Food banks - what is the real story
Discussion
NicD said:
Yep, takes all sorts, but if my taxes aren't further taxed, i am all in favour.
In fact, there should be much less governmental contribution and more individual, after all, we can better exercise judgment.
Absolutely. Which is probably why the usual pompous waffler brigade are a bit confused In fact, there should be much less governmental contribution and more individual, after all, we can better exercise judgment.
Countdown said:
NicD said:
Yep, takes all sorts, but if my taxes aren't further taxed, i am all in favour.
In fact, there should be much less governmental contribution and more individual, after all, we can better exercise judgment.
Absolutely. Which is probably why the usual pompous waffler brigade are a bit confused...In fact, there should be much less governmental contribution and more individual, after all, we can better exercise judgment.
turbobloke said:
Food banks see a surge of (genuine) interest and help more people = a good thing.
The Daily Mail undercover operation exposes errors in the data and rhetoric of politically motivated charity officials = a good thing.
You happy clapping some gimps quoted in The Guardian who were appalled by an investigation which uncovered malpractice is typical, and in no way did the article disprove what was in the Mail so it's fingers folded-in time.
Biased hard-of-thinking types can clap on, there's a tambourine over there ----->
What can we expect in new week's Mail? The Daily Mail undercover operation exposes errors in the data and rhetoric of politically motivated charity officials = a good thing.
You happy clapping some gimps quoted in The Guardian who were appalled by an investigation which uncovered malpractice is typical, and in no way did the article disprove what was in the Mail so it's fingers folded-in time.
Biased hard-of-thinking types can clap on, there's a tambourine over there ----->
"Our reporter called 999 and complained of the symptoms of a heart attack. But he was actually reading the symptoms off the INTERNET and bungling NHS chiefs sent out an ambulance for his MADE-UP claims!"
(page 9: child dies as ambulance doesn't arrive soon enough)
Willie Dee said:
turbobloke said:
Food banks see a surge of (genuine) interest and help more people = a good thing.
The Daily Mail undercover operation exposes errors in the data and rhetoric of politically motivated charity officials = a good thing.
You happy clapping some gimps quoted in The Guardian who were appalled by an investigation which uncovered malpractice is typical, and in no way did the article disprove what was in the Mail so it's fingers folded-in time.
Biased hard-of-thinking types can clap on, there's a tambourine over there ----->
)The Daily Mail undercover operation exposes errors in the data and rhetoric of politically motivated charity officials = a good thing.
You happy clapping some gimps quoted in The Guardian who were appalled by an investigation which uncovered malpractice is typical, and in no way did the article disprove what was in the Mail so it's fingers folded-in time.
Biased hard-of-thinking types can clap on, there's a tambourine over there ----->
What can we expect in new week's Mail?
If it's something which contains errors of fact or isn't particularly helpful or informative then it deserves to be criticised.
Which has precisely nothing to do with the food bank investigation or the weak emotion-over-reason Guardian offer on the subject.
Next tine try something involving Samantha Brick, it's a wider and more open goal to kick at. Not that it'd have any connection with food banks but you don't seem to mind about such things.
Willie Dee said:
turbobloke said:
Food banks see a surge of (genuine) interest and help more people = a good thing.
The Daily Mail undercover operation exposes errors in the data and rhetoric of politically motivated charity officials = a good thing.
You happy clapping some gimps quoted in The Guardian who were appalled by an investigation which uncovered malpractice is typical, and in no way did the article disprove what was in the Mail so it's fingers folded-in time.
Biased hard-of-thinking types can clap on, there's a tambourine over there ----->
What can we expect in new week's Mail? The Daily Mail undercover operation exposes errors in the data and rhetoric of politically motivated charity officials = a good thing.
You happy clapping some gimps quoted in The Guardian who were appalled by an investigation which uncovered malpractice is typical, and in no way did the article disprove what was in the Mail so it's fingers folded-in time.
Biased hard-of-thinking types can clap on, there's a tambourine over there ----->
"Our reporter called 999 and complained of the symptoms of a heart attack. But he was actually reading the symptoms off the INTERNET and bungling NHS chiefs sent out an ambulance for his MADE-UP claims!"
(page 9: child dies as ambulance doesn't arrive soon enough)
The actual article is good investigative reporting debunking an important topic many trendy lefties have ramped to beat up the Government.
Your 'new week's mail' sic is the product of your febrile imagination
Surely the facts speak for themselves?
NicD said:
Why have you made up this rather poor comparison?
The actual article is good investigative reporting debunking an important topic many trendy lefties have ramped to beat up the Government.
Your 'new week's mail' sic is the product of your febrile imagination
Surely the facts speak for themselves?
Debunking it how? Where's the evidence that food banks are supplying a significant proportion of their stock to those who don't need it? In your febrile imagination, it seems.The actual article is good investigative reporting debunking an important topic many trendy lefties have ramped to beat up the Government.
Your 'new week's mail' sic is the product of your febrile imagination
Surely the facts speak for themselves?
The "story" is that a charity supplies based on trust and apparent need, rather than full-on diligence and background checks. Obviously that's unacceptable to any right thinking man in terms of plagiarism alone, lazily aping several vintage Biblical tales.
As that's apparently the particular spirit of life certain people here want to see dismantled, then may I use my trendy lefty credentials to wish that next time you're in need of anything and poised to receive some stranger's assistance, having broken down by the side of the road or left your wallet in some bar or whatever it is, you get the cautious and carefully audited lack of warmth you so richly deserve.
trashbat said:
NicD said:
Why have you made up this rather poor comparison?
The actual article is good investigative reporting debunking an important topic many trendy lefties have ramped to beat up the Government.
Your 'new week's mail' sic is the product of your febrile imagination
Surely the facts speak for themselves?
Debunking it how? Where's the evidence that food banks are supplying a significant proportion of their stock to those who don't need it? In your febrile imagination, it seems.The actual article is good investigative reporting debunking an important topic many trendy lefties have ramped to beat up the Government.
Your 'new week's mail' sic is the product of your febrile imagination
Surely the facts speak for themselves?
The "story" is that a charity supplies based on trust and apparent need, rather than full-on diligence and background checks. Obviously that's unacceptable to any right thinking man in terms of plagiarism alone, lazily aping several vintage Biblical tales.
As that's apparently the particular spirit of life certain people here want to see dismantled, then may I use my trendy lefty credentials to wish that next time you're in need of anything and poised to receive some stranger's assistance, having broken down by the side of the road or left your wallet in some bar or whatever it is, you get the cautious and carefully audited lack of warmth you so richly deserve.
Consider the genuinely deserving people unable to benefit from food bank supplies because some staff allow fraudulent draining of resources. Emote on that.
turbobloke said:
Personal angle, emotive content, same old credentials.
Consider the genuinely deserving people unable to benefit from food bank supplies because some staff allow fraudulent draining of resources. Emote on that.
Balanced against the fact that people in genuine need can turn up and get what they need, when they need it, and not be bounced away by bureaucracy. Consider the genuinely deserving people unable to benefit from food bank supplies because some staff allow fraudulent draining of resources. Emote on that.
It's security versus pragmatism. I'm OK with their choice of balance, and apparently so are many of the recent donors.
I don't know what's personal or emotive about the comment. You're apparently looking for a particular type of world, so I hope you get it, and others theirs
Willie Dee said:
What can we expect in new week's Mail?
"Our reporter called 999 and complained of the symptoms of a heart attack. But he was actually reading the symptoms off the INTERNET and bungling NHS chiefs sent out an ambulance for his MADE-UP claims!"
(page 9: child dies as ambulance doesn't arrive soon enough)
It might be"Our reporter called 999 and complained of the symptoms of a heart attack. But he was actually reading the symptoms off the INTERNET and bungling NHS chiefs sent out an ambulance for his MADE-UP claims!"
(page 9: child dies as ambulance doesn't arrive soon enough)
"Some organisations are trying to help people who are in need of assistance. They're doing this without Government help, without trying to make a profit, and relying on the generosity and compassion of individuals. To help keep costs to a minimum they're not asking for lengthy forms to be filled in or confirming proof of income. People are asking for help, and these organisations are genuinely trying to help. So whilst there are some petty (and really quite pathetic) individuals who will try to nitpick and find fault, we the Daily Mail would like to acknowledge the good work that these organisations are doing and commend them for it".
Well, you never know.....
And in next week's Daily Mail
Daily Mail said:
Mother Teresa used to eat bread and water whilst hundreds of orphans in India literally went hungry, and millions of catholics did absolutely nothing.
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.
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.
turbobloke said:
That's no way to talk about santona and rs and martin and the league and (etc). If you disagree with their pompous waffle it's worth setting out why, but there's no need to number the paragraphs as this is not CIF and other PHers know how to read from one block of twaddle to the next, nor link to emotionally charged but wholly irrelevant content as it only serves to divert people from the actual thread content. HTH.
I do object to the term pompous waffle... My view of what kind of world I wish to live in might be very different from yours, especially as I think there needs to be both a hard right and a hard left, and I might prefer to live in a country that more meets my political preferences, but it would appear that you wish a world in which every one is in agreement with your point of view, and in which emotion is removed from the political process. I would prefer the opposite. The problem with politics in the UK is that Farage aside there are no politicians who speak from the heart, who say what they feel, who are not always on message, and are not driven towards some centrist nirvana wherein lie all the votes. 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.
the anger/annoyance is those who claim its due to the torys slashing benefits and make out the benefit burden should not be tackled.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.
santona1937 said:
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.
So what you've implicitly said is that it's alright to waste government money because it's 'public money' .. very socialist indeed! 
Charity money might not be public in the sense of government money but it is donated by the public - who probably want it utilised in a suitable money. I can't see the 'anger' you are referring to - even the charity itself agrees that screening of applicants should be improved as a result of the DM's investigation. Usual lefty faux-anger over nothing - they love 'waste' when they don't have to pay for it.fido said:
santona1937 said:
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.
So what you've implicitly said is that it's alright to waste government money because it's 'public money' .. very socialist indeed! Charity money might not be public in the sense of government money but it is donated by the public - who probably want it utilised in a suitable money. I can't see the 'anger' you are referring to - even the charity itself agrees that screening of applicants should be improved as a result of the DM's investigation. Usual lefty faux-anger over nothing - they love 'waste' when they don't have to pay for it.Your leap of logic that waste in public money ( where the "donation" is forced ) equates to waste in what is a private enterprise supported by entirely voluntary donations is false. If you do not like the waste in a charity you are not required to donate money to it.
As to the whole I am angry at the Tories for causing food banks to exist by excising benefits is also false.
I am much more communist than I am Lefty/ socialist, and if you have read any of my posts on welfare you would know that I fully believe that nothing should be given to those who do not/ have not contribute(d).
In my world not only would food banks not be allowed, and be banned, no one of working age who was not physically unable to do any form of work would be entitled to any benefits whatsoever. And that would include child benefit, housing benefit, working tax credit etc etc.
Food banks as they exist have nothing to do with the public purse per se, how they operate is up to them and to those who donate money.
santona1937 said:
If the public are that upset by " waste" in the food banks, why did donations to the food bank see a surge after the DM article?
You speak of the public as though it includes everyone - and the silent majority who don't have symptoms of faux anger? Don't get me wrong, if someone donates more because Billy Bragg says something about the bad Tories then it's not necessarily a bad thing but one doesn't cancel out the other.
santona1937 said:
turbobloke said:
That's no way to talk about santona and rs and martin and the league and (etc). If you disagree with their pompous waffle it's worth setting out why, but there's no need to number the paragraphs as this is not CIF and other PHers know how to read from one block of twaddle to the next, nor link to emotionally charged but wholly irrelevant content as it only serves to divert people from the actual thread content. HTH.
I do object to the term pompous waffle... My view of what kind of world I wish to live in might be very different from yours, especially as I think there needs to be both a hard right and a hard left, and I might prefer to live in a country that more meets my political preferences, but it would appear that you wish a world in which every one is in agreement with your point of view...santona1937 said:
...and in which emotion is removed from the political process. I would prefer the opposite. The problem with politics in the UK is that Farage aside there are no politicians who speak from the heart, who say what they feel, who are not always on message, and are not driven towards some centrist nirvana wherein lie all the votes.
Emotion has its place but it's no substitute for reason and can impair sound, impartial and fair judgement.Totally agree about the point regarding UK politics and politicians not speaking from the heart with conviction. Except for Huhne who can speak from the heart about his conviction.
grumbledoak said:
The simple fact is that the food banks control their advertising budget, their rules, and their level of enforcement of their own rules. They can give away as much or as little food as they choose.
Sure, food banks control their budgets and rules and can give food away as they see fit. The point about the Mail undercover reporting was that the food banks weren't following their own rules in giving away the food.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
e.g. 'Religious leaders and faith groups have called on the government to take action to tackle a "national crisis" of rising hunger and food poverty, as latest figures suggest more than a million Britons have been helped by food banks in the past year.'
or
'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.'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff