Jump to content

Marcus Rashford


Parsnip

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 326
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Political posturing by Labour? Only if you believe they wouldn't have granted it ( I believe they would have voted it through). Why do people get so angry that the opposition oppose things in parliament? Right wing media have a lot to answer for in this country.

If we have billions to hand out to people who bribed... oh sorry I meant donated to the Tory party then we can pay for some kids food. Surely if the Tory party are the real patriots they'd want to invest in the countries future right? Oh wait no, just pay endless cash to their mates while telling us we are skint. True patriots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Interesting how often you heard "we should be looking after our own before we take in the immigrants"

Yet now our own are going hungry, there is a sudden pivot to "it's the parents fault"

 

Wish i could like this a thousand times, there really are some odious people on here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Interesting how often you heard "we should be looking after our own before we take in the immigrants"

Yet now our own are going hungry, there is a sudden pivot to "it's the parents fault"

Nope, no pivot here. Everyone gets child benefit, what they spending it on if not to feed their children?

Sure if you think we should increase the amounts handed out to parents then let's do it and take it out of the budgets where we are giving money to people for literally no reason ie housing/feeding illegal immigrants, subsidising MPs food and drink, foreign aid to countries that dont need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

The issue here isnt about whether people want to see kids go hungry, and just handing out freebies does not tackle the underlying problem.

You're right - where does this end? If the people expect children feeding, next they'll expect everyone to be fed. Madness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Nope, no pivot here. Everyone gets child benefit, what they spending it on if not to feed their children?

It's not ring-fenced for food! Clothes? heating? transport? books? pens? And that's just the necessities before you even get on to anthing that the child might even enjoy (heaven forbid - i mean we don't want that now do we?)

Anyone who thinks £21 a week is enough to provide fully for a child has obvously never had to account for how they spend £21 in terms of their kids. Aren't we lucky?

So apart from not pivoting to blame the parents, you are still basically blaming the parents.

Got it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[This is cool - under the name of a footballer, the Politics Thread has secretly sprung back into life .. its like me finding some big lads drinking cans of Tennants over the Rec and they let me have one ]

All parents should focus on feeding their dependents for sure … but ...

5th largest economy in the world …. 

I think we can afford some dinner for some little kids

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

So apart from not pivoting to blame the parents, you are still basically blaming the parents.

It's worse than that though. It's saying that, for those parents who neglect or fail their children, the children should suffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

It's not ring-fenced for food! Clothes? heating? transport? books? pens? And that's just the necessities before you even get on to anthing that the child might even enjoy (heaven forbid - i mean we don't want that now do we?)

Anyone who thinks £21 a week is enough to provide fully for a child has obvously never had to account for how they spend £21 in terms of their kids. Aren't we lucky?

So apart from not pivoting to blame the parents, you are still basically blaming the parents.

Got it

I agree that the child benefit payments are low. We should certainly look to be raising them. G STAR has provided a quantifiable solution as to where that extra money could come from in the bloated foreign aid budget. It's very odd that no one has bothered to engage with that point and instead indulged themselves with talk of bribes and how odious it is for people to disagree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

It's not ring-fenced for food! Clothes? heating? transport? books? pens? And that's just the necessities before you even get on to anthing that the child might even enjoy (heaven forbid - i mean we don't want that now do we?)

Anyone who thinks £21 a week is enough to provide fully for a child has obvously never had to account for how they spend £21 in terms of their kids. Aren't we lucky?

So apart from not pivoting to blame the parents, you are still basically blaming the parents.

Got it

Yeah because I imagine that £21 is the only money the parents get.

Child benefit is there purely to assist with paying for children, do you not think parents should be using that to feed their kids as a priority? I do.

Or do you think they should spend it on other things first and then feed their children if there is any money left over.

I wonder how many of these people that cant feed their kids have a mobile phone, a tv and other luxuries?

I've got 2 kids, there are times where I have had to skip meals, wait a few extra months for clothes I need because they are always my number one priority.

So yes, I imagine there are cases where I am blaming the parents.

Likewise I'm sure there are cases where it is genuine poverty and they genuinely cannot afford food.

How do you distinguish between the 2 though?

