Marcus Rashford - School Meals Vouchers Campaign
Discussion
nikaiyo2 said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I used to think in a very similar way to that.
After all it's that simple right?
I'd simply encourage you to think of your own personal circumstances right now and how big or little of a nudge it would take to put you on your arse financially.
Perhaps not as big a one as you might think.
And even then it's a weird mindset that says "punish the children".
I would like to see benefits frozen at the point of entry into the system. So you have 2 kids when you fall on hard times, then that is where the state is responsible for supporting your family. Decide to have more kids then it’s up to you.After all it's that simple right?
I'd simply encourage you to think of your own personal circumstances right now and how big or little of a nudge it would take to put you on your arse financially.
Perhaps not as big a one as you might think.
And even then it's a weird mindset that says "punish the children".
What are you honestly suggesting happens at that point?
Petrus1983 said:
I’m a bit confused by all of this. At the beginning everyone was “footballers should do more” “footballers need to take a pay cut” etc which was weird as people weren’t calling for FTSE100 chairmen’s to do the same. Now a footballer with first hand experience of needing extra help comes forwards and raises money, supports a scheme and it goes through and people are saying “what’s a footballer getting involved with politics for!?”
I don’t watch football but fromwhat I’ve seen of him he’s a damn sight more inspirational than a lot of other ‘celebs’ so credit to him.
You won't get an answer.I don’t watch football but fromwhat I’ve seen of him he’s a damn sight more inspirational than a lot of other ‘celebs’ so credit to him.
I keep hearing "we need to look after our own" and now I'm reading a thread where people seem think that "our own" doesn't include hungry children yet nobody has explained who "our own" is.
mike74 said:
I wonder if Saint Rashy lets out his rental properties on a not for profit basis?
Perhaps he'll donate any future capital gains to homeless charities?
I'm sure such a worthy, noble and honourable young man with such a finely tuned moral compass wouldn't have bought a commodity in short supply purely to make a rental profit from it, would he now?
You really do have a problem with him don't you Mike?Perhaps he'll donate any future capital gains to homeless charities?
I'm sure such a worthy, noble and honourable young man with such a finely tuned moral compass wouldn't have bought a commodity in short supply purely to make a rental profit from it, would he now?
R Mutt said:
It would be inhumane to give out free fruit, veg, eggs and flour instead. But that would be cheaper than vouchers and a small amount of cash could compensate for the additional cooking time. Teach a man to fish etc.
You're assuming you can teach someone to fish.Rightly or wrongly not everyone is capable.
That isn't the fault of their children.
R Mutt said:
All adults free of physical or mental impairment should be able to cook. See the chap above. It doesn't have to be Michelin starred.
Clearly we have facilitated a class of people who are barely able to function at a greater level than those who would require a helper.
Yes they should.Clearly we have facilitated a class of people who are barely able to function at a greater level than those who would require a helper.
But not everyone is capable or willing.
Lob rocks at them all you like and I'd probably agree on a lot of it but that isn't down to the children.
R Mutt said:
We can attempt to reverse the situation even if it means making sure the kids can cook and writing off the parents.
I'm afraid we have to ignore the sensitives over condescending these people and move from the approach of funding poor diets to being more direct in education.
I've no issue with education as I don't want to be handing out money.I'm afraid we have to ignore the sensitives over condescending these people and move from the approach of funding poor diets to being more direct in education.
But education takes time which doesn't help if you're hungry now.
R Mutt said:
We're not putting them on a desert island. If someone would starve if you gave them a load of vegetables, well...
I'm sure there are lots of things that people can eat without starving.Whether it's the hallmark of a civilised society is a different question.
I don't really get peoples insistence that kids be penalised for their parents shortcomings.
This thread is weird.
fblm said:
Is it? Simply doing the parent's job for them treats the immediate problem but also encourages the very behavior that's causing the problem. As usual the easiest and most obvious ''solution'' has unintended consequences.
So do both.Teach people but fix the immediate issue too.
I assume to some degree children get some sort of basic education on this stuff?
If not that's definitely something that should happen too.
Murph7355 said:
Kids into immediate care where they can be taught about how to cook as well as get looked after properly.
Parents get cooking lessons and kids get to return (if they want) once the parent proves capable.
Of course if lack of ability isn't the issue, then find out what is and address that properly too.
And in the real world how do you expect that to work?Parents get cooking lessons and kids get to return (if they want) once the parent proves capable.
Of course if lack of ability isn't the issue, then find out what is and address that properly too.
Real life isn't as simple as "into immediate care".
Murph7355 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Murph7355 said:
Kids into immediate care where they can be taught about how to cook as well as get looked after properly.
Parents get cooking lessons and kids get to return (if they want) once the parent proves capable.
Of course if lack of ability isn't the issue, then find out what is and address that properly too.
And in the real world how do you expect that to work?Parents get cooking lessons and kids get to return (if they want) once the parent proves capable.
Of course if lack of ability isn't the issue, then find out what is and address that properly too.
Real life isn't as simple as "into immediate care".
t when they see the cost of taking them "into immediate care".This isn't China.
Murph7355 said:
What was the MP replying to?
I also doubt anyone will ever meet a parent who says "nah, not bothered about feeding my kid. Not my responsibility. Getting my next score is my no1 priority...".
That quite evidently doesn't change the actual actions though....
Front page on the BBC News and has some more detail.I also doubt anyone will ever meet a parent who says "nah, not bothered about feeding my kid. Not my responsibility. Getting my next score is my no1 priority...".
That quite evidently doesn't change the actual actions though....
Rashford criticises MP Kevin Hollinrake's 'feeding children' tweet
Murph7355 said:
It still doesn't give the full context.
But do you think the MP is wrong?
"Where they can, it is a parent's job to feed their children".
?
It links to this tweet https://twitter.com/kevinhollinrake/status/1302218...But do you think the MP is wrong?
"Where they can, it is a parent's job to feed their children".
?
Look at the first comment from Bob Bryant and you'll see Hollinrake's comment.
I suspect Hollinrake simply didn't think before tweeting because as Rashford points out it's very easy to say but not quite so simple in practise.
Murph7355 said:
So do you think the MP is wrong in what he said?
I'd also suggest saying "more should be done" but coming up with zero practical and effective ideas on what, is also quite simple. More aimed at you bs than Marcus Rashford
But again, I'll be shocked if extending the meal voucher scheme - as Boris was apparently "shamed" into doing by Marcus - has any material impact on the number of kids going hungry.
No I think he's correct but clumsy in how he expressed it.I'd also suggest saying "more should be done" but coming up with zero practical and effective ideas on what, is also quite simple. More aimed at you bs than Marcus Rashford
But again, I'll be shocked if extending the meal voucher scheme - as Boris was apparently "shamed" into doing by Marcus - has any material impact on the number of kids going hungry.Edited by Murph7355 on Sunday 6th September 23:27
You're right it's simple to say things and Rashford thankfully is better than I could ever be at achieving a decent result - I'm just a gob on the Internet.
Rashford's "very easy one liner" highlights that poverty doesn't work the way a lot of people think it does.
His point appears to be that most parents overwhelmingly know and accept that it's their responsibility to feed their children.
If you can't do so due to poverty that needs tackling and you need help.
You probably don't need to be simply told that it's your job as a parent.
Like I said technically he's absolutely correct but theory and practise...
His point appears to be that most parents overwhelmingly know and accept that it's their responsibility to feed their children.
If you can't do so due to poverty that needs tackling and you need help.
You probably don't need to be simply told that it's your job as a parent.
Like I said technically he's absolutely correct but theory and practise...
Murph7355 said:
There's a very big "if" in that statement.
I am very, very doubtful anyone in this country has kids going hungry due to "poverty". Rashford's one liner does nothing to address that - it is merely stating the obvious (one hopes). ie that parents know it's their responsibility to feed their kids.
The complexities that then result in some kids not getting fed anyway are the key.
The prevalence of Food Banks and the Government backing Rashford's campaign tends to tell a different story.I am very, very doubtful anyone in this country has kids going hungry due to "poverty". Rashford's one liner does nothing to address that - it is merely stating the obvious (one hopes). ie that parents know it's their responsibility to feed their kids.
The complexities that then result in some kids not getting fed anyway are the key.
Murph7355 said:
Does it?
I think you are confusing causation and correlation.
You may also be confusing "poverty" with "no money left"...the two are not necessarily the same thing.
Not sure I am.I think you are confusing causation and correlation.
You may also be confusing "poverty" with "no money left"...the two are not necessarily the same thing.
I'm absolutely sure in some cases it is "no money left".
That isn't the fault of the children.
Probably a step too far letting them starve or taking them all directly into care in Britain in 2020 whilst the parents are "re-educated".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff