Jump to content

16.8% of kids qualify for free meals


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, The Phantom said:

It would be interesting to correlate between the reducing birth rate and this.  Seems we have more deaths than births at the moment. 

Less rich people having children and the poor people staying the same?

When I was a nipper, we would have qualified for free school dinners, but mum flat out refused due to pride/the shame!

the rich people know they can't afford to have kids here  but their tax dollars are paying for the single mums in socially financed housing so maybe that counts a little bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yeah, but there have been 50 years of economic growth since then. We've virtually zero unemployment but wages for many people aren't high enough, so they rely on benefits. Whilst their multi-national

Not all single mums are piss taking social security parasites, there are a great many single mums in socially financed housing due to a great many wanker fathers who, after promising these women the e

Only in your circle... Decent men prefer women who can think for themselves.

Posted Images

Or it might be people milking the system, claiming benefits but working, housing benefit but living with a partner, claiming to have a bad back but working as a builder .. all can claim a free school meal.

Maybe its time for a shake up like the prescription charges.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, WTF said:

the rich people know they can't afford to have kids here  but their tax dollars are paying for the single mums in socially financed housing so maybe that counts a little bit.

You'd also need to see the numbers per school/area.  For instance I'd assume that the vast majority of the kids at a school in a council estate would be on free dinners. 

Birth rate etc also doesn't fully explain it.  I know a few Manxies who moved to the UK, had kids there then came back here as it's a better place (safer, greener etc) to bring up the kids.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming that the impression is reasonable, it seems reasonable to ask why these families do not have more impact on the political landscape. 

Could the fact that they don't indicate that the figure is misleading?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Phantom said:

You'd also need to see the numbers per school/area.  For instance I'd assume that the vast majority of the kids at a school in a council estate would be on free dinners. 

Birth rate etc also doesn't fully explain it.  I know a few Manxies who moved to the UK, had kids there then came back here as it's a better place (safer, greener etc) to bring up the kids.

We actually have the raw figures for every school for every year (on 1st November) because this was the data that Julie Edge asked for[1].  But there's not the total pupil numbers for each school (though it may be available elsewhere) so you can't work out percentages.

[1]  If that link dies it's Question 20 on last Tuesday's Tynwald.  She meant to ask a written question but ticked the wrong box.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WTF said:

the rich people know they can't afford to have kids here  but their tax dollars are paying for the single mums in socially financed housing so maybe that counts a little bit.

Actually rich people tend to have larger families, it's the less well-off who have to restrict things because they need two salaries coming in or because of the cost of childcare.

2 hours ago, x-in-man said:

Or it might be people milking the system, claiming benefits but working, housing benefit but living with a partner, claiming to have a bad back but working as a builder .. all can claim a free school meal.

Um you do realise this is the Isle of Man. do you?  Even in the UK levels of benefit fraud are very low. despite the dramatic cases you see in the papers (they're in the papers because they are unusual - that's how news works).  But over here where everyone knows everyone else's business the danger that someone will find out is so high that you'd be a fool to try.

51 minutes ago, maynragh said:

Assuming that the impression is reasonable, it seems reasonable to ask why these families do not have more impact on the political landscape. 

Could the fact that they don't indicate that the figure is misleading?

No it's because most people don't like to go round saying "Look at me I'm so poor!" (as comments above illustrate).  So even if they need these benefits they're unlikely to make a fuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

We actually have the raw figures for every school for every year (on 1st November) because this was the data that Julie Edge asked for[1].  But there's not the total pupil numbers for each school (though it may be available elsewhere) so you can't work out percentages.

[1]  If that link dies it's Question 20 on last Tuesday's Tynwald.  She meant to ask a written question but ticked the wrong box.

This info has been available for a long time and should in theory at least determine where some services are deployed. During my time as Inspector for Northern Parishes, 21% of the pupils there were on free dinners. St Ninians had 6%.

We actually did get somewhere at one point and had a social services unit move in upstairs at the old courthouse police station (remember that?) then 2008 happened and everyone retreated to barracks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maynragh said:

Assuming that the impression is reasonable, it seems reasonable to ask why these families do not have more impact on the political landscape. 

Could the fact that they don't indicate that the figure is misleading?

Nobody cares

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WTF said:

the rich people know they can't afford to have kids here  but their tax dollars are paying for the single mums in socially financed housing so maybe that counts a little bit.

Not all single mums are piss taking social security parasites, there are a great many single mums in socially financed housing due to a great many wanker fathers who, after promising these women the earth (being a good, decent partner and journeying through life as a family) decided to fuck that idea off and leave these women literally holding the baby....because they are immature fucks who want their cake and eat it.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yootalkin2me said:

Not all single mums are piss taking social security parasites.

Very few of them are for the reasons that you so eloquently highlight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

We actually have the raw figures for every school for every year (on 1st November) because this was the data that Julie Edge asked for[1].  But there's not the total pupil numbers for each school (though it may be available elsewhere) so you can't work out percentages.

[1]  If that link dies it's Question 20 on last Tuesday's Tynwald.  She meant to ask a written question but ticked the wrong box.

Typical, we have a politician that almost asks the right question, but doesn't get the full story, so the information is worthless.

59 minutes ago, yootalkin2me said:

Not all single mums are piss taking social security parasites, there are a great many single mums in socially financed housing due to a great many wanker fathers who, after promising these women the earth (being a good, decent partner and journeying through life as a family) decided to fuck that idea off and leave these women literally holding the baby....because they are immature fucks who want their cake and eat it.

True, but it's not always the 'Dad'.  A friend of Mrs Phantom has three kids under 6 by three different blokes.  You gotta ask who is the mug there and why are we picking up the bill because she can't keep her knickers on? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yootalkin2me said:

Not all single mums Sometimes it isn't the dad.are piss taking social security parasites, there are a great many single mums in socially financed housing due to a great many wanker fathers who, after promising these women the earth (being a good, decent partner and journeying through life as a family) decided to fuck that idea off and leave these women literally holding the baby....because they are immature fucks who want their cake and eat it.

While you may feel this is true, it isn't always the dad, and that general attitude doesn't fucking help. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Typical, we have a politician that almost asks the right question, but doesn't get the full story, so the information is worthless.

True, but it's not always the 'Dad'.  A friend of Mrs Phantom has three kids under 6 by three different blokes.  You gotta ask who is the mug there and why are we picking up the bill because she can't keep her knickers on? 

Indeed, plenty of them make a career out of it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

A friend of Mrs Phantom has three kids under 6 by three different blokes.  You gotta ask who is the mug there and why are we picking up the bill because she can't keep her knickers on? 

That’s a bit unfair blaming an insecure woman for falling for the lies of a load of chancers like the exact same thing hasn't happened for the last 2,000 years or so. Very few women deliberately get pregnant. I’d say most largely get talked into it by manipulative men. Those condoms can be hellishly itchy for the wrong bloke. And if she loved him really it shouldn’t matter if she ends up pregnant or not. Than there’s religions that prohibit a man from wearing a jonnie. Etc, etc, etc. 

Edited by MrPB
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MrPB said:

That’s a bit unfair blaming an insecure woman for falling for the lies of a load of chancers like the exact same thing hasn't happened for the last 2,000 years or so. Very few women deliberately get pregnant. I’d say most largely get talked into it by manipulative men. Those condoms can be hellishly itchy for the wrong bloke. And if she loved him really it shouldn’t matter if she ends up pregnant of not. Etc, etc, etc. 

That's true but for a lot of them it's a ticket to ride literally!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...