Badlittlepup Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Just seen a report on the news about the kids at Handsworth School collecting for a food bank which is all very noble and nice. However the headmistress was trying to make some type of political point about a child at the school not having eaten for 3 days from Friday lunchtime to Monday lunchtime. She seemed to think that this was because of poverty and that giving food to a food bank would solve it. I was watching it thinking what a pile of steaming doo doo. If a child has not been fed for 3 days that child is not a victim of poverty, they're a victim of bad parents and child abuse. If my child did not have food I would beg, borrow or steal to get it. I would go to my local church and ask for help, I would find a Sikh temple, I would walk to a food bank, a soup kitchen, I would shoplift if forced but I would never let my child starve. If the child hadn't eaten for 3 days the parent must have either not been there or not cared. Is it just me or is it a bit disgusting that this headmistress is trying to make political capital out of what should essentially be a child abuse case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 No it's not just you. I agree, any parent who allows their child to go unfed for three days should not be allowed to be responsible for that child. The child should be placed with a foster parent until the parent is able to provide for them reliably and continuously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 I just thought it was really irresponsible for the headmistress to be making political capital out of this. And she seemed to imply that it was acceptable and that if your child wasn't fed for 3 days and you blamed it on the cuts then that somehow made it okay. It's not okay to leave a child unfed for 3 days, even if you have no money at all. And a food bank would have done sod all in this situation because the parent would have had to go there and get food and they obviously weren't willing to do that because food banks were available anyway and they didn't go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Drugs, fags and alcohol. The benefit level is enough to eat 3 square meals a day, if it isn't...then it's being misspent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 If my kids were that hungry i wouldn't be able to post, as i'd have sold my puter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I would do anything up to and including surrendering a child to the authorities if I genuinely thought that I had insufficient funds to feed them properly. They would not go hungry, no matter what the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 No it's not just you. I agree, any parent who allows their child to go unfed for three days should not be allowed to be responsible for that child. The child should be placed with a foster parent until the parent is able to provide for them reliably and continuously. Used to have a girlfriend who's neighbour would often complain that her kids only got beans on toast as they couldn't afford anything else with benefits. In the same breath she'd be heard shouting one of her kids to fetch her a beer/packet of fags. But not feeding a child for 3 days is outright abuse, parents should be jailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 My parents never were great with money, on top of that they decided to move house just before a massive housing crisis in the Netherlands in the 80's causing them to really struggle financially on top of that, there were weeks where they had to feed a family of five on less than 10 guilders for the week, the equivalent of 15-20 quid now? they always managed somehow. If people didn't waste money they could eat, simple as. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maz3 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Behind the scenes, I should think child protection services have gone into action on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 The FoodBanks are the result of well meaning people trying to create a stop-gap level of support for those in desperate short-term need. They also despair at those who choose to make political capital from their good works. FoodBanks should not be regarded as a social indicator of poverty. .... more an indicator of social compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.