Free School Meals for 5-7 years old - A brave move or just another bribe? [Merged Thread]

[BadFish]

If you can get some halfway decent food down them it is a big step in the right direction. The cost would be subsidised by the reduction in future unemployment benefits, the future reduction in policing costs, the future reductions in NHS spending on dietary illnesses and by the increase in future income tax.

This could depend on what they feed them

 

[glasfryn]

Work in any of these circles do you? No blind eyes, just very difficult to put enough evidence for justice to get moving!

Daily Mail will be leaping to defend the rights of the family before you can mention disquiet! That poor little boy in Coventry had neighbours who didn't hear torture for nights on end, maybe the great British community needs to look at itself in the mirror!

and we will hear the same old things about changing the system ect
it does not work ,these cases keep rearing their ugly heads and still the same old excuses
IMHO they need working class mothers to travel round with them (social workers ect) to give them the gritty truth about whats happening and ask questions, its the same old thing if you have nothing to hide you won't mind being asked the questions
to many people in positions that might help but found to be hiding.
its time these people started putting their foot in the door ....or even through it if needs be

 

[goldstone]

As a taxpayer I bloody object to my money going on school meals for kids of rich and middle class families. Give me one fecking reason why this is a good idea?

If you can't afford to feed your kids you shouldn't have any.

 

[Gullys Cats]

I have been saying this for years but at long last Nick Clegg has said that his party are going to give a free hot meal everyday to all primary school children. The cost wll be £600m but I think that this should be partly deducted from child benefit paid and ensures that every child has a hot meal rather than the money be spent down the pub or in the bookies.

I agree, can they spend the money on brown?

 

[Gullys Cats]

As a taxpayer I bloody object to my money going on school meals for kids of rich and middle class families. Give me one fecking reason why this is a good idea?

If you can't afford to feed your kids you shouldn't have any.

Your last comment is a little bit harsh!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

As a taxpayer I bloody object to my money going on school meals for kids of rich and middle class families. Give me one fecking reason why this is a good idea?

If you can't afford to feed your kids you shouldn't have any.

Well as a taxpayer - I'd be more than happy for money to be spent on this ( just as long as it's done properly ).

As for your last comment - well - idiot ! You do realise peoples circumstances change don't you ? Our household income has dropped nearly 40% in the last 18 months and yet nearly all bills have gone up. Thankfully we can still afford to clothe and feed our children but what would suggest we do if we couldn't - sell them ?

 

[Nibble]

Look at yourselves. Squabbling and bitching about a few crumbs thrown from the millionaire politicians table. Pathetic.

 

[BadFish]

Look at yourselves. Squabbling and bitching about a few crumbs thrown from the millionaire politicians table. Pathetic.

Crumbs of our own money.

 

[Nibble]

Crumbs of our own money.

Quite!

 

[BigGully]

Well as a taxpayer - I'd be more than happy for money to be spent on this ( just as long as it's done properly ).

As for your last comment - well - idiot ! You do realise peoples circumstances change don't you ? Our household income has dropped nearly 40% in the last 18 months and yet nearly all bills have gone up. Thankfully we can still afford to clothe and feed our children but what would suggest we do if we couldn't - sell them ?

Your starting position is flawed, there isnt 'poverty' in the context of childrens hunger, thats already covered by free school meals and if your circumstances change then again you can immediately access the free service.

Any child not accessing appropriate food quality or quantity is nearly always a case of dysfunctionality within their own family or simple neglect, both are already covered by different departments monitoring them, its not a 'poor' issue.

 

[somerset]

As a taxpayer I bloody object to my money going on school meals for kids of rich and middle class families. Give me one fecking reason why this is a good idea?

If you can't afford to feed your kids you shouldn't have any.

Ahh,.. ok,.. so what you mean is that you dont want anybody to have free school dinners, rich or poor?.... at least we know where you stand now.

Just as a bit of education for you sir,... this proposal is all about health, educational and social groundwork at an early age, its not about poverty.

 

[BigGully]

Ahh,.. ok,.. so what you mean is that you dont want anybody to have free school dinners, rich or poor?.... at least we know where you stand now.

In the wider context it isnt free any of it, but most would accept that some that otherwise might go without need to access a free service.

But why you and others somehow feel that tax payers outside of those that would benefit should subsidise those that already have the means to pay is strange.

Again I sense some feeling of the morale superiority about those that have commented in favour, when actually it just doesnt make sense.

 

[somerset]

In the wider context it isnt free any of it, but most would accept that some that otherwise might go without need to access a free service.

But why you and others somehow feel that tax payers outside of those that would benefit should subsidise those that already have the means to pay is strange.

Again I sense some feeling of the morale superiority about those that have commented in favour, when actually it just doesnt make sense.

Look, it can be broken down to a very simple level really, at the core of what we loosely term the 'Welfare State' in this country ( including items such as health and education), is the premise that we are all provided with access to the same level of service(s) irrespective of our ability to pay. I am all in favour of course, of some form of means testing for certain elements of the benefit and entitlement provisions currently up for grabs, but please,... 5-7 year olds have no concept of these social and economic nuances, and are ALL entitled to a decent start in life in as many areas as we can possibly provide within the framework we currently exist within in this country. Yes, after that things start to change, but even if say 20% of those in the program get some health or social benefit out of the structured school dinners and the supervision that comes with that, surely that is a positive?!

