Free school meals and summer holidays

[McNewPants2013]

I was thinking about this today.

I will have an extra £10 per week dude to not paying for school meals, but if people are entitled to FSM I can see many families struggling to provide these extra meals at home.

Do you think that school canteens should open or the parents get extra money to cover the shortfall.

Goodtouch, there are parents out there who will struggle this summer due to mental illness. They will try and they will do their absolute best. For some planning and shopping for a nutritionally balanced diet for their child for seven days a week will be like a walk up Everest. There are lots of reasons why FSM make lives easier for those in need.

"And to those saying "oh they just cant budget" or "oh they spend all their money on tatoos (sic) and weed" SO WHAT?!"
"FSM are not about adults though, they are entirely about directly assisting children. Yes the adult having three bbqs a week might well be a dick but plenty of benefit dependant parents can't or won't prioritise child welfare."

It's a big WHAT IMO. Those parents should face charges of neglect. This is why I believe (in answer to your earlier question of my actual opinion) benefits should be paid in food and accommodation vouchers.

I think that many people are missing the point.

A child going hungry shouldnt happen. But it does. The child has no control over that and shouldnt suffer for it. We, as a nation and a community, should make sure that no child ever goes hungry and if that means FSM continue during the holidays then I would happily pay for that.

Thanks property - I just wanted to raise that the issues go beyond simply cost and poverty (though those aspects very important) and can involve aspects of how well parents are coping as well.

I was talking about what I'll be doing Bogey. My claim for tax credits is still sorting itself out so I have nothing. Luckily I grow my own veg, we'dof been screwed if I hadn't.

juggling I have no idea what point you are trying to make? Are you saying I am talking about personal experience because that's actually the one thing I have refused to do?

I agree Happy that any parent who puts themselves before the welfare of their child should face neglect charges. But where do you draw the line?

Does a single mum who can care for her children very well, keeps a clean home etc but is educationally far below average and therefore cant budget very well, count as neglectful? Does a father who has severe depression and simply cant deal with shopping trips count as neglectful?

It is not that simple and the fact that you think it is shows that you have no genuine understanding of what it is like to look at the amount of food in the cupboard, the amount of electric left on your key meter and the money in your purse and see that there simply isnt enough for both. If you had ever had to do that, through no fault of your own then perhaps you would be a little more empathetic.

Many children go hungry at home and as someone said earlier, fsm are a real safety net, where food goes directly in to children's mouths. The people who have said they budget and take account of this, they're not the children I'm worrying about.

I know of a child who was entitled to fsm but the parent couldn't get off her arse to sign the form. The school couldn't 'claim' the meal without the sig, so the teachers took it in turns to feed the kid. That child is absolutely, 100%, hungry tonight. In Britain. In 2013.

I should add that saying "WEll I always managed on benefits" doesnt mean a thing. It doesnt mean that others, for whatever reason, can't. It doesnt suddenly fill a hungry childs belly.

It felt like you were making it about personal experience when you said ...
"Don't you think about that when you have a baby ?"
And actually, on that, I think there are plenty of people who don't think about providing 3 meals for 18 years or so when they think having a baby might be a nice idea. I'd think those that do may possibly be in a minority.
Very easy to go into motherhood without realising all of it's implications and consequences. And providing for your children may become harder than you envisaged through changes in circumstances too.

Not just dicks but addicts. I taught children who returned after the summer having visibly lost weight. I let those children tidy my desk drawer every day during term time and keep what money I could spare that they "found". I'm far from fucking heartless thanks, I'm just saying that not every family on FSM is unable to plan for summer and prioritise their children during the least expensive months of the year. Those of us on this thread who can and do have every right to state this.

Oh here we go- get the voucher book out- and while you're there can i have one voucher for electric, one for oil, one for clothes ( unless you want my dcs wearing school uniform all summer?) do these vouchers have participating retailers printed on the back? Will the car boot sale take them and give me some change back if i be a very good benefit scrounger and dont spend all if it's value? Do i have to hand the change back in at the dole office?

I agree that FSM entitlement is most likely the least objectionable benefit out there. Children from low income backgrounds being fed. I can't get even remotely upset about young children having full tummies.
For all the rhetoric espoused by naysayers on this thread I do not for one second believe that any single one of them would feel comfortable about a child they knew going hungry. The hard part for most seems to be believing that child poverty and huger exists in the UK right now.

I am just appalled that anyone could be told that there are hungry children, as Wilson said "tonight. In Britain. In 2013" and say "not my problem, their parents need to manage better" and then turn their backs.

Regardless of what you think of their parents, I am astounded that you can happily ignore a hungry child. How do you sleep at nights?

An all these parents you are charging with neglect- then what? You out them in prison? Remove their dcs to all those available foster care places?

You can get weekly healthy start vouchers for kids up to 4 for fruit and veg, they aren't of much value but it is something and surely they could be provided for children on FSM for the holidays to try and ensure they're getting something.

hungry children is not a mark of a civilised society.

Nor is working and not being able to manage

Bogey As you have pointed out, neither of us have an idea of what anyone on here has a genuine understanding of. You may feel my opinion hints at what my lifestyle is like but that is very judgmental. I arrive at my opinion like you, through many different experiences and exposures.
The examples you have given are tragic and I am extremely empathetic but your logic is incorrect. The hypothetical single mum should be given budgeting help, not more free food. The hypothetical depressed father should be given free therapy, not free food. Both of these options are available in our state and I utterly support them. If in the meantime they are really unable to provide for their children, should they really be able to be their primary carer? Before the screechers start claiming that I am advocating ripping children from their parents' arms, I am NOT. I am simply saying that in those hypothetical situations, they should receive proactive support, the childrens' welfare must come first and the aim should be a functioning family able to feed their own.

"It's a big WHAT IMO. Those parents should face charges of neglect"

Then they would also have their children removed and cared for by the state, using taxpayers' money. A lot more taxpayers' money than a free meal every day of the year.

Or is it sometimes ok for the children's welfare to become the responsibility of the state?

This is really strange for me because I am always clearly on the side of the underdog on these threads. I am lucky to have two disabled children and to be able to claim benefits. I do worry about children not being fed (and actually no, I didn't spell "tattoo" wrong whoever quoted me with a sic) but I think that throwing money in the wrong direction is a bad idea.

There are plenty of people on this thread who can manage. It is covered by just six weeks of not paying for heating. My sister and her friends even stop paying ALL utilities in order to fund (a ridiculously expensive) Christmas and catch up later in the New Year with no problems.

If you want to invest in the future LONG term, get vulnerable families some actualhelp. I realised this when my (dodgy, job-threatening) plan of leaving money for the children of the addict mother just prolonged things.

In case you are interested they are all extremely happy and productive working citizens now.

It's not about the money though is it...it's about EVERYONE providing for the young and the needy...and that starts with those that should provide...their parents.

HappyDoll, it is far cheaper for the taxpayer to leave the children with their depressed father or poor-budgeting mother and feed them than it is to remove them into care.

And how do the children eat whilst therapy is getting off the ground happy? Why not free meals and therapy to enable him to get to the stage where he can cope without the worry at the same time about how thin and letharhic his dcs are becoming? Why is free therapy a better alternative to free food for children? Therapy no doubt is more expensive than food.

It strikes me as odd that no one on this thread has mentioned the huge correlation between poverty and obesity. Many really poor families are not going hungry but are making unhealthy choices for their children. It'snot kids going hungry that worries me but kids going without fruit and veg and ending the summer holidays fatter and less healthy than before. fsm don't just feed kids, they nourish them and the lack of fsm over the summer will be reflected in an unhealthy lot of kids coming back to school in September