Marcus Rashford - School Meals Vouchers Campaign
Discussion
JagLover said:
dodgyviper said:
Kudos to Rashford for this - good work.
It is an uphill battle, which will be abused, however, we cannot tolerate a situation whereby some children go hungry because others abuse the system.
The fault here is in the policing of it - an area which is woeful.
A school locally stopped giving out vouchers when it was found (on Facebook) that some parents were describing how they were saving up the vouchers for Christmas. That school stopped the vouchers and simply fed the kids direct - essentially giving the vouchers to themselves.
What they should have done, is report it to the authorities and leave it at that. Unfortunately the authorities were useless and so the school had to act on it themselves.
Apparently the head got a load of abuse from parents for it.
Scum is scum, but never is that an excuse to not feed a hungry child
Which is the problem reallyIt is an uphill battle, which will be abused, however, we cannot tolerate a situation whereby some children go hungry because others abuse the system.
The fault here is in the policing of it - an area which is woeful.
A school locally stopped giving out vouchers when it was found (on Facebook) that some parents were describing how they were saving up the vouchers for Christmas. That school stopped the vouchers and simply fed the kids direct - essentially giving the vouchers to themselves.
What they should have done, is report it to the authorities and leave it at that. Unfortunately the authorities were useless and so the school had to act on it themselves.
Apparently the head got a load of abuse from parents for it.
Scum is scum, but never is that an excuse to not feed a hungry child
Feckless people have children and then society has to decide how best to ensure the welfare of the children concerned. If the scheme is extended into the summer why would it not be extended into every summer?. The amount received in benefits is the same regardless of whether there is Coronavirus or not.
Some celebrity campaigns for some issue or another but that doesn't tackle the fundamental divide between the tens of billions being spent on welfare and what is received by the children themselves.
Bill said:
How about a bit of thinking ahead.
Malnourished children don't develop as well. Which means they do worse at school and are less likely to be healthy as adults. Which ultimately means they are more likely to need benefits in the future.
So we could punish the kids for the failings and misfortune of their parents, cutting our nose to spite our face.
Or we could try to break the cycle and give them a fighting chance.
Which is to assume that the voucher will be used for its intended purpose.Malnourished children don't develop as well. Which means they do worse at school and are less likely to be healthy as adults. Which ultimately means they are more likely to need benefits in the future.
So we could punish the kids for the failings and misfortune of their parents, cutting our nose to spite our face.
Or we could try to break the cycle and give them a fighting chance.
With FSM the child entitled to the FSM is fed at the school, with the voucher there is no guarantee that will happen.
Total public spending on welfare is £126bn (in normal times before Coronavirus and excluding pensions of a further £161bn). Despite spending such a vast amount of money we apparently cannot guarantee that the parents in receipt of a large proportion of this will actually feed their children properly.
The government then introduces a voucher scheme at additional cost and again there seems to be no guarantee it will be used to feed those who are the intended recipients.
If Rashford were campaigning for meals to be provided for FSM children at suitable locations I would have a lot more sympathy for the cause. As it is it seems to be a continuation of pumping in vast sums of money in the hope that enough will eventually reach the children.
V8covin said:
It's a bit rich when a multi millionaire footballer on what,£200,000 a week..... it's an incredible amount of money,it really is...... lectures the government.
How about he gets together with all his millionaire footballing friends to make a donation if he thinks so strongly about it.
Yeah bloody footballer earning loads, it’s not like he’s using his fame and fortune to raise awareness and raise multimillions of pounds in the process... oh hang on.How about he gets together with all his millionaire footballing friends to make a donation if he thinks so strongly about it.
rscott said:
The amount in benefits might be the same, but the furlough payment is less than many were receiving when working.
Going by the logic on here, maybe they should have kept some of their pre-Covid wages back to use in this emergency and not have to rely on the state to support them? Bloody workers, feckless in not always being prepared for a national emergency.
Many are also doing quite nicely out of the furlough scheme as well. No commuting costs, little or no childcare costs, mortgage holidays, etc.
untakenname said:
imo if you can't afford them then don't have them it's the equivalent of buying a high maintenance car and not only expecting others to pay for the servicing but also the fuel.
If you lose your job and can't maintain the car, you can sell it.I'm going to take a wild punt and guess that you've never had children.
JagLover said:
Which is to assume that the voucher will be used for its intended purpose.
With FSM the child entitled to the FSM is fed at the school, with the voucher there is no guarantee that will happen.
Total public spending on welfare is £126bn (which excludes pensions of £161bn). Despite spending such a vast amount of money we apparently cannot guarantee that the parents in receipt of a large proportion of this will actually feed their children properly.
The government then introduces a voucher scheme at additional cost and again there seems to be no guarantee it will be used to feed those who are the intended recipients.
If Rashford were campaigning for meals to be provided for FSM children at suitable locations I would have a lot more sympathy for the cause. As it is it seems to be a continuation of pumping in vast sums of money in the hope that enough will eventually reach the children.
