After the condemnation of his abuse, it was puzzling to hear members of the public, particularly taxpayers and those without young children, talking of the unfairness of subsidising children from more affluent families; I wonder if it occurred to them, as they objected to the pennies it would cost them, indirectly, that there are many children still who go hungry at school because of poverty, neglect or shame at claiming free school meals? Do they see their hypocrisy in judging Daniel’s parents, teachers, social workers and doctors for failing to help him, while rejecting the chance to help other Daniels themselves? Are they aware of their selfishness?
Children are the most vulnerable part of our human society, and each child deserves the best possible nurturing, regardless of class and background: just as the authorities did not know the truth of Daniel’s life, hidden behind his mother’s lies, so too we cannot judge, truly, who needs help with school food. The provision of free lunches for 3 years of early schooling is, to me, a wonderful idea, and I am happy that my taxes are being used for something so important. We are a caring country, innately, and this is a caring, welcome measure.
[byline]
]]>
