Page 7 | To ask why do people not working claiming FSM get this for free?

Sprinkledusting · 2024-02-10T22:52:21+00:00

I’ve just discovered if you claim FSM and even if you’re not working, you can send your child to morning/after school club for free. And not just in our school either. There are also sports clubs and holiday clubs during school holidays that state they are free for those who claim FSM. To claim free school meals your income has to be so low that you’re not working full time or not working at all, which of the people I know, most are not. But those who are working have to pay for breakfast club/holiday clubs. Can someone explain to me the logic behind this? As I simply don’t understand it.

YuleDragon · 11/02/2024 13:03

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 13:02

Not jealousy of neglected children, frustration that we as a society enable children to be born only to be neglected and make it easy for the parents to continue to do this.

Show quote history

"enable children to be born only to be neglected and make it easy for the parents to continue to do this."

Continue to do what? Try and make the best of a crap situation.. or is the usual "Oh i don't mean YOU" in regards to the disabled carers?

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 13:02

Doris9 · 11/02/2024 13:00

It’s because a number of children in receipt of the Pupil Premium/FSM would otherwise not have a breakfast and their only hot meal of the day is the one they’ll have at school. It’s not about free fucking child care.

I cannot believe my eyes at some of the replies here: jealousy of the families of these children. For shame.

Not jealousy of neglected children, frustration that we as a society enable children to be born only to be neglected and make it easy for the parents to continue to do this.

Doris9 · 11/02/2024 13:00

It’s because a number of children in receipt of the Pupil Premium/FSM would otherwise not have a breakfast and their only hot meal of the day is the one they’ll have at school. It’s not about free fucking child care.

I cannot believe my eyes at some of the replies here: jealousy of the families of these children. For shame.

Terfosaurus · 11/02/2024 12:59

SuperBored · 11/02/2024 12:03

So won't those on the £7.5k also get UC making it up to at least £1400 - does that amount include rent or just living costs? That £1400 is the equiv of a £19k salary btw. Someone one earning £7.5k must be working part time as £19k is annual full time minimum wage.

Show quote history

That £1400 is to cover everything.
Rent, usually a portion of council tax (mine is still almost £100 pcm), gas, electricity, water etc.

I've never been given free or reduced uniform like people claim you can get. We could use the PP money to fund 1 residential trip over the 5 years of secondary. But that was all. DS1 didn't go on his residental, but the money wasn't then allowed to be used for other trips. I had to pay for those if he wanted to go.

Now I'm not moaning about what we got, it was very helpful at the time. But a lot of things people state benefit claimants get just isn't true.

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:58

Beezknees · 11/02/2024 12:57

Should that go for men as well who don't pay maintenance? My dad had 5 kids with 4 different women and didn't pay a single penny for any of them.

Show quote history

Yes absolutely. Don’t pay your CMS or are found to be hiding assets to avoid paying, same thing. Why should their existing kids miss out because they get somebody else pregnant?

Beezknees · 11/02/2024 12:57

IDontOftenComment · 11/02/2024 12:55

Good idea, if you can’t afford to raise your existing children then you shouldn’t have any more … simple.

Show quote history

Should that go for men as well who don't pay maintenance? My dad had 5 kids with 4 different women and didn't pay a single penny for any of them.

IClaudine · 11/02/2024 12:57

Lovely to be skirting with eugenics on a Sunday afternoon...

YuleDragon · 11/02/2024 12:56

Beezknees · 11/02/2024 12:51

So why not force them to get the snip or is it only women who are responsible for their children?

Show quote history

And what about those who ended up in this situation AFTER having kids?

I mean, before i left my abusive ExH and found out my oldest was disabled and in need of full time care, i had a job.

I haven't had any more kids, my own disability has happened post divorce.

Trust me, when i had my children i didn't expect to end up single, disabled, and needing to be a full time carer to a disabled teenager... but them's the breaks, and i'm GLAD the government are helping me, else i'd be destitute.

IDontOftenComment · 11/02/2024 12:55

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:47

Ok so we’ve established these people can’t feed their children or care for them adequately, in fact they don’t have the ‘cognitive ability’ to do so.

And we don’t have the foster carers needed to rehome them all.

So - let’s solve the problem in the only way we can - you can only claim unemployment benefits for longer than 1 year if you have a medical certificate to say you have a permanent form of contraception in place (IUD/implant).

I will now await the outrage. But does anyone have a better solution before these people sink the ship?

Show quote history

Good idea, if you can’t afford to raise your existing children then you shouldn’t have any more … simple.

IClaudine · 11/02/2024 12:55

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:53

Because the snip isn’t really reversible. I understand that it’s ‘unfair’ but a lesser of two evils.

Show quote history

They could freeze their sperm before the snip.

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:55

Beezknees · 11/02/2024 12:53

Well, there you go. You want female bodies to be controlled but not male ones. Sounds a lot like Gilead.