And in cases where the vouchers are abused then provide meals. With FSM the child entitled to the FSM is fed at the school, with the voucher there is no guarantee that will happen.
Total public spending on welfare is £126bn (which excludes pensions of £161bn). Despite spending such a vast amount of money we apparently cannot guarantee that the parents in receipt of a large proportion of this will actually feed their children properly.
The government then introduces a voucher scheme at additional cost and again there seems to be no guarantee it will be used to feed those who are the intended recipients.
If Rashford were campaigning for meals to be provided for FSM children at suitable locations I would have a lot more sympathy for the cause. As it is it seems to be a continuation of pumping in vast sums of money in the hope that enough will eventually reach the children.
This isn't rocket surgery.
dodgyviper said:
It is an uphill battle, which will be abused, however, we cannot tolerate a situation whereby some children go hungry because others abuse the system.
If the worst thing that happens is we accidentally feed a child who wasn't that hungry after all, that's no argument against it at all.
mx5nut said:
dodgyviper said:
It is an uphill battle, which will be abused, however, we cannot tolerate a situation whereby some children go hungry because others abuse the system.
If the worst thing that happens is we accidentally feed a child who wasn't that hungry after all, that's no argument against it at all.
You need to also focus on what they are fed.
chrispmartha said:
Yeah bloody footballer earning loads, it’s not like he’s using his fame and fortune to raise awareness and raise multimillions of pounds in the process... oh hang on.
I wasn't aware he'd started a charity and raised £20 million so fair play to him.It begs the question then why does the government....ie the taxpayer....need to step in ?
mx5nut said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:V8covin said:
It's a bit rich when a multi millionaire footballer on what,£200,000 a week..... it's an incredible amount of money,it really is...... lectures the government.
How about he gets together with all his millionaire footballing friends to make a donation if he thinks so strongly about it.
I believe he's raised £20M so far.How about he gets together with all his millionaire footballing friends to make a donation if he thinks so strongly about it.
I'm not sure it's for footballers to ensure kids don't go hungry in 2020 is it?
Francois de La Rochefoucauld said:
You're correct. It's their parents.
Let's punish children for their parents being out of work during a global pandemic. Britain in 2020.It's one I struggle with.
Goes back to my earlier point about repeatedly being told "we should look after our own" and apparently right now hungry British children aren't our own
Evercross said:
"Think of the children" (and ignore the possibility it is the parents who put them in the situation).
Please show where it is being ignored? What percentage do you think are in the situation described by your anecdotal experiences? Do you think that given the relatively small amount of money required it’s worth it to help the families genuinely struggling due to circumstances?The fact you work in education (don’t know why you can’t just say teacher) is very worrying. Suppose people have a valid point when they criticise education in Scotland when people like you are employed in it.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Quite.
It's one I struggle with.
Goes back to my earlier point about repeatedly being told "we should look after our own" and apparently right now hungry British children aren't our own
Because they’re hypocrites. What they really mean is no one should be looked after. Unless of course a global pandemic comes along and they need to be furloughed. In that instance they’re happy to put their hand out and suck the socialist teat.It's one I struggle with.
Goes back to my earlier point about repeatedly being told "we should look after our own" and apparently right now hungry British children aren't our own
Evercross said:
crankedup said:
Damaging the Government when a ‘personality’ brings a Socially unacceptable situation to wide public attention. Totally unacceptable that kids are still going hungry in our Country.
I know it is a cliche, but how many of these kids going hungry live in a household that has pet dogs, or a parent with a £50+ mobile phone contract? There absolutely is a problem, but blanket coverage of the issue just leads to a blind eye being turned to the real problem which is parents who prioritise other things above their own children's welfare, and suddenly becomes the state's problem thus vindicating the choices of the parents and giving them an excuse to continue their neglect.I work in education and I see it frequently - neglected kids yet their parents are wearing £150 shoes and carrying the latest iPhone.
By all means feed the kids, but scrutinise the parents for reasons why the kids are hungry in the first place. This is not a societal problem, it is a behavioural one.
Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 16th June 11:27
mx5nut said:
jimothyc said:
While I appreciate that the cost of providing them is peanuts compared to the furlough scheme. What's the special situation that demands them in this case?
British children going without food.My question is that if someone is on benefits then their income won't have been impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. Their benefits will continue to be paid. Why is this summer any different to any other for them.
If their benefits aren't enough to feed their family, then perhaps we should be campaigning for an increase in their benefits (there was a rise in April 2020 in universal credit), rather than introducing an additional scheme that will probably cost as much to administer as it pays out to recipients.
Are you suggesting that the parents can't be trusted to spend the extra money on feeding their children and require vouchers?
V8covin said:
chrispmartha said:
Yeah bloody footballer earning loads, it’s not like he’s using his fame and fortune to raise awareness and raise multimillions of pounds in the process... oh hang on.
I wasn't aware he'd started a charity and raised £20 million so fair play to him.It begs the question then why does the government....ie the taxpayer....need to step in ?
Really?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff