Jamie & Jimmy's Holiday Hunger

Tiddlywinks

FredG wrote: »

Predictable amount of poor shaming already in this thread. Bad parenting occurs at all levels in society. This campaign appeared to be centred around food waste and using the school as a community base to increase social inclusivity.

Not 'poor shaming' but BAD PARENT shaming.

It's time to say it's NEVER acceptable to fail to feed your child. Time to stop making excuses for these individuals and start laying some blame.

FredG wrote: »

It wasn't pushed as lets give people a free lunch. Parents were volunteering in the pilot, both employed and unemployed. Food that would have gone to waste was used to make balanced and nutritious meals.

The scrounger rhetoric we're fed every single day by the media at large is massively debunked by actual statistics. ... blah de blah... Let's not even start on corporate tax avoidance which eclipses both Shazza and Gary's faux pas but very few seem to get angry about.

Let's not muddy the waters with talk of middle class tax evasion etc... two wrongs don't make a right... so back on topic... it should never be seen as 'the state's' responsibility to feed children - the parents need to see that feeding their child is up to them and that should be their priority.

It's people like you that do the "yes, but....." (followed by excuses etc) that just allows this shameful neglect to continue.

FredG wrote: »

Straight away when someone tries to do something positive, be it Jamie and Jimmy or anyone else, they're immediately slandered by people with pitchforks and dismissive tongues. I say fair play to them for using their influence to do some good and giving these kids a better chance to be contributing to society when they grow.

Ever heard of 'unintended consequences'?

By taking over the feeding of those kids, we would be saying that the parents don't need to be parents and that there will always be someone else to do the right thing when they can't be bothered... it would make them worse not better.

If we always pick up the slack when the lazy or idiot parents don't deliver then we are just enabling their bad behaviour and giving them an incentive to just keep on doing it.

In this case there needs to be a punishment for failure - they've already got the carrot in that the state provides tax credits, child benefit, minimum wage (with tax top ups) etc. Charities provide food banks. There is never an excuse for not being able to afford to buy food for your child... full stop.

FredG

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

Not 'poor shaming' but BAD PARENT shaming.

It's time to say it's NEVER acceptable to fail to feed your child. Time to stop making excuses for these individuals and start laying some blame.





Let's not muddy the waters with talk of middle class tax evasion etc... two wrongs don't make a right... so back on topic... it should never be seen as 'the state's' responsibility to feed children - the parents need to see that feeding their child is up to them and that should be their priority.

It's people like you that do the "yes, but....." (followed by excuses etc) that just allows this shameful neglect to continue.



Ever heard of 'unintended consequences'?

By taking over the feeding of those kids, we would be saying that the parents don't need to be parents and that there will always be someone else to do the right thing when they can't be bothered... it would make them worse not better.

If we always pick up the slack when the lazy or idiot parents don't deliver then we are just enabling their bad behaviour and giving them an incentive to just keep on doing it.

In this case there needs to be a punishment for failure - they've already got the carrot in that the state provides tax credits, child benefit, minimum wage (with tax top ups) etc. Charities provide food banks. There is never an excuse for not being able to afford to buy food for your child... full stop.

Never once in my post did I deny the existence of these people. There is never an excuse for not feeding your child, on this point we are in total agreement. I come from a family where my Mum went hungry so I could eat despite working 3 jobs herself.


My point is not about picking up for "lazy" parenting. My point is about this shameful poor-shaming that comes up as soon as somebody tries to make valuable societal change.

Again, cause and effect. You're happy that there are foodbanks, my question is why are they the in the first place?

Tiddlywinks

FredG wrote: »

Never once in my post did I deny the existence of these people. There is never an excuse for not feeding your child, on this point we are in total agreement. I come from a family where my Mum went hungry so I could eat despite working 3 jobs herself.


My point is not about picking up for "lazy" parenting. My point is about this shameful poor-shaming that comes up as soon as somebody tries to make valuable societal change.

Again, cause and effect. You're happy that there are foodbanks, my question is why are they the in the first place?

Societal change? Yes, this project would make a change but not for the better. It won't educate, it won't encourage improvement... it will just increase dependency on the state and reinforce that if they don't do the right thing then someone else will pick up the slack.

I *am* indeed happy there are foodbanks - it's a way for our communities to help those that have hit a rough patch.

However, a family on minimum wage will get enough credits to top up sufficiently to pay for food and the basics of life. Benefits payments are also more than sufficient for food and the basics. The trouble comes when people buy beyond the basics or get into debt and then the wage or benefit will not stretch to the extras - that is not society's fault, that is lack of budgeting.

No-one *needs* a mobile phone, TV, car, games system, laptop or whatever.... too often parents have 'extras' before buying the basics - that's where the blame lies and that's where education and 'shaming' needs to be directed.