Scroll to see replies
Food banks are wrongly thought as a measure of absolute poverty. There are now just part the welfare system, previously people would ask there family and friends for help but now the state is here to help instead often reducing the need for community.
Britain is not returning to some Dickensian society where people had to steal or beg for survival. If this was the case, why are there always reports how apparently more children are becoming overweight?
There is absolute poverty in Britain but it is not as common as many think, the best response is to increase productivity and employment.
Britain is not returning to some Dickensian society where people had to steal or beg for survival. If this was the case, why are there always reports how apparently more children are becoming overweight?
There is absolute poverty in Britain but it is not as common as many think, the best response is to increase productivity and employment.
Original post by Burridge
Eye-opening front-page for The Mirror today. I couldn't agree more - it truly is sickening. Thoughts?
Eye-opening front-page for The Mirror today. I couldn't agree more - it truly is sickening. Thoughts?
Food banks kicked off as many decades ago and not just in the UK. All they are are a form if charity. If you're going to get upset, then get upset about every form of UK based charity.
ISTR a report that charities seem to be more successful at delivering welfare packages in many cases than state intervention as charity workers are more likely to boot out the recipients that are trying to help themselves.
What's the other answer? Financially reward those who can't budget and penalise those who can. There's plenty on benefits and low income that manage, but if I were on benefits if happily try and use a food bank. Who's going to turn away free food?
The photo they use on the front page is fake http://barker.co.uk/fakephotos
Why are they still overweight, because unhealthy and fattening food is seen to be cheaper and easier to make. Especially if you have to spend your days working through government bureaucracy just to get benefits (unemployed) or working.
I have consistently said that the Welfare reforms would have a negative impact to those at the bottom of the social ladder, the media obsess over a scroungers and everyone else pays.
But as always it is the 'individuals fault' as they cannot budget properly. It couldn't possibly be the fact that our current economic system unfairly allocates resources.
I have consistently said that the Welfare reforms would have a negative impact to those at the bottom of the social ladder, the media obsess over a scroungers and everyone else pays.
But as always it is the 'individuals fault' as they cannot budget properly. It couldn't possibly be the fact that our current economic system unfairly allocates resources.
In any self-respecting country this would be on the front pages of ALL the newspapers. One ****ing million people, one-third of whom are CHILDREN...
Last night when the news broke I worked out the following:
Since the Tories took office, there has been a 25-fold increase in the number of users of food banks. The foul Tory lie that food banks are supply-led is debunked by the fact that, though the Trussell Trust slowed down its building of new food banks in 2013/14, it has not stymied in any way the vertiginous growth in the number of users.
In 2010 all food bank claimants would have fitted in the North and South stands at Old Trafford. If the trend continues, by the start of the new football season, all 44 grounds in the Premiership and the Championship PUT TOGETHER wouldn't be enough to hold them.
In the equivalent period from 2006-2010, Labour had to negotiate a major spike in world food prices, a disastrous financial crisis and the worst recession since the 1930s. And yet the Tories have still managed to SEXTUPLE the growth rate - let alone the growth itself - across a corresponding four-year period when food prices have been falling and the economy supposedly recovering.
I've never seen anything like it and I have been shaking with rage ever since the story broke at around midnight.
Last night when the news broke I worked out the following:
Since the Tories took office, there has been a 25-fold increase in the number of users of food banks. The foul Tory lie that food banks are supply-led is debunked by the fact that, though the Trussell Trust slowed down its building of new food banks in 2013/14, it has not stymied in any way the vertiginous growth in the number of users.
In 2010 all food bank claimants would have fitted in the North and South stands at Old Trafford. If the trend continues, by the start of the new football season, all 44 grounds in the Premiership and the Championship PUT TOGETHER wouldn't be enough to hold them.
In the equivalent period from 2006-2010, Labour had to negotiate a major spike in world food prices, a disastrous financial crisis and the worst recession since the 1930s. And yet the Tories have still managed to SEXTUPLE the growth rate - let alone the growth itself - across a corresponding four-year period when food prices have been falling and the economy supposedly recovering.
I've never seen anything like it and I have been shaking with rage ever since the story broke at around midnight.
(edited 10 years ago)
Very much a political story. Food banks are growing in popularity because people know about them and they're more accessible. The fact that a million people (allegedly) have used them tells us nothing about the lifestyle these people lead. What percentage walked away from the food bank smoking? How many have Sky? Designer clothing?
Most people who are in poverty in this country are in relative, not absolute, poverty. Those on benefits can still afford to feed themselves and can afford to live. Food banks tend to be 'needed' as a result of other lifestyle choices and because people spend their money on other stuff. Tell people there's a free food service, and they'll use it.
I have no doubt that some people do need these. But I don't think the majority do need food banks, nor do I think it's a viable political football to kick around.
