Beds

[Yellowfuture 71]

Just hearing reports on BBC news that 1 in 20 children in the UK don’t have a bed to sleep in. I have worked in health and housing and still do, but where on earth does an unqualified report like that come from on the six o’clock news. You can buy a bed on gumtree for as little as £20.

I see poverty and poor housing regularly in my work and there is no denying that there are many living in poor conditions. This needs to be highlighted and really brought to the fore in public discourse, but the BBC does  no favours to those in need by reporting what at the very least are misleading statistics.

[dylanisabaddog 4,966]

The report was based on a poll by Yougov which is a reputable organisation. It's the BBC's job to report it

https://www.localgov.co.uk/One-in-20-children-sleeping-on-the-floor/58045

[Yellowfuture 71]

58 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The report was based on a poll by Yougov which is a reputable organisation. It's the BBC's job to report it

https://www.localgov.co.uk/One-in-20-children-sleeping-on-the-floor/58045

 

I do work in housing and know how serious our housing problems are, but I fear the cause is not helped by reports such as this, based on 1000 online surveys and extrapolated to a population.  

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,966]

19 minutes ago, Yellowfuture said:

 

I do work in housing and know how serious our housing problems are, but I fear the cause is not helped by reports such as this, based on 1000 online surveys and extrapolated to a population.  

 

How on earth do you think surveys are usually done?  1,000 is the number generally used by survey companies in the UK. It's regarded as enough for a result within +/- 5%

[Yellowfuture 71]

31 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

How on earth do you think surveys are usually done?  1,000 is the number generally used by survey companies in the UK. It's regarded as enough for a result within +/- 5%

I find that astonishing but having looked it up you are right, thanks for the info. 

I still contend that this isn't a reflection of the reality in the UK, and certainly not the reality that I see on the ground.

As said previously the problems in housing are massive, but I dont think they are helped by crying wolf.

Edited September 30, 2023 by Yellowfuture

[Creative Midfielder 2,000]

20 minutes ago, Yellowfuture said:

I find that astonishing but having looked it up you are right, thanks for the info. 

I still contend that this isn't a reflection of the reality in the UK, and certainly not the reality that I see on the ground.

As said previously the problems in housing are massive, but I dont think they are helped by crying wolf.

I don't think anybody is naive enough to think surveys, whether of voting intentions or anything else, are completely accurate but I don't understand why you would charactarise this as crying wolf, or indeed unhelpful.

Even if the survey is 50% out, rather than the 5% norm that @dylanisabaddog mentioned, it would still indicate a huge problem, and one which our incompetent and uncaring government is well aware of but happily ignores.

You say yourself that there are many living in poor conditions and that this needs highlighting so I'm baffled as to why you see the BBC's report as unhelpful.

[Yellowfuture 71]

27 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I don't think anybody is naive enough to think surveys, whether of voting intentions or anything else, are completely accurate but I don't understand why you would charactarise this as crying wolf, or indeed unhelpful.

Even if the survey is 50% out, rather than the 5% norm that @dylanisabaddog mentioned, it would still indicate a huge problem, and one which our incompetent and uncaring government is well aware of but happily ignores.

You say yourself that there are many living in poor conditions and that this needs highlighting so I'm baffled as to why you see the BBC's report as unhelpful.

I see it as unhelpful if it ( as I believe it does) exaggerates the problem, when there is no need to. I fear that by quoting figures which I suspect most people will believe are way off the mark will harm the cause and turn people off rather than engage people in trying to deal with a serious issue. Look where the exaggeration from both sides lead to with the Brexit debate, it’s not necessary for such a serious issue imo. Of course I maybe completely wrong in the way the majority will react to this report, I am just fearful that it may be counterproductive.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

If it is because the parents cannot afford a bed or replacing one, then that is a damning statistic. Of our country or perhaps even some parents.

[Yellowfuture 71]

I

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

If it is because the parents cannot afford a bed or replacing one, then that is a damning statistic. Of our country or perhaps even some parents.

More about overcrowding and an absence of appropriate social housing I would say KG. These are the big issues, together with living conditions that present a real risk to human health, as far as I’m concerned KG, for me this is what the BBC should be highlighting!

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

19 minutes ago, Yellowfuture said:

I

More about overcrowding and an absence of appropriate social housing I would say KG. These are the big issues, together with living conditions that present a real risk to human health, as far as I’m concerned KG, for me this is what the BBC should be highlighting!

