Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Marcus Rashford launches petition to urge immediate Government action on child poverty
Comments
-
True and very depressing. I mentioned something similar yesterday about when Jamie Oliver campaigned to get more healthy food and teaching children and parents about nutrition and cooking, - I found it horrifying that some parents were turning up at the school gates at lunchtime with fast food for their children who preferred that to what was being served at school.SantaClaus said:One issue with providing free food to the most disadvantaged kids is actually getting them to eat it. My kids go to a school that has a huge amount of social issues/poverty but until Covid struck they provided excellent nutritious meals cooked on site. My daughter told me time and again that most of the food went uneaten unless it was Friday's fish/nuggets and chips as that was the only kind of food most of her peers would touch. The irony of children most in need of nutrition refusing everything bar the least nutritious food is depressing on so many levels.
You would hope though that any child who was genuinely going hungry would eat something even if not their preferred choice.1 -
But the Government has a duty of care to look after neglected children too. If parent(s) cannot afford to do so then surely that responsibility passes onto them.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
The paint job on Boris's plane cost almost a million. That money could have been re-directed to a more worthy cause couldn't it?2 -
I was replying to ME14 mate. Didn’t quote the whole conversation.cafc999 said:
Fully understand and know that. The point I was making is that no matter what system is put in place some people will abuse it.ValleyGary said:
UC you have to supply proof of any rental agreement you have in place plus thorough checks on child care. You also speak with a case manager. However you are given an allowance amount on top of that. There are no checks on your bills/credit agreements with previous lenders etc. ‘Feckless parents’ will abuse anything, that’s why their feckless. I’d imagine the majority of normal people use it as it’s intended. There is very little margin for error with UC payment if used correctly. It’s not a spend at will allowance.cafc999 said:
There was talk of people selling vouchers. I assume that this is either a very small minority or just nonsense.ME14addick said:I don't know much about the Universal Credit system, but if the money is paid by that method, there is nothing to stop feckless parents from spending it on something else. I think that vouchers can only be spent on food, is that correct, does anyone know?0 -
As I said previously, I don't think it is about affordability. And sadly there are countless examples of where funds could re re-directed. It could even be deducted from the cost of child benefit for children in the relevant age groups.Addick Addict said:
But the Government has a duty of care to look after neglected children too. If parent(s) cannot afford to do so then surely that responsibility passes onto them.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
The paint job on Boris's plane cost almost a million. That money could have been re-directed to a more worthy cause couldn't it?
As many commented, the issue is not with parents not being able to afford to do so. This may be the case in a small minority of cases - how to identify and help these children.
The best way to help neglected children is through education and enabling the current and future generations of parents.
And what about children who are going cold or inadequately dressed?2 -
They are probably the same ones that are starving. And painting a plane at a cost of £1m is an utter waste of money. Feeding children isn't.PrincessFiona said:
As I said previously, I don't think it is about affordability. And sadly there are countless examples of where funds could re re-directed. It could even be deducted from the cost of child benefit for children in the relevant age groups.Addick Addict said:
But the Government has a duty of care to look after neglected children too. If parent(s) cannot afford to do so then surely that responsibility passes onto them.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
The paint job on Boris's plane cost almost a million. That money could have been re-directed to a more worthy cause couldn't it?
As many commented, the issue is not with parents not being able to afford to do so. This may be the case in a small minority of cases - how to identify and help these children.
The best way to help neglected children is through education and enabling the current and future generations of parents.
And what about children who are going cold or inadequately dressed?5 -
Of course it is essential that no children go hungry. I use 'hungry' rather than 'starving' as in most cases in the UK, it is not comparable to those starving in other parts of the world. But there are various ways of going about this. Always better to minimise the causes than the consequences, otherwise it will continueAddick Addict said:
They are probably the same ones that are starving. And painting a plane at a cost of £1m is an utter waste of money. Feeding children isn't.PrincessFiona said:
As I said previously, I don't think it is about affordability. And sadly there are countless examples of where funds could re re-directed. It could even be deducted from the cost of child benefit for children in the relevant age groups.Addick Addict said:
But the Government has a duty of care to look after neglected children too. If parent(s) cannot afford to do so then surely that responsibility passes onto them.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
The paint job on Boris's plane cost almost a million. That money could have been re-directed to a more worthy cause couldn't it?
