To ask if free school meals should be abolished?

[SphJC]

As above^

I have my own opinion on this but keen to hear others before I share my own.

@Chocolateoatmilk

Actually most families prioritise their children ken

I think you misunderstand my post. I'm saying that we should not have the levels of poverty in the UK that we do, it is shameful that some parents can't afford to feed their children, shameful to everyone in this country, that children going hungry because parents are so poor and that this is the society we have built. So, no, we should not have fsm, just like we should not have food banks because nobody should be so poor they can't afford to eat.

Having said all that, I'm actually in favour of fsm for all children. I would make them all healthy and vegetarian. I don't think they should be the necessary born of poverty that they are here.

There isn’t a threshold for FSM, if you work you don’t get them. Also I had cancer last year and even on sickness benefits I wasn’t entitled to them.

Sorry ken I probably did sound quite waspish and it wasn’t aimed at you.

In general though, I do think the debate around FSM misses the point. They are provided as assistance to those on certain benefits. When lunch is taken care of it obviously frees up money to be spent elsewhere.

It doesn’t mean that if FSMs were abolished tomorrow children would starve, because IME most parents are decent people.

@Gilead

I bet bp300 volunteers in a food bank so that they can make themselves feel morally superior to the feckless poor.

The thing is, people like them secretly are glad of the 'feckless poor', it's much easier for people like them to have an obvious target to be morally superior to. If everyone was managing just fine financially, who on earth would they know they were 'better' than?

The thing is, people like them secretly are glad of the 'feckless poor', it's much easier for people like them to have an obvious target to be morally superior to. If everyone was managing just fine financially, who on earth would they know they were 'better' than?

No I would just prefer if I didn't have to subsidise them.

No I would just prefer if I didn't have to subsidise them.

Well unless you are the richest person in the country, people are subsidising you through paying more in tax. I might be one of them. I'd prefer not to subsidise heartless people but don't really get a choice.

I think it would be great if all primary kids got a free school meal. Take the money from MP's expenses which are rediculous.

@RockingMyFiftiesNot

No I would just prefer if I didn't have to subsidise them.

Well unless you are the richest person in the country, people are subsidising you through paying more in tax. I might be one of them. I'd prefer not to subsidise heartless people but don't really get a choice.

So you're the the richest person in the country then because they're the only net contributer?

No I would just prefer if I didn't have to subsidise them.

Funny, I feel the same about Mps and the Royals. Difference is, they take when they already have more than enough yet no one is making frothy Channel 5 documentaries about their kids getting private schooling and world trips....

So you're the the richest person in the country then because they're the only net contributer?

What? Higher rate taxpayers are typically net contributors.

I think it should be means tested. There will still be a few that get missed with this model, due to gaps in benefits and such but I think it's the best way.

@HeyDemonsItsYaGirl

So you're the the richest person in the country then because they're the only net contributer?

What? Higher rate taxpayers are typically net contributors.

Yes the person I was responding to seems to think otherwise.

Of course not.

Yes the person I was responding to seems to think otherwise.

You're deliberately choosing not to understand what I meant so am not going to engage with you any further.

Ideally all primary age children should be provided with good quality free meals at school, the nutrition standards of meals in the UK are poor, thats before you consider that most veg that is served is boiled to death and the rest is typically carby mush. Secondary school and college pupils should also continue to have FSM, it is also insane that education/training is now compulsory until 18 but transport funding and FSM stops. It should continue until the end of compulsory education/training.

We would however still need additional funding for those who would be FSM for educational purposes.

@RockingMyFiftiesNot

Yes the person I was responding to seems to think otherwise.

You're deliberately choosing not to understand what I meant so am not going to engage with you any further.

I'm not sure anyone would understand what you meant.

Certainly not, I think there should be free breakfasts too - and both meals of better quality,

@Robstersgirl

There isn’t a threshold for FSM, if you work you don’t get them. Also I had cancer last year and even on sickness benefits I wasn’t entitled to them.

There is. I know a single mum who works and earns under a certain amount so gets other benefits even though she works. Both her children get FSM although one child is in year 1 so it's free for everyone. But one of her children is in year 4 and they get it.

I think all children should be given a free lunch in education. The benefits of a good midday meal, social eating and equal treatment are well known. Extending these would benefit a lot of children massively.

It would also help to cover the gaps that have been created with the decimation and under-funding of other services.

I also agree with @SimonJT about the provision for those over 16 still in compulsory education.

Zig4zag

Mxflamingnoravera
Zig4Zag has it ever occurred to you that people's situations change? That not all low income families started out this way? That women fleeing domestic violence or who have left an abusive partner often end up on low income because the father of their children refuses or fudges to avoid paying maintenance.
God help you if you ever find yourself in need.

Yes that's why the foster system is there. No children should have to live In poverty because of their parents situation

@Zig4zag 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

How much have you been drinking?? - that is the stupidest comment I have read on MN this year. You are suggesting that poor families should have their children taken away from them to be looked after by foster carers (of which there is a National shortage), rather than pay for free school meals (foster care quite a lot more expensive than cheap lunches) and despite the fact putting a child into care reduces his or her life chances far more than all seriously abusive family situations.

Did you actually finish school?? 😂

@Alexandernevermind

I'm fascinated why you think its okay for children to sit at school hungry op.

But surely the problem lies somewhere else than school meals or no school meals?

How about no kids until you're in a financially secure position, mandatory parent life insurance, etc. - that would also prevent kids from going hungry..?

Why is it always the government's responsibility but not the parents to make sure their children are looked after, including basic needs. And before you say I'm being unreasonable, I'm not talking about the very small number of extremely unfortunate situations, I'm talking about people who have kids when they're not married, not in stable jobs, not financially secure, decide to be stay at home parents hoping their partner will always be capable of earning enough and won't leave.

As someone who wasn't raised in the UK I am very surprised how common it is here to expect the responsibility of child welfare to fall on the state.

No I don’t but I think they should be extended to all children or the threshold increased. I’ve worked in a school in a very deprived area. 50% of the children were in FSM and most of the rest had parents who worked bloody hard on a low income and it’s those children who suffered because they weren’t entitled to FSM but their parents couldn’t afford to provide them with a decent packed lunch and certainly couldn’t afford to pay for school meals.

All meals at school should be free. All music lessons, sports clubs at school should be free. I think that this would be a vote winner for whoever suggested it and could make the case.

Who is going to pay for all these freebies?

Here have some...

I am suggesting that kids get taken put of poverty. It is more than just meals. Their quality of life is poor in everything else also.