 

Trouble is, at various times of the day, GB News gets more viewers than BBC or Sky, and those viewers do not give one jot, one iota, about the rest of humanity. And the ywouldn't highlight these facts. They would tell you the kids must be woke for wanting a bed.

[benchwarmer 625]

23 hours ago, Yellowfuture said:

Just hearing reports on BBC news that 1 in 20 children in the UK don’t have a bed to sleep in. I have worked in health and housing and still do, but where on earth does an unqualified report like that come from on the six o’clock news. You can buy a bed on gumtree for as little as £20.

I see poverty and poor housing regularly in my work and there is no denying that there are many living in poor conditions. This needs to be highlighted and really brought to the fore in public discourse, but the BBC does  no favours to those in need by reporting what at the very least are misleading statistics.

I haven't seen this, but do you think they mean that 1 in 20 don't have a bed of their own?  It could be due not so much to lack of beds but lack of space.

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by benchwarmer

[Barbe bleu 832]

In a previous life I would frequently go to some of the most shocking housing around.   People living in sheds, garages without windows, converted toilet blocks,  all kinds.   Overcrowding was a huge problem but I still doubt 1 in 20 kids is without a bed.

9 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

How on earth do you think surveys are usually done?  1,000 is the number generally used by survey companies in the UK. It's regarded as enough for a result within +/- 5%

If the survey says the result is that 1 in 20 (5% )  and the margin of error is 5% does that mean that 0% of kids being without a bed is a result within the margin  of error?  If so it's a bit of a non story isn't it?

[Creative Midfielder 2,000]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

In a previous life I would frequently go to some of the most shocking housing around.   People living in sheds, garages without windows, converted toilet blocks,  all kinds.   Overcrowding was a huge problem but I still doubt 1 in 20 kids is without a bed.

If the survey says the result is that 1 in 20 (5% )  and the margin of error is 5% does that mean that 0% of kids being without a bed is a result within the margin  of error?  If so it's a bit of a non story isn't it?

Makes me wonder why there is so much debate about a non story................

[Barbe bleu 832]

1 hour ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Makes me wonder why there is so much debate about a non story................

Would you agree that a result of 5% in a test with a margin of error of +/-5% means that the true answer could actually be 0%? 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Nuff Said 5,156]

https://zarach.org/
 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/02/leeds-bed-poverty-crisis-bex-wilson-zarach?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
 

Does it matter if it’s 5%, 1% or 0.1%? It’s too many. 
 

If you’re struggling to feed your family, let alone cover heating and power bills, £20 might as well be £2,000.

This is Britain after 13 years of Tory rule (although the charity was started 5 years ago, so 8 years of the Tories in this case).

[Creative Midfielder 2,000]

9 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Would you agree that a result of 5% in a test with a margin of error of +/-5% means that the true answer could actually be 0%? 

I'm no statistical expert but I would have thought the answer is pretty obviously, no it couldn't possibly be.

If the survey sample was a 1000 and 50 of them responded that they have no bed then that will always therefore produce an outcome of greater than 0%.

The margin of error relates to how representative the sample was of the whole population is and therefore how accurate the sample result is when scaled up to the whole population. It may be that in this case that the sample wasn't representative as usual and the result is, as @Yellowfuture posted originally, somewhat exaggerated but to suggest that it could actually be zero is both ridiculous and rather foolish.

I realise that you are a very committed defender of the indefensible but you've reached the stage of rather desperately clutching at straws, which I'd suggest is getting counter-productive though I can't fault your persistence 😀

[Yellowfuture 71]

9 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

https://zarach.org/
 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/02/leeds-bed-poverty-crisis-bex-wilson-zarach?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
 

Does it matter if it’s 5%, 1% or 0.1%? It’s too many. 
 

If you’re struggling to feed your family, let alone cover heating and power bills, £20 might as well be £2,000.

This is Britain after 13 years of Tory rule (although the charity was started 5 years ago, so 8 years of the Tories in this case).

Of course its too many, thats the whole point! 

Your link to Zarach gives a real insight, which is exactly what we need, I hope people read about what they do, thats where we get a much better picture of whats going on rather than sensational headlines which most people, quite rightly imo, are going to struggle to believe.

 

 

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

Primary cause of this is that wages have not kept pace with inflation and indeed productivity increases for decades (and I'll go as far as to say a major reason why birth rates are low are simply due to people bring responsible and not having kids they can't afford). Otherwise, you get kids growing up in circumstances like this.

