The U.K. in 2019 -

It wasn't to you Joelsnan it was to Iam but I forgot the stars.

GracesGranMK3
I find your post somewhat confusing.
My comment of free love and food for all lets shake the money tree is in reference to those who are not prepared to accept that within our society there are a few who want something for nothing and are prepared to ignore these to the detriment if those who really need societies help.
In the relevant post there was never any attribution of this sentence to you.
I actually find your comments about me offensive. You know nothing of me or my circumstances, you have obviously not read all of my postings within this thread.

Excellent post Naheed.

Iam I am not sure what you are saying in your last post I'm afraid. I didn't write "I haven't seen anyone posting whose comments suggest they "think 'free love and food for all lets just shake the money tree'. " It was in answer to a post I wrote. You seem to quote it as if it was from me.

While telling us that those who think of themselves as higher beings don't exist on this forum you write like one Joelsnan.

There isn't a money tree - we invented money. Stop fetishising the idea of it. I can almost hear you drool. “The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed.” In order for some to get more they seem to be prepared to let people starve or live in appalling conditions. Work is now the measure of the goodness of a person but work is also "man made" and work now commands man rather than man commanding work. I don't feel the world owes me a living but you clearly believe it owes you more than you want the next person to have.

I'd really appreciate it if anyone could let me know the percentage of the feckless people on the benefit system. I couldn't find it myself.

Teaching kids life skills such as cooking, personal management, finance and budgeting, work ethics, resilience, problem solving, etc at school or in after school clubs seems a very good idea rather than spending it on their health problems, young offenders institutions, prisons, courts, social workers, ... We either break the vicious circle our young are in or help create another generation of ill equipped adults and parents. It's unrealistic to completely eradicate the problem but it's not unrealistic to work and invest to reduce the number to a bare minimum.

GracesGran - I haven't seen anyone posting whose comments suggest they "think 'free love and food for all lets just shake the money tree'.

I do not dispute that some people exploit the benefit system. It would be naive to say otherwise. Some people exploit the tax system and the evidence is that they cost we tax payers much more than the benefit cheats do.

Children are our future. As communities, families, societies, we need to do our best by all children. Especially those who have feckless parents. I agree we should reintroduce the teaching of cookery and all that goes with that, into our high school curriculum. I remember my daughters telling me they were making pizza in cookery. The ingredients needed were one ready made pizza base, one tub tomato puree, a small amount of grated cheese. They grew up in a family where everyone loves food and enjoys cooking so the absence of any proper instruction at school didn't matter. I've helped with cookery/budgeting etc in family centres. I've seen positive outcomes in some of the families who got involved with the family centres/Sure start centres.

I despair at the lack of compassion for the families I worked with.

GracesGranMK3
It seems, rather than actual making peoples lives better, some on here now see themselves a higher beings who can "judge" the deserving and the undeserving. I despair when I see those who believe themselves so morally superior having any influence

I do not think that there are any of your 'higher beings' on this site. There do appear to be one or two who obviously have blinkered vision, some consider themselves to be of the highly benevolent nature who think 'free love and food for all, lets just shake the money tree'. Whilst blithly being unaware that all this 'free everything' comes from workers taxes, some workers (it is proven) take home less than some who potentially could work but choose not to. Everyone on this site is more than happy to give all support to the needy, however there can be no denying that amongst the truly needy there are a core of entitled people (probably since the 80s) who feel the world owes them, this despite contributing little and who really spoil it for the true needy. This is why we have ended up with the absolutely horrendous benefits medicals. If people played fair then the benefits system would work perfectly well for those who need and deserve it. And others would not encourage the 'entitled' few to take what they do not need or deserve.

Part of the reason the state National Insurance system came in is because prior to that "Parish Relief" system, etc., meant the people operating it - to whom forelocks needed to be tugged - decided who was deserving and who was not and it had to be made plain that these people were receiving "charity".

It seems, rather than actual making peoples lives better, some on here now see themselves a higher beings who can "judge" the deserving and the undeserving. I despair when I see those who believe themselves so morally superior having any influence whatsoever on our society.

The worst of it is we have all lived under the benefits of the systems brought in after the war and yet so many do not appreciate how much these have improved their lives and now, having done reasonably well under that system, wish to take it away from others. They do say the only thing worse than a liar is a hypocrite. I think we can see that on GN.

Referring to the basic-menu article I mentioned above, would you describe the parents who were not feeding their children a good diet as lazy or bad parents? If so, how is it that when these parents were given some support, they didn't just carry on as normal because it was easier but instead set about changing what their children ate? Surely it shows that the vast majority of parents - even those who may not be seen as willing to put some effort into child care - want what is best for their children but sometimes need help?

Anyway, whatever people's views as to whether people are "deserving" or not, to withdraw financial or any other support will primarily hurt the children and will perpetuate the cycle of deprivation and disengagement.

I really do think many of you fail absolutely to recognise the chaotic lifestyles lived by some families and the results of this upon children. Cooking a balanced meal requires not only cooking skills but the ability to shop carefully in advance and plan. Even in the 1960s there were families who could not do this. My parents had a corner shop in an area of small terraced houses, many of the families were great but there were quite a few who lived hand to mouth. Who pretended to be out when the rent man came round, who came into the shop and asked for 2 slices of bacon, a loaf of bread and a small tin of beans "Cos I've nowt for the kids' tea," then the pennies and ha'pennies were counted out. Corner shops have gone of course so now the kids will probably go without tea. Child poverty isn't new. The fact that some are happy to let it continue isn't either. But some of those children from difficult backgrounds do grow up to be better mums and dads, and the more support they are given the more successes there will be.

reasonsbly reasonably

Most of these parents who have no idea how to cook reasonsbly priced meals, have internet and a mobile phone.
In those cases, there is no excuse.

MaizieD
The 'deserving poor’ I rest my case

What case would that be?

I think you'll find everyone who has posted cares very deeply that we have a duty to look after those who genuinely struggle.

The 'deserving poor'.

I rest my case...

I did cookery at school but, to be honest, I didn't use that knowledge at home - my Mum did all the cooking. I just muddled through when I got married and eventually developed a repertoire of meals that I was able to cook reasonably well. Fortunately, my husband cooked too.

I think the difference when I was younger, was that there wasn't a great deal of processed food/frozen ready meals available in the shops - the only convenience food I can recall eating at home was (what we thought were very sophisticated) packets of Vesta meals that, from my recollection, were reconstituted by adding boiling water and tins of Goblin meat puddings. There wasn't the array, of frozen ready-made meals and puddings or the huge numbers of take-away outlets (apart from the local fish and chip shop). Now, people are inundated with adverts for KFC, McDonalds, Burger King, etc, and ready meals from M&S, Morrisons, Iceland, etc, etc. Advertising is effective - that's why so much money is spent on it - so is it any wonder that external catering/convenience foods have been normalised.

Eloethan
I think one of the reasons poor diet has increased recently is the parents do not know how to cook. I dont know about you, but I was taught cookery from the age of 11 to 16 we spent one whole morning or afternoon cooking and baking from scratch making basic meals through to baking and Royal icing a Christmas cake. During my v poor time in early marriage I could always manage to rustle up a home cooked meal as well as working full time and having small children. By the time my daughter went to High school Home Economics was the 'fad' and lesson times had reduced it had become 'take a tin of this and a packet of that'. I think if any cookery is done in schools now it is very low priority.
Rather than try and support mothers individually when it may be too late to change ways, we should be campaigning for cookery, home and financial management to be taught as mainstream subjects getting them embedded early and rather than teaching things like General studies and subjects less relevant to successful life.

Eloethan, thanks so much for your post. I am too often motivated by memories of the families and children I worked with over forty years and feel I don’t do them justice as a result. I do know the research, you can’t appear before a Judge making recommendations for continued support with expensive, limited resources or alternatively recommend alternative placements without strong research evidence in support of your recommendations
The sure start family centres focussed on assessment, identified need - the had successes. It’s shameful to have destroyed that programme and others like it

In the I today was a short report which, in my view, demonstrated very well the advantages of supporting people who appear to need help to parent more effectively.

QUOTE*Recipe-kit scheme helps children for years*

"A scheme that helped parents plan well-balanced family dinners for three months kept their children healtheir for years after, astudy has found.

"Low-income families [285 families involved in study] in Edinburgh and Colchester were given simple recipe kits to cook five healthy meals a week, with scientists studying the impact on their children's body mass index. The BMI of children who had been cooked well-balanced meals during the scheme fell by between 5 an 6 percentage points.

"Researchers also found that, in the three years after the study, children continued to eat healthily, even when there was no evidence of a similar change in their parents.

"Professor Michele Belot who led the study said "Dietary habits are more malleable early on in life." END QUOTE.

This suggests to me that many parents who may, on the surface, appear to be incompetent and perhaps uninterested in their children's wellbeing, may instead need more support. Far better, in my view, to offer such support than keep moaning on about people whose life experiences are unknown to us but who we nevertheless decide to label as feckless and lazy.

We’d do well to remember that even in the 1970s we had many children living most of the year in residential schools. Those schools were gradually closed as it was recognised they were a haven for peadophiles and that despite their feckless parents, children fared
Better at home, with statutory and voluntary support.
Alongside these changes, many people were discharged from huge institutions as care in the community was believed to be less damaging (and cheaper).
One of the outcomes of these social policy decisions is the UK has parents with learning difficulties (for eg) living in the community And having children. Those families need support and rightly so. I’m sure they fit the deserving poor category.
The Uk recognises the complexity of supporting the feckless patents. It’s complicated. Complex problems don’t respond well to simple or punitive solutions

MaizieD
seems that we have two 'camps' on here. Those who think that the state should care for all it citizens and those who think that care should only go to those who 'deserve' it... the language is positively 19th century

A very broad generalisation quite remote from the truth. Most are seriously debating how to deal with child deprivation and the various causes, no 19th century language.

So how exactly when we get this utopian welfare state from the posters who state

that the state should care for all it citizens

Do we differentiate between the deserving who have genuine needs and the feckless who also take, or are we not into 'judging' in any way shape or form?

Will there be anyone in this hippy-like 'love and peace' set up who says it cannot be a free for all? If not, those able to work and contribute to the pot which funds social care can also take time out, for no good reason, if every citizen is to be cared for.

Sounds fair.

Or will their be means testing. Of course there will be. And will the good caring, but at her wits end single mother who gives 100% to her children, on a limited income, get the same sort of care that the switched off, couldn't-give-a-damn lazy and self indulgent parent gets? One would hope so.

I think you'll find everyone who has posted cares very deeply that we have a duty to look after those who genuinely struggle. It is right and proper that the frail, sick, disabled, young, vulnerable, old and disadvantaged are known. I don't think anyone is disputing that, despite the Dickens/Angela's ashes slurs.

Is it right and proper that so many resources and a disproportionate amount of time and money is spent on the feckless/can't be arsed/it's too much like hard work brigade, who do exist, despite your protestations that we care for everyone. A bad parent has a get-out clause, or are they held responsible for neglecting their children?

Encouraging personal responsibility is what the 'Dickensian' posters are suggesting. If we make excuses and delve deeply into the backgrounds of everyone who is merely feckless we would be wasting resources, surely?

I suspect many posters here could tell a tale of a life that has knocked them down time and time again. I certainly can. No one delves into our back story, or the story of everyone who strives with determination and dignity to get back up again. Not everyone can rise, but we'd hope such people don't slip through the net. They do though, because they believe in independence, doing their best, making an effort.

Life is bloody unfair. There are many who get no breaks but they carry on. There are just as many who make no effort and expect the state to care for them from cradle to grave. They often know how to shout loudest too.

No discernment?
Fair?

Really?

Well said MaiziD. I’ve long believed we are going back to the future, Engles and Dickens would be shocked by the poverty in some parts of Manchester today.
Some of the comments here could have been made by Poor Law Guardians in the novels of Dickens or in the pages of Angela’s Ashes ?

Yes, good post naheed

It seems that we have two 'camps' on here. Those who think that the state should care for all it citizens and those who think that care should only go to those who 'deserve' it... the language is positively 19th century...

naheed good post