to think that it's appalling that society has come to this

[floraloctopus]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-48119099

The school is described as the 4th emergency service (yes, I know that's the coastguard/lifeboats) as they are providing a food bank service, helping get rid of head lice, running training courses on cooking on a budget, meanwhile they are having to make staff redundant because of budgets.

It shouldn't be like this, children and families are suffering whilst the rich get richer thanks to the government policies which take from the poor and give to the rich.

UnPocoLoco2

Blame Jacob Rees Mogg and his annoying sister acetaminophen or something along those lines.“

Didn’t you know, between the two of them they represent the common man in the Brexit fight against the establishment.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Bestfoitforward1

Same as the nhs. See how much money is pumped into the NHS when MPs can no longer have private healthcare. There is no incentive.”

Please don’t forget that people who pay private School fees continue to pay for state education through their taxes (a do childless people). They’re effectively paying twice for their kids’ educations (same applies to healthcare). Most have no issue with that and most aren’t rich. If their children suddenly moved into the state sector there would be even less to go round.

Sorry *Bestfootforward1, mixed up your post with another about private education but the same applies to both.

Some things that jump out at me:

People struggling who continue to have more children. One of the most common refrains is “it was an accident I didn’t choose it”. EVERYONE has a choice up to 22 weeks. EVERYONE. Just because you get pregnant doesn’t mean you have to have it. It may not be a choice you want to make but at least own it as your choice and don’t blame other or expect extra help just because its not a choice you were willing to make.

Benefits are designed for essentials. A very close friend of mine was a single mother on benefits (after her husband fecked off) and was never as well off as when she was. First thing she did was stop all non-essential spending. That meant defaulting on her debts, but it meant her benefits could be used for what they were needed for. If people try to pay non-essential debts out of benefits its no wonder they don’t go far enough. She ended up bankrupt but 6 years later, its off her record and she was able to live. Oh and she also managed to avoid getting pregnant again.

Everyone has access to an education. If you are bright and hardworking, you can take advantage of it. You can look at the world around you and see there are alternatives. You might have to be unpopular in school because you’re not hanging around with the in crowd but its doable and is your ticket out of shitsville. I speak from experience on this one. High school was not a good time for me because I wanted to do well in a shit hole comprehensive and not do drugs or get pregnant. But its more than paid off since then. If people choose not to take advantage of its not anyone else’s problem.

Reading these posts it seems like the government have us right where they want us. It we’re fighting each other we aren’t fighting them. The old battle strategy of divid and rule!

Same as people that complain about black mould in council houses. We got black mould so we dealt with it, used a spray to remove it and reduced to moisture level by ventilating the area. It is easily dealt with but people that live in council houses/accommodation become paralysed by the fact that they think everything should be done for them

Many HA places are over insulated due to cavity wall insulation. This has caused a lot of damage because not every building is suited to it The cavity is there for a reason.

Here..............educate yourself Mrs Birling

www.which.co.uk/reviews/insulation/article/cavity-wall-insulation/cavity-wall-insulation-damp-problems

I’m a higher rate tax payer and I don’t vote Tory for this exact reason. It’s a party for the royals, the landed gentry and the well off. I’d happily pay more tax if it was open and transparent and that money was put directly in to my local state school and my local hospital. I’m not happy paying more tax so that MPs get more pay rises though. I personally think that MPs shouldn’t be paid at all. I think it should be a voluntary job with expenses paid. It would be interesting to see how many of them carried on running for election on that basis wouldn’t it?

HA tenants have no choice over wall insulation Its just done and thats it whether the dwelling is suitable for it or not.

leaks cause mould too. A fellow tenant has a leak they are refusing to fix until 6th June.

Whatdoesitmatteranyway "First thing she did was stop all non essential spending. That meant defaulting on her debts, BUT IT MEANT HER BENEFITS COULD BE USED FOR WHAT THEY WERE NEEDED FOR" - See that's the problem with these types of assumptions. Your friend wouldn't have been able to use her benefits to pay for living if she was on the current system, as the system has been changed and UC system takes up to 40% (yes 40%!!) of the money you have to live on, for debts. And yes even third-party creditors and debts. See the difference??

Only if they get an enforced ccj.

Whatdoesitmatteranyway No!! NOT 'only if they get enforced CCJ at all!! Where did you get that bit of info?? ANY debts which apply via a form to UC CAN be taken directly from the claimants UC without their consent or even prior knowledge in most cases, at a rate to up to 40% (!!) of the amount they expect people to live on. Working people relying on UC as a top up tend to have more taken up to the 40% maximum.

And policies like THIS are the main reason schools are having to help people, and foodbanks are rife - not fecklessness in most cases, as some individuals on here seem to want to believe.

If you get a debt relief order or go bankrupt they cant

Your friend wouldn't have been able to use her benefits to pay for living if she was on the current system, as the system has been changed and UC system takes up to 40% (yes 40%!!) of the money you have to live on, for debts. And yes even third-party creditors and debts. See the difference??

I guess it shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone that if they get into debt, their future income, whether they be from an employer or the state, will have to service this debt?

nonamesleftatall you are also making assumptions. Not everyone is in a council house, just because you grew up in one. Times have changed, the council don't help everyone in need, often turned away. many that are helped are in b&b with no cooking facilities which makes your food bill huge as you cant cook.

The whole argument about paying twice for your child's education if you go private is extremely nauseating and bloody ridiculous. Schools are paid per child at every school, not per child in the country. If your child is not in a state school, therefore, then you are NOT in any way, shape or form paying twice for your child's education, not even symbolically - you are only paying once. And this is NOT a noble thing to do, to avoid the state provision, it's a matter of self-interest. Yes, if more people wanted to state educate their children, the state would have to contribute more to the education pot - but then if some parents were not spending so much on private education, they would be able to afford to pay more tax and would feel less inclined to avoid tax if the services provided by it had more of an impact on them, so please do NOT try to convince people that paying private school fees is helping society as a whole. It's just a thing you choose to do because you can. And besides all that, taxation contributes to a stable, functioning society, it's not a series of specific little donation pots you charitably give to in order to help the hoi polloi (ie people not like you). If you are part of this society, you ARE benefiting from all of its schools, regardless of whether you have children in them.

schools are paid per child at every school, not per child in the country. If your child is not in a state school, therefore, then you are NOT in any way, shape or form paying twice for your child's education, not even symbolically - you are only paying once.

Untrue. As you'll know, one who sends two children to state school pays the same tax as one who sends two children privately. The latter is 'concentrating' the pool of funds available by reducing the numerator by two.

You could argue that this leaches the school of statistically higher-achieving children, but you cannot argue that the parents have not paid twice.

As you'll know, one who sends two children to state school pays the same tax as one who sends two children privately.*

*all other things being equal.

Rubbish - state schools will be receiving twice as much money if you send two children to a state school instead of one, and nothing if you send no children. So you are not paying twice over for anything however you look at it - you are just paying tax like every other taxpayer.

What you are actually doing is contributing to the cost of a decent society, you are not paying state school fees.

This is why small village schools are no longer financially viable - not enough children, as the size of the school budget depends on the number of children. Parents suddenly wanting state school spaces because they can no longer afford school fees just adds to unpredictability of numbers - the State has to plan around the assumption that a certain proportion of people will choose something other than a state education (but everyone wants access to the state safety net).

Rubbish - state schools will be receiving twice as much money if you send two children to a state school instead of one, and nothing if you send no children. So you are not paying twice over for anything however you look at it - you are just paying tax like every other taxpaye

People who pay taxes and send their children privately increase the numerator (education budget) but not the denominator (number of children) so there's more money available per child. Not rubbish.

Not sure how more clearly I can explain that.

So you really think it is a good idea to suddenly have an extra 615,000 kids attending state school?

The arguments here again are the politics of envy. If people can afford to send their kids to private school then let them. A lot of them have very specific reasons, such as the kids are bright and simply do not get the help they need in a state school. And yes, bright kids do need help just like kids that are behind. And then there's the kids who's parents for some reason cannot have them at home all the time and go to boarding school, is the state going to provide for them too?

I guess it won't be long before people start on private hospitals. They take people out of the state hospital system and open up appointments and beds for people that can't go private. And the nhs is not all down to the Tories, all governments have let it down, a lot of the problem is the PFI that was started by the Tories but built on MASSIVELY by labour. Those various mortgage type debts cost the nhs approximately £2 billion each year.

I hope all food banks have people who can advise claimants on benefits, help with debt advice, and budgeting. I appreciate that the benefits system is leaving some people in a financial mess, and I'm glad they can turn to foodbanks if there is no other solution. (Thats for another discussion)

However, as an ex public sector housing worker I came across tenants on the brink of eviction because their priorities hadn't included rent or sorting out their benefits. Intervention helped in many cases. Payday loans and other high interest debt drains low incomes, credit unions should advertise more. They can really help people to budget. Stepchange and similar agencies can reduce debt repayments too. Unfortunately, the right advice and support isn't always available, plus not everyone is willing to take it.

It is not the politics of envy to pointmout that the education bedget varies depending on the number of children in state schools, thus by not educating your children there you are affecting the numerator AND the denominator. I'm not sure how much more simply I can express that... And I have not at any point said anything about banning private schools. I am 100% certain I would self-interestedly use private education if I was unhappy with the local state provision. I would not have the fucking cheek to claim I was thus nobly helping the taxpayer - it would just mean I became a lot more invested in minimising my tax bill so as to have more cash spare to fund my own children's education. If private schools did not exist and I was deeply unhappy with the local provision, I would be lobbying my MP to complain. I would, basically, live in the society I live in and behave accordingly, not go swanning around pretending I'm holier than thou and doing society a massive service to be avoiding something I don't want to be involved with.