Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Universal free school meals

All this fuss over St Rashford and feeding the children of 'parents' who are unable to feed their own children. In my time I've had dealings with people who survived on food banks, one person in particular who took their children out of school for six weeks to go on holiday in Jamaica. Or another family whose kids wore trainers worth over £100, had the latest game consoles and games...I could go on.
Here's an interesting list of benefits that these 'families' are entitled to but for some reason the MSM seem to have turned a blind eye in mentioning...

Child benefit
Child tax credits
Housing benefit
Council tax benefit
Free dental care
Free prescriptions
Discretionary housing payment
Universal credit
Rent costs paid in universal credit
Up front payments from universal credit
Childcare vouchers
Free nursery places

Marcus Rashford is too daft to realise this, but he is being set up to fail.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer

Fancy a nice cheap hot meal, why not eat here?
And you and I are picking up the difference. I honestly dont know why I vote for these greedy fecking parasites.
Im in a bad mood now, and I’m also fecking hungry.:hungry:
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer

anglo

LE
I think a lot of you are missing the main point here,
It isn't that these parents are short of money, they've just not interested
in their children, they do as little as possible for them,
The children are a means to an end, the children are there to bring the benefits in.

We had the nieces little girl, {when the niece was heavy into drugs}
the little girl had not even been taught how to wipe her arse,
and didn't know how to use a knife and fork, she either used her fingers
or a spoon,
We tried to keep the little girl or get her taken into care, the social welfare said,
"it's best she stays with her mother" and a judge went with them
 
@RCT(V) .

I have no idea why you disagreed with my post, as what I stated is fact . . .
You said the policy was ineffective.

There may have been/were, problems; and I do not understand the proportions of male:female operations in India (the male procedure is easier and less intrusive); but, I can imagine the dire situation if the policy had NOT been attempted . . . particularly in China :( .
 
Last edited:

ste14w

War Hero
An ideal investigation topic for the BBC or any other media journalist. Check out a typical family income and expenditure; get the facts and evidence, etc.

I think most of us would like to know just why people can't afford to feed their kids, especially given that high-calorie food is probably the cheapest its ever been in recorded history.
They can afford to feed their kids, but they choose to spend their benefit payments on non essentials like booze, tobacco, Sky TV etc.
The taxpayer provides enough for these people to survive, but they don't understand that in order to live you have to work, and the more work you do the more you earn, which results in a higher standard of living.
Surviving or living...most of us have figured out the difference between the two.
 

Yokel

LE
The girls did that and us boys did woodwork and metal work. Cookery for the girls twice a week, woodwork and then metal work for us boys.
Nothing wrong with that, then when you grow up and meet the girl of your dreams you know she can cook......... and she thinks you can put shelves up.

Or you coud meet your future partner when waiting in hospital after a DIY accident or suffering from food poisoning.

I am wonder what name you would give to @History_Man's mix vegetable pasta, but more importantly I am tempted to give it a go. I think chopped sausages could replace the fried eggs.
 
That Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney channel subscription and ultra HD TV to watch them on isn't going to pay for itself! Nor are the tattoos, smartphone on £60 a month contract, Xbox/Playstation with subscription to online services and in game micro transactions for the kids, "lunch date and drinks with my besties" three times a week, Just Eat takeaways several times a week, brand new high end car on lease, hot tub in the back yard, lip fillers, eyebrow threading, nail bar appointments, fags or E-liquids, multiple weekly orders from ASOS, gaudy house tat from TK Maxx or Ikea, "Live, Laugh, Love" wall stencils, iPad and smart phones each for the kids and designer brand trainers and clothes for them.

Actually putting (nutritious) food in their mouths is way down on the list of priorities, the government should pay for that and they're evil if they don't.

you are Ben Bradley MP and I claim my tenner for recognising you!
 
A Mencap spokeswoman said "enforced sterilisations" of people with learning disabilities had been "common practice" in the UK in the 1960s.
She said this practice, carried out in long-stay hospitals, become less common in the 1970s but cases still occurred in the 1980s.