 

[CheeseRolls]

As a taxpayer I bloody object to my money going on school meals for kids of rich and middle class families. Give me one fecking reason why this is a good idea?

If you can't afford to feed your kids you shouldn't have any.

There are some right oddballs on this thread, but I suspect you are the king.

Feeding the little darlings is just the tip of the iceberg, as a taxpayer you are also paying for them to be educated.

The rest of us can only really sit back and express our gratitude to you for paying so much more than your fair share.

 

[Berty23]

It is a very simplistic argument to say the state should not fund school meals for parents who can afford it. What about school at all? Should the state pay for that for rich people? What about the NHS? Why should that be universal? Those who are in hospital long term get free food - why shouldn't they pay?

If spending this money contributes to a better society with healthier kids and better performance in school which leads to a more productive society then a relatively small investment is okay isn't it?

Research shows that many kids who could get FSM don't because their parents don't apply or hate the stigma. Universal means this issue goes away.

Ps. I don't really agree with it but I can see the thinking.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Your starting position is flawed, there isnt 'poverty' in the context of childrens hunger, thats already covered by free school meals and if your circumstances change then again you can immediately access the free service.

Any child not accessing appropriate food quality or quantity is nearly always a case of dysfunctionality within their own family or simple neglect, both are already covered by different departments monitoring them, its not a 'poor' issue.

Where on earth have I said there is poverty in the context of children's hunger ? What I said was I agree with taxpayers money being used to feed all the children in the age bracket a decent lunch REGARDLESS of family circumstances.

This argument of assisting the well off is a red herring - if it were such an issue why do we provide many other services, funded by the taxpayer, to wealthy people without means testing ?

My second point was specifically at the idiotic statement of "if you can't afford children then don't have them" because virtually nobody can predict their financial circumstances 16/18 years forward.

 

[BigGully]

Look, it can be broken down to a very simple level really, at the core of what we loosely term the 'Welfare State' in this country ( including items such as health and education), is the premise that we are all provided with access to the same level of service(s) irrespective of our ability to pay. I am all in favour of course, of some form of means testing for certain elements of the benefit and entitlement provisions currently up for grabs, but please,... 5-7 year olds have no concept of these social and economic nuances, and are ALL entitled to a decent start in life in as many areas as we can possibly provide within the framework we currently exist within in this country. Yes, after that things start to change, but even if say 20% of those in the program get some health or social benefit out of the structured school dinners and the supervision that comes with that, surely that is a positive?!

But it is already being delivered as you describe.

Who exactly are you targeting when you say 'ALL entitled to a decent start in life' ?

Those that are accessing free school meals as the ones currently able to pay have exactly the same meals, there aren't different queues or uniforms depending where your funding for that meal has been come from.

The only change I can see are those that are already able to pay will get them free and those currently having packed lunches ( mostly as nutritionally valid as the hot school meals ) having to now have the school meals.

If that is the aim just ban packed lunches

 

[BigGully]

Where on earth have I said there is poverty in the context of children's hunger ? What I said was I agree with taxpayers money being used to feed all the children in the age bracket a decent lunch REGARDLESS of family circumstances.

This argument of assisting the well off is a red herring - if it were such an issue why do we provide many other services, funded by the taxpayer, to wealthy people without means testing ?

My second point was specifically at the idiotic statement of "if you can't afford children then don't have them" because virtually nobody can predict their financial circumstances 16/18 years forward.

All those bases are adequately covered.

 

[keaton]

and we will hear the same old things about changing the system ect
it does not work ,these cases keep rearing their ugly heads and still the same old excuses
IMHO they need working class mothers to travel round with them (social workers ect) to give them the gritty truth about whats happening and ask questions, its the same old thing if you have nothing to hide you won't mind being asked the questions
to many people in positions that might help but found to be hiding.
its time these people started putting their foot in the door ....or even through it if needs be

1, You don't think any social worker's, nurses, teachers are workin class mothers?
2, why would being working class and female make you better at spotting child abuse than people with years of experience, training and qualifications?

 

[BigGully]

It is a very simplistic argument to say the state should not fund school meals for parents who can afford it. What about school at all? Should the state pay for that for rich people? What about the NHS? Why should that be universal? Those who are in hospital long term get free food - why shouldn't they pay?

If spending this money contributes to a better society with healthier kids and better performance in school which leads to a more productive society then a relatively small investment is okay isn't it?

Research shows that many kids who could get FSM don't because their parents don't apply or hate the stigma. Universal means this issue goes away.

Ps. I don't really agree with it but I can see the thinking.

I tend to think most will access the FSM, however I can assure you whether a parent apply's or not, the school will know if a pupil is having a school lunch or not, so apart from that parents angst, the child accesses the school meal which is what the issue is here.