As many commented, the issue is not with parents not being able to afford to do so. This may be the case in a small minority of cases - how to identify and help these children.
The best way to help neglected children is through education and enabling the current and future generations of parents.
And what about children who are going cold or inadequately dressed?
Of course they are the same ones. So what to do to assist them?0 -
Think of the money we spent on a willy waving contest like the olympics.....Addick Addict said:
They are probably the same ones that are starving. And painting a plane at a cost of £1m is an utter waste of money. Feeding children isn't.PrincessFiona said:
As I said previously, I don't think it is about affordability. And sadly there are countless examples of where funds could re re-directed. It could even be deducted from the cost of child benefit for children in the relevant age groups.Addick Addict said:
But the Government has a duty of care to look after neglected children too. If parent(s) cannot afford to do so then surely that responsibility passes onto them.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
The paint job on Boris's plane cost almost a million. That money could have been re-directed to a more worthy cause couldn't it?
As many commented, the issue is not with parents not being able to afford to do so. This may be the case in a small minority of cases - how to identify and help these children.
The best way to help neglected children is through education and enabling the current and future generations of parents.
And what about children who are going cold or inadequately dressed?0 -
There are lots of examples, depending on your point of view.ValleyGary said:
Think of the money we spent on a willy waving contest like the olympics.....Addick Addict said:
They are probably the same ones that are starving. And painting a plane at a cost of £1m is an utter waste of money. Feeding children isn't.PrincessFiona said:
As I said previously, I don't think it is about affordability. And sadly there are countless examples of where funds could re re-directed. It could even be deducted from the cost of child benefit for children in the relevant age groups.Addick Addict said:
But the Government has a duty of care to look after neglected children too. If parent(s) cannot afford to do so then surely that responsibility passes onto them.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
The paint job on Boris's plane cost almost a million. That money could have been re-directed to a more worthy cause couldn't it?
As many commented, the issue is not with parents not being able to afford to do so. This may be the case in a small minority of cases - how to identify and help these children.
The best way to help neglected children is through education and enabling the current and future generations of parents.
And what about children who are going cold or inadequately dressed?
But it doesn't resolve the underlying problem - that being income is not being prioritised (cause), not that children are going hungry (consequence)0 -
Believe me, they do.PrincessFiona said:
True and very depressing. I mentioned something similar yesterday about when Jamie Oliver campaigned to get more healthy food and teaching children and parents about nutrition and cooking, - I found it horrifying that some parents were turning up at the school gates at lunchtime with fast food for their children who preferred that to what was being served at school.SantaClaus said:One issue with providing free food to the most disadvantaged kids is actually getting them to eat it. My kids go to a school that has a huge amount of social issues/poverty but until Covid struck they provided excellent nutritious meals cooked on site. My daughter told me time and again that most of the food went uneaten unless it was Friday's fish/nuggets and chips as that was the only kind of food most of her peers would touch. The irony of children most in need of nutrition refusing everything bar the least nutritious food is depressing on so many levels.
You would hope though that any child who was genuinely going hungry would eat something even if not their preferred choice.3 -
I know PF, that was my point.PrincessFiona said:
There are lots of examples, depending on your point of view.ValleyGary said:
Think of the money we spent on a willy waving contest like the olympics.....Addick Addict said:
They are probably the same ones that are starving. And painting a plane at a cost of £1m is an utter waste of money. Feeding children isn't.PrincessFiona said:
As I said previously, I don't think it is about affordability. And sadly there are countless examples of where funds could re re-directed. It could even be deducted from the cost of child benefit for children in the relevant age groups.Addick Addict said:
But the Government has a duty of care to look after neglected children too. If parent(s) cannot afford to do so then surely that responsibility passes onto them.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
The paint job on Boris's plane cost almost a million. That money could have been re-directed to a more worthy cause couldn't it?
