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

Dredd

LE
I'd love to see twats like this appearing on some reality TV show where they think they'll be living on some tropical paradise off Oz.

Except it's a cunningly contrived IQ test, and salt water crocodiles are involved.

The local eye candy is imported from some original residents krall and will play a fully interactive part in the shenanigans:

" So Marcus, shag the Abo bag lady and win free school meals for Sheppey and Minster. Turn her down and Katie Price gets fed to the crocs, what's it gonna be bonny lad?"

"Can't I do both, Ant? Or is it Dec?"
 

Dredd

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.

While we did indeed do the -working aspect at school (what the Septics call 'shop'), I recall doing Home Ec as well. I particularly recall the dumplings. Lovely.

But now I think of it, while lads did get to do that, I cannot remember lasses in the other classes. Hmmm . . .
 
I was supplying a food bank for a time when I used to get all my food for free from the bins, trays of loaves, 25 k bags of sugar and flour, sacks of spuds etc, i sacked it because i felt like i was putting the effort in just to supply lazy cxxxs, people in there were coming in from the betting shop over the road, whole families where no one had any intention of getting a job hoovering up everything, and people nitpicking over stuff not in perfect condition when they're supposed to be starving.
 

Dredd

LE
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.

Another key aspect is their inability to budget (forward planning) and keeping money as a contingency (forward planning with savings reserve). Many just see cash as to be spent, so when foreseeable events happen suddenly they have no money to cover it and it of course someone else's fault as they are a victim in all this. Then there is the acceptability of living off perpetual credit, rather than using it as an occasional resource.

I have long been an advocate of practical home management skills as a school subject - I believe some do now but not sure if it is universal obligation. This is something that it is simply not viable to think the parents can or will teach, as they themselves may not have the skills. As we have shown on how cheaply you can feed yourself / family if you put a mind to it.

This proposal is simply an extension of the same mindset that thinks there is period poverty and the answer is to provide "free" jam rags everywhere. Slowly but surely the concept of personal responsibility is being eroded and dependence on the State is becoming ingrained.

That is a little frightening, really.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
While we did indeed do the -working aspect at school (what the Septics call 'shop'), I recall doing Home Ec as well. I particularly recall the dumplings. Lovely.

But now I think of it, while lads did get to do that, I cannot remember lasses in the other classes. Hmmm . . .
Oh dear, that is a shame:grin:
 

Dredd

LE
:pissedoff:
So basically what you are saying is, is that they get free meals but they voted against kids having free meals. NICE!

Such linear, two-dimensional thinking.

Many workplaces have canteen facilities on-site, and many are subsidised or free. It is part of the package to attract people to the occupation. There are a finite number of MPs and many probably aren't using it often, if at all. So this is not a straight comparison. Children have to go to school and there is an argument that catering facilities should be provided as a consequence, but many don't / won't so it was not provided any more. BY CHOICE.

And as I have already said - how many actually need this? But I will bet it is more than 650.
 

ste14w

War Hero
Another key aspect is their inability to budget (forward planning) and keeping money as a contingency (forward planning with savings reserve). Many just see cash as to be spent, so when foreseeable events happen suddenly they have no money to cover it and it of course someone else's fault as they are a victim in all this. Then there is the acceptability of living off perpetual credit, rather than using it as an occasional resource.

I have long been an advocate of practical home management skills as a school subject - I believe some do now but not sure if it is universal obligation. This is something that it is simply not viable to think the parents can or will teach, as they themselves may not have the skills. As we have shown on how cheaply you can feed yourself / family if you put a mind to it.

This proposal is simply an extension of the same mindset that thinks there is period poverty and the answer is to provide "free" jam rags everywhere. Slowly but surely the concept of personal responsibility is being eroded and dependence on the State is becoming ingrained.

That is a little frightening, really.
What you say makes sense, from a political viewpoint.
Many years ago I remember listening to a radio presenter, Mike Dicken, on Talk Radio.
He was questioning why the Blair government was putting more and more people on benefits, and he reasoned that people on long term benefits were more likely to vote for a Labour government.
 

Dredd

LE
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!!

Have you considered what those expenses may be for? Like perhaps, employing others?

It is pitiful that the populace still rage at the expenses aspect without actually knowing what they go towards.

Context and perspective.

And the trite comment at the end - there are only 650 individual places, but really just one in your particular constituency. If it was so easy, why not get that hungry child to apply by putting themselves up for election? And remember, it is not just Tories who are returned as MPs at elections.

If you want to be angry at expenses, check which Party makes up the top 3 spenders.

I'll wait . . .
 
People complain about young mothers doing nothing for their kids but there are exceptions.

A young neighbour, late 20's, has 2 kids and is currently furloughed, her mother has an allotment she potters about in, the young woman has spent most of this year working on the allotment and now has so much veg she pops round to the older neighbours and gives them fresh veg.
 
Aye... They should think themselves lucky! When i was a lad etc.etc.
 
@Ortholith

I have read somewhere thatschool teachers are able to accurately predict just what sort of family / background a pupil comes from, and how they are likely to behave -based on their names. The Jaydens , Kaydens and Jaxxons are more likely to come from chav families and to be a general pain in the arse.

