Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Is Marcus Rashford a danger to the long term welfare of the UK population?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes. Thick twat doing huge damage through massively over-simplifying a highly complex issue like Geldof before him. The local cafes and pubs are queueing up to offer free meals for kids - fi

Him and his premier div mates have massive investments in rental properties in some of the poorest parts of the country, helping to keep house prices high and the poor needing hand outs. Fucking hypoc

Yup. Like qualifying for a free TV licence if over 75 and on pension credit. Meaning that nobody who worked for 35 years paying into the system gets one. Means testing rewards people fo

Posted Images

What about fat kids?

 

"No child should be hungry"?  Massive over simplication.  

 

Presume " hungry" kids will turn noses up at lots of unfamiliar veg and only want burgers, pizza, sweet drinks etc.

 

Giving fat kids more of what they want is probably doing more harm than good?

 

The solution is probably state run 'soup' kitchens serving a cheap but healthy meal for those who are entitled. Kids and anyone else.  Eat on the premises.  Tap water to drink.  24 hrs open would-be best to stop ppl complaining they can't get there.

 

Probably easier to make it free  to anyone without any checks.  Those who are truly hungry will have to make the effort to get to one of these places. 

 

Not perfect but then no-one needs to starve and might get more essential nutrients. Going a day without food is not great but won't kill. Eating junk food for years on end might.

 

No idea how much it would cost but some ppl would be employed and learn how to make a cheap and healthy meal?

 

Use these kitchens to supply school meals and hospitals. (Transport will be required.)

Edited by whocares
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

The right* level of welfare for people has been worked out and is issued.  This will include payments for things like food for children (duh).  Sure, there'll be some costs that aren't the same all year round (eg heating during winter), but the welfare is smoothed out so that over the year it'll work out.  I suppose that this might be 'unfair' for those who get the welfare for a short period (and thus might have the 'negative side of the year') but it is a 'fair average' and most of the complainants are multi-year recipients anyway.

School holiday food for kids is like this.

The amount of welfare shouldn't be set at 'Whatever it is we get and however it is calculated, we want £20 more'

----------

*Well, except it is a complete mess and doesn't bear any relationship with reality.  Eg, i don't see why anyone on any income related welfare would ever have a holiday or be able to buy presents; the welfare exists as a support net and if they're going on holiday they don't need the support.  I don't care about moans in this regard from the recipients -- the cash doesn't exist to give kids a present.

So, the right response to this should be to say 'Markus is right -- we'll give out the cash for now, but will start a 3 month investigation into the minimal amount of cash people need to survive, and only survive.  We'll include important things like heating, electricity, water, food, etc.  We'll also include a bit extra to cover travel to job interviews etc.  At the end of this we'll make sure that everyone gets this minimal amount (taking into account any income they get from jobs). 

Oh, and not a penny more.  But don't worry about that last bit, as surely with all the moaning from everyone about children being hungry no-one would be getting anything more than the survival baseline (poor children -- don't worry, we'll sort it out)'.  

That way there'd be no food poverty for children, but also feckless people wouldn't be able to spend my cash on giving their kids Nike trainers and KFC for lunch.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say it's his undeclared vested interest as a landlord which is far more damaging to the long-term interests of society.

If too many over-entitled parasites get the idea that all they need to do is lobby the government to throw money at the symptoms of society's problems in order to enrich themselves; we will end up with the bizarre spectacle of corrupt lobbyists jockeying for position to ensure that their millionaire clients are portrayed as being far more in need of government handouts than anyone else on the planet.

Even Camila Batmanghelidjh will throw up her hands in disgust at the whole sorry affair, before asking, "Where's my share of the loot?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was discussed on Question Time. The owner of OVO energy was on and he was saying the government should hand out free meals.

Ffs, ovo energy took over SSE and made people redundant. My colleagues wife worked for SSE and lost her job. 

Talk is cheap for people that propose this type of thing. If someone like Rashford put his hand in his pocket I'd type of respect him. However I'd suspect he's not really put that much into his pet project. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Democorruptcy said:

His actions are going to tempt more and more people to rely on the state instead of fending for themselves. People need an incentive to work, strive and better themselves, it's being removed by reliance on the state and now handouts from restaurants. People in the middle between poverty and struggling to improve their lives, might give up on the struggle, when they see that people just below them, get more for making less effort. Fecklessness breeds fecklessness.

Now we have firms stepping in to help with free school meals, it risks the governbankment doing less for those in genuine need and pushing responsibility onto others. "We don't have to do it now... after a social media campaign others will pay for it". However what happens when the others get fed up of paying?

Obviously the lad must be a talented footballer, has good brand managers and is expected to do well in the USA. However will the unintended consequences of his actions longer term, outweigh any good intentions now?

 

Is their something about Mancheater United that produces these types.  Beckham was similar around the same stage in his career although he was at an earlier phase of the football celebrity SJWness,

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

Yes.

Thick twat doing huge damage through massively over-simplifying a highly complex issue like Geldof before him.

The local cafes and pubs are queueing up to offer free meals for kids - fine, their choice - but have also banned local MPs who voted against it.

It's people being nasty though still thinking that is okay because they're nice.

Fine if they want to do that but where does the money to do it come from - given the opportunity most of them complain about thin profits especially when dealing with the issue of staff wages.  Staff who might not be able to afford to have kids or who are struggling to bring up kids.  Not to mention when putting up their prices for customers.

Edited by twocents
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, twocents said:

Fine if they want to do that but where does the money to do it come from - given the opportunity most of them complain about thin profits especially when dealing with the issue staff wages.  Staff who might not be able to afford to have kids or who are struggling to bring up kids.  Not to mention when putting up their prices for customers.

The specific offers that I have seen have been fairly grudging: sandwich, crisps, fruit and drink.

Plus they have to turn up in person to get it.

I don't think that it will be costing them much and, unless it's a cafe right in the middle of a housing estate, take up will be low.

It's primarily about virtue signalling and free advertising and for very little cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

The specific offers that I have seen have been fairly grudging: sandwich, crisps, fruit and drink.

Plus they have to turn up in person to get it.

I don't think that it will be costing them much and, unless it's a cafe right in the middle of a housing estate, take up will be low.

It's primarily about virtue signalling and free advertising and for very little cost.

Sandwich, crisps, fruit and drink could come to £5 a time for each kid - advertised prices - customers don't even get anything near that after 6 or 7 visits on the loyalty cards.  A free drink if they're lucky.

I expect some of it is/will be funded by Rishi's bailouts which is supposed to be so that the cafes and restaurants survive.  Yes it's about virtue signalling, free advertising and maybe expanding the future customer base and suchlike at base cost.

A lot of the soul searching has been portrayed as the awfulness of kids with empty bellies at school.  That used to be normal for all kids before going home for their late afternoon meal - even after school meal (free or otherwise).  Now apparently they aren't even allowed to feel hunger.  Obesity - no surprise.

Nobody wants to see truly starving kids of course.

Edited by twocents
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, twocents said:

Sandwich, crisps, fruit and drink could come to £5 a time for each kid - advertised prices - customers don't even get anything near that after 6 or 7 visits on the loyalty cards.  A free drink if they're lucky.

I expect some of it is/will be funded by Rishi's bailouts which is supposed to be so that the cafes and restaurants survive.  Yes it's about virtue signalling, free advertising and maybe expanding the future customer base and suchlike at base cost.

A lot of the soul searching has been portrayed as the awfulness of kids with empty bellies at school.  That used to be normal for all kids before going home for their late afternoon meal - even after school meal (free or otherwise).  Now apparently they aren't even allowed to feel hunger.  Obesity - no surprise.

Nobody wants to see truly starving kids of course.

Being hungry was a fairly standard condition of my childhood and that of my peers. You never expected to leave the table feeling full and would be really hungry by five pm.

Fat kids, and adults, were exceptional.

Hungry kids were the absolute norm across the whole social spectrum; it was seen as a good thing. Nobody should feel permanently satiated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

Yup.

Like qualifying for a free TV licence if over 75 and on pension credit.

Meaning that nobody who worked for 35 years paying into the system gets one.

Means testing rewards people for contributing nothing to society.

It never made sense except now in 2020 we're starting to discover that for years and decades the plan has been for massive unemployment and everyone dependent on the state.  Now it makes sense - not in the normal making sense way but now we know what's behind it - or at least we should know now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Great Guy said:

This was discussed on Question Time. The owner of OVO energy was on and he was saying the government should hand out free meals.

Ffs, ovo energy took over SSE and made people redundant. My colleagues wife worked for SSE and lost her job. 

Talk is cheap for people that propose this type of thing. If someone like Rashford put his hand in his pocket I'd type of respect him. However I'd suspect he's not really put that much into his pet project. 

Yes it's just saying everybody else is mean and of course the government and other authorities will always jump on that bandwagon.

An owner of a UK energy company demanding free handouts for people - the irony - what a laugh.

Edited by twocents
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unregistered_guest said:

I'd say it's his undeclared vested interest as a landlord which is far more damaging to the long-term interests of society.

If too many over-entitled parasites get the idea that all they need to do is lobby the government to throw money at the symptoms of society's problems in order to enrich themselves; we will end up with the bizarre spectacle of corrupt lobbyists jockeying for position to ensure that their millionaire clients are portrayed as being far more in need of government handouts than anyone else on the planet.

Even Camila Batmanghelidjh will throw up her hands in disgust at the whole sorry affair, before asking, "Where's my share of the loot?"

Good point and the philanthropy emerging just as more people than ever before become more and more stretched.  Certainly more people than ever before since BtL became a thing.  No surprise then that government and the luvvies have jumped on the bandwagon as well as the seekers of free stuff.

Edited by twocents
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s just not very well thought out.

Playing devils advocate you could say,  ok fine,  we’ll reduce child benefit by £35 per week and provide free lunches instead via a voucher system at your local participating shop.

Except parents would then (rightly) kick off if they don’t have a local shop or the quality of the food isn’t very good.

What the advocates are really calling for is extra free money to support a vanity project for a few select communities in their areas.

This is exactly the sort of thing that is far better supported by local charities and generous donations from wealthy footballers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no idea why the media choose to cover this. There's probably a greater instance of death by giant squid attack in the UK than there are deaths by starvation. The only deaths by starvation i've heard of are middle class white girls who take dieting a bit too far...and they don't take food if offered on a plate to them....literally. 

It seems one of them there 'astroturfed' campaigns...yet another 'lets spend hours and hours of the news everyweek debating a non-issue while the banksters and private contractors make out like bandits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, PatronizingGit said:

There's probably a greater instance of death by giant squid attack in the UK than there are deaths by starvation.

Victoria Climbie and Daniel Pelka would beg to differ.

Obviously malnutrition was just one aspect of the abuse they suffered leading to their deaths. And in both cases, the affordability of food was never an issue.

But I suspect that part of the push for free food for kids comes from the application of a faulty syllogism: 

Neglected and abused kids are hungry.
Free food stops kids from being hungry.
Therefore feeding kids stops child abuse.

If only real life was truly that simple...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...