Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  10271433_10152069675081305_3332509987205222208_o.jpg
Views: 1611
Size:  186.7 KB

    Eye-opening front-page for The Mirror today. I couldn't agree more - it truly is sickening. Thoughts?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    Name:  10271433_10152069675081305_3332509987205222208_o.jpg
Views: 1611
Size:  186.7 KB

    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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The photo they use on the front page is fake http://barker.co.uk/fakephotos
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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/p...nks-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).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I suppose I'm the only one who thought this was about condoms.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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: April 20, 2014
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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