To believe that providing free meals for children

[Completelyfrozen]

Is not enough!
I hear people saying that children shouldn't go hungry and I wholeheartedly agree. It is a travesty in 2020 that any child goes hungry, regardless of the reason behind it, but is that where our responsibility as a society ends?
I want to live in a society where children are provided with a hot meal every day.
A warm dry bed to sleep in at night.
Warm clean dry clothes.
Facilities to wash and brush their teeth.
Warm dry shoes.
An adequate education.
Opportunities to play and socialise.
A safe environment to grow up in.
A home free from damp or mould.
I want to live in a society where adults have access to hot water and washing facilities so they can keep themselves and their children clean.
What can we do, as a nation to address these issues so that children have their most basic requirements met?
YABU - Providing one hot meal per day is enough and parents should provide the rest, despite their circumstances. It is not the govts responsibility to provide anything more.
YANBU - Providing one free meal a day is just the start but as a society, we need to do much much more to ensure children are provided these basic needs and if the parents cannot provide these basic items for any reason, then the govt has a responsibility to step in and provide them.

Certainly no child should be going hungry.

Having worked as a school secretary for years I strongly believe that many parents should be given food vouchers as part of their benefits, not all cash. Its apparent that there are parents who spend their benefits on other priorities and food and clothing for their children is not one.

True, you can't absolutely future proof your life, but there are different ways of dealing with adversity, and some situations which can be improved, but not all will find a way to do that.

As for accidents, if it's not the injured persons fault (be it a car accident or one in the workplace) then that's what personal injury claims are for.

Food banks should not be a thing in 2020.

I disagree.

In the past, neighbours and churches would tide over those who had a need. It was never the government.

Nowadays, people don’t know their neighbours and fewer and fewer people belong to churches.

However, churches are basically running the foodbanks, and church staff can provide vouchers.

A few churches in my area have been providing holiday meals for children for quite a few years, so MR’s shouting is not a new thing.

Groups like CAP, as well as debt relief, run classes to provide life skills, including cooking on a budget.

I much prefer the voluntary sector running initiatives in their communities rather than the inflexible public sector.

DBML, your husband's experience is so sad. It's impressive that despite that even at 15 he took th initiative to try and do something about it. As you say, for parents like his mother, more money wouldn't be a solution.

I wonder if children in families like that could receive a direct payment (child benefit or similar) once they reach a certain age? To cover their basic needs if parents weren't. Would it be too much responsibility though, is it fair to ask a kid in their early teens to shoulder that? I'm not sure it would work in practice. But increasing money paid directly to the parents and which the kids never see wouldn't help either.

I think it's true that "something" needs to be done about families where history repeats itself for generations and numerous children are born to parents without the means, practically or financially, to raise them but letting their children be hungry isn't it.

I'd like to see the figures but intuitively, from working in schools with a high proportion of fsm children, I'd say the majority of claimants aren't from those families but people who fully expected to be able to feed their own children but have had had a devastating change of circumstances - yes, most often disappearing fathers, but again forcing mothers to see their children go hungry won't change that.

Parents should be responsible for their children.

Means both parents.

I know a lot of single mothers who should get a gold medal in financial gymnastics to keep a roof over their heads and to put food on the table. Where it has come tumbling down over one tiny crisis.
In all cases the father is absent and doesn’t pay a penny towards their children despite some earning a fair amount.

I do think that in some cases that if you remove the need for parents to feed their children then some parents (both mothers and fathers) will just absolve all responsibility to put food on the table.
As seen by how many fathers refuse to pay for their children

I'm in Ireland where there's no "hot dinners" or blanket "free school meals" programs, however our schools are banded according to their need. It is based on latest CSO (central statistics office) figures and data from the Census of Population and the HP Index.
b) The HP Index is a method of measuring the relative affluence or disadvantage of a particular geographical area based on the CSO SAP statistics. The HP Index involves three dimensions of affluence/disadvantage: Demographic Profile (age, education, population increase), Social Class Composition (education level, employment sector, mean number of persons per room) and Labour Market Situation (percentage of unskilled workers, unemployment profile, one parent family profile).
The HP Index provides a statistical tool for the identification of geographic areas where high levels of disadvantage represent a high risk of educational disadvantage.

The schools that fall into these categories are provided with packed lunches free. The rest are not. (But can I just say as a teacher that works in a school in a highly deprived area, the children in my school STILL bring in their own lunch. There's not many who don't at all.)

Surely the U.K. could adopt a similar approach going forward instead of a blanket provision for reception- y2??where I'm imagining is being wasted in some more affluent areas??
I think in cases where circumstances change then a form being filled in and approved by the school/job centre etc may then make a family eligible for fsm??

Thank for @NewAndImprovedMe and I wish you lots of luck. You can turn things around and it sounds like you already are starting too. Remember to be kind to yourself in the meantime, beating yourself up about past decisions never helps. I think “I’m doing the best I can” is a helpful mantra at times, as well as “I did the best I could at the time”, as those things are always true

Thank you also @GoldfishParade. I may sound strong on paper, and when I look back I see that I was. It didn’t feel like it at the time though and I cried a LOT. In the shower, driving my car to work, in the toilets at work But life is now better than it’s ever been

I think schools should give out the branded parts of their school uniform to families on pupil premium - the actual uniform, not vouchers. If the school is going to insist on uniform with their logo on, sold by a private company (there is only one shop where we can buy uniform for local schools) when that uniform costs a lot more than supermarket brands, then the school should bear the cost of making that uniform available to low income families.

If the school think this is too expensive then there is a message in that for them.

My eldest needed mandatory PE kit during that time, that came to £76. That was without the football boots, trainers etc, just the school branded kit. Again, how to children feel if they haven’t got the right stuff and are in trouble for it, or judged by the other children?

@Oliversmumsarmy

Parents should be responsible for their children.

Means both parents.

I know a lot of single mothers who should get a gold medal in financial gymnastics to keep a roof over their heads and to put food on the table. Where it has come tumbling down over one tiny crisis.
In all cases the father is absent and doesn’t pay a penny towards their children despite some earning a fair amount.

I do think that in some cases that if you remove the need for parents to feed their children then some parents (both mothers and fathers) will just absolve all responsibility to put food on the table.
As seen by how many fathers refuse to pay for their children

Yes you’re completely right.

I remember that this was really strict in the past, and didn’t it get taken directly out of the father’s wage packet?

When did it change?

I absolutely agree the universal infant fsm is a nonsense. The cost is huge and its unecessary. If anything it further disadvantages the most disadvantaged because without the "need" to apply for a fsm children who should get it can miss out on pupil premium.

@Oliversmumsarmy

Parents should be responsible for their children.

Means both parents.

I know a lot of single mothers who should get a gold medal in financial gymnastics to keep a roof over their heads and to put food on the table. Where it has come tumbling down over one tiny crisis.
In all cases the father is absent and doesn’t pay a penny towards their children despite some earning a fair amount.

I do think that in some cases that if you remove the need for parents to feed their children then some parents (both mothers and fathers) will just absolve all responsibility to put food on the table.
As seen by how many fathers refuse to pay for their children

This a million per cent

I think schools insisting on expensive and/or logo'd school uniform are a bloody disgrace. All uniform should be standard colours (navy, black, green, grey etc - one of the primaries round here insists kids wear brown, imossible to get outside the uniform shop) and available in supermarkets.

If schools want logos they could sell iron on in or sew on transfers and blazer badges.

No school needs an expensive uniform.

What is the answer though? I would like to see decent wages for all workers. Above this, what else can we be doing? What about those who don't want to work and thus resign their kids to a childhood of poverty? And please, no one give me the 'no one wants to live on benefits' line. I grew up in a household (and within a larger extended family of people) who if they worked as hard in a job as they did trying to find any reason under the sun not to work, they'd be millionaires.

I much prefer the voluntary sector running initiatives in their communities rather than the inflexible public sector

Postcode lottery... some get help others don't.

As seen by how many fathers refuse to pay for their children

Many of these fathers disappear to have more children in another family and/or on benefits themselves, how would they pay?

I absolutely agree the universal infant fsm is a nonsense. The cost is huge and its unecessary

A bit like child benefit then? doubtless you claim that, whether you need it or not.

@jasjas1973

A bit like child benefit then? doubtless you claim that, whether you need it or not.
But child benefit is means tested!! In the U.K. it is.

@Sheknowsaboutme

Certainly no child should be going hungry.

Having worked as a school secretary for years I strongly believe that many parents should be given food vouchers as part of their benefits, not all cash. Its apparent that there are parents who spend their benefits on other priorities and food and clothing for their children is not one.

Yes I think you’re right. People will probably say it’s not fair, and cry human liberties etc but it would be something different to try instead of throwing more money at the problem....

