Marcus Rashford - School Meals Vouchers Campaign

[bitchstewie]

Has anyone been watching/reading/listening to his campaign over extending free school meals?

I know a lot of footballers actually do a lot of good charitable work behind the scenes but usually when we read/hear/see it in the media it's because they've done something stupid.

Seems a remarkably grounded lad.

Anyone think we may see a reverse ferret from the Government on this one?

[bitchstewie]

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.

I'm not sure it's for footballers to ensure kids don't go hungry in 2020 is it?

[bitchstewie]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Quite.

I hadn't heard of his campaign until BBC Breakfast covered it yesterday and I won't lie I was half expecting "another rich footballer lectures people" but then I watched him speak and saw the letter he sent.

Can't argue with a word of what he said especially given it's from his own lived experience.

The lad sets an excellent example.

[bitchstewie]

Why do we think the Government would reject his campaign then?

I'm listening to James O'Brien who makes the obvious and excellent point that we repeatedly hear people saying we should "look after our own".

If that isn't starving children who is it?

[bitchstewie]

mx5nut said:

bhstewie 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.

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.

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

[bitchstewie]

Digga said:

But 1 fat kid is too many.

Not to get too Jamie Oliver about it, but what will they be fed? Sometimes, believe it or not, nothing is better (for you) than something (unhealthy).

I saw something from a 15 year boy on the BBC (I think) yesterday who said that thanks to the school meal scheme he ate better food than he otherwise would.

Not "more" but better.

I think his words were that the stuff he'd otherwise eat would leave him hungry after an hour.

[bitchstewie]

bhstewie said:

Anyone think we may see a reverse ferret from the Government on this one?

Remarkable

Right result but it does make you wonder why they did it the hard way.

[bitchstewie]

V8covin said:

It will be a minority, pandemic or no pandemic.Some will always slip through the safety net,wether that be bad parenting or the system not fulfilling needs.
So I say again, there's a charity with £20 million in the coffers.....and presumably continuing to raise more.
Why does the taxpayer need to step in ?

Should the taxpayer step in for every need ?

No and I don't believe anyone is suggesting that they should step in for every need.

There are things where the very basics of being a decent society would expect Government to step in long before footballers or charities need to do so.

How are children supposed to feed themselves?

[bitchstewie]

WJNB said:

Like many others he goes on & on about his mother being a sole parent of 5 kids but no mention of the father(s). Interesting eh?

Come again?

[bitchstewie]

Dromedary66 said:

Personally I think having 5 children when you cannot even feed them is utterly negligent and the behaviour of a st human being.

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".

[bitchstewie]

I like this lad

Cabinet minister clashes with Marcus Rashford after she criticises his poverty claim on Twitter

[bitchstewie]

chrispmartha said:

That tweet in reply from Thérèse Coffey was a shocker.

Quite

[bitchstewie]

mike74 said:

His PR team have played a blinder with this one.

Another victory for the feckless breeders.

Remarkable how people struggle to understand the difference between 'vulnerable' and 'irresponsible'

Let's assume that's true for a moment.

Are the children irresponsible or are the children vulnerable.

How does letting them go hungry help?

[bitchstewie]

768 said:

bhstewie said:

How does letting children go hungry help?

Is that the alternative? I haven't paid much attention to this admittedly, but I thought there was some suggestion from the government that they were spending many millions on other ways of achieving the same aim.

What's the scale of the problem here, I saw a tweet from him suggesting 200k kids a day aren't eating at all, which seems shocking?

It's not an area I know much about either.

I just get a little incredulous at the attitude some people seem to have which seems less about ensuring the kids get fed and seems more about "punishing" some sort of perceived poor behaviour by the parents.

[bitchstewie]

Blue62 said:

It’s a symptom of our times, the default position is that anyone on benefits is a scrounger and is cheating the system while multi millionaire tax evaders will leave these shores if we apply a progressive tax regime and must therefore be allowed to cheat the system.The red tops have been feeding these myths for years and so many people accept it as the truth. The reality is that if we, as a society, make sure that impoverished kids get at least one square meal per day then it will probably save us a few quid further down the line, in terms of health and welfare costs and just maybe produce the odd Marcus Rashford along the way.

Alternatively we can accuse them all of being feckless scroungers and deny their kids a basic human right because we work for a living and pay our fair whack of tax, unlike many of the super rich but they’re ok because they donate plenty (especially to political parties) and own newspapers.

Well said.

It was a somewhat rhetorical question and I was perhaps hoping that it might make people hold up a mirror and question why they think that way.

I don't know how many tax paying adults there are in the UK but I figure this is probably costing me less than a fiver.

People seriously think that it's wrong thing to do?

[bitchstewie]

mx5nut said:

I suspect she's still smarting from having to sell her house to pay court costs.

I think Patrick van Aanholt summed that one up quite nicely.

"He’s done more in 24 hours than you have your entire life"

Can't really argue with him on that.

[bitchstewie]

Oakey said:

I thought Twitter had banned her?

So did I so I assumed it was a fake but sure enough she's on there and she's verified so definitely her and let's be fair who'd want to pretend to be her.

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

Personally I have two caveats on that last statement...

1) What were the other measures the government were, in theory, going to put in place instead of this? Do they still happen? Were they non-existent? Does it matter? Yes it does - e.g. if they would have been more effective in achieving the objective then that matters. If they were non-existent, that matters too. I am a supporter of the government largely...and believe governments should be allowed to u-turn if required, but they need to do so with full transparency to avoid everything coming over as a knee jerk reaction. Otherwise I'll be joining the ranks of the unimpressed.

2) How do we make sure the objective is met? Giving £15 vouchers out does not do this. That is not the end objective. I've noted on here before that I am not a fan of cash benefits...that applies double for an issue like this.


It's shameful that so many kids are going hungry in this country. The amount of cash that is paid out in benefits should preclude that happening. Great care needs to be taken on how to solve it, and in ensuring it actually gets solved.

I'm supportive of these things being done sensibly and if there was a practical way to ensure that money given with the intention of buying food was being spent solely on "good" food that seems sensible.

I do have a problem with people who take the view that children should suffer because of what they perceive as wrongdoing by the parents.

You've seen some of it on this thread with your own eyes.

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

bhstewie said:

Come again?

Perhaps I'm more "Katie Hopkins" than I feared, but isn't it quite obvious?

Not to cite this particular circumstance, but generically isn't having two parents around usually going to help massively when it comes to the cost (financial, time and otherwise) of raising kids? Of course there could be several reasons why kids only have one parent....but is closing down discussion on this being a potential problem at the root of many social ills wise?

It's not helped, of course, by morons like Hopkins taking the approach they do. They set that path back just as surely as people chucking statues into harbours does that one. But it seems to me that debate and research need to be able to happen in an unfettered way if we are ever to solve anything properly,

No?

I'd hardly say that asking what was meant by

"Like many others he goes on & on about his mother being a sole parent of 5 kids but no mention of the father(s). Interesting eh?"

Is closing down anything is it?

I'm sure absent parents play some role in this and perhaps I'm more "James O'Brien" than I feared but I read that particular comment in a tone that took it to be a pretty unpleasant one hence asking for some clarification.

It seems an odd thing for someone take away from listening to and reading what Rashford has said.

[bitchstewie]

Murph7355 said:

Possibly. But perhaps people are just being careless with how they put their feelings/views across? (Some will be aholes granted...but I like to think they are the minority).

Perhaps what some of these are meaning is exactly what I note - how does a £15 voucher solve this problem? I would bet £15 that there are still going to be very large numbers of kids going hungry over summer.

How do we address that? What does "being done sensibly" mean in a way that can make this effective? At what point do we stop and say "£15 isn't actually going to make a difference to the majority of the minority who need help"? At least without proper research of the topic, which will ultimately result in cries of "civil liberties".

It's difficult and complex, but needs proper debate. Not knee jerks.

I like the idea of summer camps/clubs, open to all with meals provided. It still won't cure the problem totally IMO, but gives avenues and many other positive benefits. Any kids then still coming back starving after summer holidays can be traced and the parents addressed.

There's being careless and there's showing the world what sort of person you really are.

A minority yes but it's not difficult to type "how does a £15 voucher solve this problem?" instead of the bile those people seem perfectly capable of typing.

Long term I tend to agree with you and I'm not suggesting the correct long term answer is shoving £15 vouchers in parents hands.

But it's almost July so what are the realistic short term alternatives?