Or do you work for the Society of protection of sausage makers?
I don't. But I found your very personal attack on the beloved British banger quite shameful.
Well I'm guessing that some of that stuff up there^was directed at me. Quite why though is beyond me as what I proposed would achieve the same nutritional benefit, maintain the benefit for those who need it. Oh and if ther happens to be £600million knocking around the education budget, perhaps it could be used for other things that would benefit those in need rather than a bunch of people who don't need it?. Quite amusing being accused of having daily mail esque politics though.
As for the stigma argument all si can say is that you lot must live in some pretty affluent areas. I remember being thought of as odd because I was one of the few in my class that paid for a school meal.
Another assumption, British banger? There are others you know. Racist.
I'm sorry are you now back-tracking and claiming that your children are allowed to eat British sausages ?
Can you get British sausages in Denver..?
Sausages do have their place in education, as this picture shows us.
[img] 
[/img]
Blackpool are giving free breakfast to everyone , every morning .
Met one of the guy who put it in place and the difference is amazing .
Kids are on time , so they dont disturb classes .
more attentive .
more kids attend schools .
No, sausages in general. They're all bad, British ones probably the worst though as they're unhealthy AND bland.
troll
yunki - Member
Can you get British sausages in Denver..?POSTED 3 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
Corn dogs
As for the stigma argument all si can say is that you lot must live in some pretty affluent areas.
The stigma associated with free school meals is a very well documented fact.
I know this despite living in a right posh area because I read posh newspapers :
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/sep/23/free-school-meals-stigma ]Thousands of pupils shamed out of free school meals[/url]
Coyote - your posts seem to be very snipey towards those who are questioning this
Sorry, not my intention. I just get a little wound up by narrow minded morons who make statements along the lines of "I don't have children, why should my taxes pay for..."
I see, as you underlined it, it must be true!!!
Yes, it is. That's because I didn't feel the need to select individual papers to support an existing position.
The short answer is that your assertions are contradicted by the evidence.
No, sausages in general. They're all bad, British ones probably the worst though as they're unhealthy AND bland.
Now you're definitely trolling.
[img] 
[/img]
If I could choose where my taxes went I'd put them towards educating petty minded ignorant tossers about compassion.
I admit the last bit was tongue and cheek, but Sausages are not a healthy food.
By the way, the whole distraction on what is healthy and what's not, just wanted to confirm that I have no issue with tax money being spent on what to me seems like a good idea. My only concern would be if school dinners became compulsory for all and choice was taken away.
I agree. I want mine to pay off the national debt rather than burden our grand children with it.If I could choose where my taxes went I'd put them towards educating petty minded ignorant tossers about compassion.
If we could just teach everyone that borrowing money our grandchildren can't afford isn't compassionate.
I'm all for this as and long as the revolting semolina and god awful gooseberries and lumpy custard I had to endure as a kid is on the menu.That'll learn 'em.
the daily fail headline yesterday was 'free school meals for everyone- but how can we pay for it in austerity britain'
5thelephant you are paul dacre and I claim my free celebrity cellulite bonus magazine
And MP's should be compelled to eat at nearby schools rather than the House Of Commons restaurant.
No idea who paul dacre is but I can answer his question. Through borrowing. All new expenditure is funded through yet more borrowing.
How can this be a good thing?
Its a good thing if the money spent benefits children, improves their health, quality of education and ultimately gives us a more competitive future workforce
by your reasoning we should just stop spending on anything until the debt has gone away
It's like an investment. We invest in growing the state, and it grows so that we pay off our debts, whilst at the same time borrowing more. It's just a rolling debt, and it's nothing like as alarming as it sounds.
Government borrowing is not like domestic borrowing, so you can't apply the same logic. It would indeed be insane for a household to do this.
5thElefant - Its a question of where you cut though isn't it. The current government say we can no longer afford benefits for disabled people, along with other significant parts of the welfare state, libraries, lunches for schoolkids etc etc.....
Yet at the same time they're happy to find hundreds of billions of pounds for aircraft carriers with no planes, a train-line/money pit to Birmingham, and a totally pointless and unnecessary nuclear deterrent
That represents a pretty ****ed up set of priorities if you ask me
Or tighten up on other drains on the countries fragile budget.
Listening to Radio 4 yesterday morning, they were talking about the cost to the NHS and Police of Binge drinking and violence linked to Alcohol - £21billion a year!
Yet the government is doing NOTHING to tackle this problem.
What the increased spending does is set those children up for a bleak future.
And yes, we should be reducing spending until firstly we stop running up even more debt, and then reduce the debt levels so we have some control over our lives.
Yet at the same time they're happy to find hundreds of billions of pounds for aircraft carriers with no planes, a train-line/money pit to Birmingham, and a totally pointless and unnecessary nuclear deterrent
I'd cut everything, but you've highlighted the ones I'd cut completely and immediately. Most importantly is to not make up new stuff to spend money on, especially stuff nobody asked for.
What the increased spending does is set those children up for a bleak future.
I dunno.. NOT borrowing could also set them up for a bleak future.
I dunno.. NOT borrowing could also set them up for a bleak future.
Do you max your credit cards out just in case? I bet you don't. I bet you're adverse to crippling debt. I bet if you knew your children would have to pay it back you'd do everything in your power to avoid it.
I'm pretty sure all the people calling for more borrowing actually behave very responsibly with their "own" finances.
I'm happy to pay more in tax to fund this (rather than borrowing more), mind you I support a 'high tax-high spend' economy so what do I know?
I'm happy to pay more in tax to fund this (rather than borrowing more), mind you I support a 'high tax-high spend' economy so what do I know?
At least that would be an honest solution. Every new increase matched with a tax hike. At least the people getting burdened with the cost could vote to express their opinion.
Debt...... its not all bad c-cards or loans none of those, do spend a lot of time in my overdraft tho
and my mortgage is eye watering when you think about it, but its a long term thing and I see it as an investment for the future as well as a place to live.
we should be reducing spending until firstly we stop running up even more debt, and then reduce the debt levels so we have some control over our lives.
I think we all agree that ultimately we should have zero borrowing and we need to get to serviceable levels
however anyone with a mortgage has a serious debt way in excess of their annual earnings that they will one day pay off - its just the same for the country except we never need to pay it off.
Too much debt you cannot service is the bad thing
It aslo depends if you borrow to invest
I dont think crippling the economy and high unemployment due to severe cuts is the panacea you seem to think it is.
We could borrow like say a company borrows to get a more efficient machine that will make them more money in the long run or we could borrow because we want the latest super fantastic big shinny train set and nuclear weapons
Since when is it the governments or schools responsibiltiy to feed kids. That is a parents job. The School has an obligation to make healthy food available for kids, but not to feed them for free. I think some parents get off too easily for not looking after their kids properly and neglecting them. Packing them off to shool without a breakfast or lunch is the core problem here and if it falls to government or schools to ensure they are fed properly then the parents should pay.
Its a sad fact that some parents really can't be bothered to look after their kids properly. Sending them off to school with nothing but a pasty and a bag of crisps may seem a minor issue, but it is harming their kids health and setting them off on a path that will ultimatley cause them harm. I don't know what else qualifies as neglect better than that.
Do you max your credit cards out just in case?
As above, government debt does not work like domestic debt.
Imagine for example I had the chance of a really lucrative job that was going to pay me tons of money, but it was in Scotland. Assuming no family ties etc, would it make sense for me to borrow money to get a new house and move up there?
Yes, it would.
Yeah, and in the case of a clear return you'd borrow money. This is a good example of no clear return. It's just politics. Bribing in you with money borrowed on your behalf.
This is a good example of no clear return.
How many children have you got? Have seen the difference between the behaviour of a well nourished child against one fed poor or no food?
Serious questions, not "snipey".
Its a sad fact that some parents really can't be bothered to look after their kids properly. Sending them off to school with nothing but a pasty and a bag of crisps may seem a minor issue, but it is harming their kids health and setting them off on a path that will ultimatley cause them harm. I don't know what else qualifies as neglect better than that.
Its not the kids fault though, is it? They didn't asked to be born into that, did they? And I'd question your assumption that anyone who can't supply their kids with decent lunches everyday is automatically ****less. Maybe they're just genuinely poor? Though I know the booming disapproval of the Daily Mail won't countenance this.
So what do you intend to do instead? Take them all into care? I think that may cost a bit more than the price of their lunches.
No it isn't an ideal world. But if these kids get a proper meal when they didn't before, and can concentrate better in class, and be less disruptive, and get a better education, surely this is better for everyone?
Yeah, and in the case of a clear return you'd borrow money. This is a good example of no clear return.
Well your understanding of the detail and nuance of economic policy and forecasting has me completley convinced. Who needs an economics degree eh? 🙂
Have seen the difference between the behaviour of a well nourished child against one fed poor or no food?
The pilot study concluded there was no noticeable change in behaviour of the kids before and during the study.
So while I agree food can have a big impact of childrens behaviour, the odd hot meal at school doesn't (as concluded by the very report used for the basis of implement the policy).
dragon you are talking bobbins
The universal pilot had a significant positive impact on attainment for primary school
pupils at Key Stages 1 and 2, with pupils in the pilot areas making between four and
eight weeks’ more progress than similar pupils in comparison areas.
Behaviour not attainment, they are different things, from the report conclusions:
There were no positive impacts on parents’ perceptions of their child’s behaviour under
either of the pilot approaches, but the evaluation did not include quantitative assessments
of classroom behaviour.
There's no such thing as society remember
Noooooooo!!!
The pilot study concluded there was no noticeable change in behaviour of the kids before and during the study.
OK dragon, I'll tell my wife and numerous friends who are teachers of quite a few years standing that what they have experienced first hand is bollocks cause some random off the internet said so.
There were no positive impacts on parents’ perceptions of their child’s behaviour
So the parents could not tell if their urchins had improved - I assume at home some hours later
Well if that is not scientific proof then i dont know what is 😕
the evaluation did not include quantitative assessments
Ie they dont know as they did not objectively measure
Behaviour not attainment, they are different things
Its quite unlikely your behaviour will get worse yet your performance will improve.