Any truth in this?
 
People complain about young mothers doing nothing for their kids but there are exceptions.

A young neighbour, late 20's, has 2 kids and is currently furloughed, her mother has an allotment she potters about in, the young woman has spent most of this year working on the allotment and now has so much veg she pops round to the older neighbours and gives them fresh veg.
NO NO NO They are ALL lazy scrounging feckers!!!! Toe the line will you!
 
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.

Mrs H_M has suggested smoked salmon instead of eggs. Sounds rather good, tbh.
 
@Ortholith

I have read somewhere thatschool teachers are able to accurately predict just what sort of family / background a pupil comes from, and how they are likely to behave -based on their names. The Jaydens , Kaydens and Jaxxons are more likely to come from chav families and to be a general pain in the arse.

Any truth in this?
Not accurately but yes, mainly for boys. Jaydens, Alfies, Joshes and Waynes are combat indicators of future bellendery (although Waynes seem to have become an endangered species). Kids christened with a nickname (on the official register as Josh or Mat rather than Joshua or Matthew) are also suspect, as are weird spellings or pronunciations.

Double-barrelled names used to mean either very posh or mum's a slapper, now seem to be increasingly common, as are parents with different surnames to the child which can make writing emails a tad embarrassing. Stereotypical middle class names seem to be on the rise as well, it's rare to have issues with an Arabella or Araminta.
 
@Ortholith

I have read somewhere thatschool teachers are able to accurately predict just what sort of family / background a pupil comes from, and how they are likely to behave -based on their names. The Jaydens , Kaydens and Jaxxons are more likely to come from chav families and to be a general pain in the arse.

Any truth in this?

Yes, my sister has been a secondary school teacher for twenty plus years and maintains that this is true.
 
The feeding of children is, almost entirely, supposed to be the reponsibility of the family. Clearly there are multi-generational families who have given up hope or have chosen to live on handouts permanently, as well as people/families in the mire temporarily (and for whom the support system was originally intended).

One wonders what correlation there is between these groups, the first two especially, and the low end of the IQ bell curve? Something like a tenth of the population have an IQ under 80, for example. What does one do about this totally inevitable and unavoidable group, say they are differently-abled and pay them to give up? Sterilise them? Or try to preserve their mental-health and introduce a labour-corps, so that they can maintain a little bit of motivation? Or ignore the causes and let free stuff camouflage the intrinsic problems of an un-selected society?

The opposite is also interesting. Why are people surprised that working couples are less enthusiastic about becoming parents when they are deliberately financially and socially disadvantaged from having children? Shouldn't child-care in all it's aspects (I mean the activities of parenting, not a benefit payment) be in the top five areas of national expenditure - or perhaps it is and the structure doesn't work.
 
What you say makes sense, from a political viewpoint.
Many years ago I remember listening to a radio presenter, Mike Dicken, on Talk Radio.
He was questioning why the Blair government was putting more and more people on benefits, and he reasoned that people on long term benefits were more likely to vote for a Labour government.

Plus, the unemployment figures plummeted.
 

ste14w

War Hero
Plus, the unemployment figures plummeted.
Exactly, because the long term unemployed were moved onto the disability list, along with paying D grade school leavers to enrol in dumbed down colleges, a compliant press made sure the people knew Saint Blair had saved the economy.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
Such linear, two-dimensional thinking.

Many workplaces have canteen facilities on-site, and many are subsidised or free. It is part of the package to attract people to the occupation. There are a finite number of MPs and many probably aren't using it often, if at all. So this is not a straight comparison. Children have to go to school and there is an argument that catering facilities should be provided as a consequence, but many don't / won't so it was not provided any more. BY CHOICE.

And as I have already said - how many actually need this? But I will bet it is more than 650.
Yes but the majority don’t get £25 a day food allowance on top for that. That is what I was eluding to.

You got an allowance in the police if you worked an extra 4 hours overtime but you could only claim anything if you produced a receipt for your pie and chips, kebab or whatever else you had. 9/10 you were too busy inside doing your paperwork to be bothered with that and just got a mars bar or something from the vending machine which didn’t give our receipts.
These bloody MPs have it far too easy at our expense.
Oh and we didn’t have a subsidised bar and I very much doubt many workplaces have either!
 
Yes but the majority don’t get £25 a day food allowance on top for that. That is what I was eluding to.

You got an allowance in the police if you worked an extra 4 hours overtime but you could only claim anything if you produced a receipt for your pie and chips, kebab or whatever else you had. 9/10 you were too busy inside doing your paperwork to be bothered with that and just got a mars bar or something from the vending machine which didn’t give our receipts.
These bloody MPs have it far too easy at our expense.
Oh and we didn’t have a subsidised bar and I very much doubt many workplaces have either!

We got issued canteen cards at Heathrow for use in the staff canteens in each terminal. Initially, they gave a 50% discount, subsequently reduced by UKBF management to 40%. The subsidised bar was 'Spoons landside at Terminal 4.
 

Latest Threads

Top