[Food] Kelloggs Supporting School Breakfast Clubs...

[Deportivo Seagull]

There is lots of information, but never yet have I seen a genuine case study showing exactly what a family's incomings and outgoings are and why they can't get hold of (whether paid for or via food banks) a loaf of bread and pot of jam for the child's breakfast.

You seldom heard of children going to school hungry in the seventies or fifties, when there was less money about and food was more expensive and food banks didn't exist.

Well as free school meals have existed for the last 50 years and I can remember kids who were coming to school hungry so it was and is a thing.
You are Jacob Reese-mogg and you can donate the £5 to a food bank.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Bread and jam is a far more nutritious breakfast than nothing at all. If people are sending their children to school without breakfast because they think bread and jam is worse than nothing at all, then (like I said earlier) there are problems other than poverty.

It's a simple question If parents have no money to spend on their chldren's breakfast, it's because they are spending it on something else. If I knew what that "something else" is, it would be easier to understand why the children are going hungry.

There are wankers and then there is @dsr-burnley. Surprised you've not advocated children leaving school at 12 so they can earn an honest wage and not sponge off the state.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Well as free school meals have existed for the last 50 years and I can remember kids who were coming to school hungry so it was and is a thing.
You are Jacob Reese-mogg and you can donate the £5 to a food bank.

I donate a lot more than that to food banks, but they're in Africa where children (believe it or not) are even poorer than here.

Fifty years ago if children were coming to school hungry, it was because of bad parenting, not bad government. Same question - what are parents spending money on that is more important than breakfast? If we know the answer to that, then we're a step nearer the solution.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I donate a lot more than that to food banks, but they're in Africa where children (believe it or not) are even poorer than here.

Fifty years ago if children were coming to school hungry, it was because of bad parenting, not bad government. Same question - what are parents spending money on that is more important than breakfast? If we know the answer to that, then we're a step nearer the solution.

Bad government who snatched the children’s milk. Yes, Thatcher, that was you.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Bad government who snatched the children’s milk. Yes, Thatcher, that was you.

To be accurate, Labour governments abolished free milk for secondary and infant schools and Conservative governments abolished free milk for junior schools.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I donate a lot more than that to food banks, but they're in Africa where children (believe it or not) are even poorer than here.

Fifty years ago if children were coming to school hungry, it was because of bad parenting, not bad government. Same question - what are parents spending money on that is more important than breakfast? If we know the answer to that, then we're a step nearer the solution.

Can you provide empirical data to back up the last paragraph. References would be good and FYI ‘Brexit Karen on Facebook‘ is not a valid data source.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

To be accurate, Labour governments abolished free milk for secondary and infant schools and Conservative governments abolished free milk for junior schools.

Infant Schools and junior schools are one and the same in most areas. So they both can’t have been guilty of binning milk to under 11’s.

 

[BLOCK F]

There are wankers and then there is @dsr-burnley. Surprised you've not advocated children leaving school at 12 so they can earn an honest wage and not sponge off the state.

An unnecessarily rude post in response to someone who has made some valid points worth discussion, such as the points Zeberdi made re poor housekeeping, chaos and disorganisation.

 

[nicko31]

Top of the table for popularity "Kelloggs Crunchy Nut Cornflakes"

Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes Cereal - Kellogg's - 500 g

Ingredients, allergens, additives, nutrition facts, labels, origin of ingredients and information on product Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes Cereal - Kellogg's - 500 g

world.openfoodfacts.org

The UK is addicted to ultra processed food. About the same price per 100g as a decent Organic Muesli

 

[GT49er]

Sportswashing, Greenwashing, Povertywashing - most large companies do it - investing in community projects thus earning them tax relief whilst improving their PR and attracting the public to their product who think they are exercising ethical shopping choices…’because this company supports the local school’ etc

It’s a symbiotic relationship though - many community projects would not exist without corporate sponsorship or investment.

Yes, this. Many major companies do some 'do-gooding' activities - it's good PR and makes them look good. Generally though, as in this particular case, the scheme does a bit of good too, so it's fine by me. Win/win, really.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

An unnecessarily rude post in response to someone who has made some valid points worth discussion, such as the points Zeberdi made re poor housekeeping, chaos and disorganisation.

He has form so no apology from me.

A very large generalisation on his part, with no proof, basically using the ‘good old days’ as justification. Childhood poverty has always been a thing and I can remember a number of kids from school days who‘s main meal was a school dinner. Poor housekeeping etc are also contributing factors but are not the sole reason for kids being hungry, which was the basis of his assertion.

 

[dsr-burnley]

He has form so no apology from me.

A very large generalisation on his part, with no proof, basically using the ‘good old days’ as justification. Childhood poverty has always been a thing and I can remember a number of kids from school days who‘s main meal was a school dinner. Poor housekeeping etc are also contributing factors but are not the sole reason for kids being hungry, which was the basis of his assertion.

Then prove it. Show me a budget whereby a family is unable to find the 20p a day that it would cost them to give a child breakfast. Child poverty was much more a thing when benefits were far less generous than they are now, so what has gone wrong?

