Food banks - what is the real story
Discussion
NicD said:
santona1937 said:
I just do not understand the anger towards food banks. Obviously in an ideal world there would not be a need for them, but they do exist. As I understand it all the Food banks are run by charities, with no public money involved, so it is up to them what policies they have, and to whom they give food. There can be no "abuse" because the food is given to whoever wants it. In a truly Christian way they have placed no moral judgement on who is asking for food or why.
If one wishes to argue that food is being taken by those who are not as deserving, and therefore not available to those who do deserve, then one needs to put ones' dosh where ones' mouth is and support public funding of food banks.
I don't see any anger towards food banks, more power to them. I have said as much earlier.If one wishes to argue that food is being taken by those who are not as deserving, and therefore not available to those who do deserve, then one needs to put ones' dosh where ones' mouth is and support public funding of food banks.
I see disgust at the political posturing based on so called statistics
Charity Commission said:
charities must never be politically biased
NicD said:
'The Trussell figures showed 913,138 people – including 330,205 children – were the beneficiaries of its food parcels in 2013-14, up from 346,992 in 2012-13. The main reason people came to the food banks for help was as a result of people being left impoverished by welfare changes, cuts and delays, it said.'
Bang on. It will or has become a self-perpetuating industry in itself (with their b*sh8t generating Marketing executives). The food-less have become a new protected group - at some point in the future we will have a Dianne Abbott for the food-less spouting b
ks on This Week."The main reason people came to the food banks for help was as a result of people being left impoverished by welfare changes, cuts and delays, it (Trussell) said"
That's a viewpoint that others will hold but as it stands it's dangerously close to political activism. Without any lack of compassion, the simple fact is that people do make bad life decisions and this will result from time to time in a visit to a food bank, also the 'cuts' are well-intended (whether believed or disbelieved) in terms of getting the economy and the country back on its feet and able to pay its way. Under those conditions with sustained economic growth and continued falls in unemployment, visits to food banks will decline.
The limited context set out by Trussell as quoted in the media places the charity up against Charity Commission requirements.
That's a viewpoint that others will hold but as it stands it's dangerously close to political activism. Without any lack of compassion, the simple fact is that people do make bad life decisions and this will result from time to time in a visit to a food bank, also the 'cuts' are well-intended (whether believed or disbelieved) in terms of getting the economy and the country back on its feet and able to pay its way. Under those conditions with sustained economic growth and continued falls in unemployment, visits to food banks will decline.
The limited context set out by Trussell as quoted in the media places the charity up against Charity Commission requirements.
To counter some of the rubbish posted in this thread, I will regale you with this tail:
A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.
He was invited to an interview with an advisor at his local Jobecentre, which he attended, on time. He was mistakenly accused of failing to attend and the DWP wrote to him a fortnight later and he promptly replied explaining that this was not so.
The letter was sent using second class post and included a prepaid second class return envelope. Because second class post was used, it was not possible to return the letter before the deadline date, even when completing it and posting the reply off on the day on which it was received.
Two weeks later he received a letter telling him that his benefit had been stopped for four weeks for failing to attend an interview without good reason. The appeal process includes a new pointless level which appears only to be there to dissuade and obstruct those who wish to challenge the DWP's decision and a hardship payment of £39 per week can be claimed after the first two week period where absolutely nothing can be claimed.
My friend was referred to a food bank in South West Sheffield, hosted by a Methodist chapel. He received two large carrier bags full of dry food each week, for two weeks and without their generous help he would have gone without.
After two weeks he received a decision letter accepting that he had not failed to attend the meeting and reversing the sanction. It transpired that this is a common occurrence, with people's benefit being cut if the reply isn't received before the due date, even though it is known that this will not actually be possible.
A somewhat different case than those suggested by the Daily Mail readers here.
A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.
He was invited to an interview with an advisor at his local Jobecentre, which he attended, on time. He was mistakenly accused of failing to attend and the DWP wrote to him a fortnight later and he promptly replied explaining that this was not so.
