A loaf and a block of cheese is not lunch for ten days THREAD 2

[ZazieSheHer]

A loaf and a block of cheese is not lunch for ten days ORIGINAL THREAD

@pointythings

Excellent news on the U-turn - but why is it that every bloody time this government needs to have its nose rubbed in its own corruption before it decides to do the right thing?

This x a million.

Can I just ask....is the idea that the government provision (voucher if food box) covers 5x lunches or all the meals for that child for the week, or food for the child plus extra for other family members?

I ask, because I think this is where confusion lies in terms of the food and the costs too. In my mind it was for the 5 lunches they would have at school. Well it doesn’t cost £30 to provide 5 lunches at home. And actually, some of the pictures look to provide more food than one of my children would have over the course of 5 lunches at home.

But if the government has decided £30 is the provision to be made (would certainly cover far more than 5 lunches and probably all the food for 1 child per week - if it were multiplied by 4 for a typical household, it would give £120 which should be enough to feed a family without too much trouble) then there does need to be more food.

However, comparing a food box to what you could get in the supermarket doesn’t make sense. That firm will have costs of staff etc. People forget that.

What exactly do people think should be provided for lunches. One of my teen children across 5 lunches would probably get through;

• 6 slices of bread
• 4 rolls
• half a pack of cheese
• couple of ham slices
• 5 pieces of fruit
• half a tub of cherry tomatoes and some carrots
• pack of biscuits
• half a cake

Or is this food provision meant to provide a cooked meal?

It’s just not clear exactly what the government is aiming to provide and u til we know that it’s hard to say if the pile of food is adequate or not.

However, comparing a food box to what you could get in the supermarket doesn’t make sense. That firm will have costs of staff etc. People forget that.

Nobody forgot that. Supermarkets have overheads too.

However, comparing a food box to what you could get in the supermarket doesn’t make sense. That firm will have costs of staff etc. People forget that.

Those overheads are the reason vouchers/money should be given directly to the families to make their own decisions and to ensure more food can be brought.

Our local food bank community is providing 25 meals for 20 pounds for instance, as a meal box, to those who can afford it (referrals are free as well for those who cant).

This is all a political thing isn’t it and not really about food.

I actually think Chartwell’s have been really unfortunate in getting drawn into a political game and used as a political football. So they were told to provide stuff for 5 lunches. And they did that. Not the most inspired but actually not that different from what most children might have for lunch across 5 days and far more food I’d say than many eat for lunch across a week.

And then there was the social media posting. And yes, I can see the food did t equate to £30 of food.....but was it to be 5 lunches or £30 of food? You could buy 5 takeaway lunches in M and S for £30 or a large basket of food for £30 which is far more than is needed for 5 home made standard lunches.

And then everyone is in parliament and on social media saying it’s disgusting and slating Chartwells. Why? It’s an easy way for everyone to show they are concerned with inequality...an easy win in terms of popularity. Who loses out? Chartwells as the mean capitalist provider...but they can easily be sacrificed can’t they. No-one cares about exactly what they were told to provide and so they’ve had to apologise profusely and again and again can be cited as the baddie in this....so government can be seen as supporting child meals and supporting redistribution of income.

But it doesn’t all quite hold together does it.

What is government trying to provide? 5 lunches? £30 of food which is far more than 5 lunches? What are people expecting? Stuff for 5 lunches? £30 of food? Some vouchers they can use at the shops which will actually cover half their weekly food shop? There’s a disconnect in terms of expectation.

These are facts.

To be honest I'm not quite sure what the facts are. The title of this thread says lunch for ten days - but apparently the mother who posted the original photograph made a mistake and the food parcel was meant for five days - is that correct? Still not acceptable but where does £30 come from?

And the Tory donor is no longer in charge of the parent company - he left on the 1st December - but apparently it's his fault anyway?

And yes, I do think the schools are partly to blame for not speaking up. For months teachers have posted on here about delivering food parcels to pupils on fsm - have the parcels contained a decent amount of food for lunch or not?

David Lammy tweeted a photograph of food meant for one month in Finland - not five days or ten days.

‘Supermarket have overheads too’
Their costs are not comparable to those of a school caterer who is sourcing food for distribution, packaging and delivering it.

A school caterer will always be able to provide less food for £30 than Tesco will.

That’s not to say Chartwells provided £30 worth of food plus other costs they’d incurred. But we’re they told to provide that or to provide 5 lunch worths of food...it’s not the same thing at all.

Vouchers do seem a better option. People have to do shopping anyway and adding in the lunch bits to the food shop makes sense and more value and bulk buying can happen. And no doubt, if it’s £15 or £30, some if that can subsidise the rest of the family’s food shop..which is fine too.

But the reality will also be that when children return to school and have their free lunch again, families won’t have the vouchers or be able to subsidise their weekly shop with them. They will then be worse off and this will provoke issues.

