Can't afford school meals for kids, but billions for homebuyers, sure!

Status
Not open for further replies.
This.

I would much rather my tax money went to feeding children then to giving someone a half price meal for a bloody month. Where was the outrage then?

The argument is that the intent wasn't to give people a half price meal but rather keep businesses afloat. Unfortunately that's an apple's and oranges comparison.
 
The argument is that the intent wasn't to give people a half price meal but rather keep businesses afloat. Unfortunately that's an apple's and oranges comparison.

But I'm happy to let failing businesses close, I don't want my tax being used in that manner. It's not the government's place to be propping up failing businesses, survival of the fittest and all that.
 
But I'm happy to let failing businesses close, I don't want my tax being used in that manner.

Which is fine but then you have the potentially worse issue of dozens of people being out of work when it goes under.
 
We could just give them assistance and support to parent better and to afford foodstuffs.

Can't imagine taking more children into care works out a lot cheaper than a few cooked dinners.

I was told that these parents were incompetent.

Even if you feed them, surely they are going to be deficient in other areas too if they are incompetent.

Surely it would be in their interests to remove them from incompetent parents?
 
The argument is that the intent wasn't to give people a half price meal but rather keep businesses afloat. Unfortunately that's an apple's and oranges comparison.

Not at all. The government were literally paying money to feed people. You're argument surely cant be that its ok to keep businesses afloat but not to feed children in poverty?

My irony meter literally exploded

lol
 
.
I was told that these parents were incompetent.

Even if you feed them, surely they are going to be deficient in other areas too if they are incompetent.

Surely it would be in their interests to remove them from incompetent parents?
It's only a minority of kids whose parents are lacking competence. That's an issue, but the discussion here is about a wider population of kids who are not well provided for due parents lacking nothing more than money.

By all means drill into the margins to try to back your amoral position, but don't expect me to follow you there.
 
Not at all. The government were literally paying money to feed people. You're argument surely cant be that its ok to keep businesses afloat but not to feed children in poverty?



lol

That isn't my argument at all. My argument is that one isn't a counter to the other.
 
.

It's only a minority of kids whose parents are lacking competence. That's an issue, but the discussion here is about a wider population of kids who are not well provided for due parents lacking nothing more than money.

By all means drill into the margins to try to back your amoral position, but don't expect me to follow you there.

They do have the money though...
 
There's also a significant amount of "behind the keyboard ******" going on. It's easy to say you're happy to let kids starve, remove kids from parents etc on an internet forum, regardless of whether you believe it or not.

I can sit here and say I don't think my tax money should be spent on propping up pub businesses or restaurants because I don't drink or eat out. I don't think we should be treating smokers in hospital because I don't smoke or people who are injured whilst drinking, playing sports or riding bikes on roads etc (life style choices). We shouldn't be using tax payers money to prevent airlines going under (I don't fly) and my money shouldn't be used towards HS2 yada yada yada.

It's easy see, it's also utterly meaningless.
100%... I'll ride my bike wherever I like thank you, and if I need medical assistance I shall very well get some :p
 
That isn't my argument at all. My argument is that one isn't a counter to the other.

It is because it's about what people deem an acceptable way to spend tax payers money.

The people who lost their jobs if the pubs and restaurants went out of business are simply "the wrong type" aren't they? Why should the government support them either, they simply need to get a decent work ethic and not expect hand outs in their hour of need.

Do you not understand what has happened here? You can blame the parents if you want, in many cases yes sadly you're probably right but why punish the kids for their parents failings? It's chaos right now with (millions?) more people needing assistance, it was a temporary measure to feed kids outside of school term and in the greater scheme of things would cost peanuts, certainly less than the **** show track and trace fiasco cost that they gifted their bezzy mate Harding. Don't forget even Johnson was bemoaning his financial state the other week and he's earning £150k pa and don't let the fact the very politicians that rejected this get subsidised booze, a free meal every day and get their second home paid for pass you by, the whole thing is sick.

As a society we shouldn't be questioning whether we should be feeding starving kids but rather wtf is going on in government that means we aren't.
 
Last edited:
As a society we shouldn't be questioning whether we should be feeding starving kids but rather wtf is going on in government that means we aren't.

Well said. Society is sick and in need of fixing. We can't do this with bottom up, it needs fixing top down, with actual accountability for those in charge.
 
How much stamp duty did you pay on that?

Zero because i paid 107k for it.

I live and have lived in Oldham all my life, the poverty capital of the uk (look it up). My parents highest level of education was art college.

Don't presume that any of you can tell me anything I don't know about 'poverty' , 'childcare, or benefits and the ability of parents to bring up children.
 
As with a lot of these threads recently, the anti-policy rhetoric is often underpinned by a consistently poor understanding of the whole societal and economic interrelationships by a number of contributors.

However, making sure school children are properly looked after in their education is paramount; encompassing quality teaching, a consistent & safe environment, ensuring attendance, creating attainable outcomes and futures through teaching the right subjects and most importantly prioritising the child's heath and wellbeing.

If the parents aren't proving this, for whatever reason, then it absolutely has to sit within the education system. The cost of this is irrelevant, compared to the benefit or irrecoverable harm to future generations.

Matters of education & pupil wellbeing like free school meals should not be vulnerable to government policy changes like this.
 
As with a lot of these threads recently, the anti-policy rhetoric is often underpinned by a consistently poor understanding of the whole societal and economic interrelationships by a number of contributors.

However, making sure school children are properly looked after in their education is paramount; encompassing quality teaching, a consistent & safe environment, ensuring attendance, creating attainable outcomes and futures through teaching the right subjects and most importantly prioritising the child's heath and wellbeing.

If the parents aren't proving this, for whatever reason, then it absolutely has to sit within the education system. The cost of this is irrelevant, compared to the benefit or irrecoverable harm to future generations.

Matters of education & pupil wellbeing like free school meals should not be vulnerable to government policy changes like this.

Er they are talking about school meals OUTSIDE of school...I.e half term and Xmas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom