Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Free school meals

424 replies

mutznutz · 11/01/2011 11:43

I was just thinking. With so many Government and Council cutbacks, isn't it about time they stopped providing free school meals that cost untold millions of pounds to provide?

I mean we're already given child benefit to help with the cost of our children. Also, as long as you're feeding your child properly at home, what's wrong with providing a fairly inexpensive packed lunch if you can't afford to buy them a hot one? (not that they are particularly 'hot' nowdays)

Plus, if parents cant afford to feed their children when they go to school...how do they manage at weekends and during the 13wks holidays they get per year?

Then there are the parents who earn just above the threshold and cannot afford school meals...their kids would have a packed lunch so why not everyone?

OP posts:
BaroqueAroundTheClock · 12/01/2011 16:53

So you think it's a bad thing that people can get help to escape from abusive relationships then - and that they should just stay there "putting up" with it??

Do you think that all young criminals of today are living in single parent families

Or that all the older criminals of today all lived in single parent families??

And quite how CB and HB encourages young men to impregnate as many women as they want with having to support them is beyond me

Do you think that if they stopped giving HB and CB to young single mothers the fathers would suddenly cough up?????

FellatioNelson · 12/01/2011 16:54

No they aren't Riven, but one look around a prison or a young offenders institution will give you a pretty good idea about the background of the majority.

sarah293 · 12/01/2011 16:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

2shoes · 12/01/2011 16:55

i realised today that we are entitled to FSM
I won't bother to claim as I don't pay for dd's anyway

sarah293 · 12/01/2011 16:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

nutsandtangerines · 12/01/2011 16:59

So, let me get this straight: a high proportion of criminals come from poor backgrounds. So poor people shouldn't be given benefits, just in case they turn out criminal? Because.... having a bit more money somehow encourages them to become criminal? or, are we punishing them in advance for crimes they will probably commit?

sarah293 · 12/01/2011 17:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 12/01/2011 17:04

yes many come from "dysfunctional" families - but that doesn't mean a single parent one.

A child growing up in an abusive household is also much more likely to be in trouble with the law when they're older. It's the sad statistical nature of the beast.

Do you really think that child growing up in a family where dad beats the crap out of mun on a regular basis, or where the mum is an alcoholic or even where the relationship has simply broken down and there is general hostility between the parents all the time has a good chance of growing up to be "well adjusted"???

usualsuspect · 12/01/2011 17:05

Rich criminal tax dodgers are ok ...just better at not getting caught

nutsandtangerines · 12/01/2011 17:08

OK, trying to be a little more serious, I think what you are getting at is something about nuclear families being some sort of Good Thing per se, some kind of moral safeguard for society. This is specious.

It implies a spurious causal relationship between certain family set ups and outcomes when, adjusted for income, these connections disappear.

It is discriminatory against people who can or will not live in hetersexual monogamy.

It reinforces a retrograde social system whereby women are allocated to men, to do as they like with, because once they are looking after children (who can't look after themselves) they are materially dependent upon a man.

What is so great about families? Nothing, for women and children. Statistically, most violence and abuse happens within the family.

nutsandtangerines · 12/01/2011 17:10

for men, obviously, families are great. this is why they are pushed so hard by reactionary culture.

nutsandtangerines · 12/01/2011 17:17

Anyway, we don't need to talk about ALL benefits EVER in this thread.
Back to free school meals:

So. If a man and a woman, jobless both and on benefits, also possibly unmarried, are considering having sex and the man is holding up a johnny and thinking about putting it on, they reflect that if they have a baby, when it is 5, it will be eligible for free school meals. So they won't have to make it a hot dinner when it comes home. So the man thinks "why bother with the johnny then". They shag. A baby is born. 5 years later it goes to school and gets free school meals. these cause an outrageous sense of entitlement, so 12 years after that, it starts robbing banks.

OK I see what you mean. Ban free school meals.

MrsDrOwenHunt · 12/01/2011 17:27

i am a lone parent as i left ex due to dv, my son is a happy contented little boy, i worked 60 hr weeks until i was 7 mths pregnant and then went back to work until i left ex, i get fsm and it helps me out immensly, i still give ds a hot meal when he gets home because itss just as easy to make pasta or a caserole out of veg, i will do volunteer work until i can get a job so i can support us both, not everyone is a benefit scrounger

drwhose · 12/01/2011 17:47

I think that FSM should remain for people who need them. The problem is how do you define 'need'? Clearly some people are much worse off than others, both the working poor as well as some people on benefits. The people who genuinely need the help should get it.

However, I disagree hugely with some of the things people have posted on here about their financial situation and the things people use benefits for.

Baroque - you say openly that you smoke. You go on holiday. You even manage to save some money. You have also posted elsewhere on MN that you have recently got a pet. It doesn't sound like you are struggling to me and in need of benefits to provide you with the basics you need. I am sorry to single you out, but you have said that you claim benefits and also FSM's so am using it as an example.

I gave up smoking 4 years ago because I could no longer afford it. I haven't had a holiday for 3 years. We almost went last year (4 days in Cornwall), however after working through our finances we couldn't even afford that. We literally don't have a spare £10 a month left after all bills have been paid. We both work. My dc's are clothed in second hand clothes, almost everything in our house is falling apart and cannot afford to be replaced. All meals are planned and food we buy is all budget range. Saving money would be an absolute luxury for us, something we can only dream of ever being in the position to do. Why? Why can people on benefits afford to do all this, yet we work full time and can't?

And now you have taken on a pet that also costs extra to insure/feed etc Hmm

Surely this is evidence enough that you do not need all the benefits that you get. Benefits are there for families to live on in extreme hardship. Not for people to smoke/save/holiday/have pets. If you are able to save even a penny and buy cigarattes then you are given more than emergency money to live basically on e.g. food/heating/utilities etc.

Depite this I have no grudge or issue whatsoever with anybody claiming benefits to use as they should be used. If people genuinely need them, then they should be given them. What I do resent is having to live like we do and struggle to get by month to month and then hear of people who have a better lifestyle than us on when they are on benefits.

This is why the country is in a mess - people claiming things that they obviously don't really need. I know much of it is the governments fault for handing it out, but at the same time individuals are also claiming and taking it. Until this stops then the people suffering real hardship will all suffer.

It isn't all the governments fault, a lot of it is I agree, but now they are having to do something to reduce the debt we have and prevent the country going totally into decline. Its just easier for people to blame the government rather than realise they have had quite a decent lifestyle courtesy of them and taxpayers. Benefits can be reduced in some cases, (and I do only mean in some cases, not all) people don't need everything they get as is demonstrated above.

I am not a Tory voter and disagree with a lot that they propose, however I do think some people need to take some responsibility.

Again, I do apologise for using your posts as an example, I am sure there are many others doing the same, but your post stood out to me as an example of the difference in your lifestyle and mine.

CoffeeGoneColdAgain · 12/01/2011 18:02

I have to be honest, its not the free school meals that piss me right off it the fact that when the kids have trips/days out, they are subsidised for those on benefits! We pay full whack for trips that can cost upwards of £100 and they get them for next to nothing, The last one being a 2 day one night trip (yr5) we had to pay £130, those on benefits just £35 WTF, how is that fair?
We don't earn a great deal, less than 16k have a mortgage and all the other bills to deal with every month and are left with nothing. Yet they seem to get the better deal! Rant over!!

GooseFatRoasties · 12/01/2011 18:05

Deprive them of a trip if it makes you feel good cofee Hmm

sarah293 · 12/01/2011 18:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

NinkyNonker · 12/01/2011 18:07

Well, is it fairer on the child that they don't get to go at all? Hardly equal access to opportunities etc, let alone kind.

sarah293 · 12/01/2011 18:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

MyBrilliantCareer · 12/01/2011 18:15

I know it's been mentioned before, but the kids who lie to protect their mother and say they've eaten breakfast when you know they haven't (investigation and contradicting information given to SS and school), when they turn up without socks or a jumper in the middle of winter...

Should we not give them socks/tights/jumper to wear either?

It's not their fault. And if they are in school to learn and build a future, then its best if their body has been nourished.

drwhose · 12/01/2011 18:31

give up work? Yes that's the attitude we should all have eh? Hmm That would help us as a country wouldn't it?

I refuse to give up work - I want or need to claim benefits while I am lucky enough to be able to work and earn money.

If I am ever not able to work, then I will have to claim benefits. As I said earlier, I do not have any objection to people who genuinely needing them getting them.

I don't genuinely need to live off the state because I can work and am fortunate enough to have a job. I know I am lucky to be employed in the currect climate.

My point was not at all about people not working, it was about benefits allowing people to live a more than decent lifestyle when a lot of working people can't.

sarah293 · 12/01/2011 18:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

drwhose · 12/01/2011 18:55

I knew it was sarcasm but to be honest I was looking for an explanation of why people think they are hard done by when they are not really, not when you look at what they manage to do with their benefits.

I wanted Baroque to see that she isn't living in hardship and it wouldn't cripple her if her benefits were reduced. People are outraged at the thought of them getting less money in whatever benefit, but it really isnt the end of the world. For some it would just mean that they have to live like a lot of people already do.

Gotabookaboutit · 12/01/2011 18:55

I still that a small reduction in everyone's child benefit and free meals for everyone would have fab long term benefits. The economy's of scale would bring the price down overall and we could really improve children's diets and hopefully encourage long term better eating habits.

It would create more school hour friendly jobs which everyone is always going on about. Help local small producers and also the environment - I have never seen more unessential packaging than on 'snack' type products for lunch boxes. Less shopping and stress for parents etc

I am also very much someone who believes in personal freedom , but don't think you can just let children suffer the consequences of crap parenting - if you follow that logically we all then have to live with the consequences of this long term as they will cost us a lot more long term in terms of health care and social services, policing etc

Gotabookaboutit · 12/01/2011 18:57

Riven - its not envy - its anger that my work is paying for it and also that its depriving someone else who really needs it - like a disabled child who needs a decent supply of nappies or reliable respite care maybe