I think this is a fantastic gesture and I think it just reaffirms what a decent, down to earth person she is. But it again raises the question of just whose responsibility it is to make sure kids don't go hungry in the first place. Before all the Tories start howling about bad parents who just want to spend their money on dope and alcohol, I do agree that the parents should be responsible for this in the first instance. My question is where the responsibly lies if the parents cannot or will not live up to this. Should the government step in? Should public money be spent on this? Is it the duty of a humane society to make sure children are fed regardless of whose fault it is? And if it is, why are there hungry children in this country at all? Seems to me like someone isn't doing their job.
You have to be pretty careful. Otherwise you simply make us all liable for costs that properly belong to the parents. I for one am not interested in accepting those costs.
But I'm sure you're 100% keen on reaping the benefits of living in a safe well-functioning society.
I would not describe a society in which children require strangers to feed them as "well-functioning" personally.
I would not describe a society containing many selfish individuals with no sense of social responsibility for others less fortunate them themselves "well functioning" personally.
I won't automatically blame poor upbringing by their parents as reason for their greed and lack of empathy - tempting though that is - as such sociopathic behaviour can be the result of mental deficiency.