Perhaps if Labour hadn't encouraged such a benefit-dependent culture in the first place people wouldn't complain when the bloated wreck of a welfare state was cut a little bit.
Most people who are in poverty in this country are in relative, not absolute, poverty. Those on benefits can still afford to feed themselves and can afford to live. Food banks tend to be 'needed' as a result of other lifestyle choices and because people spend their money on other stuff. Tell people there's a free food service, and they'll use it.
I have no doubt that some people do need these. But I don't think the majority do need food banks, nor do I think it's a viable political football to kick around.
Perhaps if Labour hadn't encouraged such a benefit-dependent culture in the first place people wouldn't complain when the bloated wreck of a welfare state was cut a little bit.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by russellsteapot
Very much a political story. Food banks are growing in popularity because people know about them and they're more accessible. The fact that a million people (allegedly) have used them tells us nothing about the lifestyle these people lead. What percentage walked away from the food bank smoking? How many have Sky? Designer clothing?
Most people who are in poverty in this country are in relative, not absolute, poverty. Those on benefits can still afford to feed themselves and can afford to live. Food banks tend to be 'needed' as a result of other lifestyle choices and because people spend their money on other stuff. Tell people there's a free food service, and they'll use it.
I have no doubt that some people do need these. But I don't think the majority do need food banks, nor do I think it's a viable political football to kick around.
Perhaps if Labour hadn't encouraged such a benefit-dependent culture in the first place people wouldn't complain when the bloated wreck of a welfare state was cut a little bit.
Most people who are in poverty in this country are in relative, not absolute, poverty. Those on benefits can still afford to feed themselves and can afford to live. Food banks tend to be 'needed' as a result of other lifestyle choices and because people spend their money on other stuff. Tell people there's a free food service, and they'll use it.
I have no doubt that some people do need these. But I don't think the majority do need food banks, nor do I think it's a viable political football to kick around.
Perhaps if Labour hadn't encouraged such a benefit-dependent culture in the first place people wouldn't complain when the bloated wreck of a welfare state was cut a little bit.
I agree, although you will get a lot of angry responses. The burden apparently isn't on the claimant to plan their finances, not spend on frivolous items and to close their legs. No doubt some of them now know they can get free food so can splash on a few more cigarette packs a week.
If free food is there, people will take it, people need to look at cause and effect.
More and more food banks mean more and more people will use them?
Personally I think as foodbanks are so commonplace now, they should receive state funding, knock £20 off benefits a week and make people use them.
More and more food banks mean more and more people will use them?
Personally I think as foodbanks are so commonplace now, they should receive state funding, knock £20 off benefits a week and make people use them.
Original post by russellsteapot
Very much a political story. Food banks are growing in popularity because people know about them and they're more accessible. The fact that a million people (allegedly) have used them tells us nothing about the lifestyle these people lead. What percentage walked away from the food bank smoking? How many have Sky? Designer clothing?
Most people who are in poverty in this country are in relative, not absolute, poverty. Those on benefits can still afford to feed themselves and can afford to live. Food banks tend to be 'needed' as a result of other lifestyle choices and because people spend their money on other stuff. Tell people there's a free food service, and they'll use it.
I have no doubt that some people do need these. But I don't think the majority do need food banks, nor do I think it's a viable political football to kick around.
Perhaps if Labour hadn't encouraged such a benefit-dependent culture in the first place people wouldn't complain when the bloated wreck of a welfare state was cut a little bit.
Most people who are in poverty in this country are in relative, not absolute, poverty. Those on benefits can still afford to feed themselves and can afford to live. Food banks tend to be 'needed' as a result of other lifestyle choices and because people spend their money on other stuff. Tell people there's a free food service, and they'll use it.
I have no doubt that some people do need these. But I don't think the majority do need food banks, nor do I think it's a viable political football to kick around.
Perhaps if Labour hadn't encouraged such a benefit-dependent culture in the first place people wouldn't complain when the bloated wreck of a welfare state was cut a little bit.
You need to have a voucher issued by the Job Centre, the CAB or your doctor to use a food bank. Until summer 2013, the voucher had to carry a reason why the claimant was entitled to not starve to death this month*. In 2012/13, 40% of users were there because of benefit cuts or delays, 20% for low incomes and 9% for debt. It will doubtless shock you to the core that none were there for "earns a ****load of money but frivolously spends it".
Since the Job Centre can see into (and raid without warning) your bank account, the CAB draw up financial statements for each of their clients, and doctors can literally prod you and tell if you're malnourished or not, I see no reason to question these figures.
In summer 2013, realising that these sorts of figures might cause embarrassment for the government and highlight the plight of the starving, the DWP redesigned the Job Centre's vouchers and no longer record the reason for referral. http://www.theguardian.com/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2013/sep/06/welfare-cuts-trussell-trust-tale-of-two-food-banks-jobcentres
*Ordinarily I believe you can only use a food bank once a month unless exceptional circumstances. They provide three days' worth of food (can probably be stretched by the ingenuity that comes with being destitute).
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Dnator
I agree, although you will get a lot of angry responses. The burden apparently isn't on the claimant to plan their finances, not spend on frivolous items and to close their legs. No doubt some of them now know they can get free food so can splash on a few more cigarette packs a week.
There is not and has never been a shred of evidence that this is the case. Go on, I dare you. Try and find me something that's not from the Daily Mail front page, or the Tory front bench, to support this assertion.
Original post by Huskaris
If free food is there, people will take it, people need to look at cause and effect.
More and more food banks mean more and more people will use them?
Personally I think as foodbanks are so commonplace now, they should receive state funding, knock £20 off benefits a week and make people use them.
More and more food banks mean more and more people will use them?
Personally I think as foodbanks are so commonplace now, they should receive state funding, knock £20 off benefits a week and make people use them.
I wouldn't worry, they've proven themselves perfectly capable of knocking "£20 off benefits" (as if it's that simple, Jesus Christ) for absolutely no reason at all.
Original post by scrotgrot
There is not and has never been a shred of evidence that this is the case. Go on, I dare you. Try and find me something that's not from the Daily Mail front page, or the Tory front bench, to support this assertion.
That people live beyond their means? Surely just a quick look around town will confirm that for you.
Original post by Dnator
That people live beyond their means? Surely just a quick look around town will confirm that for you.
So you say the burden is on the claimant to plan their finances and not spend their money on frivolous activities and products (IE cigarettes and alcohol)
We then ask you to prove that this is the 'majority' lifestyle with statistics, from a source that is not substantially biased to the right. Apparently you don't have that burden of proof, you can just make a claim and not support it with evidence. Apparently we can just thrust prejudicial views around now.
Original post by Dnator
That people live beyond their means? Surely just a quick look around town will confirm that for you.
Ahh, thought so. The wisdom of the great goddess Anecdote. If you're so sure, why don't you knock out a quick report on that? I'm sure the DWP, the Treasury, the CAB, the Trussell Trust, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the social policy academics, the think-tanks and the general public would be very interested to hear what you have to say.
Original post by Cylos
So you say the burden is on the claimant to plan their finances and not spend their money on frivolous activities and products (IE cigarettes and alcohol)
We then ask you to prove that this is the 'majority' lifestyle with statistics, from a source that is not substantially biased to the right. Apparently you don't have that burden of proof, you can just make a claim and not support it with evidence. Apparently we can just thrust prejudicial views around now.
We then ask you to prove that this is the 'majority' lifestyle with statistics, from a source that is not substantially biased to the right. Apparently you don't have that burden of proof, you can just make a claim and not support it with evidence. Apparently we can just thrust prejudicial views around now.
I am not sure why you need me to find you a study that 'proves' that you can live on very little money if you spend wisely.
Original post by scrotgrot
I wouldn't worry, they've proven themselves perfectly capable of knocking "£20 off benefits" (as if it's that simple, Jesus Christ) for absolutely no reason at all.
Good.
I suppose I'm the only one who thought this was about condoms.
Original post by scrotgrot
There is not and has never been a shred of evidence that this is the case. Go on, I dare you. Try and find me something that's not from the Daily Mail front page, or the Tory front bench, to support this assertion.
There was a documentary several months back that followed a food bank. They latched into one of its users who then turned out to be a delivery driver who used it because it was free food. It gave him more money to spend elsewhere.
Even benefits street showed a lot of people complaining about lack of money, yet all had large TVs, smoked and drank.
Original post by MatureStudent36
There was a documentary several months back that followed a food bank. They latched into one of its users who then turned out to be a delivery driver who used it because it was free food. It gave him more money to spend elsewhere.
Even benefits street showed a lot of people complaining about lack of money, yet all had large TVs, smoked and drank.
Even benefits street showed a lot of people complaining about lack of money, yet all had large TVs, smoked and drank.
A documentary by which channel?
I wonder why they chose to follow that person rather than one of the million other people who used food banks last year?
If we're relying on shock-jock TV programmes to draw our conclusions about the world then we are several miles further up **** creek than I thought.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How the hell do you revise poetry??
- Calling all irish people (who know about Eamon de Valera)
- Eng lit
- English Lit GCSE
- OCR A-Level English Literature
- AQA English Literature quote-memorising techniques
- AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- English literature revision
- LNAT Rejection
- Different english question form
- NEA English Lit
- New Driver Insurance
- Sterling Car Insurance
- Dentistry without A-level Biology?
- Grade 8-9 Quotes for Macbeth
- in text citations in university essays
- I really miss my best friend
- Eng lit paper 2023
- Gcses please help
- How to improve my grades
Latest
Last reply 7 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 13 minutes ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 34 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 2 hours ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 2 hours ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 2 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 2 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