I did NOT know this. Very interesting that the precedent has been set.

The grounds on which the case was brought to Court . . .

+ Mrs Justice Eleanor King ruled that a vasectomy could take place after hearing that another child could cause the man "psychological harm".

Experts said he was capable of sexual consent but did not have the capacity to make decisions about contraception.

+ She concluded that another pregnancy would cause "further and probably more serious psychological distress and consequences for DE".


However, notable that NO consideration was given to subsequent welfare of the children that might have otherwise been produced within such a situation . . . !!


If considered appropriate, does the "system" decide to . . .

- extend the practice to those who are demonstrably unwilling/incapable of caring for their children,

or,

- extend the (legal) definition of "learning difficulties" to also include those who are demonstrably unwilling/incapable of caring for their children ?!
;) .
 
Last edited:

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
I think a lot of you are missing the main point here,
It isn't that these parents are short of money, they've just not interested
in their children, they do as little as possible for them,
The children are a means to an end, the children are there to bring the benefits in.

We had the nieces little girl, {when the niece was heavy into drugs}
the little girl had not even been taught how to wipe her arse,
and didn't know how to use a knife and fork, she either used her fingers
or a spoon,
We tried to keep the little girl or get her taken into care, the social welfare said,
"it's best she stays with her mother" and a judge went with them
Until little Johnny gets caught shoplifting, then poor Johnny can do wrong, “HOW DARE YOU ARREST MY POOR LITTLE BOY”
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Or you coud meet your future partner when waiting in hospital after a DIY accident or suffering from food poisoning.

I am wonder what name you would give to @History_Man's mix vegetable pasta, but more importantly I am tempted to give it a go. I think chopped sausages could replace the fried eggs.
I haven’t seen that one, has it got sweet corn in it? That could be recycled and used time and time again.
 

Fang_Farrier

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
And you and I are picking up the difference. I honestly dont know why I vote for these greedy fecking parasites.
Im in a bad mood now, and I’m also fecking hungry.:hungry:


Just to really annoy you, please remember that MPs also get a daily food allowance, around £25 a day
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Just to really annoy you, please remember that MPs also get a daily food allowance, around £25 a day
:pissedoff:
So basically what you are saying is, is that they get free meals but they voted against kids having free meals. NICE!
 

4(T)

LE
I think a lot of you are missing the main point here,
It isn't that these parents are short of money, they've just not interested
in their children, they do as little as possible for them,
The children are a means to an end, the children are there to bring the benefits in.

We had the nieces little girl, {when the niece was heavy into drugs}
the little girl had not even been taught how to wipe her arse,
and didn't know how to use a knife and fork, she either used her fingers
or a spoon,
We tried to keep the little girl or get her taken into care, the social welfare said,
"it's best she stays with her mother" and a judge went with them


In the workhouse system, this category of parents (in those days usually chronic alcoholics) were dealt with by having the kids live in a separate part of the establishment, where they were fed, clothed and educated to a decent standard. The parent(s) had only limited daily access to the kids under supervision. In this way, the trustees endeavoured to give the kids a proper nurturing without too much toxic influence from the parent. The parent(s) in turn lived in a regulated environment where they received accommodation, food and clothing in return for sobriety and some working contribution.

Of course, the workhouse system was in a pre-PC era where the foibles of human nature were recognised and dealt with in a safe and pragmatic manner, and within a budget acceptable to the wider society that funded the institutions (charities, the church, local rates).

When you look across society at the various groups that require substantial help and funding (whether innocently, such as the destitute elderly, or through fecklessness) one wonders if the welfare system - with its ridiculous open-ended liability and nearly zero improving outcomes - should be replaced by large all-under-one-roof state institutions that replicate the functions of the old workhouse but in a modernised manner?
 

TAFKA

Old-Salt
I haven’t seen that one, has it got sweet corn in it? That could be recycled and used time and time again.

My mum had a thing where she couldn't eat anything produced by anyone else to the point where she'd gag if she had to eat a sandwich I'd make for her even though she'd seen me wash my hands, clean the cutlery, plates and surfaces etc.

