U-Turn on School Meals

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well that went well when my back was turned:D. Back to the thread... IF a child is entitled to FSM, and the school shuts, should they get food provided or not? The decision at Govt is yes.

I know from 30 years' experience, that for some children, the 6 hours in school is the best 6 hours of the day. Where 'whiney' teachers (Marcus too, maybe) are coming from, is that for some pupils, IT IS for more than one meal. As with the best six hours, so it is with a hot meal at midday. Finally, getting on the list for FSM is not a breeze- as is right. Never mind the fecklessness of parents or otherwise, children need to eat.

How good we are or are not with money; or what we think of bad parents, doesn't change that.

CG out!
 
Sponsored Links
charliegolf said:
Well that went well when my back was turned:D. Back to the thread... IF a child is entitled to FSM, and the school shuts, should they get food provided or not? The decision at Govt is yes.

I know from 30 years' experience, that for some children, the 6 hours in school is the best 6 hours of the day. Where 'whiney' teachers (Marcus too, maybe) are coming from, is that for some pupils, IT IS for more than one meal. As with the best six hours, so it is with a hot meal at midday. Finally, getting on the list for FSM is not a breeze- as is right. Never mind the fecklessness of parents or otherwise, children need to eat.

How good we are or are not with money; or what we think of bad parents, doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
Why should it be for more than 1 meal? There has been a lot of people who have suffered a lot more than 1 meal per day being taken way ffs
 
THFC said:
So what? At least the money from tax payers would be spent on the children rather than feckless parents who don't deserve children.

I would rather pay foster parents 'hundreds per child per week' than risk any child being neglected to the point of starvation.
Click to expand...

No you wouldn't. Just pay - £15 pw per child money to the parents instead.
 
Sponsored Links
SirGalahad said:
Who are the people you will give the kids to?

Fostering costs hundreds per child per week.

You really thought that one out.
Click to expand...


This is quite close to home.
Close relatives have adopted, and are looking to do so again.
What I find staggering, is how some of these kids come up for adoption.

There are some females who are deemed unfit to have children, through interventions by Social Services and the courts. Harsh, but fair enough; professionals have weighed up their cases, and come to that conclusion. However,
.......they are still allowed to actually have kids in the first place! It is just that the authorities are waiting in the delivery suite, wicket-keeper like, to relieve the newborn of their impending fate.

The above result is kids being born with drug dependencies, fetal alcohol syndrome (with the developmental and behavioural issues that brings), developmental issues due to the mother smoking throughout pregnancy.........


If a female is so beyond salvation to be judged unlikely to ever be fit to have kids, I see a good argument for them being sterilised (if for no other reason than to protect any prospective children otherwise).
For cases with a better prognosis, there are contraceptive devices and implants etc, which can render the female sterile for a spell, but which are reversible.

Or, we can keep on as we are, allowing kids to be maimed, and passed on to someone else to care for.
 
SirGalahad said:
No you wouldn't. Just pay - £15 pw per child money to the parents instead.
Click to expand...
You are in no position to tell me what I would or would not do. In case you haven't realised it, we are talking about tax payers money not my personal savings.

As you well know, I was not talking about parents who will feed their children but, rather, those who won't because they'd rather spend the money on themselves. I was simply voicing my personal opinion, which will not change whether you agree with it or not.
 
Taxpayers handouts are surprisingly generous to some. They even brag about it.

But not to the hungry children of the poor.
 
Brigadier said:
This is quite close to home.
Close relatives have adopted, and are looking to do so again.
What I find staggering, is how some of these kids come up for adoption.

There are some females who are deemed unfit to have children, through interventions by Social Services and the courts. Harsh, but fair enough; professionals have weighed up their cases, and come to that conclusion. However,
.......they are still allowed to actually have kids in the first place! It is just that the authorities are waiting in the delivery suite, wicket-keeper like, to relieve the newborn of their impending fate.

The above result is kids being born with drug dependencies, fetal alcohol syndrome (with the developmental and behavioural issues that brings), developmental issues due to the mother smoking throughout pregnancy.........


If a female is so beyond salvation to be judged unlikely to ever be fit to have kids, I see a good argument for them being sterilised (if for no other reason than to protect any prospective children otherwise).
For cases with a better prognosis, there are contraceptive devices and implants etc, which can render the female sterile for a spell, but which are reversible.

Or, we can keep on as we are, allowing kids to be maimed, and passed on to someone else to care for.
Click to expand...
We've done it before, as have many other nations, it hasn't gone particularly well, most of the processes to do so are looked back on as barbaric, cruel and arbitrary.

Even now it is possible for women to be sterilised against their will in the UK but it's vastly uncommon.

Sterilisation is a big step, how can you know that a drug addict can't recover and become a decent parent? Let alone an unemployed single parent get a job?

This topic gets too much morality for my liking. Letting children starve or live in squalor is a terrible investment. It results in broken human beings and rubbish members of society. Supporting their parents, even at the cost of supporting bad parents, seems a reasonable investment.
 
John the plumber said:
Nobody paid for my kids but myself thanks,clearly another idiot who believes everything they read in the media rather than listening to the truth
Click to expand...
Except for their education, healthcare, birth costs, let alone child tax credit or whatever they used when we still measures money using Dinosaur bones as currency.
 
But going back to the topic again, has the government U turned on refusing to provide FSM during half term yet? They'd only refused it this morning so I'd be surprised if it's been reversed already, but Boris has been getting more responsive.
 
IT Minion said:
Except for their education, healthcare, birth costs, let alone child tax credit or whatever they used when we still measures money using Dinosaur bones as currency.
Click to expand...
Classic example of someone who knows they are wrong so they try to change from the original subject. I have never claimed any benefit, i have never requested nor had any financial help off anybody for my children I made sure I could afford children before I had them. This is about the government paying £30 for 5 meals for a child and the parents saying it’s not enough. It’s not about healthcare or anything else. This is about financial help for food
 
IT Minion said:
So they weren't educated in a UK school, or born with the assistance of an NHS midwife, or had any medical care from the NHS at all.

It's possible, but extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. And this is the internet.
Click to expand...
Do you not read anything this post is about SCHOOL MEALS ,not the nhs,not medical care ,not where my children went to school. You are talking about a completely different subject. The subject is people saying that £30 for 5 meals for a child isn’t enough. As I said a classic example of somebody who changes the subject due to the fact they know they can’t reply to fact. As I said earlier ANYBODY WHO CANT CREATE 5 MEALS FOR A CHILD FOR £30 NEED TO TAKE A LONG HARD LOOK AT THEMSELVES. So you can keep trying to change the subject as much as you like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top