Turn on thread page Beta

Edwina Currie's disgraceful comments about food-banks watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Edwina Currie really is a vile human-being. I really do despise her. Her opinions on food banks and those who rely on them are well known, but tonight on BBC's Panorama "Hungry Britain?" documentary she took another step - she commented that there is 'no such thing' as food poverty in the UK. She also reaffirmed that she believes food banks aren't a doing a good job in society, that people could avoid using them if they simply 'managed their finances better and prepared for a rainy day', and that a lot of people visit them simply because they offer 'free food' (a view shared by equally as heinous Iain Duncan-Smith).

    She really is a heartless, out-of-touch cretin.

    Thoughts on her comments?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    She isn't qualified to make any of her comments.

    First class snob.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    She has a bad mixture of sick opinions and the arrogance to throw them around like they're the truth (and a desire to be constantly the centre of attention), Back when she was a junior health minister she said that "good christian people" don't get aids and that northerners die of "ignorance and chips". Once a bile-spewing tory, always a bile-spewing tory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't see the debate.
    And i am in no way agreeing with what she said or the way she put it.

    However I have been on full-time work on fantastic money. As a single person, as a couple and as a single mum. I have also been on Benefits as all of the above too.

    I can honestly say i have never been in a position were i can't afford food.
    If i can go and buy a bottle of coke and ciggis from the shop and then say i can't afford food.

    Is this really the case? Of course not.
    I do believe with the statement that she said 'If people managed their finances better'

    That i do agree with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't particularly like her, but she's right.

    Charities and charitable beings have always stepped in to help the genuinely poor. If they want to help the feckless as well then I have no problem with that. As long as it isn't with taxpayers' money.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I can't comment on her remarks, but I've yet to see any major use in food banks in many places.

    The main people who need them are homeless people.

    However with our benefit state there's no reason to be unable to afford food.

    I remember when labour was pushing the whole food bank thing (blaming conservatives), every mother they showed (strange how no men where featured) had a wide screen TV.

    People went all out defending them saying things like, "they shouldn't have to see their belongings" and the like. Well no, when times got hard for me and my ex we sold our TV and we downsized. From what I've seen most (not all) the people who complain refuse to change their lifestyle.

    I spend £10-15 a week on food, there's no real excuse if your savvy enough (unless your homeless).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    every mother they showed (strange how no men where featured) had a wide screen TV.

    People went all out defending them saying things like, "they shouldn't have to see their belongings" and the like. Well no, when times got hard for me and my ex we sold our TV and we downsized. From what I've seen most (not all) the people who complain refuse to change their lifestyle.
    Exactley! When i stopped getting the money in I didn't continue to buy new clothes, a new phone ect... I cut back everywhere.

    Including my 24" TV that i now have haha
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I can see where she's coming from however there is true poverty. There is people who don't have a home and therefore can't get access to benefits (I think,someone prove me wrong if so but don't you need a fixed address, so you can't be in a homeless shelter, living in a cheap hotel). There should be a system in place, so people can't just turn up and get the food.

    Ideally someone should sit down with them, and the person who wants the food and help, should produce a record of their income and outgoings. If they get paid £28 a week and spend £20 on tobacco products and alcohol, then that should be looked at and suggested they cut that out or cut down on it, there are free services to help those who have dependency on such things, so they have no excuse unless they can't be bothered to try, I know people who have cut smoking from 50 a day to nothing, just by going cold, they've been 4 years clean so far now. The person should then be given a bag of food to cover a week, just to tide them over whilst they try to sort themselves out.

    People need to learn to control their finance, they know how much is going in, so they can't act surprised when they spend it all on 'luxuries' and then complain they can't afford food for their family. People need to learn you can't just waste your benefits and then expect everyone else to dig you out of that hole.

    People who genuinely need it are now given a dim view and they have less resources due to people abusing them.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ryan9900)
    She isn't qualified to make any of her comments.

    First class snob.
    I agree. She thinks she is so much better than everyone else. She's like a politically correct version of Katie Hopkins.


    (Original post by ifanclarke)
    She has a bad mixture of sick opinions and the arrogance to throw them around like they're the truth (and a desire to be constantly the centre of attention), Back when she was a junior health minister she said that "good christian people" don't get aids and that northerners die of "ignorance and chips". Once a bile-spewing tory, always a bile-spewing tory.
    Really? I didn't know what. She's despicable. Such a heartless, pompous snob.

