FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Chancellor Reportedly to Cut Free School Lunches as Part of Spending Review

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *_nny MCMan
over a year ago

Crawley

That came in under the coalition just to keep the lib dems happy, didn't it?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"That came in under the coalition just to keep the lib dems happy, didn't it?"

Pretty much. I can't see how this is coming as a surprise to anyone.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ohnaronMan
over a year ago

london

There is no such thing as a free...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"There is no such thing as a free..."

"Taxpayer funded"

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Didn't the Tories promise NOT to do this in their manifesto?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Didn't the Tories promise NOT to do this in their manifesto?"

Your quite right they did...and the Libs stopped them from doing last term in office...just another attack on the poorer section of our society

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all. "

It's not free school meals for poor children, it's universal free school meals for the first 3 years of school, regardless of parental income.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Didn't the Tories promise NOT to do this in their manifesto?

Your quite right they did...and the Libs stopped them from doing last term in office...just another attack on the poorer section of our society "

You'd almost think the Tories take delight in cruelty.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

It's not free school meals for poor children, it's universal free school meals for the first 3 years of school, regardless of parental income."

Listen..the only people it will hit..is the people who can least afford them...totally disgusting in my mind

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's sad if they do as they bought it in as sometimes that's the only meal some children will have

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

It's not free school meals for poor children, it's universal free school meals for the first 3 years of school, regardless of parental income.

Listen..the only people it will hit..is the people who can least afford them...totally disgusting in my mind "

And they are the people who won't be hit. From what I've read it's the recent extension to universal status that is being considered for the cut, not the free school meals for all ages below a certain income level which have always been there. I may be wrong though.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No surprise and I couldn't really understand the point of my children suddenly being offered free school meals when I'm quite able to pay for my own children's food. It was an unnecessary expense to tax payers.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

It's not free school meals for poor children, it's universal free school meals for the first 3 years of school, regardless of parental income.

Listen..the only people it will hit..is the people who can least afford them...totally disgusting in my mind

And they are the people who won't be hit. From what I've read it's the recent extension to universal status that is being considered for the cut, not the free school meals for all ages below a certain income level which have always been there. I may be wrong though. "

You are wrong

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all. "

Because at the centre of conservatism is the notion that the less wealthy only have themselves to blame.

It's really not surprising, the Tories make no bones about existing to protect the interests of the 'haves' over the 'have-nots'.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

It's not free school meals for poor children, it's universal free school meals for the first 3 years of school, regardless of parental income.

Listen..the only people it will hit..is the people who can least afford them...totally disgusting in my mind

And they are the people who won't be hit. From what I've read it's the recent extension to universal status that is being considered for the cut, not the free school meals for all ages below a certain income level which have always been there. I may be wrong though.

You are wrong "

I stand corrected.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

Because at the centre of conservatism is the notion that the less wealthy only have themselves to blame.

It's really not surprising, the Tories make no bones about existing to protect the interests of the 'haves' over the 'have-nots'. "

This may be at the centre of certain politicians beliefs, but it's not at the centre of conservatism.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

It's not free school meals for poor children, it's universal free school meals for the first 3 years of school, regardless of parental income.

Listen..the only people it will hit..is the people who can least afford them...totally disgusting in my mind

And they are the people who won't be hit. From what I've read it's the recent extension to universal status that is being considered for the cut, not the free school meals for all ages below a certain income level which have always been there. I may be wrong though.

You are wrong "

No she wasn't. She was right.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"No surprise and I couldn't really understand the point of my children suddenly being offered free school meals when I'm quite able to pay for my own children's food. It was an unnecessary expense to tax payers."

And those who can't afford it?

Just let the weans starve?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *lligator3Man
over a year ago

Dundee

The poorer section of society as mentioned above should do more to work themselves out of it instead of nanny state saving the day all the time.

People worked hard to get out of it saddling themselves with student loans etc to get a graduate job just to see the minimum wage workers being gifted a 30percent wages increase to the living wage.

Another example in Britain of how it doesn't pay to work! (Which is what is wrong in Britain!)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No surprise and I couldn't really understand the point of my children suddenly being offered free school meals when I'm quite able to pay for my own children's food. It was an unnecessary expense to tax payers.

And those who can't afford it?

Just let the weans starve?"

It doesn't affect the free school dinners that have always been available to low income families.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"No surprise and I couldn't really understand the point of my children suddenly being offered free school meals when I'm quite able to pay for my own children's food. It was an unnecessary expense to tax payers.

And those who can't afford it?

Just let the weans starve?

It doesn't affect the free school dinners that have always been available to low income families. "

I think you'll find that's not the case.

You realise if all the kids get sick, you'll have nobody to shove up chimneys?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No surprise and I couldn't really understand the point of my children suddenly being offered free school meals when I'm quite able to pay for my own children's food. It was an unnecessary expense to tax payers.

And those who can't afford it?

Just let the weans starve?

It doesn't affect the free school dinners that have always been available to low income families.

I think you'll find that's not the case.

You realise if all the kids get sick, you'll have nobody to shove up chimneys?"

Well i can only find stories that relate to the cutting of policy introduced recently which was the universal free school meals for all of ks1. There is no mention of scraping free school meals for low income families. Care to point me in the right direction and I'll stand corrected.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Contraversial but maybe the government should introduce some sort of financial/credit check on prospective parents to see if they can afford children without living on the benefits the hard workers tax goes toward paying

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

Because at the centre of conservatism is the notion that the less wealthy only have themselves to blame.

It's really not surprising, the Tories make no bones about existing to protect the interests of the 'haves' over the 'have-nots'.

This may be at the centre of certain politicians beliefs, but it's not at the centre of conservatism. "

Of course it is - Conservatism by its very nature is reactionary, and "small state".

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Wood for the trees.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Contraversial but maybe the government should introduce some sort of financial/credit check on prospective parents to see if they can afford children without living on the benefits the hard workers tax goes toward paying "

It's the abusing of the system that is the problem. Some families fall on hard times and it's great that we have a system that can support them

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent


"Contraversial but maybe the government should introduce some sort of financial/credit check on prospective parents to see if they can afford children without living on the benefits the hard workers tax goes toward paying "

Not everyone has a child for benefits. Peoples situations can change!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They are not on about cutting all school meals.... Just the free school meals for every infant child..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aneandpaulCouple
over a year ago

cleveleys

Like putting the retirement age up we have to get money for those that are coming here to live

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

Because at the centre of conservatism is the notion that the less wealthy only have themselves to blame.

It's really not surprising, the Tories make no bones about existing to protect the interests of the 'haves' over the 'have-nots'.

This may be at the centre of certain politicians beliefs, but it's not at the centre of conservatism.

Of course it is - Conservatism by its very nature is reactionary, and "small state".

"

"Small state" is not synonymous with "less wealthy only have themselves to blame" or "protect the haves at the expense of the have nots". It might be easier for you to believe it is, but it isn't.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"They are not on about cutting all school meals.... Just the free school meals for every infant child.. "

That makes it OK?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No surprise and I couldn't really understand the point of my children suddenly being offered free school meals when I'm quite able to pay for my own children's food. It was an unnecessary expense to tax payers.

And those who can't afford it?

Just let the weans starve?

It doesn't affect the free school dinners that have always been available to low income families.

I think you'll find that's not the case.

You realise if all the kids get sick, you'll have nobody to shove up chimneys?

Well i can only find stories that relate to the cutting of policy introduced recently which was the universal free school meals for all of ks1. There is no mention of scraping free school meals for low income families. Care to point me in the right direction and I'll stand corrected."

I've been looking again too, and I can only find references to the Universal Infant Free School Meals programme, which is not the same thing as free school meals for low income families. I also can't find any evidence that it's even a firm proposal, just that it hasn't been ruled out in the Spending Review. Just reactionary reporting.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

Because at the centre of conservatism is the notion that the less wealthy only have themselves to blame.

It's really not surprising, the Tories make no bones about existing to protect the interests of the 'haves' over the 'have-nots'.

This may be at the centre of certain politicians beliefs, but it's not at the centre of conservatism.

Of course it is - Conservatism by its very nature is reactionary, and "small state".

"Small state" is not synonymous with "less wealthy only have themselves to blame" or "protect the haves at the expense of the have nots". It might be easier for you to believe it is, but it isn't. "

I didn't say that they were - they are, however all central pillars of conservatism.

I've never really had an argument that this is not the case - most Tories I meet openly show contempt towards those they deem to be lower class than themselves.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

Because at the centre of conservatism is the notion that the less wealthy only have themselves to blame.

It's really not surprising, the Tories make no bones about existing to protect the interests of the 'haves' over the 'have-nots'.

This may be at the centre of certain politicians beliefs, but it's not at the centre of conservatism.

Of course it is - Conservatism by its very nature is reactionary, and "small state".

"Small state" is not synonymous with "less wealthy only have themselves to blame" or "protect the haves at the expense of the have nots". It might be easier for you to believe it is, but it isn't.

I didn't say that they were - they are, however all central pillars of conservatism.

I've never really had an argument that this is not the case - most Tories I meet openly show contempt towards those they deem to be lower class than themselves. "

Most Tories I meet do no such thing. And it's really not a central tenet of conservative political theory. Even big bad Mrs T did not believe this.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"No surprise and I couldn't really understand the point of my children suddenly being offered free school meals when I'm quite able to pay for my own children's food. It was an unnecessary expense to tax payers.

