Free school meals for all primary school children...good or bad idea?

First topic message reminder :

Will it be a vote catcher for Corbyn and the labour party, or is just another last ditch attempt to get labour voters back?

"Anti- poverty campaigners today hailed Labour ’s flagship pledge to fund free primary school meals for all children with a new tax on private school fees.
The Child Poverty Action Group said Labour had made a “compelling” argument to stop kids going hungry and remove the “stigma” of free school meals for the poorest children.
Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn unveiled the £700million policy today and said it would be fully funded by slapping a 20% VAT charge on private school fees .
“This is a welcome move which we have long campaigned for,” said Alison Garnham, head of the Child Poverty Action Group.

Critics pointed out that the poorest kids already qualify for free school meals, and so Mr Corbyn’s plan was actually a hand-out for richer parents whose kids attend state schools"





http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-strikes-school-winner-10174672

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:I have an idea.....maybe fee paying parents should pay a bit more so parents who send their children to state schools wont have to fork out for their uniforms too.

Better solution, just get rid of uniforms.

Next

Bad idea...that just causes a greater divide between the kids that have and the kids that don't.
Unless........up the taxes of the fee paying parents so they can supply the state kids with designer clothes and shoes... even the ones with parents who can well afford to supply their own.
After all, if someone else is paying why bother to pay for anything yourself? job done.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Better solution, just get rid of uniforms.

Next

Bad idea...that just causes a greater divide between the kids that have and the kids that don't.
Unless........up the taxes of the fee paying parents so they can supply the state kids with designer clothes and shoes...  even the ones with parents who can well afford to supply their own.
After all, if someone else is paying why bother to pay for anything yourself? job done.

Really?
It helps children except others no matter the background them come from by having non-uniforms.
So your solution to racist bullying of blacks, is to paint their skin white. Otherwise it will cause a greater divide at school between kids. How about those with disabilities? Will it cause a greater divide by them having inclusion to all schools, as they do not have some of the abilities that other kids have?

Might want to rethink your poor reasoning

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Better solution, just get rid of uniforms.

Next

Bad idea...that just causes a greater divide between the kids that have and the kids that don't.
Unless........up the taxes of the fee paying parents so they can supply the state kids with designer clothes and shoes...  even the ones with parents who can well afford to supply their own.
After all, if someone else is paying why bother to pay for anything yourself? job done.

I think school uniforms are a good idea. It's not just that some pupils can afford designer gear, it's that having to think about what to wear every day can be a pain. School children have enough to think about without worrying if their clothes are "trendy" enough, or if anyone will notice they wear the same things all the time. Girls in particular can be very competitive about that kind of thing.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Bad idea...that just causes a greater divide between the kids that have and the kids that don't.
Unless........up the taxes of the fee paying parents so they can supply the state kids with designer clothes and shoes...  even the ones with parents who can well afford to supply their own.
After all, if someone else is paying why bother to pay for anything yourself? job done.

I think school uniforms are a good idea. It's not just that some pupils can afford designer gear, it's that having to think about what to wear every day can be a pain. School children have enough to think about without worrying if their clothes are "trendy" enough, or if anyone will notice they wear the same things all the time. Girls in particular can be very competitive about that kind of thing.

And you think for most school children, wearing a uniform is not a continued pain?

Kids should be as comfortable as possible at school and this includes what they wear.

A shirt, tie and blazer is certainly not comfortable to wear when its hot for example.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think school uniforms are a good idea. It's not just that some pupils can afford designer gear, it's that having to think about what to wear every day can be a pain. School children have enough to think about without worrying if their clothes are "trendy" enough, or if anyone will notice they wear the same things all the time. Girls in particular can be very competitive about that kind of thing.

And you think for most school children, wearing a uniform is not a continued pain?

Kids should be as comfortable as possible at school and this includes what they wear.

A shirt, tie and blazer is certainly not comfortable to wear when its hot for example.

Of course many say it's a pain - it's just what they say. They're not going to say that their school uniform is great are they? That wouldn't be "trendy".

Look, not all parents will let their children have lots of clothes, so having a uniform which everyone has to wear gets rid of a lot of problems. Also, teachers don't have all day to be trying to decide what clothes are "appropriate" or not.

The children are there to learn - it's not supposed to be a fashion show.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


And you think for most school children, wearing a uniform is not a continued pain?

Kids should be as comfortable as possible at school and this includes what they wear.

A shirt, tie and blazer is certainly not comfortable to wear when its hot for example.

