Food banks - what is the real story
Discussion
gruffalo said:
you forgot the chicken and noodle soup having boiled the bones for a bit, yummy:-)
Well thought covered that with the bit about stock. But it's an option. Into lentil and bacon soup, or roast squash and butter bean soup. Last lot of stock went into the filling for my shin beef pies as didn't have any beef stock.
The basic point is that none of this is difficult, just needs a little application.
I've been watching a fair amount of politics on the telly over the past few weeks and have heard so much about the increasing need for food banks. I'm afraid I'm a bit cynical about them so thought I'd see what PH users think. I found this thread. A lot of people apparently agree with me.
Yes food banks are needed for some, however the reason their use is going up is that more people now know they exist.
Build it and they will come is mentioned in an early post!
I've not been to one but I really would feel better about this food bank craze if I knew that every user of foodbanks was vetted to see if they had a basic £10 payg nokia as his phone or whether he was actually paying £35 a month for a smart phone and that they headn't been to a fast food restaurant for at least one year.
Pretty much same applies with regard to poverty. Its not a new thing, it's been around for centuries. Its just that now too many people are classed as in poverty when they cant afford a Macdonalds once a week or go to Majorca for 10 days a year. Real poverty is when you cannot afford ANY clothes or use a laundrette.
Yes food banks are needed for some, however the reason their use is going up is that more people now know they exist.
Build it and they will come is mentioned in an early post!
I've not been to one but I really would feel better about this food bank craze if I knew that every user of foodbanks was vetted to see if they had a basic £10 payg nokia as his phone or whether he was actually paying £35 a month for a smart phone and that they headn't been to a fast food restaurant for at least one year.
Pretty much same applies with regard to poverty. Its not a new thing, it's been around for centuries. Its just that now too many people are classed as in poverty when they cant afford a Macdonalds once a week or go to Majorca for 10 days a year. Real poverty is when you cannot afford ANY clothes or use a laundrette.
You have said it yourself "i have not been to one"
Go and volunteer at one and report back.
I haven't been to one either but I know several very well paid people who have in my company who have and by all accounts the people that attend very much do need them. But then I haven't been to one either so I will avoid making comment until I have actually been to one and seen myself.
Let us know how you get on.
Go and volunteer at one and report back.
I haven't been to one either but I know several very well paid people who have in my company who have and by all accounts the people that attend very much do need them. But then I haven't been to one either so I will avoid making comment until I have actually been to one and seen myself.
Let us know how you get on.
finnie said:
the problem you and other people think is, people don't need them, but because there is free food people go.When i volunteered a lot were zero hour contract people, stuck in the abyss of state help, and work.
Again the experience i had were people who looked ashamed for a handout.
Edited by The Spruce goose on Sunday 3rd May 17:25
To be honest it's examples like that that make me feel better about them. I htink they are a brilliant thing for those that need them.
I just get annoyed when people blame a government for their existence, a lady on thursday said something like she is ashamed to hand a life to her kids where so many people need to use foodbanks. I think that is a great quote if the food banks are actually used only by those who really need them. If on the other hand there is a high percentage who use them simply because they are free, then the argument is hugely flawed.
Wish I was better at writing. Yes I should go and do some work there.
I just get annoyed when people blame a government for their existence, a lady on thursday said something like she is ashamed to hand a life to her kids where so many people need to use foodbanks. I think that is a great quote if the food banks are actually used only by those who really need them. If on the other hand there is a high percentage who use them simply because they are free, then the argument is hugely flawed.
Wish I was better at writing. Yes I should go and do some work there.
Interesting comments about Trussel trust, the largest supplier of food banks in the UK
http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2013/10/17/the-foodbank-...
I've been a food bank customer. Bank/benefits cockup, long time ago now.
You get no choice so people don't tend to see it as an alternative to shopping (and I saw one very very very upset mum who said her kids just wouldn't eat the stuff - rice, veg, tuna I think - that she'd been given, was totally distraught about it). A few people will have nicer phones etc because the contract you were stupid enough to sign up for 6 months ago doesn't care that you're gonna struggle to pay your rent tomorrow and people that end up needing regular support tend not to have the life skills to sort things out properly.
What I didn't see was anyone that objectively presented as not needing help. There's always lying s
tbags, everywhere in every scenario, but there don't seem to be loads of them.
