To ask why do people not working claiming FSM get this for free?

[Sprinkledusting]

I’ve just discovered if you claim FSM and even if you’re not working, you can send your child to morning/after school club for free. And not just in our school either.
There are also sports clubs and holiday clubs during school holidays that state they are free for those who claim FSM. To claim free school meals your income has to be so low that you’re not working full time or not working at all, which of the people I know, most are not.
But those who are working have to pay for breakfast club/holiday clubs.

Can someone explain to me the logic behind this? As I simply don’t understand it.

It’s not a wilful contempt of neglected children. It’s seeing people getting something for nothing when you have to work to get the same. Whenever somebody is getting something for nothing, someone else is doing something for nothing.

It’s frustrating seeing children in subsided for free childcare when you put your kids in childcare to work and so working is costing you before you’ve set foot out the door.

That’s not very positive. Labour can do better than that surely..

Btw you’ve summed up their sideline stance in opposition quite well, I doubt it’ll be quite so smooth in power, as you can see with early clashes. It’ll be interesting anyway

Do you think it needs pointing out that someone who can afford a mortgage is probably more likely to be in a position to deal with damp than someone reliant upon social housing?

Again, lol. Have you got any idea how many people live just above the breadline?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/04/record-number-of-young-in-the-uk-at-risk-of-exploitation-this-summer?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

But again, such children are put into the subsidised childcare in the example you give not necessarily so their folks can work (although that’s also be great) but to give the children a better start as the early years are absolutely critical in terms of life outcomes.

Yes I understand why they’re there, but it’s still a kick in the teeth when childcare isn’t a choice but a necessity and an expensive one at that.

Nobody wants to hear the real reasons we are in this mess. It’s a shame, we could have such a great society if people would wake up and smell the coffee

So what is the real reason?

People just don’t get it do they?

This 100%.

Well she/he has failed to up at my house, so I have stopped believing.

Yes I do hence I said those who own a home (albeit mortgaged) is “probably more likely” to have the means such as some emergency savings to deal with damp than someone reliant on social housing. I stand by that assumption in the majority cases.

@strawberrycream1233

If you can’t give your kids a hot meal, then shame on you. You shouldn’t have been irresponsible enough to have them.

Yes, circumstances change, but you can also change them back to positive again.

Any chance you can tell me how changing my husbands life altering disability back to his health at time of conception I would be very interested to hear it

I do get but unfortunately some don’t have basic comprehension skills when it comes to reading.

Get it *

This is probably the one scenario I have empathy for, and understand. Yes, death, disease and sudden onset of irreversible illness is indeed the exception.

It also seems to be something of a minority in the grand scheme of things.

There’s no legislation or protection in your own house. No law enforcement or court cases. If your boiler blows up or your roof springs a leak it’s tough.

This sort of situation to me is an example of why having a welfare system in a civilised society is a great progress. Unfortunately for others it’s a choice.

Why are you being so patronising? Like most home owners I have also rented, so have experience of both.

Because as I said very far upthread, there’s a notion that if you can afford or have a mortgage you are somehow living a much better quality of life. As the cost of living goes up and benefits remain as they are that gap is narrowing.

As do I.

That is true right now, but it is not the fault of benefit claimants. Many claimants also own their home, btw.

Would you mind answering the question I asked earlier?

Of course in an ideal world the only people who would decide they're ready to become parents could provide them with love, guidance, warm clothes, a roof over their head and a safe home, nutritious and filling meals etc… (This isn’t the same as agreeing with proposals of compulsory contraception for some, though!) But life isn’t as simple as this and poverty is complex and the most vicious of cycles. So the above is never going to happen, regardless of what benefits are available or rather withdrawn.

Yes, we are both classed as high earners but won’t be growing our family - although we’d both love to - as we can’t afford to give them the life we want to give our DC. Despite my sadness at this though, I have never felt anything remotely like the resentment I’ve seen on this thread.

I’m sure many who visit food banks in the current economic climate do so due to a change in circumstances and they were able to feed their children without visiting one when they decided to have them. I think rather than the sense of entitlement you mention, they more likely feel shame and embarrassment at having to use them. Not everyone, yes.