Of course many say it's a pain - it's just what they say. They're not going to say that their school uniform is great are they? That wouldn't be "trendy".

Look, not all parents will let their children have lots of clothes, so having a uniform which everyone has to wear gets rid of a lot of problems. Also, teachers don't have all day to be trying to decide what clothes are "appropriate" or not.

The children are there to learn - it's not supposed to be a fashion show.

The point is its not comfortable to wear full stop for many children and this will hinder their abilities to learn and concentrate. If they feel uncomfortable. So again the argument on some having better clothes than others, and? Does this mean these children cannot get along or learn to understand what they can have and what they cannot have?

So how is not a uniform not a fashion show presenting the school to the public?

You see what it boils down to is silly pride here. With those who back Uniform being proud of the look of their children in Uniform and that they are proud of going to said school.

Without Uniforms, children cannot see what schools others go to or parents cannot tell either. By those having this pride they inadvertently end up looking down on other schools and school children. Without uniforms, all are then treated as they should be, as school children.

Its pride that sways people to back uniforms.

And as seen in this situation, where this pride ends up having parents and children look down on other children, its a very bad thing.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course many say it's a pain - it's just what they say. They're not going to say that their school uniform is great are they? That wouldn't be "trendy".

Look, not all parents will let their children have lots of clothes, so having a uniform which everyone has to wear gets rid of a lot of problems. Also, teachers don't have all day to be trying to decide what clothes are "appropriate" or not.

The children are there to learn - it's not supposed to be a fashion show.

The point is its not comfortable to wear full stop for many children and this will hinder their abilities to learn and concentrate. If they feel uncomfortable. So again the argument on some having better clothes than others, and? Does this mean these children cannot get along or learn to understand what they can have and what they cannot have?

So how is not a uniform not a fashion show presenting the school to the public?

You see what it boils down to is silly pride here. With those who back Uniform being proud of the look of their children in Uniform and that they are proud of going to said school.

Without Uniforms, children cannot see what schools others go to or parents cannot tell either. By those having this pride they inadvertently end up looking down on other schools. Without uniforms, all are then treated as they should be, as school children.

Its pride that sways people to back uniforms.

And as seen in this situation, where this pride ends up having parents and children look down on other children, its a very bad thing.

It would depend on the design of the uniform as to whether it was comfortable or not.

I thought you believed in equality. Well everyone wearing the same uniform makes them equal. You don't know what girls can be like. They can be very judgemental of what other girls are wearing. If they're all wearing the same thing, that can't happen and they can all concentrate on what they're at school for.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

The point is its not comfortable to wear full stop for many children and this will hinder their abilities to learn and concentrate. If they feel uncomfortable. So again the argument on some having better clothes than others, and? Does this mean these children cannot get along or learn to understand what they can have and what they cannot have?

So how is not a uniform not a fashion show presenting the school to the public?

You see what it boils down to is silly pride here. With those who back Uniform being proud of the look of their children in Uniform and that they are proud of going to said school.

Without Uniforms, children cannot see what schools others go to or parents cannot tell either. By those having this pride they inadvertently end up looking down on other schools. Without uniforms, all are then treated as they should be, as school children.

Its pride that sways people to back uniforms.

And as seen in this situation, where this pride ends up having parents and children look down on other children, its a very bad thing.

It would depend on the design of the uniform as to whether it was comfortable or not.

I thought you believed in equality. Well everyone wearing the same uniform makes them equal. You don't know what girls can be like. They can be very judgemental of what other girls are wearing. If they're all wearing the same thing, that can't happen and they can all concentrate on what they're at school for.

You mean the levels of discomfort would be based on design

How does wearing the same uniform make them equal?

You mean as robots and not free thinking in having choices?

Does having the ability to see whilst some cannot see be equal in sight?

No, but both those who can see and those who cannot see do not need the same uniform, to be "treated" equally. People are judgmental because of disabilities, gender, race, sexuality etc.
Do you want to segregate all these groups based on your methodology of judgement?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It would depend on the design of the uniform as to whether it was comfortable or not.

I thought you believed in equality. Well everyone wearing the same uniform makes them equal. You don't know what girls can be like. They can be very judgemental of what other girls are wearing. If they're all wearing the same thing, that can't happen and they can all concentrate on what they're at school for.

You mean the levels of discomfort would be based on design

How does wearing the same uniform make them equal?

You mean as robots and not free thinking in having choices?

Does having the ability to see whilst some cannot see be equal in sight?

No, but both those who can see and those who cannot see do not need the same uniform, to be "treated" equally. People are judgmental because of disabilities, gender, race, sexuality etc.
Do you want to segregate all these groups based on your methodology of judgement?

Of course it makes them equal. I just explained to you. Some parents let their children have loads of clothes and others don't - regardless of how rich they are. Wearing a uniform makes them equal. The uniform might be awful, but at least they're all looking awful in it.

You will never convince me that school uniforms are a bad idea. I wore a uniform, and I'm very glad I did. I couldn't have done with trying to decide what to wear every day, and have some other girl saying my clothes weren't "trendy".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


You mean the levels of discomfort would be based on design

How does wearing the same uniform make them equal?

You mean as robots and not free thinking in having choices?

Does having the ability to see whilst some cannot see be equal in sight?

No, but both those who can see and those who cannot see do not need the same uniform, to be "treated" equally. People are judgmental because of disabilities, gender, race, sexuality etc.
Do you want to segregate all these groups based on your methodology of judgement?

Of course it makes them equal. I just explained to you. Some parents let their children have loads of clothes and others don't - regardless of how rich they are. Wearing a uniform makes them equal. The uniform might be awful, but at least they're all looking awful in it.

You will never convince me that school uniforms are a bad idea. I wore a uniform, and I'm very glad I did. I couldn't have done with trying to decide what to wear every day, and have some other girl saying my clothes weren't "trendy".

The point is no child is ever equal, but that they be treated equally.

It does not make them equal as other schools have other uniforms or no uniforms.

All it makes is that a number of school children wear the same clothes, where countless others will be wearing different.

So it certainly do does not make them equal.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course it makes them equal. I just explained to you. Some parents let their children have loads of clothes and others don't - regardless of how rich they are. Wearing a uniform makes them equal. The uniform might be awful, but at least they're all looking awful in it.

You will never convince me that school uniforms are a bad idea. I wore a uniform, and I'm very glad I did. I couldn't have done with trying to decide what to wear every day, and have some other girl saying my clothes weren't "trendy".

The point is no child is ever equal, but that they be treated equally.

It does not make them equal as other schools have other uniforms or no uniforms.

All it makes is that a number of school children wear the same clothes, where countless others will be wearing different.

So it certainly do does not make them equal.

What others wear at a different school is irrelevant - they're not going to be seeing children at another school.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The point is no child is ever equal, but that they be treated equally.

It does not make them equal as other schools have other uniforms or no uniforms.

All it makes is that a number of school children wear the same clothes, where countless others will be wearing different.

So it certainly do does not make them equal.

What others wear at a different school is irrelevant - they're not going to be seeing children at another school.

They will before and after school, at school competitions etc and they will as seen be unequal to other school children.

Like I said, the uniform is not a system of equality, when you have different Uniforms and no Uniforms at all

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What others wear at a different school is irrelevant - they're not going to be seeing children at another school.

They will before and after school, at school competitions etc and they will as seen be unequal to other school children.

Like I said, the uniform is not a system of equality, when you have different Uniforms and no Uniforms at all

After school? I'm talking about when they're at school.

Look, I don't care what you say - I'm glad I wore a uniform, and I think they're a really good thing. I've said why, and if you don't agree, we'll have to leave it at that.

You also assume that no children want to wear a uniform. They do want to - in organisations like Brownies, Guides, Cubs, Scouts, they wear uniforms.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


They will before and after school, at school competitions etc and they will as seen be unequal to other school children.

Like I said, the uniform is not a system of equality, when you have different Uniforms and no Uniforms at all

After school? I'm talking about when they're at school.

Look, I don't care what you say - I'm glad I wore a uniform, and I think they're a really good thing. I've said why, and if don't agree, we'll have to leave it at that.

You also assume that no children want to wear a uniform. They do want to - in organisations like Brownies, Guides, Cubs, Scouts, they wear uniforms.

Well?

Do they interact with other school children?

Yes

Is this about all school children having equality?

Yes

Its not equality then if some schools have different Uniforms or none at all.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

After school? I'm talking about when they're at school.

Look, I don't care what you say - I'm glad I wore a uniform, and I think they're a really good thing. I've said why, and if don't agree, we'll have to leave it at that.

You also assume that no children want to wear a uniform. They do want to - in organisations like Brownies, Guides, Cubs, Scouts, they wear uniforms.

Well?

Do they interact with other school children?