I assume you're not bothered about distinguishing and would rather the state just fund everyone and then you can moan when there is no money in the pot and they have to cut public services. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

It's worse than that though. It's saying that, for those parents who neglect or fail their children, the children should suffer.

No its not that at all though is it. I've offered up a solution to ensure that the funding the parents receive is done via vouchers so it is spend on what it is meant for.

What you're saying is everyone else should be made to pay for parents who dont give a toss about their kids (although I accept this is not always the case), perhaps you can explain to me how that is fair.

We are now reaping what we have sewn. For too many years we were a soft touch nation who let parenthood be promoted as a career with great rewards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yeah because I imagine that £21 is the only money the parents get.

Child benefit is there purely to assist with paying for children, do you not think parents should be using that to feed their kids as a priority? I do.

Or do you think they should spend it on other things first and then feed their children if there is any money left over.

I wonder how many of these people that cant feed their kids have a mobile phone, a tv and other luxuries?

I've got 2 kids, there are times where I have had to skip meals, wait a few extra months for clothes I need because they are always my number one priority.

So yes, I imagine there are cases where I am blaming the parents.

Likewise I'm sure there are cases where it is genuine poverty and they genuinely cannot afford food.

How do you distinguish between the 2 though?

I assume you're not bothered about distinguishing and would rather the state just fund everyone and then you can moan when there is no money in the pot and they have to cut public services. 

We're discussing feeding hungry children. Would you advocate punishment by withholding food for children of parents who blow their benefit money on large TVs and phones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

We're discussing feeding hungry children. Would you advocate punishment by withholding food for children of parents who blow their benefit money on large TVs and phones?

No, I'd pay them in vouchers instead of cash, not sure why you find that so hard to understand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

No, I'd pay them in vouchers instead of cash, not sure why you find that so hard to understand. 

That wasn't put forward as an option. In the case offered it was a choice of feeding children or not. What's your side? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

We are now reaping what we have sewn. For too many years we were a soft touch nation who let parenthood be promoted as a career with great rewards.

Too many years? considering the last 70 years have had 50 years of conservative governments, you might want to consider who you're blaming there!

11 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So yes, I imagine there are cases where I am blaming the parents.

Likewise I'm sure there are cases where it is genuine poverty and they genuinely cannot afford food.

How do you distinguish between the 2 though?

I assume you're not bothered about distinguishing

Correct - because you can't distinguish without bias, and it would cost more to try and implement a system to do so than would be cost effective. Case in point being the wider benefits system where they do try and do that - and that's what leads to half the problems with child poverty. The attempted policing of Universal Benefit and Disability Benefits are a disaster in that respect.

15 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I wonder how many of these people that cant feed their kids have a mobile phone, a tv and other luxuries?

Could you function without a mobile phone these days? Would you feel happy without a TV? The point is that these things might be superficial luxuries, but they are embedded into the fabric of 21st century society and to deprive a child of these things would be a hard choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yeah because I imagine that £21 is the only money the parents get.

Child benefit is there purely to assist with paying for children, do you not think parents should be using that to feed their kids as a priority? I do.

Or do you think they should spend it on other things first and then feed their children if there is any money left over.

I wonder how many of these people that cant feed their kids have a mobile phone, a tv and other luxuries?

I've got 2 kids, there are times where I have had to skip meals, wait a few extra months for clothes I need because they are always my number one priority.

So yes, I imagine there are cases where I am blaming the parents.

Likewise I'm sure there are cases where it is genuine poverty and they genuinely cannot afford food.

How do you distinguish between the 2 though?

I assume you're not bothered about distinguishing and would rather the state just fund everyone and then you can moan when there is no money in the pot and they have to cut public services. 

Before we cut public services I'd rather see us cut the amount of money being poured in to companies (that are unable to provide the services they advertise) with links to Tories in the name of COVID, but parliament don't get the chance to vote on that so that wont happen will it?

I know this post is straying in to politics and that's a big no-no these days, but the absolute brass neck on this government to say we cant help feed some kids but we can keep chucking money at companies (that they get to pick at their own discretion) with no accountability or oversight is absolutely disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...