The letter was sent using second class post and included a prepaid second class return envelope. Because second class post was used, it was not possible to return the letter before the deadline date, even when completing it and posting the reply off on the day on which it was received.
Two weeks later he received a letter telling him that his benefit had been stopped for four weeks for failing to attend an interview without good reason. The appeal process includes a new pointless level which appears only to be there to dissuade and obstruct those who wish to challenge the DWP's decision and a hardship payment of £39 per week can be claimed after the first two week period where absolutely nothing can be claimed.
My friend was referred to a food bank in South West Sheffield, hosted by a Methodist chapel. He received two large carrier bags full of dry food each week, for two weeks and without their generous help he would have gone without.
After two weeks he received a decision letter accepting that he had not failed to attend the meeting and reversing the sanction. It transpired that this is a common occurrence, with people's benefit being cut if the reply isn't received before the due date, even though it is known that this will not actually be possible.
A somewhat different case than those suggested by the Daily Mail readers here.
Should those who feed the poor not get involved in politics then?
Of course they will skew the figures, there is not any interest group that does not.
If the folks who donate to them do not like the charities in question being political then surely they will just stop making donations and the charity goes under. Seems a truly Capitalist way of doing things.
But it would appear that those who donated actually agreed with what the food bank in question was doing ,and in response to an article in the DM increased their donations to show support. Democracy in action no?
What is wrong with an activist church?
And if they break their own rules, why do folks who do not donate think this is worthy of their ire?
Of course they will skew the figures, there is not any interest group that does not.
If the folks who donate to them do not like the charities in question being political then surely they will just stop making donations and the charity goes under. Seems a truly Capitalist way of doing things.
But it would appear that those who donated actually agreed with what the food bank in question was doing ,and in response to an article in the DM increased their donations to show support. Democracy in action no?
What is wrong with an activist church?
And if they break their own rules, why do folks who do not donate think this is worthy of their ire?
santona1937 said:
Should those who feed the poor not get involved in politics then?
Taking that question to be going on with, the position AIUI is that operating as a charity involves abiding by the rules including those set out by the Charity Commission. These rules do not allow political bias, so if 'getting involved' amounts to bias, the point remains that this would be contrary to the conditions around charitable status. turbobloke said:
santona1937 said:
Should those who feed the poor not get involved in politics then?
Taking that question to be going on with, the position AIUI is that operating as a charity involves abiding by the rules including those set out by the Charity Commission. These rules do not allow political bias, so if 'getting involved' amounts to bias, the point remains that this would be contrary to the conditions around charitable status. any political activity that a charity undertakes must be subsidiary to and in furtherance of a primary charitable purpose.
Says nowt about bias.
Source
_http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol11iss1/special_3.htm
santona1937 said:
turbobloke said:
santona1937 said:
Should those who feed the poor not get involved in politics then?
Taking that question to be going on with, the position AIUI is that operating as a charity involves abiding by the rules including those set out by the Charity Commission. These rules do not allow political bias, so if 'getting involved' amounts to bias, the point remains that this would be contrary to the conditions around charitable status. What I said was, charities are not allowed to be politically biased.
Source: The Charity Commission.
https://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/running-a-cha...
Says bias is not allowed. It will require great care, skill and judgement for a charity to be politically active but not drift into bias. This instance appears to require more care and better judgement. There are other causes than stated for an increase in visits to a food bank, and the causes claimed can in the longer-term reduce the number of visits.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 23 April 15:37
GC8 said:
To counter some of the rubbish posted in this thread, I will regale you with this tail:
A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.
He was invited to an interview with an advisor at his local Jobecentre, which he attended, on time. He was mistakenly accused of failing to attend and the DWP wrote to him a fortnight later and he promptly replied explaining that this was not so.
The letter was sent using second class post and included a prepaid second class return envelope. Because second class post was used, it was not possible to return the letter before the deadline date, even when completing it and posting the reply off on the day on which it was received.
Two weeks later he received a letter telling him that his benefit had been stopped for four weeks for failing to attend an interview without good reason. The appeal process includes a new pointless level which appears only to be there to dissuade and obstruct those who wish to challenge the DWP's decision and a hardship payment of £39 per week can be claimed after the first two week period where absolutely nothing can be claimed.
My friend was referred to a food bank in South West Sheffield, hosted by a Methodist chapel. He received two large carrier bags full of dry food each week, for two weeks and without their generous help he would have gone without.
After two weeks he received a decision letter accepting that he had not failed to attend the meeting and reversing the sanction. It transpired that this is a common occurrence, with people's benefit being cut if the reply isn't received before the due date, even though it is known that this will not actually be possible.
A somewhat different case than those suggested by the Daily Mail readers here.
I am sure your friend was grateful for their support and I am glad it was available to him.A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.
He was invited to an interview with an advisor at his local Jobecentre, which he attended, on time. He was mistakenly accused of failing to attend and the DWP wrote to him a fortnight later and he promptly replied explaining that this was not so.
The letter was sent using second class post and included a prepaid second class return envelope. Because second class post was used, it was not possible to return the letter before the deadline date, even when completing it and posting the reply off on the day on which it was received.
Two weeks later he received a letter telling him that his benefit had been stopped for four weeks for failing to attend an interview without good reason. The appeal process includes a new pointless level which appears only to be there to dissuade and obstruct those who wish to challenge the DWP's decision and a hardship payment of £39 per week can be claimed after the first two week period where absolutely nothing can be claimed.
My friend was referred to a food bank in South West Sheffield, hosted by a Methodist chapel. He received two large carrier bags full of dry food each week, for two weeks and without their generous help he would have gone without.
After two weeks he received a decision letter accepting that he had not failed to attend the meeting and reversing the sanction. It transpired that this is a common occurrence, with people's benefit being cut if the reply isn't received before the due date, even though it is known that this will not actually be possible.
A somewhat different case than those suggested by the Daily Mail readers here.
an arm of the company I work for, distribes food parcels.
the feedback from the staff is generally the recipients don't need them IF: they were not:
prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics, heavy smokers, in debt, sky tv packages, completely mental and should be in some form of home......... i.e money going everywhere it shouldn't but on food.
and yes it probably should be available, so the children get fed.
the problem is, you can't stop stupid people having children they cannot afford.
the feedback from the staff is generally the recipients don't need them IF: they were not:
prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics, heavy smokers, in debt, sky tv packages, completely mental and should be in some form of home......... i.e money going everywhere it shouldn't but on food.
and yes it probably should be available, so the children get fed.
the problem is, you can't stop stupid people having children they cannot afford.
GC8 said:
To counter some of the rubbish posted in this thread, I will regale you with this tail:
A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.
He was invited to an interview with an advisor at his local Jobecentre, which he attended, on time. He was mistakenly accused of failing to attend and the DWP wrote to him a fortnight later and he promptly replied explaining that this was not so.
The letter was sent using second class post and included a prepaid second class return envelope. Because second class post was used, it was not possible to return the letter before the deadline date, even when completing it and posting the reply off on the day on which it was received.
Two weeks later he received a letter telling him that his benefit had been stopped for four weeks for failing to attend an interview without good reason. The appeal process includes a new pointless level which appears only to be there to dissuade and obstruct those who wish to challenge the DWP's decision and a hardship payment of £39 per week can be claimed after the first two week period where absolutely nothing can be claimed.
My friend was referred to a food bank in South West Sheffield, hosted by a Methodist chapel. He received two large carrier bags full of dry food each week, for two weeks and without their generous help he would have gone without.
After two weeks he received a decision letter accepting that he had not failed to attend the meeting and reversing the sanction. It transpired that this is a common occurrence, with people's benefit being cut if the reply isn't received before the due date, even though it is known that this will not actually be possible.
A fine display of good old fashioned public sector customer service there A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.
He was invited to an interview with an advisor at his local Jobecentre, which he attended, on time. He was mistakenly accused of failing to attend and the DWP wrote to him a fortnight later and he promptly replied explaining that this was not so.
The letter was sent using second class post and included a prepaid second class return envelope. Because second class post was used, it was not possible to return the letter before the deadline date, even when completing it and posting the reply off on the day on which it was received.
Two weeks later he received a letter telling him that his benefit had been stopped for four weeks for failing to attend an interview without good reason. The appeal process includes a new pointless level which appears only to be there to dissuade and obstruct those who wish to challenge the DWP's decision and a hardship payment of £39 per week can be claimed after the first two week period where absolutely nothing can be claimed.
My friend was referred to a food bank in South West Sheffield, hosted by a Methodist chapel. He received two large carrier bags full of dry food each week, for two weeks and without their generous help he would have gone without.
After two weeks he received a decision letter accepting that he had not failed to attend the meeting and reversing the sanction. It transpired that this is a common occurrence, with people's benefit being cut if the reply isn't received before the due date, even though it is known that this will not actually be possible.
fido said:
Bang on. It will or has become a self-perpetuating industry in itself (with their b*sh8t generating Marketing executives). The food-less have become a new protected group - at some point in the future we will have a Dianne Abbott for the food-less spouting bks on This Week.
Strange how in our supposedly advanced society some people still care about othets going hungry, and want do do something about it. ks on This Week.
GC8 said:
To counter some of the rubbish posted in this thread, I will regale you with this tail:
A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.
He was invited to an interview with an advisor at his local Jobecentre, which he attended, on time. He was mistakenly accused of failing to attend and the DWP wrote to him a fortnight later and he promptly replied explaining that this was not so.
The letter was sent using second class post and included a prepaid second class return envelope. Because second class post was used, it was not possible to return the letter before the deadline date, even when completing it and posting the reply off on the day on which it was received.
Two weeks later he received a letter telling him that his benefit had been stopped for four weeks for failing to attend an interview without good reason. The appeal process includes a new pointless level which appears only to be there to dissuade and obstruct those who wish to challenge the DWP's decision and a hardship payment of £39 per week can be claimed after the first two week period where absolutely nothing can be claimed.
My friend was referred to a food bank in South West Sheffield, hosted by a Methodist chapel. He received two large carrier bags full of dry food each week, for two weeks and without their generous help he would have gone without.
After two weeks he received a decision letter accepting that he had not failed to attend the meeting and reversing the sanction. It transpired that this is a common occurrence, with people's benefit being cut if the reply isn't received before the due date, even though it is known that this will not actually be possible.
A somewhat different case than those suggested by the Daily Mail readers here.
so he had some savings, had had a job so i presume some possessions, and could not feed himself for 2 weeks??? really? what about friends and family? overdraft? you must have been a great friend...A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.
He was invited to an interview with an advisor at his local Jobecentre, which he attended, on time. He was mistakenly accused of failing to attend and the DWP wrote to him a fortnight later and he promptly replied explaining that this was not so.
The letter was sent using second class post and included a prepaid second class return envelope. Because second class post was used, it was not possible to return the letter before the deadline date, even when completing it and posting the reply off on the day on which it was received.
Two weeks later he received a letter telling him that his benefit had been stopped for four weeks for failing to attend an interview without good reason. The appeal process includes a new pointless level which appears only to be there to dissuade and obstruct those who wish to challenge the DWP's decision and a hardship payment of £39 per week can be claimed after the first two week period where absolutely nothing can be claimed.
My friend was referred to a food bank in South West Sheffield, hosted by a Methodist chapel. He received two large carrier bags full of dry food each week, for two weeks and without their generous help he would have gone without.
After two weeks he received a decision letter accepting that he had not failed to attend the meeting and reversing the sanction. It transpired that this is a common occurrence, with people's benefit being cut if the reply isn't received before the due date, even though it is known that this will not actually be possible.
A somewhat different case than those suggested by the Daily Mail readers here.
petemurphy said:
GC8 said:
To counter some of the rubbish posted in this thread, I will regale you with this tail:
A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.
He was invited to an interview with an advisor at his local Jobecentre, which he attended, on time. He was mistakenly accused of failing to attend and the DWP wrote to him a fortnight later and he promptly replied explaining that this was not so.
The letter was sent using second class post and included a prepaid second class return envelope. Because second class post was used, it was not possible to return the letter before the deadline date, even when completing it and posting the reply off on the day on which it was received.
Two weeks later he received a letter telling him that his benefit had been stopped for four weeks for failing to attend an interview without good reason. The appeal process includes a new pointless level which appears only to be there to dissuade and obstruct those who wish to challenge the DWP's decision and a hardship payment of £39 per week can be claimed after the first two week period where absolutely nothing can be claimed.
My friend was referred to a food bank in South West Sheffield, hosted by a Methodist chapel. He received two large carrier bags full of dry food each week, for two weeks and without their generous help he would have gone without.
After two weeks he received a decision letter accepting that he had not failed to attend the meeting and reversing the sanction. It transpired that this is a common occurrence, with people's benefit being cut if the reply isn't received before the due date, even though it is known that this will not actually be possible.
A somewhat different case than those suggested by the Daily Mail readers here.
so he had some savings, had had a job so i presume some possessions, and could not feed himself for 2 weeks??? really? what about friends and family? overdraft? you must have been a great friend...A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.
He was invited to an interview with an advisor at his local Jobecentre, which he attended, on time. He was mistakenly accused of failing to attend and the DWP wrote to him a fortnight later and he promptly replied explaining that this was not so.
The letter was sent using second class post and included a prepaid second class return envelope. Because second class post was used, it was not possible to return the letter before the deadline date, even when completing it and posting the reply off on the day on which it was received.
Two weeks later he received a letter telling him that his benefit had been stopped for four weeks for failing to attend an interview without good reason. The appeal process includes a new pointless level which appears only to be there to dissuade and obstruct those who wish to challenge the DWP's decision and a hardship payment of £39 per week can be claimed after the first two week period where absolutely nothing can be claimed.
My friend was referred to a food bank in South West Sheffield, hosted by a Methodist chapel. He received two large carrier bags full of dry food each week, for two weeks and without their generous help he would have gone without.
After two weeks he received a decision letter accepting that he had not failed to attend the meeting and reversing the sanction. It transpired that this is a common occurrence, with people's benefit being cut if the reply isn't received before the due date, even though it is known that this will not actually be possible.
A somewhat different case than those suggested by the Daily Mail readers here.
head.Well demonstrated.
Is this true? The majority reading this?
It is hard to know even your friends financial circumstances but hard to imagine the majority needing a food bank for one missed pay check. Some bills may well go unpaid, the current account may go overdrawn, but more?
Quote 'A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.'
It is hard to know even your friends financial circumstances but hard to imagine the majority needing a food bank for one missed pay check. Some bills may well go unpaid, the current account may go overdrawn, but more?
Quote 'A friend of mine was made redundant. He had some savings but like the majority reading this, he lived from one month's pay day to the next.'
Countdown said:
Strange how in our supposedly advanced society some people still care about othets going hungry, and want do do something about it.
Yes we're so 'advanced' that a friend has to go to a food bank because of a missed pay-cheque. That we need to 'depend' on a charity with quasi-political motives or at least by the statements they make which have a dig at the government, when any government in power would need to make cuts. That we cannot see the long term effects of inflationary over-borrowing because as a country we are living beyond our means by billions every year which will only make this inflation worse. But it's the big bad Tories fault. Welcome to Generation X-Factor.Just to add, I've given about £200 to friends/relatives in the last 2 months or so (they will pay me back if they can). That's my friends over from Australia. I also know they will pay me back, when they sort out their next contract. If they don't well doesn't matter.
Edited by fido on Wednesday 23 April 18:19
petemurphy said:
Care to actually reply rather than just insult?
It may be the case that this person only told his friends of his plight later on, once he'd got a job or somesuch, as he was ashamed at the time.For example, I lent someone £250 because of something I heard rather than anything being given away by them to me...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff