Your original statement was "the maternity grant (until yanked by the government) was used to buy designer gear for the mother, ..."
That it's happened at least once, I have no doubt. But I think you mean to use the phrase "was used to buy" to mean that it happens often enough to base a policy decision upon.
The useful questions are "how often does it happen?" and more importantly "did yanking the policy lead to overall improved infant mortality rates?"
Those cannot be answered by "sitting outside ASDA [in Feltham or Hounslow] for a bit." As an extreme example, even if 100% of the people in those two places immediately pop into an off-license, use the money to buy liquor, walk outside, and pour it down the drain, you would need to see if that pattern is the same across the country.
In this extreme example, it might be that 0% of the rest of the country misuses their funds. There are 254,00 people in the London Borough of Hounslow. There are 62 million people in the United Kingdom. If no one else misused those funds, then an overall misuse rate of 0.4% across the entire country is rather good, and the appropriate policy decision would be to understand what is special about Hounslow and how that one region might be improved.
Thus, doing as you suggest would not provide sufficient information to establish an answer for my first question, much less my second.
While you write "Some things are blatantly obvious if you peel your eyes occasionally and observe humanity.", it's very hard to "peel your eyes" and see things when you aren't there.
Others in this topic's comment page made observations to the contrary. Thus a discussion can go no further without more information. That's why you were asked for "citation referencing these problems."
You responded with an extreme, which was disingenuous, I agree.
In any case, any Hofstader fan knows what you mean now. Thank you for confirming that you agree that there is no meaningful basis for your opinion that the UK government should change its aid policies, and that your personal observations of the matter are not relevant.
That it's happened at least once, I have no doubt. But I think you mean to use the phrase "was used to buy" to mean that it happens often enough to base a policy decision upon.
The useful questions are "how often does it happen?" and more importantly "did yanking the policy lead to overall improved infant mortality rates?"
Those cannot be answered by "sitting outside ASDA [in Feltham or Hounslow] for a bit." As an extreme example, even if 100% of the people in those two places immediately pop into an off-license, use the money to buy liquor, walk outside, and pour it down the drain, you would need to see if that pattern is the same across the country.
In this extreme example, it might be that 0% of the rest of the country misuses their funds. There are 254,00 people in the London Borough of Hounslow. There are 62 million people in the United Kingdom. If no one else misused those funds, then an overall misuse rate of 0.4% across the entire country is rather good, and the appropriate policy decision would be to understand what is special about Hounslow and how that one region might be improved.
Thus, doing as you suggest would not provide sufficient information to establish an answer for my first question, much less my second.
While you write "Some things are blatantly obvious if you peel your eyes occasionally and observe humanity.", it's very hard to "peel your eyes" and see things when you aren't there.
How many cases of infant mortality have you seen?