OH thinks no kids are left hungry?!!

[ihate2020]

I've joined the cook4kids over the half term in our area.

Oh is pissed of about it and thinks the parents that collect the lunch boxes I've made up are just out to get a freebie and I should spend the money on our own kids

AIBU to say he is a delunsional idiot?

[3ormorecharacters]

I think a lot of people live very sheltered lives without realising it and find it very difficult to believe things they have no first hand experience of. I say this as someone who used to be like that - I grew up with a very conservative Telegraph / Mail reading family and used to think, as did they, that any talk of real poverty in this country was overblown alarmist nonsense because I just had no experience of it.

I think there's also a certain amount of pride involved. Comfortable people like to believe that they are comfortable because of their own hard work and good choices. Accepting that people can experience real poverty through no fault of their own involves accepting that, for the vast majority, actually it's just good luck.

[NRatched]

That sort of thinking comes from a place of privilage. We went hungry a lot as kids, even though both my parents worked. There simply was not enough to go around sometimes.

It shouldn't be something that happens, especially in this country, but it does, a depressing amount of the time.

I fail to see why anyone would travel to get a lunch box just for a freebie though, seems a mssive waste of time if you don't need it, and honestly, if someone IS doing that just to get what..a quids worth of food..then they have some issues clearly.

I used to have a friend who reckoned foodbanks were not needed and were only used by pisstakers who spend all their money on holidays and such because they know they can just rock up weekly and get free shopping No idea how it actually worked, but firm in her belief that noone needs foodbanks. And that people could just randomly turn up there and basically pick a weeks shopping from some kind of supermarket place, and do this repeatedly.

[CraftyGin]

I don’t think vouchers are a long term fix as they don’t address the roots of the problems.

However, I see no reason why they could not be used for a prepackaged lunch (a bit like a meal deal with healthy substitutions for the crisps and pop). Anyone could buy these, so not overtly stigmatising.

[dontdisturbmenow]

I think those who are starving are those not entitled to any benefits most likely because they are illegal immigrants. They don't have letters to prove entitlement so can't even get food from food banks. They might not even be in school.

Those kids are likely skinny looking and have health issues.

If all we care about is the welfare of innocent kids, those are the ones we should focus our attention on.

[Mumoftwoyoungkids]

That said, I do wonder why parents who are so feckless that they will let their child go hungry-not using money and vouchers intended for food-are even allowed to have those children in their so called 'care.'

It is very damaging to take a child away from its birth parents. So the standard of parenting you need to keep a child is pretty low. And the older a child gets the worse the outcome will be for them via the care system so the lower the bar gets for them staying with their parents.

[SilverRoe]

@MootingMirror - No you never said it but you said this - “When lockdown kicked in, DFILs school gave out vouchers for school lunches - the vouchers weren't spent on food for the students”

Which is why I asked for clarification. If the vouchers were not being spent on food then surely this means supermarkets were not enforcing rules that they can only be spent on food?

[rashalert]

Well, those parents described-fuckers who can't be arsed to even take help- should not be in charge of children and the children should be taken away from them.

On another thread, someone spoke about a couple of drug addicts that had care of children. How can children be allowed to stay in these situations.

The child's right to be fed, warm and safe comes way before any old shit about the parents' rights.

[feministfemme]

@Happyhippy99 Have you been in poverty? Have you ever struggled to feed your children? Did you go hungry as a child? Have you ever been on benefits?

We need to support kids, irrespective of if their parents are shitty or not.

[MootingMirror]

[quote thelittlestrhino]@MootingMirror

Do you really think that the very very few parents you are discussing, you know the abusive ones who sell all their foodbank items and eat all the food themselves, the ones with the bruised/withdrawn/gangmember/drugged children, would actually BRING their children into school daily for a free lunch?[/quote]
I was largely discussing secondary/upper schools as that where my experience is based. Parents don't need to bring them, they can usually bring themselves. They're just as likely to "bring" packed lunches from elsewhere.

[movingonup20]

@fairynick

No it's not fair on the kids which is why in some cases targeted help needs to circumvent poor parental choices. Here rather than vouchers during lockdown, teachers took lunches each day to vulnerable families (and brought extra for younger siblings) because they knew giving them vouchers was tricky because (a) some would sell them (b) some would spend them on stuff for themselves and (c) many didn't have cars and the supermarkets

[MootingMirror]

[quote SilverRoe]**@MootingMirror* - No you never said it but you said this - “When lockdown kicked in, DFILs school gave out vouchers for school lunches - the vouchers weren't spent on food for the students”*

Which is why I asked for clarification. If the vouchers were not being spent on food then surely this means supermarkets were not enforcing rules that they can only be spent on food?[/quote]
The rules were brought in later, in response to parents spending them on alcohol and cigarettes.

[rashalert]

damage my arse!

It is pretty damaging to be brought up in a shithole, hungry and cold, with no-one but druggies to 'look after; them. I wouldn't-literally wouldn't-le them have charge of a dog.

How damaging is it if a child dies or ha their physical health impacted from being in the care of these useless twats?

Time to move away from this bollocks of 'damage' and start to look after children whoo have no-one in this world but twats around them.
Because that's the bottom line.

[3ormorecharacters]

@Happyhippy99 (ironic name btw) I would be very interested to see how you would manage to run a family on benefits. It may in theory be possible to feed you family oats, rice, chicken and carrots every day but in practice it's not that easy. For one thing, eating cheaply depends on being able to buy things from supermarkets in bulk, which not all families have the capacity to do (financially or practically, e.g. running a car to transport it). Cooking also involves using energy, which is an additional financial burden. Add into that any gaps in income - many families live from paycheck to paycheck, if there is any gap between losing employment and receiving benefits then what do you do?