And those who can't afford it?

Just let the weans starve?

It doesn't affect the free school dinners that have always been available to low income families.

I think you'll find that's not the case.

You realise if all the kids get sick, you'll have nobody to shove up chimneys?

Well i can only find stories that relate to the cutting of policy introduced recently which was the universal free school meals for all of ks1. There is no mention of scraping free school meals for low income families. Care to point me in the right direction and I'll stand corrected.

I've been looking again too, and I can only find references to the Universal Infant Free School Meals programme, which is not the same thing as free school meals for low income families. I also can't find any evidence that it's even a firm proposal, just that it hasn't been ruled out in the Spending Review. Just reactionary reporting. "

Your quite right..it is only infants...probably the most needy of all children....but hey its ok...and it will happen...the Libs stopped them in the last term from doing it...quite sad to think how some people think about others

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No surprise and I couldn't really understand the point of my children suddenly being offered free school meals when I'm quite able to pay for my own children's food. It was an unnecessary expense to tax payers.

And those who can't afford it?

Just let the weans starve?

It doesn't affect the free school dinners that have always been available to low income families.

I think you'll find that's not the case.

You realise if all the kids get sick, you'll have nobody to shove up chimneys?

Well i can only find stories that relate to the cutting of policy introduced recently which was the universal free school meals for all of ks1. There is no mention of scraping free school meals for low income families. Care to point me in the right direction and I'll stand corrected.

I've been looking again too, and I can only find references to the Universal Infant Free School Meals programme, which is not the same thing as free school meals for low income families. I also can't find any evidence that it's even a firm proposal, just that it hasn't been ruled out in the Spending Review. Just reactionary reporting.

Your quite right..it is only infants...probably the most needy of all children....but hey its ok...and it will happen...the Libs stopped them in the last term from doing it...quite sad to think how some people think about others "

No, the key point here is Universal. It's the programme brought in under the Coalition govt. There's nothing to suggest it's free school meals for children of low income families, which has been around for years.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"No surprise and I couldn't really understand the point of my children suddenly being offered free school meals when I'm quite able to pay for my own children's food. It was an unnecessary expense to tax payers.

And those who can't afford it?

Just let the weans starve?

It doesn't affect the free school dinners that have always been available to low income families.

I think you'll find that's not the case.

You realise if all the kids get sick, you'll have nobody to shove up chimneys?

Well i can only find stories that relate to the cutting of policy introduced recently which was the universal free school meals for all of ks1. There is no mention of scraping free school meals for low income families. Care to point me in the right direction and I'll stand corrected.

I've been looking again too, and I can only find references to the Universal Infant Free School Meals programme, which is not the same thing as free school meals for low income families. I also can't find any evidence that it's even a firm proposal, just that it hasn't been ruled out in the Spending Review. Just reactionary reporting. "

In the Telegraph? Anti Tory story in the Telegraph?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

Because at the centre of conservatism is the notion that the less wealthy only have themselves to blame.

It's really not surprising, the Tories make no bones about existing to protect the interests of the 'haves' over the 'have-nots'.

This may be at the centre of certain politicians beliefs, but it's not at the centre of conservatism.

Of course it is - Conservatism by its very nature is reactionary, and "small state".

"Small state" is not synonymous with "less wealthy only have themselves to blame" or "protect the haves at the expense of the have nots". It might be easier for you to believe it is, but it isn't.

I didn't say that they were - they are, however all central pillars of conservatism.

I've never really had an argument that this is not the case - most Tories I meet openly show contempt towards those they deem to be lower class than themselves.

Most Tories I meet do no such thing. And it's really not a central tenet of conservative political theory. Even big bad Mrs T did not believe this. "

Of course she did - there was no place for you in society if you were poor and didn't "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" - ie make yourself middle class.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

Because at the centre of conservatism is the notion that the less wealthy only have themselves to blame.

It's really not surprising, the Tories make no bones about existing to protect the interests of the 'haves' over the 'have-nots'.

This may be at the centre of certain politicians beliefs, but it's not at the centre of conservatism.

Of course it is - Conservatism by its very nature is reactionary, and "small state".

"Small state" is not synonymous with "less wealthy only have themselves to blame" or "protect the haves at the expense of the have nots". It might be easier for you to believe it is, but it isn't.

I didn't say that they were - they are, however all central pillars of conservatism.

I've never really had an argument that this is not the case - most Tories I meet openly show contempt towards those they deem to be lower class than themselves.

Most Tories I meet do no such thing. And it's really not a central tenet of conservative political theory. Even big bad Mrs T did not believe this.

Of course she did - there was no place for you in society if you were poor and didn't "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" - ie make yourself middle class. "

No, she didn't. It's a common misunderstanding, but that's not what "there's no such thing as society" means.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"No surprise and I couldn't really understand the point of my children suddenly being offered free school meals when I'm quite able to pay for my own children's food. It was an unnecessary expense to tax payers.

And those who can't afford it?

Just let the weans starve?

It doesn't affect the free school dinners that have always been available to low income families.

I think you'll find that's not the case.

You realise if all the kids get sick, you'll have nobody to shove up chimneys?

Well i can only find stories that relate to the cutting of policy introduced recently which was the universal free school meals for all of ks1. There is no mention of scraping free school meals for low income families. Care to point me in the right direction and I'll stand corrected.

I've been looking again too, and I can only find references to the Universal Infant Free School Meals programme, which is not the same thing as free school meals for low income families. I also can't find any evidence that it's even a firm proposal, just that it hasn't been ruled out in the Spending Review. Just reactionary reporting.

Your quite right..it is only infants...probably the most needy of all children....but hey its ok...and it will happen...the Libs stopped them in the last term from doing it...quite sad to think how some people think about others

No, the key point here is Universal. It's the programme brought in under the Coalition govt. There's nothing to suggest it's free school meals for children of low income families, which has been around for years. "

Universal means everyone. Just cos it's being taken off wealthy families as well as poor families doesn't make it right.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *awandOrderCouple
over a year ago

SW London

Free school meals are offered to all in KS1 - Years 1 and 2 only. Those who qualify on a financial basis also get them in Key Stage 2 and beyond - from year 3 and up. I have not been following the news, obviously too busy working - but if its junior schools he is talking about, its only low income families who get them in junior school, ie key stage 2.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

It's quite scary to see parents being happy at other people's children suffering so long as they can save a few coppers in tax.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No surprise and I couldn't really understand the point of my children suddenly being offered free school meals when I'm quite able to pay for my own children's food. It was an unnecessary expense to tax payers.

And those who can't afford it?

Just let the weans starve?

It doesn't affect the free school dinners that have always been available to low income families.

I think you'll find that's not the case.

You realise if all the kids get sick, you'll have nobody to shove up chimneys?

Well i can only find stories that relate to the cutting of policy introduced recently which was the universal free school meals for all of ks1. There is no mention of scraping free school meals for low income families. Care to point me in the right direction and I'll stand corrected.

I've been looking again too, and I can only find references to the Universal Infant Free School Meals programme, which is not the same thing as free school meals for low income families. I also can't find any evidence that it's even a firm proposal, just that it hasn't been ruled out in the Spending Review. Just reactionary reporting.

Your quite right..it is only infants...probably the most needy of all children....but hey its ok...and it will happen...the Libs stopped them in the last term from doing it...quite sad to think how some people think about others

No, the key point here is Universal. It's the programme brought in under the Coalition govt. There's nothing to suggest it's free school meals for children of low income families, which has been around for years.

Universal means everyone. Just cos it's being taken off wealthy families as well as poor families doesn't make it right."

The only programme I can see being considered for a cut is the Universal extension. i.e. not from the poor, just from those who it was extended to under the last government. If someone can point me in the direction of a proposal to roll back free school meal provision for low income families then great.

Of course, don't let me stand in the way of the evil Tories narrative, it makes for a much better story.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The poorer section of society as mentioned above should do more to work themselves out of it instead of nanny state saving the day all the time.

People worked hard to get out of it saddling themselves with student loans etc to get a graduate job just to see the minimum wage workers being gifted a 30percent wages increase to the living wage.

Another example in Britain of how it doesn't pay to work! (Which is what is wrong in Britain!)"

So what about the children of disabled parents or those suffering from long term sickness unable to work themselves out?

Why should people have to end up £1000's in debt to then have to work most of their life getting out of it so as to get an education and be able to get the same opportunity as someone born into money?

Why shouldn't people be paid a wage that matches or is more than the cost of living. More people able to work may actually go out and get a job if it pays to do so.

We should be helping those less well off to have the same opportunities as everyone else whilst paying for the services we can afford. It's called being human and caring for others because you never know when you might need that assistance yourself

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If all Tories don't agree with the Tory way of carrying on, why on Earth do they remain Tory?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's quite scary to see parents being happy at other people's children suffering so long as they can save a few coppers in tax."

Woohoo! I'm not a parent, I get off scot free. (Also, it's £800m, which I personally believe would be better targeted towards those in need, not paying for dinners for kids whose parents can afford them anyway.)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"

Of course it is - Conservatism by its very nature is reactionary, and "small state".

"

Our kids had school lunches until Jamie Oliver got involved. Then the prices jumped, even though it was still the same old tosh to eat ( They just called it 'minced beef steaks' instead of 'burgers') In the end a quarter of our weekly food budget was going on five lunches for two infants.

