BACK in my school days, we knew the difference between parents and teachers.
Their jobs were clearly delineated: Teachers taught and parents parented.
AFPThe latest addition to the jobs handed over to schools is to pay for kids’ lunches[/caption]
We’ve made it far too easy for parents to lounge around on benefits, expecting taxpayers to fund their lives and pay for their childrenGetty
These days, it’s hard to tell which is which.
Whether it’s toilet training four-year-olds, instructing youngsters on how to clean their teeth, how to hold a knife and fork or even feeding our kids breakfast, there’s no end to the tasks that used to be the role of parents but are now almost part of the school curriculum.
Is it any wonder that our teachers barely have time to actually TEACH any more when schools have become a one- stop shop for everything wrong in society?
The latest addition to the jobs handed over to schools is to pay for kids’ lunches.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has announced that 500,000 more children will be getting free school meals.
Not really ‘free’
Currently, parents must have an income under £7,400 for their children to qualify for free lunches, with more than two million kids — about a quarter of all school pupils — claiming those meals.
From September 2026 all families who are in receipt of Universal Credit will be eligible, which will include children whose parents have a joint income of over £40,000 a year, which is hardly what most think of as living on the poverty line.
Of course, the lunches aren’t actually free.
Someone has to pay for the £1billion cost over three years and that someone is largely other working parents through their taxes.
Schools — or, rather, taxpayers — already provide free lunches to all pupils aged four to seven, while it’s up to the age of 11 for all primary school pupils in London, even if their parents are millionaires.
And the Government is rolling out free breakfast clubs at primary schools later this year.
The campaigners cheering this aren’t finished, either.
They want free school meals for ALL children up to the age of 18.
But why stop there?
Why just free breakfast and lunch?
Why not dinner as well?
And what about food at weekends?
Hey, why don’t we just keep the kids at school the whole time and then parents won’t have to pay rent for extra bedrooms for the kids.
Why doesn’t the state provide clothes and shoes for children too?
If we carry on like this, in a few decades the Government will simply take all babies straight from the womb to raise in state-run homes, with the roles of Mum and Dad surplus to requirements.
I exaggerate of course, but this is the trajectory we are on.
As every year goes by, less and less is expected from parents, while more and more is done by the nanny state.
No one wants to see any child go hungry and we should absolutely step in when a family falls on hard times.
But by offering free lunches to so many more pupils, aren’t we at risk of tackling the wrong end of the problem?
Providing free school meals for kids who aren’t getting fed at home is treating the symptom, not the actual disease.
And for that we need to diagnose WHY they are going hungry.
AlamyEducation Secretary Bridget Phillipson announced 500,000 more children will be getting free school meals[/caption]
Yes, some parents struggle with their finances and can’t afford to pay the £2.65 average cost of a school canteen lunch, but there are also plenty of parents who can afford it yet choose not to.
We’ve made it far too easy for lazy, feckless parents to lounge around on benefits or to work part-time, expecting taxpayers to fund their lives and pay for their children.
Meanwhile, far too many kids are left in chaotic homes where negligent adults would rather spend their welfare cheques on booze, fags and scratch cards than on a healthy meal for their child.
And why should hard-working parents who are also struggling to pay their own bills and feed their own kids be expected to pick up the slack?
Many might well feel, as the old saying goes, if you can’t feed ’em, don’t breed ’em.
Damages the family
Are we really to believe that there are half a million children in this country who don’t get fed properly and need a free meal at school?
Judging by the podgy kids I see on the streets these days, I’d say the problem is more about too MUCH food than too little.
The solution to child poverty isn’t another free handout from the state.
The solution is ensuring that their parents go out to work and — quite literally — put food on the table for their kids.
Of course schools need to step in when a family is failing and children are not getting fed.
But when the nanny state takes over such basic roles from so many millions of parents, it has more than just a financial cost.
It also damages the institution of the family and the importance of parental responsibility.
There is, I’m afraid, no such thing as a free lunch.
A BOAT BLITZ IS UNBELIEVABLE
PAThe French have even said they might start intercepting migrant dinghies in French waters before they head across the Channel[/caption]
ANOTHER day, another news story about how politicians are going to “stop the boats”, “smash the gangs” or “secure our borders” (delete as appropriate).
The Government’s latest wheeze is Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s plan to bring in new laws to restrict the use of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to a private and family life – to make it easier to deport failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals.
The Tories, meanwhile, are reviewing leaving the ECHR altogether and reviving a Rwanda-style scheme.
Oh, and even the French now say they might start intercepting migrant dinghies in French waters before they head across the Channel.
While it’s encouraging to hear that gendarmes in Calais might be willing to briefly come back from their three-hour lunch and put down their Gitanes cigarettes long enough to apprehend a few illegal migrants, all these announcements suffer from exactly the same problem.
No one believes a single word they say any more.
IS it June again already? Or should I call these 30 days by their new official name, “Pride month”?
Like Groundhog Day, Pride month seems to come around quicker every year.
And it’s just as predictable.
Every woke company and public sector organisation adorns their buildings and social media with rainbow flags to signal their support.
It’s at workplaces, at schools and even when you go shopping for groceries.
Whether it’s Tesco or Waitrose, you can’t escape the flags and the incessant woke lecturing.
The sad thing is that Pride is no longer about a joyful celebration of being gay or bisexual after centuries of being shamed.
It’s become a corporate virtue- signalling contest under the divisive “Progress Pride” flag pushing trans ideology that tramples on women’s rights, while telling straight white men to “park their privilege”.
That’s nothing to be proud of.
I’m all in favour of getting Kylie Minogue on stage and enjoying a fun parade but please spare us the political posturing at the supermarket.
Published: [#item_custom_pubDate]
