No free school meals during Feb half term

[noblegiraffe]

The new guidance on free school meals says that schools should not provide food or vouchers during Feb half term.

This won’t be needed as some general funding is going to LAs and they will be expected to provide food/support for the week schools are off.

This is bonkers, right? They’ve only just sorted it so that kids get more than a manky banana, cheese and dry bread for lunch and they’re going to switch to a different system for a week?

Does this government just really hate feeding hungry kids?

YANBU: sticking with one system for feeding disadvantaged kids would be best

YABU: it’ll be fine, no one will fall through the cracks and the transition will be seamless.

It is getting ridiculous now. Soon the school will be required to give out food for the weekend.

@DeepaBeesKit

The problem is noble, it costs money. Everything costs money and the government is clean out of it.

Some people literally do think there should be zero personal responsibility and that the government should provide everything.

Except there are masses of money to give to rich friends of the government. Over 5 billion money is estimated to be wasted during the pandemic or given to criminal gangs. But feeding kids - no just a step too far. If the government actually prioritised people in need things would be very different.

@edwinbear

I don't think anyone thinks children should go hungry, of course not, but the primary responsibility to ensure children aren't going hungry is with the parents, not the state. The cost of 5 lunches over half term is minimal, especially compared to the admin needed to provide those. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect parents to provide lunch for their children for 5 says, no.

I see this argument a lot. But I would suggest that even if the parents are utterly feckless and selfish (which contrary to what the government would like us to believe, I don't think is the case) it is never the fault of the children and they should never be at risk of going hungry. Costs are minimal, particularly when you compare to the money spent on ventilators that never actually materialised and on track and trace.

@DeepaBeesKit

The problem is noble, it costs money. Everything costs money and the government is clean out of it.

Some people literally do think there should be zero personal responsibility and that the government should provide everything.

Probably because they paid their mates billions on track and trace and other covid related useless things.

@edwinbear yes some people do think kids should go hungry.
This is the same argument used in the US when kids literally sleep on the street with their mum i.e. its not up to the state to sort this, its up to parents to sort it. Which means some kids sleep on the street.
You can either sound off pontificating, or you can actually do something so kids don't go hungry. But the well off have been pontificating for hundreds of years about how it is the fault of the poor if they or their kids are hungry or cold. They will carry on doing it. Because morally it feels a satisfactory place to be.
And kids will continue to go hungry.

@Ghoulette

This thread is vile! Imagine wanting children to starve (and FYI: a large amount of children WILL for those of you living your cushty lives, voting Tory with no sense of what the real world is like for the poor) just because the handouts are free?

This entire fucking thread smacks of class division, and reminds me of this utterly despicable review over homelessness and blankets. Photo attached

Do you have statistics or evidence related to the numbers of children who have starved in the uk in the last 2 years?

A larger proportion of kids that I see at school pick up these days look overweight to me, so I’m not sure I agree with you at all.

We are lucky in this country to have the safety net of the welfare state and also numerous charities. Other countries have nowhere near as much help available.

The trouble is, the more help you give the more people want. It should absolutely be provided as a short term solution to anyone who finds themselves out of work suddenly. It should not be a lifestyle choice. I’m not including those who work and are low paid and get top up benefits in this, as I feel that everyone should have a living wage.

Sorry but I come across so many people through work who claim they are unable to work for spurious reasons (not the genuinely disabled), and expect to have a certain lifestyle funded for them by the tax payer.

Yeah we have it all here. Genuinely disabled and fakers. All kids are fat not lacking food, etc. Sometimes I can imagine these same posters back in time telling Scrooge he was right and the ghosts were wrong.

@SmallPrawnEnergy

The ones coming here just because there a free handouts. Even though they have arrived to safe countries before coming to England. Christ. Do people still really trot out this bullshit? I thought people on this site were generally educated individuals?

The bigoted and not very bright tend to make comments like that. There is no obligation on refugees to stop at the first safe country they get to.

Not that that is the point of the thread. As a PP said, I don't see how anyone could have watched Dispatches this week without being heartbroken and appalled that children are growing up in such poverty.

[quote julieca]@QueenofKattegat yep. MN is not representative of most peoples views though. Only well off selfish fuckers.[/quote]
Who are often desperate to tell us that a 6 figure salary doesn't go far.

@ilovesooty exactly.

The problem is noble, it costs money. Everything costs money and the government is clean out of it.

Unless it’s something they want to spend it on like contracts for their mates. Then there’s millions or even billions going spare. And no comeback if it’s spaffed up the wall on unaccredited labs who tell tens of thousands of people the wrong covid result. For example.

@Iamnotthe1 did you find that the parents had the money to spend on themselves though? I know you couldn't know exactly, but there are a number of disadvantaged kids at our school and the parents seem to have the money for coffees/ bottle of WKD that they slug out the local supermarket at 10am whilst smoking. Now this isn't all of them, and certainly I'd say a few of these have some kind of MHC which may make working more tricky ( or maybe they work later on? For balance ) But I think often it's not a case of they can't feed their kids, it's that they don't out of choice and I understand why others resent this help. It's not wanting to starve a child, it's the reality that I go without things I need and things that would be nice, such as a takeaway coffee to provide lunch for my kids. My clothes all have holes, but I can't get help or given £20 voucher to get some tops in the supermarket.

And before ANYONE tells me I "shouldn't have had kids I couldn't afford", I had them when I could afford them. Circumstances change and you should ALL appreciate what you have because you can so easily lose everything in the space of a day

Are people really so silly that they can't appreciate that people lose their jobs, get ill etc years after having kids? Why does this always have to be pointed out?

Everything costs money and the government is clean out of it

no it isn't, it just misspends our money. There is plenty of money if it spent it wisely.

@QueenofKattegat

MN is just the Daily Mail comments section now, isn't it.

"By parents for parents" my fat arse.

Shameful.

I'm sure you have a very nice arse which isn't fat AT ALL.......😁

@ColinTheKoala

Everything costs money and the government is clean out of it

no it isn't, it just misspends our money. There is plenty of money if it spent it wisely.

When the government misspends our money, nothing you can do about that, in fact let's give them another chance. If the parents misspend their money, it's their fault and their kids deserve to starve.

And of course this government who can't afford to feed children or maintain the £20 universal credit uplift buy can find the money to award contracts to their dodgy mates would be reelected tomorrow.

Because 'but Labour' and 'but they say only women have a cervix'. Or something.

Waxonwaxoff0

But that was my point. I was entitled to FSM either though I was considerably poorer when working.

Feeding children in the holidays using FSM in the holidays is poor practice. What about those just scraping by in work? Someone mentioned subsidised holiday clubs feeding children which would seem to make more sense. Solves two problems at once.

@Lightisnotwhite

Waxonwaxoff0

But that was my point. I was entitled to FSM either though I was considerably poorer when working.

Feeding children in the holidays using FSM in the holidays is poor practice. What about those just scraping by in work? Someone mentioned subsidised holiday clubs feeding children which would seem to make more sense. Solves two problems at once.

Yes I get that, but most people are not poorer when working as most people not working won't have the grants and loans that you had as a uni student. If you're on UC with school age children, you are always better off financially when you're working, I've been through that myself.

@Waxonwaxoff0 it was the case with tax credits because if you were on a low enough income to receive working tax credits you weren’t allowed to claim FSM. I think UC is fairer in that respect as it’s income based

Did the labour government provide free meals for children during school holidays when they were in power? Not being goady, I genuinely don't know. I'm thinking particularly about the time of the recession in 2007 - 2009.

Housing benefit hadn’t been frozen for years then, plus other benefits. No cap, no benefit sanctions. Less zero hours contracts

Don't parents have any responsibility these days?

I don’t understand the need for FSM for all in KS1. We are not in a deprived area and you can’t move for Range Rovers and Mercs at picking up time. Maybe stop the fsm for thise who don’t need them and divert the savings?

I think the argument was that it’s cheaper to provide them for everyone than to pay for the admin to assess the claims for who is and isn’t entitled

The argument was providing FSMs for all avoids stigmatising those who rely on them and encourages their uptake. This is especially important amongst families in poverty as it allows them to spend what little money they have on heating and keeping a roof over their heads rather than packed lunches so their children aren't ostracised.

It also ensures all children get a nutritious meal as some parents regardless of wealth seem unable to provide healthy lunches.

I'd also say that the purpose originally was to enable children to be in the best circumstances to learn rather than being hungry. That's why they aren't a holiday or weekend thing.

@oviraptor21

I don’t understand the need for FSM for all in KS1. We are not in a deprived area and you can’t move for Range Rovers and Mercs at picking up time. Maybe stop the fsm for thise who don’t need them and divert the savings?

I think the argument was that it’s cheaper to provide them for everyone than to pay for the admin to assess the claims for who is and isn’t entitled

The argument was providing FSMs for all avoids stigmatising those who rely on them and encourages their uptake. This is especially important amongst families in poverty as it allows them to spend what little money they have on heating and keeping a roof over their heads rather than packed lunches so their children aren't ostracised.

It also ensures all children get a nutritious meal as some parents regardless of wealth seem unable to provide healthy lunches.

I'd also say that the purpose originally was to enable children to be in the best circumstances to learn rather than being hungry. That's why they aren't a holiday or weekend thing.

I agree with everything you’ve said but if this is true then it doesn’t explain why they don't all get them in ks2?

I work for an LA. I gave out supermarket vouchers in half term to families identified as having children on FSM.