Food banks - what is the real story

[Mobile Chicane]

Westy Pre-Lit said:

Went to Asda today and there was people collecting for a foodbank. Saw a few people walk out placing cans etc in a smallish basket they had so doing their good deed for the day.

My first thought that out at the back of the store was probably a couple of skips brimming with stuff....funny old world we live in.

My local Asda (Burgh Heath) will put a 'Whoops!' sticker on anything which isn't crawling off. I'd rather take my chances with the bins.

[smegmore]

Let's hope that none of yooz upper class fkers choke on your asparagus tips whilst you're pontificating about the individuals in this fair land who have nothing to eat (and they do exist) but are too proud to ask for state help.

You are all only 2 weeks away from anarchy (your Range Rovers and Audis will be worth fk all) should the balloon go up, don't forget that. the ones who had nothing to start with are the most likely to survive...

[pcvdriver]

Truckosaurus said:

They collect for the local foodbank in our office and send out a newsletter every now and again.

They claim most of the recipients around here are people caught in the timeframe between losing their jobs and benefit payments starting or have got a new job and waiting for their first paycheque to arrive.

I suspect also that a lot of the most needy in society don't claim everything they are entitled to, either through pride or ignorance, whereas the professional scroungers claim every penny going.

It would probably be for the Greater Good if a quantity of a lot of people's benefits were paid out in Food Tokens so could only be spent on decent food rather than cigs, booze, Sky tv. But that is considered demeaning by the same people bemoaning the existence of Food Banks.

Here's an interesting statistic - the amount of incorrectly claimed benefits is equal to the amount that goes unclaimed. Furthermore, it costs the same in investigation costs too.
If people were properly and correctly informed what their legal entitlement was - incorrect claims and the necessary investigation costs could be slashed.
It's just madness that the same amount going unclaimed is the same amount as incorrectly/fraudulently claimed.

[McWigglebum4th]

smegmore said:

Let's hope that none of yooz upper class fkers choke on your asparagus tips whilst you're pontificating about the individuals in this fair land who have nothing to eat (and they do exist) but are too proud to ask for state help.

You are all only 2 weeks away from anarchy (your Range Rovers and Audis will be worth fk all) should the balloon go up, don't forget that. the ones who had nothing to start with are the most likely to survive...

So what is the answer?

Should we greatly increase benefits?

As that is the default answer from the left throw money at the problem

This appears not to be working

[turbobloke]

McWigglebum4th said:

smegmore said:

Let's hope that none of yooz upper class fkers choke on your asparagus tips whilst you're pontificating about the individuals in this fair land who have nothing to eat (and they do exist) but are too proud to ask for state help.

You are all only 2 weeks away from anarchy (your Range Rovers and Audis will be worth fk all) should the balloon go up, don't forget that. the ones who had nothing to start with are the most likely to survive...

So what is the answer?

Should we greatly increase benefits?

As that is the default answer from the left throw money at the problem

This appears not to be working

You just replied to a post suggesting the possibility that in 2 weeks a couple of spindly chavs will survive armageddon and inherit the earth in nicked Audis. Fair play to you sir.

[dfen5]

Mobile Chicane said:

ambuletz said:

dfen5 said:

Pothole said:

dfen5 said:

Let them give out vegetables and fruit

How, exactly?

In a brown paper bag, rather than a tin?

Fresh fruit and veg is more expensive. If you only have 30p to live off of for the next 24hours, would you spend it on an apple that's maybe 50calories. or a supermarket brand of biscuits that's 1400?

Exactly this.

The truly impoverished don't buy take-aways at £10 a go. Or anything remotely 'healthy'.

They buy value teabags and biscuits, and have rotten teeth as a result.

I've seen it, many times. Mostly old people, who no doubt are far too proud to visit a food bank, or are either ignorant of its existence.

What? The food they get from the food banks is free - it doesn't cost them a penny. What they buy with their own money is one thing - what they're picking up for nothing, donated by the public is another.

Is the point of a food bank to provide sustenance for the 'truly impoverished'? Then the best way with the economies of scale, would be for the public to donate money and for the food banks to provide a hot meal. Like a soup kitchen. Oh..

And isn't a bank somewhere where you put something in and get something out? Why not give the food out to people who've donated their time (as they're presumably jobless) to doing something for local community rather than just giving it away?

Something for nothing. Short-sighted perpetuation of a world gone mad.

[NicD]

pcvdriver said:

Here's an interesting statistic - the amount of incorrectly claimed benefits is equal to the amount that goes unclaimed. Furthermore, it costs the same in investigation costs too.
If people were properly and correctly informed what their legal entitlement was - incorrect claims and the necessary investigation costs could be slashed.
It's just madness that the same amount going unclaimed is the same amount as incorrectly/fraudulently claimed.

where to start with the false logic.

1. How can it cost the same to investigate unclaimed benefits as falsely claimed? That is ludicrous. Why on earth would unclaimed benefits be investigated at all? Falsely claimed on the other hand should have every resource used, both as a deterrent and to provide solace to us high tax paying mugs. I was out of work for years after self employment and didn't claim anything, living off the money I had saved. Seems a foreign concept these days, saving for a rainy day instead of self satisfying.

2. Why would spending even more money on advertising etc slash the amount fraudulently claimed? Do you think it would stop the daily parade of cheats who claim they can't walk to the bathroom but are filmed playing football or walking the Great China Wall?

3. I would not stop individuals offering their charity but from the State, I would provide only the minimum and instead offer a chance for everyone to work hard and earn their place in society. It is human nature for many to take what is on offer, we have to encourage individual responsibility.

Nic

[markh1973]

dfen5 said:

And isn't a bank somewhere where you put something in and get something out? Why not give the food out to people who've donated their time (as they're presumably jobless) to doing something for local community rather than just giving it away?

Something for nothing. Short-sighted perpetuation of a world gone mad.

A dictionary is a book that you can look up words in to discover their meaning - in your case you could have looked up bank. If you think people should do something in exchange for the food then just say so don't try and be clever first.

I'm sure some food bank recipients will be deserving - some may not be but does the good the food banks do outweigh the negatives?

[Hoofy]

markh1973 said:

dfen5 said:

And isn't a bank somewhere where you put something in and get something out? Why not give the food out to people who've donated their time (as they're presumably jobless) to doing something for local community rather than just giving it away?

Something for nothing. Short-sighted perpetuation of a world gone mad.

A dictionary is a book that you can look up words in to discover their meaning - in your case you could have looked up bank. If you think people should do something in exchange for the food then just say so don't try and be clever first.

bank
baŋk
noun
noun: bank; plural noun: banks
1.
a financial establishment that uses money deposited by customers for investment, pays it out when required, makes loans at interest, and exchanges currency.
"a bank account"

He's right, you know.

[smegmore]

turbobloke said:

You just replied to a post suggesting the possibility that in 2 weeks a couple of spindly chavs will survive armageddon and inherit the earth in nicked Audis. Fair play to you sir.

My post was rather tongue-in-cheek though

[Jasandjules]

There are some who have very little and due to ill health will be unable to have much more.

When the DSS change their benefit and/or remove some benefits, they suddenly have a lot less money (in some cases No money at all whilst some other form of benefit is engaged) and they have little choice.

Be grateful you are not amongst them.

[turbobloke]

Jasandjules said:

There are some who have very little and due to ill health will be unable to have much more.

When the DSS change their benefit and/or remove some benefits, they suddenly have a lot less money (in some cases No money at all whilst some other form of benefit is engaged) and they have little choice.

Be grateful you are not amongst them.

Sure thing, most sensible folk operate in that way.

Based on previous posts - not you, and not me either - I'm also grateful I don't have an Audi or a Rangie, in a couple of weeks they'd be gonners apparently.

[petemurphy]

they should get tv cameras to follow the people who go there to see where/how they live. all for delivering free food to old people who are struggling but if you're young enough go get a job and sterilised.

[petemurphy]

smegmore said:

Let's hope that none of yooz upper class fkers choke on your asparagus tips whilst you're pontificating about the individuals in this fair land who have nothing to eat (and they do exist) but are too proud to ask for state help.

You are all only 2 weeks away from anarchy (your Range Rovers and Audis will be worth fk all) should the balloon go up, don't forget that. the ones who had nothing to start with are the most likely to survive...

oooh good point forgot its asparagus season in a few weeks! yum!

[Rich G]

Blue Cat said:

But these days people don't have a buffer.

And surely that is part of the problem. Many probably could have a buffer but they'd rather spend the money on the latest iGadget, wall-sized TV, or leasing a couple of new cars so as to get one-up on the Jones' next door.

As always it comes down to personal priorities. A shiny new Audi, or something put away in case the next time the doorbell rings it's Mr Wolf?

[Blue Cat]

Rich G said:

Blue Cat said:

But these days people don't have a buffer.

And surely that is part of the problem. Many probably could have a buffer but they'd rather spend the money on the latest iGadget, wall-sized TV, or leasing a couple of new cars so as to get one-up on the Jones' next door.

As always it comes down to personal priorities. A shiny new Audi, or something put away in case the next time the doorbell rings it's Mr Wolf?

And to me, it appears that people will always try to find ways of blaming the suffering rather than actually do anything to help. What size of buffer should people have - two months, six months, a year - a lot of people believe that the state will help them based on what we all read in the papers and it doesn't.

