Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Let Them Eat...?
387 Answers
MPs rejected the plea for free school meals to be given during holidays.
https:/
Should be very good news for all the Answerbanks who think poor families spend too much on smoking, gambling, etc, so should get NO more handouts!
Let them eat cake! Or nothing.
Charles Dickens would not believe it.
A
https:/
Should be very good news for all the Answerbanks who think poor families spend too much on smoking, gambling, etc, so should get NO more handouts!
Let them eat cake! Or nothing.
Charles Dickens would not believe it.
A
Answers
"Yes, and you readily call anyone who disagrees with your view of Britishness, anti-British. " - not true, it's not disagreeing per se that caused me to label people anti British it is the fundamental stand point the person takes. Eg if they'd prefer the country to be run by unelected foreign civil servants than our own, elected leaders then how can that logically be anything other than anti British? To me that's an absolute not an opinion.
also mozz I can't see how you can label me an anti Gulliver, all he does is throw grenades and leave, never debates, never reasons, never explains, never posts a link never responds to requests for further information. You may not agree with me very often but I hope you'd agree I am nothing like gulliver.
If it's down to the parents, and the parents are failing, how are the children "choosing" to starve?
Also, why does it even matter *why* the parents are failing? Be it their own neglect, or be it because, actually, you're completely wrong about the idea that nobody in this country is in a position where they actually face going hungry -- the fact is that, either way, some children are in a position of needing support. We shouldn't judge. We should just help.
Also, why does it even matter *why* the parents are failing? Be it their own neglect, or be it because, actually, you're completely wrong about the idea that nobody in this country is in a position where they actually face going hungry -- the fact is that, either way, some children are in a position of needing support. We shouldn't judge. We should just help.
I have a neighbour, young single mum in rented accommodation, sits crosslegged in her doorway several times a day smoking while her young lad eats a pack of crisps. No idea what else she gives him but I bet she will be collecting the free meals being offered in our town to all children. My mum worked three cleaning jobs when I was at school to keep me not only in food but in clothes and a caravan holiday once a year. We never went without and never claimed a penny in benefits. I wonder how many play stations will be sold this Christmas?
Have not read all the posts far too long. Just thought I'd say that a local independent cafe is giving free meals to children who are entitled to free school dinners.
Just jacket potatoes with basic fillings but all nourishing food. She is a lovely lady and doing this despite losing a lot of income during lockdown. Pity larger companies cannot do the same.
Just jacket potatoes with basic fillings but all nourishing food. She is a lovely lady and doing this despite losing a lot of income during lockdown. Pity larger companies cannot do the same.
//The ones who suffer by blaming the parents are the children. Therefore, we shouldn't care whether the parents are at fault or not.//
Of course we should care if the parents are at fault… and that should be addressed - and yes, as unpalatable as it may be, many are feckless. We shouldn’t allow the fit and healthy who have made benefits their lifestyle to milk society indefinitely. That was never the purpose of the Welfare State. Perhaps giving a proportion of benefits in food vouchers would be a better idea…. but then I suppose some would sell them for cash which wouldn’t be spent on the children anyway.
Of course we should care if the parents are at fault… and that should be addressed - and yes, as unpalatable as it may be, many are feckless. We shouldn’t allow the fit and healthy who have made benefits their lifestyle to milk society indefinitely. That was never the purpose of the Welfare State. Perhaps giving a proportion of benefits in food vouchers would be a better idea…. but then I suppose some would sell them for cash which wouldn’t be spent on the children anyway.
Perhaps I should be clearer: we shouldn't care in terms of judging whether or not to help the children in question. We should obviously care in terms of trying to get the parents in a position, and if necessary mentality, to be able to help themselves.
I also don't deny the existence of irresponsible parents. I just don't think the State should be discouraged by their existence in terms of offering help. The Welfare State isn't meant to be a moral judgement. It's meant to help those in need, regardless of why.
I also don't deny the existence of irresponsible parents. I just don't think the State should be discouraged by their existence in terms of offering help. The Welfare State isn't meant to be a moral judgement. It's meant to help those in need, regardless of why.
As a further point, you can't even defend the government's approach on grounds of cost: the Government's defence is actually that it's providing the support in other ways, including an increase in Universal Credit and an increase in Council funding. Ironically, both of these are less well-targeted than the free meals support, which would come best in the form of food vouchers, would be.
