One in seven school children arrive without having had breakfast. Unfortunately a reasonable number of these come from difficult family backgrounds. Starting a challenging school day having possibly come from an argument at home, or worse, combined with no food is a tough start for a child – breakfast is, after all, the most important meal of the day. Without it, children are more likely to find it difficult to concentrate, fall asleep in lessons and do less well in exams. In later life, they may also be at increased risk of heart disease.
When I was involved with a regeneration partnership in Blackburn, we arranged for the local supermarket to deliver breakfast for free to a school on a troubled housing estate. I don’t know whether Nick Clegg’s free school meals will help (I wonder if his wife had a hand in that policy?) but personally I am in favour of anything which makes sure that children have breakfast, particularly the most vulnerable – it not only nourishes, but confirms that there is someone out there who cares enough to feed you.
Thinking of all the ploys that children use between school and parent,
the typical one is
“Oh! I had a very good dinner at school”
to their mothers and
“Oh! I eat well at home”
to their teachers, and in fact not eating well at either, I was wondering whether there is any difference now between the working mother of today, and the non working mother of the days when we had school milk and lunches too.
I have seen some pretty horrific examples of emaciation and mal nourishment of the children of middle class mothers who dash out to professional jobs.
At least the possibility of eating at school is to be provided which can only be good, but for parent to think that he/she no longer needs to bother about their diet at home,because “they eat well at school,” would be a gigantic mistake.
This newspaper article tells us the reason starving children turn up at school is because of massive poverty. And I’m sure they are correct. Which under the policies of this outlandish government can only get worse.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8451547/Poor-children-arrive-at-school-feeling-tired-and-hungry.html
However, it doesn’t end there does it? A large part of this hunger and neglect is due to the ‘fact’ there is no home life. No family unit. No father to support mothers and their children because women have been politically pushed into the idea that as ‘cheap labour’ for big business they are being freed from male control in marriage. What a bloody farce that is.
Now of all mad political policies this one is the one that flew over the cuckoo’s nest. Mothers do not bond with children in the same way when they are not in a position to nurture them one to one on a daily basis. When a father abandons his children and their mother, the female of the species, loses interest in what he leaves behind and her main objective becomes the hunt for another male to take his place. I hear gasps of indignation. Of course so called feminists will refute this as the psyche of the female is the very last topic she wants examined. It flies in the face of the male agenda they covertly back. Feminists despise the needs of women, and instead of promoting the love of the female condition they insist on forcing that entity into behaviour of outright masculinity. They do this by mocking, reducing womanhood and motherhood to worthlessness, unless it adheres to an overtly androgynous stance, that is. Rejection of the female form, no breasts, no roundness, and certainly no sense of loving their gender traits must be allowed. She must stand alone with unsheathed sword and kill her own snakes if she is to be regarded as a ‘sister.’
Feminism has centered solely on the ability of the female to function without the assistance of the male principle, whom they have schemed to alleviate of any responsibility for supporting the family they bought into existence. And as a result, women have been thrown into isolation. And the result of this ideology is only beginning to rear its ugly head as we march on, severing our heads from uterus and vagina. Matriarchal societies are not only poverty stricken they are filled with frantic, neurotic females willing to kill as they fight competitively for the attention of any male who may show the slightest interest in their sexual prowess. All you need as confirmation of that is to take an honest unblinkered look at Brazil and their feral children. Or more closely to home, the starvation and cruelty women accept toward their children when they again fear abandonment by the man they have convinced themselves they nailed for good. Little Daniel lately and baby Peter before him are in our conscience for this. Although there have been very many more like them and they are only the tip of the iceberg.
http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/143111,Polish-couple-in-UK-starve-child-to-death
So at the root of this problem is abandoned mother, followed by abandoned children. Women who work and leave their children to the care of others or worse, the state, are creating an orphan led society. And authorities have known for a very long time indeed that latchkey kids are emotionally as well as physically neglected. No nurturing home with mother and father at the helm sends a starving child to an institution that cares so little for their welfare they willingly leave a small boy dying in their midst from malnutrition and claim not to have noticed. More likely is, the institution turned a blind eye as to report a starving child creates an uncomfortable scrutiny for the informer.
So until using women as cheap labour is addressed by government directly, right here in this so called modern country, the poverty and the cruelty it creates in the home will grow far worse than it is today.
In fact it is society as a whole that has abandoned children and their need for full time care from a loving family unit and going without breakfast is a very small manifestation of that horror show.
You only have to read the DM and their friends on the right at the preposterous thought they should allocate a portion of collective taxation in order to give these starving children a free lunch. The cry being, some of the kids come from homes that don’t need to be subsidised, rich people will benefit. What clap, rich don’t send their kids to state schools. They pay for private education as they know it is money well spent to be free of manipulative horrors of state indoctrination. So no worries of fat cats gaining a free school meal there then. What is really being advocated is children like Daniel should be ignored and therefore make them unworthy of life.
This is a “class” thing. In Victorian time and before, matrimony was for the middle classes, and upper classes. Maude is confusing changes in the law of the contract of marriage with the status quo of relationships between man and woman, in a basically Anglo-Saxon ethos nation state, which have not changed in 400 years.
The Law of contract has become so essential to this particular capitalist society, that we live in a state of gamblers, gambling on relationships, and on the state of the residential property market, on which many relationships depend.
Cheap labour has always been there to get; that will never change, although it may not be ethnic Anglo Saxons who do it. I saw a woman killed recently crossing the road. She was cheap illegal immigrant/guest worker labour; little was said about her death either, and of course her organs were immediately available, to a wealthy…..probably Anglo- Saxon!
@Honoris Causa
What you miss is, the importing of cheap labour in order to reduce the minimum wage so that fat cats can sustain their money advantage, has altered the culture of British society to the position of Dodo.
So, Victorian Britain is unlikely, and the donated organs far more inclined to have been used for a wealthy Arab who has abundant funds to pay privately for it. Either that, or the drunken footballer who needs another liver to abuse.