I'm not saying it can't be done. You may be correct that many thousands of children are coming from houses where every penny is being spent on something more important than the child's breakfast, and if that is so, I want to see why.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Then prove it. Show me a budget whereby a family is unable to find the 20p a day that it would cost them to give a child breakfast. Child poverty was much more a thing when benefits were far less generous than they are now, so what has gone wrong?

I'm not saying it can't be done. You may be correct that many thousands of children are coming from houses where every penny is being spent on something more important than the child's breakfast, and if that is so, I want to see why.

You fail to see how this works In the real world.
You made a statement which you claim to be fact, I challenged you that this was not the case and so it is therefore your responsibility to provide proof backing up your claims. It’s not the other way around. This stops people doing a ‘Trump/Boris’ where they make up any old bollocks and expect to be disproved.
i could say that you knit, write bad poetry and strangle cats as hobbies, if I did it would then be up to me to prove, rather than you to disprove.

 

[GT49er]

Ah, that false nostalgia, again. Kids were going hungry, food was actually cheaper per household income, and bread & jam isn’t a nutritious breakfast.

Food actually took a much greater proportion of household income in the fifties. We were neither rich nor excessively poor, but I never went hungry, even though there wasn't much left at the end of the week - but what we weren't paying for out of the household income back in the day, because there wasn't enough money left after after buying food, was a tele (large or small!), a fridge or freezer, a washing machine, phone or a car.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

It’s a different discussion but that’s the lazy advertising we’ve had a for a long time. Interracial couple of black male/white woman couple is the standard symbol for all racial diversity. Asians, Arabs have always been totally ignored generally in the west. It’s not just advertising but TV, media, arts, politics everything basically.

100% And the black faces are often mixed-race to be more 'palatable' to a predominantly white audience. Even more of a 'different discussion' is how long news websites like the BBC will run for multiple days on their home page an image of a (considered) attractive white victim of crime, like Sarah Everard. If the individual had been of a different ethnicity it would have been a day or two maximum (imho), and probably not dominating the page either.

 

[dsr-burnley]

You fail to see how this works In the real world.
You made a statement which you claim to be fact, I challenged you that this was not the case and so it is therefore your responsibility to provide proof backing up your claims. It’s not the other way around. This stops people doing a ‘Trump/Boris’ where they make up any old bollocks and expect to be disproved.
i could say that you knit, write bad poetry and strangle cats as hobbies, if I did it would then be up to me to prove, rather than you to disprove.

OK, I withdraw any suggestion about what went on in the past or whether people were poorer or richer then. It is only tangentially relevant.

The question is, why are people sending children to school without breakfast? Is it lack of funds or is it something else? If it's lack of funds, then a sight of a typical budget of a family that cannot afford the pot of jam and loaf of bread, would be useful.

 

[Zeberdi]

You fail to see how this works In the real world.
You made a statement which you claim to be fact, I challenged you that this was not the case and so it is therefore your responsibility to provide proof backing up your claims. It’s not the other way around. This stops people doing a ‘Trump/Boris’ where they make up any old bollocks and expect to be disproved.
i could say that you knit, write bad poetry and strangle cats as hobbies, if I did it would then be up to me to prove, rather than you to disprove.

I think if you are asking someones to back up their statements of facts with supporting evidence that is fair enough.

However, if you are asserting as a matter of fact that they have posted something that is not true as you have done above then you are also posting a statement of fact so it is up to you to provide evidence to back your assertion up.

The same burden of proof works for everyone equally on an internet forum - this isn’t a court of law!

 

[maffew]

Then prove it. Show me a budget whereby a family is unable to find the 20p a day that it would cost them to give a child breakfast. Child poverty was much more a thing when benefits were far less generous than they are now, so what has gone wrong?

I'm not saying it can't be done. You may be correct that many thousands of children are coming from houses where every penny is being spent on something more important than the child's breakfast, and if that is so, I want to see why.

It's not just about 20p for breakfast though, people need to save where they can. Couple of kids, £10 or more saved on breakfast can help someone put a bit of extra leccy on the meter or something. You can see that surely? I don't think you need to look too far or see case studies to understand some people have literally less than zero money to spare each month. Fair play to Kelloggs and anyone else who give a little back, whatever their reason. Alleviates pressure on food banks too. Everyone's a winner, especially the kid who mightnt have eaten that morning as there's nothing in the cupboard through no fault of their own

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Food actually took a much greater proportion of household income in the fifties. We were neither rich nor excessively poor, but I never went hungry, even though there wasn't much left at the end of the week - but what we weren't paying for out of the household income back in the day, because there wasn't enough money left after after buying food, was a tele (large or small!), a fridge or freezer, a washing machine, phone or a car.

Food was a lot simpler, based on vegetables, basic meat into stews or casseroles. We hardly ate salads, but vegs were grown in the garden. Potatoes with everything, custard made from powder, likewise English mustard.

 

[GT49er]

Food was a lot simpler, based on vegetables, basic meat into stews or casseroles. We hardly ate salads, but vegs were grown in the garden. Potatoes with everything, custard made from powder, likewise English mustard.

Those things still used up a greater proportion of the weekly budget though - and not everyone could grow their own veg. either! Milk, sugar, eggs and flour didn't grow on trees (and neither, for that matter, did custard powder and mustard!)