So is the government looking to provide 5 lunches or is it looking to help fund the food bill for families? Again, it’s not the same thing and differences of expectation are part of the problem.

There is an issue about FSM.

But this is about political point scoring. Soooo much misinformation and playing on emotion to score political points. Pictures of carefully laid out food to make it look like a lot or not much. This £30 figure bandied about. Everyone being outraged about hungry children so they can be seen to be supportive of improving equality. And a total lack of clarity about the purpose of these meals and what exactly they are mean to cover.

People in here outraged...but about what exactly? Is it because they think firms have been profiteering or because they think children have been left hungry? Again there’s a disconnect between expectation of some families (£30 of food - they picture what they can buy in the supermarket and the fact that cover half their weeks food shop) vs the stuff for 5 lunches for 1 child.

@Clavinova

These are facts.

To be honest I'm not quite sure what the facts are. The title of this thread says lunch for ten days - but apparently the mother who posted the original photograph made a mistake and the food parcel was meant for five days - is that correct? Still not acceptable but where does £30 come from?

And the Tory donor is no longer in charge of the parent company - he left on the 1st December - but apparently it's his fault anyway?

And yes, I do think the schools are partly to blame for not speaking up. For months teachers have posted on here about delivering food parcels to pupils on fsm - have the parcels contained a decent amount of food for lunch or not?

David Lammy tweeted a photograph of food meant for one month in Finland - not five days or ten days.

If you're not sure of the facts I don't know why you're defending them.

Of course he's to blame! Whether he left four weeks ago (convenient ) or not . And she didn't get it wrong , they backtracked. Re your point about teachers feeding kids - they've been doing that for years. Child poverty is real. I can't believe you're blaming schools! Why are you so defensive of a corrupt government?

Also....we do speak up. Regularly. sadly our voices are drowned out by people like you who are more interested in David Lammys tweets than the issue of starving children being stolen from.

@WombatChocolate

There is an issue about FSM.

But this is about political point scoring. Soooo much misinformation and playing on emotion to score political points. Pictures of carefully laid out food to make it look like a lot or not much. This £30 figure bandied about. Everyone being outraged about hungry children so they can be seen to be supportive of improving equality. And a total lack of clarity about the purpose of these meals and what exactly they are mean to cover.

People in here outraged...but about what exactly? Is it because they think firms have been profiteering or because they think children have been left hungry? Again there’s a disconnect between expectation of some families (£30 of food - they picture what they can buy in the supermarket and the fact that cover half their weeks food shop) vs the stuff for 5 lunches for 1 child.

Thanks for accepting it's an issue. Good of you.

We are outraged on both counts. Why?

Also, I've said this hundreds of times now. It's. Not. Just. For. Their. lunch. (In the majority of cases ).

I don't care about the government or point scoring. I'm not sure what point anyone defending the government is actually making but to imply we are the ones manipulating starving weans is deluded.

Wombat the £30 figure came about because the original scheme gave parents £15 per week. So 10 days' worth = 2 weeks = £30.

That scheme would have been a life saver for many parents on very low incomes and you're right - the benefits would have been felt by more people than just the child involved. Do you think that's a bad thing? To me it just goes to show that there are too many people living in a rich country like the UK who are living on the breadline.

The 'Food Parcels First' scheme that was brought in was quite simply mean of spirit. If anything, people are worse off in this second lockdown than first time around - but the Government wilfully chose to give them less. Only a Tory supporter would be OK with that.

Whether he left four weeks ago (convenient)

He announced he was leaving in January 2020 (a year ago) - his replacement was announced in August 2020 - from their website.

And she didn't get it wrong, they backtracked.

Do you have a link? Why did school think the amount of food in the parcel was acceptable for 10 days?

the school

@Clavinova

Whether he left four weeks ago (convenient)

He announced he was leaving in January 2020 (a year ago) - his replacement was announced in August 2020 - from their website.

And she didn't get it wrong, they backtracked.

Do you have a link? Why did school think the amount of food in the parcel was acceptable for 10 days?

Clav you have once again ignored the vast majority of my post and played semantics with figures. I couldn't give a rats backside when he left.

Nobody thinks that was sufficient. What would you have liked the school to do? Magic up another four tins of peas to subsidise it? Schools ARE making noise. You're just not listening because you're so obsessed with proving this woman to be a liar and ignoring the many voices on the thread who witness child poverty first hand.

don't know who's worse . The corrupt money hungry selling contracts to their pals to profit from hungry weans or the people who want to quibble about whether it's five days ten days or 235 days and want links to everything rather than responding to the many first hand posts of teachers who have fed these children themselves. Many of these children only have that one meal a day and live in poverty but no amount of us saying that stops the 'oh but that's a fine lunch' posts. People have no idea. And then you've got the ooh don't give them vouchers brigade claiming that parents are down the shops on a Saturday selling their vouchers for vodka while their three month old baby cleans the house. There are people who will abuse every system but this has been a clear case of corruption and stealing from weans but nobody seems to think this is an issue. We hand out money left right and centre to weasels who drive and break lockdown rules- 40 grand pay rise for Dominic Cummings but we can't find the cash to send weans more than a loaf of bread and two tins of peas. But the Tory funder left in DECEMBER , or was it 5 days or 10. Who cares. I honestly despair. I really do.

