I dont think anyone can argue with that.In a way yes but I just feel a 'stepping stone' has been removed from this argument. I regard the primary responsibilities of being a parent as ensuring that their children are fed,clothed and sheltered. Should they not be in a position to adequately provide these three umbrellas over them then there has to be sufficient financial services from the government that they can apply for and claim to cover any shortfall they are experiencing.
The difficulty then is ensuring that the money does go to the direct benefit of the child and is not mispent by irresponsible parents on frivolous items, but you should not remove that duty/responsibility from the parents and try to place it upon the shoulders of the government.
So my answer to your question would be : It is the responsibility of the government to see that services and financial support is available to parents who cannot provide their children with the basics of survival : food, clothing and shelter.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I dont think anyone can argue with that.
I disagree. Its the job of the parents to calculate whether they can afford children.
The state can help in emergencies. But should not be paying permanently for kids.
Do you really think the World is such a cold and cynical place that there should be some sort of app now perhaps for deciding whether a couple can afford to have children or not ? You cannot 'calculate' for the future when through misfortune, unexpected death or illness your situation changes dramatically for the worst after starting a family.
Should we all have to now apply to have a child, proving we are financially soluble enough to support that person for the next twenty years of their life ? You would want some sort of universal algorithm that everyone is compelled to complete before trying to procreate ?.
Do you truly believe that your parents did some sort of "balancing of the books" before they decided to bring you into the World ?. Are you really that crass ?
You edited your post and added another line.....too late though. But I'll comment on that remark too, nobody said the government should be 'paying permanently for kids' because kids aren't permanent, they grow up into adults and another generation comes along. We are talking about looking after people whilst they are young and vulnerable.
Last edited:
Whilst I agree that parents need to be responsible and not have kids unless they're sure they can afford kids, we all know that not every adult IS a responsible adult, and not every set of parents ARE responsible parents. Should the child (who did not ask to be born!) suffer and go hungry because of irresponsible parents? No, they should not. Also, parents may well have been able to afford kids at time of birth etc, but again, as we all know, circumstances can quickly change. What if jobs get lost as a result of a global health pandemic or economic recession. What if the bread winner dies early, etc etc. There's hundreds of scenarios which can result in parents struggling to provide for their kids as a result of something not of their own making.
Not one child in the UK should go hungry and I am more than happy for my taxes to contribute to their health and happiness. Absolutely the state should ensure this, and nothing you come back with against this can possibly change my mind.
That's all I have to say on this.
What?
What is your proposal for those parents that screw up the calculation? or have their situation change? or never think about the calculation at all?
Do we just have those kids die? Have them the turn to other ways to get money/food?
Even if you don't approach it from a humanitarian/moral perspective just from a practical perspective having a large amount of young people with no money, no food, no support is bad for society overall. It isn't likely that they are going to sit on the sidewalk and watch you and yours eating like kings and getting by fine, they are most likely going to see that and take it for themselves.
Making sure people, especially kids, have the basic needs met is a smart decision for governments from a practical and moral perspective. I don't see how anyone would think the alternative is a better option.
.......And if the parent fails to do so, bollocks to the kid?
Let them eat cake.
There's a very good cost-justification for ensuring that all kids are fed sufficiently. Perfectly feasible to be a right wing economist and support FSM, and Free Holiday Meals too.
As in most cases, the costs of NOT doing it FAR outweigh the costs of doing it.
And if some parents are neglectful morons then what? the kids should go hungry?
come on man, listen to yourself. This isn't political point scoring, it's young people's livelihoods who can't care for themselves.
That's like saying it's your own fault if you're born into a war torn country.
As someone that works closely with social services, there’s not enough money. Pre-lockdown it was estimated that more than 10,000 children had been identified as being at risk by a study. There is not enough money in the system, nor are there not enough foster families to place these children with.
But there needs to be. Serious reform is needed.
Rashford welcomes school holiday support - BBC News
The government is to spend about £400m to support poor children and their families in England, in a climbdown.
www.bbc.com
Rashford welcomes school holiday support - BBC News
The government is to spend about £400m to support poor children and their families in England, in a climbdown.
'Bout time, filthy scumbags
On Rashford, take a fcuking bow son. If he never does anything again he has already done so much.
He should be lauded for his efforts.
He should be lauded for his efforts.
I don’t want to go all Ali G here, but is it because he is black? Or is it just because he is young and is making the government look daft?
It's just 100% sleezy, nasty 'journalism'. The Mail should be boycotted for agreeing to publish it.