School Dinners and FAT lazy parents!! Grrr
Discussion
D1ngd0ng said:
I considered saying yes until she told me that it was £40 a month per child at which point my eyes watered. Mo wonder the gov want to do away with them, must be costing a fortune.
Feel sorry for my own children though as I doubt her cooking/food prep has improved since the divorce.
Feel sorry for my own children though as I doubt her cooking/food prep has improved since the divorce.
Which is why my 3 take sandwiches.Thing is, I don’t think people begrudge kids having FSM. If they don’t have a decent meal it impacts on their attainment which would impact on future prospects. But a lot of schools now do free breakfasts as well because parents aren’t feeding their own kids before sending them in. It’s the abrogation of personal responsibility which annoys me tbh.
Countdown said:
She is living off other people. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should. What happened to pride and self-respect ?
Taken at her word she said she wants to work, but she'll be worse off, so it's a systemic failure and hardly her fault. Given her situation (and waistline) she appears to have swallowed her pride.Blue62 said:
Countdown said:
She is living off other people. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should. What happened to pride and self-respect ?
Taken at her word she said she wants to work, but she'll be worse off, so it's a systemic failure and hardly her fault. Given her situation (and waistline) she appears to have swallowed her pride.Blue62 said:
Countdown said:
She is living off other people. Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should. What happened to pride and self-respect ?
Taken at her word she said she wants to work, but she'll be worse off, so it's a systemic failure and hardly her fault. Given her situation (and waistline) she appears to have swallowed her pride.
not getting involved in her case. but..
The whole system is wrong, minimum wage is a joke and employers are allowed to twist the rules to suit and the most vunerable people who are desperate for a job are taken advantage of in a great deal of cases.
Take for instance the care of the elderly....
most front line jobs in this sector are minimum wage (in fact most actually less by the time you actually factor in use of your own vehicle and fuel in the cases of care at home). These jobs generally should be for people with some form of qualification in health care, not just the cheapest possible option which allows "care" agencies to employ the desperate and make them work huge hours for ridiculous pay.
Its not the only area where regulations are a joke and this happens in .
The whole system is wrong, minimum wage is a joke and employers are allowed to twist the rules to suit and the most vunerable people who are desperate for a job are taken advantage of in a great deal of cases.
Take for instance the care of the elderly....
most front line jobs in this sector are minimum wage (in fact most actually less by the time you actually factor in use of your own vehicle and fuel in the cases of care at home). These jobs generally should be for people with some form of qualification in health care, not just the cheapest possible option which allows "care" agencies to employ the desperate and make them work huge hours for ridiculous pay.
Its not the only area where regulations are a joke and this happens in .
hedgefinder said:
Take for instance the care of the elderly....
most front line jobs in this sector are minimum wage (in fact most actually less by the time you actually factor in use of your own vehicle and fuel in the cases of care at home). These jobs generally should be for people with some form of qualification in health care, not just the cheapest possible option which allows "care" agencies to employ the desperate and make them work huge hours for ridiculous pay.
.
Unfortunately this is how the capitalism / free market works. Playing devil’s advocate raising standards would involve extra costs for the Provider and/or extra costs of regulation by the Government. Provision by the State would also incur extra costs to be borne by the taxpayer. most front line jobs in this sector are minimum wage (in fact most actually less by the time you actually factor in use of your own vehicle and fuel in the cases of care at home). These jobs generally should be for people with some form of qualification in health care, not just the cheapest possible option which allows "care" agencies to employ the desperate and make them work huge hours for ridiculous pay.
.
Countdown said:
D1ngd0ng said:
I considered saying yes until she told me that it was £40 a month per child at which point my eyes watered. Mo wonder the gov want to do away with them, must be costing a fortune.
Feel sorry for my own children though as I doubt her cooking/food prep has improved since the divorce.
Feel sorry for my own children though as I doubt her cooking/food prep has improved since the divorce.
Which is why my 3 take sandwiches.Thing is, I don’t think people begrudge kids having FSM. If they don’t have a decent meal it impacts on their attainment which would impact on future prospects. But a lot of schools now do free breakfasts as well because parents aren’t feeding their own kids before sending them in. It’s the abrogation of personal responsibility which annoys me tbh.
Countdown said:
Unfortunately this is how the capitalism / free market works. Playing devil’s advocate raising standards would involve extra costs for the Provider and/or extra costs of regulation by the Government. Provision by the State would also incur extra costs to be borne by the taxpayer.
no no no, the gorvernment IS paying these "care" agencies, and paying them quite well too and the government have regulation in place (allededgly) which unfortunatley consists of a warning of an impending visit from said authority to check on standards - giving agencies and care homes ample time to put forward a sham face for the authories visiting - its just a complete joke TBH.herewego said:
Countdown said:
D1ngd0ng said:
I considered saying yes until she told me that it was £40 a month per child at which point my eyes watered. Mo wonder the gov want to do away with them, must be costing a fortune.
Feel sorry for my own children though as I doubt her cooking/food prep has improved since the divorce.
Feel sorry for my own children though as I doubt her cooking/food prep has improved since the divorce.
Which is why my 3 take sandwiches.Thing is, I don’t think people begrudge kids having FSM. If they don’t have a decent meal it impacts on their attainment which would impact on future prospects. But a lot of schools now do free breakfasts as well because parents aren’t feeding their own kids before sending them in. It’s the abrogation of personal responsibility which annoys me tbh.
Think we can all agree that it is hard to juggle work and parenting (especially when employers seem happy to use it as an excuse to beat you over the head with)
D1ngd0ng said:
That is potentially a fault of the system (but agree, why not just budget for breakfast and lunch for all students and provide everyone with 2 meals, at least for primary school) I know I'd struggle to not only get myself ready for work in the morning and also two children, then take them to school and be in the office for 9am as is expected. Same as I'd struggle to be at the child minders by the 6pm cutoff point.
Think we can all agree that it is hard to juggle work and parenting (especially when employers seem happy to use it as an excuse to beat you over the head with)
Agree that it's hard work. We're fortunate in that my OH doesn't need to work. For those parents who are in low incomes and dont want to sit back and let the State pay it must be extremely challenging.Think we can all agree that it is hard to juggle work and parenting (especially when employers seem happy to use it as an excuse to beat you over the head with)
However, how would you fund it? Do the parents pay the school direct (and if so what about the extra cost of what is effectively babysitting for an extra 30 minutes in the morning)? Or is it funded through general taxation (in which case unemployed families of 8 will benefit when compared with the DINKYs).
D1ngd0ng said:
That is potentially a fault of the system (but agree, why not just budget for breakfast and lunch for all students and provide everyone with 2 meals, at least for primary school) I know I'd struggle to not only get myself ready for work in the morning and also two children, then take them to school and be in the office for 9am as is expected. Same as I'd struggle to be at the child minders by the 6pm cutoff point.
Think we can all agree that it is hard to juggle work and parenting (especially when employers seem happy to use it as an excuse to beat you over the head with)
Agree that it's hard work. We're fortunate in that my OH doesn't need to work. For those parents who are in low incomes and dont want to sit back and let the State pay it must be extremely challenging.Think we can all agree that it is hard to juggle work and parenting (especially when employers seem happy to use it as an excuse to beat you over the head with)
However, how would you fund it? Do the parents pay the school direct (and if so what about the extra cost of what is effectively babysitting for an extra 30 minutes in the morning)? Or is it funded through general taxation (in which case unemployed families of 8 will benefit when compared with the DINKYs).
Countdown said:
Agree that it's hard work. We're fortunate in that my OH doesn't need to work. For those parents who are in low incomes and dont want to sit back and let the State pay it must be extremely challenging.
However, how would you fund it? Do the parents pay the school direct (and if so what about the extra cost of what is effectively babysitting for an extra 30 minutes in the morning)? Or is it funded through general taxation (in which case unemployed families of 8 will benefit when compared with the DINKYs).
It is a pure pipe dream, nurseries/child minders would never let it get off the ground.However, how would you fund it? Do the parents pay the school direct (and if so what about the extra cost of what is effectively babysitting for an extra 30 minutes in the morning)? Or is it funded through general taxation (in which case unemployed families of 8 will benefit when compared with the DINKYs).
I've no idea where to even begin with it (good job I'm not in politics then) dare not think of the numbers involved in providing 2 meals a day for every primary school pupil and like you said, providing 30 minutes of childcare every morning. for the purpose of answering your question though I think that it'd have to come from general taxation. If the state/school offered as an extra then I expect private care would under cut it straight away. Also knowing how slow the state is to act, how would they react to moves in the price for produce? Price of produce goes up and what happens, school takes money out of the education fund to make up the shortfall?
So many variables that I cannot think of them on a Friday afternoon. I'd like to think though that its the children who benefit, but that far to noble and like you've already said, those that benefit most are the feckless and workshy who knock out a baby every 4 years to ensure they keep their benefits set at "maximum please."
Jackleman said:
Surely it depends on what job she gets as to whether it is viable, she obviously does not aspire to much and I see that as a form of laziness when she is scrounging off the state, basically she is comfortable where she is.
Well obviously I dont know the person in question but I'm presuming she'd be looking at basic minimum wage jobs and even some of those are hard to get interviewed for without healthy work experience these days. I doubt she'd wander into a 50k a year job somehow. The other problem she's got is she's a woman and fat and fat women will always struggle to get employed. If she's fat, female and over 45 she'll REALLY struggle. Its not nice but its about time somebody just pointed out thats how it is. In contrast to this story my local news channel reported on a lady with 30 years experience, more qualifications than you can shake a stick at who's applied for 200 jobs in the last year with no success.You talk about being 'comfortable' and you're right. For people who've been out of work a very long time they're used to having their council tax paid, rent paid etc and when they see the BBC News of 'David Cameron wants to slash benefits and force people to go to work!!' they get scared and invariably their thought process is: no benefit-if i got job wont get paid for a month-cant pay council tax-will go to prison-children end up in care. Thats how they think, an extreme example perhaps but the most difficult period for somebody getting back into work is the time between leaving benefits/starting work and actually being paid because it'll take them 2 or 3 months to catch up financially. Thats a very scary time for people.
When I worked for the Job Centre, advisors had a special fund they could go into to help those who had gained employment. It helped them cover travel expenses for a month or to buy them suits for work etc, that was a major help to people and I believe that was scrapped or reduced after I left which is probably causing a problem now.
swerni said:
How many unfilled jobs are there ?
Clearly the answer isn't none.
What is more likely is there are no jobs she wants to do (huge assumption I know) that put her in a better positions.
Of course there's unfilled jobs, in fact I'm looking at job ads now just out of interest. The point is how many jobs are there that somebody unskilled with limited experience could get? Obviously I don't know her work history, she might have degrees coming out of her ears for all I know but I just doubt she'd get jobs like PHP Developer, German speaking Claims Analyst and Lead Optimisation Analyst (whatever the fClearly the answer isn't none.
What is more likely is there are no jobs she wants to do (huge assumption I know) that put her in a better positions.
k that is) which are all advertised for my local area right now.If you limit the search criteria to low paid jobs which do not ask for experience then that removes about 90% of the ads, leaving the majority of jobseekers competing for 10% of the jobs. The three jobs I listed just now will not be filled by anybody on Jobseekers, they will be filled by people who are already employed and taking their next step up.
zcacogp said:
Countdown said:
Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should. What happened to pride and self-respect ?
EXACTLY this. Spot on Countdown. Oli.
eccles said:
Exactly my thoughts when I saw all those bankers getting their bonuses just after their companies were bailed out with public money.
Yes, those scum bankers who, when they earn a million in bonuses pay over £650K in tax per Million on funding the aforementioned fat bird who can't be arsed to get a job, jeez, I hate the financial industry in the UK and how they bleed this country dry. We would be better off with loads of people working in the public sector being hyper-productive as they do and generating loads of wealth for the UK, not to mention how efective they are with helping the UK economy with its balance of payments. If it is one thing you can say about the public sector during these difficult times, it is how they have adapted to modern business practices and understanding the fiscal constraints of the current UK balance sheet. I'm in awe. Jackleman said:
eccles said:
Exactly my thoughts when I saw all those bankers getting their bonuses just after their companies were bailed out with public money.
Yes, those scum bankers who, when they earn a million in bonuses pay over £650K in tax per Million on funding the aforementioned fat bird who can't be arsed to get a job, jeez, I hate the financial industry in the UK and how they bleed this country dry. We would be better off with loads of people working in the public sector being hyper-productive as they do and generating loads of wealth for the UK, not to mention how efective they are with helping the UK economy with its balance of payments. If it is one thing you can say about the public sector during these difficult times, it is how they have adapted to modern business practices and understanding the fiscal constraints of the current UK balance sheet. I'm in awe. You cannot have one rule for the fat bird and different rules for the bankers. You're essentially saying bankers shouldnt be judged by the 'just because you can doesnt mean you should' standard because they're rich and pay lots of tax.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff