I pay just over a £10er p/w for my lil un to have school-meals at first school, yet people are claiming £15 p/w.

Are they not charged at the same rate nationally?

It was me that said £15. Partly through rounding up to make my argument sound better and partly because mine only has school dinners once in a while so I’m not 100% certain what it costs… I thought it was between £2.50 and £3…

You’re right, apart from the links between it and:

Heart Disease
Colorectal cancer
Ovarian Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Reduced bone density

Nope. In fact:
1. Several studies show that switching to unsaturated fat increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. There is no significant link between saturated fat and heart disease.
2. More recent studies contradict earlier findings: there is no link between saturated fat intake and colon cancer.
3. Ovarian cancer risk only increases for diets very high in saturated fat.
4. More recent studies contradict earlier findings: there is no link between saturated fat intake and prostate cancer.
5. Studies are conflicting – some show a link, others show the opposite. There is no consensus that saturated fats reduce bone density.

gonefishin – Member

What exactly is wrong with my suggestion?

Sorry didn’t read it.

There is a third option of making the meals compulsory with the costs borne by the parents, excepting those who qualify for free meals.

Costs a whole lot more to administer than a blanket scheme. You’ll get parents refusing to pay because they can do packed lunch cheaper – what would you do in that instance? Sanction them? Just gets into more levels of complexity.

What else do parents want?

It’s not about what parents want, it’s what some children need.

For the taxpayer to pick up the tab for breakfast too? What about evening meals, weekends, holidays? A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Easy there Worzel Gummage.

Can I give my nipper a packed lunch and turn up for the free hot meal myself ?
Anyone know ?

Are they not charged at the same rate nationally?

No, it varies. £1.90 / day in Bury.

Costs a whole lot more to administer than a blanket scheme

Incremental admin costs won’t significantly increase over what they are right now.

You’ll get parents refusing to pay because they can do packed lunch cheaper – what would you do in that instance?

As I understand it schools have a responsibility right now to enusre that all children have a meal and that currently this is bourne by the school so the situation you describe isn’t significantly different to that. At a guess I’d say that the school would charge at a slightly higher rate to cover the cost of those parents. This will no doubt be deemed unfair and “punishing responsible parents” but I don’t see it as any less fair than those of us who don’t have kids paying to feed kids whose parents can afford to do it themselves.

It’s not about what parents want, it’s what some children need.

I have no problem with providing for what some children need. I think I’ve made that quite clear. A freebee for parents who can provide for their kids is something that I object to.

Easy there Worzel Gummage.

The point I was making was that there has to be a line drawn somewhere between what is and isn’t reasonable for the state to provide by using an absurd exageration. I wasn’t being serious.

gonefishin – Member

“Costs a whole lot more to administer than a blanket scheme”

Incremental admin costs won’t significantly increase over what ther are right now.

Can I see your costings please?

The line has been drawn, it’s not all kids.

FWIW I don’t have kids, I’m just nice.

For the taxpayer to pick up the tab for breakfast too?

There has been talk in certain places of exactly this happening.

BBC Education link

Lifer, at present schools operate a system of some kids paying for meals and other kids getting them free. Adding more kids to the ones who pay for them won’t significantly increase the admin costs as the biggest cost of administration will be in the setting up of the system. Adding more people to it won’t add significantly more costs. I could just as easily ask for the costs that demonstrate how the free system is cheaper overall.

I fail to see how I’m not being “nice”.

Nope. In fact:
1. Several studies show that switching to unsaturated fat increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. There is no significant link between saturated fat and heart disease.
2. More recent studies contradict earlier findings: there is no link between saturated fat intake and colon cancer.
3. Ovarian cancer risk only increases for diets very high in saturated fat.
4. More recent studies contradict earlier findings: there is no link between saturated fat intake and prostate cancer.
5. Studies are conflicting – some show a link, others show the opposite. There is no consensus that saturated fats reduce bone density.

I see, as you underlined it, it must be true!!!

http://www.cancernetwork.com/prostate-cancer/content/article/10165/2146661

Surprising findings on omega-3 fats, trans fats, and prostate cancer risk

More recent studies contradict earlier findings

As they often do, and internet authority figures fail to keep up 🙂

If you’re going to push research based facts, you need to do your own metastudy.

Does it really matter that we will all be paying for it – whether we have children or not or regardless of parents means…? Isn’t this as others have said more about securing more nourished and successful children by very straightforward means…?

Several people seem to thinking about this in very narrow and reductionist terms. Taxation isn’t about paying for services you use, it is about contributing to the overheads of governing and maintaining society. I have paid 40% tax for well over a decade, but it doesn’t really mean I am subsidising those paying less tax. It means I have been lucky enough to earn more so can contribute larger amounts (in purely monetary terms) to society. Would you expect to pay more for using services – as well as expecting not to bear the costs of services you don’t utilise?

Yes, well said.

People forget that taxation is not a subscription for services. It’s taxation, a completely different thing.

Interesting thread. Who would have thought that a policy which will ensure that every 5, 6, and 7 year old child, will be given a hot, balanced, and nutritional meal, every school day, if their parents so wish, irrespective of ability to pay, could prove to be so controversial ?

Even the most right-wing Tory government in living memory accepts that it is a socially responsible and worthwhile policy which should be publicly funded.

I would have thought therefore that it was something which everyone could agree with.

But not so, as eight pages of heated debate clearly testifies.

And STW bans direct links to the Daily Mail !!!

Indeed Ernie. Caring about the nutrition of young children? That’s appears to be tantamount to communism if it involves ‘their’ taxes.

Its utterly depressing to see how many people seem to embrace Thatchers view of ‘society’. The benchmark for any policy seems to begin and end with ‘what’s in it for me?’

To be fair most of the eight pages could only loosely be attributed to the original thread …. The rest is the usual singletrack guff spouted by the usual protagonists

I **** hate petty little tossers who get all miserly about their taxes..

Grow up you small minded sexually inadequate boredom mongers

every 5, 6, and 7 year old child, will be given a hot, balanced, and nutritional meal, every school day,

Cant wait for the vegan option …thinks only of himself 😉

Its a good policy IMHO – been trialled in Blackpool with positive effects in kids behaviour and learning

there’s still 2 debates/arguments going on here isn’t there? The ‘why do I have to pay for someone else’s dinner’ bollx and the other guy prattling on about the nutritional values of shit food compared to trail mix.

Are all the big STW threads like this nowadays?

<wanders off again>

I propose free school meals for all and compulsory cross country running through rough council estates that are populated by chick and spadge and other associated 1970`s type bullies wearing birmingham bags and sporting air rifles.
Covering of school books with woodchip wallpaper must also be re-introduced.

Covering of school books with woodchip wallpaper must also be re-introduced.

I won’t sleep tonight now you’ve reminded me about that.

Doesn’t bother me in the slightest, I’m a public sector worker so I don’t pay any taxes. I learnt that off here.

Can someone explain the sausage problem again, I got lost.

Basically … If you decide to give your kids bangers and mash for lunch, even if you refer to gravy as a jus, then you’re as guilty of child abuse as Jimmy Saville, and the next knock on your door is likely to be social services.

Or the alternative interpretation, the guy thinks sausages are not particularly good for you so doesn’t want his kids to eat them.

Junkyard – lazarus

Its a good policy IMHO

The vital characteristic of this policy is its universal application, without there is no policy. One of the arguments central to this policy is that it instantly and very effectively removes all stigma associated with a child receiving free schools meals, significantly increasing the uptake on school meals (plus removing a source of embarrassment for a child) I heard a Tory minister, of all people, make this very point this morning on the TV.

So it comes as some surprise JK that you like this policy, as you have in the recent past very strongly opposed my support for the universal application of benefits, arguing that assistance should only be directed at those in need. When I pointed that one of the advantages of universal benefits was that it removed any stigma associated with receiving them you accused me of getting close to demonising “benefit scroungers”.

Junkyard – lazarus

I dont see why there is a stigma to benefits …why do you think there is ? You seem to be getting close to demonising “benefit scroungers” there

Cannot be arsed arguing about universal benefits but help should be there for those who need it rather than for all* IMHO…many disagree.

* you end up giving money to folk who just dont need it which is worse than incurring “admin” costs
Posted 4 months ago

I would have expected you to have argued that free school meals should only be available to “those who need it”, considering how more than once you’ve critised me for supporting the universal characteristic of benefits. You appear to have changed your mind, which is excellent news.

Can someone explain the sausage problem again, I got lost.

Apparently they contain bits of animals.

EDIT : Sorry “leftovers” of animals.

thankfully he doesn’t appear to be to be one for sweeping generalisations, and achingly simplistic interpretations though. Nuance? Who needs it? All the same? innit?

That’s all?

Amazing that you take it so personally! You don’t have to do anything that other people do. Don’t be a sheep. Or do you work for the Society of protection of sausage makers?

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.

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