Politics Coronavirus

[Moriath]

You get childless people at food banks too @Gwadien.

Kids are a life choice that are already subsidised by society as a whole. I'm not complaining about paying for schools, universities, yadda yadda yadda. I actually think free school meals is a good idea (my first post is tongue in cheek). - kids can't learn if they're hungry or suffering from poor nutrition. It's a waste of the rest of the cash we spend on education - but I'd go full nazi on the food standards. No bringing in their own food - no snacks or treats. Good wholesome balanced meals in school or nothing else.

But child benefit? Automatically? Get fucked. It was your choice to have kids. And I'm happy to help pay for them to be schooled, and fed in school - because education is important. But the rest of the time? Nah - that's on the parents. You shouldn't get a benefit for having kids - wages should reflect a living cost for all - they shouldn't be shit and then people with kids get a free top-up.

It used to be the more kids the more benefit you could screw out of the system then you ended up with unemployed joes with huge families and no responsibility to cloth and feed them and no intention to get a job.

its the extreme end of course but thats what the benefit system was promoting.


taking out the innocent child in this. Why should someone get their kids essentially looked after by the state when the person next door is out begging for food and cant make ends meet. Gets evicted, is not the responsibility of the council cause they are deemed not vulnerable.

 

[Moriath]

In the UK parents bearly get anything - it is quite disgusting to be honest (I am not a parent).

I disagree. They get health care, they get free specs and tooth care, they get money each week, they get tax credits if they are poorer, Free school meals for the formative years, certain amount of child care paid for or subsidized.

without encouraging people to have huge families that they cannot support what else would you expect them to have?

 

[Job]

The benefits cap in London is 23 grand...20 K elsewhere

Thats takehome pay as well, so effectively youd need to earn 30K to live and work as comfortably as a large family on benefits.
Of course youd still have to to work and if youre paying childminders then its more like 40K.

Benefit cap - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Bodhi]

Look at it this way, if Rashford and Labour had their way, the kids would be in school over Xmas eating some fairly rank school dinners. Now they get free McDonald's and Sausage baps from the butcher in our town.

Rashford 0
Private Sector 1

 

[Job]

That bit confuses me...how are they going to get school meals, why are they called school meals.
Its vouchers I presume, leaving the parents even more money for beer.

 

[Yoni]

After reading some of the responses above some of you are just horrible human beings - really check yourselves. So you chose not to have kids or just couldn't have them - does this mean that the children of those who did have them should suffer because their parents lose their jobs / spend their money unwisely? All of us need the next generation whether they are our children or the children of someone else.

 

[Scouse]

After reading some of the responses above some of you are just horrible human beings - really check yourselves. So you chose not to have kids or just couldn't have them - does this mean that the children of those who did have them should suffer because their parents lose their jobs / spend their money unwisely? All of us need the next generation whether they are our children or the children of someone else.

Nobody wants suffering children @Yoni.

But absolutely there should be limits on the level of subsidy parents are given. Both pragmatically and morally.

That's all that's being discussed here.

 

[Yoni]

The UK bearly subsidise families - there is no moral question here. A child is innocent and can not be held responsible for the situation that it has been born in to. A child should be fully supported either by its parents or the state until it is able to look after itself. Not sure what there is to discuss.

 

[Raven]

There is no reason we can't spend a little extra and both feed and educate children on healthy eating. The extra spent on that would save money down the line on the NHS by improving long term health.

 

[Ormorof]

The old undeserving poor argument

 

[Yoni]

What I see in some of the posts up there is a lot of me me me me, why should they have this when I have had to work yadda yadda yadda - in Swedish they have a separate term for this "avundsjuk" ie jealous of a situation of a cirumstance (different to svartsjul jealous of another mans wife or womans husband). In the UK it is still not possible for parents to have decent leave with their kids ...... it is better but still after the first 6 weeks you get a total of 151.20 or 90% of average weeky pay which ever is lower for the next 39 weeks - this means that in effect parents need to get back to work rather than take care of their kids. If your kid is sick in the UK there is no payment you get nothing from work - in other european countries you recieve money from the governement. There is then he cost of childcare :

Which means that more likely than not women in the UK have to sacrifice career and pension in order to look after their child because financially there is no other choice....
School meals in many European countries (including Sweden) is free up to the age of 16 and in Sweden not sure about other countries for kids between 16-19 also.

 

[Scouse]

I've stated that we should feed kids wholesome nutritious food at school. I also advocate increased educational spending - I'd very much like to see class sizes drop to 15 and the quality of education kids receive massively improve.

As a childless man I would fully support more of my tax take go on that. Administered by the state - because you can guarantee where your tax spend goes - on kids, on their nutition, on their education.

Great

However there most definitely IS a moral argument about unfettered benefit funding of families. The level of subsidy that parents of children should receive.

As someone who was brought up in a destitute single parent three-kid family since the death of my dad at 4 years old I think I've absolutely got the lived experience to be able to state a very well thought out and justifiable position without that argument being dismissed as one of a "horrible person" or someone who dismisses the "undeserving poor".

Totally disagree. And am happy to continue this discussion if two things are met - A) we get into the detail of precisely how cash benefits to parents actually improve the lives of the children the benefits are for and B) I don't have to type these textwalls on a mobile phone.

So later then

 

[Embattle]

Huge COVID study finds remdesivir doesn’t work—FDA grants approval anyway

WHO says its massive study was clearly not included in FDA review.

arstechnica.com

 

[Job]

What an utter fucking joke.

Pub and restaurant check-in data hardly used by England's health officials

Figures for 22,500 venues and at least 268m customer visits suggest just 104 cases have been pursued since summer

www.theguardian.com

 

[Job]

The polls that this bolaks is based on are a complete joke from the Food foundation.

Data from the Food Foundation revealed that 1.4 million children (18% of 8-17 year olds) reported experiences of food insecurity over the summer holidays.

And at least 6% of respondents said they were having to eat less and make food last longer because of lack of money to buy more.

We have a chronic obesity problem in this age group in the UK.

 

[caLLous]

Because quantity of food is clearly the only thing that leads to obesity.

 

[Gwadien]

Stuff like Bodhi getting wet over McDonalds giving kids free meals is more likely to be the problem.

 

[MYstIC G]

You get childless people at food banks too @Gwadien.

Kids are a life choice that are already subsidised by society as a whole. I'm not complaining about paying for schools, universities, yadda yadda yadda. I actually think free school meals is a good idea (my first post is tongue in cheek). - kids can't learn if they're hungry or suffering from poor nutrition. It's a waste of the rest of the cash we spend on education - but I'd go full nazi on the food standards. No bringing in their own food - no snacks or treats. Good wholesome balanced meals in school or nothing else.

But child benefit? Automatically? Get fucked. It was your choice to have kids. And I'm happy to help pay for them to be schooled, and fed in school - because education is important. But the rest of the time? Nah - that's on the parents. You shouldn't get a benefit for having kids - wages should reflect a living cost for all - they shouldn't be shit and then people with kids get a free top-up.

Except the point of child benefit is the same as your example for school meals applied to things like meals away from school, clothing, etc.

Pushing it all though as wages is a good idea but this way it gets to the parents of every child employed or not, which is surely better for the children?

 

[Jupitus]

The polls that this bolaks is based on are a complete joke from the Food foundation.

Data from the Food Foundation revealed that 1.4 million children (18% of 8-17 year olds) reported experiences of food insecurity over the summer holidays.

And at least 6% of respondents said they were having to eat less and make food last longer because of lack of money to buy more.

We have a chronic obesity problem in this age group in the UK.

Back your response with facts.

 

[Gwadien]

We've already done this subject to death in the past.

If you're willing to invest money into education/social services/other kid related stuff, then it also would make sense for the parents to directly receive money too, because that too will help to shape the future of a kid, sure there's examples of parents who will spend it on booze, but the undeserving poor argument is in the Victorian era, where it belongs and should stay.

It just doesn't make sense to me to complain about 'kids today' and 'kids in my workplace are shit!' and then not want to invest in kids; they're the ones who are going to be paying your pension, so it's just as much as in your interest as it is anyone elses.

 

[Job]

Britain’s childhood obesity crisis made worse by lockdown

When three children were getting ready for their return to school last week, their mother discovered a sizable problem: none could squeeze into their uniforms. The London-based mother, 42, said she knew that her children had been snacking during the coronavirus lockdown — “clearing the cupboards lik

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[Yoni]

and?

 

[dysfunction]

and?

I think he is saying kids don't need free meal at school.
And he is completely wrong of course. As usual

 

[Gwadien]

I think he is saying kids don't need free meal at school.
And he is completely wrong of course. As usual

Nah, he's saying look, how can we have fat kids and have kids starving at the same time?

 

[Raven]

The trouble is, politicians don't understand long-termism. They only care about the next election and only in the year leading up to a general election.

Tories, emboldened by a land slide will literally do what the fuck they like, they have a mandate. Labour seem to be on the right track as opposition at the moment but in reality their numbers in parliament are too small to have much of an effect on anything.

I'm all for personal responsibility but many people just don't understand food and what it does to you, they don't set out to harm their children they are just poorly educated. Healthy eating and food education should start at school, parents teach their children less and less and instead expect their kids to learn about the world via some sort of osmosis or something. I don't know why that is, it's not my job to, it's the job of our leaders.

 

[Raven]

A well rounded argument.

 

[Scouse]

To be fair, our 'leaders' need to legislate against our obeseogenic environment. We're not evolved to have constant willpower and constant vigilance over our weight - that's why 70% of us are overweight.

But the public will scream "freedom" if we do that.

Kids need a nutitious school meal - instead of the shitty calorie wank they get at home - it has a direct effect on their health and learning.

 

[Moriath]

To be fair, our 'leaders' need to legislate against our obeseogenic environment. We're not evolved to have constant willpower and constant vigilance over our weight - that's why 70% of us are overweight.

But the public will scream "freedom" if we do that.

Kids need a nutitious school meal - instead of the shitty calorie wank they get at home - it has a direct effect on their health and learning.

We could argue that parents are becoming negligent in their up bringing of children and nationalise the kids. Take them away from the adults and put them into places that give them the national upbringing.
it would solve poverty in childhood and make sure they all have an equal chance.

 

[Gwadien]

We could argue that parents are becoming negligent in their up bringing of children and nationalise the kids. Take them away from the adults and put them into places that give them the national upbringing.
it would solve poverty in childhood and make sure they all have an equal chance.

Dickhead.

 

[Scouse]

Ok Johnny facist!

Not just ban food that isn't food, but round up kids and put them in education camps.

I think, personally, we should just gas the fatties, no?