Jobs & Education4 mins ago
What is the reason for this?
113 Answers
http://
So 79% of teachers claim that pupils turn up hungry, I note that 'hungry' was not defined and as kids are always hungry (having had four myself I am a pretty good authority) what does this actually mean?
2/3 of teachers in the teachers survey reckon it's down to lack of care (busy trying to get to work?, not bothering because the child 'accessory' is now becoming a pain perhaps? )
Hardly surprising from a bunch of left wingers 57% blamed lack of money. This I am very doubtful about. I wonder how many of these parents pitch up to the school fag in hand? Food does not have to be expensive(so long as you are not trying to fed your family from the takeaway or ready meals).
So, fellow ABers, what are your thoughts?
So 79% of teachers claim that pupils turn up hungry, I note that 'hungry' was not defined and as kids are always hungry (having had four myself I am a pretty good authority) what does this actually mean?
2/3 of teachers in the teachers survey reckon it's down to lack of care (busy trying to get to work?, not bothering because the child 'accessory' is now becoming a pain perhaps? )
Hardly surprising from a bunch of left wingers 57% blamed lack of money. This I am very doubtful about. I wonder how many of these parents pitch up to the school fag in hand? Food does not have to be expensive(so long as you are not trying to fed your family from the takeaway or ready meals).
So, fellow ABers, what are your thoughts?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. 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.
Just as I thought, from the trend of this discussion much earlier, "Hungry Children Are Caused by the Selfish Poor Adults; Selfish Out-of Work Parents or the Work-shy all of whom Are All Nasty Benefit-seekers"!
Never thought so many ABers were so thick, even at reading the question! Osborne and Cameron will be delighted that the Tory's plan is working i.e. "transfer the blame for our societies ills and economic disaster from themselves and their fellow-rich friends includng the bankers onto the immoral, freeby-grabbing or work-shy poor"
Please read this:
(a) FROM 79% of TEACHERS blanket statement what % of CHILDREN turn up "hungry"? 79% of the CHILDREN? Nope it could mean 0.0001% or whatever number you choose. If you choose 79% of children then you can lay off the benefit-seekers.
(b) Similar criticism of 57% WHETHER PART OF SEPARATE SELECT SURVEY OR PART OF THE 79%.
(c) IF 57% WERE part OF THE original 79% then upto 57/79 (72%) of society's population are so poor they cannot or will not feed their children.That would be a damning indictment of government policy plunging us back to the victorian days.
(d) The stats are useless garbage! Can't you see that or do you choose not to see?
(e) Is being a "hungry" child a sure sign of parental neglect? Nope, not at all! Hunger can be a sign of high-energy expenditure or food-greediness - see part of YOUNGMAFBOG's QUESTION. Obese children or adults are always hungry.
(f) Turning the "plebs" against the "plebs" is a historic Tory Policy and it's working on AB for some!
Regards,
SIQ.
Never thought so many ABers were so thick, even at reading the question! Osborne and Cameron will be delighted that the Tory's plan is working i.e. "transfer the blame for our societies ills and economic disaster from themselves and their fellow-rich friends includng the bankers onto the immoral, freeby-grabbing or work-shy poor"
Please read this:
(a) FROM 79% of TEACHERS blanket statement what % of CHILDREN turn up "hungry"? 79% of the CHILDREN? Nope it could mean 0.0001% or whatever number you choose. If you choose 79% of children then you can lay off the benefit-seekers.
(b) Similar criticism of 57% WHETHER PART OF SEPARATE SELECT SURVEY OR PART OF THE 79%.
(c) IF 57% WERE part OF THE original 79% then upto 57/79 (72%) of society's population are so poor they cannot or will not feed their children.That would be a damning indictment of government policy plunging us back to the victorian days.
(d) The stats are useless garbage! Can't you see that or do you choose not to see?
(e) Is being a "hungry" child a sure sign of parental neglect? Nope, not at all! Hunger can be a sign of high-energy expenditure or food-greediness - see part of YOUNGMAFBOG's QUESTION. Obese children or adults are always hungry.
(f) Turning the "plebs" against the "plebs" is a historic Tory Policy and it's working on AB for some!
Regards,
SIQ.
The thing is here,, there is no generalisation that fits the bill -child rises at 7am and is not in the mood for food, refuses or declines it at 7.45am - is off to school, when asked at gone 9am if they are hungry, will likely answer 'Yes'. This would likely fit my second grandson, who is in no way neglected.
Grandson number one is up earlier, eats a hearty breakfast then is very active before school, he would likely answer yes too....
We cannot put every child - so called hungry or not into the same 'neglect box'
Grandson number one is up earlier, eats a hearty breakfast then is very active before school, he would likely answer yes too....
We cannot put every child - so called hungry or not into the same 'neglect box'
Dear sherrardk,
You ask me what my point is. I made a number of points, bullet-pointed as "a" to "f". However in simplest terms, just for you: the "stats" as correctly quoted by youngmafbog tell us nothing conclusive about anything -notably about childrens' nutrition, good parents or bad parents. Hence certain ABers have been mislead into discussing these matters based on a false premise. Also, more subscribers should have seen the flaws before commenting.
Apart from using their own brains, my points have been quickly understood by others. I refer you to the submissions by boxtops, jomifl and mamyalynne (below) as well some of the doubts raised by the original questionner.
Get it now sherrardk? Aaagh, please don't answer that. I hope I've said my fill!
Regards,
SIQ.
You ask me what my point is. I made a number of points, bullet-pointed as "a" to "f". However in simplest terms, just for you: the "stats" as correctly quoted by youngmafbog tell us nothing conclusive about anything -notably about childrens' nutrition, good parents or bad parents. Hence certain ABers have been mislead into discussing these matters based on a false premise. Also, more subscribers should have seen the flaws before commenting.
Apart from using their own brains, my points have been quickly understood by others. I refer you to the submissions by boxtops, jomifl and mamyalynne (below) as well some of the doubts raised by the original questionner.
Get it now sherrardk? Aaagh, please don't answer that. I hope I've said my fill!
Regards,
SIQ.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Trump's Cabinet Picks. What Do We Think?
News6 mins ago
News12 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
