Animals & Nature0 min ago
Crisis? What Crisis?
In the same week that Child Benefit is being withdrawn for higher earners (in a somewhat unfair fashion, it might be argued) here we have a local authority taking it upon itself to feed the children it has a duty to educate:
http://
Am I alone in thinking that if my Child Benefit had been withdrawn this week (and I didn't live in Blackpool) I would be a bit miffed to learn of the council's largesse?
"...children in Blackpool are more likely to face malnourishment, says the council." Very possibly true, I wouldn't know. But since when has it been the responsibility of local Councils to feed all of its primary school children?
http://
Am I alone in thinking that if my Child Benefit had been withdrawn this week (and I didn't live in Blackpool) I would be a bit miffed to learn of the council's largesse?
"...children in Blackpool are more likely to face malnourishment, says the council." Very possibly true, I wouldn't know. But since when has it been the responsibility of local Councils to feed all of its primary school children?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by New Judge. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's must be better to feed those in need than it is to encourage larger famlies in a world with too many of us already by offering funding from the workers.
That said there must be better ways to tackle the issues of poverty. But I can see the benefit of a properly fed pupil being able to make best use of the teaching for the benefit of them personally and of our future society.
One may be miffed if that is how one feels. But there is a logic to it.
That said there must be better ways to tackle the issues of poverty. But I can see the benefit of a properly fed pupil being able to make best use of the teaching for the benefit of them personally and of our future society.
One may be miffed if that is how one feels. But there is a logic to it.
The term 'poverty ' is thrown around as if it is a definable quality.
What is 'poverty ' in this country ? It is certainly not the same as deprivation .
I knew a nunber of 'Free Dinner Children ' families who lacked nothing of the 'necessities of life like cars, tvs, mobiles etc. What ever you want to call it , it is not poverty.
What is 'poverty ' in this country ? It is certainly not the same as deprivation .
I knew a nunber of 'Free Dinner Children ' families who lacked nothing of the 'necessities of life like cars, tvs, mobiles etc. What ever you want to call it , it is not poverty.
I'm really not sure if people actually want to debate this, or just criticise Blackpool council's decision tbh, but I'll give it a go.
There is no universally agreed definition of child poverty, but there are some commonly used ones. Under current Department of Work and Pensions criteria, there are a range of measures of child poverty.
In this case, under those DWP definitions, a child is considered to be living in poverty if their household income is less than 60% of average wages, therefore living in "relative low income," when measured against whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole - ie in a 'typical household.'
Last year (2011) that 60% threshold figure was £251 per week, which means, at government estimates 2.3 million children were/are living in poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is currently predicting that figure will rise by 300,000 in the lifetime of this parliament.
There are wider and deeper social implications over time for all of us.
http://
There is no universally agreed definition of child poverty, but there are some commonly used ones. Under current Department of Work and Pensions criteria, there are a range of measures of child poverty.
In this case, under those DWP definitions, a child is considered to be living in poverty if their household income is less than 60% of average wages, therefore living in "relative low income," when measured against whether the poorest families are keeping pace with the growth of incomes in the economy as a whole - ie in a 'typical household.'
Last year (2011) that 60% threshold figure was £251 per week, which means, at government estimates 2.3 million children were/are living in poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is currently predicting that figure will rise by 300,000 in the lifetime of this parliament.
There are wider and deeper social implications over time for all of us.
http://
There are children brought up in 'poverty' (either through poor budgeting or *** priorities). I remember seeing a child when I was on teaching practice (early 1990's) with the front of his shoes cut off because they no longer fitted him. There are neglected children who don't get fed because the parents are feckless. Even on the lowest of benefits you can afford to feed and clothe your children IF you don't put yourself first (I know, because I was in that unfortunate position not that long ago).
And indeed Blackpool's decision pays no regard to poverty or affluence as the breakfast provision is for all. Or are they saying that because a few pupils live in poverty we'll give all of them a free breakfast?
I don't think the issue is about poverty. It's about who is responsible for the well being of their children, the State or parents? Blackpool Council seems to have answered that question but I think they've come up with the wrong answer.
I don't think the issue is about poverty. It's about who is responsible for the well being of their children, the State or parents? Blackpool Council seems to have answered that question but I think they've come up with the wrong answer.
Where I used to live, in Bristol, the local primary school have done breakfasts for several years, but there was a charge for it. I don't know if anyone had it free, but I know the neighbours' children paid. I thought it was a good idea as some of them would eat breakfast with their friends when they skimped it at home.
I think it is a good idea to feed the kids. Just lower benefits accordingly, then the kids get fed and the parents dont have the cash to spend on booze fags drug mobile phones and other unnecessary items. ie the cash is getting to where it should.
Yes I know not all parents fall in one of the categories, but apart from the pedantic right-on liberals on this site I am sure most will know where I am going with this.
Yes I know not all parents fall in one of the categories, but apart from the pedantic right-on liberals on this site I am sure most will know where I am going with this.
Well this thread was originally about feeding children breakfast at school. The teachers seem to presume that because the child has not eaten breakfast that the parents are to blame. We have everything you could wish for available for breakfast and a stay at home parent to cook full English if wanted and watch youngest over the road to the bus, yet I cannot for the life of me get him to eat more than a bite out of a slice of toast first thing on a morning. Any teacher asking the class what they had eaten for breakfast would presume I was a bad parent not providing breakfast. Idiotic. Yes, they will be children not provided with food but its difficult to assess is lack of breakfast is by choice or necessity.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News4 mins ago
Jobs & Education5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |