Osborne to cut all free school dinners

[drummonds]

It's for that exact reason that I don't live in London. My brother though, has different priorities in life and he chooses to live down there. I think that the cost of housing has a direct limitation on your quality of life, which outweighs all the benefits that London has to offer.

 

i'm sure that is true, but it doesn't address the question of which one should be entitled to free school meals.

[JFKvsNixon]

i'm sure that is true, but it doesn't address the question of which one should be entitled to free school meals.

 

Wouldn't their income be a decent barometer?

[drummonds]

Wouldn't their income be a decent barometer?

 

but if they have to spend all their income to pay the mortgage because they live in london rather than spending their income on i-phones and flat screen tvs because they live in rochdale.

[JFKvsNixon]

but if they have to spend all their income to pay the mortgage because they live in london rather than spending their income on i-phones and flat screen tvs because they live in rochdale.

 

Would you use the same argument if you swapped Rochdale and London for Fulwood and Heeley?

[drummonds]

Would you use the same argument if you swapped Rochdale and London for Fulwood and Heeley?

 

not really. i can see i'm not going to drag an answer out of you.

[Vaati]

What a fair few of you seem to be doing, is punishing the kids for whatever reason the parents or guardians can't afford to feed them.

 

ALL kids should get a free school meal, rich or poor. A rich person could very well starve their kid, just as much as a poor person may not be able to afford to feed theirs.

[TJC1]

What has my avatar of Jose Mourinho got to do with my argument?

 

looks like che guevara to me.

 

Why is it divisive for the poor to receive the benefits?

 

its not divisive that poor receive free dinners. Its divisive that richer DONT get free dinners. If they are paying whats stopping richer parents demanding better meals, segregated canteens. A proper PRIVATELY paid for service.

 

Do you think that it would be right for the state to pay a millionaire housing benefit for his rent, whilst at the same time not correctly funding healthcare?

 

Who said anything about housing benefit - not me.

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 17:47 ----------

 

What a fair few of you seem to be doing, is punishing the kids for whatever reason the parents or guardians can't afford to feed them.

 

ALL kids should get a free school meal, rich or poor. A rich person could very well starve their kid, just as much as a poor person may not be able to afford to feed theirs.

 

that's my point entirely. A wise woman indeed.

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 17:50 ----------

 

Wouldn't their income be a decent barometer?

 

What if someone on £50k has one income and 3 kids (5 dependants)?

 

that might be a higher tax earner and sounds decent but it doesn't go far when you think of all the costs, lack of benefit subsidy (paying out for poor people included).

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2015 at 17:52 ----------

 

but if they have to spend all their income to pay the mortgage because they live in london rather than spending their income on i-phones and flat screen tvs because they live in rochdale.

 

we don't agree often but you are dead right about this one. People on the bottom (sometimes) only look at things one way - from own point of view and what they can get out the system despite perhaps not contributing much themselves.

[I1L2T3]

What a fair few of you seem to be doing, is punishing the kids for whatever reason the parents or guardians can't afford to feed them.

 

ALL kids should get a free school meal, rich or poor. A rich person could very well starve their kid, just as much as a poor person may not be able to afford to feed theirs.

 

This is very true. The poor don't have a monopoly on not feeding their kids properly, whether not enough food or the wrong food.

 

Abuse can happen in any home.

[Happ Hazzard]

Why not give them 3 meals a day on the state then? Plus free clothes, books, pocket money, etc etc? Because some kids won't be getting that and you can't punish them for the sins of the parents?

 

Or why not just expect parents to actually be parents? And if they aren't, take the kids into care, jail the parents and/or prevent them from having more kids?

[Vaati]

Why not give them 3 meals a day on the state then? Plus free clothes, books, pocket money, etc etc? Because some kids won't be getting that and you can't punish them for the sins of the parents?

 

Or why not just expect parents to actually be parents? And if they aren't, take the kids into care, jail the parents and/or prevent them from having more kids?

 

If that is what it requires, without the parent getting any Child Benefit money then so be it. The children should not suffer.

 

Just remember, circumstances can change. The recession bit a lot of people in the bum. People who were doing well lost their jobs. You expect them to have never had kids just because they could lose their job in the future and not be able to afford to feed their children? They couldn't control losing their job could they?

 

If neglect is deliberate, then yes, the kids should go into care and the parents dealt with appropriately. Not all parents are wise to being able to cook a meal from scratch. If that is the case, educate the parent to be able to cool a basic meal. I learnt from my nan, grandad and dad how to do that.

 

Also remember, not all parents are able for whatever reason or another. Heaven forbid if someone has an accident to stop them working.

 

Not all poor people are freeloaders off the state.