Benefits should never be seen as a lifestyle choice, should only be used as a short term, emergency measure. (Aside from those who do work but are on low wages).

[quote kittykat35]@jasjas1973

A bit like child benefit then? doubtless you claim that, whether you need it or not.
But child benefit is means tested!! In the U.K. it is. [/quote]
Only after 50k p.a and two parents earning 49k each can claim all of it.

“Food banks should not be a thing in 2020.“

There will always be people who have an emergency and who need urgent help....but the problem with giving away anything for free is that people start to become reliant on it as they then start to spend their money other things. (Probably the same with free school meals).

I used to donate a lot to the foodbank but was completely put off when one of the people who ran it at the local church was giving a talk asking people to donate, and gave examples of the type of people they helped.

One example was a parent who needed the food bank through the holidays as otherwise her children would not be able to continue their horse riding lessons.

I was gobsmacked! One, because I wouldn’t dream of prioritising something like that over feeding my kids, and two because my kids would love to do that but we just couldn’t afford it. I had presumed it was for people who were desperate.

I’m afraid since then I haven’t donated a thing to the foodbank.

But it's still means tested all the same..,I don't agree with how that is done either to be honest but that's another days argument.

There are parents out there who are selfish and make the wrong choices but the children should not be punished. I was raised by a single mother and our dad was barely involved as he preferred drink to being a responsible parent. Without benefits and free school meals we would have been in a terrible state. Even without that there were times we had holes in our shoes and we lived for a year without hot water due to boiler breaking - we used to boil kettle for washing. In the end someone from a local church heard and paid for another boiler. My mum used to sometimes run out of money and weekly shopping from Kwick save was put on credit cards. We always had cheap foods no names brands.

I grew up and got married and had 2 children. My husband then walked out and refused to pay a penny. My oldest got pneumonia and then got recurrent chest infections requiring hospital stays and would have to be kept at home most of the time. I had to stop working and rely on benefits. I did then start studying part time (access and then uni) and by then could work in daytime and study at night but only because my mum looked after the children after school and on my uni evenings due to childcare costing so much. Still ex refuses to pay and child maintenance got involved and put deduction of earnings in place but he still found ways to get out and there’s still no proper payments in place just large arrears.

I managed to turn things round and get a decent paid job and met a wonderful man who happily uses his income to pay for my children. Without benefits, the help of my mum and meeting my partner my children would be living in poverty yet their father gets to sit on £30,000 a year and not be forced to pay a penny!

We need to provide opportunities for parents in bad financial situations to change their lives, ensure no child lives in poverty, look after the disabled and stop blaming single mothers and make fathers pay their fair share. I can’t understand why some people let children be punished for the mistakes of their parents we will never change the pattern if we do this.

@AwaAnBileYerHeid

What is the answer though? I would like to see decent wages for all workers. Above this, what else can we be doing? What about those who don't want to work and thus resign their kids to a childhood of poverty? And please, no one give me the 'no one wants to live on benefits' line. I grew up in a household (and within a larger extended family of people) who if they worked as hard in a job as they did trying to find any reason under the sun not to work, they'd be millionaires.

Decent wages would be a start, but I suppose they’d have to increase those on higher wages too to make it fair, so may not be economically viable.

I do think there should be an incentive to work, and that anyone who does work, even on the minimum wage, (and not just a few hours a week) should be better off financially than those who don’t. To me that’s just basic fairness.

And before anyone says jobs aren’t available, I have known a few friends recently who have been made redundant from different roles. All have managed to secure new positions pretty quickly.

Many of these fathers disappear to have more children in another family and/or on benefits themselves, how would they pay?
Perhaps they should have considered that before having more children? I mean single mums get told all the time they shouldn't have children they can't afford. That works both ways.

The truth is that the planet is over populated - we don’t have enough resources for the population we have already. We don’t need people having massive families just because they can. It should be a difficult decision to have a child and you shouldn’t do it unless you have good reason to think you can support them yourself.

@Watermelon999

We once spotted one of the customers at our food bank two days later in Waitrose, with a huge trolley full of shopping. Abuses do happen, sadly, but we just have to risk accept that, because the majority of customers are in genuine need.

@stickystick

The truth is that the planet is over populated - we don’t have enough resources for the population we have already. We don’t need people having massive families just because they can. It should be a difficult decision to have a child and you shouldn’t do it unless you have good reason to think you can support them yourself.

Agree.

Neither is a new child needed in every new relationship, I’ve seen plenty who seem to think it’s only a proper relationship if you have a child with them.