As many commented, the issue is not with parents not being able to afford to do so. This may be the case in a small minority of cases - how to identify and help these children.
The best way to help neglected children is through education and enabling the current and future generations of parents.
And what about children who are going cold or inadequately dressed?0 - Sponsored links:
-
But hosting the Olympics actually brings money into the country and offers all sorts of infrastructure benefits such as, dare I mention, hospitals for Covid patients.ValleyGary said:
Think of the money we spent on a willy waving contest like the olympics.....Addick Addict said:
They are probably the same ones that are starving. And painting a plane at a cost of £1m is an utter waste of money. Feeding children isn't.PrincessFiona said:
As I said previously, I don't think it is about affordability. And sadly there are countless examples of where funds could re re-directed. It could even be deducted from the cost of child benefit for children in the relevant age groups.Addick Addict said:
But the Government has a duty of care to look after neglected children too. If parent(s) cannot afford to do so then surely that responsibility passes onto them.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
The paint job on Boris's plane cost almost a million. That money could have been re-directed to a more worthy cause couldn't it?
As many commented, the issue is not with parents not being able to afford to do so. This may be the case in a small minority of cases - how to identify and help these children.
The best way to help neglected children is through education and enabling the current and future generations of parents.
And what about children who are going cold or inadequately dressed?
The Olympics also influence children to do sport in the same way as a World Cups, be they football or cricket, galvanise kids to play. All such activities help them to get fit and not to become obese and a potential burden on the State. Not that many starving children are obese.
I don't see that re-painting a plane at a cost of £1m is going to influence too many children to become painters and decorators!2 -
I hate this view of parental responsibility especially at a time like this. Responsible parents are losing their jobs daily. They have paid into the tax system and yet the government has decided their children will starve this half-term and Christmas. A child does not choose to be born into poverty or to even the parents they are born too. The way I understand it, it is a question of humanity.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families21 -
They could of done all those things without spunking billions on new stadia. Invested in new hospitals, communities through sport etc. That ‘Olympic legacy’ is just an excuse - a 10 billion quid one.Addick Addict said:
But hosting the Olympics actually brings money into the country and offers all sorts of infrastructure benefits such as, dare I mention, hospitals for Covid patients.ValleyGary said:
Think of the money we spent on a willy waving contest like the olympics.....Addick Addict said:
They are probably the same ones that are starving. And painting a plane at a cost of £1m is an utter waste of money. Feeding children isn't.PrincessFiona said:
As I said previously, I don't think it is about affordability. And sadly there are countless examples of where funds could re re-directed. It could even be deducted from the cost of child benefit for children in the relevant age groups.Addick Addict said:
But the Government has a duty of care to look after neglected children too. If parent(s) cannot afford to do so then surely that responsibility passes onto them.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
The paint job on Boris's plane cost almost a million. That money could have been re-directed to a more worthy cause couldn't it?
As many commented, the issue is not with parents not being able to afford to do so. This may be the case in a small minority of cases - how to identify and help these children.
The best way to help neglected children is through education and enabling the current and future generations of parents.
And what about children who are going cold or inadequately dressed?
The Olympics also influence children to do sport in the same way as a World Cups, be they football or cricket, galvanise kids to play. All such activities help them to get fit and not to become obese and a potential burden on the State. Not that many starving children are obese.
