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

Generally a lot of parents can afford to feed their kids, they just chose not to because the state will provide.

Fair enough. Deduct the cost of the free meals from their state pensions. Nobody want to see vulnerable kids starve. But vulnerable pensioners who made poor choices earlier on in life, left starving, I have no problem with. Let their grown up kids feed em.
 
Have they started whinging about having to feed their own kids at the weekend yet? It will happen eventually.
 

Dredd

LE
Why? I'm a massive fan of Boris in just about every area other than lockdowns.

I also think he's shooting himself in the face with this one. It's an issue which won't go away, it'll drag on, die, get resurrected, drag on, die, get resurrected.

Come the next GE he'll need 'Red Wall' voters to be on-side.

And that - die, resurrect, die, resurrect, ad infinitum - is exactly the point of "where does it stop".

Acquiesce now on this one and it will then simply become something else. And of course, it is all predicated on pulling the heartstrings through the clever use of:

please.jpg
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Of course it would be seen as a political statement.

That's my point.
To be honest, that's very good reason for his omission.

Whatever the chattering classes and the BBC think, the Tories got an 80-seat majority at the last election. It's a little like Thatcher kept getting elected because more people voted for her.

Shít sandwich for some, but true.

People are very weary of paying for other people's fecklessness, every bit as much as they are of being told they're racist.

A lot of the discontent in this country at the moment is not directed at the government but at those poking at the country. Unfortunately, BoJo is focused on Brexit.
 
And that - die, resurrect, die, resurrect, ad infinitum - is exactly the point of "where does it stop".

Acquiesce now on this one and it will then simply become something else. And of course, it is all predicated on pulling the heartstrings through the clever use of:

View attachment 515488

It's easy to justify feeding neglected hungry kids. Even clothing them.

No amount of counter-emotive justification will beat that.

A pragmatic point of view, even if you disagree with feeding hungry children, would be to feed them and put an end to the politicisation of the subject.
 
My reply on another forum, to a poster who informed me that, I didn't know what it was like to go hungry... Baby Boomer,etc,etc.

OXO Sandwich for a 7 year old (1954)

2 slices of 2 day old white bread.

Spread chip fat (Lard) from the chip pan, on both pieces of bread.

Sprinkle a quarter of the OXO cube on one of the slices,put the other slice on top...Summer school holiday lunch.

For Winter, fry both slices of bread, sprinkle the OXO on the last slice to fry (so the OXO melts), other slice on top...Winter school holiday lunch.

Variation on a theme: instead of OXO...Lettuce and, tomato Sauce in the Summer. Batter bits from the chip shop around the corner (halfpenny for a medium bag) and tomato sauce during the Winter !

Lots of my mates had different variations.

I didn't bother to mention using the outside toilet at night,taking the oil lamp and, an oversize rolling pin, to convince the rats that they had better piss off for the next 10 minutes.
 
Marcus Rashford is just another typical earned too much money too fast, too young, he's 22, airhead who’s developed a Messiah Complex.

maybe he should spend most of his £10 million a year salary on buying free MickyDs for all the starving baybees?
 
Whatever the chattering classes and the BBC think, the Tories got an 80-seat majority at the last election. It's a little like Thatcher kept getting elected because more people voted for her.
Yes, but much (if not all) that 80 seat majority were from places like the Red Wall. These are working class constituents who are socially conservative (they like stuff like patriotism, border and migrant control), but they're also economically on the left.

Labour's lost Scotland, they've lost the Red Wall, they're only viable in London, university towns/cities and areas with a high BAME count.

The Red Wall type constituencies are the 'swing states' now; it's those who'll decide who the next government is. This is great news for the working class.

But they are left of centre economically; they'll support stuff like feeding hungry kids from neglectful and dysfunctional families.

And as BoJo has pointed out, these are borrowed votes.
 

TAFKA

Old-Salt
She forgets to mention that she also gets £21.05 for the first child and £13.95 for every child after that
So on top of her universal credit she also gets £34 per week child benefit.
Rather than an expensive coffee and a muffin she could knock together some beans on toast for the kids lunch.

We seem to have gone from feeding kids at lunch to parents now claiming they can't feed their at all

But, but, but... she has to make their clothes from pillowcases and they don't even have a tv and she doesn't have her nails done or, or or...
 
The signalling is in full swing locally, loads of eateries are all over FB offering free lunches. The lucky kids get organic Green & Black's chocolate as well.

eat.jpg
 

crow_bag

War Hero
I don't see feeding hungry - neglected - kids as 'throwing money away'. It's feeding hungry kids.

And we know why; some people shouldn't be parents and they're absolute dross. But it's shameful that we have kids in food poverty in the UK. We're not India.
It is in the sense that you are treating the symptom not the disease.

Money would be better spent ensuring that those parents who can't feed their children are given the help to enable them to do so, and ensuring that parents who won't feed their children are punished accordingly until they take responsibility for their crotch goblins.

I've no problem helping those in need, but it must be done carefully, or the tax payer will end up feeding these kids for ever, as no government would risk stopping it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 
It's easy to justify feeding neglected hungry kids. Even clothing them.

No amount of counter-emotive justification will beat that.

A pragmatic point of view, even if you disagree with feeding hungry children, would be to feed them and put an end to the politicisation of the subject.

And leave them with shitcunt parents.

I know that you and XPara Mugg would be happy with that because it saves a few quid but I dont like the thought of ignoring neglected children.
 
I've no problem helping those in need, but it must be done carefully, or the tax payer will end up feeding these kids for ever, as no government would risk stopping it.

A bit like child benefit for any parent not in the higher tax bracket.
 
Large tin of ALDI baked beans : 49p
large ALDI loaf of sliced bread : 75p

can't afford to feed your kids? Bullcrap
 
The signalling is in full swing locally, loads of eateries are all over FB offering free lunches. The lucky kids get organic Green & Black's chocolate as well.

View attachment 515491

so no proof required you even have any kids?
just order ‘x’ number of packed lunches for colkection the following day.
Looks ripe for ripping off by adults looking for a free lunch, or 6
 

O Zangado

War Hero
Because his winning would be seen as a political statement, perhaps?

Or is this a 'you daren't omit me now' ploy?
Of course it's a "you daren't omit me now" ploy - just to make the contest between him and BLM advocate Lewis Hamilton more interesting. Joe Public need not worry his little head about such matters. The Great and the Good will decide which person of colour (and it could just as easily be that female athlete who was pulled over in a blacked out Beamer at odd o'clock in Londonstan) will best suit the current woke agenda be the most popular and inform us accordingly on SPOTY night, a night on which I shall be doing my hair.

OZ
 
And leave them with shitcunt parents.

I know that you and XPara Mugg would be happy with that because it saves a few quid but I dont like the thought of ignoring neglected children.

Would the mass removal of children from neglectful parents help? If so, I'd support it, but I suspect it's a highly contentious subject that would do more harm than help.

I think the Aussies tried this with Aborigines back in the 1950s and it didn't turn out well at all..
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Yes, but much (if not all) that 80 seat majority were from places like the Red Wall. These are working class constituents who are socially conservative (they like stuff like patriotism, border and migrant control), but they're also economically on the left.

Labour's lost Scotland, they've lost the Red Wall, they're only viable in London, university towns/cities and areas with a high BAME count.

The Red Wall type constituencies are the 'swing states' now; it's those who'll decide who the next government is. This is great news for the working class.

But they are left of centre economically; they'll support stuff like feeding hungry kids from neglectful and dysfunctional families.

And as BoJo has pointed out, these are borrowed votes.
They're not borrowed votes. They were votes given freely by people voting against a Leftist elite.

Left of centre economically? The whole bloody country is, despite the assertions of Labour (new and old).

Most people want a welfare state. Very, very few don't - including the vast majority of Tory voters. They just don't want it to be life-style choice. People also want universal access to healthcare and education.

That's centre-left on the spectrum. Compare with such as the US.

As noted several times, pretty much the only people who can afford to have large families these days are the very wealthy or those on benefits. That's not healthy. It skews society.

Many of those in work are forced to take an economic choice in terms of number of children or even having a family at all but labour maintains the conceit that 'the poor' should have the choice.

If they do, they have a choice that many 'rich Tory scum' don't.

A couple I know are retired. Their niece is an addict and had pumped out kids to get benefits. The husband absconded and has since been killed in a motorcycle crash. The offspring faced being taken into care.

My friends took on their great-nephew at an age when most people are winding down. He's flourished; not academic but a really nice lad with a real entrepreneurial spirit. He'll do well. But his current guardians are under no illusion how useless his mother is and what her preoccupations are and were.

Do they have any sympathy for her? No.

Kids are being used cynically as a political football. This isn't about the kids, it's about power. If the same people campaigning for the kids really wanted change, they'd go after the parents.

I made a point up-thread about opening up the facilities outside term-time for the kids' parents to come and help with food preparation. Several people laughed, as I expected them to, as the suggestion was laughable. But it also made a very good point: even if you offered these people the opportunity, they wouldn't help. They just expect.

Yet somehow this is 'the Tories'' fault. Not the government's. Specifically the Tories'.

It is not the government's fault that some people are inherently lazy and useless. It's only been in power since last year. It's the fault of a welfare system which the opposition is fighting very hard to preserve.

So distill that: it's the fault of an opposition cynically using the welfare system to garner votes. Free stuff.

Again: it's about power. The kids don't even feature. They're just cannon fodder.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top