The tax-payer pays now, but this simply hides the inefficiencies and waste that so often goes with council-provided services where the council has a monopoly because 'they know best'.

I believe conservatism is more about letting people choose how to spend their money themselves, while providing a basic safety-net for those who need it.

The argument is then 'what is a basic minimum?' and 'who are those in need?'

These are the questions where sometimes some Tories need a little help.

Mr ddc

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"If all Tories don't agree with the Tory way of carrying on, why on Earth do they remain Tory?"

Why did Nazis remain Nazis?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If all Tories don't agree with the Tory way of carrying on, why on Earth do they remain Tory?"

Because what's described as "the Tory way of carrying on" rarely bears any resemblance to the reality of a situation, in my experience. In the same way that most of the reporting around Corbyn has been reactionary and exaggerated.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If all Tories don't agree with the Tory way of carrying on, why on Earth do they remain Tory?

Why did Nazis remain Nazis?"

Bit early in the thread for Godwin's Law.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

People only believe what they want to. I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of where it says they are thinking of scrapping free school meals for low income families.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"People only believe what they want to. I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of where it says they are thinking of scrapping free school meals for low income families. "

I mentioned (above).

It's in the Telegraph. The Tory in-house magazine.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If all Tories don't agree with the Tory way of carrying on, why on Earth do they remain Tory?

Because what's described as "the Tory way of carrying on" rarely bears any resemblance to the reality of a situation, in my experience. In the same way that most of the reporting around Corbyn has been reactionary and exaggerated. "

But we can see the Tory way all around us since 2010.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People only believe what they want to. I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of where it says they are thinking of scrapping free school meals for low income families.

I mentioned (above).

It's in the Telegraph. The Tory in-house magazine."

That isn't what the Telegraph article says, I've just read it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The tax-payer pays now, but this simply hides the inefficiencies and waste that so often goes with council-provided services where the council has a monopoly because 'they know best'"

With a lot of 'council-provided services' most are contracted out to other companies and sometimes it's not even the company that can offer the best deal or service.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People only believe what they want to. I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of where it says they are thinking of scrapping free school meals for low income families.

I mentioned (above).

It's in the Telegraph. The Tory in-house magazine.

That isn't what the Telegraph article says, I've just read it. "

Oh but it doesn't matter what the article actually says. ...It's what people want to believe it says that matters...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons."

Reportedly. Key word.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People only believe what they want to. I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of where it says they are thinking of scrapping free school meals for low income families.

I mentioned (above).

It's in the Telegraph. The Tory in-house magazine.

That isn't what the Telegraph article says, I've just read it.

Oh but it doesn't matter what the article actually says. ...It's what people want to believe it says that matters..."

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

Because at the centre of conservatism is the notion that the less wealthy only have themselves to blame.

It's really not surprising, the Tories make no bones about existing to protect the interests of the 'haves' over the 'have-nots'.

This may be at the centre of certain politicians beliefs, but it's not at the centre of conservatism.

Of course it is - Conservatism by its very nature is reactionary, and "small state".

"Small state" is not synonymous with "less wealthy only have themselves to blame" or "protect the haves at the expense of the have nots". It might be easier for you to believe it is, but it isn't.

I didn't say that they were - they are, however all central pillars of conservatism.

I've never really had an argument that this is not the case - most Tories I meet openly show contempt towards those they deem to be lower class than themselves.

Most Tories I meet do no such thing. And it's really not a central tenet of conservative political theory. Even big bad Mrs T did not believe this.

Of course she did - there was no place for you in society if you were poor and didn't "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" - ie make yourself middle class.

No, she didn't. It's a common misunderstanding, but that's not what "there's no such thing as society" means. "

No,I didn't say it was. But it is what "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" means and also the notion of "getting on ones bike" to find work.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People only believe what they want to. I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of where it says they are thinking of scrapping free school meals for low income families.

I mentioned (above).

It's in the Telegraph. The Tory in-house magazine.

That isn't what the Telegraph article says, I've just read it.

Oh but it doesn't matter what the article actually says. ...It's what people want to believe it says that matters..."

I believe what I see in front of me, thanks to that incompetent Tory idiot IDS.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"People only believe what they want to. I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of where it says they are thinking of scrapping free school meals for low income families. "

they all heard you. then ignored you because it made them look fools.

your taking all the fun out of shouting tax the rich

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It was silly to bring it in anyway.

And this may sound controversial but I think that benefits need to be juggled with and part being paid in food vouchers. I don't feel happy as a tax payer, paying for someone else to have a brand new sofa on credit and top of the range phones for them to then not have enough money left to feed their family.

I was a single mum when my son was 3. I worked and scrimt and saved, I had no spare income for fun.

My friend was a single mum on benefits, she had more disposable income than I did at the end of each week. She had a lovely council house with nice furniture. Tumble dryer top mobile phone.

I had a donated sofa basic phone and had to hang my clothes to dry.

That's what's wrong with this country it doesn't pay to work

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons."

If the fat cat that is George Osborne does this, as has been said here, a lot of kids will not get a hot meal at home as for some kids this is their only hot meal as they may have working parents or other reasons for it being the

ir only hot meal. I work in a secondary school in the catering section, and see all kinds of different kids from different backgrounds. Some wont even take their free school meal that they are entitled to, we have to literally try to make/encourage them to eat, as some dont bother with breakfast and may only get a sandwich or something light at home.

Sorry for being on my high horse, but starving kids I cannot bear to see.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People only believe what they want to. I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of where it says they are thinking of scrapping free school meals for low income families.

they all heard you. then ignored you because it made them look fools.

your taking all the fun out of shouting tax the rich "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *L RogueMan
over a year ago

London


"Didn't the Tories promise NOT to do this in their manifesto?"

And you believed them?!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Tories have always screwed the working class and poor/vulnerable, then use the media to turn them against each other, can't believe it when people can't, or choose not to, see this.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"People only believe what they want to. I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of where it says they are thinking of scrapping free school meals for low income families.

I mentioned (above).

It's in the Telegraph. The Tory in-house magazine.

That isn't what the Telegraph article says, I've just read it. "

If, IF, you've read it, you've failed to understand it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Didn't the Tories promise NOT to do this in their manifesto?

And you believed them?! "

There is no such person as father Christmas....it doesn't look good for the tooth fairy either..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest."

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses "

Exactly, why aren't they cutting their own free meals? lead by example.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Free school meals are offered to all in KS1 - Years 1 and 2 only. Those who qualify on a financial basis also get them in Key Stage 2 and beyond - from year 3 and up. I have not been following the news, obviously too busy working - but if its junior schools he is talking about, its only low income families who get them in junior school, ie key stage 2."

In my school it is nursery, reception, year 1 and 2 that are entitled to free school meals.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"

That isn't what the Telegraph article says, I've just read it.

If, IF, you've read it, you've failed to understand it."

Would it help if I quoted the Grauniad instead?

"Free school meals for disadvantaged pupils are not at risk of being cut."

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/20/labour-warns-children-would-go-hungry-if-universal-free-meals-scrapped

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses

Exactly, why aren't they cutting their own free meals? lead by example."

Well they'd be cutting EVERYONE'S free meals wouldn't they...so they already are. Oh but hang on i expect if you're on income support you'll still be entitled to free meals so what are you getting your knickers in a twist about?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People only believe what they want to. I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of where it says they are thinking of scrapping free school meals for low income families.

I mentioned (above).

It's in the Telegraph. The Tory in-house magazine.

That isn't what the Telegraph article says, I've just read it.

If, IF, you've read it, you've failed to understand it."

You are the one that isn't understanding it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses "

Sorry my fault, i thought we were still talking about free school meals. Not "who in the UK gets free meals" if that is the case then i dont want murderers and paedos to be fed in prison either.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses

Exactly, why aren't they cutting their own free meals? lead by example.

Well they'd be cutting EVERYONE'S free meals wouldn't they...so they already are. Oh but hang on i expect if you're on income support you'll still be entitled to free meals so what are you getting your knickers in a twist about? "

Who says I'm on income support?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses

Sorry my fault, i thought we were still talking about free school meals. Not "who in the UK gets free meals" if that is the case then i dont want murderers and paedos to be fed in prison either."

here here

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"People only believe what they want to. I'm still waiting for someone to point me in the direction of where it says they are thinking of scrapping free school meals for low income families.

I mentioned (above).

It's in the Telegraph. The Tory in-house magazine.

That isn't what the Telegraph article says, I've just read it.

If, IF, you've read it, you've failed to understand it."

I'm not sure why the incredulity that you suggested a source and I went and read it. I've understood it perfectly well.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

fuck you!!! george Osborne stole my qourn

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses

Exactly, why aren't they cutting their own free meals? lead by example.

Well they'd be cutting EVERYONE'S free meals wouldn't they...so they already are. Oh but hang on i expect if you're on income support you'll still be entitled to free meals so what are you getting your knickers in a twist about?

Who says I'm on income support?"

Oh dear.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"fuck you!!! george Osborne stole my qourn "

Quorn?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

That isn't what the Telegraph article says, I've just read it.

If, IF, you've read it, you've failed to understand it.

Would it help if I quoted the Grauniad instead?

"Free school meals for disadvantaged pupils are not at risk of being cut."

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/20/labour-warns-children-would-go-hungry-if-universal-free-meals-scrapped"

Yes but Mr DDC have you understood that while the article may in fact say that, you haven't understood what it really meant to say (which is that Tories are child killing evil bastards, obviously).

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses

Sorry my fault, i thought we were still talking about free school meals. Not "who in the UK gets free meals" if that is the case then i dont want murderers and paedos to be fed in prison either."

Besides, Tories should still get free meals in Parliament, otherwise they might be tempted to eat the babies of the poor

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses

Exactly, why aren't they cutting their own free meals? lead by example.

Well they'd be cutting EVERYONE'S free meals wouldn't they...so they already are. Oh but hang on i expect if you're on income support you'll still be entitled to free meals so what are you getting your knickers in a twist about?

Who says I'm on income support?

Oh dear."

Just didn't make sense.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses

Sorry my fault, i thought we were still talking about free school meals. Not "who in the UK gets free meals" if that is the case then i dont want murderers and paedos to be fed in prison either.

Besides, Tories should still get free meals in Parliament, otherwise they might be tempted to eat the babies of the poor "

Problem solved, surely?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses

Exactly, why aren't they cutting their own free meals? lead by example.

Well they'd be cutting EVERYONE'S free meals wouldn't they...so they already are. Oh but hang on i expect if you're on income support you'll still be entitled to free meals so what are you getting your knickers in a twist about?

Who says I'm on income support?

Oh dear.

Just didn't make sense."

I'm not playing with you anymore it's not fair.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"

Yes but Mr DDC have you understood that while the article may in fact say that, you haven't understood what it really meant to say (which is that Tories are child killing evil bastards, obviously). "

What I don't understand is the logic that if the tax-payer doesn't fund meals for wealthy parents, their children will starve. Are we supporting the feckless rich now?

(Politics is too confusing for me )

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Id be glad that my taxes weren't buying school dinners for the wealthy to be honest.

But they are...as your taxes are funding these politicians expenses

Exactly, why aren't they cutting their own free meals? lead by example.

Well they'd be cutting EVERYONE'S free meals wouldn't they...so they already are. Oh but hang on i expect if you're on income support you'll still be entitled to free meals so what are you getting your knickers in a twist about?

Who says I'm on income support?

Oh dear.

Just didn't make sense.

I'm not playing with you anymore it's not fair."

You're just trying to mess with my head, it's working.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Yes but Mr DDC have you understood that while the article may in fact say that, you haven't understood what it really meant to say (which is that Tories are child killing evil bastards, obviously).

What I don't understand is the logic that if the tax-payer doesn't fund meals for wealthy parents, their children will starve. Are we supporting the feckless rich now?

(Politics is too confusing for me )"

Well I guess if the government continue giving free school meals to the rich then the opposition can moan about them wasting tax payers money

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"...........

Sorry my fault, i thought we were still talking about free school meals. Not "who in the UK gets free meals" if that is the case then i dont want murderers and paedos to be fed in prison either.

Besides, Tories should still get free meals in Parliament, otherwise they might be tempted to eat the babies of the poor "

That'll never last. The Tories are determined to stop poor people having babies.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Are we supporting the feckless rich now?"

Yes yes we must! For fear of upsetting the left wing and ignorant! We WILL bring this country to it's knees so that lord pothelswait's kids can eat for free for a couple of years....bless them and their silken britches!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...........

Sorry my fault, i thought we were still talking about free school meals. Not "who in the UK gets free meals" if that is the case then i dont want murderers and paedos to be fed in prison either.

Besides, Tories should still get free meals in Parliament, otherwise they might be tempted to eat the babies of the poor

That'll never last. The Tories are determined to stop poor people having babies."

You think people that can't afford to look after their own children should be encouraged to have them?? Why should the tax payer fund that?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.

If the fat cat that is George Osborne does this, as has been said here, a lot of kids will not get a hot meal at home as for some kids this is their only hot meal as they may have working parents or other reasons for it being the

ir only hot meal. I work in a secondary school in the catering section, and see all kinds of different kids from different backgrounds. Some wont even take their free school meal that they are entitled to, we have to literally try to make/encourage them to eat, as some dont bother with breakfast and may only get a sandwich or something light at home.

Sorry for being on my high horse, but starving kids I cannot bear to see. "

you know the 25% of kids you serve who are overweight? perhaps you could take some off their lardy arse plates and put it on the starving kids plate?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Maybe the money could be spent teaching parents budgeting as well as living within their means.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Everyone talks about over weight kids. No body seems to mention their shit parents who should know that giving kids chrisps and sweets instead of meals is wrong!

This country!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.

If the fat cat that is George Osborne does this, as has been said here, a lot of kids will not get a hot meal at home as for some kids this is their only hot meal as they may have working parents or other reasons for it being the

ir only hot meal. I work in a secondary school in the catering section, and see all kinds of different kids from different backgrounds. Some wont even take their free school meal that they are entitled to, we have to literally try to make/encourage them to eat, as some dont bother with breakfast and may only get a sandwich or something light at home.

Sorry for being on my high horse, but starving kids I cannot bear to see.

you know the 25% of kids you serve who are overweight? perhaps you could take some off their lardy arse plates and put it on the starving kids plate? "

We practice portion control in our school, as do the other schools in our area. There are very few overweight kids in the school I work in, because the meals are now worked out via the fat content etc. We do sell cakes and cookies, they are cooked with low fat products. The kids will buy chips and sweets on the way home. We cant control that, as we cant make them eat less or more at school. We just do our best to encourage them to eat well, vegetables and salad, meat etc are served every day.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Contraversial but maybe the government should introduce some sort of financial/credit check on prospective parents to see if they can afford children without living on the benefits the hard workers tax goes toward paying "

There are many people who can afford children when they have them who later fall on hard times later down the line

Women who leave abusing relationship for instance, going from a working family to a single parent who has to look after kids

People who's partner dies, maybe the partner who died was the bread winner and they other partner now has to rely on benefits until they get back on track

Redundancy

Etc etc

All things that can't been foreseen when being credit checked for being a prospective parent

Of course some are lazy bastards trying to milk the system but its wrong to assum everybody is, some people geuinly need a helping hand for a while

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Meanwhile, a group of burger van vendors have launched a court bid to overturn a ban on them operating at school gates - saying it's their human right to make kids fat.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I understand this totally. The helping hand thing. Yet i work along side a woman who with her boyfriend have a joint income of around 90k, why is she allowed to keep her 3 bed council house when she could buy her own?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

It's not free school meals for poor children, it's universal free school meals for the first 3 years of school, regardless of parental income."

Yeah they brought this out and scrapped uniform help for poorer families!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

It's not free school meals for poor children, it's universal free school meals for the first 3 years of school, regardless of parental income.

Yeah they brought this out and scrapped uniform help for poorer families!"

and brought in £3.00 school pants in tesco.

yays

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

It's not free school meals for poor children, it's universal free school meals for the first 3 years of school, regardless of parental income.

Yeah they brought this out and scrapped uniform help for poorer families!

and brought in £3.00 school pants in tesco.

yays "

Some secondary schools keep changing the uniform, and more and more items are having the school logo on them. Even the skirts and trousers are specific styles so you can only get them from specific suppliers. No bloody yay!!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Do schools still get a kickback from approved uniform retailers?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

It's not free school meals for poor children, it's universal free school meals for the first 3 years of school, regardless of parental income.

Yeah they brought this out and scrapped uniform help for poorer families!

and brought in £3.00 school pants in tesco.

yays

Some secondary schools keep changing the uniform, and more and more items are having the school logo on them. Even the skirts and trousers are specific styles so you can only get them from specific suppliers. No bloody yay!!!"

My sons school is like this.. Pe kit alone is over 50quid.

No more buying the shirt and trousers from asda either.. as It has to be the specific ones. Even the socks and bag from the school shop.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"Do schools still get a kickback from approved uniform retailers?"

not if you tell the headmaster to fuck off no.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They are not on about cutting all school meals.... Just the free school meals for every infant child..

That makes it OK?"

Yes in my opinion! Why should families on high incomes have meals for their children paid by the taxes of families on much lower incomes?

It's just as silly as the winter fuel allowance which is sent to millionaire pensioners in southern Spain!

In an ideal world the government would provide everything for everyone - in the real world we can't afford it!

Free school meals should be means tested as they've always been - but I must admit I'd re-introduce free school milk with added vitamins to all primary children - as I believe this WOULD make a difference! X

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all.

Because at the centre of conservatism is the notion that the less wealthy only have themselves to blame.

It's really not surprising, the Tories make no bones about existing to protect the interests of the 'haves' over the 'have-nots'. "
. I thought that Tory policies were aimed at creating a more equal society . People should take responsibility for their actions . Everything that you have in life has to be earned , not given to you on a plate .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *carineMan
over a year ago

Armthorpe, Doncaster

Fat brats lack snacks attack?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They are not on about cutting all school meals.... Just the free school meals for every infant child..

That makes it OK?

Yes in my opinion! Why should families on high incomes have meals for their children paid by the taxes of families on much lower incomes?

It's just as silly as the winter fuel allowance which is sent to millionaire pensioners in southern Spain!

In an ideal world the government would provide everything for everyone - in the real world we can't afford it!

Free school meals should be means tested as they've always been - but I must admit I'd re-introduce free school milk with added vitamins to all primary children - as I believe this WOULD make a difference! X"

I had no idea free school meals were available for all children, I though they were only available for children of unemployed people

How long has this been the case?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They are not on about cutting all school meals.... Just the free school meals for every infant child..

