How are all these folks catching Covid ?

[gsgsgs]

For claimants there is a cut off point!

Who is it than cannot afford £2 a week for five days lunches for two kids.?

Take me to those people's houses where they cannot even afford food?

Your JSA has been changed toUniversal Credits and under the Conservatives it has been increased to £94. 79 per week as from last year.

Pensioners receive a third of what most people get - they manage!

Either you put up or shut up! Prove what you are claiming - or I will take you to some of Liverpool's deprived areas and open your eyes for you.

Could you prove where you can buy a loaf of bread for 5p? and do you really think jam sandwiches are a suitable lunch for any child beyond perhaps the age of 2!

[Toodles McGinty]

The Football Association already backs Rashford and raises money for various charities plus they hold fund raising events with celebs and children care more about them than politicians.

State provision

Asking the government to fund free school meals in the holidays for 2.4 million children as well as term time and increasing year on year is not sustainable.

Why do you not what free school meals in the holidays to be a permanent charity?

Fixed term extensions are not the answer.
Each time the gov extends it is harder on families to withdraw them.

Contempt for charities already providing support and meals to children in the holidays is not fair.

Just because the subject is a crisis at the moment does not mean other good people have not given their time and energy in helping a subject everyone cares about.

A country that relies on charity to feed children is a failure. This has nothing whatsoever to do with charity. I don't know why you brought it up.

Where is the contempt for charities? That's just a straw man fallacy. Nobody has mentioned contempt for charities. You can't just turn around and say 'let the football association feed them', then make out you were supporting some charity by doing so.

You were sneering at Rashford, his profession and his attempt to force the government to meet their obligation to the poorest children of this country, then compounded it by saying "It must be very expensive planning and funding the leading out a mini tot to walk with a footballer every game". First off, many of those kids are there through charities, and second, why should a sport support starving children? Or why not rugby. Why not breweries, they make millions. Why not Aldi? Why not B.P?

Because it is the responsibility of the government.

Every child, regardless of the position of their parents, has the basic human right to food. According to the BBC, 1.9m pupils in England received free school meals last year. Even if that trebles due to Covid, they still need to be fed. Or what, leave them to starve? Take them all into care?

Johnson’s administration has shelled out £364 million on protective overalls, yet has delivered just 432,000 to health and social care services. At £840 a pop, they were either manufactured by Gucci, or something has gone seriously wrong.

An advisor to the Government’s Board of Trade brokered a deal for the firm Ayanda Capital to supply £252 million worth of face masks to the DHSC, yet roughly £150 million worth of these masks reportedly aren’t fit for use in the NHS, due to the ear fastenings not meeting safety standards.

But that's OK. It's just when there are kids to be fed that you suddenly start totting up the cost. The government can p!$$ money down the drain, as long as it goes to the right people. But not starving children.

Despicable.

[Toodles McGinty]

Either you put up or shut up! Prove what you are claiming - or I will take you to some of Liverpool's deprived areas and open your eyes for you.

You won't take me anywhere, you clueless cretin.

Show me a shop where you can buy a loaf for 5-10p.

You're talking utter bollocks as usual. Was that what happened to you, your mother fed you on jam butties all week?

It shows.

[silver fox]

A country that relies on charity to feed children is a failure. This has nothing whatsoever to do with charity. I don't know why you brought it up.

Where is the contempt for charities? That's just a straw man fallacy. Nobody has mentioned contempt for charities. You can't just turn around and say 'let the football association feed them', then make out you were supporting some charity by doing so.

You were sneering at Rashford, his profession and his attempt to force the government to meet their obligation to the poorest children of this country, then compounded it by saying "It must be very expensive planning and funding the leading out a mini tot to walk with a footballer every game". First off, many of those kids are there through charities, and second, why should a sport support starving children? Or why not rugby. Why not breweries, they make millions. Why not Aldi? Why not B.P?

Because it is the responsibility of the government.