    (Original post by Lawyer_Girl.14)
    I didn't see the debate.
    And i am in no way agreeing with what she said or the way she put it.

    However I have been on full-time work on fantastic money. As a single person, as a couple and as a single mum. I have also been on Benefits as all of the above too.

    I can honestly say i have never been in a position were i can't afford food.
    If i can go and buy a bottle of coke and ciggis from the shop and then say i can't afford food.

    Is this really the case? Of course not.
    I do believe with the statement that she said 'If people managed their finances better'

    That i do agree with.
    It seems to me as if you are agreeing with what she said - you concur that people can avoid these situations if they managed their finances better and that the benefit system means that nobody is ever in a position - unless they choose to be by mismanaging finances - of not being able to afford food.

    Tell that to the 500,000+ people relying on food-banks. In fact, the number is likely to be much higher than that since it is an estimate from the Trussel Trust, who only run 48% of food-banks. One-third of those relying on food banks do so because of benefit delays and 19% do so because of benefit sanctions, say the Trussel Trust. But again, the figures become a little difficult here since the government has decided to remove the requirement for referral forms to provide a reason for the referral. This refutes the idea that people are simply recklessly spending their benefits on luxuries. Almost 1m people were sanctioned last year, 140,000 of which were overturned on appeal. The minimum benefit sanction lasts for one month - meaning that people literally have no income for a whole month. How can you mismanage a bank account with a £0.00 balance?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    Tell that to the 500,000+ people relying on food-banks. In fact, the number is likely to be much higher than that since it is an estimate from the Trussel Trust, who only run 48% of food-banks. One-third of those relying on food banks do so because of benefit delays and 19% do so because of benefit sanctions, say the Trussel Trust. But again, the figures become a little difficult here since the government has decided to remove the requirement for referral forms to provide a reason for the referral. This refutes the idea that people are simply recklessly spending their benefits on luxuries. Almost 1m people were sanctioned last year, 140,000 of which were overturned on appeal. The minimum benefit sanction lasts for one month - meaning that people literally have no income for a whole month. How can you mismanage a bank account with a £0.00 balance?
    That 500,000 is usually inflated. Surprisingly most food banks do not check who is using them in many cases literally anyone can use them. Also many banks don't both checking if the same person/family visit multiple times. Students for example often make a large percentage of such people. Seeing the student loan students get it's obvious they have misspent their money.

    Also all those people with £0.00 in their account usually get there though mismanagement in the first place.

    I used to work for a banks complaint department. While I do not agree with bank policies, we used to get about half our calls with people claiming poverty and claiming it was the banks fault. When a process was set up to address this we had to look at customers accounts to see what we could do to help. If we hadn't caused it through error we where only allowed to refund in a last case scenario as it's classed as defaulting on a debt. Usually we found in 80-90% of scenarios customers could cut back on many things.

    You'd be surprised how many people in those £0.00 scenarios or worse still brought maccies, porn, video game subscriptions, expensive clothing, frequent nights out etc. Such people are not just those who have little to no pay, it's also those who get quite good pay but spend it in a week or two.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    Edwina Currie really is a vile human-being. I really do despise her. She her opinions on food banks and those who rely on them are well known, but tonight on BBC's Panorama "Hungry Britain?" documentary she took another step - she commented that there is 'no such thing' as food poverty in the UK. She also reaffirmed that she believes food banks aren't a doing a good job in society, that people could avoid using them if they simply 'managed their finances better and prepared for a rainy day', and that a lot of people visit them simply because they offer 'free food' (a view shared by equally as heinous Iain Duncan-Smith).

    She really is a heartless, out-of-touch cretin.

    Thoughts on her comments?
    I god I saw this. Didn't really expect any better off her though.

    She literally said she wanted 'to go back to the old days' - ie when people were literally left to starve to death.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    I don't particularly like her, but she's right.

    Charities and charitable beings have always stepped in to help the genuinely poor. If they want to help the feckless as well then I have no problem with that. As long as it isn't with taxpayers' money.
    Charities should NOT be stepping in to help combat food-poverty in the 6th largest economy in the world. How does the proliferation of food-banks no concern you? Are you honestly not concerned that the Red Cross is now providing food aid for the first time since WWII? Food-banks are NOT part of the welfare state - Trussel Trust food-banks receive no funding from the government. Who are the 'feckless' you're talking about? You're worse than Edwina Currie - no compassion whatsoever, you should be ashamed.

    (Original post by DanB1991)
    I can't comment on her remarks, but I've yet to see any major use in food banks in many places.

    The main people who need them are homeless people.

    However with our benefit state there's no reason to be unable to afford food.

    I remember when labour was pushing the whole food bank thing (blaming conservatives), every mother they showed (strange how no men where featured) had a wide screen TV.

    People went all out defending them saying things like, "they shouldn't have to see their belongings" and the like. Well no, when times got hard for me and my ex we sold our TV and we downsized. From what I've seen most (not all) the people who complain refuse to change their lifestyle.

    I spend £10-15 a week on food, there's no real excuse if your savvy enough (unless your homeless).
    Over 1,000 food-banks operate in the UK. They're expected to feed over 1,000,000 people this year. Just because you haven't seen them it doesn't mean they don't exist.

    Homeless people are NOT the main people who need food-banks. Over 50% of children in poverty are in working-households. Food prices have risen by almost 30% since 2008 whilst wages haven't grown at all.

    As I have already pointed out; over half of those referred to food banks are done so as a consequence of benefit sanctions and/or delays.

    It's also quite customary for a lot of food-banks to require people to display their bank statements before they are given food. I think it is a quite a bit of an invasion of privacy and quite unnecessary since people have to be referred to food banks by agencies and can't just turn up.

    The issue with most of people visiting food-banks is not that they have a problem with their lifestyle and are living above their means, benefit changes at the hands of the government are to blame.

    (Original post by smudge_moon)
    I can see where she's coming from however there is true poverty. There is people who don't have a home and therefore can't get access to benefits (I think,someone prove me wrong if so but don't you need a fixed address, so you can't be in a homeless shelter, living in a cheap hotel). There should be a system in place, so people can't just turn up and get the food.

    Ideally someone should sit down with them, and the person who wants the food and help, should produce a record of their income and outgoings. If they get paid £28 a week and spend £20 on tobacco products and alcohol, then that should be looked at and suggested they cut that out or cut down on it, there are free services to help those who have dependency on such things, so they have no excuse unless they can't be bothered to try, I know people who have cut smoking from 50 a day to nothing, just by going cold, they've been 4 years clean so far now. The person should then be given a bag of food to cover a week, just to tide them over whilst they try to sort themselves out.

    People need to learn to control their finance, they know how much is going in, so they can't act surprised when they spend it all on 'luxuries' and then complain they can't afford food for their family. People need to learn you can't just waste your benefits and then expect everyone else to dig you out of that hole.

    People who genuinely need it are now given a dim view and they have less resources due to people abusing them.
    You are correct about homeless people. They have no access to benefits because they have no fixed address.

    I agree that people using food-banks should be offered help. Somebody scrutinising their out-goings is a possibility, but again I'd point to the fact that the majority of those using food-banks to do because of benefit changes or delays.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    That 500,000 is usually inflated. Surprisingly most food banks do not check who is using them in many cases literally anyone can use them. Also many banks don't both checking if the same person/family visit multiple times. Students for example often make a large percentage of such people. Seeing the student loan students get it's obvious they have misspent their money.

    Also all those people with £0.00 in their account usually get there though mismanagement in the first place.

    I used to work for a banks complaint department. While I do not agree with bank policies, we used to get about half our calls with people claiming poverty and claiming it was the banks fault. When a process was set up to address this we had to look at customers accounts to see what we could do to help. If we hadn't caused it through error we where only allowed to refund in a last case scenario as it's classed as defaulting on a debt. Usually we found in 80-90% of scenarios customers could cut back on many things.

    You'd be surprised how many people in those £0.00 scenarios or worse still brought maccies, porn, video game subscriptions, expensive clothing, frequent nights out etc. Such people are not just those who have little to no pay, it's also those who get quite good pay but spend it in a week or two.
    Wrong - most foodbaks DO keep track of who uses them and some even expect people to provide a bank statement.

    I think you would surprised how FEW do that.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Ms Currie comes from the Jewish Community. they are brought up to exercise financial prudence. in the rare case where a member of their community falls into difficulty the others rally round to help. there are very few feckless members of the Jewish Community.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    I can't comment on her remarks, but I've yet to see any major use in food banks in many places.

    The main people who need them are homeless people.

    However with our benefit state there's no reason to be unable to afford food.

    I remember when labour was pushing the whole food bank thing (blaming conservatives), every mother they showed (strange how no men where featured) had a wide screen TV.

    People went all out defending them saying things like, "they shouldn't have to see their belongings" and the like. Well no, when times got hard for me and my ex we sold our TV and we downsized. From what I've seen most (not all) the people who complain refuse to change their lifestyle.

    I spend £10-15 a week on food, there's no real excuse if your savvy enough (unless your homeless).
    I also spend 10-15 a week on food (for two) but I sure as hell could not feed a family on that.

    Wide screen TVs are relatively cheap, and can be bought on credit. If you have bought it on credit you can't just sell it, and those things don't sell as easily as youd think. Took us 6 months to sell our last TV.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    While I do believe that food poverty does exist to an extent in the UK. I do agree with the fact that if people managed their finances better, a lot less people would be using food banks.

    Out of everyone who uses them, I wonder how many drink or smoke?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    Charities should NOT be stepping in to help combat food-poverty in the 6th largest economy in the world. How does the proliferation of food-banks no concern you? Are you honestly not concerned that the Red Cross is now providing food aid for the first time since WWII? Food-banks are NOT part of the welfare state - Trussel Trust food-banks receive no funding from the government. Who are the 'feckless' you're talking about? You're worse than Edwina Currie - no compassion whatsoever, you should be ashamed.
    This is just emotive rubbish. You could give everyone in England a million pounds and some would find a way to starve. Then people like you would blame "society" or the State for not doing enough to help.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    That 500,000 is usually inflated. Surprisingly most food banks do not check who is using them in many cases literally anyone can use them. Also many banks don't both checking if the same person/family visit multiple times. Students for example often make a large percentage of such people. Seeing the student loan students get it's obvious they have misspent their money.
    The 500,000 figures is inflated? Do you have any sources to support that accusation?

    The 500,000 figure is most definitely NOT inflated. If anything, the figure is under-inflated since it is only an estimate from the Trussel Trust.

    http://www.trusselltrust.org/resourc...s-for-help.pdf

    Most food-banks don't check someone who is using them? This is coming from the person who said that "I've yet to see any major use in food banks in many places" - what makes you think you're in a position to make such unsubstantiated claims? My mother volunteers in a food-bank once a week, and I can assure you that every form has to be checked. Nobody can just turn up an take food. That is a complete lie.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    Wrong - most foodbaks DO keep track of who uses them and some even expect people to provide a bank statement.

    I think you would surprised how FEW do that.
    Haha no respectable organisation would request a bank statement.... I have two accounts with the same bank, one completely empty. I have another with a separate bank... empty. The "vast" majority of people have such proxy account that they no longer use.

    It's such an easy system to get around, and trust me student and other people are rather thrifty.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    Ms Currie comes from the Jewish Community. they are brought up to exercise financial prudence. in the rare case where a member of their community falls into difficulty the others rally round to help. there are very few feckless members of the Jewish Community.
    Lol bit of stereotyping there but ignoring the Jewish connotations I think the point is that a food bank is a quick and dirty fix and not a long term solution. The people should be educated. Taught to manage, save, be thrifty, get their priorities in order and get advice. Smoking for one is not a necessity, it is a luxury. You do not need it to survive. Given the choice of food or **** if you choose **** quite frankly you're an idiot. Yes cold turkey will be hard but think of long term benefits and the money you will save (not to mention health benefits in quitting). I'm not against smoking, it is someone's right to smoke but if you can't afford to then don't as food is more vital. End of.
    People should be thinking long term and not always focussing on the short term as it will perpetuate the cycle. Yes short term is stressful and difficult but unless you learn to manage your future then you run the risk of being trapped in that horrible cycle.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 16, 2014
Poll
If a uni gives me an unconditional offer they....
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.