Food banks - what is the real story

[NicD]

Does anyone know Foodbank customers, or volunteer in them?

What are their stories? Are the customers truly in need or using them as a soft touch?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/1...

[NicD]

And of course, the clergy jump in, clueless but ever helpful.

The Mirror rag of course has lots of arm twisting but this is their weird headline example:

'NHS PA Hannah Chadwick, 31, and her engineer husband Dean, 27, ran out of money to feed themselves and their 16-month-old son Hunter after their car needed £700 of repairs
So two people in work just a bit short one week

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-food-bank-...

Because of the propaganda nature and international slur on the country, we the people should demand full disclosure of the actual lifestyles of all recipients, to be tabulated and available for inspection. f there is a real problem, we should know, and if its bad management/scam, this should be outed.

This is what the left is trumpeting:
By conservative estimates, 350,000 people are going hungry in Britain today. That's 350,000 men, women and children who a GP, health visitor, teacher or other professional thought were hungry enough to need a food bank.

That is the same number currently facing famine in Mozambique. The sad truth is that you no longer have to leave the country to visit a food crisis.

Experts recently warned that the 74% rise in malnutrition cases in the UK "has all the signs of a public health emergency".

Ripped apart by Iain Duncan Smith's ideology-driven reforms, the welfare state is no longer fit for purpose.

Over 80% of Trussell Trust food banks blame "increasingly harsh benefit sanctions" and 50% of referrals are a result of "benefit delays or changes".


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/send-david-ca...

[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

[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.

[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.

[NicD]

The Mail is on the case, certainly some abuse, just a question of how much

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608606/No...

[NicD]

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.


The Guardian writes:
'Before the article, there had been about 250 public donations since the Trussell Trust launched its JustGiving page in late January. That jumped to more than 3,300, worth more than £36,000. Several donors cited the article as the reason for contributing.

"The Mail on Sunday story appalled me. This is the least I can do to apologise for their crime," said Anonymous after donating £10.

Another, Spitting Feathers, said: "I am incensed by the disgraceful article. Call this journalism? I don't. I'm not a Christian and admire the work being done by human beings for their fellow human beings. Thank you."'

[NicD]

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?

"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)

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?

[NicD]

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.

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.'

[NicD]

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.'