Penistone Chippy..

Personally I think that every child should be entitled to a good solid meal and that if a parent can't afford it then we should be providing it because whether it's the state's fault the parent can't afford to feed their kid or the parents fault that they are unwilling to make correct choices to do so there's one person who isn't to blame and that's the child.

However I don't think the solution is to simply give more free meals on top of the existing benefits because that doesn't make the kids have more money, it simply gives more to the parents. That's my opinion in normal times but due to boris's devastation of the economy these aren't normal times so as an emergency measure free meals should be provided right now. The fact the government and Tories can't acknowledge that shows what kind of people they are.

In the long run I feel that paid benefits should be phased out as much as possible and swapped for vouchers or freebies. That would help with both the people who can't afford everything needed because it won't be a case of affording anymore it will be simply 'here at your items' and it will also stop those who priorities their own luxuries over their kids needs.

 

She does a great job as our local councillor.

 

I'm afraid some form of compensation to families is the only solution otherwise why should my children pay the bills of older generations who never bothered to have children ? That is the definition of freeloading .

 

I don't follow

 

the handsworth inn pub in sheffield is doing packed lunchers for kids, its run by graig from the chenells son there steve and amber ,look on facebook they have donations coming out of there store room,,

 

I very much doubt it tbh , I’d say most will double down and try to justify and excuse .

 

Farnham you're an absolute gobshite.

Oh wait, my words were taken out of context.

They need to actually understand what taken out of context actually means. You can't just write something and then **** yourself and pull the out of context card.

 

That phrase is used all the time now by people who have absolutely no understanding of what it means. I've noticed it a lot over the past year.

 

Don't often agree with your posts, mate.

But 100% agree with this one.

 

If you’re entitled to UC and provide evidence timeously then it ‘should’ take 1 month and 1 week to get paid.
1 month from your date of claim to your first ‘payment date’ which is based on any income received during that month, then a week for that to be calculated and land in your bank.

but even semi official sources describe it as 5 weeks or 6 weeks. Because a month and a week just sounds weird.

What is difficult for people is to work out when to claim:
So, don’t claim as soon as you’re made redundant if you still have payments from your employer to receive (they’ll get knocked off your benefit. But do claim as soon as possible after you’ve been paid.

DON’T wait till you’ve run out of money, and more importantly if you get the sack and ‘know’ you’re not entitled - claim anyway! Because your waiting time for benefit doesn’t start till you’ve made a claim.

hope that’ll help someone

 

Ok I guessed you would nt . So let's get religious . Adam and Eve were the first humans . They gave birth to Cain and Able who were weak and needed the support of Adam and Eve . When Adam and Eve grew old and weak Cain and Able looked after Adam and Eve . This is referred to as an egalitarian society or in real terms how a society should function . If older generations should choose " vouchers " as a way to care for its young then the favour should be returned .

 

I don’t think anyone wants the elderly to starve either (regardless of if they had kids or not). Or are you wanting vouchers for all elderly? That’s not how it works for the kids though, these vouchers are for the needy.

Also, how is it freeloading to not have kids? A childless person’s taxes still pay for schooling, FSM vouchers, child tax credit, maternity/paternity pay, medical treatment etc. for all children but they don’t directly benefit from any of that themselves.

 

A child gets a free school meal if their household income is below a certain income. However for the 13 weeks they arent at school they don't get that meal. Common sense that the government puts something in place to cover that during school holidays. And somehow I don't think Marcus Rashford is going to stop his campaign until they do.

 

Imagine thinking a 2000 year old book is a good base of ideas to determine how to run a country.

 

My social media is full of wnkers this morning sharing how much Rashford earns in a year and asking why he doesn't give 1% of his wages. Even though he pays 40% in tax.

The government have done it again. They're pulled the wool over the eyes of the ordinary folk and managed to convince them that's it's someone else's fault.

It makes my skin crawl it really does.