Free School Meals

[MrGongGong]

No. It's not about trust. It's about not having the state interfere with certain things.

Absolutely
I'm sick of the nanny state insisting that I drive my car on the left hand side of the road

[Beef Oven!]

Absolutely
I'm sick of the nanny state insisting that I drive my car on the left hand side of the road

Listen Paediatric Doctor Doolittle, you're not with those kiddies anymore, stop talking Kiddish.

[amateur51]

It's not about anything. The state should not interfere in such matters.

Nicely painted into that corner, ahinton!

[Beef Oven!]

So if it's not about trust and not about having the state interfere with things, what it is about, in your considered view?

Getting in a bit of a muddle ahinton? I think you need to drink a little more Scotch, then at least you'll have an excuse for not being able to read properly, what I wrote!!!

[french frank]

No. It's not about trust. It's about not having the state interfere with certain things.

That does imply that parents should be left to look after their children, and if they don't, too bad for the children who have bad parents. Instead of 'trusting' I should have said 'leave it to the parents'. The state intervenes to ensure that children don't suffer any damage from the inadequacies of their parents.

One either does have policies to safeguard the welfare of children or leaves it to the luck of the draw. Bad parents? Bad luck!

[Beef Oven!]

That does imply that parents should be left to look after their children, and if they don't, too bad for the children who have bad parents. Instead of 'trusting' I should have said 'leave it to the parents'. The state intervenes to ensure that children don't suffer any damage from the inadequacies of their parents.

One either does have policies to safeguard the welfare of children or leaves it to the luck of the draw. Bad parents? Bad luck!

What I mean, expressly or to imply, is that should it be in the public interest for the state to intervene in an aspect of family life, it should do so in a way that enables and facilitates, rather than take over the responsibility itself entirely (save for the most grave and pressing acute circumstances).

We accept that primary care/health promotion is the enlightened way forward to deal with most health issues. For example, treating obesity with gastric bands in a secondary care setting will not create the change in behaviour required for present and future generations.

We have a perfectly good state intervention regarding children's nutrition, in the form of the noble school dinner. And if people can't afford it, they get it free. The real issue, for me, is one of 'life-skill'. And two life-skills that have symbiosis and are deficient today are nutrition/meal preparation and money/debt management.

Why can't governments be more imaginative and 'enabling' than nannying, is what I'm trying to get across.

[amateur51]

What I mean, expressly or to imply, is that should it be in the public interest for the state to intervene in an aspect of family life, it should do so in a way that enables and facilitates, rather than take over the responsibility itself entirely (save for the most grave and pressing acute circumstances).

We accept that primary care/health promotion is the enlightened way forward to deal with most health issues. For example, treating obesity with gastric bands in a secondary care setting will not create the change in behaviour required for present and future generations.

We have a perfectly good state intervention regarding children's nutrition, in the form of the noble school dinner. And if people can't afford it, they get it free. The real issue, for me, is one of 'life-skill'. And two life-skills that have symbiosis and are deficient today are nutrition/meal preparation and money/debt management.

Why can't governments be more imaginative and 'enabling' than nannying, is what I'm trying to get across.

Life Coaches all round, eh Beefy?