes up with every payment.
"Tell the UNICEF to go raise their kids in the Congo, or Iran, and see how well their children turn out. Especially the females. What a crock. I guess genital mutilation, child soldiers, and rapes of honor don't count for much anymore."
Jenna Bush is a UNICEF intern. Maybe she'll get them straightened out. :)
"Jenna Bush is a UNICEF intern."
Wow. Too bad she couldn't have gotten with the group that did this and said,..'Uh, you are kidding, right?"
The study is not comparing all nations but rather western industrialized nations.
As between an American home with no father and a Dutch home with a mother and a father, all else being equal, the Dutch kid will tend to be better off.
I agree with you, unless you consider liberalism a mental disease, in which case a Dutch kid raised with 2 liberals is handicapped :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.