I don't see that re-painting a plane at a cost of £1m is going to influence too many children to become painters and decorators!The point is, there are thousands of examples of spending money where people think it’s not necessary. Some people moan about foreign aid, or giving grants to ‘the arts’. There are priorities, but people views on priorities differ.0 -
My apologiesValleyGary said:
I was replying to ME14 mate. Didn’t quote the whole conversation.cafc999 said:
Fully understand and know that. The point I was making is that no matter what system is put in place some people will abuse it.ValleyGary said:
UC you have to supply proof of any rental agreement you have in place plus thorough checks on child care. You also speak with a case manager. However you are given an allowance amount on top of that. There are no checks on your bills/credit agreements with previous lenders etc. ‘Feckless parents’ will abuse anything, that’s why their feckless. I’d imagine the majority of normal people use it as it’s intended. There is very little margin for error with UC payment if used correctly. It’s not a spend at will allowance.cafc999 said:
There was talk of people selling vouchers. I assume that this is either a very small minority or just nonsense.ME14addick said:I don't know much about the Universal Credit system, but if the money is paid by that method, there is nothing to stop feckless parents from spending it on something else. I think that vouchers can only be spent on food, is that correct, does anyone know?0 -
And the welfare of children should trump them all shouldn't they?ValleyGary said:
They could of done all those things without spunking billions on new stadia. Invested in new hospitals, communities through sport etc. That ‘Olympic legacy’ is just an excuse - a 10 billion quid one.Addick Addict said:
But hosting the Olympics actually brings money into the country and offers all sorts of infrastructure benefits such as, dare I mention, hospitals for Covid patients.ValleyGary said:
Think of the money we spent on a willy waving contest like the olympics.....Addick Addict said:
They are probably the same ones that are starving. And painting a plane at a cost of £1m is an utter waste of money. Feeding children isn't.PrincessFiona said:
As I said previously, I don't think it is about affordability. And sadly there are countless examples of where funds could re re-directed. It could even be deducted from the cost of child benefit for children in the relevant age groups.Addick Addict said:
But the Government has a duty of care to look after neglected children too. If parent(s) cannot afford to do so then surely that responsibility passes onto them.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
The paint job on Boris's plane cost almost a million. That money could have been re-directed to a more worthy cause couldn't it?
As many commented, the issue is not with parents not being able to afford to do so. This may be the case in a small minority of cases - how to identify and help these children.
The best way to help neglected children is through education and enabling the current and future generations of parents.
And what about children who are going cold or inadequately dressed?
The Olympics also influence children to do sport in the same way as a World Cups, be they football or cricket, galvanise kids to play. All such activities help them to get fit and not to become obese and a potential burden on the State. Not that many starving children are obese.
I don't see that re-painting a plane at a cost of £1m is going to influence too many children to become painters and decorators!The point is, there are thousands of examples of spending money where people think it’s not necessary. Some people moan about foreign aid, or giving grants to ‘the arts’. There are priorities, but people views on priorities differ.0 -
The argument that children should be punished with hunger if their parents are irresponsible seems like something from a Dickens novel.19
-
But these are not the parents I am talking about. The government is not deciding and some children may be going hungry (not starving). I hate this use of emotive language, as it is not strictly correct. Lets find a way to help those genuinely in financial difficulty (not mismanaging income).1989cafc said:
I hate this view of parental responsibility especially at a time like this. Responsible parents are losing their jobs daily. They have paid into the tax system and yet the government has decided their children will starve this half-term and Christmas. A child does not choose to be born into poverty or to even the parents they are born too. The way I understand it, it is a question of humanity.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
How is child benefit calculated and how far does it go to feeding and clothing each child (the highest priorities after accommodation and heating)0 -
But none of that was in the proposition of Tuesday night. MPs were asked to vote on whether to feed hungry children or not. That’s it. The weren’t asked to whether to feed hungry children or not to feed hungry children but provide some alternative miraculous training course for parents who don’t realise that need to actually feed their kids.PrincessFiona said:
But these are not the parents I am talking about. The government is not deciding and some children may be going hungry (not starving). I hate this use of emotive language, as it is not strictly correct. Lets find a way to help those genuinely in financial difficulty (not mismanaging income).1989cafc said:
I hate this view of parental responsibility especially at a time like this. Responsible parents are losing their jobs daily. They have paid into the tax system and yet the government has decided their children will starve this half-term and Christmas. A child does not choose to be born into poverty or to even the parents they are born too. The way I understand it, it is a question of humanity.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
How is child benefit calculated and how far does it go to feeding and clothing each child (the highest priorities after accommodation and heating)If you were an MP on the Commons on Tuesday, faced with the actual choice they had to make, how would you have voted?7 -
se9addick said:
They aren’t bailing the parents out, they’re bailing the kids out.KentishAddick said:At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest
If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen
Hard to argue with this point and Marcus Rashford is a fine ambassador and spokesperson for the kids.
I made the decision to just have 2 kids: nature decided and we had two healthy kids. My wife then wanted more, but I wasn't certain about my future so two it was ! I had two cash streams, one stressful and one was boring. No way did I want or expect the state to pay for my kids or have to feed them, unless through sickness or an accident which meant I couldn't work.
I agree let's make sure no kids go hungry But why did Marcus's mum keep having children when according to Rashford, his dad kept going AWOL ?
I have advocated for years that the state gives good child benefits for the first two children. Then how about Birth control ?
2 -
They weren't asked to 'feed hungry children' as such. Again, emotive language (at least not using the work starving'se9addick said:
But none of that was in the proposition of Tuesday night. MPs were asked to vote on whether to feed hungry children or not. That’s it. The weren’t asked to whether to feed hungry children or not to feed hungry children but provide some alternative miraculous training course for parents who don’t realise that need to actually feed their kids.PrincessFiona said:
But these are not the parents I am talking about. The government is not deciding and some children may be going hungry (not starving). I hate this use of emotive language, as it is not strictly correct. Lets find a way to help those genuinely in financial difficulty (not mismanaging income).1989cafc said:
I hate this view of parental responsibility especially at a time like this. Responsible parents are losing their jobs daily. They have paid into the tax system and yet the government has decided their children will starve this half-term and Christmas. A child does not choose to be born into poverty or to even the parents they are born too. The way I understand it, it is a question of humanity.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
How is child benefit calculated and how far does it go to feeding and clothing each child (the highest priorities after accommodation and heating)If you were an MP on the Commons on Tuesday, faced with the actual choice they had to make, how would you have voted?
If I were an MP, I would be campaigning for, amongst other things, action to avoid children being in the position of being hungry (as well as going cold and inadequately dressed). And for identifying families in genuine need (as opposed to mis-prioritisation of income). And maybe how to provide a meal in the meantime for those where the income is not being prioritised with a corresponding reduction in child benefit or equivalent.
If I had any influence (as an MP or otherwise) I would be campaigning to reduce why it happens. If I owned a football club and we weren't getting the results, I wouldn't just keep buying new players but look at the reasons why and what I could change4 - Sponsored links:
-
But the children of the parents I am talking about will be suffering as well as the children of the parents that you are talking about. Personally, I believe no child should be starving or going hungry. No matter who their parent is.PrincessFiona said:
But these are not the parents I am talking about. The government is not deciding and some children may be going hungry (not starving). I hate this use of emotive language, as it is not strictly correct. Lets find a way to help those genuinely in financial difficulty (not mismanaging income).1989cafc said:
I hate this view of parental responsibility especially at a time like this. Responsible parents are losing their jobs daily. They have paid into the tax system and yet the government has decided their children will starve this half-term and Christmas. A child does not choose to be born into poverty or to even the parents they are born too. The way I understand it, it is a question of humanity.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
How is child benefit calculated and how far does it go to feeding and clothing each child (the highest priorities after accommodation and heating)
I agree a way must be found to ensure the food gets to ALL children.
0 -
How would you have voted on Tuesday?PrincessFiona said:
They weren't asked to 'feed hungry children' as such. Again, emotive language (at least not using the work starving'se9addick said:
But none of that was in the proposition of Tuesday night. MPs were asked to vote on whether to feed hungry children or not. That’s it. The weren’t asked to whether to feed hungry children or not to feed hungry children but provide some alternative miraculous training course for parents who don’t realise that need to actually feed their kids.PrincessFiona said:
But these are not the parents I am talking about. The government is not deciding and some children may be going hungry (not starving). I hate this use of emotive language, as it is not strictly correct. Lets find a way to help those genuinely in financial difficulty (not mismanaging income).1989cafc said:
I hate this view of parental responsibility especially at a time like this. Responsible parents are losing their jobs daily. They have paid into the tax system and yet the government has decided their children will starve this half-term and Christmas. A child does not choose to be born into poverty or to even the parents they are born too. The way I understand it, it is a question of humanity.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
How is child benefit calculated and how far does it go to feeding and clothing each child (the highest priorities after accommodation and heating)If you were an MP on the Commons on Tuesday, faced with the actual choice they had to make, how would you have voted?
