Marcus Rashford - School Meals Vouchers Campaign
Discussion
biggbn said:
zetec said:
Just watching ITV news about the free school meals issue. These poor children who’s parents can’t afford to feed them....they can wear Nike Air Max trainers though
...and? This validates their selfish decision to buy big brand tat over cheap, nutritious food? I'm not sure how many times this has been said, or will be, but its not the kids fault. They are kids. Powerless. And hungry. What's your solution. Let them eat Air Max? misallocating that budget at the expense of feeding the children. Each should be fully investigated and if that parent(s) are evidenced to be mistreating/abusing their children then being hauled before Justice Courts is required. Justice for the children must prevail and those children be brought into a new care system.
crankedup said:
biggbn said:
zetec said:
Just watching ITV news about the free school meals issue. These poor children who’s parents can’t afford to feed them....they can wear Nike Air Max trainers though
...and? This validates their selfish decision to buy big brand tat over cheap, nutritious food? I'm not sure how many times this has been said, or will be, but its not the kids fault. They are kids. Powerless. And hungry. What's your solution. Let them eat Air Max? misallocating that budget at the expense of feeding the children. Each should be fully investigated and if that parent(s) are evidenced to be mistreating/abusing their children then being hauled before Justice Courts is required. Justice for the children must prevail and those children be brought into a new care system.
Dromedary66 said:
I think the Tories have played this one correctly. They don't need to U-turn because all these restaurants and cafes are doing it for them in return for twitter and facebook likes.
Nah,A u turn will come. Boris will be able to feed plenty of kids with the amount of incoming egg on his face
So this is very laudable, but as someone has alluded to, unbelievably expensive.
I used to work for a council that was really pushing an intervention service, trying to stop chaotic families entering multiple (expensive) public service workstreams (DWP, health, police, courts, social care, housing etc)
Of a population of 400,000 we could barely get to 20 families a year. There just wasn't enough money in the system when you have to deal with "existing" homelessness and child services problems.
Yes, give it 5 years and it would start to pay off, but there isn't enough money "now".
So there's never enough money to fix the leak because you're spending it all on mops and buckets. Sounds silly, but that is exactly how local services are funded (but with added chaos during covid)
And then some practicalities: where would the lessons be held? Who would run them? (You're garden variety primary teacher is not going to be up to it imo, or have the time on top of the 50+ hours they'll already be doing)
My high school...I suspect most...had one maybe two tough cookie teachers who could go toe to toe with the rougher parents, but that was in a provincial suburb 30 years ago. I doubt modern levels of entitlement and a generations of worklessness are going to be changed by a superficial 2 hour course.
(And of course it will be superficial...think speed awareness course, but without any hold over the participants)
I am also left pondering: how did this education previously occur?
Maybe it never needed to? You worked in some mind numbingly boring or physically hard job in your town, or you went hungry.
The wife stayed at home, and was taught things by her mum, in the same way her mum had been taught.
Now? God knows, but a constant procession of single mums across social media tells them they are entitled to this without having to have to explain themselves or their situation to anyone (ITV news at 10 tonight had a particularly unconvincing version of this)
Bottom line is society has moved in massively different ways for different people, and the pieces that are falling apart just can't be put back together again easily.
I used to work for a council that was really pushing an intervention service, trying to stop chaotic families entering multiple (expensive) public service workstreams (DWP, health, police, courts, social care, housing etc)
Of a population of 400,000 we could barely get to 20 families a year. There just wasn't enough money in the system when you have to deal with "existing" homelessness and child services problems.
Yes, give it 5 years and it would start to pay off, but there isn't enough money "now".
So there's never enough money to fix the leak because you're spending it all on mops and buckets. Sounds silly, but that is exactly how local services are funded (but with added chaos during covid)
And then some practicalities: where would the lessons be held? Who would run them? (You're garden variety primary teacher is not going to be up to it imo, or have the time on top of the 50+ hours they'll already be doing)
My high school...I suspect most...had one maybe two tough cookie teachers who could go toe to toe with the rougher parents, but that was in a provincial suburb 30 years ago. I doubt modern levels of entitlement and a generations of worklessness are going to be changed by a superficial 2 hour course.
(And of course it will be superficial...think speed awareness course, but without any hold over the participants)
I am also left pondering: how did this education previously occur?
Maybe it never needed to? You worked in some mind numbingly boring or physically hard job in your town, or you went hungry.
The wife stayed at home, and was taught things by her mum, in the same way her mum had been taught.
Now? God knows, but a constant procession of single mums across social media tells them they are entitled to this without having to have to explain themselves or their situation to anyone (ITV news at 10 tonight had a particularly unconvincing version of this)
Bottom line is society has moved in massively different ways for different people, and the pieces that are falling apart just can't be put back together again easily.
Munter said:
I'd prefer to "re-train" the parents and keep the family unit together.
At the top of this page people are talking about their experience of the care system. It's always "remove kid from parents and put in care". It's rarely/never, "put family into care, and correct issues".
How many people don't have a structure to their day, can't budget, can't cook, pass the same to their kids and so on, and so on. Lets take that family, put them in an environment where they have a structure placed on them, where they are taught to cook cheap but good meals, household budgeting, how to look after the house, how to train their kids into being useful to society, helping with homework, and behaving at school.
Ok some parents are criminally horrible people and kids need protecting from them. That'd still have to happen. But some are just 2nd/3rd generation of not having good knowledge/experience of how to run a family. Sure some of those people are so thick you'd hope natural selection would solve it. But it's clearly not going to, and if we can put them back on the rails it'll be better in the long run for everyone.
We could try and set them up to succeed on their own as a family unit (and following generations), rather than complain about paying for them as they fail.
(No we shouldn't have to, but we shouldn't have to have jails, police, armys etc etc. We do though.)
At the top of this page people are talking about their experience of the care system. It's always "remove kid from parents and put in care". It's rarely/never, "put family into care, and correct issues".
How many people don't have a structure to their day, can't budget, can't cook, pass the same to their kids and so on, and so on. Lets take that family, put them in an environment where they have a structure placed on them, where they are taught to cook cheap but good meals, household budgeting, how to look after the house, how to train their kids into being useful to society, helping with homework, and behaving at school.
Ok some parents are criminally horrible people and kids need protecting from them. That'd still have to happen. But some are just 2nd/3rd generation of not having good knowledge/experience of how to run a family. Sure some of those people are so thick you'd hope natural selection would solve it. But it's clearly not going to, and if we can put them back on the rails it'll be better in the long run for everyone.
We could try and set them up to succeed on their own as a family unit (and following generations), rather than complain about paying for them as they fail.
(No we shouldn't have to, but we shouldn't have to have jails, police, armys etc etc. We do though.)
Dromedary66 said:
I think the Tories have played this one correctly. They don't need to U-turn because all these restaurants and cafes are doing it for them in return for twitter and facebook likes.
What a sad outlook...Thankfully most are more charitable & will be doing it for the right reasons.
The Tories have had an absolute nightmare & will U turn, what a nasty little outfit they are.
Ian Geary said:
So this is very laudable, but as someone has alluded to, unbelievably expensive.
I used to work for a council that was really pushing an intervention service, trying to stop chaotic families entering multiple (expensive) public service workstreams (DWP, health, police, courts, social care, housing etc)
Of a population of 400,000 we could barely get to 20 families a year. There just wasn't enough money in the system when you have to deal with "existing" homelessness and child services problems.
Yes, give it 5 years and it would start to pay off, but there isn't enough money "now".
So there's never enough money to fix the leak because you're spending it all on mops and buckets. Sounds silly, but that is exactly how local services are funded (but with added chaos during covid)
And then some practicalities: where would the lessons be held? Who would run them? (You're garden variety primary teacher is not going to be up to it imo, or have the time on top of the 50+ hours they'll already be doing)
My high school...I suspect most...had one maybe two tough cookie teachers who could go toe to toe with the rougher parents, but that was in a provincial suburb 30 years ago. I doubt modern levels of entitlement and a generations of worklessness are going to be changed by a superficial 2 hour course.
(And of course it will be superficial...think speed awareness course, but without any hold over the participants)
I am also left pondering: how did this education previously occur?
Maybe it never needed to? You worked in some mind numbingly boring or physically hard job in your town, or you went hungry.
The wife stayed at home, and was taught things by her mum, in the same way her mum had been taught.
Now? God knows, but a constant procession of single mums across social media tells them they are entitled to this without having to have to explain themselves or their situation to anyone (ITV news at 10 tonight had a particularly unconvincing version of this)
Bottom line is society has moved in massively different ways for different people, and the pieces that are falling apart just can't be put back together again easily.
More considered posts than most on these various threads.I used to work for a council that was really pushing an intervention service, trying to stop chaotic families entering multiple (expensive) public service workstreams (DWP, health, police, courts, social care, housing etc)
Of a population of 400,000 we could barely get to 20 families a year. There just wasn't enough money in the system when you have to deal with "existing" homelessness and child services problems.
Yes, give it 5 years and it would start to pay off, but there isn't enough money "now".
So there's never enough money to fix the leak because you're spending it all on mops and buckets. Sounds silly, but that is exactly how local services are funded (but with added chaos during covid)
And then some practicalities: where would the lessons be held? Who would run them? (You're garden variety primary teacher is not going to be up to it imo, or have the time on top of the 50+ hours they'll already be doing)
My high school...I suspect most...had one maybe two tough cookie teachers who could go toe to toe with the rougher parents, but that was in a provincial suburb 30 years ago. I doubt modern levels of entitlement and a generations of worklessness are going to be changed by a superficial 2 hour course.
(And of course it will be superficial...think speed awareness course, but without any hold over the participants)
I am also left pondering: how did this education previously occur?
Maybe it never needed to? You worked in some mind numbingly boring or physically hard job in your town, or you went hungry.
The wife stayed at home, and was taught things by her mum, in the same way her mum had been taught.
Now? God knows, but a constant procession of single mums across social media tells them they are entitled to this without having to have to explain themselves or their situation to anyone (ITV news at 10 tonight had a particularly unconvincing version of this)
Bottom line is society has moved in massively different ways for different people, and the pieces that are falling apart just can't be put back together again easily.
Munter said:
I'd prefer to "re-train" the parents and keep the family unit together.
At the top of this page people are talking about their experience of the care system. It's always "remove kid from parents and put in care". It's rarely/never, "put family into care, and correct issues".
How many people don't have a structure to their day, can't budget, can't cook, pass the same to their kids and so on, and so on. Lets take that family, put them in an environment where they have a structure placed on them, where they are taught to cook cheap but good meals, household budgeting, how to look after the house, how to train their kids into being useful to society, helping with homework, and behaving at school.
Ok some parents are criminally horrible people and kids need protecting from them. That'd still have to happen. But some are just 2nd/3rd generation of not having good knowledge/experience of how to run a family. Sure some of those people are so thick you'd hope natural selection would solve it. But it's clearly not going to, and if we can put them back on the rails it'll be better in the long run for everyone.
We could try and set them up to succeed on their own as a family unit (and following generations), rather than complain about paying for them as they fail.
(No we shouldn't have to, but we shouldn't have to have jails, police, armys etc etc. We do though.)
At the top of this page people are talking about their experience of the care system. It's always "remove kid from parents and put in care". It's rarely/never, "put family into care, and correct issues".
How many people don't have a structure to their day, can't budget, can't cook, pass the same to their kids and so on, and so on. Lets take that family, put them in an environment where they have a structure placed on them, where they are taught to cook cheap but good meals, household budgeting, how to look after the house, how to train their kids into being useful to society, helping with homework, and behaving at school.
Ok some parents are criminally horrible people and kids need protecting from them. That'd still have to happen. But some are just 2nd/3rd generation of not having good knowledge/experience of how to run a family. Sure some of those people are so thick you'd hope natural selection would solve it. But it's clearly not going to, and if we can put them back on the rails it'll be better in the long run for everyone.
We could try and set them up to succeed on their own as a family unit (and following generations), rather than complain about paying for them as they fail.
(No we shouldn't have to, but we shouldn't have to have jails, police, armys etc etc. We do though.)
Maybe a multi-tiered approach is needed - attempts at education (a la speed awareness) and then more assertive sanction for repeats.
We have to try something different, and it will inevitably cost significant amounts of money to do properly - which is why it hasn't been to date, and why the current demands are pissing in the wind.
I'm also totally nonplussed as this has gained momentum at how the balance seems to be that this is "government's" fault. Government are the ones not feeding the kids (despite all the extra cash being shovelled into benefits). Calling out parental responsibility (as opposed to rights and entitlements) seems to be one of the worst things one can do.
Hey ho.
t parenting by dealing with some of the issues ian ^ talks about. No idea how much it cost or why it was axed.Not read the whole thread, but
Was reading Autocar earlier, I might be missing the finer nuances of this, and can understand the ecological aims, but EV prices are listed as "Incl Govt Grant", I was aware of it but hadnt taken much notice but it seemed to be at odds with the current meals for kids thing.
On the bare facts, kids are going hungry and the government wont fund feeding them but if I was to buy a Tesla Model 3 for around 47 grand, or any other plug in Electric Vehicle up to 50k, the government would contribute £3000 towards that purchase ?
I dont really think anyone spending 40 odd thousand pounds on a band new luxury vehicle should get a contribution to buying it and then get free VED.
I am pretty pro EV but they need to sell on their own merits and be comparable with ICE vehicles price wise.
Unless I am missing something, kids go hungry but folk get a bung towards a new motor if it runs on volts ?
Was reading Autocar earlier, I might be missing the finer nuances of this, and can understand the ecological aims, but EV prices are listed as "Incl Govt Grant", I was aware of it but hadnt taken much notice but it seemed to be at odds with the current meals for kids thing.
On the bare facts, kids are going hungry and the government wont fund feeding them but if I was to buy a Tesla Model 3 for around 47 grand, or any other plug in Electric Vehicle up to 50k, the government would contribute £3000 towards that purchase ?
I dont really think anyone spending 40 odd thousand pounds on a band new luxury vehicle should get a contribution to buying it and then get free VED.
I am pretty pro EV but they need to sell on their own merits and be comparable with ICE vehicles price wise.
Unless I am missing something, kids go hungry but folk get a bung towards a new motor if it runs on volts ?
petemurphy said:
panholio said:
Fascinating that link. I did a calc on a single mum with two kids, no savings, looking for work in a council tax band B house with £550 a month rent.
Entitlement is £395 per week, or £1711 per month which is £20,540 a year.
pls tell me thats not trueEntitlement is £395 per week, or £1711 per month which is £20,540 a year.
In the real word at least 1 of those kids would have autism or ADHD so you can add the relevant disability components of all the entitlements, PIP/DLA, carers allowance and an uplift in housing benefit to account for the fact that they can’t share rooms. That’s at least an extra grand a month.
Edited by theboss on Tuesday 27th October 00:26
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.
A family with two children can claim nearly £1,800 a year in Child Benefit. In the 2020/21 tax year, you can claim: £21.05 per week for your first child. £13.95 a week for any further children.
Now I reckon, our food bill for 2 adults is about £50 A week if we are sensible. And don't go to Waitrose .
It might "help" those who struggle with managing money, by not being allowed to spend on anything other than "healthy" food.
I'm sure it could be rolled out as a prepayment card, across all retailers who use barcodes.
I'm not sure if thats sarcasm....so I'll reply as if it isn't
...
Maybe she lost it because of the pandemic?
Because when schools were shut she had to give it up to look after them?
Because her partner has died or left for whatever reason and left her holding the fort without a 2nd income?
Because they've been in an abusive relationship who wouldn't allow them to work and then left for the next bit of ass that comes along?
Not everyone who is single with kids is a scrounger by choice. I've not a stronger work than cockroach for people who have this mentality towards single, hard up mums with hungry children.
Edited by chris.mod on Tuesday 27th October 09:27
biggbn said:
zetec said:
Just watching ITV news about the free school meals issue. These poor children who’s parents can’t afford to feed them....they can wear Nike Air Max trainers though
...and? This validates their selfish decision to buy big brand tat over cheap, nutritious food? I'm not sure how many times this has been said, or will be, but its not the kids fault. They are kids. Powerless. And hungry. What's your solution. Let them eat Air Max? We the tax payer then have to provide the money AGAIN so as not to disadvantage the child.
What next, do we have to pay her rent as she really wanted that Gucci handbag and without it the child may end up on the street.
And come Christmas do we have to pay the heating bill as she was that stressed she needed a weekend away from the kids and went on holiday?
Where does it end.
i didn't quite catch the interview but did i hear that an extra £1bn is being given to local authorities to help towards this?
But then, when you read thins like this you do wonder why..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-5...
But then, when you read thins like this you do wonder why..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-5...
biggbn said:
zetec said:
Just watching ITV news about the free school meals issue. These poor children who’s parents can’t afford to feed them....they can wear Nike Air Max trainers though
...and? This validates their selfish decision to buy big brand tat over cheap, nutritious food? I'm not sure how many times this has been said, or will be, but its not the kids fault. They are kids. Powerless. And hungry. What's your solution. Let them eat Air Max? To be fair, there are other ways to acquire Nike Air Max without spending money though...
Alucidnation said:
i didn't quite catch the interview but did i hear that an extra £1bn is being given to local authorities to help towards this?
Looks like something that would actually help is being considered yes. Reuters said:
- British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is preparing to hand councils extra money for holiday clubs, aiming to end a row with Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford over free school meals, The Telegraph.
Johnson is studying a proposal to extend the Holiday Activity and Food (HAF) programme piloted during the summer so children can be provided with at least one free meal a day outside term time, the newspaper said.
A national version of the scheme was estimated to cost 200 million pounds ($260 million) a year, the report said. It could be combined with extra study time for children still catching up after schools were closed in the spring.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKKBN27C00VJohnson is studying a proposal to extend the Holiday Activity and Food (HAF) programme piloted during the summer so children can be provided with at least one free meal a day outside term time, the newspaper said.
A national version of the scheme was estimated to cost 200 million pounds ($260 million) a year, the report said. It could be combined with extra study time for children still catching up after schools were closed in the spring.
I don't think anyone disputed there was an issue, all most opposed were saying though is that Rashford's proposed solution didnt in fact solve anything.
Fair play to him to raising awareness of the issue.
Wombat3 said:
crankedup said:
biggbn said:
zetec said:
Just watching ITV news about the free school meals issue. These poor children who’s parents can’t afford to feed them....they can wear Nike Air Max trainers though
...and? This validates their selfish decision to buy big brand tat over cheap, nutritious food? I'm not sure how many times this has been said, or will be, but its not the kids fault. They are kids. Powerless. And hungry. What's your solution. Let them eat Air Max? misallocating that budget at the expense of feeding the children. Each should be fully investigated and if that parent(s) are evidenced to be mistreating/abusing their children then being hauled before Justice Courts is required. Justice for the children must prevail and those children be brought into a new care system.
Mind, looking back over the years of failure perhaps not.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff