More corruption

Oopsadaisy1

This was reported by the Daily Mail....... are we now believing someone who tweets a photo and calls the DM ?

However it is being looked into by an MP. So if it’s true it should be sorted.

Yes, exactly.

Blossoming

That is not even the worst example. One such parcel contained half a tomato. Sorry kid, you’re not worth a whole tomato,make that last a week and be grateful.

First of all....are we absolutely sure the food delivered is as in the pic shown?
Secondly, during this crisis with children at home for meals it seems the government wants to make sure that (overall) healthy food is delivered.
The company concerned Chartwells is a provider of school meals normally.
IF it can be proven that the boxes contain such measly amounts then of course the Company should be taken to task.

It was on the lunchtime news on the BBC ...do you believe them?

The amount of money this government has squandered as a result of ill thought out decisions and funnelled in the direction of cronies is scandalous.

The most overused expression of the past year or so seems to me to be "You couldn't make it up". This is yet another time when I want to use it. A disgusting way to treat people and another instance of a socially unbalanced government, none of whom, apparently, ever had to try hard to make ends meet.

This was reported by the Daily Mail....... are we now believing someone who tweets a photo and calls the DM ?

However it is being looked into by an MP. So if it’s true it should be sorted.

Notice I saw in a supermarket last year.... Food vouchers may not be used to buy alcohol.

Think this is being looked at urgently and even saw a parent recipient of this awfulness saying that she had just been informed that they were reverting to the £30 voucher scheme. Can only hope this goes nationwide and urgently. Also hope the official suppliers are taken to task immediately and with all the force of the law.

That is not even the worst example. One such parcel contained half a tomato. Sorry kid, you’re not worth a whole tomato,make that last a week and be grateful.

My son and I were talking about these and how appalling the contents are. He lives frugally and says with £30 he could buy so much more than that.
Cronyism at its worst.
Did no one lay down guidelines on what should be included?

This is simply more nepotism.

£30 would deliver better value even from my milkman who is certainly not a cheap option!

Don't get me wrong, I love having milk delivered three times a week but his "add ons" are on the pricey side. Nevertheless £30 would still buy way more than this, and it would be delivered too.

Whatever the motivation of the govt department who decided this was a great idea, it is deeply insulting to families who are already struggling in these difficult times. There are many things wrong here (1) there is not £30 worth of food here which is what we, the tax payer are funding (2) the food as illustrated is inadequate for 10 days, not particularily inspiring or even healthy (3) how dare the government decide that parents can't be trusted to spend the food vouchers. There is nothing acceptable or right in any way with this.

I am not claiming that any of these things are happening, merely trying to struggle to understand conflicting reasoning between two government policies with similar intentions.



I think that the conflict arises from different ministers believing different stories!

Without drilling down into which organisations advised against giving housing benefit direct to claimants I suppose we'll never know if it was justified or not. I'm always a bit suspicious about equating poverty with fecklessness.

The previous voucher system did not allow for the purchase of alcohol or cigarettes. However an MP pontificated about them and they were scrapped.

Maizie I think you misunderstand my post. I am quoting what the government said and did: transferred payment of HB to recipients rather than direct to landlords to enable recipients to exercise proper control of their finances. Some organisations advised against this because some recipients wouldn't be able to cope with this and would spend the money on other things.

Now the government seems to be arguing that they will give food parcels rather than money to recipients because the money might be spent on other things.

I am merely saying that these are the government's arguments and they are contradictory.

If we follow government thinking through they are saying that they are happy to risk children being homeless, providing they have some food to eat.

I am not claiming that any of these things are happening, merely trying to struggle to understand conflicting reasoning between two government policies with similar intentions.

If parents can’t be trusted to spend money wisely just imagine the billions thrown away on child benefit. Just imagine how we wasted it on rubbish food or alcohol or betting.

M0nica

How come the Housing benefit payment was transferred from direct payment from council to landlord/lady because the government wanted people to take responsibility for running their own finances, despite warnings that the money could end up being used for other purposes, but when it comes to feeding children, the parents cannot be trusted to spend the money wisely.

What is worse a homeless child or a hungry child?

Are you able to back up your assertions of 'money being spent for different purposes' , MOnica? Is this based on reputable research, or is it just anecdote? I think it's important to know, because if it isn't based on researched evidence then it really shouldn't be repeated.

Like the tory MP who claimed earlier this year that the £15 food vouchers were being spent on drugs and fags. Not a shred of evidence, but much believed...A belief which appears to have driven a change to 'food parcels' rather than vouchers, with the result we see in the photo (and there are a lot more)

This is small minded and mealy mouthed and hypocritical. The purpose of universal credit, we were told, was to enable people to control their own lives, their own budgets, so why are parents now not deemed capable of spending the food voucher? Insulting behaviour, and the food looks dull, unappetising and not even particularily nutritious. I am not sure what age it is mean to be for, but one cheese sandwich? That wouldn't fill most 10 year old boys for a start. Why don't they just go the whole hog and knock on the doors with a ladle of gruel?

This is dreadful .Let's hope this company is taken to task about the pitiful response and has to account what has happened to the money. Fraud ?
The government should also be much more open and accountable about who is getting their contracts.

To me it feels mean and spiteful,as if they have been forced to provide these meals and want to make it as dismal an experience as possible. It's probably not that. Just providing minimum possible for maximum profit to company.
I dont know if free school meals in general have improved. When my daughters were at school in the late 1990s they were envious of friends who got them as they were full of highly processed junk and sugar!

It's just more money for their mates.

Chartwell, the company providing the food parcels, are part of the Compass Group.

Compass Group post yearly revenues of £25billion and profits of £1.2billion.

The Chair, Paul Walsh, is a Tory donor.

How come the Housing benefit payment was transferred from direct payment from council to landlord/lady because the government wanted people to take responsibility for running their own finances, despite warnings that the money could end up being used for other purposes, but when it comes to feeding children, the parents cannot be trusted to spend the money wisely.

What is worse a homeless child or a hungry child?

The photo on the right makes me want to cry.

What happened to the voucher system?