If I were an MP, I would be campaigning for, amongst other things, action to avoid children being in the position of being hungry (as well as going cold and inadequately dressed). And for identifying families in genuine need (as opposed to mis-prioritisation of income). And maybe how to provide a meal in the meantime for those where the income is not being prioritised with a corresponding reduction in child benefit or equivalent.
If I had any influence (as an MP or otherwise) I would be campaigning to reduce why it happens. If I owned a football club and we weren't getting the results, I wouldn't just keep buying new players but look at the reasons why and what I could change0 -
What happens when someone has triplets?soapboxsam said:se9addick said:
They aren’t bailing the parents out, they’re bailing the kids out.KentishAddick said:At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest
If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen
Hard to argue with this point and Marcus Rashford is a fine ambassador and spokesperson for the kids.
I made the decision to just have 2 kids: nature decided and we had two healthy kids. My wife then wanted more, but I wasn't certain about my future so two it was ! I had two cash streams, one stressful and one was boring. No way did I want or expect the state to pay for my kids or have to feed them, unless through sickness or an accident which meant I couldn't work.
I agree let's make sure no kids go hungry But why did Marcus's mum keep having children when according to Rashford, his dad kept going AWOL ?
I have advocated for years that the state gives good child benefits for the first two children. Then how about Birth control ?4 -
Choose your fave two or something.cafc999 said:
What happens when someone has triplets?soapboxsam said:se9addick said:
They aren’t bailing the parents out, they’re bailing the kids out.KentishAddick said:At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest
If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen
Hard to argue with this point and Marcus Rashford is a fine ambassador and spokesperson for the kids.
I made the decision to just have 2 kids: nature decided and we had two healthy kids. My wife then wanted more, but I wasn't certain about my future so two it was ! I had two cash streams, one stressful and one was boring. No way did I want or expect the state to pay for my kids or have to feed them, unless through sickness or an accident which meant I couldn't work.
I agree let's make sure no kids go hungry But why did Marcus's mum keep having children when according to Rashford, his dad kept going AWOL ?
I have advocated for years that the state gives good child benefits for the first two children. Then how about Birth control ?
9 -
This is about levelling up. Hungry children shame us all. It is not about taking responsibility from parents. It is about closing up the holes in the net/cracks in the system through which far too many children fall. The overwhelming majority of parents are sufficiently responsible to feed their children. Some parents genuinely have to choose between paying rent, bills and buying food.KentishAddick said:At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest
If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen
"Oh but there's benefits" I hear you cry. And there are but they afford subsistence living at best. The wait for universal credit is counted in weeks not days and that's when the system works, any glitch, error or oversight and weeks become months. Would you deny a 5/12/15 year old a school lunch costing £2.30 because their parent is "entitled to this that and the other benefit" when their reality is that benefit is delayed indefinitely?
Even this bleak scenario is predicated on the parent(s) being informed, literate, competent, healthy enough to engage fully with the process. Would you deny that kid a week of school lunches, cost £11.50, because the system ought to work? What about the offspring of the less able, informed, inclined, healthy?
This year has brought an unprecedented extra burden on those least able to afford to cope. The cost of Rashford's scheme is widely touted around £20million - a drop in a nation's budget in any year - in this half a year's £200billion extra borrowing, that's not even pocket change.
The £3000 p.a. pay rise recently approved for just one MP buys 260 kids their school lunch for a week - how many MP's are there?
How many tory MP's just voted down the amendment to provide free meals? (It was over 300).