[rashalert]

To some of these druggy 'parents' the child is a cash crop and if anyone thinks that isn't the case, they need to take their noses out of their Lenor scented arseholes and take a real whiff of that type of world because it smells like shit and it is shit.

[feministfemme]

@rashalert What's your point though? Some parents do see their kids like that, I agree, but again that's an issue for the culpability of parents and not how to punish their children instead.

[MootingMirror]

@rashalert

damage my arse!

It is pretty damaging to be brought up in a shithole, hungry and cold, with no-one but druggies to 'look after; them. I wouldn't-literally wouldn't-le them have charge of a dog.

How damaging is it if a child dies or ha their physical health impacted from being in the care of these useless twats?

Time to move away from this bollocks of 'damage' and start to look after children whoo have no-one in this world but twats around them.
Because that's the bottom line.

I'm inclined to agree with you. There's a huge focus in our society on biology and that a biological parent is better even if they're abusive. There's not actually sufficient science to back it up. It's not a researched informed viewpoint and children really suffer because of it.
Unfortunately, SS are overwhelmed as it is and to take more children into the care system at this stage would be harmful. The adoption process in this country is incredibly arduous compared to other countries meaning relatively few people are able to adopt - so, without softening the adoption process, children would be in care rather than with adoptive parents which may be more damaging.
It does appear to be insane that we, as a society, think a child is better off being beaten and starved (but just a bit) than with anyone who isn't biologically related to them but that's the stance we have. It's not going to change because those who work in the system are trained by those who have that belief and, therefore, hold that belief themselves (despite the lack of accurate evidence to support it - there's a lot of bullshit research to support them though).

[WitchesGlove]

@Mumoftwoyoungkids

That said, I do wonder why parents who are so feckless that they will let their child go hungry-not using money and vouchers intended for food-are even allowed to have those children in their so called 'care.'

It is very damaging to take a child away from its birth parents. So the standard of parenting you need to keep a child is pretty low. And the older a child gets the worse the outcome will be for them via the care system so the lower the bar gets for them staying with their parents.

The bar is low- but you aren’t allowed to starve them surely!

[Sparklesocks]

If your OH thinks every child in the U.K. lives enough food/shelter/heat etc then he is either ridiculously naive or wilfully ignorant

[Lexilooo]

Suggest he does a budget for your household based on universal credit rates or SSP of £95.85 a week. He has to include the rent/mortgage all bills etc.



Then ask him how he plans to pay for the weeks he was waiting for his claim to be processed if he was laid off with no right to redundancy pay and has no savings.

[SilverRoe]

Ok I understand now, thank you. I find it hard to wrap my head around vouchers being used for this purpose and I don’t believe vouchers are a longer term solution. It’s good that new rules have been introduced.

[SilverRoe]

@SilverRoe

Ok I understand now, thank you. I find it hard to wrap my head around vouchers being used for this purpose and I don’t believe vouchers are a longer term solution. It’s good that new rules have been introduced.

@MootingMirror

Quote fail!

[Mrbay]

I had the same conversion with my DH last night.
I said the issue is not always those on Benefits but families in private rental accommodation both earning minimum wage and not eligible for additional benefits. Some parents don't have the luxury of being able to afford their required bills plus enough food for 3 meals a day.

Education doesn't teach you how to stretch a budget and make cheap filling meals.

I grew up on benefits and there was a stark contrast to how I was raised compared to my friends. I cannot recall going without food, entertainment, clothes etc but this was because my parents went without stuff for themselves and were great at hunting for bargains and 2nd hand items.
My friends on the other hand, their mother prioritised her own wardrobe over clothing and feeding her kids properly. Their sunday meal was a sandwich paste sandwich and a packet of crips! My mum always made sure she had extras so they would get fed.

Equally food costs have risen compared sharply compared to wages.

@MootingMirror - hats off to you dfil, had food parcels been a thing when I was growing up, then they would have definitely been sold! I can remember when milk tokens didn't have t&c to state only for milk or formula, people would use them for their fags!

[Babyroobs]

@MootingMirror

DFIL is the Chair of Governors at a school in central London where there is a lot of food poverty etc and DH is a teacher (and I used to be one). I'll be honest even though I'll get slammed for it.
Children are not going hungry unless their parents are either not applying for the help they're entitled to or the parents are not prioritising the children over their own needs. When lockdown kicked in, DFILs school gave out vouchers for school lunches - the vouchers weren't spent on food for the students and the vulnerable children (who still attended school) turned up without lunches. (The canteen was closed which is why the vouchers were given out instead of them getting the meals at school). The school then handed out food parcels to the families instead of the vouchers and the students STILL came in without food because it was sold/swapped for other things. It got to the point where the very vulnerable children who came to school had the canteen reopened (in a limited capacity) and the school had staff going door-to-door handing out food to students and watching them open it so it couldn't be sold or traded elsewhere.
Food is cheap in this country, benefits have been raised, schools have provisions for pupil premium students - some parents do not care. What you're doing will help hungry children but those children are hungry because of their parents.

From what I have read the supermarkets were accepting the vouchers to be spent on anything anyway so probably better to give out actual lunches.

[Dillo10]

[quote feministfemme]@MootingMirror But why does it matter who's fault it is? I agree that feckless parents who don't care about their children are awful, but kids deserve to eat even if it's their parents fault.[/quote]
Of course it matters who's fault it is! At some point you HAVE to tackle the root of the problem. I don't believe that means we should not find any way possible under the sun to help kids who are going hungry, but it absolutely matters WHY we are in this situation. Just to be clear one more time, I am totally in support of school meals, cook4kids (I am personally taking part)