Hungry Britain

Totally agree Joelsnan and Aka. It is often those parents who are working and earning just above the benefit scale who are often the worst off.
It would appear that some people would be happy to see the children of those on benefits in a workhouse.

I just wonder cactus60 which part of "having depression and being unable to work" is funny?

Agree Joelsnan I don't care how it is funded but all school meals should be free. And yes, breakfast clubs serve many functions exactly as Gill says. I used to fund these when I worked for Children's Services.

My thoughts precisely GillT57.
I have said before, child allowance (or whatever it is called) should be diverted to provide school meals. At least then the children could be fed nutritious meals.

I am strongly in favour of breakfast clubs in schools, not means tested, but for every child. It is a good communal start to the day and it is not just children from families on benefit who dont get fed in the morning, There are feckless parents within the benefit community and the working community and it is important that the cycle of deprivation and dependency is broken. School breakfast clubs, and school dinners are a good way of teaching children to eat together, at a table, to chat and socialize, it is good for all children, regardless of their family income.

[Jingls]

The was for the remark. Not the typos.

rosequarze

It's so difficult. Some of my friends and relatives, and one daughter, live or lived on Estates- because they needed help. And yet they are the ones who screamed at me for wearing pink coloured glasses and 'not having a clue' about the massive (their words NOT mine) abuse of the system and how a huge proportion of their neighbours were just taking the of the system. The stories they tell are just incredible, and they did not pick them up for the Daily Mail or the Sun, but their own daily observations.

So, I totally agree children should not go hungry or made victims (they already are, in so many ways)- and I can understand how paternalism is so 'paternalistic' for fail of a better word. And still- if parents prefer to buy fags, alcohol, drugs, expensive toys for themsleves or the kids, flatscreen tvs or holidays to Benidorm, or whatever- can we keep pumping more and more money into their hands, until some percolate by 'accident' to the children. Much better to provide breakfast clubs, and free nutritious school meals and after school homework support- instead of giving it to the parents who are shown to not be responsible and put kids first?

Edwina is so irritating and condescending- but she does have a point. Priorities for too many have changed, and not for the better- good food for the kids seem to be right at the bottom for too many.

Excuse typos please, hope you can get the gist

That' not njce jingls. Cactus obviously sees some of this going on in her neighbourhood and tbe scroj gers take money from people in genuine need, whom everyone wants to help wben the are down on their luck.
Perhaps we all need to go back and read The Beveridge Report for ourselves and see exactly what it said.

Perhaps cactus your neighbours are doing the right thing by taking regular exercise? Or would they be better sitting in the house drinking/taking drugs/watching sky? Not all disabilities are obvious, perhaps your neighbours have epilepsy or a heart condition which they are trying to alleviate by taking short bursts of regular exercise? Maybe they have cancer and their popping in and out on the early bus are because they are attending appointments for radiotherapy? I understand your anger at people who milk the system and we all appreciate there are some, and yes in an ideal world people would buy good second hand furniture and make do, but what about those people who suddenly find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own? What this heated discussion has shown is that there are many people who are concerned about families having to use food banks, what we cannot agree on is why they are having to use them.

Have you got net curtains cactus?

Its hard to tell who can and cant work, some people say they have depression so cant work because they cant get up in the mornings. lol
Does any of us want to get up in the morning?. I know 2 people who say this but ive seen the same ones out on the early bus going to the shops or the football match. I see people in my work every day sitting by the tv saying they are disabled but they seem to fit enough to me. My neighbour walks the dog every day 5 times and his partner goes too, he carries a stick but rarely uses it and they are both on benefit, I cant see how the partner cant go to work even just part time, they have a lovely council house. another neighbour hobbles in the front door with his stick, he goes out the back and gets the washing in without the stick, he was seen carrying a sofa on his back once. These are the people who are the scroungers and we are the fools who are paying taxes for them. These are the ones who ,if they miss their appointment with the dwp will get their benefit cut and go bleating to the food bank, bless their hearts

We don't need that much, though, Jingle Cameron is confident enough to say 'money no object' when he wants to.

Must say I agree with Aka's comments. I know, as I'm sure many of us do, people who have absolutely no intention of working, and have a very comfortable life style courtesy of benefits and the odd bit of work for cash in hand. What was set up to be a safety net has become, for some, a lovely soft mattress and they don't give a damn about the fact that if they got off their bone idle behinds and started contributing to the economy they would, by paying taxes, helping others who genuinely cannot work.

That's too simplistic. Any country needs defence.

I wonder if the autistic man's dying had anything to do with benefits cuts. There seems to be a lot of other issues involved. Sounds like a complete breakdown of the so-called "caring" professions.

The money is there - it's in the war chest!

But if the money is just not there When I'm64......?

Theyhave to find a way to allocate funds fairly.

Just came back on. Sel, I don't expect the government to do anything for me personally. Thank you. However, for children to start the day hungry, for whatever reason is unacceptable. X

.....and for anyone who hasn't the time or inclination to read the whole article, an extract:

'In the first place, they say, the poor are exaggerating their plight. In the second place, their plight is all their own fault, and could be remedied by a little thrift and ingenuity. And in the third place, they have too many children; so many that the only answer is to punish the children along with their parents, in order to remove the “perverse incentives” that led to their birth.

And the problem with these views is that they are founded on a failure of empathy, of common fellow-feeling with those in misfortune, that is plainly inimical to the whole idea of democracy and equal citizenship. They divide the world into “people like us” – people who, like Iain Duncan Smith, are perfectly entitled to claim five-figure expenses on top of a six-figure salary, and to enjoy life as they please; and those like “them”, who are greedy, feckless economy-wreckers if they fail to survive for a week on what Duncan Smith spends in an hour.'

I stand by what I wrote. I do not subscribe to the term 'undeserving poor.'
This is a good article that expresses it better than I could.

www.scotsman.com/news/joyce-mcmillan-myth-of-undeserving-poor-revisited-1-2878384

Of course I can Eleothan. You can love people and want to help them whilst still acknowledging their failings!

And you can have empathy. Which I do have for the poor. (There but for the grace of God...)

What about the undeserving rich - isn't it time someone sorted them out?

As you know I don't normally reply to your posts When but I must put you straight I said that those who don't believe there are undeserving poor live in cloud cuckoo land.

Don't put words into my mouth.