If the choice is between 200 kids getting free lunches for a week (£2300) and 2 of those kids going without a square meal at all - well that's not actually a choice is it?10 -
I am not sure. It would depend if I were able to speak to on the wider issue and if this action was just a stop gap until longer-term policies. And a policy to help those in genuine need (and not those mis-prioritising)se9addick said:
How would you have voted on Tuesday?PrincessFiona said:
They weren't asked to 'feed hungry children' as such. Again, emotive language (at least not using the work starving'se9addick said:
But none of that was in the proposition of Tuesday night. MPs were asked to vote on whether to feed hungry children or not. That’s it. The weren’t asked to whether to feed hungry children or not to feed hungry children but provide some alternative miraculous training course for parents who don’t realise that need to actually feed their kids.PrincessFiona said:
But these are not the parents I am talking about. The government is not deciding and some children may be going hungry (not starving). I hate this use of emotive language, as it is not strictly correct. Lets find a way to help those genuinely in financial difficulty (not mismanaging income).1989cafc said:
I hate this view of parental responsibility especially at a time like this. Responsible parents are losing their jobs daily. They have paid into the tax system and yet the government has decided their children will starve this half-term and Christmas. A child does not choose to be born into poverty or to even the parents they are born too. The way I understand it, it is a question of humanity.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
How is child benefit calculated and how far does it go to feeding and clothing each child (the highest priorities after accommodation and heating)If you were an MP on the Commons on Tuesday, faced with the actual choice they had to make, how would you have voted?
If I were an MP, I would be campaigning for, amongst other things, action to avoid children being in the position of being hungry (as well as going cold and inadequately dressed). And for identifying families in genuine need (as opposed to mis-prioritisation of income). And maybe how to provide a meal in the meantime for those where the income is not being prioritised with a corresponding reduction in child benefit or equivalent.
If I had any influence (as an MP or otherwise) I would be campaigning to reduce why it happens. If I owned a football club and we weren't getting the results, I wouldn't just keep buying new players but look at the reasons why and what I could change
Another concern is what is next, clothing and heating bills?0 -
It shouldn’t be Olympics, paint jobs OR hungry children. I am sure there are sufficient funds to pay for all those things.
It’s just that the Tories in the main have a fixed attitude around if people worked hard enough they would have sufficient funds to support their own children. From their position of wealth and privilege (in the main ) they have no comprehension that it is not all solved for everyone by hard work. There will always be people at the bottom of any society - a mark of how civilised you are as a society is how those people are treated. And some people need to be supported. In this country we believe in giving financial support to those with children as we recognise that nurturing the next generation is important, not least because today’s children will the workers of the future whose taxes pay for our health care and pensions when we need them.
Having said that, child benefit has been insufficient for years.1 -
As someone who experienced times during his childhood when there was no food in the cupboard and who's eaten tinned sausage and beans on toast for Christmas Dinner, whilst my mum wept in the kitchen and my dad consoled her, I find this characterisation that most children going hungry are doing so because their parents are wasters particularly disgusting and offensive.
My parents were good people who fell on hard times in the short term. You could argue that the state let them down at the point in their lives they most needed it. I certainly would.
There are many, many others just like them. Still. In the UK, in 2020. And that is a stain on our government and those that support them.
If your response to the growing malnutrition and child poverty under this government is to seek to downplay it or push the responsibility solely onto parents, the vast majority of whom are just trying to do their best, you need to give your head a wobble, in modern parlance.18 -
“If we stop the kids starving then we might have to make sure they’re not freezing as well”PrincessFiona said:
I am not sure. It would depend if I were able to speak to on the wider issue and if this action was just a stop gap until longer-term policies. And a policy to help those in genuine need (and not those mis-prioritising)se9addick said:
How would you have voted on Tuesday?PrincessFiona said:
They weren't asked to 'feed hungry children' as such. Again, emotive language (at least not using the work starving'se9addick said:
But none of that was in the proposition of Tuesday night. MPs were asked to vote on whether to feed hungry children or not. That’s it. The weren’t asked to whether to feed hungry children or not to feed hungry children but provide some alternative miraculous training course for parents who don’t realise that need to actually feed their kids.PrincessFiona said:
But these are not the parents I am talking about. The government is not deciding and some children may be going hungry (not starving). I hate this use of emotive language, as it is not strictly correct. Lets find a way to help those genuinely in financial difficulty (not mismanaging income).1989cafc said:
I hate this view of parental responsibility especially at a time like this. Responsible parents are losing their jobs daily. They have paid into the tax system and yet the government has decided their children will starve this half-term and Christmas. A child does not choose to be born into poverty or to even the parents they are born too. The way I understand it, it is a question of humanity.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
How is child benefit calculated and how far does it go to feeding and clothing each child (the highest priorities after accommodation and heating)If you were an MP on the Commons on Tuesday, faced with the actual choice they had to make, how would you have voted?
