Unicef feed children, the absolute b*****ds.
- Thread starter Cheetodust
- Start date
Are there many starving kids? Is UNICEF's funding preventing that? Is the opposing politician's personal blame on this man going to improve anyone's situation?
Consider this: if you go to School Food Matters, the group that UNICEF actually gave this money to, right next to their article about recieving UNICEF funding is an article that half of eligible did not access free school meals during the lockdown. What does someone conclude from that? Well, a lot of eligible kids probably aren't starving and declining free food, and any that are the problem is logistics rather than funding.
And let's look at School Food Matters for a second. If you look around their site, they're not really a hunger-fighting group by design, or at least not in the sense of people not affording food. Their mission seems to be food education, school food standards, and promotion of healthier food sources. All good and worthy things, but not quite the vision one normally gets from "UNICEF feeding starving children". Well, that's because getting more households to accept free school lunches was something they worked on, and with the pandemic, that became more difficult and more important. This all makes perfect sense. The issue is the logistics of getting school funded food to children, and they're working with a group that has specialized in doing that more effectively. Cool.
But lets go another step deeper, because UNICEF is not School Food Matters sole source of funding. Other groups fund them, and other groups have also ramped up that funding in the current situation. If you check page 26 here you can see their funding exploded from "Guy's and St Thomas's Charity". That's 80% of their budget comes from Guy's and St Thomas' Charity. The money comes from a billion dollar invested endowment working alongside the NHS hospital trust it derives from.
So when the other politician asks when the UK government and the man's "super-rich chums" would get involved, it's without the context that UNICEF's funding is a tiny fraction of the funding those exact people are already providing to the exact same group, whose current primary mission is to just get people in contact with the food that the UK government already funds.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,493
- 3,443
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I kinda feel like they have a different definition of what government is. Like if it helps someone then that is a handout that prevents them from pulling themselves up by their boot straps and thats bad for some reason. But if its military then its not really government over reach since you need a huge military to stop outsiders from getting you.
except the party of small government, and state's rights, have been pushing to try and let federal courts override state voting results, because they don't want to lose the presidency. so apparently their thoughts on federal involvement change with the mood of the room
Not going to wash, the Conservatives have repeatedly voted against expanding provision of free meals to needy children during the pandemic, something they are normally entitled to and have only gone without as they aren't in school. It is often difficult to access benefits to which you are or should entitled in the UK because inconvenient bureaucratic barriers have been installed which make them difficult to access or able to be refused on technicalities.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,493
- 3,443
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Yeah, its going to be funny to see them try and worm their way out of the end of 2020. I guess we will find out if it will bite them in the ass with the Georgia election.
Blatantly lying and refusing to acknowledge the obvious has worked fairly well for them in the past.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,493
- 3,443
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I'm not going to be holding my breath on this.
Well, beyond failing to acknowledge reality hurting them fiscally or physically, just not so much politically.
And this is why everything is going to burn. Everyone would rather jack off saying, "Yeaaaaahhh... oooohhhh yeaaahhh, HAAAAATTTTEEEEE!"
Than actually read anything on what's actually going on.
Than actually read anything on what's actually going on.
Last edited:
They would rather kids starved than be embarrassed. I can't think of a better sentence to describe the establishments of the world.
Seriously, do social welfare state better or let the people who care about it do it. (Corbyn or The SNP)
Seriously, do social welfare state better or let the people who care about it do it. (Corbyn or The SNP)
The SNP do not care about the welfare state. The SNP care about Scottish independence. Everything they do is in service of that. They would/will cease to exist after Scottish independence is achieved.
Narrator's voice: Of course not.
'Shy Tory' is a thing because people know they should be ashamed of themselves.
Hate, or at least this form of it, is a product. It's a product of frustrations, inequalities, disadvantages and adversities.
I think it's more likely to burn because a bunch of millionaire toffs like Jacob Rees-Mogg systematically destroy the industries and communities of their citizens, and then take away their social support, and then start blaming postmodernism and cultural Marxism for the state of the country. It's not hard to see why they might be hated.
How did reading make you think this guy is NOT an absolute prick? The impression given by the blurp is just confirmed.
Anyone with the years of experience the average Briton (who pays any attention to politics) will have of him will know he's a prick.
Is there something particularly wrong with people's assessment here or are you just reading from the pamphlet again?