I mean thats a sad situation and it is sad that kids go hungry. I think there are other mechanisms that could pay for kids meals rather than getting the schools to do it. Like making sure dads can't get away with paying £1 a week.

Personally, if your only willing to give a kid £1 a week, then you should get done for child neglected as a trade off? Or more sensibly, smart technology algorithm could pull them up for fraud in a few weeks. Easy to do but completely impossible a few years back.

The logistics of opening up a school kitchen to serve a handful of meals will probably be very expensive. Staffing it will be difficult and it will put unnecessary pressure on schools that detract from teaching.

If a kid is in a dire situation, then social services should be the first point of call. Not extra pressure on schools.

My main gripe is with the lefts approach to this. They get so blinkered at throwing tired old arguments at the elite tories (overlooking the background of many of their own) they have forgotten they need to sort themselves out as a party. There's no credibility in this lazy insults when they are in such a mess.

You make several some good points, but people are imperfect and as much as we can look for other ways to fix things, handing out a voucher to at least ensure that a child doesn't go hungry is purposeful and well intentioned.

Also, what the left or the right or anyone thinks should be neither here nor there really. Perspective shouldn't be coloured by trying to stick one to a political ideology. In a strange way I think in this particular case, someone who probably isn't overthinking or political and just wants to do good, is Mr Rashford himself.

Have you posted on here rallying against Eat Out to Help Out, or are those schemes less offensive to you than this one?

Lives have complexities beyond Netflix being to blame. If a child is hungry, as a society we should endevour to do our bit, and that is Rashford's point. In dysfunctional households, the sins of the Father shouldn't fall upon the child for something so essential. And of course, beyond the 'bootstraps' cliches this is a tough time for many hard working families, so not everyone struggling is some kind of deadbeat Dad.

I do not accept that children need to be hungry in 2020.
If they are, it is the fault of their parents.

How much can we expect the state to cater to ignorance and selfishness?

We have allowed this country to fill up with an uneducated underclass with origins elsewhere and we now have to foot the bill. As if we didn't have enough of our own already.

You blame the parents but if you believe this then surely this is the state's fault?

At the school I work at we have a spare supply of uniform as many students are from families which can't afford to replace old clothes. Over lockdown we also had many staff who were willing to go into the school to tutor the kids from disadvantaged or care backgrounds.

The vast majority of teachers and schools are willing to go the extra mile to support students, at no or limited extra cost. They also realise that in the long run, it will cost a lot more if you have kids in class who haven't eaten and are therefore more distracted, or students who in need of extra money because they can't afford food are more susceptible to deal drugs/steal/join gangs.

It just seems again that we are so paranoid of a small minority who might abuse the system that we don't want to help anyone. But that rationale only ever happens when we talk about working class people, never billionaires who fleece the state at any opportunity, be it taking furlough pay, taking bailouts, or spending state subsidies on shareholder bonuses.

As Rashford has eloquently put, this will actually save us money in the long run. In an era when the government is throwing out free money left right and centre, social investments like this seem far more financially sensible.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4