When she was at the PTA one old guy used to bring in tomatoes to give away. Mum reckoned they were the best tomatoes she had ever tasted and raved about them to everyone. Eventually after she'd been eating them for quite a while she mentioned to the old boy she hadn't marked him out as a gardener.

Old boy: 'I don't grow them myself, I get them from work'.
Mum: 'Oh. Do you work with someone who has an allotment?'
Old boy: 'No, they grow wild at work'
<Old boy worked at a sewage treatment plant>
Mum never ate his tomatoes again.
 
Just to really annoy you, please remember that MPs also get a daily food allowance, around £25 a day

A good point but it’s mostly better than that. A lot better than that actually.

Ben Bradley MP who has been criticised for saying money for kids will end up in crack den’s etc, apparently he’s now saying he was quoted out of context, anyway David Maddock, a Mirror reporter has pointed out that Mr Bradley has in 11 months claimed £58.985.65p in Parliamentary expenses.

He also helpfully explains that calculated on a monthly basis, that’s £5.362.33p a month. Then of course on an MP’s Annual salary of £81.932 which if you break that down into monthly payments, that comes out at £6,827,66p a month.

Of course Mr Bradley’s salary will be taxed and he will have national insurance contributions deducted so if we deducted 40%, that still leaves £4096.6p coming in on a monthly basis.

My maths may be flawed because the calculator on my phone doesn’t seem to be the greatest thing on it but with Mr Bradley’s salary and his expenses totalling just over £9458 a month, if I was a hungry child, I’d be looking for a f*cking MP’s job!!
 

Rab_C

War Hero
A good point but it’s mostly better than that. A lot better than that actually.

Ben Bradley MP who has been criticised for saying money for kids will end up in crack den’s etc, apparently he’s now saying he was quoted out of context, anyway David Maddock, a Mirror reporter has pointed out that Mr Bradley has in 11 months claimed £58.985.65p in Parliamentary expenses.

He also helpfully explains that calculated on a monthly basis, that’s £5.362.33p a month. Then of course on an MP’s Annual salary of £81.932 which if you break that down into monthly payments, that comes out at £6,827,66p a month.

Of course Mr Bradley’s salary will be taxed and he will have national insurance contributions deducted so if we deducted 40%, that still leaves £4096.6p coming in on a monthly basis.

My maths may be flawed because the calculator on my phone doesn’t seem to be the greatest thing on it but with Mr Bradley’s salary and his expenses totalling just over £9458 a month, if I was a hungry child, I’d be looking for a f*cking MP’s job!!
So those expenses aren’t being used to run an office and pay staff? Shooting from the hip because it suits the agenda. Also what Ben Bradley said is probably what he does actually believe as do many here but the left wing MSM don’t like it.
 

Dredd

LE
According to some on here, that’s a lot of kids. That’s a lot of money. Keeping children in care is not cheap. Sometimes kids go into care for a few months, sometimes for the rest of their lives.
You could be a single parent with multiple health issues living in a bedsit and failed your children. Parent and child/ren may be better off together; by your formula, they must be separated.
Don‘t misquote me, and I will not misquote you. Taking children into care may remove some from from harm. It is very expensive, may not work, and above all there may not be enough to take the kids on.

You have inadvertently picked up on a key point here.

Just how many NEED this service to be provided to them - not how many will use it, but how many actually desperately need it. Are there any estimates?

@jockpopeye identified a key issue here as well - just who is supposed to provide this service, outside of normal hours? How much will it really cost? So combined with the above - where is the cost benefit to society overall?

If there is somewhere to dump the kids and not bother feeding them yourself, is there not a risk that there will be many more who take advantage of that even if they didn't really need it? And will that use not then be used to retro-justify supplying it in the first place - after all, look at the hordes descending on the free stuff, the poor wee souls must have been starving so they dropped from XXL to simply XL clothes.
 
you are Ben Bradley MP and I claim my tenner for recognising you!
Do you want claim that tenner from the taxpayer? Its usually what socialists do.
 

Latest Threads

Top