No child in the UK should go hungry

Started by Sheepy, October 24, 2020, 12:36:44 PM

« previous - next »

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Barry

Quote from: Borchester on October 26, 2020, 12:16:13 PMToday I am going to be Mr Nice Guy. 
Brilliant. Take your wallet out into the street and have it ready for any deserving cases that pass by. I'm sure there are thousands of starving kids in your deprived area could do with a few bob.
† The end is nigh †

Borchester

Quote from: Javert on October 26, 2020, 09:04:16 AM
So you are saying that I think the children of irresponsible parents are scum?



As far as I can gather, Deppity's homelife was  not a lot of fun. Meanwhile, Javert is a good lad but has trouble picking up the signals. So the impulse to pitch in and stir things is nigh on irresistible.

But I won't. Today I am going to be Mr Nice Guy. :) :)
Algerie Francais !

patman post

Quote from: Javert on October 26, 2020, 08:42:07 AM
Yes - however the downside of this approach is that when it's done by individuals or small groups, those groups might decide for themselves who is worthy or not of the help.  You can see that in many of the comments made on all sorts of places, where it's clear that a lot of people wouldn't give food to the children of parents who were somehow unworthy (drug adicts etc).  These are also very likely to be troubled children - another newflash is that children whose parents don't care about them tend to be troubled and have their own issues.  This means that it's easy for some peopl to dismiss them as scum.
I don't see that distant central govt is going to be any more efficient or less judgmental at targeting emergency care to individuals than local groups or local branches of national organisations...
On climate change — we're talking, we're beginning to act, but we're still not doing enough...

DeppityDawg

Quote from: Javert on October 26, 2020, 09:04:16 AMSo you are saying that I think the children of irresponsible parents are scum?

To use the quote that you often use, can you point out where I ever said that?

Talk about fail. No, from the  amount of news flashes you are giving out, I meant your extensive knowledge of troubled childhood and parents who "don't care". It's almost like you were there, Javert.

Sheepy

Quote from: Javert on October 26, 2020, 09:04:16 AM
So you are saying that I think the children of irresponsible parents are scum?

To use the quote that you often use, can you point out where I ever said that?
I don't think so, the Dawg was admiring your lecture from your standpoint of having zero experience.
Just because I don't say anything, it doesn't mean I haven't noticed!

Javert

Quote from: DeppityDawg on October 26, 2020, 08:54:55 AM
And you'd know all about this of course, wouldn't you.

So you are saying that I think the children of irresponsible parents are scum?

To use the quote that you often use, can you point out where I ever said that?

DeppityDawg

Quote from: Javert on October 26, 2020, 08:42:07 AMThese are also very likely to be troubled children - another newflash is that children whose parents don't care about them tend to be troubled and have their own issues.  This means that it's easy for some peopl to dismiss them as scum.

And you'd know all about this of course, wouldn't you.

papasmurf

Quote from: johnofgwent on October 24, 2020, 08:35:12 PM
So if you are staying away from this thread, why come here to express your opinion in it.

You're not "staying away from the thread". You came here and left your opinion in it. That is the most bizarre definition of "staying away from this" i can think of.

I have stayed away from it, and judging by the nasty ill informed comments thus far I made the right decisions.
I am not going to post a reply challenging the nastiness as all I would get is a torrent of abuse.
Nemini parco qui vivit in orbe

Javert

Quote from: patman post on October 24, 2020, 06:55:07 PM
I was raising the question whether every safety net should be govt funded. Hospices in the UK, for example, raise the bulk of their funding through support from their local communities.
Charities involve the community more directly. Local and national fundraising, charity shops, legacies, lotteries, investments, poppy days, etc, consistently keep up awareness of our responsibilities to each other.
Pushing the needs of others on to govt with the excuse the UK is "the 5th richest country in the world" to get out of actually doing anything seems too easy...

Yes - however the downside of this approach is that when it's done by individuals or small groups, those groups might decide for themselves who is worthy or not of the help.  You can see that in many of the comments made on all sorts of places, where it's clear that a lot of people wouldn't give food to the children of parents who were somehow unworthy (drug adicts etc).  These are also very likely to be troubled children - another newflash is that children whose parents don't care about them tend to be troubled and have their own issues.  This means that it's easy for some peopl to dismiss them as scum.

Sheepy

On the brightside we have a couple of places staying open today to collect any excess food, so they can make parcels up, somebody said, it saves the government money, which I had to say, well in actual fact the government don't have any money, they find devious ways of spending yours for generations ahead. So get some food down there.
Just because I don't say anything, it doesn't mean I haven't noticed!

Sheepy

Quote from: Borchester on October 25, 2020, 02:12:09 AM
Yes, but once the tide of war turned the government spent a lot of its time preparing for post war Britain, hence Churchill's comment about milk and babies.

I have probably posted this before, but the did not spring fully formed in 1948 and both sides of the House supported improved healthcare. The real debate was how it was to be funded, with the left favouring a tax on the employers and the right wanting some form of private insurance schemes. Bevin solved the problem by having it paid out of direct taxation. I like to think that Attlee helped. Working on the principal that if you want something done you get a busy man to do it, he insisted that along with being minister of health, Bevin should continue as housing minster as well. Effectively the NHS was just Aneurin's day job, so he had to crack on.
I can't see invoking Churchill changes a thing. It might have the socialist workers party a bit twitchy, when you bring in the Labour government after WW2, they say never again, those national socialist policies ain't for them.  The Westminster party won't care much as they dig into their free plum pudding.
Just because I don't say anything, it doesn't mean I haven't noticed!

Borchester

Quote from: cromwell on October 24, 2020, 08:13:19 PM
What? The blood toil tears and sweat speech was made in May 1940

Yes, but once the tide of war turned the government spent a lot of its time preparing for post war Britain, hence Churchill's comment about milk and babies.

I have probably posted this before, but the did not spring fully formed in 1948 and both sides of the House supported improved healthcare. The real debate was how it was to be funded, with the left favouring a tax on the employers and the right wanting some form of private insurance schemes. Bevin solved the problem by having it paid out of direct taxation. I like to think that Attlee helped. Working on the principal that if you want something done you get a busy man to do it, he insisted that along with being minister of health, Bevin should continue as housing minster as well. Effectively the NHS was just Aneurin's day job, so he had to crack on.
Algerie Francais !

Nalaar

Quote from: cromwell on October 24, 2020, 11:35:53 PMThat isn't to say there aren't genuine honest cases of hardship,this whole issue runs much deeper and it would be unfair for the sins of the fathers (and mothers) to be visited on the heads of their kids

Exactly, no matter what the input variable is here the output is hungry children, and anyone trying to justify the children going hungry are going to have to be doing allot better than 'well it's possible their parents mismanaged their money'
Don't believe everything you think.

cromwell

Quote from: Nick on October 24, 2020, 11:16:10 PM
Totally agree, it's down to personal choices and some parents put their fags and booze first. It isn't up to the state to mop up after bad parents.
Start giving out food vouchers instead of money, that way they have to buy food.

Have seen first hand parents? Receive benefits buy cheapest loaf possible some axle grease (aka cheap margarine) and a couple of bags of chips for their brood.......oh and a few cases of booze and cartons of fags.
That isn't to say there aren't genuine honest cases of hardship,this whole issue runs much deeper and it would be unfair for the sins of the fathers (and mothers) to be visited on the heads of their kids
Energy....secure and affordable,not that hard is it?

Nick

Quote from: Nalaar on October 24, 2020, 06:49:36 PM
Regardless of individual circumstances, I think we should prioritise making sure these children eat, and worry about the rest later.

Of all the things a state can put its energy in error, I think feeding children would be remarkably far down the list.

I doubt there are many families that don't GET enough money to buy food to eat without having a big TV, sky package and a phone.
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.