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?

Yes, every child has a right to food but some posters seem to have difficulty in understanding that some parents will not give them food.

You can give those 'parents' money/vouchers and they will nit spend it on food. They will spend it on themselves and the child will STILL goo hungry.

That is why IT DOES NOT WORK to give out money and vouchers because there is NO GURANTEE that the child will see those things translated into food.

It most certainly is NOT THE FAULT OF THE CHILD-which fool would think it was but IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THE CHILD IS STILL HUNGRY.

Join the frigging dots. It might salve consciences to think that it doesn't matter, as long as all parents are getting money/vouchers but it does matter because a MINORITY OF PARENTS will not use it for food.

So, there needs to be another way...a box of food with very little sell on value or a voucher allowed to be spent on a short list of food which again has very little sell on value. maybe a hall where meals can be served, although that has its own stigma problems.

That is a shame for most parents who wouldn't dream of using the money to spend on themselves but in order to form a safety net for those fuckers who would, I can see no other way.

So, stop coming out with misty eyed cant saying it isn't the fault of the children. WE all know it's not but some fuckers in charge of those children will not pass it on and the child will still go hungry.

And for those parents who are druggies-well those shits should not have care of children in the first place...what fucking looney thinks they should.

If anyone reading this, is one of those fucking loonies-then ask yourself would you be happy for them to have sole charge of your child for a month-or even your dog? If he answer is no, then don't wish it on another child dressed up as sociological posturing.

@rainyoutside They are not cows or sheep. They are hungry kids, who need food - I'm not sure why that terminology is upsetting? I'd say the same for hungry adults.

Schools don't have to be filled with hungry children. One hungry child is too many.

The fact is that as nice as wanting to help is, it is ultimately both patronising and entirely misses the point.

Someone will doubtless come back and say ‘I teach in a deprived area’ (so do I) and there are X number of hungry children.

To which I say, how do you know? Are you following them home?

@rainyoutside

The fact is that as nice as wanting to help is, it is ultimately both patronising and entirely misses the point.

Someone will doubtless come back and say ‘I teach in a deprived area’ (so do I) and there are X number of hungry children.

To which I say, how do you know? Are you following them home?

What point is it missing? And how is it patronising not to want kids to be malnourished?

Because first of all it assumes a bossy stance that ‘well if WE don’t do something, no one will.’

They will. Overwhelmingly, shockingly, a parent who claims benefits will love and prioritise their own child.

Incredible, isn’t it? Like a flying pig or a bird that can swim? The working class are the same as you.

@MootingMirror I thought your perspective was interesting. The reaction has been the predictable one by people who've not read what you wrote. I think what is needed is rehab programmes, better funding for social workers, of which we obviously have far too few, stronger

@rainyoutside No one is saying that people who claim benefits don't prioritise their child (at least I'm not). But it's hard to live on benefits and sometimes it's difficult to get food if you're in financial difficulty - there are kids in poverty where no one has the capacity to step in.

Monitoring of neglectful parents. You didn't at any point say you wanted kids to go hungry.

@Happyhippy99

Your OH is totally correct. You’re making a fool of yourself by looking so gullible and naive. No child needs go hungry. The benefit system provides plenty of money for a balanced diet, but many patents see it as pocket money for alcohol, drugs, phones etc and they are just laughing in your face as a soft touch to feed their children.

Your views are a bit of a mismatch with your user name, @Happyhippy99.

What happened to peace and love?

how do you know? Are you following them home?

Most school children can be asked, especially from junior age or so. Sure, some will lie for many reasons including trying to give the expected answer, fear, shame, and having given up that anyone cares, but generally kids can be encouraged to open up about their home life.

And it isn't just those on benefits or the working class that have kids that go hungry. Parents having means doesn't mean kids have means. And yes, some parents shouldn't have their kids I was raised by addicts and I know very well the repercussions but we all know the system is royally fucked up on that front and most of us have little power to do anything about that, so places finding ways to make things a bit better is great as long as you're not harming yourself in the process. Discussing ideas on how to improve charities and similar like this that are trying and the issues others have faced trying to tackle this heartbreaking issue, also great.

For those of you that are out of touch and unable to google, over 100 children a week are hospitalised with malnutrition.

''Nearly 2,500 children in England hospitalised with malnutrition since January, new research shows''

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/2500-children-hospitalised-malnutrition-england-a4496106.html

[quote Thelnebriati]For those of you that are out of touch and unable to google, over 100 children a week are hospitalised with malnutrition.

''Nearly 2,500 children in England hospitalised with malnutrition since January, new research shows''

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/2500-children-hospitalised-malnutrition-england-a4496106.html[/quote]
that's shocking!

thanks @MootingMirror I also thought it was a very interesting number of posts you've made and I for one hadn't realised the added complications with actually making sure the children were being fed, rather than 'just' handing food/vouchers out

The primary school near me opens for 2.5 hours every morning during the holidays and has done for many years. Usually 1 member of staff and 1 pta member. It's funded from the pupil premium.