Yes

Is this about all school children having equality?

Yes

Its not equality then if some schools have different Uniforms or none at all.

I mean the children at the same school - obviously.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Well?

Do they interact with other school children?

Yes

Is this about all school children having equality?

Yes

Its not equality then if some schools have different Uniforms or none at all.

I mean the children at the same school - obviously.

But as seen it does not provide equality to all school children and to your point on the Guides, Scouts etc.

They are not compulsory.

School is compulsory

Oh and even within the school its not equality Rags.

I mean can boys wear school uniform skirts or blouses to school?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean the children at the same school - obviously.

But as seen it does not provide equality to all school children and to your point on the Guides, Scouts etc.

They are not compulsory.

School is compulsory

They are compulsory if you join one of those organisations, and school uniforms should be compulsory too IMO.

You will never make me regret that I had to wear a school uniform. If you had ever been a teenage girl, you would understand it more.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


But as seen it does not provide equality to all school children and to your point on the Guides, Scouts etc.

They are not compulsory.

School is compulsory

They are compulsory if you join one of those organisations, and school uniforms should be compulsory too IMO.

You will never make me regret that I had to wear a school uniform. If you had ever been a teenage girl, you would understand it more.

What?
Its a choice to join or more to the points some parents forcing them to go, but again no child has to attend the guides or Scouts. They do with school.

I am not trying to make you regret anything but reason my case.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They are compulsory if you join one of those organisations, and school uniforms should be compulsory too IMO.

You will never make me regret that I had to wear a school uniform. If you had ever been a teenage girl, you would understand it more.

What?
Its a choice to join or more to the points some parents forcing them to go, but again no child has to attend the guides or Scouts. They do with school.

I am not trying to make you regret anything but reason my case.

The uniform is compulsory.

I don't agree with your reasoning, and I never will.

Anyway Rags, have things to do, thanks for the debate, it was very interesting and same goes to Syl

Hope you both have a good evening

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Better solution, just get rid of uniforms.

Next

Bad idea...that just causes a greater divide between the kids that have and the kids that don't.
Unless........up the taxes of the fee paying parents so they can supply the state kids with designer clothes and shoes...  even the ones with parents who can well afford to supply their own.
After all, if someone else is paying why bother to pay for anything yourself? job done.

Some state school kids are lucky enough to have parents who have a nice car and are driven to and from school... Maybe taxpayers should pay for every parent to have a nice car to drive their kids to and from school... as that would be 'equality' and 'inclusive'...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

Bad idea...that just causes a greater divide between the kids that have and the kids that don't.
Unless........up the taxes of the fee paying parents so they can supply the state kids with designer clothes and shoes...  even the ones with parents who can well afford to supply their own.
After all, if someone else is paying why bother to pay for anything yourself? job done.

Some state school kids are lucky enough to have parents who have a nice car and are driven to and from school... Maybe taxpayers should pay for every parent to have a nice car to drive their kids to and from school... as that would be 'equality' and 'inclusive'...!!!???

So you want to make cars free for parents

But how is that inclusive and equality?

Remember its all school kids having free school meals, paid by all tax payers, the richer paying more on an already costly system, schooling. Thus its the kids benefiting free school meals, not parents benefiting. Parents would pay the cost through taxes, some more than others.

Night

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:





Some state school kids are lucky enough to have parents who have a nice car and are driven to and from school... Maybe taxpayers should pay for every parent to have a nice car to drive their kids to and from school... as that would be 'equality' and 'inclusive'...!!!???

So you want to make cars free for parents

But how is that inclusive and equality?

Remember its all school kids having free school meals, paid by all tax payers, the richer paying more or an already costly system, schooling. Thus its the kids benefiting free school meals, not parents benefiting. Parents would pay the cost through taxes, some more than others.

It's you banging on about 'equality' and 'inclusiveness'...


Some kids have parents with nice car and get chauffeured to and from school... while others don't and have to get the bus/walk...


Should all parents get tax payer funded cars to drive their kids to/from school so all are equal that way and it's inclusive of all of them...!?


And back to school dinners... it wouldn't be all kids getting them as some parents want their kids to eat a packed lunch of their preferred choice of what they think is better for kids... and others have their kids back home for lunch to eat a healthy home cooked meal there...

Then you say it is to be paid for by all taxpayers... but it won't be parents who benefit from it, when it is only PARENTS who WOULD get to see any cost savings as they go from paying dinner money to not paying dinner money... all other taxpayers who don't have kids would be paying more in taxes just for parents to have the benefit of a few extra quid in their pockets each week!!!


But then you say it would only be parents paying for it through extra taxes...!!!


Come on Didge...!!!


Make your mind up!!!


We already have a system where kids get meals at school that are free for them... and whereby it is parents who pay for them... and all the ones who are poor and don't have to pay, are already really getting it paid for by the parents who are better off and who do pay, as they are already paying a bit more in cost of what they are getting in their kids dinners so the extra bit of money actually goes towards paying for the free dinners that the poorer parents kids get!!!



The system where parents pay... and the better off parents pay a slightly higher price to fund the dinners of the poorer already exists!!!


It's what happens now with the current system of school dinners!!!

So again when angry, you resort to infantile names, when I show up your ignorance here Tommy

1) So you could offer nothing to show it was equality and inclusive

2) No, as the majority of parents, kids are grown up and do not need their children to be either walked to school and driven. As their kids are now adults. Some parents do not even raise their children. Some parents have sadly lost their children. Some parents cannot drive and some are not even allowed to drive. So your view to give free cars to parents is as seen absurd. Now all children need to eat and eat healthily. When this is about having Free school meals for all kids. Unless of course you want child labour and for them to pay taxes?
No?

Anyway, most parents should walk their children to school, if its within a 2 mile radius from their house for the excercize.

3) Back home for lunch? You are telling me kids are allowed home at lunch. I doubt they are unless in the sixth form. As to pack lunches, when this is about cooked healthy meals and you are telling me they will prefer packed lunches based on health? Seriously?
Never heard such a weak argument.

4) How are they making savings when the cost  is spread through taxes? You see if tax goes up, of which it should for the NHS and schooling. Then its the children that benefit with Free school meals. The parents are paying the tax and costs as they have always done. 

5) So that is how they will be paying it and those more so in the higher bracket, but the fact remains you cannot work out something simple. Its the state paying for the schooling of children, as it would be for their free meals. Hence its not the parents benefiting, but the children. Costs are attributed to children with their schooling, medical health already and again not their parents, because these are in most cases future tax payers. Hence its the child that benefits from free health care and education. In fact only one group would not benefit from this Tommy. One group that unlike those British born, who have free education here. Those foreign born immigrants. Who come here to work, who would pay into the tax system and not have a free education here.

See how they end up contributing more to the system, than those born here?

So the only reason you are against free school meals which benefit children paid for by the state, is because you do not want to see children have the best chances with the future. In other words you are selfish, even though you yourself benefited from a free education and health care.

There a a cycle in life on costs. That at some point, all these adults, will get to an age where they need help and care far more often. Who is the future doctors, nurses, cares etc?

These children and why they all must start with the same benefits in life. As they would here at schools. It is to these children, who are future tax payers and who are essential for this country as a system to run.
The better prepared you make children for adult life. The better all round for everyone.

Thorin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:





Some state school kids are lucky enough to have parents who have a nice car and are driven to and from school... Maybe taxpayers should pay for every parent to have a nice car to drive their kids to and from school... as that would be 'equality' and 'inclusive'...!!!???

So you want to make cars free for parents

But how is that inclusive and equality?

Remember its all school kids having free school meals, paid by all tax payers, the richer paying more on an already costly system, schooling. Thus its the kids benefiting free school meals, not parents benefiting. Parents would pay the cost through taxes, some more than others.

Night

You mean Labour would put up taxes to pay for this? That's not going to go down well with the voters.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you want to make cars free for parents

But how is that inclusive and equality?

Remember its all school kids having free school meals, paid by all tax payers, the richer paying more on an already costly system, schooling. Thus its the kids benefiting free school meals, not parents benefiting. Parents would pay the cost through taxes, some more than others.

Night

You mean Labour would put up taxes to pay for this? That's not going to go down well with the voters.

I mean any Government puts up taxes, more so on those richer and who can afford to. As its the state that will pay for free school meals, as they do with schooling. 700 million is nothing in what is paid out in comparison. The education budget is 85 billion.

Why throw in Labour, when I do not support them?

Misdirection

Didge:

As to pack lunches, when this is about cooked healthy meals and you are telling me they will prefer packed lunches based on health? Seriously?
Never heard such a weak argument.

Why do you assume that a cooked meal is more healthy than a cold one?

There is no particular health benefit to having hot food rather than cold food.

In addition to that, what if the cooked meal includes chips and other things which the parents consider unhealthy?

