322-261

Why does everyone think everything should be a freebie. It is up to the parents to feed their kids not the tax payer. Maybe parents spending their money ensuring their kids are fed and clothed properly instead of getting big tellys, booze, fags, car and the latest gadgets for them and their kids then maybe they wouldn’t need the freebies. You make the choice to have kids they’re your responsibility so fund them!
If Rashford feels so passionate about it maybe he can tap up his poncy Premiership buddies to fund them.
 
This is a very sad thread, I am afraid most of us never know what poverty really is. When someone's circumstances change, there can be a gap where there is literally no money. Redundancy, then application for universal credit, then 6 weeks of nothing, zero, nada.

Still, as long as no one asks Serco to justify their 12 Billion for failure, or the consultants their £6k per day. Blame the poor 😢
 
Jefflynnessongsheet said:
Why does everyone think everything should be a freebie. It is up to the parents to feed their kids not the tax payer. Maybe parents spending their money ensuring their kids are fed and clothed properly instead of getting big tellys, booze, fags, car and the latest gadgets for them and their kids then maybe they wouldn’t need the freebies. You make the choice to have kids they’re your responsibility so fund them!
If Rashford feels so passionate about it maybe he can tap up his poncy Premiership buddies to fund them.
Click to expand...
Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
 
Lost Seasider said:
More like 80% once you factor in benefits, oh and don't forget the savings from not having to go to work.
Click to expand...
I think would prefer to go to their place of employment and earn 100% so no favours getting accorded to them for not travelling to work..couldn’t get enough of them when your Chancellor was doing his eat out to dine out or whatever nonsense he call it.
 
Jefflynnessongsheet said:
Why does everyone think everything should be a freebie. It is up to the parents to feed their kids not the tax payer. Maybe parents spending their money ensuring their kids are fed and clothed properly instead of getting big tellys, booze, fags, car and the latest gadgets for them and their kids then maybe they wouldn’t need the freebies. You make the choice to have kids they’re your responsibility so fund them!
If Rashford feels so passionate about it maybe he can tap up his poncy Premiership buddies to fund them.
Click to expand...
This is painful reading. You just knew the "booze and fags" comment was coming the moment you said freebie. Isn't this surely about those who actually need the support? We are so focused as a society to ensure those in need don't get the support because a minority spoil it for everyone.
 
CestrianSeasider said:
This is painful reading. You just knew the "booze and fags" comment was coming the moment you said freebie. Isn't this surely about those who actually need the support? We are so focused as a society to ensure those in need don't get the support because a minority spoil it for everyone.
Click to expand...
Aren't we just.

Unemployment is raging at the moment but the best we can do is say "oh, people can fend for themselves"

And yet oddly, the DUP got a billion quid when it was politically expedient.
 
Jefflynnessongsheet said:
Why does everyone think everything should be a freebie. It is up to the parents to feed their kids not the tax payer. Maybe parents spending their money ensuring their kids are fed and clothed properly instead of getting big tellys, booze, fags, car and the latest gadgets for them and their kids then maybe they wouldn’t need the freebies. You make the choice to have kids they’re your responsibility so fund them!
If Rashford feels so passionate about it maybe he can tap up his poncy Premiership buddies to fund
Click to expand...
Not saying there aren’t some parents who behave like this but can you please explain to me how that is the childs fault?

Some children are brought up by unfit parents. Some children are brought up by parents who are barely older than being children themselves. Some children are brought up in loving families that were relatively comfortable 6 months ago but now have parents out of work.

Whatever you think of the parents it is NEVER the childs fault.

I’m disgusted in the Tories who voted for this and I’m ashamed to read that grown adults think it’s acceptable for children to go without food.
 
Last edited:
Pauls_Boutique said:
Not saying there aren’t some parents who behave like this but can you please explain to me how that is the childs fault?

Some children are brought up by unfit parents. Some children are brought up by parents who are barely older than being children themselves. Some children are brought up in loving families that were relatively comfortable 6 months ago but now have parents out of work.

Whatever you think of the parents it is NEVER the childs fault.

I’m disgusted in the Tories who voted for this and I’m ashamed to read that grown adults think it’s acceptable for children to go without food.
Click to expand...
Well said 👍
 
spudgun said:
In our current climate it takes a particularly hard-hearted person to advocate that needy children shouldn`t receive the benefit of a hot meal over the winter.

I have the utmost respect for Marcus Rashford over this and I hope the government reconsiders this one...
Click to expand...
Why doesn’t Marcus Rashford practice what he preaches and give a large% of his £200,000 per week wages to the cause. He could feed a large number of children with that. He also delights in regaling us with tales of his impoverished childhood were his mother couldn’t afford to feed her children. What he neglects to mention is his childhood was spent mainly under a Labour government which kept boasting of its success in tackling child poverty.
 
Robert Jenrick conservative MP - May 2020, Jenrick was involved in controversy as he overruled the Planning Inspectorate and approved a £1 billion luxury housing development for Richard Desmond, a Conservative Party donor and former porn publisher. Jenrick’s decision saved Desmond’s company up to £50 million in tax, with the release of documents from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in July 2020 leading to calls for Jenrick’s resignation for his use of a public office for political favours.[3][4] Planning experts for Tower Hamlets council have estimated that Jenrick helped Desmond save an additional £106 million through leniency on affordable housing levels, which could have resulted in a total discount of approximately £150 million
Voted against free school meals. Kind of puts things into perspective.
 
Goforgoal said:
Why doesn’t Marcus Rashford practice what he preaches and give a large% of his £200,000 per week wages to the cause. He could feed a large number of children with that. He also delights in regaling us with tales of his impoverished childhood were his mother couldn’t afford to feed her children. What he neglects to mention is his childhood was spent mainly under a Labour government which kept boasting of its success in tackling child poverty.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that most decent people would take the view that Marcus Rashford has conducted himself admirably, and come out of this with immense credit, for the dignified and humanitarian way he has led this campaign.

Yet you try to find fault with him, and not the politicians, who voted not to feed the most needy in our society in times of extreme difficulty and national need?
 
spudgun said:
I would suggest that most decent people would take the view that Marcus Rashford has conducted himself admirably, and come out of this with immense credit, for the dignified and humanitarian way he has led this campaign.

Yet you try to find fault with him, and not the politicians, who voted not to feed the most needy in our society in times of extreme difficulty and national need?
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that last month, Boris was extolling his praises and award of an MBE for the way he's conducted the campaign. Duplicitous shit.
 
spudgun said:
I would suggest that most decent people would take the view that Marcus Rashford has conducted himself admirably, and come out of this with immense credit, for the dignified and humanitarian way he has led this campaign.

Yet you try to find fault with him, and not the politicians, who voted not to feed the most needy in our society in times of extreme difficulty and national need?
Click to expand...
It’s very easy for someone on £10,000,000 per year to pontificate. What I am pointing out is the world is full of people who are very eager to spend anyone else’s money except their own. Also as I pointed out re the Labour administration all politicians are very good in opposition at pointing the finger at the government of the day. But when they gain power their attitude suddenly changes. Going off piste a perfect example of this is so called “ left wing firebrand “ and former card carrying communist John Prescott. As soon as he was offered a peerage, he couldn’t wait to join the upper house, the same upper house he had supposedly spent most of his life trying to abolish. The smell of hypocrisy is almost overwhelming.
 
Goforgoal said:
It’s very easy for someone on £10,000,000 per year to pontificate. What I am pointing out is the world is full of people who are very eager to spend anyone else’s money except their own. Also as I pointed out re the Labour administration all politicians are very good in opposition at pointing the finger at the government of the day. But when they gain power their attitude suddenly changes. Going off piste a perfect example of this is so called “ left wing firebrand “ and former card carrying communist John Prescott. As soon as he was offered a peerage, he couldn’t wait to join the upper house, the same upper house he had supposedly spent most of his life trying to abolish. The smell of hypocrisy is almost overwhelming.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, Marcus Rashford has paid plenty of money into local charities and got fellow footballers to do the same, but that's irrelevant.

Do you not see the imbalance between billionaires along with the rest of the country getting financial subsidy to eat through 'Eat out to help out' while children from the lowest sectors of society are denied help? Strange priorities.
 
Wizaard said:
As I understand it, Marcus Rashford has paid plenty of money into local charities and got fellow footballers to do the same, but that's irrelevant.

Do you not see the imbalance between billionaires along with the rest of the country getting financial subsidy to eat through 'Eat out to help out' while children from the lowest sectors of society are denied help? Strange priorities.
Click to expand...
I didn’t agree with the eat out nonsense either. Some children are definitely in need of help yes. The majority are not, a vast number, not all by any means but a great number of parents pleading poverty own 60” TVs, mobile phones, smoke, drink go on holiday and all the rest. When I was a child, many many years ago I must confess, and before anyone else says it things were different then. My parents had 4 children, they both worked in cotton mills, which was notoriously poor pay and didn’t ask for anything off anyone. The attitude then was if you can’t afford it don’t buy it, that attitude could do with being adopted by more people today. Just to add we also had a very happy childhood and didn’t feel deprived in any way.
 
Goforgoal said:
I didn’t agree with the eat out nonsense either. Some children are definitely in need of help yes. The majority are not, a vast number, not all by any means but a great number of parents pleading poverty own 60” TVs, mobile phones, smoke, drink go on holiday and all the rest. When I was a child, many many years ago I must confess, and before anyone else says it things were different then. My parents had 4 children, they both worked in cotton mills, which was notoriously poor pay and didn’t ask for anything off anyone. The attitude then was if you can’t afford it don’t buy it, that attitude could do with being adopted by more people today. Just to add we also had a very happy childhood and didn’t feel deprived in any way.
Click to expand...
Could you really get by on £74 plus child benefit limited to 2 kids even if you have more?
 
Wizaard said:
Could you really get by on £74 plus child benefit limited to 2 kids even if you have more?
Click to expand...
If you cannot afford more, don’t have them. With all the different methods of contraception available these days, on the nhs by the way. There is no excuse for having more children than one can afford.
 
Seems an admirable young man... a quick Google tells you he donates frequently and has helped to raise quite a lot of money. If the post about about him getting his fellow pros to do the same is also true then he's a bit of a good lad in my mind.

Ps. the campaign to the fair share thing... link here for anyone else interested which I nicked off his twitter - fareshare.org.uk/donate/ I'm guessing this goes to the little kiddys?
 
Goforgoal said:
It’s very easy for someone on £10,000,000 per year to pontificate. What I am pointing out is the world is full of people who are very eager to spend anyone else’s money except their own. Also as I pointed out re the Labour administration all politicians are very good in opposition at pointing the finger at the government of the day. But when they gain power their attitude suddenly changes. Going off piste a perfect example of this is so called “ left wing firebrand “ and former card carrying communist John Prescott. As soon as he was offered a peerage, he couldn’t wait to join the upper house, the same upper house he had supposedly spent most of his life trying to abolish. The smell of hypocrisy is almost overwhelming.
Click to expand...
With due respect, you`re just talking nonsense now regarding Rashford`s motives.

It`s not about rich young footballers nor about historical labour politicians.

It`s about hungry and vulnerable children who the government should "put their arms around" to coin an oft used government phrase.

Perhaps you should save your your pseudo ideological, chip-on-shoulder conformation bias waffle for a more relevant thread...
 
spudgun said:
With due respect, you`re just talking nonsense now regarding Rashford`s motives.

It`s not about rich young footballers nor about historical labour politicians.

It`s about hungry and vulnerable children who the government should "put their arms around" to coin an oft used government phrase.

Perhaps you should save your your pseudo ideological, chip-on-shoulder conformation bias waffle for a more relevant thread...
Click to expand...
Whooo, get her.
 
Goforgoal said:
If you cannot afford more, don’t have them. With all the different methods of contraception available these days, on the nhs by the way. There is no excuse for having more children than one can afford.
Click to expand...
What if you lose your job because of this pandemic

Hardly foreseeable is it

Didn't see many moaning on here when heavily subsidised meals were being funded by the State in August at a cost north of £500m
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
What if you lose your job because of this pandemic

Hardly foreseeable is it

Didn't see many moaning on here when heavily subsidised meals were being funded by the State in August at a cost north of £500m
Click to expand...
A lot of things are unforeseeable Tim, that unfortunately is the way of the world.
 
Goforgoal said:
If you cannot afford more, don’t have them. With all the different methods of contraception available these days, on the nhs by the way. There is no excuse for having more children than one can afford.
Click to expand...
So you're working with a salary of around £40,000, slightly above average this day and age. You're made redundant as a result of COVID. There is little prospect of finding work immediately because of the current jobs market. You don't smoke or drink and already have a TV and four kids.

I repeat. Can you get by on around £100 a week?
 
The government subsidised me a few times during eat out to help out but in truth I don't really need the help. I would actually prefer that some or all of the money spent on that was directed to poor families who will be struggling now due to events outside of their control.
One Conservative described voting for the bill as 'virtue signalling'.
This is a such a small amount of money in the scheme of things, you have to ask why are they actually opposing this measure? The money given creates jobs and goes directly back into the community in the same way that eat out to help out was supposed to operate.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
The government subsidised me a few times during eat out to help out but in truth I don't really need the help. I would actually prefer that some or all of the money spent on that was directed to poor families who will be struggling now due to events outside of their control.
One Conservative described voting for the bill as 'virtue signalling'.
This is a such a small amount of money in the scheme of things, you have to ask why are they actually opposing this measure? The money given creates jobs and goes directly back into the community in the same way that eat out to help out was supposed to operate.
Click to expand...
Eat out to help out literally benefitted, for example, Russian oligarchs and that's deemed acceptable, whereas helping the children of those with the lowest incomes isn't. Bizarre thought process.
 
Goforgoal said:
Why doesn’t Marcus Rashford practice what he preaches and give a large% of his £200,000 per week wages to the cause. He could feed a large number of children with that. He also delights in regaling us with tales of his impoverished childhood were his mother couldn’t afford to feed her children. What he neglects to mention is his childhood was spent mainly under a Labour government which kept boasting of its success in tackling child poverty.
Click to expand...
and what if Marcus Rashford did that? Would it be sufficient to cover the cost of the hole left by the Government's refusal to act. Of course it wouldn't. But then, I'm pretty used to your sort of argument. It's not meant to propose a solution, just to have a go at somebody who is well meaning whilst trying to present him as being hypocritical.
It doesn't wash, of course. And what if his childhood was spent mainly under a Labour Government? A Government that introduced SureStart - massively cutback by the Tories since 2010.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top