Hungry kids and shitty views

[icequeen34]

I apologise as I'm sure there are already threads on this topic. But I feel so so sad and angry today, not only about Marcus Rashfords campaign to feed hungry kids over the holidays being rejected. But some of the horrible views and justifications being spouted - mainly the old 'lazy parents need to take responsibility for feeding their kids' remark. Some utter twat was saying poor families should grow their own food because 'it's not hard' and another Tory MP claimed the blame lies with absent parents (as if his leader isn't one of those).

These are terrible comments from privileged people who clearly don't understand the lack of time, money, outdoor space and education needed to grow your own or shop more savvy. But even in the cases of the worst most lazy parents, why can't people see that the children shouldn't be the ones to suffer? It really boils my blood especially when MPs get so much in terms of expenses for food.

Sorry for the rant I just feel very disappointed and upset today.

[cantdothisnow1]

Lots of children turn up to school hungry. Lots of schools/ teachers know which children they are and feed them.

It shouldn't be this way.

We are the 5th wealthiest nation in the world.

[Hesnotlocal]

I am appalled not only at the decision that has been made but at the 'reasons' being given for it.

Absent parents- I would agree that some parents (mainly men) disappear from their child's life and do not support them as they should. Does that make it right that the child and the parent they live with should suffer?

Extra payment would build dependence on hand outs and harm the economy- total bollocks. Apparently extra payments to MPs, eat out to help out etc does not have the same issue. Extra money given to the poorest is all spent, which means more income for shops, which can mean more jobs etc. If the issue is that vouchers need to be spent in big supermarkets that don't need the help I'm sure local businesses would be happy to step in to provide healthy food- maybe suppliers who usually work with the hospitality industry.

I am lucky enough not to need FSM for my children but I am beyond angry about this. I can't begin to imagine how I would feel if I was struggling to feed by family due to having lost income in this crisis and was effectively being told by Government that I am part of the problem.

[FourTeaFallOut]

You either think that:

1. That parents are sometimes unable to feed their children and they can go hungry
   
   Or
   
   
2. That parents are able to feed their children and then chose not to do so.
   
   In my opinion, a shitty point of view is one that fails to give a shit that the child is just as hungry regardless.

[june2007]

Boulangerie baps, .. perhaps you are right about the stigma but we also did sports and activities so it was a fun place. But I think stigma may be why little take up, perhpas because it was in a church so maybe that put somepeople off?

[ghostyslovesheets]

People will always blame the poor for their poverty - because it's easy and lazy to do so.

People have no clue what it's like to be on a o hours contract, having enough work one week and none the next - being sanctioned by the job centre - no money for a month, having just enough to get by then something breaks, shoes wear out, you miss the bus and need a taxi or you'll be sanctioned for being late - living on the edge of poverty is exhausting - I hate some peoples lack of empathy - even if you think it's all the parents fault IT IS NOT THE CHILDS

Feed the kids - the address the issues!

[ComtesseDeSpair]

I think it’s fair to separate the two issues out. As a society, we should fund or provide free food for the children who need it, regardless of why they need it, because it isn’t children’s fault for their family circumstances, and it’s the morally correct thing to do in a benevolent society and a wealthy country.

We can still also say that, except in a minority of cases or as a one-off because of temporary money issues, if a parent isn’t feeding their child breakfast and lunch then they are a shit parent. A box of value cereal, a couple of litres of milk, a loaf of bread, a packet of sliced lunch meat, a cucumber, a couple of bunches of bananas and a packet of biscuits and there’s breakfast and lunch for a couple of kids for a week right there for little more than a fiver; no cooking skills, education or fuel required.

It’s one of the reasons I had to leave a long career in social housing, because the idealistic viewpoint I had when I began was slowly eroded away by the reality of working with people who refused to sort themselves out and thought it was somebody else’s job to pick up the pieces.

[PretendLife]

I see a lot of posts on MN about useless fathers who get away with paying nothing in maintenance for their kids. Presume that it is single mum's struggling the most. I think Marcus Rashford was bought up by a single mum as well. Perhaps celeb/sports men could start a campaign to shame men that don't pay for their kids. Maybe campaign to make it illegal to avoid paying child maintenance.

[Laiste]

YANBU at all OP!

I had to come off the other thread because i was verging on ranting. Which does no good for converting biggots!

I'm off again!

I was going to say that i can see a workhouse situation coming back. I was going to say that if you follow the idea that punishing the children for the sins of the adults is ok then you can be counted as being happy to be stepping over the poor and starving kids in the street. Because their parents should have thought harder about having them. Like they used to step over them in the days before welfare.

[june2007]

One day my husband was in a rush. i had gone out and he had to get my dD to school. He got up late so dD had no breakfast believe me the school came down on us hard. (and this happened once) How can parents get away with doing it on regular basis.

[ghostyslovesheets]

milk and luncheon meat need a fridge - which needs electricity

[Tyranttoddler]

The argument that feckless parents send their children to school hungry is also irrelevant. Forget why they're hungry, the fact is that they're hungry. It's not their fault IF their parents are shitty parents.

As it is, I worked for ten years in a school in one of the most deprived areas in the country. They all got free breakfast every day, funded by the school. I paid many times for kids to have food to eat or shoes to wear, or a bag or pencil case. The naivety that you see from people's comments just shows how limited some people's understanding of society is. Food is only cheap if you can get to a cheap shop/have somewhere to store it/can afford the power to cook it.

[june2007]

Luncheon meat comes in a can it does not need a fridge.

[Tyranttoddler]

Just to clarify, most parents aren't shit. Most parents want their children to thrive but can't get out of a poverty trap.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

@ghostyslovesheets

milk and luncheon meat need a fridge - which needs electricity

Milk can last out of the fridge fine for a day for most of the year, and if you want to argue about meat then swap it for peanut butter, Marmite, jam, tinned sardines, or any of the other things you can fill a sandwich with for pennies a day.

And I think this is exactly the reason many people get frustrated with this issue. There are not hundreds of thousands of children going hungry because their parents lack use of a fridge, and this pretence that this is the only reason it could be is disingenuous.

[DSsnmum]

What it comes down to is no matter the reasons for kids not being fed it is never the child’s fault. Never. Doesn’t matter if the parents are ‘lazy’ or all the other tosh I’ve read it is not the fault of the child and they should never have to go hungry for any reason.

[Pumperthepumper]

@ComtesseDeSpair

I think it’s fair to separate the two issues out. As a society, we should fund or provide free food for the children who need it, regardless of why they need it, because it isn’t children’s fault for their family circumstances, and it’s the morally correct thing to do in a benevolent society and a wealthy country.

We can still also say that, except in a minority of cases or as a one-off because of temporary money issues, if a parent isn’t feeding their child breakfast and lunch then they are a shit parent. A box of value cereal, a couple of litres of milk, a loaf of bread, a packet of sliced lunch meat, a cucumber, a couple of bunches of bananas and a packet of biscuits and there’s breakfast and lunch for a couple of kids for a week right there for little more than a fiver; no cooking skills, education or fuel required.

It’s one of the reasons I had to leave a long career in social housing, because the idealistic viewpoint I had when I began was slowly eroded away by the reality of working with people who refused to sort themselves out and thought it was somebody else’s job to pick up the pieces.

Where are you keeping the milk? How long will that very basic food last - a few days for the milk, two weeks at a push for the cucumber - not to mention the misery of a very little child eating exactly the same thing every single day. Surviving but not living.

I don’t understand this thing in Britain (England?) where we have to punish anyone associated with shit parenting. Some people are shit parents but why does that matter when it comes to their children being looked after by the state? What kind of human being thinks ‘ah your mum and dad are junkies who don’t feed you, tough luck!’

[NaughtipussMaximus]

@Pyewhacket

Does a point of view only become shitty when it disagrees with your own ?

A point of view becomes shitty when it's in favour of policies that let innocent children go hungry. HTH.

[Pumperthepumper]

And I think this is exactly the reason many people get frustrated with this issue. There are not hundreds of thousands of children going hungry because their parents lack use of a fridge, and this pretence that this is the only reason it could be is disingenuous.

Ok, so the reason the kid is hungry is because both his parents are heroin addicts who spend £400 a week on heroin. How much should we punish the child for this?

[ComtesseDeSpair]

@Pumperthepumper

And I think this is exactly the reason many people get frustrated with this issue. There are not hundreds of thousands of children going hungry because their parents lack use of a fridge, and this pretence that this is the only reason it could be is disingenuous.

Ok, so the reason the kid is hungry is because both his parents are heroin addicts who spend £400 a week on heroin. How much should we punish the child for this?

Did you read the first paragraph of my post?

[LizzieMacQueen]

@june2007

I worked for the council on a project that did meals for kids in the holidays to be honest take up was erratic. Not as popular as one would have thought.

This is my experience too. We ran a before school breakfast club. Anyone could come for free breakfast (and we encouraged them to take fruit for their break).

The children who would've most benefitted from it never came - And it wasn't stigma that stopped them. Every child could come. Most came because mum & dad were working and needed a safe place to leave their kids. The poorer kids? Well I guess their parents (yes, mostly not working) were not in a rush to get to their kids up.

[Frazzled13]

@eatsleepread

See, I'm torn on this. I saw something on social media the other day, about breakfasts for school children who wouldn't get one. This got me thinking. No matter how you try and justify it, any parent who sends their child to school on an empty stomach is feckless. Porridge is cheap to make, and value cereal and bread are very inexpensive too.
If you're the sort of parent who doesn't provide breakfast, then you're cutting other parental corners too, and I don't mean only financially.
This won't be a popular view but I stand by it. 100%. There is no excuse for sending your child hungry to school in the mornings.

Even if you are absolutely correct, the end result is still a hungry child who hasn’t had breakfast. It’s not their fault.

[maryberryslayers]

Of course it parents responsibility to feed their children, but for what ever reason, be it because they are genuinely on the bones of their arse no matter what they do, or because they are selfish fuckwits who prioritise booze and fags over their children, it's irrelevant. The important thing is that the children get fed.

[ghostyslovesheets]

@Pumperthepumper

And I think this is exactly the reason many people get frustrated with this issue. There are not hundreds of thousands of children going hungry because their parents lack use of a fridge, and this pretence that this is the only reason it could be is disingenuous.

Ok, so the reason the kid is hungry is because both his parents are heroin addicts who spend £400 a week on heroin. How much should we punish the child for this?

exactly - my response was really to the responses you always get about meals which there is no excuse for not making - not everyone has what you take for granted - that's the point.

and NO CHILD is responsible for the spending habits, addictions, choices of their parents!

[icequeen34]

@Pyewhacket A view isn't necessarily shitty if it disagrees with my own. However it's shitty if it shows contempt and lack of basic care to innocent children. I think that would be a pretty general consensus.

[SunshineCake]

There definitely does need to be a clamp down on the feckless parents who fuck off and cheat the system and don't maintain their children. All this money being spent will have to be paid back and it will be by our children and grandchildren. There really can not be any child going hungry through their parent not being able to feed them but don't let's pretend that some of these parents are spending money on themselves at the expense of their kids, be it living with them or not.