[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Not sure that's fair kaz. I think we'd all like to see what the other side of the argument is, which is what the thread is about. I don't think anyone has got personal with you, unless I've missed it.

Oh c'mon Slim,there is a few veiled swipes going on.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Oh c'mon Slim,there is a few veiled swipes going on.

You started the personal jibes with me and nobody has been insulting, if you can’t answer the questions just say so, don’t pretend there’s some mission to silence you, Christ alive

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Liam-

You started the personal jibes with me and nobody has been insulting, if you can’t answer the questions just say so, don’t pretend there’s some mission to silence you, Christ alive

If you say so, No one silences me,I just prefer to chat with people who are open to others opinions.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

If you say so, No one silences me,I just prefer to chat with people who are open to others opinions.

You mean you want an echo chamber where everyone praises you and tells you you're right.

Everyone is allowed an opinion and everyone else is allowed to disagree with that opinion, that is how discussion and debate works.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

If you say so, No one silences me,I just prefer to chat with people who are open to others opinions.

I asked what the ‘full story’ that was mentioned was, what more do you want? Blood?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Oh c'mon Slim,there is a few veiled swipes going on.

I think the issue, is that everyone is saying there is another side to this,but no one is saying what it is. Everything any of us posts is open to ridicule or counter, but your first post in the thread is agreeing with bots that it's not worth posting it.

So there's this other side of the discussion that a few of you say exists, and yet none of you will present it for fear of having it scrutinised? Just doesn't really make a lot of sense. If you look at the Keir Starmer thread, you'll see me criticising him continually.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I think the issue, is that everyone is saying there is another side to this,but no one is saying what it is. Everything any of us posts is open to ridicule or counter, but your first post in the thread is agreeing with bots that it's not worth posting it.

So there's this other side of the discussion that a few of you say exists, and yet none of you will present it for fear of having it scrutinised? Just doesn't really make a lot of sense. If you look at the Keir Starmer thread, you'll see me criticising him continually.

I know what you mean ,but everyone has access to the other side besides the tabloids,but seem content to believe the side they fall on, so it's pointless pointing things out that I don't agree with. its so easy to say the government don't want to feed starving children ,really? I don't think that's the case at all ,what would they gain by alienating their voters like that ?

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I know what you mean ,but everyone has access to the other side besides the tabloids,but seem content to believe the side they fall on, so it's pointless pointing things out that I don't agree with. its so easy to say the government don't want to feed starving children ,really? I don't think that's the case at all ,what would they gain by alienating their voters like that ?

I agree everyone has access to both sides, but the government haven't provided another side as far as I know. You, bots, and a few others habe said there is another side though, so I think we just want to see what it is. Tabloids overwhelmingly favour and are owned by tories, so there really won't be criticism in there.

You ask why a government would alienate their voters, but they happily destroyed communities with Austerity for a decade and still won this past election, so voters are generally like goldfish when it comes to holding governments to account.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

I agree everyone has access to both sides, but the government haven't provided another side as far as I know. You, bots, and a few others habe said there is another side though, so I think we just want to see what it is. Tabloids overwhelmingly favour and are owned by tories, so there really won't be criticism in there.

You ask why a government would alienate their voters, but they happily destroyed communities with Austerity for a decade and still won this past election, so voters are generally like goldfish when it comes to holding governments to account.

It was debated on JV this morning and they said it will be coming from tax payers money ,and if some people are on a low income they may not be able to afford that, this is why I think the government voted against it so far, that is what I meant by the other side ,to me its not as simple as the government want kids to starve, that's just sensationalism in my view , I really don't think they would let any "kids starve" and some kids that do 'starve' come from families that put material things above their kids . The kids that genuinely need help will get it I'm sure.

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

It was debated on JV this morning and they said it will be coming from tax payers money ,and if some people are on a low income they may not be able to afford that, this is why I think the government voted against it so far, that is what I meant by the other side ,to me its not as simple as the government want kids to starve, that's just sensationalism in my view , I really don't think they would let any "kids starve" and some kids that do 'starve' come from families that put material things above their kids . The kids that genuinely need help will get it I'm sure.

Afford what? They weren’t asking for more taxes, they were asking for it to be done with money the government already has, it would cost us nothing

[bots]

those on minimum wage get a top up to help with things. If a parent chooses to prioritise other things to feeding their children then there is a problem.

Splitting out specific items that can be allocated to children etc becomes a bureaucratic nightmare to administer, something that the labour party love to do and the tories don't.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

those on minimum wage get a top up to help with things. If a parent chooses to prioritise other things to feeding their children then there is a problem.

Splitting out specific items that can be allocated to children etc becomes a bureaucratic nightmare to administer, something that the labour party love to do and the tories don't.

That is naïve, and it's just another attempt to lay blame on the poor instead of those that have run the economy into the ground time and time again. Instead of laying blame with the vulnerable, perhaps you should look up and realise that it's not rain pouring down on us but the piss of tories profiting from the public blaming those 'below' them and not those above.

Keeping food on the table is a costly thing, especially in a system rigged against the poor like ours is. To assume that people are in the positions they are because of their own mistakes is just ignorant. Things are more complicated then 'Oh, they obviously spend their money on material goods so it's obviously their fault they can't feed their children.'

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

It was debated on JV this morning and they said it will be coming from tax payers money ,and if some people are on a low income they may not be able to afford that, this is why I think the government voted against it so far, that is what I meant by the other side ,to me its not as simple as the government want kids to starve, that's just sensationalism in my view , I really don't think they would let any "kids starve" and some kids that do 'starve' come from families that put material things above their kids . The kids that genuinely need help will get it I'm sure.

They wouldn't be taking extra tax to pay for the meals, so the people on low incomes would be unaffected by their tax paying things like this. In fact, the free meals for kids are designed to help people on low/no incomes.

The whole idea was to feed kids who would normally receive free school meals, so I'm not sure there is a difference between those already receiving free meals, and those that "genuinely need it", because if they're already receiving free meals, then they already genuinely need it.


I mean, we've seen with universal credit that people have and are starving to death - the evidence is out there. Boris Johnson has repeatedly called those on benefits, "scroungers" and "a waste of taxpayer money". So I'm sorry, we have the evidence of Johnsons own words.

The tories are handing out PPE contracts to their friends/donors, worth billions. These contracts aren't being tendered out so competition drives prices lower and finds the best suited companies to manage it, they're just given out like presents. I think a lot of anger is directed and the lack of care for taxpayer money when it's to see their donors right, but when the actual tax payers need something, then suddenly they remember that "magic money trees" don't exist.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

It was debated on JV this morning and they said it will be coming from tax payers money ,and if some people are on a low income they may not be able to afford that, this is why I think the government voted against it so far, that is what I meant by the other side ,to me its not as simple as the government want kids to starve, that's just sensationalism in my view , I really don't think they would let any "kids starve" and some kids that do 'starve' come from families that put material things above their kids . The kids that genuinely need help will get it I'm sure.

those families who put material things over their own children are just selfish

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

It was debated on JV this morning and they said it will be coming from tax payers money ,and if some people are on a low income they may not be able to afford that, this is why I think the government voted against it so far, that is what I meant by the other side ,to me its not as simple as the government want kids to starve, that's just sensationalism in my view , I really don't think they would let any "kids starve" and some kids that do 'starve' come from families that put material things above their kids . The kids that genuinely need help will get it I'm sure.

Explain people on low incomes not being able to afford it...nobody is having their bank account raided :/

Everyone working for an employer is PAYE so your tax is proportional to your income. Essentially all government money is public money, and if my monthly income tax were to be used to help underprivileged children in this country I would be immensely proud.