They operate a book exchange and usually have something like a colouring competition. Any child is welcome, with or without a parent.

Any child that comes in can have a slice of toast and jam and a glass of juice. Any parent can have a hot drink and a biscuit.

Any child who wishes can pick up a packed lunch as they leave. It will usually have a ham or cheese sandwich in it, a piece of fruit and a flap Jack.

People are asked to contribute what they can. So I might have attended once a week and paid £5 for my child (knowing that their food and my cup of coffee cost about £1.50) but the child who is cold and hungry at home can be warm, fed and safe for a few hours for free.

Likewise the proud parent can drop a few coppers in so no shame attached but their DC are warm and fed and they themselves are warm, with a warm drink for a few pennies.

I would love to see a program like this properly funded.

My experience isn’t that children can be encouraged to open up about home life - the opposite. Many children are fiercely loyal to their parents and have a strong sense of shame which stops them from seeking help.

They may present as angry or withdrawn but they rarely tell you what’s going on at home - you are more likely to hear from parents.

@Poppingnostopping

It also may be the food is delivered, which would be better as well, but I'm not sure. Lots of people will take food if it comes to them, but won't be spending time/energy traveling to get food in the school holidays, rightly or wrongly.

And it isn't always easy if you don't live in a big town.

Our nearest supermarket is 2 miles away, on the edge of town. While 2 miles isn't a long walk, it's a struggle if you've got a lot of shopping to carry, and maybe a baby or toddler, especially as that 2 miles involves a 300ft uphill climb. The bus fare is £3.20, so a sum of money that could easily be 5% of a week's disposable income for a benefit-capped family. (And the bus service is shite, there's a 2-hour gap between buses from 10-4)

I totally get why people on low incomes will sometimes pop to the local convenience store where a loaf of bread is a lot more expensive rather than go to the supermarket.

Having food delivered would be the best option in many respects, but it would need to be discreet imo, to avoid stigmatisation.

That is shocking.

When a child is found to be malnourished their parents- be it a prince or pauper-should also be tested to see if they are doing ok themselves or if it is just their children that they have let go to hell.

The vast majority of hungery children are hungry because there isn't enough money in the house.

Giving vouchers instead of one packed lunch a day often means the whole family can eat. Fiftenn pounds a week in a supermarket will get a surprising amount.

It would be a rare child in a chronically poor family who'd sit and eat a school lunch, while younger siblings and parents looked on hungry.

Aggressive and judgemntal attitudes like those of @rashalert put families off asking for help.

And there are so many children who's parents are not entitled to help and are on very low wages, my friend keeps the lighting and heating off as much as possible to feed her children well, she earns dire money but isnt entitled to nothing, my other friend does not work and gets maximum benefits and openly admitted she did not need the food parcels that were delivered as she has a good income.

It needs to be revised accross the board, there are alot of parents at fault but as pointed out these little kids arent and they need to bed fed, it is so sad.

Reading this thread I can see how workhouses were brought in. And I'm not really criticising anyone posting here or even the feckless parents, but people are trying to find the most economical way to feed every child, even the ones with feckless parents, but without letting even one penny fall by accident into the hands of the feckless parents.

I can't see how that can be done without humilliating many, many decent honest parents who are the honest poor.

I agree with MootingMirror, there is support, it's just the main culprits are parents who have other priorities other than their kids, and food.

The fact we even have food banks or child poverty is positively Dickensian. We’re living in 21st century Britain, this should not be a thing.

Genuine question - if there are so many hungry children ( and possibly adults) then why is there a childhood and general obesity epidemic ?

@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.

Whatever the reason - kids are hungry. Feed the children first and fight the root of the cause second. Children can’t be allowed to suffer because of the misfortune/otherwise of their parents.

I worked for a charity and one of the sister charities used to look after young people who lived in dire situations - usually like a drop in centre of after school homework club. One time we had a clothes drive after a kid turned up, cold and wet with no winter clothes. He was too scared to go home because his mum tried to commit suicide a few times and she was just out of hospital again - he just couldn’t face it. They found him hiding behind the charity house without a coat or socks (in the snow). The charity staff were crying.

Whatever the reason - the mum couldn’t cope with her life, let alone her child’s. We found a lot of neglect of children of people whose lives had just spiralled.

I always remember what my mum used to say ‘most mums look down at your newborn baby and think what wonderful things they will do for them - not how they can harm them’.

The vast majority of hungery children are hungry because there isn't enough money in the house.

Thats not true.

I love the way the black & white mumsnet posters think the answer is to provide more school dinners and can’t be told otherwise. Open your eyes! Or even better get a job or volunteer in a food bank or public services and then come back in 6 months and see if you still have the same attitude.

Any kind of giving back is fantastic but don’t be naive to how little a difference it makes. The vast majority of child poverty issues are because there are so many shit parents. Until we digest, acknowledge and try and figure out a solution for this uncomfortable truth then anything you do is like throwing a bucket of water over an erupting volcano.