Perhaps if people didn't mock the poor in the way this forum does on occasion we would see more ordinary stories about ir, funny people on here are so open about their relationship failures but how many posts do you see about I have lost my business or I don't know how I can pay my bills - very few. it's almost like it is shameful thing to admit and ask for help.

There are good decent people suffering and most people will never see or hear about them which keeps up the myth that it is the undeserving, the fat, the stupid, that can't afford food and shelter.

[NicD]

Blue Cat said:

Rich G said:

Blue Cat said:

But these days people don't have a buffer.

And surely that is part of the problem. Many probably could have a buffer but they'd rather spend the money on the latest iGadget, wall-sized TV, or leasing a couple of new cars so as to get one-up on the Jones' next door.

As always it comes down to personal priorities. A shiny new Audi, or something put away in case the next time the doorbell rings it's Mr Wolf?

And to me, it appears that people will always try to find ways of blaming the suffering rather than actually do anything to help. What size of buffer should people have - two months, six months, a year - a lot of people believe that the state will help them based on what we all read in the papers and it doesn't.

Perhaps if people didn't mock the poor in the way this forum does on occasion we would see more ordinary stories about ir, funny people on here are so open about their relationship failures but how many posts do you see about I have lost my business or I don't know how I can pay my bills - very few. it's almost like it is shameful thing to admit and ask for help.

There are good decent people suffering and most people will never see or hear about them which keeps up the myth that it is the undeserving, the fat, the stupid, that can't afford food and shelter.

so to quote you , if say 100 of 'the undeserving, the fat, the stupid, that can't afford food and shelter' are balanced by 10 or 100 or even 1000 good upstanding citizens that deservedly need help, that somehow excuses the former?
Or I forget, they are a 'myth'
Just asking.

I might well need help one day soon and I hope it is there for me, and hasn't been made so hard by the self entitled cheats who wasted their precious help and demanded ever more. Not excusing the greedy, amoral fkers who caused much of the misery, of course.

[Tannedbaldhead]

Rich G said:

Blue Cat said:

But these days people don't have a buffer.

And surely that is part of the problem. Many probably could have a buffer but they'd rather spend the money on the latest iGadget, wall-sized TV, or leasing a couple of new cars so as to get one-up on the Jones' next door.

As always it comes down to personal priorities. A shiny new Audi, or something put away in case the next time the doorbell rings it's Mr Wolf?

A friend of mine works in payrole for an Aberdeen based engineering contractor. They pay weekly rather than monthly. They struggle to get the wages processed and perdiocally miss a payment (nothing too disastrous two or three days late). When this happens compensation payments are made to anyone who incurrs expenses (bounced DDs, unauthorised overdraughts ect).
You'd think guys on £50-£60k per year would have no problems with a weekly wage being a couple of days late. Think again, compensation payments are a lot more common than you'd think. Big mortgages (houses in Aberdeen aren't cheap) and big car payments (nor are the PCP payments on a specced up Evoque)are the killers.

[Jasandjules]

Tannedbaldhead said:

You'd think guys on £50-£60k per year would have no problems with a weekly wage being a couple of days late.

No, most people spend more as soon as they start earning more, living a constant "end of month skint" type of thing. And payrises/bonuses are spent before they are incurred....

[pcvdriver]

NicD said:

where to start with the false logic.

1. How can it cost the same to investigate unclaimed benefits as falsely claimed? That is ludicrous. Why on earth would unclaimed benefits be investigated at all? Falsely claimed on the other hand should have every resource used, both as a deterrent and to provide solace to us high tax paying mugs. I was out of work for years after self employment and didn't claim anything, living off the money I had saved. Seems a foreign concept these days, saving for a rainy day instead of self satisfying.

2. Why would spending even more money on advertising etc slash the amount fraudulently claimed? Do you think it would stop the daily parade of cheats who claim they can't walk to the bathroom but are filmed playing football or walking the Great China Wall?

3. I would not stop individuals offering their charity but from the State, I would provide only the minimum and instead offer a chance for everyone to work hard and earn their place in society. It is human nature for many to take what is on offer, we have to encourage individual responsibility.

Nic

1. I didn't say that it costs the same - I said the amount that goes unclaimed is the same as the amount we (all) pay for investigation costs - There is a great deal of difference between the two statements. Studies in The Netherlands have shown that being open, transparent and helpful to claimants (negating the need/desire of the claimants to put one over the system) effectively reduced their welfare bill.

2. In any system, there will always be cheats - however this can be minimised by advising people of what is actually legal to claim. It can further be minimised by having clear, simple application procedures.

3. You are entitled to your own opinions regarding what you'd do if you were in charge, but if it was the PH way - then many of our unemployed would be chucked into workhouses like in Dickensian Times. Personally, I think we're a bit more civilised than that.