Free breakfasts for school kids?
Discussion
DonkeyApple said:
I think the relevent question to be asking primarily is what will the breakfast be?
Will it be potato faces and chocolate or a bowl of non sugared cereal and a piece of fruit?
Surely whether the idea has any merit rests almost solely on what the food is that the children will be eating?
It'd be a missed opportunity if not. I'd go as far as providing quality free school lunches, so if you want your kids to eat crap, you've got to pay for it elsewhere. It's about looking at the benefits (long and short term), not just the costs imho.Will it be potato faces and chocolate or a bowl of non sugared cereal and a piece of fruit?
Surely whether the idea has any merit rests almost solely on what the food is that the children will be eating?
Kermit Power said:
This whole thing does piss me off. No school should have to be stepping in to make sure that children get breakfast. That is the responsibility of their parents.
Quite agree, but it's an imperfect universe. What are you going to do? Let 'em starve? Dock their parents' benefits? Apparently this can't be done, though, as it would stigmatize the poor recipients. I reckon there's more stigma to be attached to sending your kids to school without breakfast than there is to buying the food to do so with food tokens.
CraigyMc said:
Oakey said:
Look at the outrage from those earning £60k who've lost their family credit.
A mate of mine got married to a lady who had two kids from a previous relationship.He's about to start paying through the nose for them, simply because he makes just over 50k.
C
Sticks. said:
DonkeyApple said:
I think the relevent question to be asking primarily is what will the breakfast be?
Will it be potato faces and chocolate or a bowl of non sugared cereal and a piece of fruit?
Surely whether the idea has any merit rests almost solely on what the food is that the children will be eating?
It'd be a missed opportunity if not. I'd go as far as providing quality free school lunches, so if you want your kids to eat crap, you've got to pay for it elsewhere. It's about looking at the benefits (long and short term), not just the costs imho.Will it be potato faces and chocolate or a bowl of non sugared cereal and a piece of fruit?
Surely whether the idea has any merit rests almost solely on what the food is that the children will be eating?
If I recall, we sat down for breakfast at school at 7am and it was a range of basic branded cerails, jug of water for those who didn't like drinking milk and toast with the usual basic spreads and fruit. Didn't eat again until 1pm and didn't need to. If a large number of kids are arriving at school not having had a good enough breakfast then the only two real options are to beat the parent with a bat until they start functioning properly or ensure that kids get a simple but functional meal at school.
It's just very sad to think that sufficient kids are being packed off hungry to school that it is deemed necassary to consider this action.
CraigyMc said:
Oakey said:
Look at the outrage from those earning £60k who've lost their family credit.
A mate of mine got married to a lady who had two kids from a previous relationship.He's about to start paying through the nose for them, simply because he makes just over 50k.
C
Marf said:
Better the kids are well fed and have the fuel inside them to learn rather than being empty stomached, grouchy little c-nts who end up taking up all the teachers time to the detriment of the students who actually want to work.
Just give the schools the power to kick them out. If you can't behave in school you shouldn't be there.DonkeyApple said:
I agree. I would even go to so far as to say there are likely to be some good social merits to kids having tea/dinner/supper (delete accroding to geography etc) at schools if the food were suitable.
If I recall, we sat down for breakfast at school at 7am and it was a range of basic branded cerails, jug of water for those who didn't like drinking milk and toast with the usual basic spreads and fruit. Didn't eat again until 1pm and didn't need to. If a large number of kids are arriving at school not having had a good enough breakfast then the only two real options are to beat the parent with a bat until they start functioning properly or ensure that kids get a simple but functional meal at school.
It's just very sad to think that sufficient kids are being packed off hungry to school that it is deemed necassary to consider this action.
Both options I think. It is sad, but worse, it is arguably detrimental to their education and, via their behaviour, that of their peers. Better behaviour = better outcomes = better vfm from education. Imho poor education is the foundation of fecklessness.If I recall, we sat down for breakfast at school at 7am and it was a range of basic branded cerails, jug of water for those who didn't like drinking milk and toast with the usual basic spreads and fruit. Didn't eat again until 1pm and didn't need to. If a large number of kids are arriving at school not having had a good enough breakfast then the only two real options are to beat the parent with a bat until they start functioning properly or ensure that kids get a simple but functional meal at school.
It's just very sad to think that sufficient kids are being packed off hungry to school that it is deemed necassary to consider this action.
Tea/supper could combine with homeworks clubs for eg.
Oakey said:
See anyone who whines about Thatcher 'stealing' their milk?
The great irony being that she personally voted against that particular policy that removed compulsory free school milk. She just had the misfortune to be Secretary of State for Education at the time when the law was passed.I don't hold Thatcher in quite as high regard as some on here, but the more I learn about her, the more I realise how chronically misunderstood many of her policies were and how little resemblance the country she ended up with bore to the vision she had for it originally.
She absolutely detested yuppie culture. She wanted a world of hard-working small business owners who saved diligently and lived modestly. She also believed very passionately in independent small businesses and I suspect she'd be absolutely horrified by the sight of monopolistic chains and internet giants steamrollering many of them out of business.
Many people say they want to see her (or her spiritual successor) back in charge of the country, but I actually think if that person arrived her belated supporters would be in for quite a shock. I think she'd be rather protective of certain businesses many more ruthless individuals seem to want to kill.
Look at the way her government pulled out all the stops to rescue Austin-Rover, for example, compared to Blair's malaise in the face of the Phoenix Four. Killing everything off for daring not to turn an immediate short-term profit for a bunch of yuppie investors wasn't really what she was about.
Interestingly, when she drove her own cars, they were always MGs.
Edited by Twincam16 on Wednesday 9th January 16:56
markh1973 said:
CraigyMc said:
Oakey said:
Look at the outrage from those earning £60k who've lost their family credit.
A mate of mine got married to a lady who had two kids from a previous relationship.He's about to start paying through the nose for them, simply because he makes just over 50k.
C
The whole thing is a complete farce.
I would assume in this case that the kids from the previous marriage are actually living with him, but it would become even more farcical if they're living with their father and the mother pays the child benefit to him as part of a divorce settlement, as this chap would be left paying through his tax code to provide money for his wife's kids from an earlier marriage living in a different house with their own father!
Obviously Osborne never actually thought he'd need to implement this - the idea was clearly to say "look, everyone is sharing the pain", before getting the economy back on a stable enough footing to be able to say they no longer need to enact it. That didn't happen, so now we get a complete f
k up of a scenario implemented. How can it possibly be considered remotely fair that a household with an annual income of £99,999.99 gets full access to a benefit which is denied in its entirety to a household with an annual income of £60,000?Kermit power said:
I would assume in this case that the kids from the previous marriage are actually living with him, but it would become even more farcical if they're living with their father and the mother pays the child benefit to him as part of a divorce settlement, as this chap would be left paying through his tax code to provide money for his wife's kids from an earlier marriage living in a different house with their own father!
You're making stuff up now just to annoy yourself.If the kids were living with their father then the father would get the child benefit.
doogz said:
Caulkhead said:
Why post then?
I was making a fairly simple and straightforward point.I didn't realise having some sort of vested interest in said point was a posting requirement?
What would your response have been if I'd just said "I don't know"?
Sticks. said:
DonkeyApple said:
I agree. I would even go to so far as to say there are likely to be some good social merits to kids having tea/dinner/supper (delete accroding to geography etc) at schools if the food were suitable.
If I recall, we sat down for breakfast at school at 7am and it was a range of basic branded cerails, jug of water for those who didn't like drinking milk and toast with the usual basic spreads and fruit. Didn't eat again until 1pm and didn't need to. If a large number of kids are arriving at school not having had a good enough breakfast then the only two real options are to beat the parent with a bat until they start functioning properly or ensure that kids get a simple but functional meal at school.
It's just very sad to think that sufficient kids are being packed off hungry to school that it is deemed necassary to consider this action.
Both options I think. It is sad, but worse, it is arguably detrimental to their education and, via their behaviour, that of their peers. Better behaviour = better outcomes = better vfm from education. Imho poor education is the foundation of fecklessness.If I recall, we sat down for breakfast at school at 7am and it was a range of basic branded cerails, jug of water for those who didn't like drinking milk and toast with the usual basic spreads and fruit. Didn't eat again until 1pm and didn't need to. If a large number of kids are arriving at school not having had a good enough breakfast then the only two real options are to beat the parent with a bat until they start functioning properly or ensure that kids get a simple but functional meal at school.
It's just very sad to think that sufficient kids are being packed off hungry to school that it is deemed necassary to consider this action.
Tea/supper could combine with homeworks clubs for eg.
Kermit power said:
It's quite simple. They are not his kids, but because he earns over £50k, then the cost of their child benefit will be deducted from his tax allowance because he is married to their mother.
The whole thing is a complete farce.
I would assume in this case that the kids from the previous marriage are actually living with him, but it would become even more farcical if they're living with their father and the mother pays the child benefit to him as part of a divorce settlement, as this chap would be left paying through his tax code to provide money for his wife's kids from an earlier marriage living in a different house with their own father!
Obviously Osborne never actually thought he'd need to implement this - the idea was clearly to say "look, everyone is sharing the pain", before getting the economy back on a stable enough footing to be able to say they no longer need to enact it. That didn't happen, so now we get a complete fk up of a scenario implemented. How can it possibly be considered remotely fair that a household with an annual income of £99,999.99 gets full access to a benefit which is denied in its entirety to a household with an annual income of £60,000?
It's a total disgrace that someone on £50K is complaining about not getting benefits to be quite honest.The whole thing is a complete farce.
I would assume in this case that the kids from the previous marriage are actually living with him, but it would become even more farcical if they're living with their father and the mother pays the child benefit to him as part of a divorce settlement, as this chap would be left paying through his tax code to provide money for his wife's kids from an earlier marriage living in a different house with their own father!
Obviously Osborne never actually thought he'd need to implement this - the idea was clearly to say "look, everyone is sharing the pain", before getting the economy back on a stable enough footing to be able to say they no longer need to enact it. That didn't happen, so now we get a complete f
k up of a scenario implemented. How can it possibly be considered remotely fair that a household with an annual income of £99,999.99 gets full access to a benefit which is denied in its entirety to a household with an annual income of £60,000?For Christ's sake, these are benefits we are talking about, a means by which (at the time of implementation), it was hoped kids wouldn't have to go to school with holes in their shoes.
Just shows what a sense if entitlement is prevalent in society today that people on £50K+ think they should be in receipt of a state handout. Jesus Christ.
And as for those complaining that its unfair that they earn £60k and get nothing when a couple who earn £40k each get the full whack, my heart bleeds for you. Either earn more yourself or get your partner out & bringing some money in if you want more cash.
Life isn't fair in many ways. Get over it.
Jesus, never thought I'd see the day when PH is arguing about whether you should receive benefits dependant on whether you are bringing in £50k or £100k pa.
Oh, and on the actual topic of the thread, I would be in favour of giving all kids a free breakfast.
For the sake of 50p/day, I would rather a kid has a decent meal than goes without just because a parent can't be arsed to do their duty. All those saying that all free meals should be cancelled as its up to the parents to sort it should maybe have little think. Put yourself in the shoes of a 6 year old who is hungry purely because their parent(s) don't give a s
t. Would you withhold a meal from the child to punish the parent? Don't be so bloody stupid.There are many wastes of my tax that the Govt spends money on. Giving a meal to a kid who needs it is pretty insignificant in the scheme of things and very much the right thing to do.
OzzyR1 said:
Oh, and on the actual topic of the thread, I would be in favour of giving all kids a free breakfast.
For the sake of 50p/day, I would rather a kid has a decent meal than goes without just because a parent can't be arsed to do their duty. All those saying that all free meals should be cancelled as its up to the parents to sort it should maybe have little think. Put yourself in the shoes of a 6 year old who is hungry purely because their parent(s) don't give a st. Would you withhold a meal from the child to punish the parent? Don't be so bloody stupid.
There are many wastes of my tax that the Govt spends money on. Giving a meal to a kid who needs it is pretty insignificant in the scheme of things and very much the right thing to do.
agreed and you know what, the poor kids of these fvcking people actually stand a better chance of learning something and not turning into the vermin their parents areFor the sake of 50p/day, I would rather a kid has a decent meal than goes without just because a parent can't be arsed to do their duty. All those saying that all free meals should be cancelled as its up to the parents to sort it should maybe have little think. Put yourself in the shoes of a 6 year old who is hungry purely because their parent(s) don't give a s
t. Would you withhold a meal from the child to punish the parent? Don't be so bloody stupid.There are many wastes of my tax that the Govt spends money on. Giving a meal to a kid who needs it is pretty insignificant in the scheme of things and very much the right thing to do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff