Wednesday, 17 December 2008


Head teachers are whinging again.
Half of pupils from families in poverty are not getting a free hot lunch as a result of a flaw in the funding system.

The income threshold to qualify is set lower than the current level used to define poverty, which means that a family of two adults and two children struggling to get by on £18,000 a year has to pay for school dinners.
And teachers are up in arms about this because....?

Headteachers said some schools were losing out on funding as a result of the flaw, because they receive extra money for teaching disadvantaged pupils based on the number on free school meals.
So, not so much moral outrage that the poor ickle kiddies are starving in the streets, as concern that they won’t have enough money in the kitty for musical loos or staff meetings on the Costa Del Chav.
David Laws, the Lib Dem education spokesman, who obtained the figures through a parliamentary question, said: “For the most disadvantaged children, a school dinner can be the only hot meal they get. As times get tough, paying for school lunches is going to be a real struggle for more and more families.”
So, taxpayers should pay for it instead?

I guess suggesting that parents don’t have children they can’t support would be terribly old fashioned, wouldn’t it..?


Nationalist said...

Yes, these days children are like beggars' sores; they display their children and you have to hand over your money. If you don't you're cruel and heartless.

Unfortunately there's no obvious retort to, "What about the children?" The children really aren't to blame for their parents' fecklessness, and although they will probably grow up to be equally feckless and grasping, for now they are innocent.

Anonymous said...

"Unfortunately there's no obvious retort to, "What about the children?" "

Apart from 'Can't feed 'em? Don't breed 'em!', that is...

"The children really aren't to blame for their parents' fecklessness."

The problem is, unless we take a more robust attitude, we'll be held hostage forever.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the reintroduction of food stamps, which could only be used for food and not traded for other items, might be a way forward instead of cash benefits?

It's bound to get the lefties whining about 'stigmatisation', but if it means they can't spend the child benefit on Stella or Benson and Hedges, so much the better.