Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Marcus Rashford launches petition to urge immediate Government action on child poverty

If you want to sign Marcus Rashford’s recently launched petition it can be found on the UK Government Petition site. The petition is 

End child food poverty – no child should be going hungry.

It’s worth doing. IMO. This link should take you there. Thanks.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/554276

«13456789

Comments

  • At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest

    If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen

    Prices of everything has risen dramatically vs salaries making it a lot harder to afford things for the lowest earners. The alternative is letting these kids starve, is that preferable? They're not bailing them out in the same way the banks were bailed out, they should be providing a small amount of money to afford essentials such as food.
  • One surprising fact is that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the world, and both candidates in the general election have promised to half child poverty by 2030. 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Dansk_Red said:
    One surprising fact is that New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the world, and both candidates in the general election have promised to half child poverty by 2030. 
    Is how “poverty” is measured consistent in NZ and UK?
  • At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest

    If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen
    Yes it is the parents’ job, but too often they don’t do it properly or at all. Even if they do have the money, some would rather spend it on phones and clothes than feeding their children.
  • JaShea99 said:
    At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest

    If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen
    Yes it is the parents’ job, but too often they don’t do it properly or at all. Even if they do have the money, some would rather spend it on phones and clothes than feeding their children.

    Comment straight from the Daily Mail
    My wife's worked in education (mainstream and PRU's) for 15 years. Based on what she tells me I'd say a significant minority of parents do behave like that and just because the Mail gets a kick out of highlighting the extreme cases doesn't mean it isn't true.
  • edited October 15
    In the good old days child poverty was accepted and ignored so no-one had to worry about it.  Except the parents and children, obvs who probably tended to die youngish anyway.  Now these bloody do-gooders come along, rubbing our noses in it...
  • thenewbie said:
    Even if we do follow the logic that all parents are capable of providing but some choose not to it seems remarkably callous that anyone would be happy to clean their hands of the matter and let innocent children (the actual victims here) go hungry because of their parents choices/situation.
    "That kid's health is really suffering due to neglect. Oh well, not my problem."
    Some people are more concerned about not letting some parents take advantage than stopping all those children going without food.
  • Sponsored links:


  • A lot of child poverty is down to bad parenting.

    Doesn't mean that we punish the kids for it, though.  It's not their fault that their parents are selfish fuckwits.

    Why does everything have to be so binary these days?  IMO Kentish Addick has a point (I have witnessed this countless times), as does Marcus Rashford (children should not be punished for having the misfortune to be born to shit parents).  It does not have to be either or.

    Some friends of mine adopted two kids whose parents could not be bothered to care for them; they were not the first offspring from that family to be taken into care.  Last they had heard, their mother was pregnant again with child number six.  The social services workers tear their hair out and watch helplessly as the cycle continues and prepare to take another damaged child into care. This is the problem that no-one wants to address, not least because it is a very difficult issue to confront. Sterilisation, anyone?

    Rashford is right, IMO; a civilised society must not punish children for the sins of their parents.
    This. So many kids today are starting 100 miles behind the starting line in the proverbial rat race. They themselves go on to continue the cycle. 
  • edited October 15
    Would it not be better to do this on a case by case basis rather than free meals/activities being automatically given to everyone on certain benefits?

    If parents/guardians had to give information on their monthly incomings and outgoings and how they spend their benefits and that info was then used to make a decision then I'd have no issue with them receiving further help.

    Or is this completely wide of the mark?
  • At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest

    If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen
    There was an interview on tv not long ago about all this and they interviewed a kid and parent and some days, she said, she couldn’t feed her kid. This woman was easily 18st. I thought to myself surely they could of avoided that, as all it does is take away from the issue. I think it even went round WhatsApp with people taking the piss.

  • Would it not be better to do this on a case by case basis rather than free meals/activities being automatically given to everyone on certain benefits?

    If parents/guardians had to give information on their monthly incomings and outgoings and how they spend their benefits and that info was then used to make a decision then I'd have no issue with them receiving further help.

    Or is this completely wide of the mark?
    It's within the country's power to clean up communities, provide all children with a highly nutritious diet and a good education. 
  • At the risk of being shot down is it not the parents job to ensure their kids are suitably looked after? My parents were never well off and we always struggled when I was younger, but they always ensured we had food. Don't see why the government is expected to bail everyone out if I'm being honest

    If someone could enlighten me on this then I'm willing to listen
    There was an interview on tv not long ago about all this and they interviewed a kid and parent and some days, she said, she couldn’t feed her kid. This woman was easily 18st. I thought to myself surely they could of avoided that, as all it does is take away from the issue. I think it even went round WhatsApp with people taking the piss.

    That would be ignoring the fact of how cheap unhealthy food is, and how expensive and difficult it is to eat clean for a whole month. If you don't earn much money and have an extra mouth to feed, it's a lot easier to eat processed food than it is organic. 

    Part of the blame is obviously with the parent, but its important to take a nuanced view on a nuanced issue. I get your point though, it does my head in when obese people can't provide basic food for their kids. 
  • Would it not be better to do this on a case by case basis rather than free meals/activities being automatically given to everyone on certain benefits?

    If parents/guardians had to give information on their monthly incomings and outgoings and how they spend their benefits and that info was then used to make a decision then I'd have no issue with them receiving further help.

    Or is this completely wide of the mark?
    Not sure thats feasible, but lets say it was and the parent was told they have enough to feed their child, but still didn't, then what?

    It all comes down to it's the child that suffers and has zero control of that situation, whether it's genuine or it isn't.

  • Rob7Lee said:
    Would it not be better to do this on a case by case basis rather than free meals/activities being automatically given to everyone on certain benefits?

    If parents/guardians had to give information on their monthly incomings and outgoings and how they spend their benefits and that info was then used to make a decision then I'd have no issue with them receiving further help.

    Or is this completely wide of the mark?
    Not sure thats feasible, but lets say it was and the parent was told they have enough to feed their child, but still didn't, then what?

    It all comes down to it's the child that suffers and has zero control of that situation, whether it's genuine or it isn't.

    Good point
  • Would it not be better to do this on a case by case basis rather than free meals/activities being automatically given to everyone on certain benefits?

    If parents/guardians had to give information on their monthly incomings and outgoings and how they spend their benefits and that info was then used to make a decision then I'd have no issue with them receiving further help.

    Or is this completely wide of the mark?
    Most benefits are already on an income based system anyway so in theory it could be done. Simply use the same information they already have and make a decision based on that.

    The downside is that it would have to be on some sort of voucher/code basis to ensure its spent on what it's supposed to be, or else paid in arrears based on specific evidence.

    The problem is (as already alluded to) where does the line get drawn? How is it decided what income is enough or not?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!