Jamie & Jimmy's Holiday Hunger

Person_one

Auntie-Dolly wrote: »

Is this the same Tory government that has introduced free school meals for all KS1 children and free milk for under 5's?

That was a lib dem policy implemented under the coalition.

dogcat_2

Kim_kim wrote: »

I was quite shocked at the headmaster who said the kids revolted after gettting a sandwich for lunch as they had been off for a week & were looking forward to a hot meal.
How sad is that

I saw this.....and was quite amazed....it's not down to the schools to feed the kids.
The schools feed kids when they attend the school....not during holidays....some healthy food doesn't have to cost the Earth.
Maybe the parents should stop smoking/drinking...doing drugs, and feed their kids.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

barbiedoll wrote: »

I think that everyone has this misguided idea that it's only benefit recepients or "trashy" single mothers who don't feed their children properly. I can tell you of several children that I've known over the years, who have had working, comfotably-off parents, who simply haven't bothered to even try to feed their kids with decent food.

One of my son's friends (who incidentally is adopted), was always coming round our house to play. I used to feed him lunch or dinner (or both) depending on what time he was here. He starting coming every day and one time, waltzed in and said "Can we have sausages for dinner today?"

His mum came to collect him one evening as they were going out somewhere. She came in and thanked me for feeding him already. She said that he had told her that he had eaten something at our house and congratulated me on getting him to try something "different" (I think it was spaghetti bolognase or similar, nothing too fancy, I'm not much of a cook myself!) It transpired that as he was a "fussy" eater (aren't they all?) she used to give him pizza or burger and chips almost every day as she said that was what he liked. At our house, he'd eaten pasta, roast dinners, eggs in all shapes and forms and so on. This family earned good money, she worked part-time and they lived in a lovely house, had several holidays each year and the kid had every expensive gadget on the market. It was just laziness on her part if you ask me.

Even now, my son (18) goes to college each morning after having a bit of breakfast, although he won't eat much in the mornings, like many people. He has a decent packed lunch every day and a hot meal at night. Yet lots of his fellow students eat no breakfast and very little during the day. They'll go to the takeaway after college and that will be their main meal for the day, no-one cooks for them at home, nor do they cook for themselves, they will fill up on biscuits and crisps etc.

A whole generation are suffering from poor nutrition, it's not purely down to income levels.

Offspring #2 would happily eat stuff at friend's houses that she swore blind was utter poison if I tried giving them to her at home. Conversely, things she ate at home would suddenly turn into awful allergies that could kill her if eaten at her father's house - mainly, I suspect, because he wasn't a particularly good cook/slapdash with cooking times/food storage or didn't like the things himself, so as soon as she wasn't well, he'd tell her she must be allergic and shouldn't eat it again.


But kids learn from school catering that what they want is highly processed, high carb stuff. Oh, with cake at every meal - OH's DD didn't have desserts often until she started school, and then she became convinced that you have to have sweet stuff everytime you ate something.


The problem with this campaign is who is going to have to come into school to feed and supervise the kids? You can't just have a couple of dinner ladies, you'll need caretaking staff, office staff, teaching staff, cleaners, the cooks - which will make it far more expensive, and it shouldn't be overlooked that the majority of those people are on term time only contracts, possibly because they have caring responsibilities of their own. Who looks after their kids and ensures they're properly fed whilst they're feeding other people's, taking into account that they don't ordinarily use childcare during termtime due to their hours? From my point of view, I take a massive hit on my hourly rate because of the extra time off (for which I am not paid). I'm not going to feel like working there during the holidays for that same rate, as if I wanted to work all year round, I'd have got a year round job at my usual, much higher rate.

Tiddlywinks

Better_Days wrote: »

..... for some there is simply not enough money to provide adequate and regular meals.

But it's the 'why' there's not enough money that's an issue. Some people seem unable to differentiate between the 'must haves' and the 'nice to haves'.

If they have a TV, mobile phone or anything of any value that they can sell then they have the means to raise funds to buy food.

The benefits system does pay enough money to feed a family - it's all the other bills or debts that eat into the available funds.

Working parents can claim tax credits - so, again, there IS money there to buy healthy meals.

As a last resort, there are food banks too - so emergencies are also provided for.

NO EXCUSES - ever - for not feeding your child... and here I speak as a child of a single parent family (mother divorced in the early 70s) where mum had no maintenance, two jobs and no benefits (other than old style 'family allowance').

Better_Days wrote: »

Shaming will not magic the money out of the air.

But society has to push back and start telling these people that it *is* shameful to allow a child to go to school hungry. It is shameful to not know how to provide a healthy diet / meals for your children.

Too many do-gooders have been faffing around not wanting to offend people for too long... enough is enough.

It should not be socially acceptable to have children and then not care for them. Full stop!

Person_one wrote: »

Because we have a government that doesn't really care if poor, neglected kids starve or not. They aren't going to grow up to vote Tory so they don't matter.

Simple as that really.

This isn't a Tory made problem - Labour was in power for long enough to preside over a massive increase in dependency on the welfare state.

Society is breaking down and that is the responsibility of all of us. Every time we just accept that it's OK to choose to be a single parent on benefits then we are endorsing that decision.

Every time we make excuses for the lack of parental care (such as lack of money or lack of education) we are enabling the behaviour.

It's time to start reminding people that they are responsible for their own decisions and should live with the consequences no matter how hard that may be. Yes, it will be difficult for the children but a line has to be drawn otherwise we are just going to constantly spiral downwards as standards reduce further.

It's time to start saying "you're a bad parent - you need to get a grip".

Proxima_Centauri

Kim_kim wrote: »

As bad as the cuts to our social, health & educational services are, I don't believe that.
We are better than that.

Auntie-Dolly wrote: »

Is this the same Tory government that has introduced free school meals for all KS1 children and free milk for under 5's?

Please don't rise to it. They were trolling another thread only recently with the same (largely irrelevant) political statements.

f0xh0les

We had this where I used to live (Salford) there was a breakfast club in the primary school for the kids whose parents did not feed them (social worker referred), the school tried to encourage ALL the kids to go, - it would save you 'the job' of feeding them - I told them it WAS my job to feed my kids (they rolled their eyes like I was stupid - 'but it's free!') .

During the holidays the estate we lived on (rough) had a breakfast club 3 days a week. It started at 10.00, we were invited many times, but my kids get up at 6.30 and have their breakfast by 7am. They said to come along anyway and see what the community centre did, so I went along. I saw kids of 7 or 8 bringing their 3 younger siblings along - no adult in sight. I have no doubt at all they would not have had breakfast without this group. The kids had obviously dressed themselves (think ballerina dresses and shorts in 4" of snow) and definitely not seen a hair brush. I followed one group down the road at the end of the session they lived between the community centre and our house, they knocked on their door and I heard their mum,who was still in her dressing gown, say 'Did you get your breakfast then?' 'Yes' said the kids, 'Oh well, you won't be needing any lunch then'. The door closed.

So, yes, the parents should be taking responsibility, but these clubs are a sticking plaster covering a deeper wound. I don't know how to fix it, I didn't know then, I still don't know now.

The schools get more funding if they get classed as being in an 'area of economic deprivation' and so they try to get as many people as possible to use these clubs rather than just those who truly need them, the headmaster told me he wanted to try and stop people feeling 'deprived' by allowing everyone to get a free breakfast.
I am so glad not to be on that estate any more, or my kids going to that school. We sold up and left.

There was a need, but it was being dealt with in the wrong way.

Torry_Quine

Over the summer holidays my church does a lunch club for any children who come along, also some parents.

Spendless

barbiedoll wrote: »

I think that everyone has this misguided idea that it's only benefit recepients or "trashy" single mothers who don't feed their children properly. I can tell you of several children that I've known over the years, who have had working, comfotably-off parents, who simply haven't bothered to even try to feed their kids with decent food.

One of my son's friends (who incidentally is adopted), was always coming round our house to play. I used to feed him lunch or dinner (or both) depending on what time he was here. He starting coming every day and one time, waltzed in and said "Can we have sausages for dinner today?"

His mum came to collect him one evening as they were going out somewhere. She came in and thanked me for feeding him already. She said that he had told her that he had eaten something at our house and congratulated me on getting him to try something "different" (I think it was spaghetti bolognase or similar, nothing too fancy, I'm not much of a cook myself!) It transpired that as he was a "fussy" eater (aren't they all?) she used to give him pizza or burger and chips almost every day as she said that was what he liked. At our house, he'd eaten pasta, roast dinners, eggs in all shapes and forms and so on. This family earned good money, she worked part-time and they lived in a lovely house, had several holidays each year and the kid had every expensive gadget on the market. It was just laziness on her part if you ask me.

A whole generation are suffering from poor nutrition, it's not purely down to income levels.

You are talking about eating junk food as opposed to a 'decent' meal. I didn't see the program concerned but wasn't that about not eating at all during the school holidays?

My daughter has a best friend on FSM and when DD goes round she frequently comes back saying she's hungry as there is constantly a lack of food in the house. It's happened so frequently that I now make sure DD has something filling before going or send her with snacks for them both. Mum lives within walking distance of an Aldi (the same one I shop at, so can say there's no problem with the store or it's food) so it isn't due to lack of (food) availability.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

The problem with this campaign is who is going to have to come into school to feed and supervise the kids? You can't just have a couple of dinner ladies, you'll need caretaking staff, office staff, teaching staff, cleaners, the cooks - which will make it far more expensive, and it shouldn't be overlooked that the majority of those people are on term time only contracts, possibly because they have caring responsibilities of their own. Who looks after their kids and ensures they're properly fed whilst they're feeding other people's, taking into account that they don't ordinarily use childcare during termtime due to their hours? From my point of view, I take a massive hit on my hourly rate because of the extra time off (for which I am not paid). I'm not going to feel like working there during the holidays for that same rate, as if I wanted to work all year round, I'd have got a year round job at my usual, much higher rate.

I suspect it's too long ago to come across anything on-line about it, but during the Miners strike schools in Mining areas (or at least my own area) did open during lunch-times during school hols (might have only been 6 weeks hols -not sure) to feed the children. I can't tell you exactly how it worked as to staffing as I was already in my first job by then but I do re-call hearing a bit of a hoo-haa about it from the dining staff, about having to go in and work, repeated by my Nan who worked as a cleaner at the school.

PasturesNew

Opening schools is a ridiculous idea, unworkable and stupidly expensive. You'd need to be paying the caretaker, cleaners, cooks, etc etc....

Also, many would also need full school buses laying on.

They should target the main offenders through that "problem families" scheme and have a box of cereals/milk/fruit delivered to their house twice a week, with random "busy bodies" turning up to check they're eating.

Benefits money is sufficient to feed kids in the normal run of things. If the parents aren't "normal" then that needs targetting with a holistic approach, not a "feed them en masse" approach.

Jamie .... is an utter kn0b.

Kim_kim

f0xh0les wrote: »

We had this where I used to live (Salford) there was a breakfast club in the primary school for the kids whose parents did not feed them (social worker referred), the school tried to encourage ALL the kids to go, - it would save you 'the job' of feeding them - I told them it WAS my job to feed my kids (they rolled their eyes like I was stupid - 'but it's free!') .

During the holidays the estate we lived on (rough) had a breakfast club 3 days a week. It started at 10.00, we were invited many times, but my kids get up at 6.30 and have their breakfast by 7am. They said to come along anyway and see what the community centre did, so I went along. I saw kids of 7 or 8 bringing their 3 younger siblings along - no adult in sight. I have no doubt at all they would not have had breakfast without this group. The kids had obviously dressed themselves (think ballerina dresses and shorts in 4" of snow) and definitely not seen a hair brush. I followed one group down the road at the end of the session they lived between the community centre and our house, they knocked on their door and I heard their mum,who was still in her dressing gown, say 'Did you get your breakfast then?' 'Yes' said the kids, 'Oh well, you won't be needing any lunch then'. The door closed.

So, yes, the parents should be taking responsibility, but these clubs are a sticking plaster covering a deeper wound. I don't know how to fix it, I didn't know then, I still don't know now.

The schools get more funding if they get classed as being in an 'area of economic deprivation' and so they try to get as many people as possible to use these clubs rather than just those who truly need them, the headmaster told me he wanted to try and stop people feeling 'deprived' by allowing everyone to get a free breakfast.
I am so glad not to be on that estate any more, or my kids going to that school. We sold up and left.

There was a need, but it was being dealt with in the wrong way.

A lady I knew told me of her sisters experiences as a teacher in Ballymun. It's probably the most deprived part of Dublin.
The first thing they did in the morning was make a huge pot of porridge & feed them breakfast. She said they often fell asleep in the classroom where they felt safe, the teachers were happy for them too, as their home lives were often so chaotic they wouldn't get much sleep at night.