Star Wars Quix...f A O Mozz....
Film, Media & TV24 mins 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
//…this is to help the genuinely needy. Those who due to coronavirus, have been made redundant or furloughed, and are struggling to make ends meet during lockdown.//
But it’s not just for that is it. It will also benefit those who don’t work, have never worked and who have no intention of ever doing so. Their circumstances remain completely unchanged by this crisis (except that their local pub or bookies might be closed, thus leaving them with more money to feed their children). So why should they suddenly receive extra funds to feed their children?
//Save a quid to starve a kid eh Deskdiary?//
No. It’s the responsibility of parents to feed their children. It is a strange logic which determines that anybody who declines to fund that is guilty of starving the child.
The idea that many local authorities have decided to fund this is laughable. LA’s have no money. Around 80% of what they spend comes from central government and the rest from Council Tax. When LAs run out of funds (as they will if they give giving away free dinners) they will be back either to central government or the Council Taxpayer to make up the shortfall caused by their profligacy. I pay my Council Tax to have my dustbins emptied, not to provide free meals.
//In school holidays many children will receive their daytime food from somewhere like McDonalds or Dominos.//
//Not too much of a generalisation there Judge.//
No, not too much of a generalisation:
https:/
If people are quite happy to provide funds to feed children with this sort of stuff then good for them.
Be nice if the personal sniping stopped. It doesn’t add very much.
But it’s not just for that is it. It will also benefit those who don’t work, have never worked and who have no intention of ever doing so. Their circumstances remain completely unchanged by this crisis (except that their local pub or bookies might be closed, thus leaving them with more money to feed their children). So why should they suddenly receive extra funds to feed their children?
//Save a quid to starve a kid eh Deskdiary?//
No. It’s the responsibility of parents to feed their children. It is a strange logic which determines that anybody who declines to fund that is guilty of starving the child.
The idea that many local authorities have decided to fund this is laughable. LA’s have no money. Around 80% of what they spend comes from central government and the rest from Council Tax. When LAs run out of funds (as they will if they give giving away free dinners) they will be back either to central government or the Council Taxpayer to make up the shortfall caused by their profligacy. I pay my Council Tax to have my dustbins emptied, not to provide free meals.
//In school holidays many children will receive their daytime food from somewhere like McDonalds or Dominos.//
//Not too much of a generalisation there Judge.//
No, not too much of a generalisation:
https:/
If people are quite happy to provide funds to feed children with this sort of stuff then good for them.
Be nice if the personal sniping stopped. It doesn’t add very much.
//Blimey this is getting a bit hot under the collar. Couldn't we just all agree that there are some people who think it's a good idea and some who dont. Luckily (!) Its not us who gets to decide what taxpayers money is spent on. You cant please all of the people all of the time//
I agree with Bednobs @ 9.15
I agree with Bednobs @ 9.15
//No, not too much of a generalisation:
https:/
A lot of difference between taking the kids out for a burger, and McDonalds being one of many companies that have join this cause to give free meals to the needy.
//So why should they suddenly receive extra funds to feed their children?//
While I agree this is open for abuse by the loafers, the question remains, what is more acceptable, helping the genuinely needy but allowing it to be abused, or saying screw the lot of them and throwing those needy under the bus?
I'd rather help those in need.
https:/
A lot of difference between taking the kids out for a burger, and McDonalds being one of many companies that have join this cause to give free meals to the needy.
//So why should they suddenly receive extra funds to feed their children?//
While I agree this is open for abuse by the loafers, the question remains, what is more acceptable, helping the genuinely needy but allowing it to be abused, or saying screw the lot of them and throwing those needy under the bus?
I'd rather help those in need.
// But the idea that so many people who receive benefits should have their children's food provided or funded is ridiculous. //
Why is it so ridiculous? As best I can figure, it's a question of who is responsible. But if the parents aren't able, for whatever reason, to provide for the children, then why should the children be left to suffer?
I simply don't care if it's because parents aren't doing their job properly or not. I don't think we should be returning to a Victorian-style attitude, dividing the poor into "deserving" and "undeserving". Nor does a reply from earlier of "if you can feed them, don't breed them" provide any answer. Once the children are alive, it shouldn't be acceptable to leave even the slightest risk that they go hungry. Most parents are capable of managing this on their own. For those who are not, the State should be ready and willing to step in, without judgement.
The victims in all this are the children.
Why is it so ridiculous? As best I can figure, it's a question of who is responsible. But if the parents aren't able, for whatever reason, to provide for the children, then why should the children be left to suffer?
I simply don't care if it's because parents aren't doing their job properly or not. I don't think we should be returning to a Victorian-style attitude, dividing the poor into "deserving" and "undeserving". Nor does a reply from earlier of "if you can feed them, don't breed them" provide any answer. Once the children are alive, it shouldn't be acceptable to leave even the slightest risk that they go hungry. Most parents are capable of managing this on their own. For those who are not, the State should be ready and willing to step in, without judgement.
The victims in all this are the children.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank54 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles63 mins ago
Music63 mins ago
Climate Change Robs Family Of Life...
ChatterBank69 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles71 mins ago
