Marcus Rashford and the 'free school meals'.

I do also get uncomfortable with these point scoring comments. Its virtually turned into any criticism of the government's actions is classed as point scoring.

 

True, but I think our opinion is blemished with those deviants who have the money to look after their kids and feed them but waste it on drink etc, but then you could argue that addiction is a disease in itself so shouldn't be too critical. However same with benefits you don't stop paying it because a small % abuse it. There are many rich MP's who are just as feckless but are fortunate to get away with due to inherited wealth etc

 

true, but that point aside, kids are still starving. You don't punish kids because their parents are incapable. There are lots of other social reasons going on here which create that situation in the first place

 

Giving more money still wont feed the kids as its down to the parents to prioritise feeding their kids in the first place. Another £10 in their hand is never going to be spent on the kids. Kids going hungry is solely the responsibilty of the parents and no one else. If feeding the kids is not their top priority then thats where the problem is.
I know at first hand in a previous job how kids are neglected and money was not the issue.

Though saying that free meals at a local school during holidays should ensure the kids do get fed and are less neglected.

 

You will notice that whilst other have mentioned other vices (drink, drugs, cigarettes) on here that I actually haven't. I don't like to focus on that because it distracts from the general debate.

I try not to let those "deviants", as you put it, distract from the main issue. There is a balance of responsibility between the individual and the state and often the focus on that balance is too often weighted towards the "free" option provided by the state rather than personal responsibility.

 

Ok,Tory Puppet.

I look forward to you visiting my gate.

 

Can we ban this WUM yet or at least keep him on the football stuff?

 

There is a balance of responsibility, you're right. Some parents will be glad of the extra money and will boost their household budget to buy quality food. Some parents lack the skills for various reasons to care for their children and feeding them 3 meals a day in the school holiday won't happen. Whose responsibility are those children? We know that these are the children most likely to fall through the net. It needs more than money to help these kids. I'd advocate schools staying open in the holiday for kids that need it. Not for lessons but childcare essentially keeping the most vulnerable kids safe and fed.

 

Just trying to have a look around to educate myself on some of the impact.

Found this article concerned with child hunger and the example they used at the bottom actually made me laugh,

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/03/exclusive-fifth-of-uk-homes-children-hungry-lockdown


Felix Platt, 15, Norfolk
Felix and Romilly Platt.

“It’s really tough. Dad works as a restorer and mum stays at home but there are nine of us under 18 in the house all the time now: three in primary school, two in high school, one in sixth form and three little ones. We have to be more resourceful about what we’re eating – simpler things like pasta and pizza and fish fingers that are easier and cheaper to cook.
“There are no snacks or treats and the little ones are finding it harder, they’re not used to food being rationed. Trying to keep everyone balanced and happy is really hard at the moment. Fruit and veg isn’t the main thing Mum and Dad are worried about, they’re trying to just give us the main meals.”

Erm......does anybody want to spot the major issue that could be causing the hunger problem here? I'm not sure it's government policy

 

Well, lets start with the main point. My children are my responsibility and I always want that to be the case. The same therefore applies for all (or as close to 'all' as possible) parents who chose to have children.

In the minority of cases where they are truly vulnerable - and I mean truly - then they become the states issue but they should become the states issue 100% of the time not just between the hours of 9 and 3. That's based on safety more than anything.

I don't want the state to start being responsible for cooking meals and putting them on the table. It's the exact sort of governmental interference that I don't want. Feeding your own kids in the most basic of individual parental responsibility.

 

Feeding your own kids in the most basic of individual parental responsibility

Yes it is and most parents do their parental duty without fuss or fanfare. A bit of extra money would always be welcome but they'd get by without it as they always have. I agree that the most vulnerable children need more support. We know how the kids will end up if they don't get the support so to invest in them now is investing in the future of the whole community.

 

I think we're nearly in full agreement and it's dead right that most parents do it without fuss or fanfare and that a good proportion of the families in the UK would like to have more money. Me included.

The question then really becomes who is vulnerable and when do the state step in? Are the kids in the Guardian example above "vulnerable", I would say definitely not. Are they their parents responsibility, I would say definitely.

 

You're imagination knows no boundaries you are comedy gold.

 

Lord Fordy, set the dogs on them what!

 

I wouldn't disagree, and a voucher for Asda to feed kids could actually end up being spent on a Bottle of Vodka. If the vouchers were restricted to food only then whats to say the £15 vouchers wouldn't be sold on for cash for £10 and stuff bought that way.

This however presumes all are that way, this might be the case for some but there will be people out there who's jobs have been thrown on the scrap heap and they still have children to feed, which is something I argue against quite a lot on the Covid thread about closing people business and still expecting them to feed their families.

 

I think the example you found in that article is pretty extreme!

 

Boris has made a lot of mistakes throughout this pandemic, and most of these mistakes would have been made by any party in government having to cope with the pressures and stress that comes with having to deal with the pandemic.
Comments like wrong action taken, right action taken but not taken soon enough or public not given enough notice. Easy for opposition to come up with these criticisms when you are not in power yourself.
The one thing Boris got right (and I am no fan of the guy) was when he talked about Colonel Hindsight and his regiment of snipers.

 

'They just wanna buy, ciggies, vodka and masif flat screen tellies'

 

I'm not having that! Not all the time.
(Just felt I had to step in there mate.)

 

Well firstly I'll take that as a "no"

But yes it is an extreme example which is why I found the fact that it appeared in a Guardian article about that subject quite funny.

It does show the difficulty in drawing an arbitrary line between hunger and vulnerable though. Is the fact that a household with one person working and nine people under 18 struggle to adequately resource themselves a surprise? More importantly does that become a state issue. I would say 'no' to both.