That makes it OK?

Yes in my opinion! Why should families on high incomes have meals for their children paid by the taxes of families on much lower incomes?

It's just as silly as the winter fuel allowance which is sent to millionaire pensioners in southern Spain!

In an ideal world the government would provide everything for everyone - in the real world we can't afford it!

Free school meals should be means tested as they've always been - but I must admit I'd re-introduce free school milk with added vitamins to all primary children - as I believe this WOULD make a difference! X

I had no idea free school meals were available for all children, I though they were only available for children of unemployed people

How long has this been the case?"

Was brought in for ks1 a year or 2 ago.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons."
. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They are not on about cutting all school meals.... Just the free school meals for every infant child..

That makes it OK?

Yes in my opinion! Why should families on high incomes have meals for their children paid by the taxes of families on much lower incomes?

It's just as silly as the winter fuel allowance which is sent to millionaire pensioners in southern Spain!

In an ideal world the government would provide everything for everyone - in the real world we can't afford it!

Free school meals should be means tested as they've always been - but I must admit I'd re-introduce free school milk with added vitamins to all primary children - as I believe this WOULD make a difference! X

I had no idea free school meals were available for all children, I though they were only available for children of unemployed people

How long has this been the case?"

For all infant school children, last Sept (and I repeat, the same time they removed school uniform assistance for poorer parents - not just on benefits, but low income).

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They are not on about cutting all school meals.... Just the free school meals for every infant child..

That makes it OK?

Yes in my opinion! Why should families on high incomes have meals for their children paid by the taxes of families on much lower incomes?

It's just as silly as the winter fuel allowance which is sent to millionaire pensioners in southern Spain!

In an ideal world the government would provide everything for everyone - in the real world we can't afford it!

Free school meals should be means tested as they've always been - but I must admit I'd re-introduce free school milk with added vitamins to all primary children - as I believe this WOULD make a difference! X

I had no idea free school meals were available for all children, I though they were only available for children of unemployed people

How long has this been the case?"

Mine don't qualify age wise but I think it's KS1 only, ages 5-7 years and came into affect in September. As our school didn't provide any school dinners it's had to out source the catering to a 'live kitchen' to meet the requirements.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use . "

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off! "

Oh do you know what they plan to do with the funds then IF they cut school dinners for all ks1?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off! "

from rich peoples pockets to the nhs. whats your beef?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"...........

Sorry my fault, i thought we were still talking about free school meals. Not "who in the UK gets free meals" if that is the case then i dont want murderers and paedos to be fed in prison either.

Besides, Tories should still get free meals in Parliament, otherwise they might be tempted to eat the babies of the poor

That'll never last. The Tories are determined to stop poor people having babies."
. I don't remember seeing that in their manifesto. In any event more people voted for them that any other party , so it can only be assumed that their policies are the most acceptable to the electorate . Only a very small part of the population support the something for nothing society .

Everything that you have in life has to be either paid for or earned .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off!

Oh do you know what they plan to do with the funds then IF they cut school dinners for all ks1?"
. It will be spent on education instead.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off!

Oh do you know what they plan to do with the funds then IF they cut school dinners for all ks1?"

The sarcastic laugh was towards the quote that free school meals to ALL infant school children was a better use of existing education funds.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off!

from rich peoples pockets to the nhs. whats your beef? "

What's the NHS got to do with it?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...........

Sorry my fault, i thought we were still talking about free school meals. Not "who in the UK gets free meals" if that is the case then i dont want murderers and paedos to be fed in prison either.

Besides, Tories should still get free meals in Parliament, otherwise they might be tempted to eat the babies of the poor

That'll never last. The Tories are determined to stop poor people having babies.. I don't remember seeing that in their manifesto. In any event more people voted for them that any other party , so it can only be assumed that their policies are the most acceptable to the electorate . Only a very small part of the population support the something for nothing society .

Everything that you have in life has to be either paid for or earned . "

I'm assuming you're a tory supporter.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off!

Oh do you know what they plan to do with the funds then IF they cut school dinners for all ks1?

The sarcastic laugh was towards the quote that free school meals to ALL infant school children was a better use of existing education funds."

That isn't what he meant though. He meant by doing away with free school meals to all funds can be put to better use.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"...........

Sorry my fault, i thought we were still talking about free school meals. Not "who in the UK gets free meals" if that is the case then i dont want murderers and paedos to be fed in prison either.

Besides, Tories should still get free meals in Parliament, otherwise they might be tempted to eat the babies of the poor

That'll never last. The Tories are determined to stop poor people having babies.. I don't remember seeing that in their manifesto. In any event more people voted for them that any other party , so it can only be assumed that their policies are the most acceptable to the electorate . Only a very small part of the population support the something for nothing society .

Everything that you have in life has to be either paid for or earned .

I'm assuming you're a tory supporter."
. I prefer to live in a society where people recognise that there is a cost to providing a service and that nothing is free. It may be a poor analogy in this case , but there is no such thing as a free meal.

We have to allocate what resources we have in the fairest manner possible .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off!

Oh do you know what they plan to do with the funds then IF they cut school dinners for all ks1?

The sarcastic laugh was towards the quote that free school meals to ALL infant school children was a better use of existing education funds.

That isn't what he meant though. He meant by doing away with free school meals to all funds can be put to better use."

Ah, it was poorly phrased as a paragraph. Thanking you for clarifying.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ratty_DamselWoman
over a year ago

Greater London


"Why would those in power want to cut the food of those who can least afford it? Sometimes it's the only hot meal the poor kids get. Still, removing it would teach them to know their place, won't it and will save a HUGE amount of money and won't cause anyone any distress at all. "

Oh Thatcher will be dancing in her grave about this.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ratty_DamselWoman
over a year ago

Greater London


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off!

Oh do you know what they plan to do with the funds then IF they cut school dinners for all ks1?. It will be spent on education instead. "

Oh you mean to cover the other cuts in education? Or maybe give kids with SEN the help they are generally denied?

Choices choices eh?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off!

Oh do you know what they plan to do with the funds then IF they cut school dinners for all ks1?. It will be spent on education instead.

Oh you mean to cover the other cuts in education? Or maybe give kids with SEN the help they are generally denied?

Choices choices eh? "

Nah to go pay off there banking mates

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off!

Oh do you know what they plan to do with the funds then IF they cut school dinners for all ks1?. It will be spent on education instead.

Oh you mean to cover the other cuts in education? Or maybe give kids with SEN the help they are generally denied?

Choices choices eh? "
. My understanding is that the education budget will be fixed for the next five years unless numbers increase . This can. hardly be defined as a cut.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are).

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"

Nah to go pay off there banking mates "

Wasn't it Gordon who bailed out the bankers?

As for subsidised bars in House of Commons, I'm with you there. In what other job are you allowed to drink?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are)."

Cut expenses full stop, they earn enough of tax payers money as it is and overhaul the house of lords. Every time a new government comes in they add more numbers to it so that they have a majority at yet more cost to the taxpayer.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock


"Meanwhile, a group of burger van vendors have launched a court bid to overturn a ban on them operating at school gates - saying it's their human right to make kids fat.

"

The lib dems are out to get the burger vans too. They want to have a ban on all diesel vans running idle while parked stationary. Say goodbye to ice cream vans too. Oh wait, won't happen the limp dems got wiped out and are likely to be wiped out again in 2020, this is the best policy idea they could come up with at conference in Bournemouth, carry on as you were.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock


"

Nah to go pay off there banking mates

Wasn't it Gordon who bailed out the bankers?

As for subsidised bars in House of Commons, I'm with you there. In what other job are you allowed to drink?

"

Wine tester, and they spit the wine out, what a waste.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ighting17thMan
over a year ago

Bodmin

Untrustworthy Tories!!!

When Thatcher's funeral was on telly I recorded it so I could watch it again and again and again...

Tears of laughter streaming down my face every single fucking time!!!!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Untrustworthy Tories!!!

When Thatcher's funeral was on telly I recorded it so I could watch it again and again and again...

Tears of laughter streaming down my face every single fucking time!!!!!"

And you don't think that behaviour is even a little unhinged?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Untrustworthy Tories!!!

When Thatcher's funeral was on telly I recorded it so I could watch it again and again and again...

Tears of laughter streaming down my face every single fucking time!!!!!"

Not sure what that says about you

I know a few people who have died I don't like, I wouldn't laugh at their funeral though

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Untrustworthy Tories!!!

When Thatcher's funeral was on telly I recorded it so I could watch it again and again and again...

Tears of laughter streaming down my face every single fucking time!!!!!

And you don't think that behaviour is even a little unhinged? "

I glad it wasnt just me who finds that behaviour strange

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Untrustworthy Tories!!!

When Thatcher's funeral was on telly I recorded it so I could watch it again and again and again...

Tears of laughter streaming down my face every single fucking time!!!!!

And you don't think that behaviour is even a little unhinged?

I glad it wasnt just me who finds that behaviour strange "

Slightly weird maybe. But i find it weirder that we spent millions on a dead person.

I didn't even watch it at all.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Meanwhile, a group of burger van vendors have launched a court bid to overturn a ban on them operating at school gates - saying it's their human right to make kids fat.

The lib dems are out to get the burger vans too. They want to have a ban on all diesel vans running idle while parked stationary. Say goodbye to ice cream vans too. Oh wait, won't happen the limp dems got wiped out and are likely to be wiped out again in 2020, this is the best policy idea they could come up with at conference in Bournemouth, carry on as you were. "

A shame because what this country needs right now is a credible party to take the vacant middle ground. Labour look to be shifting back to the left with Corbyn in charge and personally I don't trust the Tories to do right by those not in a position to better their position in life i.e the sick, disabled, impoverished and elderly. By the impoverished I mean the children born into poverty.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off!

Oh do you know what they plan to do with the funds then IF they cut school dinners for all ks1?. It will be spent on education instead.

Oh you mean to cover the other cuts in education? Or maybe give kids with SEN the help they are generally denied?

Choices choices eh? "

Thank you.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are)."

If life was fair then they'd be the first to go without subsidies, those who can afford to go without.

Politics needs to go. We need to replace it with something else. There's a tiny minority of people building bridges, on a global scale, where they have the power to affect millions of peoples lives and these millions don't have much say in it. We need to stop making politics a valid option and work amongst ourselves to create something better...and this is actually happening right now.

Most people don't care about the media, or they say something against it, now they have the ability to. Same for politics. People are spreading the truths and their personal stories.

We've got the internet, and i know people don't like how others can do and say whatever they want on it (coz it's often stupid things they say) but we can also use it to build our own bridges, of larger amounts of people, and sort out things for ourselves.

Fuck the system.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are).

If life was fair then they'd be the first to go without subsidies, those who can afford to go without.

Politics needs to go. We need to replace it with something else. There's a tiny minority of people building bridges, on a global scale, where they have the power to affect millions of peoples lives and these millions don't have much say in it. We need to stop making politics a valid option and work amongst ourselves to create something better...and this is actually happening right now.

Most people don't care about the media, or they say something against it, now they have the ability to. Same for politics. People are spreading the truths and their personal stories.

We've got the internet, and i know people don't like how others can do and say whatever they want on it (coz it's often stupid things they say) but we can also use it to build our own bridges, of larger amounts of people, and sort out things for ourselves.

Fuck the system.

"

Yeah, fuck the system, it's been fucking us all for long enough.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are).

If life was fair then they'd be the first to go without subsidies, those who can afford to go without.

Politics needs to go. We need to replace it with something else. There's a tiny minority of people building bridges, on a global scale, where they have the power to affect millions of peoples lives and these millions don't have much say in it. We need to stop making politics a valid option and work amongst ourselves to create something better...and this is actually happening right now.

Most people don't care about the media, or they say something against it, now they have the ability to. Same for politics. People are spreading the truths and their personal stories.

We've got the internet, and i know people don't like how others can do and say whatever they want on it (coz it's often stupid things they say) but we can also use it to build our own bridges, of larger amounts of people, and sort out things for ourselves.

Fuck the system.

Yeah, fuck the system, it's been fucking us all for long enough. "

It was designed specifically to fuck most of us.

If politics was a valid option then everyone's needs would be considered under it.

We would not need charities, unions,or protestors to campaign for things, because everyone's needs and welfare would be considered and represented fairly.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are).

If life was fair then they'd be the first to go without subsidies, those who can afford to go without.

Politics needs to go. We need to replace it with something else. There's a tiny minority of people building bridges, on a global scale, where they have the power to affect millions of peoples lives and these millions don't have much say in it. We need to stop making politics a valid option and work amongst ourselves to create something better...and this is actually happening right now.

Most people don't care about the media, or they say something against it, now they have the ability to. Same for politics. People are spreading the truths and their personal stories.

We've got the internet, and i know people don't like how others can do and say whatever they want on it (coz it's often stupid things they say) but we can also use it to build our own bridges, of larger amounts of people, and sort out things for ourselves.

Fuck the system.

Yeah, fuck the system, it's been fucking us all for long enough.

It was designed specifically to fuck most of us.

If politics was a valid option then everyone's needs would be considered under it.

We would not need charities, unions,or protestors to campaign for things, because everyone's needs and welfare would be considered and represented fairly."

All systems, Religious, political or otherwise has failed throughout history, yet people cling to them still. Why do you think this is?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are).

If life was fair then they'd be the first to go without subsidies, those who can afford to go without.

Politics needs to go. We need to replace it with something else. There's a tiny minority of people building bridges, on a global scale, where they have the power to affect millions of peoples lives and these millions don't have much say in it. We need to stop making politics a valid option and work amongst ourselves to create something better...and this is actually happening right now.

Most people don't care about the media, or they say something against it, now they have the ability to. Same for politics. People are spreading the truths and their personal stories.

We've got the internet, and i know people don't like how others can do and say whatever they want on it (coz it's often stupid things they say) but we can also use it to build our own bridges, of larger amounts of people, and sort out things for ourselves.

Fuck the system.

Yeah, fuck the system, it's been fucking us all for long enough.

It was designed specifically to fuck most of us.

If politics was a valid option then everyone's needs would be considered under it.

We would not need charities, unions,or protestors to campaign for things, because everyone's needs and welfare would be considered and represented fairly.

All systems, Religious, political or otherwise has failed throughout history, yet people cling to them still. Why do you think this is?"

Exploitation of our basic needs. Exploitation of people being naturally submissive. Restriction of personal growth, exploration, and freedoms, being a part of these systems.

I don't think they've failed absolutely, but i think they do not take into consideration that every person in them is individual as well as part of a collective. Although some institutions were heading that way, in that they consider everyone has different needs and the structure does not work for everyone, but then we got your conservatives who are holding back progression because they try to conserve traditions.

Traditions are fine for those who want them, but not everyone does and they can actually be harmful to many people.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are).

If life was fair then they'd be the first to go without subsidies, those who can afford to go without.

Politics needs to go. We need to replace it with something else. There's a tiny minority of people building bridges, on a global scale, where they have the power to affect millions of peoples lives and these millions don't have much say in it. We need to stop making politics a valid option and work amongst ourselves to create something better...and this is actually happening right now.

Most people don't care about the media, or they say something against it, now they have the ability to. Same for politics. People are spreading the truths and their personal stories.

We've got the internet, and i know people don't like how others can do and say whatever they want on it (coz it's often stupid things they say) but we can also use it to build our own bridges, of larger amounts of people, and sort out things for ourselves.

Fuck the system.

Yeah, fuck the system, it's been fucking us all for long enough.

It was designed specifically to fuck most of us.

If politics was a valid option then everyone's needs would be considered under it.

We would not need charities, unions,or protestors to campaign for things, because everyone's needs and welfare would be considered and represented fairly.

All systems, Religious, political or otherwise has failed throughout history, yet people cling to them still. Why do you think this is?

Exploitation of our basic needs. Exploitation of people being naturally submissive. Restriction of personal growth, exploration, and freedoms, being a part of these systems.

I don't think they've failed absolutely, but i think they do not take into consideration that every person in them is individual as well as part of a collective. Although some institutions were heading that way, in that they consider everyone has different needs and the structure does not work for everyone, but then we got your conservatives who are holding back progression because they try to conserve traditions.

Traditions are fine for those who want them, but not everyone does and they can actually be harmful to many people."

We seriously need a new way, and not a way within the same circles we already have.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are).

If life was fair then they'd be the first to go without subsidies, those who can afford to go without.

Politics needs to go. We need to replace it with something else. There's a tiny minority of people building bridges, on a global scale, where they have the power to affect millions of peoples lives and these millions don't have much say in it. We need to stop making politics a valid option and work amongst ourselves to create something better...and this is actually happening right now.

Most people don't care about the media, or they say something against it, now they have the ability to. Same for politics. People are spreading the truths and their personal stories.

We've got the internet, and i know people don't like how others can do and say whatever they want on it (coz it's often stupid things they say) but we can also use it to build our own bridges, of larger amounts of people, and sort out things for ourselves.

Fuck the system.

Yeah, fuck the system, it's been fucking us all for long enough.

It was designed specifically to fuck most of us.

If politics was a valid option then everyone's needs would be considered under it.

We would not need charities, unions,or protestors to campaign for things, because everyone's needs and welfare would be considered and represented fairly.

All systems, Religious, political or otherwise has failed throughout history, yet people cling to them still. Why do you think this is?

Exploitation of our basic needs. Exploitation of people being naturally submissive. Restriction of personal growth, exploration, and freedoms, being a part of these systems.

I don't think they've failed absolutely, but i think they do not take into consideration that every person in them is individual as well as part of a collective. Although some institutions were heading that way, in that they consider everyone has different needs and the structure does not work for everyone, but then we got your conservatives who are holding back progression because they try to conserve traditions.

Traditions are fine for those who want them, but not everyone does and they can actually be harmful to many people.

We seriously need a new way, and not a way within the same circles we already have."

It's coming. Nothing can stop us now. Unless electricity gets rationed, lol.

People can educate each other on the internet now. We can organise here too.

Look at how charity is changing, people setting up funds for those in need instead of slagging them off, and they make way more than expected.

The middle men, the tax thieves/politicians, they're becoming more irrelevant every day. People are seeing them for what they really are, a system that works to take everything, our money, our time, our lives, and we don't want it.

And tbh, even digital storage is making it so that we don't need or want physical items, so capitalism is becoming less relevant too. Although the level of narcissism is going up but i do reckon that will eventually go down once people realise they have more value than their appearance or being fake.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ighting17thMan
over a year ago

Bodmin


"Untrustworthy Tories!!!

When Thatcher's funeral was on telly I recorded it so I could watch it again and again and again...

Tears of laughter streaming down my face every single fucking time!!!!!

And you don't think that behaviour is even a little unhinged?

I glad it wasnt just me who finds that behaviour strange "

Hey, that was only a joke. I didn't even watch it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are).

If life was fair then they'd be the first to go without subsidies, those who can afford to go without.

Politics needs to go. We need to replace it with something else. There's a tiny minority of people building bridges, on a global scale, where they have the power to affect millions of peoples lives and these millions don't have much say in it. We need to stop making politics a valid option and work amongst ourselves to create something better...and this is actually happening right now.

Most people don't care about the media, or they say something against it, now they have the ability to. Same for politics. People are spreading the truths and their personal stories.

We've got the internet, and i know people don't like how others can do and say whatever they want on it (coz it's often stupid things they say) but we can also use it to build our own bridges, of larger amounts of people, and sort out things for ourselves.

Fuck the system.

Yeah, fuck the system, it's been fucking us all for long enough.

It was designed specifically to fuck most of us.

If politics was a valid option then everyone's needs would be considered under it.

We would not need charities, unions,or protestors to campaign for things, because everyone's needs and welfare would be considered and represented fairly.

All systems, Religious, political or otherwise has failed throughout history, yet people cling to them still. Why do you think this is?

Exploitation of our basic needs. Exploitation of people being naturally submissive. Restriction of personal growth, exploration, and freedoms, being a part of these systems.

I don't think they've failed absolutely, but i think they do not take into consideration that every person in them is individual as well as part of a collective. Although some institutions were heading that way, in that they consider everyone has different needs and the structure does not work for everyone, but then we got your conservatives who are holding back progression because they try to conserve traditions.

Traditions are fine for those who want them, but not everyone does and they can actually be harmful to many people.

We seriously need a new way, and not a way within the same circles we already have.

It's coming. Nothing can stop us now. Unless electricity gets rationed, lol.

People can educate each other on the internet now. We can organise here too.

Look at how charity is changing, people setting up funds for those in need instead of slagging them off, and they make way more than expected.

The middle men, the tax thieves/politicians, they're becoming more irrelevant every day. People are seeing them for what they really are, a system that works to take everything, our money, our time, our lives, and we don't want it.

And tbh, even digital storage is making it so that we don't need or want physical items, so capitalism is becoming less relevant too. Although the level of narcissism is going up but i do reckon that will eventually go down once people realise they have more value than their appearance or being fake."

I hope you're right, what I feel concerned about though, is what goes on inside people, if things change, it will have to be internal change first, people will have to see the facts and act voluntarily towards a new way of living, if it is forced upon people , we are back to square one.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are).

If life was fair then they'd be the first to go without subsidies, those who can afford to go without.

Politics needs to go. We need to replace it with something else. There's a tiny minority of people building bridges, on a global scale, where they have the power to affect millions of peoples lives and these millions don't have much say in it. We need to stop making politics a valid option and work amongst ourselves to create something better...and this is actually happening right now.

Most people don't care about the media, or they say something against it, now they have the ability to. Same for politics. People are spreading the truths and their personal stories.

We've got the internet, and i know people don't like how others can do and say whatever they want on it (coz it's often stupid things they say) but we can also use it to build our own bridges, of larger amounts of people, and sort out things for ourselves.

Fuck the system.

Yeah, fuck the system, it's been fucking us all for long enough.

It was designed specifically to fuck most of us.

If politics was a valid option then everyone's needs would be considered under it.

We would not need charities, unions,or protestors to campaign for things, because everyone's needs and welfare would be considered and represented fairly.

All systems, Religious, political or otherwise has failed throughout history, yet people cling to them still. Why do you think this is?

Exploitation of our basic needs. Exploitation of people being naturally submissive. Restriction of personal growth, exploration, and freedoms, being a part of these systems.

I don't think they've failed absolutely, but i think they do not take into consideration that every person in them is individual as well as part of a collective. Although some institutions were heading that way, in that they consider everyone has different needs and the structure does not work for everyone, but then we got your conservatives who are holding back progression because they try to conserve traditions.

Traditions are fine for those who want them, but not everyone does and they can actually be harmful to many people.

We seriously need a new way, and not a way within the same circles we already have.

It's coming. Nothing can stop us now. Unless electricity gets rationed, lol.

People can educate each other on the internet now. We can organise here too.

Look at how charity is changing, people setting up funds for those in need instead of slagging them off, and they make way more than expected.

The middle men, the tax thieves/politicians, they're becoming more irrelevant every day. People are seeing them for what they really are, a system that works to take everything, our money, our time, our lives, and we don't want it.

And tbh, even digital storage is making it so that we don't need or want physical items, so capitalism is becoming less relevant too. Although the level of narcissism is going up but i do reckon that will eventually go down once people realise they have more value than their appearance or being fake.

I hope you're right, what I feel concerned about though, is what goes on inside people, if things change, it will have to be internal change first, people will have to see the facts and act voluntarily towards a new way of living, if it is forced upon people , we are back to square one."

I might not be right but i do feel we are headed towards something else now.

The generations that put up with things and saw institutions as valid and gave them authority, well these generation is dying or already dead.

IQ is really high now amongst humans, this puts us all at an advantage. We're more able suss things out, and although a lot of people haven't got it quite right yet or are focusing on the wrong things, you can see that when it counts people do do the right thing, and not in a David BS Cameron sense of those words.

People are more easily able to participate now, this at least makes them interested in changing things, even if they don't always act on it. But the more people that become interested, the more we talk about stuff, the more we realise we do have the power and ability to make changes, this will help.

I do think apathy is a problem, everyone cared about that little boy who died on the boat but nobody is still talking about him or the refugees who have died since his death. But it did at least point out the hypocrisy of our governments and media, and attributed human traits to refugees and immigrants somewhat, which is a change in attitude at least.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just do what Jamie Oliver recommends for christsake and stop pissin' around wafflin' shite and sucking up to political claptrap,good gawd almighty how thick can some people be,if some career politico is trying to change something that downgrades the quality of life for your children,reject it,plain and simple.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"The policy was introduced last year and saved parents an average of £400 per child, per year. The cut is being considered as part of the November spending review, Sky News reports this morning that George Osborne is `considering` scrapping free school meals in junior schools while he scoffs subsidised and often free lunches in the House of Commons.. Whether George Osborne's meal is subsisidised is completely irrelevant as the cost of the subsididy is minute compared to the cost of providing free school meals .

In any event the money to fund these free school meals came from the education budget so all he is doing is putting existing resources to better use .

Existing resources to better use oh laugh my fucking head off!

Oh do you know what they plan to do with the funds then IF they cut school dinners for all ks1?. It will be spent on education instead.

Oh you mean to cover the other cuts in education? Or maybe give kids with SEN the help they are generally denied?

Choices choices eh? "
. My understanding is that the education budget will be fixed for the next five years unless numbers increase . This can. hardly be defined as a cut.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"Untrustworthy Tories!!!

When Thatcher's funeral was on telly I recorded it so I could watch it again and again and again...

Tears of laughter streaming down my face every single fucking time!!!!!"
. You must be a bit of a sick and unbalanced individual to make a comment like this . No decent person mocks or laughs at the dead . What type of standards did your parents teach you?.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Her father should have taken her in hand and beaten blue blazes out of her when she came of age,her extreme lack of empathy towards her fellow man was disgusting to see at the time,her sheer arrogance and blind unfettered ambition deserves only to be taken as a lesson comparable to Stalin or Hitler,only on a more minute scale.

She was no more than a Johnny jump up who bullied and thrust herself into a position of power and the pussys who aligned themselves with her for gain and position were and are pathetic lily livered sycophantic,undeveloped excuses for humans.Her greatest mistake was deploying troops and ships to whatever that island is down off the south of america,for what ? managing the demise of an empire and being the postergirl for that?

Don't get me wrong she was just a leader of her time,Reagan along with his buddies of that ideology were just as bad and worse but hey this is the world we live in,the extremes of both socialism and capitalism are fatally flawed and these days,so called centreism is no better because in our time the so called centre has moved so far to the right that it is not too many steps to walking over the edge into the abyss unless reality kicks in.

I genuinely feel sorry for lads and girls in their 30's who have been educated around the world in English speaking education systems and have been so influenced by the likes of Thatchers rhetoric without their own minds questioning and just accepting what they think is a way of life.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Shouldn't we consider cutting subsidised meals in the houses of Westminster instead - The MPs aren't exactly on minimum wage (although the parents of some of the kids receiving Free School Lunches are).

If life was fair then they'd be the first to go without subsidies, those who can afford to go without.

Politics needs to go. We need to replace it with something else. There's a tiny minority of people building bridges, on a global scale, where they have the power to affect millions of peoples lives and these millions don't have much say in it. We need to stop making politics a valid option and work amongst ourselves to create something better...and this is actually happening right now.

Most people don't care about the media, or they say something against it, now they have the ability to. Same for politics. People are spreading the truths and their personal stories.

We've got the internet, and i know people don't like how others can do and say whatever they want on it (coz it's often stupid things they say) but we can also use it to build our own bridges, of larger amounts of people, and sort out things for ourselves.

Fuck the system.

Yeah, fuck the system, it's been fucking us all for long enough.

It was designed specifically to fuck most of us.

If politics was a valid option then everyone's needs would be considered under it.

We would not need charities, unions,or protestors to campaign for things, because everyone's needs and welfare would be considered and represented fairly.

All systems, Religious, political or otherwise has failed throughout history, yet people cling to them still. Why do you think this is?

Exploitation of our basic needs. Exploitation of people being naturally submissive. Restriction of personal growth, exploration, and freedoms, being a part of these systems.

I don't think they've failed absolutely, but i think they do not take into consideration that every person in them is individual as well as part of a collective. Although some institutions were heading that way, in that they consider everyone has different needs and the structure does not work for everyone, but then we got your conservatives who are holding back progression because they try to conserve traditions.

Traditions are fine for those who want them, but not everyone does and they can actually be harmful to many people.

We seriously need a new way, and not a way within the same circles we already have.

It's coming. Nothing can stop us now. Unless electricity gets rationed, lol.

People can educate each other on the internet now. We can organise here too.

Look at how charity is changing, people setting up funds for those in need instead of slagging them off, and they make way more than expected.

The middle men, the tax thieves/politicians, they're becoming more irrelevant every day. People are seeing them for what they really are, a system that works to take everything, our money, our time, our lives, and we don't want it.

And tbh, even digital storage is making it so that we don't need or want physical items, so capitalism is becoming less relevant too. Although the level of narcissism is going up but i do reckon that will eventually go down once people realise they have more value than their appearance or being fake.

I hope you're right, what I feel concerned about though, is what goes on inside people, if things change, it will have to be internal change first, people will have to see the facts and act voluntarily towards a new way of living, if it is forced upon people , we are back to square one."

There is plenty of systems like co-op business run by the people who work there for the people with rolling management voted by the people. Centralised sourcing for shops meaning local producers of food earning the money instead of some farmer 1000's of miles away. More use of the interet to allow people to make a decision.

Society as a whole has changed alot in the last 40yrs and we deserve a system that reflects that. Capitalism and our current political system are outdated and not giving everyone a fair crack of the whip. And yes it needs to be a stealth revolution instead violent because violence requires leaders ~ leaders become rulers

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"Her father should have taken her in hand and desten blue blazes out of her when she came of age,her extreme lack of empathy towards her fellow man was disgusting to see at the time,her sheer arrogance and blind unfettered ambition deserves only to be taken as a lesson comparable to Stalin or Hitler,only on a more minute scale.

She was no more than a Johnny jump up who bullied and thrust herself into a position of power and the pussys who aligned themselves with her for gain and position were and are pathetic lily livered sycophantic,undeveloped excuses for humans.Her greatest mistake was deploying troops and ships to whatever that island is down off the south of america,for what ? managing the demise of an empire and being the postergirl for that?

Don't get me wrong she was just a leader of her time,Reagan along with his buddies of that ideology were just as bad and worse but hey this is the world we live in,the extremes of both socialism and capitalism are fatally flawed and these days,so called centreism is no better because in our time the so called centre has moved so far to the right that it is not too many steps to walking over the edge into the abyss unless reality kicks in.

I genuinely feel sorry for lads and girls in their 30's who have been educated around the world in English speaking education systems and have been so influenced by the likes of Thatchers rhetoric without their own minds questioning and just accepting what they think is a way of life."
. She truely cared about people and that is why she wanted to create a stable economic economy in which there were sufficient funds for the NHS and education.

She won a number of elections because people supported her policies . We are all architects of our own destiny and everything that you have in life has to be earned , not given to you on a plate .

Your remark about her father beating blur blazes out of her would tend to suggest that you are either a very immature individual or a violent thug. How many people would even contemplate beating a child . You remark was very sad and completely unacceptable.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Thatcher only cared for people who agreed with her and **** the rest.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Thatcher only cared for people who agreed with her and **** the rest."

I don't remember the caring tories of that era, that's for sure.

Do remember the protests though.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So, facts...

Has it been A: proposed to remove free school meals for low income families?

Or has it been B: proposed to remove the first couple of years universal free school meals, keeping them for low income families?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Her father should have taken her in hand and beaten blue blazes out of her when she came of age

I genuinely feel sorry for lads and girls in their 30's who have been educated around the world in English speaking education systems and have been so influenced by the likes of Thatchers rhetoric without their own minds questioning and just accepting what they think is a way of life."

As a "girl" in her thirties I feel genuinely sorry that there are middle aged men out there who are floundering in the world because they don't understand that the time when a woman's father could "take her in hand" when she "came of age" and "beat blue blazes out of her" has passed. I'm sorry. The world must be a very confusing place for you now most people have moved on from such bullshit throwback attitudes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So, facts...

Has it been A: proposed to remove free school meals for low income families?

Or has it been B: proposed to remove the first couple of years universal free school meals, keeping them for low income families? "

Infants so far. Don'#t forget tax credits are also being cut as well.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So, facts...

Has it been A: proposed to remove free school meals for low income families?

Or has it been B: proposed to remove the first couple of years universal free school meals, keeping them for low income families? "

C - Neither has actually been proposed, it's just been confirmed that nothing has been ruled out for consideration in the Spending Review. In other shocking news, the Pope is Catholic and bears shit in the woods.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So, facts...

Has it been A: proposed to remove free school meals for low income families?

Or has it been B: proposed to remove the first couple of years universal free school meals, keeping them for low income families?

Infants so far. Don'#t forget tax credits are also being cut as well."

#shedoesntknow.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So, facts...

Has it been A: proposed to remove free school meals for low income families?

Or has it been B: proposed to remove the first couple of years universal free school meals, keeping them for low income families?

Infants so far. Don'#t forget tax credits are also being cut as well.

#shedoesntknow."

Liberal democrats said they wanna do it, Tories love cutting everything so it'll happen.

Lol the hashtag was my fingers slipping...

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why do you think the Tories love cutting everything?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why do you think the Tories love cutting everything?"

Because that's what they do.

They cut taxes for the rich. Cut budgets for everything else.

Saying that though my taxes went up despite my earnings going down, which doesn't make sense.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hazkiandCouple
over a year ago

crawley


"It was silly to bring it in anyway.

And this may sound controversial but I think that benefits need to be juggled with and part being paid in food vouchers. I don't feel happy as a tax payer, paying for someone else to have a brand new sofa on credit and top of the range phones for them to then not have enough money left to feed their family.

I was a single mum when my son was 3. I worked and scrimt and saved, I had no spare income for fun.

My friend was a single mum on benefits, she had more disposable income than I did at the end of each week. She had a lovely council house with nice furniture. Tumble dryer top mobile phone.

I had a donated sofa basic phone and had to hang my clothes to dry.

That's what's wrong with this country it doesn't pay to work

"

I agree totally, i raised 3 children on my own working the whole time, the older they got the more hours i worked any help i got eg,towards rent or council tax,was reduced with each extra hour so i was kept on a low income, it's a backwards system that won't help people that try to help themselves but if you sit on your backside having child after child you live the life of riley! I didn't chose to be a single mum i just married a twat,but it was my struggle and i did it with my head held high even with those that had the benefits laughing at me. I don't agree with takeing free school meals away but i think it should be income based all the way through school so low income families have one less thing to worry about!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So, facts...

Has it been A: proposed to remove free school meals for low income families?

Or has it been B: proposed to remove the first couple of years universal free school meals, keeping them for low income families? "

When does the word 'fact' ever come into these discussions....

Anything that's given on one hand and seemingly taken away on the other risks being seen as a negative policy.

I'm divided on this but I do feel it's the families who are just above the low income threashold who don't qualify for free school meals in general would be affected if this comes into affect.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ighting17thMan
over a year ago

Bodmin

I think, regardless of political views, that the school meals debate will always raise a whirlwind of different opinion. If they do cut the entitlement to free school meals to a particular cross-section of children, does that also mean they'll cut the " pupil premium " ( or did I blink and that disappeared already ).

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Parliament's ultra low cost restaurants and bars should be closed or priced accordingly, as they would helpfully subsidise free school meals for the real needy: rather than the pigs in parliament. I'm sure most of them wouldn't care at all if meals were chopped for kids.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"Parliament's ultra low cost restaurants and bars should be closed or priced accordingly, as they would helpfully subsidise free school meals for the real needy: rather than the pigs in parliament. I'm sure most of them wouldn't care at all if meals were chopped for kids."
. One slight problem with this argument . The cost of the subsidised meals in Parliament is minute compared to the cost of providing school meals .

In any event those in senior positions in any role expect perks . These perks can be given because they are limited to a few who achieved their position in life by having exceptional skills

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Why do you think the Tories love cutting everything?

Because that's what they do.

They cut taxes for the rich. Cut budgets for everything else.

Saying that though my taxes went up despite my earnings going down, which doesn't make sense."

What do they do with all the cash they save from the cuts? Hoard it under their bridges with the other trolls?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Parliament's ultra low cost restaurants and bars should be closed or priced accordingly, as they would helpfully subsidise free school meals for the real needy: rather than the pigs in parliament. I'm sure most of them wouldn't care at all if meals were chopped for kids.. One slight problem with this argument . The cost of the subsidised meals in Parliament is minute compared to the cost of providing school meals .

In any event those in senior positions in any role expect perks . These perks can be given because they are limited to a few who achieved their position in life by having exceptional skills

"

Time for some serious expectation management.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top