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge:

As to pack lunches, when this is about cooked healthy meals and you are telling me they will prefer packed lunches based on health? Seriously?
Never heard such a weak argument.

Why do you assume that a cooked meal is more healthy than a cold one?

There is no particular health benefit to having hot food rather than cold food.

In addition to that, what if the cooked meal includes chips and other things which the parents consider unhealthy?

Because a packed lunch is never going to be a fresh as a hot meal is it?

There is plenty of arguments that there is.

You just choose to ignore them.

The fact is to argue off a packed lunch is moot, when children will have all the choices from a free school meal paid for by the state.

Thus a child does not have to worry anymore of having their lunch money stolen or their food by bullies, do they Rags.

Schools are regulated to provide healthy food to children and eating chips once in a while is not bad for anyone.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean Labour would put up taxes to pay for this? That's not going to go down well with the voters.

I mean any Government puts up taxes, more so on those richer and who can afford to. As its the state that will pay for free school meals, as they do with schooling. 700 million is nothing in what is paid out in comparison. The education budget is 85 billion.

Why throw in Labour, when I do not support them?

Misdirection

It might have passed you by but it's Labour who are suggesting this.

However, Corbyn has said it would be paid for by people with children at private schools, not the tax payers in general. Those people would not only be paying for the meals of their own children, but they'd be paying for the meals of other people's children too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


I mean any Government puts up taxes, more so on those richer and who can afford to. As its the state that will pay for free school meals, as they do with schooling. 700 million is nothing in what is paid out in comparison. The education budget is 85 billion.

Why throw in Labour, when I do not support them?

Misdirection

It might have passed you by but it's Labour who are suggesting this.

However, Corbyn has said it would be paid for by people with children at private schools, not the tax payers in general. Those people would not only be paying for the meals of their own children, but they'd be paying for the meals of other people's children too.

So what?

Does that mean I support Labour as a party?

No

Like I said, misdirection

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge:



Why do you assume that a cooked meal is more healthy than a cold one?

There is no particular health benefit to having hot food rather than cold food.

In addition to that, what if the cooked meal includes chips and other things which the parents consider unhealthy?

Because a packed lunch is never going to be a fresh as a hot meal is it?

There is plenty of arguments that there is.

You just choose to ignore them.

The fact is to argue off a packed lunch is moot, when children will have all the choices from a free school meal paid for by the state.

Thus a child does not have to worry anymore of having their lunch money stolen or their food by bullies, do they Rags.

Schools are regulated to provide healthy food to children and eating chips once in a while is not bad for anyone.

Why is it not going to be as fresh? What are the health benefits of having hot food as opposed to cold food?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It might have passed you by but it's Labour who are suggesting this.

However, Corbyn has said it would be paid for by people with children at private schools, not the tax payers in general. Those people would not only be paying for the meals of their own children, but they'd be paying for the meals of other people's children too.

So what?

Does that mean I support Labour as a party?

No

Like I said, misdirection

I didn't say you supported them. We are discussing the proposal by the Labour party, which is why I was talking about the Labour party - obviously.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Because a packed lunch is never going to be a fresh as a hot meal is it?

There is plenty of arguments that there is.

You just choose to ignore them.

The fact is to argue off a packed lunch is moot, when children will have all the choices from a free school meal paid for by the state.

Thus a child does not have to worry anymore of having their lunch money stolen or their food by bullies, do they Rags.

Schools are regulated to provide healthy food to children and eating chips once in a while is not bad for anyone.

Why is it not going to be as fresh? What are the benefits of having hot food as opposed to cold food?

So you are telling me bread now not stored within a closed sealed packet, once open, does not lose its freshness?

Really?

I see you avoided all my other points as per usual

Again the school can provide the daily needs of children based on their age groups and whilst some parents might know, the majority may not. The school will ensure they have they must provide low-fat dairy, a fruit and a vegetable at every meal. Low reduced salt intake in their food.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So what?

Does that mean I support Labour as a party?

No

Like I said, misdirection

I didn't say you supported them. We are discussing the proposal by the Labour party, which is why I was talking about the Labour party - obviously.

I am discussing mine, so you are misdirecting.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why is it not going to be as fresh? What are the benefits of having hot food as opposed to cold food?

So you are telling me bread now not stored within a closed sealed packet, once open, does not lose its freshness?

Really?

I see you avoided all my other points as per usual

Again the school can provide the daily needs of children based on their age groups and whilst some parents might know, the majority may not. The school will ensure they have they must provide low-fat dairy, a fruit and a vegetable at every meal. Low reduced salt intake in their food.

Are you saying that people open a whole loaf of bread and use it immediately? Of course they don't. They can put the bread in an airtight container, otherwise known as a lunch box. In any case, a packed lunch doesn't necessarily need to contain bread.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say you supported them. We are discussing the proposal by the Labour party, which is why I was talking about the Labour party - obviously.

I am discussing mine, so you are misdirecting.

I'm discussing the actual topic of the thread, so it's you who went off topic and misdirected the whole thread.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you are telling me bread now not stored within a closed sealed packet, once open, does not lose its freshness?

Really?

I see you avoided all my other points as per usual

Again the school can provide the daily needs of children based on their age groups and whilst some parents might know, the majority may not. The school will ensure they have they must provide low-fat dairy, a fruit and a vegetable at every meal. Low reduced salt intake in their food.

Are you saying that people open a whole loaf of bread and use it immediately? Of course they don't. They can put the bread in an airtight container, otherwise known as a lunch box. In any case, a packed lunch doesn't necessarily need to contain bread.

I said about Freshness, where again a packed lunch is not a fresh as a recently cooked meal is it?

So no matter how you bang on about this, what you fail to grasp is that this is ensuring that every child obtains a healthy free meal at school. That none go without.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I am discussing mine, so you are misdirecting.

I'm discussing the actual topic of the thread, so it's you who went off topic and misdirected the whole thread.

Well considering I have been discussing my views for the last few pages and now you want to talk about Corbyn, then find someone that wants to.

Or keep to my points on the debate

Simple

Right, I am off to work, have a nice day Rags.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you saying that people open a whole loaf of bread and use it immediately? Of course they don't. They can put the bread in an airtight container, otherwise known as a lunch box. In any case, a packed lunch doesn't necessarily need to contain bread.

I said about Freshness, where again a packed lunch is not a fresh as a recently cooked meal is it?

So no matter how you bang on about this, what you fail to grasp is that this is ensuring that every child obtains a healthy free meal at school. That none go without.

Why not? Do you think the school staff go and pick vegetables from the fields five minutes before they cook them?

They're not going without. Either their parents pay or they get free meals because of the low income of their parents.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm discussing the actual topic of the thread, so it's you who went off topic and misdirected the whole thread.

Well considering I have been discussing my views for the last few pages and now you want to talk about Corbyn, then find someone that wants to.

Or keep to my points on the debate

Simple

You keep to my points for a change, and stop telling people to stop discussing the subject - which is the Labour proposal. If you want to change the subject, start another thread.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean Labour would put up taxes to pay for this? That's not going to go down well with the voters.

I mean any Government puts up taxes, more so on those richer and who can afford to. As its the state that will pay for free school meals, as they do with schooling. 700 million is nothing in what is paid out in comparison. The education budget is 85 billion.

Why throw in Labour, when I do not support them?

Misdirection

Any Government which puts up taxes will not be popular. If they only put up taxes for rich people, the people with school-age children who pay basic rate tax will be saving money because they don't have to pay for school meals any more. You said earlier that they won't benefit, but they would - by saving money.

Thorin wrote:Right, I am off to work, have a nice day Rags.

Me too. Maybe someone else will pay for lunch.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So you want to make cars free for parents

But how is that inclusive and equality?

Remember its all school kids having free school meals, paid by all tax payers, the richer paying more or an already costly system, schooling. Thus its the kids benefiting free school meals, not parents benefiting. Parents would pay the cost through taxes, some more than others.

It's you banging on about 'equality' and 'inclusiveness'...


Some kids have parents with nice car and get chauffeured to and from school... while others don't and have to get the bus/walk...


Should all parents get tax payer funded cars to drive their kids to/from school so all are equal that way and it's inclusive of all of them...!?


And back to school dinners... it wouldn't be all kids getting them as some parents want their kids to eat a packed lunch of their preferred choice of what they think is better for kids... and others have their kids back home for lunch to eat a healthy home cooked meal there...

Then you say it is to be paid for by all taxpayers... but it won't be parents who benefit from it, when it is only PARENTS who WOULD get to see any cost savings as they go from paying dinner money to not paying dinner money... all other taxpayers who don't have kids would be paying more in taxes just for parents to have the benefit of a few extra quid in their pockets each week!!!


But then you say it would only be parents paying for it through extra taxes...!!!


Come on Didge...!!!


Make your mind up!!!


We already have a system where kids get meals at school that are free for them... and whereby it is parents who pay for them... and all the ones who are poor and don't have to pay, are already really getting it paid for by the parents who are better off and who do pay, as they are already paying a bit more in cost of what they are getting in their kids dinners so the extra bit of money actually goes towards paying for the free dinners that the poorer parents kids get!!!



The system where parents pay... and the better off parents pay a slightly higher price to fund the dinners of the poorer already exists!!!


It's what happens now with the current system of school dinners!!!

What are you waffling about...!?

What name calling...!?

Think you are confused...!!!

Read your post again that I was replying to... then read my reply again... then read your post from this morning...!

I don't think you know what you're talking about...!!!


Loads of kids go home for lunch... I used to go round my grandads for proper home cooked food and a game of cards from the age of 9 until I started secondary school!!!

Loads of secondary school kids choose to go to local shops etc too...

Lots of red herrings have been brought into this thread.

This is about primary school children.

Corbyn has pledged to introduce free school meals for all children at state schools till they leave, which is usually aged 11.

They already get meals paid for by the tax payer till aged 7.

This will put an extra £700 million on the cost of free school dinners which will be funded by fee paying parents, ie parents who send their own children to private schools.

I think a hot meal is preferable to a cold packed lunch for young kids, especially in wintertime.
No one has said anywhere that any child should go without a hot meal.
Parents on certain benefits are entitled to claim for free school lunches for their children.
All other parents can pay for their childs meal, thus ensuring they remain healthy and well fed, which after all, is the parents responsibility.

The average price charged for a school dinner is around £2 per day, cheaper than a cup of coffee in most high street café bars.

Syl wrote:Lots of red herrings have been brought into this thread.

This is about primary school children.

Corbyn has pledged to introduce free school meals for all children at state schools till they leave, which is usually aged 11.

They already get meals paid for by the tax payer till aged 7.

This will put an extra £700 million on the cost of free school dinners which will be funded by fee paying parents, ie parents who send their own children to private schools.

I think a hot meal is preferable to a cold packed lunch for young kids, especially in wintertime.
No one has said anywhere that any child should go without a hot meal.
Parents on certain benefits are entitled to claim for free school lunches for their children.
All other parents can pay for their childs meal, thus ensuring they remain healthy and well fed, which after all, is the parents responsibility.

The average price charged for a school dinner is around £2 per day, cheaper than a cup of coffee in most high street café bars.

What red herrings?

I have and others have argued for all school children to have free school meals

As seen, you and others have failed badly at countering our views.

You are just rehashing previous arguments you have made Syl

As seen all parents would be paying for the free school means through their contribution in taxes, for the 100th time.

So my points still stand

@Tommy, my name is Thorin, not dodge, that is abuse.

Learn some civility and you have just regurgitated your same points without answering any of mine.

That is you done I guess

@Rags

I think most people would be fine if they knew the tax rise was to help education and the NHS only.

What does it say though when people bemoan paying what they can easily afford, within the higher bracket, that they moan.

Syl wrote:Lots of red herrings have been brought into this thread.

This is about primary school children.

Corbyn has pledged to introduce free school meals for all children at state schools till they leave, which is usually aged 11.

They already get meals paid for by the tax payer till aged 7.

This will put an extra £700 million on the cost of free school dinners which will be funded by fee paying parents, ie parents who send their own children to private schools.

I think a hot meal is preferable to a cold packed lunch for young kids, especially in wintertime.
No one has said anywhere that any child should go without a hot meal.
Parents on certain benefits are entitled to claim for free school lunches for their children.
All other parents can pay for their childs meal, thus ensuring they remain healthy and well fed, which after all, is the parents responsibility.

The average price charged for a school dinner is around £2 per day, cheaper than a cup of coffee in most high street café bars.

I think it's preferable too, but there's no evidence that eating hot food is more healthy or better for you than eating cold food - or is there?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Well considering I have been discussing my views for the last few pages and now you want to talk about Corbyn, then find someone that wants to.

Or keep to my points on the debate

Simple

You keep to my points for a change, and stop telling people to stop discussing the subject - which is the Labour proposal. If you want to change the subject, start another thread.

Nope, you want to discuss about Corbyn find someone

It's my opinion that Corbyn has suggested this in part to get people who send their children to private schools to pay more tax. Still, at least tax payers in general wouldn't have to fund it, and I doubt Labour will be elected anyway.