Active discussions

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

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think charities should not feed children

195 replies

moogster1a · 05/07/2012 09:25

Listening to a discussion on radio 5 about how so many children go hungry because their parents cannot afford to feed them or their lives are so chaotic they just don't think to feed them.
benefit money is enough to feed a family. If the parents lives are so cocked up that they have better priorities than feeding their own children, then the children should not be with them.
I don't understand why if the charities concerned know the children are basically starving, then why SS aren't taking the children in hand.
I understand some people have MH issues, but again, should they really be in charge of their children's basic requirements if they can't meet them?
The discussion has mentioned a few times how some parents have drug and or alcohol issues. In that case, either get straightened out and spend that money on food, or the children go into care.

OP posts:
EasilyBored · 05/07/2012 09:48

How about we solve the problem once and for all by stopping poor people from having babies?! Duh, why has no one ever thought of this before?! Wink

Chandon · 05/07/2012 09:50

fgs, the Op did not mention effing plasma tellies etc.

She has a point.

It is sad though that maybe a bit of help is needed, but I agree that it should not be up to charities to feed children. In an ideal world. which this isn't.

If people cannot even do this basic yet essential task, they really need help though. Not saying kids should go into care, but maybe a SW to come in and help with the whole idea of breakfast, dinner etc.

This is where a good SW can help out.

Adversecamber · 05/07/2012 09:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KatherineKavanagh · 05/07/2012 09:50

Actually, who are these charities feeding children? Which ones?

And how do you know they are all from families on benefits??

The working poor are just as likely to require help aren't they??

Original poster
moogster1a · 05/07/2012 09:50

The discussion is talking mostly about people with drug / alcohol problems who are not feeding their childre. I don't see why it's wrong to say if you really can't get your act together to prioritise you children then your children are better off in care. there is no reason for children to be starving in this country unless the parents are really fucked up.
Yes, sometimes you have to choose to not buy clothes, but that doesn't mean you cannot feed your kids. It means for a while you have to wear crap clothes

OP posts:
GrahamTribe · 05/07/2012 09:50

FFS Moogster, don't be so infantile. You're surely intelligent enough to know that "buying bed linen" was an example of one of the thousands of things a family might need to purchase for their home. Do I really need to list each until I give one which meets with your approval?

Buying curtains
Fridge
Freezer
Saucepans
Cutlery
Carpet
Dining table
Armchair
Bed
Books
Crockery....................

BTw, I can take it that you decline any child benefit available to you, can't I?

Mrsjay · 05/07/2012 09:51

yes easiliy just let poor die out problem solved eh Wink

EasilyBored · 05/07/2012 09:52

But children often aren't 'better off' in care, they've just been moved from a shit situation, to another shit situation where they don't have any family.

Rubirosa · 05/07/2012 09:52

Benefit money is sufficient so long as you have no debts and never have big expenses like fridges packing up.

Unfortunately, lots of people do have debts. Lots of people have their benefits stopped, often wrongly, and have to appeal - and need to borrow money in the mean time. Lots of people's housing benefit no longer covers their rent.

If you are unemployed then the only people prepared to lend you money will be charging huge amounts of interest.

I have seen lots of parents, who love their children and have no booze/drug/gambling addictions struggle to feed and clothe them adequately because they are crippled by debt, have had their benefits stopped, or live in inadequate housing that they have to pay their own money on top of HB to a slum landlord.

WorraLiberty · 05/07/2012 09:54

I understand what you're trying to say OP

But it's my understanding that these charities don't just give food to the kids and leave it like that. They also get involved in the reasons why they're not being fed and find the families the right kind of help.

Sometimes families just don't realise how bad things have got until someone steps in.

RuthlessBaggage · 05/07/2012 09:54

Don't know if there's a specific benefit for that but I buy new roughly every 5 years or so, about £20 a set from tesco value. £4 a year must really eat into the food budget.

If you live week to week with a (say) £30 food budget then you do not have much slack for savings. Which means if the washing machine packs up in the same week as the eldest needs bigger shoes, nobody eats.

It's not fucking rocket science.

Kladdkaka · 05/07/2012 09:54

So people with illnesses should have their children taken off them as opposed to being provided with help and support to care for them. Glad I don't live in your world OP.

lambethlil · 05/07/2012 09:55

YABVU

There is perhaps a case to be made for some benefits to be paid in food stamps.

Food banks are unfortunately essential, often the users don't have particularly chaotic lives, but there is so little margin for error living on benefits, that one tiny 'event' can mean there's no money for food.

Rubirosa · 05/07/2012 09:55

What we need is workhouses.

DawnOfTheDee · 05/07/2012 09:56

I remember talking to a friend who was training to become a social worker who dealt with a lot of the sorts of families you describe. She said that at the end of the day, in most cases, having a crap mum &/or dad was better for the child than not having them/being taken away.

I think i generally agree with this...neither situation is great (crap parents or living in care) but you've got to go with the best available option and that seems to be staying with parents with some extra help from outside.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 05/07/2012 09:56

Graham, it wouldn't be about 'making an example' of people. Hmm

It would be about making sure children got fed. If a small amount of embarrassment for a few adults is what it takes to ensure all children can eat properly, then so be it.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos · 05/07/2012 09:58

Also, food vouchers wouldn't have to apply to everyone, just those people who are known to have issues that mean they don't feed their children properly. That doesn't apply to the majority of people on benefits.

LadyInDisguise · 05/07/2012 09:58

OP There are two different issues with this problem.

You have people who decide not to spend money on food for their dcs and will rather spend it on their own things (alcohol, clothes blabla delete as appropriate). And are completely unable to look after their dcs (or unable to put them first).
Then you have people who are struggling a hell of a lot to feed the family, who might have very little to eat themselves to try and feed their own dcs but will still struggle to do so in an appropriate way. This can be because of a lot of different reason, from a rent that is too high (and can't find anything else) to debts from another time that they still have to repay. I know some single parent who struggle to feed their dcs, get them some shoes and clothes even when trying to swap clothes with other parents etc... Parents who were complaining that 'their dcs have grown and therefore eating more and they are struggling to cope with the increase of the food bill.
I am sure there are lots more examples when you think that 20% (I think) of children in the Uk live under the poverty line.

So, in the first case, yes please, involve SS, try and support the parents and if nothing improves, then look at foster care etc...
In the second case, well.. a very big THANK YOU to all the charities that help these people.

GrahamTribe · 05/07/2012 09:58

Can I suggest a candidate for your workhouse, Rubirosa? I'm sure she could set a shining example to all those nasty poor people.

Original poster
moogster1a · 05/07/2012 09:58

You know, there are certain subjects that are impossible to have a sensible debate about on here. Mention something like this, and you instantly become a benefit bashing, fail reading family hater with plasma tv envy.
I think you should maybe read my op properly instead of jumping on the "she's having a go at all decent families who are skint".

OP posts:
EndangeredOtter · 05/07/2012 10:00

I just can't leave this thread alone. I do think that any parent worth their salt would forgo food to feed their children. If there was a choice between me being hungry and DD being hungry I know what I'd choose, without even thinking.

Thing is moog, and sorry to burst your bubble but its not just alcoholic druggies who struggle, nor those that smoke or party. And I hope that you are never unfortunate to be in this situation

KatherineKavanagh · 05/07/2012 10:01

ITS NOT JUST FAMILIES ON BENEFITS

Children go hungry from working families too.why ate we picking on benefit claimants, those families who ate working are more likely to go hungry towards payday at end if the month!! We see it here on Mn all the time. Threads asking for advice/help

Mrsjay · 05/07/2012 10:01

you said charities shouldnt feed children you said people should have their children taken into care if they have issues people understood your post well there has been no misunderstanding ,

Mrsjay · 05/07/2012 10:02

shouldn't have to*