Marcus Rashford appreciation thread

Watch
Flux99
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#1
He’s a very nice guy and been helping getting free school meals. Unlike a lot of other players or celebrities he’s down to earth. Even if you aren’t into football you have to love rashford
0
reply
username5358764
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#2
Report 9 months ago
#2
(Original post by Flux99)
He’s a very nice guy and been helping getting free school meals. Unlike a lot of other players or celebrities he’s down to earth. Even if you aren’t into football you have to love rashford
My take on free school meals is this. If you do not have the financial capacity to have children, you should not be allowed to have them. There is no such thing as free school meals according to its name; school meals are paid for by the taxpayer. There are some parents that claim free school meals and yet have the audacity to eat out once a week, or even spend money on cigarettes, alcohols and useless things, including depreciating assets. I am surprised that parents are unable to spare £10 a week to feed their child. Children do not pop out of thin air, you clearly plan for a child and comprehend the financial expenses behind raising one. Ultimately, I believe free school meals are being abused by reckless and financially unstable parents, who should not have had children in the first place since they are not able to keep up with the child's expenses. I am not denying anyone's desire to have a child so as long as you are financially capable of raising one. It is important to understand that free school meals are ultimately taxpayer funded, and so for those people that have no children and are working minimum wage, their tax money also contributes towards the recklessness of parents that are not able to afford a child.
0
reply
tragictimes
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#3
Report 9 months ago
#3
(Original post by sang-jun)
My take on free school meals is this. If you do not have the financial capacity to have children, you should not be allowed to have them. There is no such thing as free school meals according to its name; school meals are paid for by the taxpayer. There are some parents that claim free school meals and yet have the audacity to eat out once a week, or even spend money on cigarettes, alcohols and useless things, including depreciating assets. I am surprised that parents are unable to spare £10 a week to feed their child. Children do not pop out of thin air, you clearly plan for a child and comprehend the financial expenses behind raising one. Ultimately, I believe free school meals are being abused by reckless and financially unstable parents, who should not have had children in the first place since they are not able to keep up with the child's expenses. I am not denying anyone's desire to have a child so as long as you are financially capable of raising one. It is important to understand that free school meals are ultimately taxpayer funded, and so for those people that have no children and are working minimum wage, their tax money also contributes towards the recklessness of parents that are not able to afford a child.
Why must the innocent child suffer as a result of their parents' actions??

Also not ALL parents who are claiming free school meals for their kids are doing the things you've mentioned.

Children do not pop out of thin air but you can't just pop them back in the womb either!! The children need support, which the government is providing by supplying these free school meals.

Free school meals provide a child with a good meal which will boost their productivity at school, make them want to learn and succeed in the future and help them potentially obtain a future where their kids will not require free school meals. They also have health and concentration benefits - children are more focused during afternoon lessons and the family saves a bit of money too.

I don't see how this is a bad thing at all - the child, who is most affected by the provision of free school meals, is benefiting from the whole scheme so why on earth are you so mad about it?

Also considering that there is a global pandemic going on, a lot of people have been made redundant and so they have no means to put food on the plate for their kids and that is no fault of their own - you can't predict things like this 10 years before your child is born.

The person at the top is talking about this Rashford guy who they appreciate, who is doing a good thing and giving children food to eat. I don't think your comment is wholly appropriate- you were obviously looking for a debate.

(Original post by Flux99)
He’s a very nice guy and been helping getting free school meals. Unlike a lot of other players or celebrities he’s down to earth. Even if you aren’t into football you have to love rashford
This guy sounds like a legend.
0
reply
Peter.G
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 9 months ago
#4
Yeah rashford is an absolute lad. Harry maguire on the other hand...
1
reply
username5358764
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 9 months ago
#5
(Original post by tragictimes)
Why must the innocent child suffer as a result of their parents' actions??

Also not ALL parents who are claiming free school meals for their kids are doing the things you've mentioned.

Children do not pop out of thin air but you can't just pop them back in the womb either!! The children need support, which the government is providing by supplying these free school meals.

Free school meals provide a child with a good meal which will boost their productivity at school, make them want to learn and succeed in the future and help them potentially obtain a future where their kids will not require free school meals. They also have health and concentration benefits - children are more focused during afternoon lessons and the family saves a bit of money too.

I don't see how this is a bad thing at all - the child, who is most affected by the provision of free school meals, is benefiting from the whole scheme so why on earth are you so mad about it?

Also considering that there is a global pandemic going on, a lot of people have been made redundant and so they have no means to put food on the plate for their kids and that is no fault of their own - you can't predict things like this 10 years before your child is born.

The person at the top is talking about this Rashford guy who they appreciate, who is doing a good thing and giving children food to eat. I don't think your comment is wholly appropriate- you were obviously looking for a debate.


This guy sounds like a legend.
Yes, the children require support, but I see no reason as to why the government should be expected or required to do that. If you cannot afford the cost of a child, you should not have one. The point you make about not being able to pop a child back in the womb is not a valid response to what I said; by not having a child in the first place, there would be no need to "pop them back". Free school meals and school meals are the same, one is just funded by the taxpayer, and one is directly funded by the parent. There is no different in the actual food being consumed by the child, the matter that is relevant to the topic at hand is the source of that financing. You mention that the family saves a bit of money too, but the whole point of money is to use it for exchanging resources. The point of saving money does not make any sense, and it comes across as though you expect the government to fund the cost of the child. You do realise that socialism can never work functionally in a society. The government should oversee everything in order to make sure that society is progressing, but with regards to school meals, food costs money, and ultimately, it is down to the parent to finance that food cost.

My point still stands. If you cannot afford a child, you should not have one in the first place. I am not mad about it; I have simply proposed a valid argument against it. England is not a third world country where there is limited access to contraception and education around having sex. I would like to assume that people are intelligent, and that they would know that having a child requires money.
Last edited by username5358764; 9 months ago
0
reply
tragictimes
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 9 months ago
#6
The point you make about not being able to pop a child back in the womb is not a valid response to what I said; by not having a child in the first place, there would be no need to "pop them back".
You have missed my point - what I am trying to say is what's done is done - you can't change the fact that this child has been born. And they may not have been born in a house with financial difficulties - perhaps they have begun to emerge as the years have progressed? Yes I agree with your point about education. Coverage of such content needs to be enhanced and widely available, but while that does help with future generations, it isn't helping kids who currently don't have food to eat.

There is no different in the actual food being consumed by the child, the matter that is relevant to the topic at hand is the source of that financing.
Schools have to meet guidelines on the types of food that they serve? They have to meet nutritional guidelines and whilst parents can totally opt for healthy foods, the vast majority won't be religiously checking that they meet school foods standards!

You mention that the family saves a bit of money too, but the whole point of money is to use it for exchanging resources. The point of saving money does not make any sense, and it comes across as though you expect the government to fund the cost of the child.
They can use it to pay utility bills, put it towards rent, buy their kids new school uniforms- the possibilities are endless.

My point still stands. If you cannot afford a child, you should not have one in the first place.

England is not a third world country where there is limited access to contraception and education around having sex. I would like to assume that people are intelligent, and that they would know that having a child requires money.
I think a lot of people know that kids cost money, but you can't always predict the financial struggles you may face later in life. Some children may not have needed financial help for the first 5-9 years of their life and perhaps their financial state deteriorated later on? There are a lot of different circumstances that lead to someone needing to seek financial help.

Also, people that have access to this kind of resource are often embarrassed about using it and their parents feel ashamed about it too. It's hard enough for these people to accept help from these kinds of schemes and you suggesting that "all people that use it should know that they can't afford kids and shouldn't have them in the first place" is not helping parents or the children. These kids exist, they don't have much money, the government is helping the parents out with food at lunchtime, bish bash bosh, job done. It's just food. Why not make yourself a bit more useful and do something good instead of just complaining about a good initiative?

To finish off, I really cannot be bothered to reply to any more of your messages and I hope you're never in a position where you need financial help (or part of groups coordinating help!!).

Good day.
0
reply
username5358764
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 9 months ago
#7
(Original post by tragictimes)
You have missed my point - what I am trying to say is what's done is done - you can't change the fact that this child has been born. And they may not have been born in a house with financial difficulties - perhaps they have begun to emerge as the years have progressed? Yes I agree with your point about education. Coverage of such content needs to be enhanced and widely available, but while that does help with future generations, it isn't helping kids who currently don't have food to eat.



Schools have to meet guidelines on the types of food that they serve? They have to meet nutritional guidelines and whilst parents can totally opt for healthy foods, the vast majority won't be religiously checking that they meet school foods standards!



They can use it to pay utility bills, put it towards rent, buy their kids new school uniforms- the possibilities are endless.



I think a lot of people know that kids cost money, but you can't always predict the financial struggles you may face later in life. Some children may not have needed financial help for the first 5-9 years of their life and perhaps their financial state deteriorated later on? There are a lot of different circumstances that lead to someone needing to seek financial help.

Also, people that have access to this kind of resource are often embarrassed about using it and their parents feel ashamed about it too. It's hard enough for these people to accept help from these kinds of schemes and you suggesting that "all people that use it should know that they can't afford kids and shouldn't have them in the first place" is not helping parents or the children. These kids exist, they don't have much money, the government is helping the parents out with food at lunchtime, bish bash bosh, job done. It's just food. Why not make yourself a bit more useful and do something good instead of just complaining about a good initiative?

To finish off, I really cannot be bothered to reply to any more of your messages and I hope you're never in a position where you need financial help (or part of groups coordinating help!!).

Good day.
The point I am making is not addressed to those who get into financial difficulty during the child's life. I am exclusively stating that those who are not in the right financial position in the first place should not have children, as this is unfair to the child, his or her siblings, the school and ultimately the taxpayer.

I did not specifically mention the nutritional value of the foods based on the comment you replied to. I stated that "free school meals" and "school meals" are the same. I should have made it more clear, so I apologise for that. By "school meals", I meant that they are the same as the food you get in "free school meals", it is just that "school meals" are typically paid for by the parent or guardian, while "free school meals" are government funded. The actual food being consumed by the child is not associated with whether your parent or guardian has paid for it or the taxpayer, it is still the same food. Just to touch on nutritional standards, you say that the "vast majority of parents won't be religiously checking that they meet school food standards". Well, that is another issue we face. Why are parents not concerned about the nutritional value in the food that they give, as well as the school give? Surely any rational parent would give their child nutritional food to help their development. This is one of the reasons why childhood obesity, as well as childhood nutritional deficiencies, are quite prominent in this country. Yes, they are not as prominent as in developing countries, but I believe it is the responsibility of the parent or guardian to make sure that their child gets the right food. Ultimately, the food you consume contributes towards your physical and psychological well-being. Just because the vast majority does not do something, does not mean we should just sit there and not do anything about it. Especially with nutritional food, which is a health concern, we need to rectify these issues so that it does not hinder our children's development.

Just to clarify, when talking about the nutritional food intake, I am not addressing you in the sense that I am having a go at you. I am just expressing my viewpoint. Also, I am not complaining about free school meals; I am simply providing a valid argument as to what extent free school meals should go to. Just because an initiative has been in our education system, or any system, for a long time, does not mean it is the most practical and efficient way of dealing with things. Over time, as a society, we understand situations better, and so that allows us to modify and change things according to the times we live in.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 9 months ago
#8
Let's make a distinction between a thread appreciating a footballer and a thread discussion FSM policies.
1
reply
royalty1702
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 9 months ago
#9
(Original post by 04MR17)
Let's make a distinction between a thread appreciating a footballer and a thread discussion FSM policies.
I agree
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you think receiving Teacher Assessed Grades will impact your future?

I'm worried it will negatively impact me getting into university/college (220)
43.65%
I'm worried that I'm not academically prepared for the next stage in my educational journey (57)
11.31%
I'm worried it will impact my future career (39)
7.74%
I'm worried that my grades will be seen as 'lesser' because I didn't take exams (106)
21.03%
I don't think that receiving these grades will impact my future (55)
10.91%
I think that receiving these grades will affect me in another way (let us know in the discussion!) (27)
5.36%

Watched Threads

View All