The real sickos are those who lionise the past in such cases and say stuff like "well, I grew up six in a room with me bruvvers an' sisters an' it never did me no harm". If you're thinking people should just put up with raising kids in poverty - with the demonstrated negative impacts that this has on kids - just because you had it in your younger days then you're lacking in self-awareness when you say it didn't do you any harm.

[Creative Midfielder 2,000]

28 minutes ago, Yellowfuture said:

Of course its too many, thats the whole point! 

Your link to Zarach gives a real insight, which is exactly what we need, I hope people read about what they do, thats where we get a much better picture of whats going on rather than sensational headlines which most people, quite rightly imo, are going to struggle to believe.

 

 

Agree completely about Zarach which is local to us and well-known/respected in the area but I think you are worrying unnecessarily that these are "sensational headlines which most people, quite rightly imo, are going to struggle to believe".

I would point out that Zarach was started by an assistant head and that is no co-incidence. Quite apart from them and other campaigning organisations I have certainly seen many news interviews over recent years with primary school teachers, as I'm sure you have, which have been discussing issues in education and in which teachers regularly highlight domestic serious problems which impact childrens' education, such as children arriving at school tired (because they don't have a bed or they share with siblings) and/or hungry becuase they've had no breakfast, as being equally or more problematic than the academic issues they are being interviewed about.

So, with that in mind and given that we know that for the last decade or more the number of people using food banks has grown rapidly before going through the roof over the last couple of years and that huge numbers of people can't afford to heat their homes, I don't think (irrespective of whether the actual figure is right or wrong) that most people will see anything sensational or difficult to believe in this particular story.

 

[Barbe bleu 832]

 

2 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

 

You may have misunderstood margins of error.   They relate to the processed % outcome rather than the raw returns.

I didn't actually say that the 'true' (a simplification) result would be 0%, or even in the range 0-10% . I was simply extrapolating from DIABD's 5% MOE (which I suspect is at least double what the formulas say it should be).

This brings the discussion to the original point that yellowjacket was making. Statistics  (and other forms of evidence) like this are jumped upon to provide quick  and unthinking support  to a particular  cause when perhaps what is really needed is a bit of calm reflection on what the statistics actually show and the extent to which they actually help form opinion or actually just put the intended audience off.

 

Edited October 1, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[Creative Midfielder 2,000]

7 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I didn't actually say that the 'true' (a simplification) result would be 0%, or even in the range 0-10% . I was simply extrapolating from DIABD's 5% MOE (which I suspect is at least double what the formulas say it should be).

 

Oh really:

21 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Would you agree that a result of 5% in a test with a margin of error of +/-5% means that the true answer could actually be 0%? 

Could actually be 0% - that seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me, and if you think you were 'simply extrapolating'  then I'd say that neither maths or logic are your strong points.

If you're determined to carry on trying to defend the indefensible then you're going to have to up your game considerably - attempting such glib and facile dismissals just doesn't cut it.

[Barbe bleu 832]

5 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Oh really:

Could actually be 0% - that seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me, and if you think you were 'simply extrapolating'  then I'd say that neither maths or logic are your strong points.

If you're determined to carry on trying to defend the indefensible then you're going to have to up your game considerably - attempting such glib and facile dismissals just doesn't cut it.

Oh go on then! 

My point was to agree with yellowfuture's general point that we misuse and abuse statistics at the expense of our own long term argument. It wasn't really about this particular survey or housing specifically, that was more the medium than the message, but I  fancy a bit of sport.

The survey quoted said that 5% of children did  not have a bed of their own.  Yellowfuture said he doubted that statistic was accurate.  DIABD then intervened to remind us that all surveys come with a margin of error. He said 5% was about standard (I think this is an exaggeration but that's not important).

If a survey comes back with a result of 5% and there is a margin of error of 5% then the 'true' answer (or one we can have the desired level of confidence in) lies in the range 0-10%.  0% is then a realistic possibility for the 'true' result - 0% is within the accepted margin of error, as is 10%.  Taking DIABD's MOE at face value this survey doesn't actually prove there is a problem at all.

Again i wasn't making a point about housing  (other than to say that I thought we had a real issue but not quite as described in the survey), it was about people latching onto statistics to 'prove' a point even when they don't really know what these statistics show and without considering how they could be used against the very point they are trying to make.

This problem is worst amongst people that are completely unaware of their own biases and gladly latch onto anything that confirms, or seems to confirm, what they want to believe (that's you by the way. sorry for personalising this but, you kinda started that)

Edited October 2, 2023 by Barbe bleu