Who’s ptt? Pretty sure he was left behind…
Doesn’t post on twitter that’s for sure.
1 Like
The BMW line is classic Epsomred.
6 Likes
Jules Verne? That tweet sniffs of Phineas Mogg.
The whole lot was Epsomred.
I am sure now he is telling how the BMW woman Ptt ran into is a relation of his through his inlaws or something similar.
Tbf nothing like Ptt no mention of axes, chainsaws or any other offensive weapon. 
2 Likes
Ak47? M16? Could go old school guillotine?
1 Like
Old school guillotine seems appropriate.
1 Like
Well done Marcus Rashford
4 Likes
True, but is it also not the governments responsibility to support and protect those who can’t support and protect themselves? ie children
2 Likes
Because they cant afford the expensive cider???
Actually I think there’s a basic ignorance of what is needed financially to actually survive to a certain standard these days.
3 Likes
Yes.
But if they don’t?
Serving kids healthy meals at school is a brilliant idea for the good of a nation.
I bet you it’s economically sound too.
You can play devils advocate until the cows come home, that doesn’t feed one hungry kid who has ZERO control of how the family budget is allocated.
5 Likes
not much I can say to that…
Wowzers.
2 Likes
And I spose you agree with the old codger Phillip about putting birth control in public water supplies too?
That not devils advocate, that’s Cummings advocate 
9 Likes
It is so sad that children have to go hungry. And I agree that children who are victims of either inadequate government policies or parenting, need to be protected in one way or another. Debating who should be responsible for them ultimately will not do anything in the short term for them.
However, I can also agree that there need to be mechanisms in the long run for parents who abuse tax payer support and use it on other things that are non-essential, especially their children welfare. In a country that believes in welfare very much, I think it is not too much for tax payers to demand that there is a robust mechanism that money goes to the right people using it for the right purpose. And in the worst case scenario, parents who are taking money and no feeding their children should have their welfare and children taken away from them.
I’m just regurgitating some of the arguments I’ve heard and had to debate over the years.
2 Likes
One thing that seems to be missing from this debate is the fact that if children are missing meals I’d bet that in a lot of cases the parents are as well.
Another pro argument is that the healthier you can keep your population the less strain that puts on your health service.
1 Like
Just to clarify, this is already in place. The current debate is about how do we ensure that kids are able to have at least one healthy meal a day during the holidays. Should this be the responsibility of the government? Clearly parents cannot abrogate all such responsibility for caring for their child(ren) so at what point is the government obligated to step in and in what way? This is the current cunundrum.
The government extended the school voucher scheme (that ensures kids get a meal during school time) into the holidays during the summer, as part of their response to the impact of coronavirus on family finances. Should that be extended? The government argues that it has increased the amount available through welfare but is that enough or is that even sensible? The objective is to ensure that kids do not go hungry - can that responsibility be entrusted to parents, some of whom may well be neglectful or have addiction problems etc? In these circumstances the government ought to be taking a more direct role in ensuring the health and welfare of those who cannot and/or should not have to look after themselves.
2 Likes
6 Likes
Bloody hell you tory you. Next you’ll sound like Hitler.
Welcome to the club