Where the fack have I ever written on here that I want to punish people who have done well for themselves?
You wrote 'seems' which is fair enough, however, I do feel that you are apportioning things that ain't there.

I got my info from here [Link]
a report from the child poverty action group. endchildpoverty.org

Child poverty has no hard and fast definition...

from [Link]

The European Union's working definition of poverty is:

'Persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the Member State to which they belong'.

The UK Government, following the consultation on "Measuring Child Poverty", set out three approaches to examining and measuring child poverty in the UK over time:

Absolute low income: this indicator measures whether the poorest families are seeing their income rise in real terms. The level is fixed as equal to the relative low-income threshold for the baseline year of 1998-99 expressed in today's prices;

According to our definition, children are living in severe poverty if they live in a household with an income of below 50 per cent of the median (after housing costs), and where both adults and children lack at least one basic necessity, and either adults or children or both groups lack at least two basic necessities.

So no mention of Sky/Broadband etc, however if you think that everyone has Sky /cable or broadband then you are blinkered.

[Link]
has some facts about those with home internet access..

While the majority of people in the UK have access to the internet, there are still 10 million people who do not.

70% of people who live in social housing aren't online

It has to be said that this research was carried out in 2009 so not entirely accurate, but I'm sure it's still a fairly reasonable representation.
The ons state that 80% of households had internet access [Link] however it doesn't break it down into socio-economic groups.

Edited by nickgusset (21 Feb 2013 5.10pm)

We can debate the merits of this policy which obviously isn't going to be popular and maybe the logistics and costs may not weigh up, however, I feel there is a bigger picture in that the government is trying to smash the ideology of a welfare state as a lifestyle choice.

I'm all for people in genuine need being supported and they should be isolated but as i've said before our welfare bill is way to big and as a taxpayer I want to see it brought down.

No idea but I refuse to believe such a large proportion of people need state support, either that or benefits are too high. Of all the tax collected by the state about 1/3rd is swallowed up by welfare, more than schools, hospitals, everything else. It's the biggest single cost to the taxpayer.

The only way to get it down is to break the cycle of culture