Do I think that there should be free school meals when schools are closed ? Yes. I have already said this on other threads. School kitchens should also be open 365/6 days a year.
So, you accept that someone other than parents should be providing meals for children ... why then so many words saying the opposite? Why all the effort to defend a system where parents need to chose between food for themselves or their children (and, almost always choose to feed the kids), get into rent arrears and other debts to put food on the table?
This government, which I did not vote for, spends billions on benefits. It is reasonable for them to assume that they will use the money to feed their children.
What is relevant, when it comes to the question "can families afford to eat?" is not the total benefit bill, but the amount of money that each individual family has.
Do I think that there should be free school meals when schools are closed ? Yes. I have already said this on other threads. School kitchens should also be open 365/6 days a year.
So, you accept that someone other than parents should be providing meals for children
I have stated elsewhere on this forum that if kids qualify for school meals during term time, they must surely need meals at all other times.
... why then so many words saying the opposite? Why all the effort to defend a system where parents need to chose between food for themselves or their children (and, almost always choose to feed the kids), get into rent arrears and other debts to put food on the table?
What I have opposed is the allegation that the government voted to starve children.
... why then so many words saying the opposite? Why all the effort to defend a system where parents need to chose between food for themselves or their children (and, almost always choose to feed the kids), get into rent arrears and other debts to put food on the table?
What I have opposed is the allegation that the government voted to starve children.
I feel we've been reading different threads ... I could have sworn you said:
Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.
The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.
Yep ... "parents to take responsibility for feeding" children. Nothing about children being fed at school during holidays.
Once again you are refering to a vote to starve children. There was no vote to starve children.
This is Sophistry of the first order.
Are there families that struggle and fail to feed their children?
Yes.
Is there an acute problem because of the economic effects of Covid?
Yes.
Do free school meals provide a vital remedy?
Yes.
Are there families who are totally dependent on this to stop their children from being undernourished?
Yes.
Would extending free school meals in this extraordinary situation prevent children from starving?
Yes.
So when MPs vote in a way that has a totally foreseeable consequence that children will go hungry when this is avoidable (and they have done nothing else to mitigate this problem) it is a totally fair and accurate description to say they voted to starve children. They did.
I can't help that you're in denial about this and have made a stupid fuss about the phrase. Unfortunately the facts are not on your side.
AFZ
The fact is that you and others have felt the need to exaggerate to prove your case.
Do I think that the government were wrong? Yes. It was a silly decision.
Do I think that there should be free school meals when schools are closed ? Yes. I have already said this on other threads. School kitchens should also be open 365/6 days a year.
Once again you are refering to a vote to starve children. There was no vote to starve children.
This is Sophistry of the first order.
Are there families that struggle and fail to feed their children?
Yes.
Is there an acute problem because of the economic effects of Covid?
Yes.
Do free school meals provide a vital remedy?
Yes.
Are there families who are totally dependent on this to stop their children from being undernourished?
Yes.
Would extending free school meals in this extraordinary situation prevent children from starving?
Yes.
So when MPs vote in a way that has a totally foreseeable consequence that children will go hungry when this is avoidable (and they have done nothing else to mitigate this problem) it is a totally fair and accurate description to say they voted to starve children. They did.
I can't help that you're in denial about this and have made a stupid fuss about the phrase. Unfortunately the facts are not on your side.
AFZ
The fact is that you and others have felt the need to exaggerate to prove your case.
Do I think that the government were wrong? Yes. It was a silly decision.
Do I think that there should be free school meals when schools are closed ? Yes. I have already said this on other threads. School kitchens should also be open 365/6 days a year.
More bollocks, sadly.
So you disagree with everything I have said...Interesting.
... why then so many words saying the opposite? Why all the effort to defend a system where parents need to chose between food for themselves or their children (and, almost always choose to feed the kids), get into rent arrears and other debts to put food on the table?
What I have opposed is the allegation that the government voted to starve children.
I feel we've been reading different threads ... I could have sworn you said:
Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.
The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.
Yep ... "parents to take responsibility for feeding" children. Nothing about children being fed at school during holidays.
The the thread called 'The new norma'' I said on 27 October.....
If we think that poor kids need to have free meals during term time, they also need to be fed at other times. I do not believe in voluchers. I believe that school, canteens, where they can get a proper meal, should be open all year round.
Yes, well I haven't been following the new normal thread. On this thread you very clearly said that parents should take responsibility for feeding their children - while we're discussing a government decision to not provide them with any additional assistance to do that.
Yes, well I haven't been following the new normal thread. On this thread you very clearly said that parents should take responsibility for feeding their children - while we're discussing a government decision to not provide them with any additional assistance to do that.
I still see it as the parent's responsibity and more than one meal a day as well.
However if Kids quailify for a free meal it should be all year.
When I read that the government voted to starve kids it really annoyed me because that's not what happened.
Yes, well I haven't been following the new normal thread. On this thread you very clearly said that parents should take responsibility for feeding their children - while we're discussing a government decision to not provide them with any additional assistance to do that.
I still see it as the parent's responsibity and more than one meal a day as well.
However if Kids quailify for a free meal it should be all year.
When I read that the government voted to starve kids it really annoyed me because that's not what happened.
As we have said lots of times no that was not the wording of the bill, it was not what was put forward to parliament. MPs did not vote directly to starve children In practical terms were it counts in families it is effectively true. The outcome is more important than the wording of the bill.
Again in a world were schools have washing machines, food banks are needed because incomes are not big enough, jobs are being cut, it is often a choice to eat or pay a bill. It t doesn’t matter who you prioritise if you cannot afford to eat.
Once again you are refering to a vote to starve children. There was no vote to starve children.
This is Sophistry of the first order.
Are there families that struggle and fail to feed their children?
Yes.
Is there an acute problem because of the economic effects of Covid?
Yes.
Do free school meals provide a vital remedy?
Yes.
Are there families who are totally dependent on this to stop their children from being undernourished?
Yes.
Would extending free school meals in this extraordinary situation prevent children from starving?
Yes.
So when MPs vote in a way that has a totally foreseeable consequence that children will go hungry when this is avoidable (and they have done nothing else to mitigate this problem) it is a totally fair and accurate description to say they voted to starve children. They did.
I can't help that you're in denial about this and have made a stupid fuss about the phrase. Unfortunately the facts are not on your side.
AFZ
The fact is that you and others have felt the need to exaggerate to prove your case.
Do I think that the government were wrong? Yes. It was a silly decision.
Do I think that there should be free school meals when schools are closed ? Yes. I have already said this on other threads. School kitchens should also be open 365/6 days a year.
More bollocks, sadly.
So you disagree with everything I have said...Interesting.
... why then so many words saying the opposite? Why all the effort to defend a system where parents need to chose between food for themselves or their children (and, almost always choose to feed the kids), get into rent arrears and other debts to put food on the table?
What I have opposed is the allegation that the government voted to starve children.
I feel we've been reading different threads ... I could have sworn you said:
Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.
The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.
Yep ... "parents to take responsibility for feeding" children. Nothing about children being fed at school during holidays.
The the thread called 'The new norma'' I said on 27 October.....
If we think that poor kids need to have free meals during term time, they also need to be fed at other times. I do not believe in voluchers. I believe that school, canteens, where they can get a proper meal, should be open all year round.
Yes, because it's sophistry.
The question is not what is the wording of the bill?
The question is what is the effect of the bill is this foreseeable and forseen?
The effect of the bill is to starve children and the MPs who voted for it knew that. Thus it is basically just nonsense to pretend otherwise.
Agreed that the vote wasn't "we'll starve children", rather it was "we won't spend a few quid to make sure that starving kids get some food". The effect seems pretty similar to me though.
The government voted for the parents to take responsibility for feeding them. At the same time, those on benefits were given extra money.
Both sentences are at least as untrue as 'the government voted to starve children'. The government did not vote for the parents to take responsibility: the parents are already taking responsibility. The government voted not to help parents to fulfill their responsibility.
I have looked at the records of Parliamentary debate and I find no record of those on benefits being given extra money at the same time. I have asked you several times what you were referring to, and you have ducked the question every time.
Let's hope that Trump's demise will lead, in time, to certain other folk getting their comeuppance. Top of my list are Johnson, Farage et al. Hopefully, they will have the fear of God in them and they might - just might - start behaving a bit better.
Let's hope that Trump's demise will lead, in time, to certain other folk getting their comeuppance. Top of my list are Johnson, Farage et al. Hopefully, they will have the fear of God in them and they might - just might - start behaving a bit better.
A number of Tory MPs were busy making idiots of themselves over the last few days (and for some it goes back much further).
One of those wouldn't open for me, but the two that did were both people who weren't making themselves idiots. They have been idiots for a very long time, and merely demonstrating this.
Ah, that explains our friend who has dumped Democrats from her friend list for being commies. Not a million miles from Camberwell. I wonder how many others of those from our natural party of government have fallen for Q-Anon.
Would you mind telling us, when you said that Tory MPs voted to give parents of schoolchildren extra money at the same time that they voted down the proposal to give children free school meals outside term time, to what were you referring?
Would you mind telling us, when you said that Tory MPs voted to give parents of schoolchildren extra money at the same time that they voted down the proposal to give children free school meals outside term time, to what were you referring?
I'm not sure. I heard it on the tele and it was some time ago.
Would you mind telling us, when you said that Tory MPs voted to give parents of schoolchildren extra money at the same time that they voted down the proposal to give children free school meals outside term time, to what were you referring?
I'm not sure. I heard it on the tele and it was some time ago.
You don't know whether what you said was actually true.
Would you mind telling us, when you said that Tory MPs voted to give parents of schoolchildren extra money at the same time that they voted down the proposal to give children free school meals outside term time, to what were you referring?
I'm not sure. I heard it on the tele and it was some time ago.
You don't know whether what you said was actually true.
Do you need me to repeat my post. I quoted what I heard on the tele. I am noy telling lies.
Would you mind telling us, when you said that Tory MPs voted to give parents of schoolchildren extra money at the same time that they voted down the proposal to give children free school meals outside term time, to what were you referring?
I'm not sure. I heard it on the tele and it was some time ago.
You don't know whether what you said was actually true.
Do you need me to repeat my post. I quoted what I heard on the tele. I am noy telling lies.
Would you mind telling us, when you said that Tory MPs voted to give parents of schoolchildren extra money at the same time that they voted down the proposal to give children free school meals outside term time, to what were you referring?
I'm not sure. I heard it on the tele and it was some time ago.
You don't know whether what you said was actually true.
Do you need me to repeat my post. I quoted what I heard on the tele. I am noy telling lies.
You said it as though you knew for sure which surprised people.
The government relented on this. Good. They do not seem to understand what the public think is important. Yes the local council has responsibility, but the government needs to be seen as listening to the people who voted them in, particularly when it comes to kids. Boris and co only seem to do this as far as Brexit.
You don't know whether what you said was actually true.
Do you need me to repeat my post. I quoted what I heard on the tele. I am noy telling lies.
I didn't say you were telling lies. Although if you don't like people to accuse you of telling lies, don't call what other people say a lie when they consider it a reasonable interpretation of the facts.
I have not found any reports that the Tory Party has given any extra money to people on reduced income since April. And so if you can't give any more details I am going to conclude that either you are mistaken about what you heard or that the person you heard on the television was a Tory spokesperson stretching the facts till they snapped.
Repeating a lie you heard isn't honestly that much better than plain old lying. It's incumbent on you to check the veracity of the words coming out of your mouth, or from the ends of your fingers.
If you can't do that, then don't repeat the stuff you hear on the telly.
Repeating a lie you heard isn't honestly that much better than plain old lying. It's incumbent on you to check the veracity of the words coming out of your mouth, or from the ends of your fingers.
If you can't do that, then don't repeat the stuff you hear on the telly.
Repeating a lie you heard isn't honestly that much better than plain old lying. It's incumbent on you to check the veracity of the words coming out of your mouth, or from the ends of your fingers.
If you can't do that, then don't repeat the stuff you hear on the telly.
I did not hear a lie. I heard information.
It appears you don't actually know what you heard.
Repeating a lie you heard isn't honestly that much better than plain old lying. It's incumbent on you to check the veracity of the words coming out of your mouth, or from the ends of your fingers.
If you can't do that, then don't repeat the stuff you hear on the telly.
It seems Telford was right, no kids being left to starve. Except, it was a U-turn, so that means that before the U-turn the plan was to let kids starve. I get confused sometimes with the constantly changing world Mr Johnson creates.
I think they couldn’t live with the evident public feeling on the issue, and deliberately chose to release the news when the focus was on America. A good day to bury good news!
Comments
What is relevant, when it comes to the question "can families afford to eat?" is not the total benefit bill, but the amount of money that each individual family has.
More bollocks, sadly.
So you disagree with everything I have said...Interesting.
The the thread called 'The new norma'' I said on 27 October.....
I still see it as the parent's responsibity and more than one meal a day as well.
However if Kids quailify for a free meal it should be all year.
When I read that the government voted to starve kids it really annoyed me because that's not what happened.
As we have said lots of times no that was not the wording of the bill, it was not what was put forward to parliament. MPs did not vote directly to starve children In practical terms were it counts in families it is effectively true. The outcome is more important than the wording of the bill.
Again in a world were schools have washing machines, food banks are needed because incomes are not big enough, jobs are being cut, it is often a choice to eat or pay a bill. It t doesn’t matter who you prioritise if you cannot afford to eat.
...others took note of my feeble attempt at satire, and treated it as such. Not so the Salopian Literalist.
Yes, because it's sophistry.
The question is not what is the wording of the bill?
The question is what is the effect of the bill is this foreseeable and forseen?
The effect of the bill is to starve children and the MPs who voted for it knew that. Thus it is basically just nonsense to pretend otherwise.
AFZ
Johnson: What's our new slogan?
Sunak: Starve a kid to save a quid.
I have looked at the records of Parliamentary debate and I find no record of those on benefits being given extra money at the same time. I have asked you several times what you were referring to, and you have ducked the question every time.
No, no. You've Missed The Point™, as I often do.
The slogan is:
How do we save lots of quids?
Let the parents starve their kids!
There - I'm sure the Salopian Pot-Plant would approve of that, were his brain cell to ever be activated.
Alas, we still have to endure years of ghastly misrule by Gobshites, even though the Chief Gobshite may well be ditched by the others very soon.
I wonder if Boris the Bog-Brush is a tad miffed that his bestest buddy has been (narrowly, it has to be admitted) defeated?
Amen to that.
A number of Tory MPs were busy making idiots of themselves over the last few days (and for some it goes back much further).
I understand. Why change your habits.
I'm not sure. I heard it on the tele and it was some time ago.
Do you need me to repeat my post. I quoted what I heard on the tele. I am noy telling lies.
No-one said you were.
Try to avoid binary thinking.
You said it as though you knew for sure which surprised people.
The government relented on this. Good. They do not seem to understand what the public think is important. Yes the local council has responsibility, but the government needs to be seen as listening to the people who voted them in, particularly when it comes to kids. Boris and co only seem to do this as far as Brexit.
I have not found any reports that the Tory Party has given any extra money to people on reduced income since April. And so if you can't give any more details I am going to conclude that either you are mistaken about what you heard or that the person you heard on the television was a Tory spokesperson stretching the facts till they snapped.
If you can't do that, then don't repeat the stuff you hear on the telly.
You beat me to it, Firenze. 'Shapeshifting creep' to the core, and it's given me so much pleasure that someone said it.
It appears you don't actually know what you heard.
It is possible we have all missed it but it is more likely that either you misheard it or it wasn't information.
From that nice man Mr Goebbels.
https://theguardian.com/education/2020/nov/08/marcus-rashford-forces-boris-johnson-into-second-u-turn-on-child-food-poverty
He must have done so many U-turns by now as to be spinning wildly...
The shape-shifting creep is a master of the art of confusing not only himself, but everyone else.
Good news it is, though. Spend some quids, and feed some kids!
Possibly Telford heard something about the Scottish government's Scottish Child Payment and thought it covered England as well?
https://www.gov.scot/policies/social-security/scottish-child-payment