Marcus Rashford and the 'free school meals'.

Have you read the thread?
It discusses relative poverty and absolute poverty, and the number living in the government's defininition of absolute poverty is pretty high too.
Personally I think the measure of relative poverty is a good one, especially in a wealthy nation such as our's.
Should we be content to see a reasonably large proportion of the population living without what most would consider normal things in our daily life?

 

I don't read anywhere on this thread where anyone has said feck the kids. What has been said is that parents are responsible for their kids wellbeing and upbringing. Some are just not capable and throwing more money at it will never change that.
These "problem families" are usually known to the authorities in many cases, and additional support is generally provided. Though lots of families never get the support they need.

I admire what Rashford is doing and it will undoubtedly help a lot of kids but the main problems behind some kids going to school hungry will never end. That's the sad part.

I could never have lived with myself if my kids didn't get fed when they were at school, even when I was out of work. I was brought up on a council estate so know borderline poverty all too well but I was always fed by my parents.

 

Giving the most vulnerable kids food parcels is a stop gap solution and it's an option. The root cause as you allude to is that their parents can't take decent care of them. You're quite right to suggest that the parents need some help and support to be good parents. At some point the cycle needs interrupting and putting right.

I'm no fan of Blair and Brown but back in the late 90s and early 00s they invested millions in SureStart centres that did this outreach work with vulnerable families. I was involved with one of these establishments and the work they were doing was incredible. They were changing the lives of vulnerable adults who were also parents. The Tories have ripped that investment in our society out in the name of austerity. It's a complete false economy as we'll be paying for it further down the line at a cost to the state and society as a whole.

 

At his heart Blair was a good man, He would have made sure kids got fed,

 

BBC just had a lady on talking about the fact she needed the free school meals as she couldn’t work due to lack of affordable childcare but part way through she said her partner was currently out of work. Why can’t the partner look after the kids?

 

Indeed. Society is fecked up pal. Too many needy types out there who have to create a problem to moan about.

 

poor but perfectly logical sadly. Rashford hasn't built his entire career on being a lying bastard

 

I think bombing the tits out of the middle east only to rock up as a peace envoy after being PM disqualifies him from the good man club. Him and Brown did put some good stuff into practice though like sure start and the minimum wage

 

Getting rid of a tyrant that was murdering 500,000 men women and children in his own country and invading Kuwait killing thousands more was distasteful but necessary to clean up Iraq and give it a future which it now has, Sometimes politicians have to take a hard decision that will be unpopular with some but is still the right thing to do, Blair was brave enough to do the right thing, not many are

 

no exit plan and the region has been infinitely worse since. Hussein was a psychopath yet all we did was create a power vacuum for worse people to step in like ISIS, same as Libya where us arrogantly thinking we're 'doing the right thing' has turned the place into an actual hell on earth. It was never about the right thing for him it was about a bit of glory and following bush wherever he lead. He lied about why we needed to go in to Parliament and that for me is truly unforgivable as a lot of people have died from this decision that otherwise might not have. Then rocked up as a peace envoy to a region he played a key part in destabilising, I don't think that could take the piss anymore if he tried.

Its arrogant in the extreme to think we have the right to just run up and invade other countries because we think we know better when we've fecked up every country we've got involved in over there. we need to keep our noses out and stop inflicting our fecked up sense of morality on places that don't want it or need it.

 

Sometimes you have to break eggs to make an omelette, We did the right thing as we have done in other countries, with your views Hitler would now be in charge of Europe and every Jew murdered and just a memory, Intervention is never easy but sometimes unavoidable as many countries would testify, We may have cost lives but by god we have saved many many more,

 

WW2 in my view is one of the only morally justified military conflicts in history. Its all well and good feeling warm and fuzzy because you did what you think is right, but that part of the world is basically a hellscape because of us doing 'the right thing'. We created the conditions for a group as horrible as ISIS to rise up by creating power vacuums across the ME because we love invading places and looking noble but then have absolutely no exit plan to stabilise the region after the shooty bang bang part that makes all the headlines.

I also find it insulting you think I would think that about ww2, I had family that fought fecking bravely for our freedoms and I'm incredibly proud that they did what they did.

 

"Its arrogant in the extreme to think we have the right to just run up and invade other countries because we think we know better "
It is not my thoughts that count it is your words, If you find anything insulting it should be your own words not mine, be more careful with your words and avoid generalisations, We have liberated many countries and situations who are grateful for our intervention, In Bosnia while Muslims were been executed by the thousand and the UN prevaricated trying to agree a vote Tony Blair sent in our armed forces unilaterally to stop it, Congo was the same, It is easy to sit in safe comfort letting innocent people die in other countries for the principle of its nothing to do with us.

BTY I apologise for the word "snowflake" in my original post i have been advised it has been removed by the moderators as is apparently a banned word on the forum,

 

Again, In situations like Bosnia we were justified in what we did and were successful in our goals. How can you say anything we have done in Iraq has been successful because if anything more people died after we got rid of Saddam and everything there became infinitely more dangerous for ordinary people. You keep trying to paint me as a non interventionist when I'm not, I think we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons with no plan whatsoever beyond getting rid of saddam. That is arrogance plain and simple.

Also, wouldn't you be slightly offended if someone said you would just let hitler kill 6 million jews. a bit different from calling tony blair arrogant for invading iraq isn't it really.

 

In Iraq you have a point but only as far as the US were in charge and made some drastic mistakes especially regarding the Iraqi armed forces and its not true by a mile that more have died since, Saddam was killing 500,000 a year of his own people including gassing them at Halabja chemical attack by the thousand, He would have done the same to the population of Kuwait, He sent over a million of his people to there deaths in a war with Iran, To say more have died since is far from the truth,
You seem to have an identity crisis posting this,
"Its arrogant in the extreme to think we have the right to just run up and invade other countries because we think we know better "
Then this
"You keep trying to paint me as a non interventionist when I'm not,"
I think it best we park it here till you decide what you really believe

 

That is worrying, you'll be ok with 'blackboard' though no doubt......please mods, ease up with the censorship 'snow' and 'flake' could NEVER be considered as being offensive to anybody..

 

Nope, I just have a nuanced view on the situation that isn't we are 100% right or we're 100% wrong. If we're gonna go in, we go in for the right reasons with a proper plan. Not on fabricated accusations of WMDs. Cameron did the exact same with Libya. Loads of explosions and glad handing headlines but for the people on the ground nothing has changed and they are still living in a war torn country.

And if you think we should go in and invade places to get rid of tyrants, what about all the tyrants like Mugabe we just ignored the entire time? Oh that's right, there isn't any oil in Zimbabwe.