If I were an MP, I would be campaigning for, amongst other things, action to avoid children being in the position of being hungry (as well as going cold and inadequately dressed). And for identifying families in genuine need (as opposed to mis-prioritisation of income). And maybe how to provide a meal in the meantime for those where the income is not being prioritised with a corresponding reduction in child benefit or equivalent.
If I had any influence (as an MP or otherwise) I would be campaigning to reduce why it happens. If I owned a football club and we weren't getting the results, I wouldn't just keep buying new players but look at the reasons why and what I could change
Another concern is what is next, clothing and heating bills?5 -
Hopefully.PrincessFiona said:
I am not sure. It would depend if I were able to speak to on the wider issue and if this action was just a stop gap until longer-term policies. And a policy to help those in genuine need (and not those mis-prioritising)se9addick said:
How would you have voted on Tuesday?PrincessFiona said:
They weren't asked to 'feed hungry children' as such. Again, emotive language (at least not using the work starving'se9addick said:
But none of that was in the proposition of Tuesday night. MPs were asked to vote on whether to feed hungry children or not. That’s it. The weren’t asked to whether to feed hungry children or not to feed hungry children but provide some alternative miraculous training course for parents who don’t realise that need to actually feed their kids.PrincessFiona said:
But these are not the parents I am talking about. The government is not deciding and some children may be going hungry (not starving). I hate this use of emotive language, as it is not strictly correct. Lets find a way to help those genuinely in financial difficulty (not mismanaging income).1989cafc said:
I hate this view of parental responsibility especially at a time like this. Responsible parents are losing their jobs daily. They have paid into the tax system and yet the government has decided their children will starve this half-term and Christmas. A child does not choose to be born into poverty or to even the parents they are born too. The way I understand it, it is a question of humanity.PrincessFiona said:
My understanding is that this is not about cost but responsibility.Addick Addict said:
Good point. At least if the Government fed the starving children from Monday to Wednesday they might only be starving for half the week!ValleyGary said:
But only Monday to WednesdayAddick Addict said:
Half a billion not half a million and it ran from the 3rd to 31st Augustse9addick said:
I think the EOHO scheme actually only operated for 13 days. And cost about half a million pounds.ValleyGary said:
I thought the idea of the EOTHO scheme was to assist the hospitality industry. Considering that employs millions of waiting staff, chefs, kitchen porters, cleaners etc all on low income, they will have quite a struggle feeding their kids without a job.Addick Addict said:The Government spent £400 million on the "eat out to help out" scheme. How much would paying for free meals cost for starving children cost? £10m? £20m?
One thing that can be guaranteed is that more people will have contracted Covid as a result of the "eat out to help out scheme". Though more children will go hungry without the free meals.The way things are going at the moment it’ll cost a lot more than £20m to put food on the table across the country for everybody.
That said, I am in full support of children in need being feed 365 days a year whatever the means.
The government are not responsible for feeding children, their parent(s) are.
That said, there should be some way of identifying and helping truly destitute families
How is child benefit calculated and how far does it go to feeding and clothing each child (the highest priorities after accommodation and heating)If you were an MP on the Commons on Tuesday, faced with the actual choice they had to make, how would you have voted?
If I were an MP, I would be campaigning for, amongst other things, action to avoid children being in the position of being hungry (as well as going cold and inadequately dressed). And for identifying families in genuine need (as opposed to mis-prioritisation of income). And maybe how to provide a meal in the meantime for those where the income is not being prioritised with a corresponding reduction in child benefit or equivalent.
If I had any influence (as an MP or otherwise) I would be campaigning to reduce why it happens. If I owned a football club and we weren't getting the results, I wouldn't just keep buying new players but look at the reasons why and what I could change
Another concern is what is next, clothing and heating bills?4