Things have got a lot tougher for some people in the last few years.
Why can't the 'real story' be that, yes, some people really are just struggling that much and isn't it bloody fantastic that they are not going hungry?
You get no choice so people don't tend to see it as an alternative to shopping (and I saw one very very very upset mum who said her kids just wouldn't eat the stuff - rice, veg, tuna I think - that she'd been given, was totally distraught about it). A few people will have nicer phones etc because the contract you were stupid enough to sign up for 6 months ago doesn't care that you're gonna struggle to pay your rent tomorrow and people that end up needing regular support tend not to have the life skills to sort things out properly.
What I didn't see was anyone that objectively presented as not needing help. There's always lying s
tbags, everywhere in every scenario, but there don't seem to be loads of them. Things have got a lot tougher for some people in the last few years.
Why can't the 'real story' be that, yes, some people really are just struggling that much and isn't it bloody fantastic that they are not going hungry?
BlackVanDyke said:
Things have got a lot tougher for some people in the last few years.
Unfortunately, yes. In many cases due to the policies of the previous government which encouraged the state and individuals to spend beyond their means.BlackVanDyke said:
Why can't the 'real story' be that, yes, some people really are just struggling that much and isn't it bloody fantastic that they are not going hungry?
Because there's no political capital in that for the left...The Spruce goose said:
finnie said:
the problem you and other people think is, people don't need them, but because there is free food people go.When i volunteered a lot were zero hour contract people, stuck in the abyss of state help, and work.
Again the experience i had were people who looked ashamed for a handout.
Edited by The Spruce goose on Sunday 3rd May 17:25
I volunteer at an organisation that among other things, refers some people to food banks. That's sometimes people with no money, nothing. Which might be hard for some of you to believe, but is all too common.
You'd be surprised how many people decline an offer of foodbank help, even when they are really struggling. Sure there are some who see it as an easy touch, but very much in the minority in my experience, & people are limited in the number of referrals they get.
An interesting VICE documentary on a foodbank in Newcastle, and the people who use it: https://youtu.be/OIWARrp_A68
They do seem to be a last resort for some people who have been in financial decline for some time. There's one interview with a woman who's pride took a severe knock when finally admitting to herself that she needed to use one to feed her kids, and a depressing admission by her that on the face of things she looks to have an nice house, but open the console game boxes and you'll find they're empty - they're just there to make it look like she isn't as poor as she actually is.
They do seem to be a last resort for some people who have been in financial decline for some time. There's one interview with a woman who's pride took a severe knock when finally admitting to herself that she needed to use one to feed her kids, and a depressing admission by her that on the face of things she looks to have an nice house, but open the console game boxes and you'll find they're empty - they're just there to make it look like she isn't as poor as she actually is.
My mate used a food bank a couple of times, didn't have any food for him and his kid (wife died recently), and he was desperate.
However. He drinks too much and smokes too much and is useless with money. I've lent him money in the past knowing I'll not get it back.
If the food bank wasn't there he wouldn't die. Just be forced to sort his finances out.
However. He drinks too much and smokes too much and is useless with money. I've lent him money in the past knowing I'll not get it back.
If the food bank wasn't there he wouldn't die. Just be forced to sort his finances out.
sugerbear said:
I haven't been to one either but I know several very well paid people who have in my company who have and by all accounts the people that attend very much do need them. But then I haven't been to one either so I will avoid making comment until I have actually been to one and seen myself.
.
Maybe they saw some customers with an iPhone 4 and felt sorry for them. "Oh they must be desperate. Poor poor person. Here, take these frozen peas. But don't touch my skin."
There will always be genuine cases of hardship.Circumstances can change and things happen to people.
I wouldn't do a Kate Hopkins and condemn anybody who is poor or blame them for all their ills.But if you are able to work and sometimes that can be a low paid job no excuse not to.
Whatever government wins the next election they will be looking at benefits for the under 25 year old group.But to go in a foodbank when there is no need financially is obscene in my opinion.
I wouldn't do a Kate Hopkins and condemn anybody who is poor or blame them for all their ills.But if you are able to work and sometimes that can be a low paid job no excuse not to.
Whatever government wins the next election they will be looking at benefits for the under 25 year old group.But to go in a foodbank when there is no need financially is obscene in my opinion.
Easy choice. You've got £40 quid to your name. Genuinely hard up. Do you:
A: Spend it on essential food
B: Go to a foodbank and spend the £40 on fags and booze (or other non essentials)
(Secret option C: If you spend it first then you genuinely have nothing and I guess this qualifies you 100% as genuine?)
There would be outrage if foodbanks were handing out booze and fags, well they might as well be...
To define "genuinely in need" you would have to start from a position where the household budget is £0.00, otherwise it's a question of priorities.
A: Spend it on essential food
B: Go to a foodbank and spend the £40 on fags and booze (or other non essentials)
(Secret option C: If you spend it first then you genuinely have nothing and I guess this qualifies you 100% as genuine?)
There would be outrage if foodbanks were handing out booze and fags, well they might as well be...
To define "genuinely in need" you would have to start from a position where the household budget is £0.00, otherwise it's a question of priorities.
johnboy1975 said:
Easy choice. You've got £40 quid to your name. Genuinely hard up. Do you:
A: Spend it on essential food
B: Go to a foodbank and spend the £40 on fags and booze (or other non essentials)
(Secret option C: If you spend it first then you genuinely have nothing and I guess this qualifies you 100% as genuine?)
There would be outrage if foodbanks were handing out booze and fags, well they might as well be...
To define "genuinely in need" you would have to start from a position where the household budget is £0.00, otherwise it's a question of priorities.
And, quite possibly, your priority is going to be covering enough bills to keep your kids warm and safe, keep away the bailiffs you're doubtless terrified of, with nothing at all left to feed yourself. Y'know this whole benefit sanctions thing? Creates situations like that^ really very often. A: Spend it on essential food
B: Go to a foodbank and spend the £40 on fags and booze (or other non essentials)
(Secret option C: If you spend it first then you genuinely have nothing and I guess this qualifies you 100% as genuine?)
There would be outrage if foodbanks were handing out booze and fags, well they might as well be...
To define "genuinely in need" you would have to start from a position where the household budget is £0.00, otherwise it's a question of priorities.
It's not, necessarily, logical. Like I said before, the people that struggle badly, especially repeatedly, aren't those best equipped to cope with the situations they keep landing in. Combinations of learning difficulty, longterm and poorly controlled mental health problems, chronic illness. With notable exceptions who are inevitably splashed all over the media, they're trying, as hard as they can. They could almost all probably do better maybe with just a tiny bit of help but well, my local adult education centre has been closed for more than a year now...
johnboy1975 said:
Easy choice. You've got £40 quid to your name. Genuinely hard up. Do you:
A: Spend it on essential food
B: Go to a foodbank and spend the £40 on fags and booze (or other non essentials)
(Secret option C: If you spend it first then you genuinely have nothing and I guess this qualifies you 100% as genuine?)
There would be outrage if foodbanks were handing out booze and fags, well they might as well be...
To define "genuinely in need" you would have to start from a position where the household budget is £0.00, otherwise it's a question of priorities.
Never been to a food bank then.A: Spend it on essential food
B: Go to a foodbank and spend the £40 on fags and booze (or other non essentials)
(Secret option C: If you spend it first then you genuinely have nothing and I guess this qualifies you 100% as genuine?)
There would be outrage if foodbanks were handing out booze and fags, well they might as well be...
To define "genuinely in need" you would have to start from a position where the household budget is £0.00, otherwise it's a question of priorities.
johnboy1975 said:
Easy choice. You've got £40 quid to your name. Genuinely hard up. Do you:
A: Spend it on essential food
B: Go to a foodbank and spend the £40 on fags and booze (or other non essentials)
(Secret option C: If you spend it first then you genuinely have nothing and I guess this qualifies you 100% as genuine?)
There would be outrage if foodbanks were handing out booze and fags, well they might as well be...
To define "genuinely in need" you would have to start from a position where the household budget is £0.00, otherwise it's a question of priorities.
Never been to a food bank then.A: Spend it on essential food
B: Go to a foodbank and spend the £40 on fags and booze (or other non essentials)
(Secret option C: If you spend it first then you genuinely have nothing and I guess this qualifies you 100% as genuine?)
There would be outrage if foodbanks were handing out booze and fags, well they might as well be...
To define "genuinely in need" you would have to start from a position where the household budget is £0.00, otherwise it's a question of priorities.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff