Marcus Rashford - School Meals Vouchers Campaign

[loafer123]

Pit Pony said:

Armchair Expert said:

Still trying to find the answer as to why is it that some parents are able to feed their children while on benefits and others can't? To me the system seems quite generous if you have children in this country.

I'll ask my neice the Social Work Manager in child protection, in Bootle.

Then I'll ask my other neice, a single woman with 4 children by 3 fathers on Benefits living in Bootle.

Then I'll ask my wife, who used to be an advisor at the CAB in Miseryside.

I think the answer is that some people make very poor choices on how they spend their money, but for others the benefit system just lets them down.

I'm inclined to believe that either way, there are children going hungry.

Is part of the answer for Child Benefit to be paid in food vouchers?

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

bhstewie said:

Interesting that you seem to think the "very worst part of this current government" is how they deal with social media.

That's literally the very worst thing you can find to level at them this past year or so?

All they had to do was to say a few words to make clear that the effort and contribution from all of those businesses many of whom are already struggling actually mattered and was appreciated.

Couldn't bring themselves to do it any more than you can bring yourself to say that they should have.

I am saying they already have applauded Rashford. How frequently do you need them to be saying Rashford is a good egg so that you think they mean it or it suits your preference?

Yes, I think any government who seems to be governing by Social Media is a bad thing.

Not Rashford so much as all those businesses and individuals who have stepped in to help out.

Nobody is suggesting they should be doing it every single day.

But some acknowledgement from the Prime Minister and a bit better choice of language when asked three times at a Government press conference would be a good start.

[panholio]

Social media has gone batst mental over this. I try and avoid my local Facebook page, but unfortunately read some last night (although luckily avoided posting). Themes are:

Any challenge as to whether parents of these children spend their money wisely is met with real venom and anger. Instant direct abuse, use of “”, “stuck up”, “snob” and “heartless” commonplace.

Lots of outrage on MPs salaries and expenses. Cries of them earning “outrageous” salaries of £80k and “unbelievable” expenses, but very little context as to what salaries at this level of responsibility typically are and more importantly what other jobs these people could do if we didn’t pay them, and very little understanding of the cost of commuting to London.

Absolute fury at subsidised meals for MPs and posting of menus calling MPs out as “s”.

Lots of postings of restaurants dishing out free meals this week (but with often impractical requirements to actually get there to receive them, especially if you are a starving child with feckless parents.

It’s generated a very interesting debate though, and clearly a huge amount of anger in people. My challenge with it all is where do you draw the line? Has anyone managed to calculate the benefits received by says a single parent with two kids. Is it really impossible to feed them? How many kids do we have in the UK who are actually starving? Are many admitted to hospital? Must be stats.

I’m not a fan of the phrase “virtue signalling” but it really does feel like that with most SM posts. Also absolute hatred for anyone with any money.

There was one gem though in it all. Someone posted
“Right I've calculated that i spend 60 quid a month on food for my kids.

If I choose to not bother with that, I can have the full sky package, which is great news, especially now that so many of the people on here seem so willing to feed other people's kids.”

[Digga]

loafer123 said:

Pit Pony said:

Armchair Expert said:

Still trying to find the answer as to why is it that some parents are able to feed their children while on benefits and others can't? To me the system seems quite generous if you have children in this country.

I'll ask my neice the Social Work Manager in child protection, in Bootle.

Then I'll ask my other neice, a single woman with 4 children by 3 fathers on Benefits living in Bootle.

Then I'll ask my wife, who used to be an advisor at the CAB in Miseryside.

I think the answer is that some people make very poor choices on how they spend their money, but for others the benefit system just lets them down.

I'm inclined to believe that either way, there are children going hungry.

Is part of the answer for Child Benefit to be paid in food vouchers?

It would certainly reduce the perception of "kidz4cash" which seems to exist within a certain subset.

However, even then, you are relying on the feckless or devious to look after and keep track of vouchers. Or not trade them for booze and fags. So it would need controls and would likely be worse than just providing free meals.

[loafer123]

Digga said:

t would certainly reduce the perception of "kidz4cash" which seems to exist within a certain subset.

However, even then, you are relying on the feckless or devious to look after and keep track of vouchers. Or not trade them for booze and fags. So it would need controls and would likely be worse than just providing free meals.

I certainly get that, but how are you going to get people to take responsibility for their lives if they know that they will just get bailed out if they neglect their kids?

Equally, how do we reach those who fall between the cracks, and really do need help, whilst sorting out those who milk the system?

[zygalski]

And how exactly do we define 'feckless'?
Plenty of folks on PH live massively beyond their means in a fake bubble of loans for watches & PCP for cars they can't really afford, some no doubt having bred children from multiple marriages.
Isn't that a rather feckless lifestyle? Or are we just talking about people who live in council estates and excluding people with huge mortgages?

[loafer123]

zygalski said:

And how exactly do we define 'feckless'?
Plenty of folks on PH live massively beyond their means in a fake bubble of loans for watches & PCP, some no doubt having bred children from multiple marriages.
Isn't that a rather feckless lifestyle? Or are we just talking about people who live in council estates?

Presumably where it is public money, not private.

[JagLover]

loafer123 said:

I certainly get that, but how are you going to get people to take responsibility for their lives if they know that they will just get bailed out if they neglect their kids?

Equally, how do we reach those who fall between the cracks, and really do need help, whilst sorting out those who milk the system?

There is a option with benefits to have a part of it paid directly to the landlord. This is so those not capable of money management can have a roof over their heads.

This is a similar thing, but for care of the children. Putting them into care should always be a last resort because outcomes for children in care are poor. Probably the only thing that would genuinely help is to identify the 100,000 or so of children genuinely at risk and take them to a local centre every holiday and weekend. Even if just for the morning that would be breakfast and lunch covered. It could also be a safe environment to do homework etc. To avoid the perception that the parents are being "rewarded" for being feckless there could be some money deducted from benefits, but it should only be a nominal amount, because the amount of money it genuinely takes to feed a child breakfast and lunch out of school isn't that large.

[PRTVR]

How quickly things change, it wasn't long ago childhood obesity was a major concern, now they are starving.
My wife pointed out that we clothed and fed our three children on probably less than they get now on benefits, its just a case of priorities.

[Leptons]

JagLover said:

There is a option with benefits to have a part of it paid directly to the landlord. This is so those not capable of money management can have a roof over their heads.

This is a similar thing, but for care of the children. Putting them into care should always be a last resort because outcomes for children in care are poor. Probably the only thing that would genuinely help is to identify the 100,000 or so of children genuinely at risk and take them to a local centre every holiday and weekend. Even if just for the morning that would be breakfast and lunch covered. It could also be a safe environment to do homework etc. To avoid the perception that the parents are being "rewarded" for being feckless there could be some money deducted from benefits, but it should only be a nominal amount, because the amount of money it genuinely takes to feed a child breakfast and lunch out of school isn't that large.

Easier still, pay some of their benefits in vouchers which can only be used towards nutritious Food. It should be fairly simple to come up with a list of essential items, milk, bread, sandwich fillings, fruit and veg e.t.c.

[bitchstewie]

zygalski said:

And how exactly do we define 'feckless'?
Plenty of folks on PH live massively beyond their means in a fake bubble of loans for watches & PCP for cars they can't really afford, some no doubt having bred children from multiple marriages.
Isn't that a rather feckless lifestyle? Or are we just talking about people who live in council estates and excluding people with huge mortgages?

I think most peoples definition of "feckless" is "anyone but them".

I suspect for many people it only takes a tiny little nudge and far less of one than they might think for them to find themselves turning into one of those they seem to dislike so much.

[JagLover]

Leptons said:

Easier still, pay some of their benefits in vouchers which can only be used towards nutritious Food. It should be fairly simple to come up with a list of essential items, milk, bread, sandwich fillings, fruit and veg e.t.c.

The problem is with a minority of parents of children on FSM and if they are misusing money given to them to feed and clothe their children they can easily do the same with vouchers.

[loafer123]

bhstewie said:

I think most peoples definition of "feckless" is "anyone but them".

I suspect for many people it only takes a tiny little nudge and far less of one than they might think for them to find themselves turning into one of those they seem to dislike so much.

Needing welfare support and fecklessness are not the same thing at all.

Rather than trying and failing to read others minds, and projecting your own political prejudices, perhaps you could contribute to a positive conversation for a change?

[bitchstewie]

loafer123 said:

bhstewie said:

I think most peoples definition of "feckless" is "anyone but them".

I suspect for many people it only takes a tiny little nudge and far less of one than they might think for them to find themselves turning into one of those they seem to dislike so much.

Needing welfare support and fecklessness are not the same thing at all.

Rather than trying and failing to read others minds, and projecting your own political prejudices, perhaps you could contribute to a positive conversation for a change?

If it's all the same I'll decide my own contributions and I'm quite happy with the point I made.

Very few people on here would class themselves as "feckless" yet apparently they're everywhere.

Law of averages dictates there are some on this thread.

[Leptons]

JagLover said:

The problem is with a minority of parents of children on FSM and if they are misusing money given to them to feed and clothe their children they can easily do the same with vouchers.

I don’t see how it could be abused, unless there’s a black market for bread and sandwich filling. You’d scan your shopping at the checkout, the voucher would cover specified items, the rest you pay for normally. It’s so staringly obvious I don’t understand why it’s not in place already.

[Pan Pan Pan]

BlackLabel said:

The U-turn will come soon enough, Rashford making Boris and co look like idiots (again).

No he really is not. He is doing something positive to help certain children get fed, as are the businesses which have also started doing the same thing.
As posted before where the cash to do this comes from is not as important, as long as the kids get fed in the end.
What is really sick, is sick saddoes wanting to use kids going hungry, as a way of doing nothing more than scoring political points off the government.
They don't really care about the kids, to them the children are just a political football.(if they did actually care about the children, they would be calling for investigations into how the parents of some children are able to provide for their children properly, even when on benefits, but others clearly are not doing this.
The reasons why this particular group of parents are not capable of caring for their children properly must be determined, so that it can be addressed. .

[loafer123]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I advocate the use of state boarding schools (like Christ Church) and private boarding schools as better and cheaper alternatives to care homes.

A good education and supportive friendship group helps break the cycle of deprivation.

[markcoznottz]

loafer123 said:

bhstewie said:

I think most peoples definition of "feckless" is "anyone but them".

I suspect for many people it only takes a tiny little nudge and far less of one than they might think for them to find themselves turning into one of those they seem to dislike so much.

Needing welfare support and fecklessness are not the same thing at all.

Rather than trying and failing to read others minds, and projecting your own political prejudices, perhaps you could contribute to a positive conversation for a change?

Don’t get your hopes up..

[crankedup]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I along with my three brothers got placed into a Dr. Barnardo home, our toddler sister was looked after by a kindly neighbour.Twice this occurred following our mums illness which caused her huge problems. Parents had no choice in the matter. I was about eight years at the time, first thing we learnt on arrival at the home was how to make our beds each morning. Bath night once a week, line up with rest of boys naked waiting turn. Bathwater was changed IIRC ever fourth or fifth boy. I could drone on and on about the experience, suffice to say it left its mark on life and made me what I believe in. We didn’t starve and were never cold.

[Alltrack]

Leptons said:

I’ve just totted up how much it costs to send my Daughter to school with a packed lunch for five days. It’s £8, using decent stuff. Could be done cheaper.

Is it really unreasonable to expect people to feed their own children lunch for one week? Given that to qualify for free school meals you would already be qualifying for;

Housing Benefit
Universal credit
Child Benefit
Working Tax Credits
School uniform vouchers
Free school bus Pass
Free school trips

Sorry, I don’t think I’m buying into this. It’s just the latest thing to virtue signal and get outraged about.

Something is going wrong somewhere and I don’t think it’s the government’s fault.

If you’re on Universal Credit, you don’t get Housing Benefit or Tax Credits.
Check on Entitledto.co.uk to see what you’d get if you lost your job.