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.

Hard times bring all the twats out.

A child could starve to death on a diet of "the parents should have..."

Did you read the first paragraph of my post?

I did, yes. So what’s your answer? Even if they have shit parents, why does it matter when it comes to government-funded meals?

In principle I agree with free school meals, but free to every child in school, when at school. I do not support the concept of food vouchers or other schemes.

What I do believe very strongly is that the poor, both those thrown on the scrap heap of benefits and those in minimum waged work or zero hours should as an absolute minimum demand back their dignity.

Workers. and the would be be workers as a minimum require more than just the measly amount required to reproduce themselves (ie get out of bed tomorrow and the next day). In fact we require that the poor have more than the minimum because our livelihoods and welfare depend upon this too. If the poor have no money and can not consume more than the minimum required to keep them alive then all other goods and services produced create over production. Tis what happens on a regular cycle and has done since about 1846. Its getting boring to state the obvious over and again, but the rich are digging their own graves and whilst doing so condemning us to immiseration (marxist term meaning gap between worker/poor and capitalist/rich) and exploitation.

"It follows therefore that in proportion as capital accumulates, the situation of the worker, be his payment high or low, must grow worse. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, the torment of labour, slavery, ignorance, brutalization and moral degradation at the opposite pole — Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (1867)

Instead of middle class numpties and liberal nittwits demanding we do something that essentially alters nothing, we need to demand that the poor, working or otherwise have the same rights and the most basic is that they have enough money to feed themselves.....not vouchers. and not charity handouts.

Too many liberals have sought to control the life choices of the poorest, from the Fawcett society until today, all sorts of moral arguments are made about how we can control the poor how they should live, what they should do with their scarce income, how many children they should have......

The fact is now the tide is coming in, and the poverty is growing even though the richest 1% are struggling to find areas of the economy in which to invest.....thats how large the divide is. Bezzos and Co' have our money and we need to be demanding it back!

@ComtesseDeSpair excellent posts. I too have worked with struggling families in which the parents have never really grown up and see the state as some sort of parent. I agree that it is not their kids' fault that they are living in a chaotic environment with no one capable of making sure there is some food in the cupboard. I also agree that the parents' seeming inability to do basic things to improve their circumstances - like hold down a job for more than a week before being sacked - is bewildering and frustrating. They care about their kids, but they can't seem to follow through on the realities of being responsible for them.

I was working in a college in a very deprived part of the north east during lockdown. Various local organisations had got a meal provision system up and running for deprived families, it was well advertised, and many target families were within walking distance of this provision. Take up was almost non-existent. Other posters here have had comparable experiences.
The compassion expressed by posters towards hungry children is admirable, but others (myself included) have some lived experience which you might not have. Is it worth asking, if the problem of child hunger is so widespread, how come these schemes don't have take up?
I appreciate that my experience is annecdotal, but working in this deprived community for quite a few years (where many people rely on benfits) I never met anyone who said they couldn't feed their children. And yes, many do have Sky+ and take their kids to Disney. I'm a lefty BTW, this is just fact.

You know I don't think the reason why a child is hungry is the issue... whether it's parents genuinely struggling to make ends meat or feckless, parents squandering money, the end result is a hungry child who needs to be fed.

@BoulangerieBabs

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

Do you think that's because being poor has such a stigma attached to it it's seen as shameful and a failure?

Our local community group have a scheme where everyone is welcome not just FSM children, this helps with the stigma issue as no one knows & lots use it to socialise during the holidays (not just now obviously but usually)

[quote icequeen34]@SpaceOP even if it were true and there are parents who don't care or provide for their kids (let's face it they do exist) does that make it right for the child to suffer? Surely the government should be there to help protect them.[/quote]
In my opinion it is. It's not up to the government to feed peoples kids. I refuse to have children for the reason I dont want to spend my money on any so why on earth the government should take tax from me to give to others who didn't come to this decision is beyond me. Kids don't just come into the world dropped by a stork two consenting adults decide to make one and should be fully responsible for their maintenance. Otherwise stop people having kids until they can proved they can look after them.

I think there are a couple of scenarios with the same outcome. Some parents are useless and lazy and would rather piss up the money than feed their kids.
Some are in genuine and horrific poverty.
Either way, the end result is a hungry child. And some people are happy to allow them to remain hungry. Meanwhile the government vote through a pay rise for themselves and there is no outrage.
Says everything about this current government, IMO.

I don’t give a shit if these “feckless” parents are spending their benefits on huge tellies, booze and fags ( which I dont believe anyway) the fact is some kids need these meals and the govt is able to provide them and should do so

The biggest problem with the particular scheme favoured by the Labour Party and Marcus Rashford is that if is ineffective at reducing child hunger. Unfortunately such a scheme, that sees parents responsible for the preparation and sometimes purchasing of the food, with little to no supervision, relies on the parents using the vouchers or food provided in the way that they are intended which the evidence shows simply doesn't happen in many cases.

When I was a teenager I had a boyfriend, he was from a large family and he was very good at sport. He was never able to play in a school team as his feckless father thought sports kit was a waste of money.

My son went to a boys club, one of the boys lived with his disabled grandmother, he was very good at sport and was picked for the football team. The dad who ran the team bought his boots, parents gave him lifts to games and would give him snacks and drinks with their own kids.

Which world do we want to live in?

@emmylousings

I was working in a college in a very deprived part of the north east during lockdown. Various local organisations had got a meal provision system up and running for deprived families, it was well advertised, and many target families were within walking distance of this provision. Take up was almost non-existent. Other posters here have had comparable experiences. The compassion expressed by posters towards hungry children is admirable, but others (myself included) have some lived experience which you might not have. Is it worth asking, if the problem of child hunger is so widespread, how come these schemes don't have take up? I appreciate that my experience is annecdotal, but working in this deprived community for quite a few years (where many people rely on benfits) I never met anyone who said they couldn't feed their children. And yes, many do have Sky+ and take their kids to Disney. I'm a lefty BTW, this is just fact.

There’s loads of reasons there’s no take up - did you work with the scheme yourself?

Reasons such as - lack of transport to get there, fear of chastisement from people who think they have the answers (milk and cucumbers, for example), lack of drive to get out of bed, too drunk, too high, too depressed, too disabled.

Surely a better question would be ‘how can we adjust these schemes so they are used by the people who need them?’ rather than ‘we tried to give them all this stuff and they were so ungrateful, let their children starve’.

Also, sky is a great investment if you can’t afford a zillion other things that people do for entertainment - days out to the zoo, an hour at softplay, a bus fare to the park, all have ongoing costs.

When your rent alone is over £1k a month ( standard for South East) and you're on £8.72 an hour, it doesn't take much working out to be honest.

Unfortunately such a scheme, that sees parents responsible for the preparation and sometimes purchasing of the food, with little to no supervision, relies on the parents using the vouchers or food provided in the way that they are intended which the evidence shows simply doesn't happen in many cases. Does it happen in some cases? I'll settle for some kids getting fed as a starting point.

By the way how do they use the vouchers in ways not intended?

I don't understand why this always turns into an argument about whether or not it's the parents' fault. Even if it is always due to feckless parents (I don't think it is and nor does the evidence suggest this, but let's say it is) how is that the child's fault? How could anybody want to punish the child for their parents' failings?

In my opinion it is. It's not up to the government to feed peoples kids. I refuse to have children for the reason I dont want to spend my money on any so why on earth the government should take tax from me to give to others who didn't come to this decision is beyond me. Kids don't just come into the world dropped by a stork two consenting adults decide to make one and should be fully responsible for their maintenance. Otherwise stop people having kids until they can proved they can look after them

It must be nice to have such black and white thinking where nothing unexpected happens that means your circumstances suddenly change. And none of it is the children fault. They didn't ask to be born.
Absolutely is is ultimately down to the state to look after the most vulnerable who can not look after themselves. End of story.

A large part of the problem is that the fact it is being pushed for so hard by an overpaid, spoiled footballer. It doesn't sit well with many people that such a privileged person is demanding these changes. Talk with your Premier League mates and get them to agree all professional footballers' wages above £1000 per week go to feeding kids, then we'll have a think about what the rest of us can do.

@StatisticalSense

The biggest problem with the particular scheme favoured by the Labour Party and Marcus Rashford is that if is ineffective at reducing child hunger. Unfortunately such a scheme, that sees parents responsible for the preparation and sometimes purchasing of the food, with little to no supervision, relies on the parents using the vouchers or food provided in the way that they are intended which the evidence shows simply doesn't happen in many cases.

Are you saying there are other options being put forward that these MPs are planning to vote for?

No one chooses poverty, the ignorance spewed by hateful people on this subject really makes me angry.

This isn't just about food poverty, this is about zero hour contracts, unpaid child support, illness and disability hindering the ability to work, low benefit payments which aren't in line with inflation, fuel poverty and lack of education, opportunity and stability. There is no safety net anymore and you are blamed if you slip through the cracks. This discussion is far more nuanced than just parents not buying porridge for their kids or a 5 pack of £1 cereal bars.

I am forever haunted by the story that was in the news recently about a woman in Glasgow who STARVED TO DEATH because she wasn't able to feed herself and pay her bills. Utterly shameful.

I was working in a college in a very deprived part of the north east during lockdown. Various local organisations had got a meal provision system up and running for deprived families, it was well advertised, and many target families were within walking distance of this provision. Take up was almost non-existent. It would be interesting to find out why foodbanks are reporting record demand and schemes like the one you quote aren't popular. Maybe it is to do with being able to take food to your own home and being able to eat like other families, which is what the vouchers allows families to do.

@contrmary

A large part of the problem is that the fact it is being pushed for so hard by an overpaid, spoiled footballer. It doesn't sit well with many people that such a privileged person is demanding these changes. Talk with your Premier League mates and get them to agree all professional footballers' wages above £1000 per week go to feeding kids, then we'll have a think about what the rest of us can do.

Surely for people who think that simply ‘working harder’ is the way out of poverty absolutely love Marcus Rashford as a shining example of how far hard work can take a person?

Also, you’re making the opposite point you think you’re making. If the hungry children aren’t the responsibility of the government then how come they’re the responsibility of the highest earners - many of whom don’t pay tax at all?

@contrmary

A large part of the problem is that the fact it is being pushed for so hard by an overpaid, spoiled footballer. It doesn't sit well with many people that such a privileged person is demanding these changes. Talk with your Premier League mates and get them to agree all professional footballers' wages above £1000 per week go to feeding kids, then we'll have a think about what the rest of us can do.

He grew up in poverty. He has mentioned that the lights often went out because there was no money left on the meter. When you know what going to bed hungry feels like and waking up in the morning and seeing your breath in the air that feeling doesn't leave you no matter how wealthy you become.

the shops in walking distance to ex's house do not sell cheap anything. It is all more expensive than the supermarket, often double the price or more of a cheap loaf of bread. (36p supermarket, 80p-£1.30 in the llocal shops)

to access a supermarket you need a car, or a bus, or to be eating enough and have time to walk, not that one could carry much back without investing in a shopping trolley or a big rucksack. and if you are a single parent what do you do with the children?

Does anyone remember the post by an op who strongly believed people could hoist themselves out of food poverty by simply foraging for berries and other fruits?

Food should be a right not a privilege