Visit speed website Speed blog home
October 12th, 2011 by Rebecca Gregory

Right to reply: RIM could learn from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation

POVERTY

Image by psd via Flickr

The comments on The Spectator’s Right to Reply by the Chief Executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Julia Unwin, in response to Coffee House Blog critique of the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) recent definition of poverty by Fraser Nelson make for absorbing reading.

Here’s a loose summary of the comments:

-          Educate people out of poverty with life and career skills

-          Get people out of poverty through confidence and self-worth

-          Don’t pay people to be poor

-          Labour bashing

-          Statistics bashing

-          Unwin doesn’t address the points raised in the original Coffee House article

-          Of course Unwin will say that

-          Exaggeration detracts from the real issue

On point three (don’t pay people to be poor), it’s worth noting that in Sweden (my seeming failsafe country of comparison when it comes to the UK’s social issues) unemployment benefits come in at less than £300 a month (well, so I’ve been led to believe anyway in a passing conversation at the weekend). Over there it’s doesn’t pay to be poor. But then, they have an above average education and standard of living.

Aside from commenting on the nitty gritty of the issue – for a start I’m no expert on social issues and generally find all this debate most enlightening – from a comms perspective it’s proving quite interesting. Having read Coffee House yesterday morning and thinking to myself ‘Joseph Rowntree Foundation ought to get on that’, I’m impressed that they responded as quickly as they did. A best practice example of speedy response that perhaps the comms team at RIM / Blackberry ought to take note of…

On the criticism that ‘of course she’ll say that’. Yes, of course she’s going to back the research! Why would you expect her not to; to comment as such is a waste of a comment. On the exaggeration point, perhaps it’s because I’m in comms, but it often surprises me that people are so naive about how the media works. Don’t they realise that if you give a journalist the choice between a hard-hitting statement and a wishy-washy statistic, they are in all probability going to go with the former (the one in question being “400,000 children will fall into relative poverty by 2015…”)?

In her response (whether it addresses Coffee House points or not), Unwin makes it clear that the overarching message of the research is that poverty levels in the UK are increasing. The headline statement is a means of carrying a core message, raising awareness of the charity and the work it does. The point has been made, the issue is now being widely discussed in broadcast and national media – and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is in the middle of this.

Job done.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
July 6th, 2010 by Caroline Allen

A safe ride?

Two children – aged eight and five – are allowed to cycle to school unsupervised and it’s provoked a debate across national media as well as here in the office.  The story made the news after the children’s school, Alleyn’s Junior School in Dulwich, south London, was considering reporting their parents to social services for letting them cycle to school on their own.

The children’s parents commented that ‘we wanted to recreate the simple freedom of our childhood. These days children live such regimented lives. They can do nothing unless it’s planned.  We are trying to let them enjoy their lives and teach them a little bit about the risks of life’.  Various organisations, including RoSPA and Sustrans, have come out in favour of the issue, advocating the valuable life skills children can learn from activities such as this.

However, much of the debate in the office and also amongst friends and family, has been around the age of the children – should an eight year old really be in charge of a five year old?  Whilst the route to their school is on the pavement, through the backstreets of leafy Dulwich, my issue is not about letting children have a chance to learn self-confidence and responsibility but more about what might happen to them along the way.  What would the eight year old do if there was an accident on the way to school?  What about the issue of ‘stranger danger’?

As the mother of a three year old, the thought of letting him cycle a mile down the road in two years time, even with an older sibling, isn’t something I’d feel comfortable with.  I appreciate the need for children to learn risk and understand danger but in my mind, this seems to be a slightly unusual way for children to learn this.  In this day and age, it’s harder than ever to know at what age children should start to be given some freedom outside the home but five seems a bit too young for me.  What are your thoughts?

Enhanced by Zemanta