322-261

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...
One Conservative described voting for the bill as 'virtue signalling'.

Which speaks volumes for the mean-spirited, uncaring selfishness of the Tory Party. Their opposition to the measure isn't about the amount of money it would cost but about the principal of self-help and the minimisation of the State machine. Why feed poor children when you can grandstand about your Tory principles?
 
And now employers contribution reduced from 33% to 5% in the latest change to the job retention scheme. How much is that costing?
 
td53 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I also recall, though this isn't aimed at the original poster, that when Brexit discourse was truly in its prime and we'd have loosely-informed discussions on foreign aid, we'd say "We need to look after our own, first".

Hollow words, as proven by the Government and some of its voters.
 
CestrianSeasider said:
I also recall, though this isn't aimed at the original poster, that when Brexit discourse was truly in its prime and we'd have loosely-informed discussions on foreign aid, we'd say "We need to look after our own, first".

Hollow words, as proven by the Government and some of its voters.
Click to expand...
Well perhaps they are looking after their ‘own’...😉
 
CestrianSeasider said:
I also recall, though this isn't aimed at the original poster, that when Brexit discourse was truly in its prime and we'd have loosely-informed discussions on foreign aid, we'd say "We need to look after our own, first".

Hollow words, as proven by the Government and some of its voters.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a single percentage of that Brexit bonus of £350 million a week could be spent on food for the under privileged?
 
Wizaard said:
Perhaps a single percentage of that Brexit bonus of £350 million a week could be spent on food for the under privileged?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know the cost but I'd say it's a price worth paying a million times over.

Why is compassion being stigmatized? You see comments underneath articles discussing the subject (and here) and half of them revolve calling the parents irresponsible and feckless.

Alright, a minority are but does that mean we, therefore, tar every parent with the same prejudice brush?

*Sigh* 😔
 
CestrianSeasider said:
I wouldn't know the cost but I'd say it's a price worth paying a million times over.

Why is compassion being stigmatized? You see comments underneath articles discussing the subject (and here) and half of them revolve calling the parents irresponsible and feckless.

Alright, a minority are but does that mean we, therefore, tar every parent with the same prejudice brush?

*Sigh* 😔
Click to expand...
Because if you blame the victims, you don't have to worry about your conscience.
 
B_Side_The_C_Side said:
Maybe you would have preferred this......
Because it's a white kid with rickets & malnutrition
Click to expand...
So you believe the family in question look malnourished ? And what the fuck has the colour of their skin got to do with school meals ? By trying to insinuate i am somehow racist for posting a BBC article on the school meals means you had nothing to comment so there fore already lost the argument. I a
so presume you skipped over the rest of my post aswell.
 
Scaramanga said:
As somebody who comes from a poor background and spent my school years on free dinners I can sympathise. But whoever asked the BBC to film this article could have done their homework a bit better. (For clarity I’m not the guy losing it in the video).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1319333169787768835
Click to expand...
He got his last sentence right...

That is funny though 😀

I’d add that it looks like an ITV news report not the BBC. Are they biased to? I’ve lost track.
 
www.thelondoneconomic.com

Tory trustee for Feeding Britain votes against feeding Britain

The London Economic - Jo Gideon was one of 322 MPs who voted down the Labour motion last night. - Politics
www.thelondoneconomic.com www.thelondoneconomic.com

I find it hard to believe that between them the politicians have turned this into a political football, it should actually be about feeding children who are innocent. Nicky Morgan last night on question time was embarassing in attempting to justify this, Joeseph Stiglitz the American economist, a neutral observer, just said it's unbelievable that you are not doing this. If this wasn't so tragic it would be funny - for instance the MP above whos is a trustee of the charity 'Feeding Britain' voted against this motion.
The government's position is untenable. A few months ago this help was given to poor families by this government. But now, when the situation is arguably a lot worse for those families it is denied. It doesn't even make sense.
But it just sums up what a class ridden country we are - another interesting thing that was mentioned last night on QT was that at the age of 5 modellers are able to accurately predict someone's future income. A lack of nutrition affects academic performance. So much for a meritocracy.
 
I think as a society we have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable and free school meals is part of that.
So there must be provisions for that. There has been as long as i can remember 👍 .


However there is no getting away from the fact that people also have a responsibility.
One of these is imho to not procreate willy nilly and produce multiple offspring certainly if in no position to afford & care for them.

I think they should introduce a policy 1st child free, any more that 1 you must prove you are financially stable & responsible parents.

As said one of the major concerns in the 21st century is that there are way too many people on a planet with limited resources.
Introducing loads more is hardly helping matters & could even be deemed child or planet abuse.
The UK & England especially is overpopulated. As for some less developed nations too many people is proving to be a disaster.
 
Last edited:
deary said:
I think as a society we have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable and free school meals is part of that.
So there must be provisions for that. There has been as long as i can remember.


However people also have a responsibility to not procreate willy nilly and produce multiple offspring if they are in no position to afford & care for them.

I think they should introduce a policy 1st child free, any more that 1 you must prove you are financially stable & responsible parents.

As said there are way to many people on a planet with limited resources. Introducing loads more is hardly helping matters & could even be deemed child or planet abuse.
The UK & England especially is overpopulated. As for some less developed nations too many people is proving to be a disaster.
Click to expand...
When the Chinese introduced a policy of one child per family it was deemed anoppressive communist wrong. Now you want it here?

Where are the stats that say people on
benefits and low incomes have disproportionately large families? Answer: there aren't any. The occasional family highlighted in the press are very much the exception. Plus child benefit is restricted to a max of two children now, and that allied to the benefit cap means there's no financial benefit to a large family.

Bear in mind that UC claims have more than doubled since March along with other benefits. Are they all feckless? 5.7 million on UC.
 
Wizaard said:
When the Chinese introduced a policy of one child per family it was deemed anoppressive communist wrong. Now you want it here?

Where are the stats that say people on
benefits and low incomes have disproportionately large families? Answer: there aren't any. The occasional family highlighted in the press are very much the exception. Plus child benefit is restricted to a max of two children now, and that allied to the benefit cap means there's no financial benefit to a large family.

Bear in mind that UC claims have more than doubled since March along with other benefits. Are they all feckless? 5.7 million on UC.
Click to expand...
Sometimes im afraid you have to think out of the box. Yes i agree that many thought it was oppressive when China did it.

Where are the stats saying that people on low incomes dont have large families? Answer There arent any either.
I agree we are in unprecedented times at the moment. Im hardly suggesting we back date and start introducing death squads and killing kids.

We are not living in the 60s anymore times move on. Although population expansion may be an uncomfortable question it should imho be on the table & discussed. I am certainly not suggesting it to be oppressive or penalise anyone Im looking at it more for the benefit & sustainability of mankind & the planet.
 
deary said:
Sometimes im afraid you have to think out of the box. Yes i agree that many thought it was oppressive when China did it.

Where are the stats saying that people on low incomes dont have large families? Answer There arent any either.
I agree we are in unprecedented times at the moment. Im hardly suggesting we back date and start introducing death squads and killing kids.

We are not living in the 60s anymore times move on. Although population expansion may be an uncomfortable question it should imho be on the table & discussed. I am certainly not suggesting it to be oppressive or penalise anyone Im looking at it more for the benefit & sustainability of mankind & the planet.
Click to expand...
And I'm saying having a large family doesn't get you more benefits. Too many using words like feckless and irresponsible when there are many who have been made redundant purely as a result of the global pandemic. How were they to know that their secure job would be gone?
 
Just checked the ONS stats. Childbirth is at its lowest since records began. Average children per household is 0.3. Another pensions crisis will be looming. Have more kids 😉
 
Wizaard said:
When the Chinese introduced a policy of one child per family it was deemed anoppressive communist wrong. Now you want it here?
Click to expand...

Suggesting that people pay for their own childrens' upbringing rather than expect someone else to do it for them is the same as communist China's one child policy?

 
Wizaard said:
And I'm saying having a large family doesn't get you more benefits. Too many using words like feckless and irresponsible when there are many who have been made redundant purely as a result of the global pandemic. How were they to know that their secure job would be gone?
Click to expand...
No of course it doesnt and i never said it did.
All im saying is there are too many people on the planet and the only way to realistically stop that is to halt the birth rate.
Ok higher life expectancy may mean some people are around for longer than they should be but surely haltin the birthrate is more humane than killing the elderly? 😀

Or perhaps we need to do both? 🤪
 
Last edited:
No mention of Feckless Fathers yet?

"And that brings me to the last and greatest group of male culprits. Most of these single mothers have had the common sense to detect that the modern British male is useless.
“If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless, and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment.
“If he is white collar, he is likely to be little better.”

Boris Johnson The Spectator 1995
 
Lost Seasider said:
Suggesting that people pay for their own childrens' upbringing rather than expect someone else to do it for them is the same as communist China's one child policy?

Click to expand...
Where have I suggested that people shouldn't pay for their own children's upbringing?
 
Many areas of Blackpool have some of the highest child poverty anywhere in England - Scott Benton voted against this. He is not fit to represent the town, he is elitist and does not even know what goes on. Please remember this when you see his name on a ballot paper - not saying vote Labour or Liberal - but don't vote for this clown.
 
Cuthbert said:
Many areas of Blackpool have some of the highest child poverty anywhere in England - Scott Benton voted against this. He is not fit to represent the town, he is elitist and does not even know what goes on. Please remember this when you see his name on a ballot paper - not saying vote Labour or Liberal - but don't vote for this clown.
Click to expand...

One of many I`m afraid.

Marcus Rashford appears to be forging a national coalition of businesses and councils through social media to promote child welfare, and fill the void left by this tone deaf government.

He shows more emotional intelligence and empathy than the likes of the disgraceful Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, who talks about "nationalising children".

Great to see Rashford taking the government on, and it would not be a surprise if another U-turn was on the cards, as they realise their mean-spiritedness has contributed to an unnecessary own goal...
 
spudgun said:
One of many I`m afraid.

Marcus Rashford appears to be forging a national coalition of businesses and councils through social media to promote child welfare, and fill the void left by this tone deaf government.

He shows more emotional intelligence and empathy than the likes of the disgraceful Brendan Clarke-Smith MP, who talks about "nationalising children".

Great to see Rashford taking the government on, and it would not be a surprise if another U-turn was on the cards, as they realise their mean-spiritedness has contributed to an unnecessary own goal...
Click to expand...
Can't wait for the convoluted justifications from some on here when that u turn does happen. Heartless bastards.
 
It’s not really an issue of being heartless or not wanting to feed the poor kids IMHO. More about relative opinions about how best to achieve that objective.

That said, I do think the Government would be better funding free school meals outside term time for a number of reasons.

Ill judged decision I this one..
 
The government have been absolutely rinsed today by Marcus Rashford, restaurants, cafes, McDonald’s etc all over the country today.

Good. Massive own goal this own. I just hope people remember this at the next general election.
 
Last edited:
Imagine looking at the unbelievable work Marcus Rashford has done and will continue to do and feeling the need to cheap shot him.

Kids don’t choose their parents & feeding them shouldn’t even be an argument particularly during a ‘pandemic’.

Anyone who isn’t full of admiration for the work he has done & posts on a message board about what he earns, or he’s getting it wrong, should be embarrassed.
 
All of this is happening against a backdrop of an obesity crisis in the western world and very much so in the UK.
It’s a perverse society that we have built where people are horrifically unfit and overweight to the level of damaging their health, yet children starve in a country where billionaires pay a pittance of tax.

Obesity and starvation - we close gyms yet promote fast food take aways
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
It’s not really an issue of being heartless or not wanting to feed the poor kids IMHO. More about relative opinions about how best to achieve that objective.

That said, I do think the Government would be better funding free school meals outside term time for a number of reasons.

Ill judged decision I this one..
Click to expand...
Level and fair response 👍
 
deary said:
Sometimes im afraid you have to think out of the box. Yes i agree that many thought it was oppressive when China did it.

Where are the stats saying that people on low incomes dont have large families? Answer There arent any either.
I agree we are in unprecedented times at the moment. Im hardly suggesting we back date and start introducing death squads and killing kids.

We are not living in the 60s anymore times move on. Although population expansion may be an uncomfortable question it should imho be on the table & discussed. I am certainly not suggesting it to be oppressive or penalise anyone Im looking at it more for the benefit & sustainability of mankind & the planet.
Click to expand...
Do you have more than two children? If so, explain yourself. Then again, is it any of my business - no it isn't and neither should it be the Government's business.
What next, euthenasia for the unproductive, the disabled and the elderly?
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Do you have more than two children? If so, explain yourself. Then again, is it any of my business - no it isn't and neither should it be the Government's business.
What next, euthenasia for the unproductive, the disabled and the elderly?
Click to expand...
The last para is coronavirus.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Do you have more than two children? If so, explain yourself. Then again, is it any of my business - no it isn't and neither should it be the Government's business.
What next, euthenasia for the unproductive, the disabled and the elderly?
Click to expand...
Not that its any of your business that I have 9 children by 6 different mothers.
Anyhow much like a reformed criminal i have erm now seen the error of my ways. I am just doing my best by trying to stop some of the misery and pain that my lack of judgement may have caused.
I feel particularly sorry for the younger kids who are having to make do with xbox 360s in their care homes when most of their pals have the later consoles.
I do accept my plan may be somewhat controversial and not for everyone.
I am certainly not an advocate of euthenasia but i guess it could be looked perhaps at on a case by case basis?
I much prefer prevention rather than your suggested cure.

If you have a better solution that can stop humankind from turning this planet into an overpopulated rubbish dump so future generations may have a better quality of life & prosper them I'm all ears.

Fact: The human population has expanded massively in the last 60 years.
Imho that has now created the biggest single threat to the planet.
Do you seriously think that it can continue Ad infinitum?

​



Other species have not been so 'lucky' & been destroyed by mankind.

Ive just perhaps seen a window into the future?




nb: some of the above may or may not be true
 
MP's get free meals discounted booze. They will not give Children free meals because most needed in the North and London needs 6 billion to keep the trains and buses going whilst no one using them.
 
deary said:
Not that its any of your business that I have 9 children by 6 different mothers.
Anyhow much like a reformed criminal i have erm now seen the error of my ways. I am just doing my best by trying to stop some of the misery and pain that my lack of judgement may have caused.
I feel particularly sorry for the younger kids who are having to make do with xbox 360s in their care homes when most of their pals have the later consoles.
I do accept my plan may be somewhat controversial and not for everyone.
I am certainly not an advocate of euthenasia but i guess it could be looked perhaps at on a case by case basis?
I much prefer prevention rather than your suggested cure.

If you have a better solution that can stop humankind from turning this planet into an overpopulated rubbish dump so future generations may have a better quality of life & prosper them I'm all ears.

Fact: The human population has expanded massively in the last 60 years.
Imho that has now created the biggest single threat to the planet.
Do you seriously think that it can continue Ad infinitum?

​



Other species have not been so 'lucky' & been destroyed by mankind.

Ive just perhaps seen a window into the future?




nb: some of the above may or may not be true
Click to expand...
Actually Deary, I do think something major needs to be done but not by culling people. Unfortunately, if we are to get a handle on this issue then it can only be achieved by consensus: by electing people into office who are prepared to do something about it. I think the time of the environmentalists is now. Also, if environmentalism is to be pushed to the forefront of world thinking then it is important that it be accompanied by the refutation of the economic idea that has been ruling the world since the time of the industrial revolution: growth.
Growth is about increasing production for the benefit of different ideals, depending on one's politics. It could be to benefit profit and private advancement or it could be for communal benefit. Either way, it is now heading us towards our own destruction. As you imply, the World is a limited resource. Plunder it till it's empty and as sure as eggs are ovular, growth will cease - abruptly.
 
deary said:
Fact: The human population has expanded massively in the last 60 years.
Imho that has now created the biggest single threat to the planet.
Do you seriously think that it can continue Ad infinitum?
Click to expand...

This is whole different thread, but undoubtedly the elephant in the room. The planet is an ecosystem, some say it operates its own regulation management system, ie. every action has a balancing reaction. The theory (Gaia) was proposed by a dude called James Lovelock ... I think. It's quite convincing, but you don't have to be Einstein (or Lovelock) to predict that globalisation, population growth, deforestation, melting ice caps, pollution, a growing mountain of long-life rubbish will all invite consequences that humanity will struggle with in years to come.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Actually Deary, I do think something major needs to be done but not by culling people. Unfortunately, if we are to get a handle on this issue then it can only be achieved by consensus: by electing people into office who are prepared to do something about it. I think the time of the environmentalists is now. Also, if environmentalism is to be pushed to the forefront of world thinking then it is important that it be accompanied by the refutation of the economic idea that has been ruling the world since the time of the industrial revolution: growth.
Growth is about increasing production for the benefit of different ideals, depending on one's politics. It could be to benefit profit and private advancement or it could be for communal benefit. Either way, it is now heading us towards our own destruction. As you imply, the World is a limited resource. Plunder it till it's empty and as sure as eggs are ovular, growth will cease - abruptly.
Click to expand...
Good post Surely you would get onboard with a culling though if it was just tories? 😉
Obviously there is a some tongue in cheek at times with what i write.

I honestly do worry about the future sustainability of the planet & think rapid massive expansion of the population has caused the major problem.
If any other species had turned up and increased in numbers & destroyed the environment to the extent we have a culling likely would be called for.


Im aware of how unpalatable it sounds but if things continue down the same path some kind of restriction on birth rate may be a 'necessary evil' in the future?
Future leaders may have to look at it in 50 or 100 years? I understand it is an emotive subject but If you take emotion out of the equation it could be the only sensible option left?

Of course in a 100 years it may be too late, Or humankind may all be zooming around in spacecraft & have found another planet to colonise?
If so hopefully they dont destroy it.
 
deary said:
Good post Surely you would get onboard with a culling though if it was just tories? 😉
Obviously there is a some tongue in cheek at times with what i write.

I honestly do worry about the future sustainability of the planet & think rapid massive expansion of the population has caused the major problem.
If any other species had turned up and increased in numbers & destroyed the environment to the extent we have a culling likely would be called for.


Im aware of how unpalatable it sounds but if things continue down the same path some kind of restriction on birth rate may be a 'necessary evil' in the future?
Future leaders may have to look at it in 50 or 100 years? I understand it is an emotive subject but If you take emotion out of the equation it could be the only sensible option left?

Of course in a 100 years it may be too late, Or humankind may all be zooming around in spacecraft & have found another planet to colonise?
If so hopefully they dont destroy it.
Click to expand...
A country free of Tories...you've just cheered my up no end!
Honestly though, the worry I have about population control is who's going to be in charge of it, what are the limiting criteria to be and how could misuse be policed. That said, when I was at junior school I remember being taught that the world contained 4 billion people. It's pushing 7 now isn't it? With some frightening statistic that there are more people alive today than have ever lived on the planet(?!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top