to think charities should not feed children

[moogster1a]

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.

What about the fact that you've now learned that most private tenants have to pay a significant amount of their food/clothing/bill money on keeping a roof over their and their children's heads, Ophelia? You haven't acknowledged that, you've gone on to another, far less likely hypothetical situation.

Under Fours Mrsjay, mine stopped on DD's fourth birthday.

oh really i assumed it went till they were 5 although 4 yr olds go to school in england alot of scottish children are 5 before they start

What about rich families who don't feed their children properly - should their children be entitled to help from charities too?

If they are in a school where 50% of the children are on free school meals then the charity will feed them

Yeah, both for my DS and DD at aged four. They get free milk at nursery too, but it stops when you hit Reception, my DD will be four years three months when she starts school, at which point she can access Free School Dinners. So I guess they consider that to be the swapping point, but that leaves children from aged four to five sometimes with no provision, so agree it should be five years old when they stop.

I've been messaging while reading this thread and have a couple of figures from my friend L, who's a lone parent on benefit, struggling to find work and affordable childcare. Her weekly benefit is £71, so that's £307 a month.

The shortfall between her rent and her housing benefit is £242 a month.

Go figure.

I totally agree with all those saying that its not that simple, that many people are struggling, that there simply isn't enough money for some people.
But I do also agree that an average parent in that situation (and trust me, I understand that situation, having had first hand experience), would make feeding their child the first priority. Before council tax, before paying bills, before clothes, heat and light, adequate food comes first.
The main reason children go actually hungry is that their home life is chaotic for one reason or another...drugs, alcohol, mental health issues, fuck knows what. Not that throw them all into care is the answer to that one either.

Lets not pretend there is a simple answer here.

Who are these charities feeding the children?

And how do the charities identify who needs feeding?

''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.''

It is, providing you have zero debt. If you've got mortgage payments, a car loan, credit cards and then you suddenly lose your job and end up on benefits, you'll probably find you don't have enough to cover your outgoings, and let's be real here - even supposedly reputable companies don't give a shit if the monthly payment they're demanding means you don't have enough to buy food.

Drugs, alcohol and mental health problems are 3 reasons why families are unable to feed their kids, but they're not the only reasons.

Graham.... How many dc does your friend have? That £71 doesn't sound correct. She should be getting jsa/IS £64 weekly, child benefit and tax credits..

But rooftops - and I don't know if this would be the case here, but it's worth considering - if you have a car and access to supermarkets, you can buy bix boxes of own brand cornflakes much more cheaply than if you have to walk to a small but expensive corner shop where they have only brands, and they're more expensive even then.

I think it is very hard for people who don't claim benefits to understand the circumstances that affect some people and make them unable to afford the basics.

There are four people that I know who don't work and have benefits as their only income, only one of those claims anything disability related. They all do well financially, and can afford to go out regularly, save for a holiday etc. If I hadn't read so many stories on here, I would find it very hard to sympathise with benefits claimants that can't afford to feed their children. I don't include those who are working but on a low income because I know how shit that situation is.

Yes, I know MNers like to jump up and down when someone mentions 'someone I know' but you have to accept that that's the reality that makes people not in that situation themselves form opinions on the subject.

I realise that some people are just in difficult circumstances through no fault of their own, but often there are choices that people have made, and therefore need to take some responsibility for.

I would ike to point out that if a family were deliberately not feeding their children over a period of time, SS would be involved and be monitoring the family.

There seems to be a misconception that SS are ignoring children at risk because of 'being overstretched', that isn't the case, the budgets are not set, there is alwaysmoney to be tapped into for however many families need to be on a plan.

This is why family support etc was extended.

The OP is spectaculary missing the need for charities and being deliberatly provocative, so i'm not bothering to list the reason as to why families need a temporary helping hand (which this is), but these are normally working families or parents fleeing DV etc.

Two words: voluntarily homeless. Which is your status if you don't pay the rent.

*Who are these charities feeding the children?

And how do the charities identify who needs feeding?*

Here are some
and a nationwide organisation

If you have debt, like mortgage payments, a car loan, or credit cards and you can't afford to feed your children, then you declare bankruptcy.

Another one now is people topping up rent, the Tories always remove the minimum income guarantee, so people who are on benefits don't have all of their allocated subsitance budget to spend on food.

KatherineKavanagh, the way it works with foodbanks in my area, is care professionals (such as social workers, health visitors, CAB workers) identify people and families in need, and then issue them with foodbank vouchers.

There's a number of foodbank distribution points. The foodbank give people about 3 days worth of food per voucher, and offer people support and details of agencies who may be able to help them longer term.

Aside from all this, moogster, WTAF has it got to do with you how charities spend their money, providing they're not doing it to anyone's detriment?

If you don't like the way a charity spends its money it's easy, just don't contribute to that charity.

BTW, do you accept any Child Benefit to which you're entitled?