Show quote history

Ok then, they can have a vasectomy and freeze their sperm. Happy?

Beezknees · 11/02/2024 12:53

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:53

Because the snip isn’t really reversible. I understand that it’s ‘unfair’ but a lesser of two evils.

Show quote history

Well, there you go. You want female bodies to be controlled but not male ones. Sounds a lot like Gilead.

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:53

Beezknees · 11/02/2024 12:51

So why not force them to get the snip or is it only women who are responsible for their children?

Show quote history

Because the snip isn’t really reversible. I understand that it’s ‘unfair’ but a lesser of two evils.

Beezknees · 11/02/2024 12:53

88greebballoons · 11/02/2024 12:52

Why on earth would someone have 4 kids if they can't afford to provide for them.

Show quote history

They said FAMILY of 4, not 4 kids. A family of 4 usually means 2 parents and 2 kids.

88greebballoons · 11/02/2024 12:52

Mamaraisedadoughut · 11/02/2024 12:17

How many people on here have actually gone on entitledto, and realised how much they would be worse off on UC than living on the income they actually live off?

£2038.40 per month for my family of 4, if we had no other income.
The roof over our head alone costs £1200. Fuck, that'd be a tough life.

Why on earth would someone have 4 kids if they can't afford to provide for them.

Beezknees · 11/02/2024 12:51

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:51

They’re unemployed in many cases.

Show quote history

So why not force them to get the snip or is it only women who are responsible for their children?

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:51

IClaudine · 11/02/2024 12:51

"These people" are not sinking the ship. 14 years of the Tories has done that very nicely.

It’s both, I hate the tories

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:51

Beezknees · 11/02/2024 12:50

Or, maybe make the NRPs actually pay maintenance.

Show quote history

They’re unemployed in many cases.

IClaudine · 11/02/2024 12:51

"These people" are not sinking the ship. 14 years of the Tories has done that very nicely.

Beezknees · 11/02/2024 12:50

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:47

Ok so we’ve established these people can’t feed their children or care for them adequately, in fact they don’t have the ‘cognitive ability’ to do so.

And we don’t have the foster carers needed to rehome them all.

So - let’s solve the problem in the only way we can - you can only claim unemployment benefits for longer than 1 year if you have a medical certificate to say you have a permanent form of contraception in place (IUD/implant).

I will now await the outrage. But does anyone have a better solution before these people sink the ship?

Show quote history

Or, maybe make the NRPs actually pay maintenance.

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:50

IClaudine · 11/02/2024 12:49

Are you serious?

Show quote history

Serious about mostly solving the issue of child poverty and neglect? Yes I am.

IClaudine · 11/02/2024 12:49

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:47

Ok so we’ve established these people can’t feed their children or care for them adequately, in fact they don’t have the ‘cognitive ability’ to do so.

And we don’t have the foster carers needed to rehome them all.

So - let’s solve the problem in the only way we can - you can only claim unemployment benefits for longer than 1 year if you have a medical certificate to say you have a permanent form of contraception in place (IUD/implant).

I will now await the outrage. But does anyone have a better solution before these people sink the ship?

Show quote history

Are you serious?

Naptrappedmummy · 11/02/2024 12:47

trooc · 11/02/2024 11:57

This. And you should be grateful that despite being low income you can still afford to feed your child lunch. You are employable and have a cognitive ability above a lot of the parents of the children that are being helped.

Of course there are outliers, there will be people who don't need fsm yet get them and there will be low income families who do their absolute best for their DC. Experience says this is not always the case though and if some people getting a FSM they could manage without or access to a club they don't really need helps 'catch' many of those who do, then I can't see the issue

Show quote history

Ok so we’ve established these people can’t feed their children or care for them adequately, in fact they don’t have the ‘cognitive ability’ to do so.

And we don’t have the foster carers needed to rehome them all.

So - let’s solve the problem in the only way we can - you can only claim unemployment benefits for longer than 1 year if you have a medical certificate to say you have a permanent form of contraception in place (IUD/implant).

I will now await the outrage. But does anyone have a better solution before these people sink the ship?

Beezknees · 11/02/2024 12:47

VegetablesFightingToReclaimTheAubergieneEmoji · 11/02/2024 12:44

This was one good thing about working tax credits. They were tapered so it felt fairer than just a cut off cliff.
I mean, ultimately, they were tax payers keeping wages low but it certainly felt fair and did encourage people to work more hours as there wasn’t the harsh cut off.

UC is tapered.

VegetablesFightingToReclaimTheAubergieneEmoji · 11/02/2024 12:44

This was one good thing about working tax credits. They were tapered so it felt fairer than just a cut off cliff.
I mean, ultimately, they were tax payers keeping wages low but it certainly felt fair and did encourage people to work more hours as there wasn’t the harsh cut off.