| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Well done Hounslow! | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 27/10/20 11:15:00 |
| Perhaps I'm in the minority but isn't there a bigger picture here in terms of something being wrong with the basic notion that so many families should need/claim to need to rely upon the state to feed their children outside of school time ?. No disrespect to Marcus Rashford for using his 'status' in a positive way, but part of the bigger picture is the obscene amount of money footballers and other athletes are paid, the sums paid by gambling firms and TV companies to facilitate those sums and so forth. The gulf between the rich and the poor has never been wider, yet ultimately it'll be the average bod in the street who pays for all this in the form of increased taxes, not the super rich. Of course the state should support the poorest families, but personally I question whether in many cases the need is genuine. There's something fundamentally wrong if parents are saying they can't afford to feed their kids during holidays, yet they were financially struggling before they had those kids/more kids, or if despite claiming they can't afford to feed their kids they've got all the latest gadgets, the same satellite TV that partially funds Rashford's wages and so forth. I'm sick of hearing how "children are the future" as though no-one else matters or though people with kids are in some way superior or deserve a greater priority than those of us without kids. |