Wheresmykimchi
You're just not listening because you're so obsessed with proving this woman to be a liar

I didn't call the woman a liar - I said she made a mistake.

You didn't have to post (convenient) as a sly dig about the Tory donor.

@Clavinova

Wheresmykimchi You're just not listening because you're so obsessed with proving this woman to be a liar

I didn't call the woman a liar - I said she made a mistake.

You didn't have to post (convenient) as a sly dig about the Tory donor.

It wasn't a sly dig. it was a massive dig. You are deluded if he was just a nice wee man who funded the Tory party and got the contracts and then left.

I'm assuming that given you've blames everyone from the school to this woman to the media that you think what is being delivered is acceptable? Because you haven't actually addressed that .

Clav the point is that we have a Tory government. The government came up with this replacement scheme. Therefore they are responsible for its failures. Do please try to admit that Tories are capable of doing things that are abhorrent wrong. I know it'll be hard, but I'm sure you can manage it just this once.

A school caterer will always be able to provide less food for £30 than Tesco will

Which is precisely why the use of vouchers was sensible and cost effective. Value for money should be paramount in public expenditure.

we can't find the cash to send weans more than a loaf of bread and two tins of peas.

We can - the government's guidelines for the food parcels are here;

laca.co.uk/laca-view/free-school-meals-guidance-producing-food-parcels

[quote Clavinova]we can't find the cash to send weans more than a loaf of bread and two tins of peas.

We can - the government's guidelines for the food parcels are here;

laca.co.uk/laca-view/free-school-meals-guidance-producing-food-parcels[/quote]
Clav...

Do you live in the real world or just on websites?

I am honestly not even surprised at this point thats the one sentence you took from my post . I've gone from being irate to amused now that I've realised it's a waste of time attempting to take you seriously it must be nice in your world.

If this money or food is there to feed the children 3 meals a day, then that should be made clear.
People can understand that a decent amount of food and far more is needed for your total food intake than for a q quick snack lunch....which is what most people picture as this food parcel needing to provide.

I agree totally that children should not be hungry and the system needs to provide for them.
If people are to support the system (and acts important too) then what the policy is aiming to achieve needs to be made clearer. It hasn't been clear. And that in itself gives scope to those who naturally might not support it and creates further divisions and is understandings in an already divided society.

The government came up with this replacement scheme. Therefore they are responsible for its failures

I don't actually agree with this, and I despite the Government.

A scheme had to be devised due to lockdown. It was contracted out in a tendered process, which may or may not have been fair (we don't know how that bidding worked in reality so let's assume the process was fair).

In any other situation if a contractor doesn't perform after a fair tendering process has been carried out, then it is the fault of the contractor who agreed to provide the services. Chartwells have demonstrated they can perform previously so the government were not aware there was going to be an issue if the contract was awarded to them (it's not like th GS4 contracts where there have been multiple issues and the contracts still get bloody awarded to them). As far as I can see there's nothing in the past that has suggested there was going to be a major issue with this.

Happy to be corrected on past issues though...

I work in a supermarket and I've seen first hand parents try to use the vouchers for alcohol and cigarettes but I also believe that parents should be given the dignity to buy the food themselves. I mean have we gone back to Dickens's time where folk are literally begging for assistance to feed their kids while the fat cat Tory knobheads get richer.

@WombatChocolate

If this money or food is there to feed the children 3 meals a day, then that should be made clear. People can understand that a decent amount of food and far more is needed for your total food intake than for a q quick snack lunch....which is what most people picture as this food parcel needing to provide.

I agree totally that children should not be hungry and the system needs to provide for them.
If people are to support the system (and acts important too) then what the policy is aiming to achieve needs to be made clearer. It hasn't been clear. And that in itself gives scope to those who naturally might not support it and creates further divisions and is understandings in an already divided society.

I agree wombat.

But we have had marvellous posts from teachers upthread who see this first hand (not me, I just rant )

I don't understand why people are so pigheaded and stubborn about an issue they know nothing about. If people don't know that some children have this as their only meal, why on earth are they defending the government in a policy they clearly know nothing about?

It is not the job of the schools or the parents to educate people on child poverty. It is the job of people to listen and read and understand first hand experiences not prattle on about government guidelines.