ED on BBC London News

[spanglysteve]

BBC London news running a story about free school meals in Southwark. It then cut to ED and stated "Is it fair that everyone, even in these affluent suburbs" gets free school meals!

[zeban]

I saw this. They actually interviewed people on LL who said they would rather see the money spent elsewhere

[Bic Basher]

I saw the report, but didn't hear the reporter mention ED. Are the BBC afraid of mentioning our town?

[Curmudgeon]

as a parent of primary school children in ED I would also prefer the money to be spent elsewhere

- although it's a nice boon - one of my children will not eat the school meals provided even if they paid him - hates the gristly meat and overcooked veg

[catgirl]

At which schools does everyone get free meals? Certainly at Goodrich they're not free (unless you qualify for free school meals due to low income which surely nobody would begrudge?)

[dazeykat]

It hasn't happened yet. I don't think Southwark should provide free school meals to everyone, whilst at the same time cutting the budget of Children's Services. How does that help those in need? Any child already getting free school meals gains nothing, yet may be losing other support/services.

[zeban]

I agree dazeykat

[sofaRunner]

Bic Basher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I saw the report, but didn't hear the reporter

> mention ED. Are the BBC afraid of mentioning our

> town?

I do love it round here but really, ED is not a town!

[DJKillaQueen]

It was a pledge Soutwark Labour made during election time so they have to follow through with it.

[Huguenot]

I think ED would qualify as a town.

The original word meant a fenced settlement, but more recently it referred to the charter to hold a market.

You could say that ED is fairly demarcated from adjacent areas by the Rye, Goose Green and Townley Road. It certainly has a market.

It doesn't have a town council, but it is an economic hub.

[Chener Books]

> You could say that ED is fairly demarcated from adjacent areas by the Rye, Goose Green and Townley Road. It certainly has a market.

Wrong.

John K

[Huguenot]

Wrong about what John?

Do you feel ED isn't distinct, or that North Cross Road market is a figment of our collective imagination?

Perhaps you could be a little more helpful?

I was trying to have a little fun, but you're quite within your rights to get pissy about it.

[Curmudgeon]

Free School Meals for all primary school children will be across all Southwark primary schools in September ie next academic year

[LadyDeliah]

For people with children who are working but dont earn big salaries, I would imagine this would be very welcome.

[alice]

info from the endchildpoverty website -

ONS code Local Authority and wards Percentage of children in poverty

E09000028 Southwark 34%

E05000534 Brunswick Park 36%

E05000535 Camberwell Green 40%

E05000536 Cathedrals 38%

E05000537 Chaucer 39%

E05000538 College 27%

E05000539 East Dulwich 17%

E05000540 East Walworth 36%

E05000541 Faraday 42%

E05000542 Grange 40%

E05000543 Livesey 43%

E05000544 Newington 42%

E05000545 Nunhead 38%

E05000546 Peckham 40%

E05000547 Peckham Rye 22%

E05000548 Riverside 35%

E05000549 Rotherhithe 42%

E05000550 South Bermondsey 38%

E05000551 South Camberwell 27%

E05000552 Surrey Docks 27%

E05000553 The Lane 35%

E05000554 Village 8%

so anywhere between 92% [village] and 58% [Livesey] children who are not living in poverty will get their free dinners. what a waste of money - i'm agreeing with some others above. what happened to targetted support?

[Alex K]

@alice: Oh, dear. I think I'm going to come over all Tory in this post, which is not my intention.

What is the definition of "poverty" that has been used in assembling those statistics / percentages? Pensioners aside, the people whom I see on the streets of Peckham and Camberwell seem prosperous...

[civilservant]

it's a pity that people are getting hot under the collar about this

A household is defined as living in poverty if it has an income that is 60% of the median household income - what this means is (see http://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml) that ... "The latest year for which household income data is available is 2008/09. In that year, the 60% threshold was worth: ?119 per week for single adult with no dependent children; ?206 per week for a couple with no dependent children; ?202 per week for a single adult with two dependent children under 14; and ?288 per week for a couple with two dependent children under 14.

These sums of money are measured after income tax, council tax and housing costs have been deducted, where housing costs include rents, mortgage interest (but not the repayment of principal), buildings insurance and water charges. They therefore represent what the household has available to spend on everything else it needs, from food and heating to travel and entertainment."

This definition of poverty holds across the country, from London to Liverpool, regardless of the local cost of living.

and the statistics quoted by alice need to be qualified. For example, if we take out all the children in Village ward who attend private schools, I bet that we'll find that the percentage of children in state provision who are eligible for free school meals is quite a bit higher than 8%.

[Pugwash]

I hope that when the free meals for primaary children gets going that each school records the weight of the wastage each day to calculate how much of our local taxes are going to land up in the food recycling bin.

Money would far better be spent on providing a decent day care service to elderly and disabled people to prevent carer stress and to keep people within their own community.

[Bic Basher]

The current situation I think is that if both parents earn less than ?16k, their child qualifies for free school dinners from the council.

The new scheme treats each child equally, however I'd prefer the council just extended the threshold further up instead of everyone getting free meals when the council is cutting back on other services.

[spanglysteve]

free school meals are not just about giving meals to the poorest children. By making provision universal you encourage all children to take the option. That way all children are getting at least one healthy meal a day, which for a large proportion will be more than they are currently getting.

[alice]

i wonder if anyone knows the cost of this initiative?

[BrandNewGuy]

According to the South London Press, it's "more than ?7 million... over the next three years". The report in last Friday's paper also suggests that the provision of meals is not necessarily good for the health of pupils:

"SCHOOL dinners in a borough which has the highest level of childhood obesity in the UK are insipid and could inspire kids to eat junk food, research has claimed.

Dinners provided to thousands of children in Southwark ? where a almost one-third of primary kids are overweight ? are flavourless and do not resemble meals described on menus, a study had found.

The report by Southwark?s education and children?s services scrutiny subcommittee ? which is looking at how to tackle the issue of childhood obesity in the borough ? makes alarming reading for parents and guardians.

Committee chairman Liberal Democrat Councillor David Hubber said: ?Concern has been expressed that lunches provided are often prepared hours earlier.

?The food is often insipid-tasting and children choose the tastier bits, which may not always be the healthiest parts of the meal.

?Moreover, sometimes the food at delivery point has little resemblance to that described on the menu...""

[alice]

and ?5.7 million cut from children's services including social care and safeguarding ...

[peterstorm1985]

I don't have school age children so it's only the possibility of a waste of my tax that concerns me but I've always believed strongly that anything that may be of benefit to the poorest in society should also be used by the richest. My reason being that the poorest often have the least ability to be heard.

A bad school meal that is only eaten by the poorest child simply goes into the bin, whereas a bad school meal eaten by a child from a much wealthier background may result in some very loud parental complaints, and one can hope that that may result in a much better school meal for the poorest child.

I also believe in as much equality in the early years as possible. There are enormous benefits of getting a cross section of society to sit down together and eat.

From a financial point of view I would prefer that all children were required to have school meals, with the wealthier parents paying for the cost, as this would achieve the same aim, but it seems that that mechanism is not available.

[dazeykat]

Peterstorm - most children already eat school meals, regardless of background/wealth, whatever. The ones who go home or have packed lunch don't do so because of cost, as they are more expensive options.