Every child, regardless of the position of their parents, has the basic human right to food. According to the BBC, 1.9m pupils in England received free school meals last year. Even if that trebles due to Covid, they still need to be fed. Or what, leave them to starve? Take them all into care?

Johnson’s administration has shelled out £364 million on protective overalls, yet has delivered just 432,000 to health and social care services. At £840 a pop, they were either manufactured by Gucci, or something has gone seriously wrong.

An advisor to the Government’s Board of Trade brokered a deal for the firm Ayanda Capital to supply £252 million worth of face masks to the DHSC, yet roughly £150 million worth of these masks reportedly aren’t fit for use in the NHS, due to the ear fastenings not meeting safety standards.

But that's OK. It's just when there are kids to be fed that you suddenly start totting up the cost. The government can p!$$ money down the drain, as long as it goes to the right people. But not starving children.

Despicable.

The reason is dead simple as soon as you mention PEOPLE struggling, Tories go into "said" mode ie; these people are ****less, wrong priorities, already over provided for, wasteful and totally undeserving, but of course when the "right" someone's family member or Tory contributor offers to supply goods, goods which they previously didn't know existed, the cheque book is open.

Certainly we know that there are those who use and abuse the system, but they sure as hell aren't only benefit claimants, the money that has gone down the drain on failed systems and equipment would feed the entire nation never mind those in need.

[local]

There are a multitude of reasons for people being poor and the state plays its part but we cannot take personal responsibility out of the equation.

Benefits, when you NEED them, are very low.

Many struggle and some thrive collecting everything the state gives them and that so many cannot get.

It is not a simple issue of right or wrong on either the state or the claimant's side and whatever your view it goes back to the start of the welfare state.

It is after all our money the government hands out.

[local]

As to faulty PPE that didn't meet the standard's the government is getting either refunds or replacements.

Thankfully standards were not allowed to slip although I suppose that doesn't make much of a story.

[Toodles McGinty]

[silver fox]

As to faulty PPE that didn't meet the standard's the government is getting either refunds or replacements.

Thankfully standards were not allowed to slip although I suppose that doesn't make much of a story.

I should think duff goods are being refunded or replaced, there should be compensation as well, the NHS needed that equipment there and then, not sometime in the future.

[Hamble]

A country that relies on charity to feed children is a failure. This has nothing whatsoever to do with charity. I don't know why you brought it up.

Where is the contempt for charities? That's just a straw man fallacy. Nobody has mentioned contempt for charities. You can't just turn around and say 'let the football association feed them', then make out you were supporting some charity by doing so.

You were sneering at Rashford, his profession and his attempt to force the government to meet their obligation to the poorest children of this country, then compounded it by saying "It must be very expensive planning and funding the leading out a mini tot to walk with a footballer every game". First off, many of those kids are there through charities, and second, why should a sport support starving children? Or why not rugby. Why not breweries, they make millions. Why not Aldi? Why not B.P?

Because it is the responsibility of the government.

Every child, regardless of the position of their parents, has the basic human right to food. According to the BBC, 1.9m pupils in England received free school meals last year. Even if that trebles due to Covid, they still need to be fed. Or what, leave them to starve? Take them all into care?

Johnson’s administration has shelled out £364 million on protective overalls, yet has delivered just 432,000 to health and social care services. At £840 a pop, they were either manufactured by Gucci, or something has gone seriously wrong.

An advisor to the Government’s Board of Trade brokered a deal for the firm Ayanda Capital to supply £252 million worth of face masks to the DHSC, yet roughly £150 million worth of these masks reportedly aren’t fit for use in the NHS, due to the ear fastenings not meeting safety standards.

But that's OK. It's just when there are kids to be fed that you suddenly start totting up the cost. The government can p!$$ money down the drain, as long as it goes to the right people. But not starving children.

Despicable.

Quote TM
"Not charities. Local people. Local businesses. Decent people."

Decent people do charitable work in helping families in food poverty.

Quote TM
"You were sneering at Rashford, his profession and his attempt to force the government to meet their obligation to the poorest children of this country,"

Outright lie.I have always praised Rashford plus my full post was no sneer.

Quote Hamble post 145
"I would like to see the Football association funding school meals.

1. Any extension to the school holiday meals from the Gov is hard to withdraw due to the backlash.
2. The next generation will be paying the costs.
3. People who work in the school meals provision surely are already more at risk of catching the virus by repeated contact risk and the low wage bracket.

It must be very expensive planning and funding the leading out a mini tot to walk with a footballer every game how much more worthwhile to use that money for a permanent child charity."

[local]

I should think duff goods are being refunded or replaced, there should be compensation as well, the NHS needed that equipment there and then, not sometime in the future.

The good point to come out of the whole sorry saga is standards were still being adhered to despite the pandemic.

As we all know profiteering was and still is rife during this pandemic.

I take my hat off to the hard-working people that battled in a very chaotic market to secure and deliver massive increases in PPE for the good of us all.

We went from a few hundred trusts wanting PPE to 58,000 places wanting it.

[Toodles McGinty]

Quote TM
"Not charities. Local people. Local businesses. Decent people."

Decent people do charitable work in helping families in food poverty.

Quote TM
"You were sneering at Rashford, his profession and his attempt to force the government to meet their obligation to the poorest children of this country,"

Outright lie.I have always praised Rashford plus my full post was no sneer.

Quote Hamble post 145
"I would like to see the Football association funding school meals.

1. Any extension to the school holiday meals from the Gov is hard to withdraw due to the backlash.
2. The next generation will be paying the costs.
3. People who work in the school meals provision surely are already more at risk of catching the virus by repeated contact risk and the low wage bracket.

It must be very expensive planning and funding the leading out a mini tot to walk with a footballer every game how much more worthwhile to use that money for a permanent child charity."

There shouldn't be permanent child charities. Not for the human right of having enough food to eat. They certainly shouldn't have to feed starving kids during holidays.

Yes, it's unfortunate that there should be any charities at all, but the world, and this country is a hard place for a lot of people. Especially those on low incomes. And yes, there are a lot of things the government can't afford to give to children, but food shouldn't be one of them.

They can spend millions and millions to get us to 'eat out', but not for hungry children during a pandemic?

Scotland, NI and Wales have said they'll feed kids. But not England? It's wrong. It's despicable. It's inhuman.

[Hamble]

There shouldn't be permanent child charities. Not for the human right of having enough food to eat. They certainly shouldn't have to feed starving kids during holidays.

Yes, it's unfortunate that there should be any charities at all, but the world, and this country is a hard place for a lot of people. Especially those on low incomes. And yes, there are a lot of things the government can't afford to give to children, but food shouldn't be one of them.

They can spend millions and millions to get us to 'eat out', but not for hungry children during a pandemic?

Scotland, NI and Wales have said they'll feed kids. But not England? It's wrong. It's despicable. It's inhuman.

Labour promised to fund free school meals for all primary school children in their election manifesto.

If we had a Labour Gov now would they still agree to paying for school holiday meals bearing in mind the costed amount of £950 million(in term time)?

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news...ld-cost-ps950m

If they would it still is not/could not be a long term solution.

[local]

Clearly providing food via schools in holidays is not a good idea.


The food needs to be in homes.

[Alikado]

Labour promised to fund free school meals for all primary school children in their election manifesto.

If we had a Labour Gov now would they still agree to paying for school holiday meals bearing in mind the costed amount of £950 million(in term time)?

https://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news...ld-cost-ps950m

If they would it still is not/could not be a long term solution.

That would make the cost £300m per year, a drop in the ocean.
The long term solution is to ensure those on benefits get adequately paid enough to feed the kids.

[Alikado]

Clearly providing food via schools in holidays is not a good idea.


The food needs to be in homes.

The food needs to be in bellies, do you have a better idea?