Food banks - what is the real story

[edh]

Du1point8 said:

Tories look to empower people to make their own decisions, Labour looks to give people things and keep them under control.

I would like to know how many people using food banks have genuinely been to see a FA and looked at everything they can do before being accepted at a food bank, that they can only use X times?

What are the actual qualifications?

The below can sign you a voucher:

A doctor
A social worker
A health visitor
The police
Somebody from the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB).
The church

I do not see anything about going to a financial adviser and being forced to submit your finances for review and being made sure that you comply by not wasting all the money you have on unnecessary expenditures.

Can someone who has used one enlighten me please.

Food banks barely existed under Labour

As for a financial advisor - yes, people with debts can and do get help from the money advice service, both with budgeting and repayments, but that doesn't really cut it when you've just had your benefits sanctioned for 4 weeks and have no money.

I still think you don't understand how destitute some people are.

[bitchstewie]

wolves_wanderer said:

Financial advisors work for free with benefits claimants now? Well, I've learnt something today.

It's easy to be smart about it but I'm assuming the basic point being made is that you can see your doctor or social worker and be referred to a food bank, but are you at any point asked what you're spending whatever money you do have on?

I don't know the answer to that, but it seems a sensible enough question.

[Du1point8]

wolves_wanderer said:

Snozzwangler said:

Du1point8 said:

Tories look to empower people to make their own decisions, Labour looks to give people things and keep them under control.

I would like to know how many people using food banks have genuinely been to see a FA and looked at everything they can do before being accepted at a food bank, that they can only use X times?

What are the actual qualifications?

The below can sign you a voucher:

A doctor
A social worker
A health visitor
The police
Somebody from the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB).
The church

I do not see anything about going to a financial adviser and being forced to submit your finances for review and being made sure that you comply by not wasting all the money you have on unnecessary expenditures.

Can someone who has used one enlighten me please.

But that would be sensible.

That's teaching a man to fish, food banks just throw fish at the man.

The problem is that people are scared of sounding nasty for saying it.

Financial advisors work for free with benefits claimants now? Well, I've learnt something today.

There is no need to be an idiot.

Financial advisor doesnt need to work for free, just like a CAB person who sees them won't be working for free, however if they can advise them to help them out so they are not claiming food off the plate of someone who really needs a food bank, then why would it be a bad thing to have them report to a financial advisor.

In your world is it first comes first served and let the stragglers suffer when it runs out for those who might really need it?

[wolves_wanderer]

Du1point8 said:

There is no need to be an idiot.

Financial advisor doesnt need to work for free, just like a CAB person who sees them won't be working for free, however if they can advise them to help them out so they are not claiming food off the plate of someone who really needs a food bank, then why would it be a bad thing to have them report to a financial advisor.

In your world is it first comes first served and let the stragglers suffer when it runs out for those who might really need it?

I'm not the one saying they should go to a financial advisor FFS. Are you going to pay the extra to ensure that all these advisors are about for people to see? The foodbanks are pretty much totally funded by charitable giving, a financial advisor would have a cost (unless you can find a lot of public spirited FAs to help?)

[wolves_wanderer]

Snozzwangler said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Financial advisors work for free with benefits claimants now? Well, I've learnt something today.

So, where do you stand on a forced review of expenditure...

Who is going to do all these reviews? You don't seem the type to be too keen to pay extra money to fund advisory services for these people, so where you do stand on providing these people who will review people's finances?

[Du1point8]

edh said:

Du1point8 said:

Tories look to empower people to make their own decisions, Labour looks to give people things and keep them under control.

I would like to know how many people using food banks have genuinely been to see a FA and looked at everything they can do before being accepted at a food bank, that they can only use X times?

What are the actual qualifications?

The below can sign you a voucher:

A doctor
A social worker
A health visitor
The police
Somebody from the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB).
The church

I do not see anything about going to a financial adviser and being forced to submit your finances for review and being made sure that you comply by not wasting all the money you have on unnecessary expenditures.

Can someone who has used one enlighten me please.

Food banks barely existed under Labour

As for a financial advisor - yes, people with debts can and do get help from the money advice service, both with budgeting and repayments, but that doesn't really cut it when you've just had your benefits sanctioned for 4 weeks and have no money.

I still think you don't understand how destitute some people are.

Some being the operative word.... Like saying some benefits people have large tellies and sky, instead of saying all do.

Food banks were set up in 2004 and only took off massively in 2008 when Labour were almost done screwing the UK.

If your benefits have been properly sanctioned then why should I have compassion for them? They have been sanctioned for a reason, they should take some responsibility for themselves.

If they have been improperly sanctioned, then yes you can do one of the following:

Apply for a hardship payment
Find your local welfare scheme

But I would suggest that those that have been improperly sanctioned are probably the same amount that get reported in the paper for having loads of tellies, the latest phones, etc...

Poverty in the UK is an ugly word, people in the UK don't know what real poverty is until they have seen places like Egypt, Africa and India... I have visited those places, when people spout out that people in the UK live in poverty, its frankly disgusting that politicians/people use that word to gain votes and oneupmanship on another party.

[edh]

Du1point8 said:

There is no need to be an idiot.

Financial advisor doesnt need to work for free, just like a CAB person who sees them won't be working for free, however if they can advise them to help them out so they are not claiming food off the plate of someone who really needs a food bank, then why would it be a bad thing to have them report to a financial advisor.

In your world is it first comes first served and let the stragglers suffer when it runs out for those who might really need it?

Many CAB workers are volunteers, certainly most general advisers. They do have funded posts - money advice being a good example.

Food bank referrals are often dealt with as part of a more complicated situation, fix the other bits and you're right, you can often remove the need for another referral.

Some people are harder to help - and you'd have to be pretty heartless to deny food to the kids of someone with mental health problems for example.

[Snozzwangler]

wolves_wanderer said:

Snozzwangler said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Financial advisors work for free with benefits claimants now? Well, I've learnt something today.

So, where do you stand on a forced review of expenditure...

Who is going to do all these reviews? You don't seem the type to be too keen to pay extra money to fund advisory services for these people, so where you do stand on providing these people who will review people's finances?

Posts by others are answering that question.

You haven't answered mine though.

[Justayellowbadge]

Is that 2 vouchers in 6 months figure correct?

It leads me to a question - 6 days out of 182 is 3.3%.

If there is a genuine ongoing need, why are people not starving in the streets the other 176 days?

If it isn't chronic, but rather an emergency situation, is that because people have failed to allow a 3% contingency? Is it really not possible to save on average 3% on a weekly shop?

I'm not offering an opinion or agenda here, it's a genuine question - if the need is so dire, why only 3% of the time?

[Du1point8]

Justayellowbadge said:

Is that 2 vouchers in 6 months figure correct?

It leads me to a question - 6 days out of 182 is 3.3%.

If there is a genuine ongoing need, why are people not starving in the streets the other 176 days?

If it isn't chronic, but rather an emergency situation, is that because people have failed to allow a 3% contingency? Is it really not possible to save on average 3% on a weekly shop?

I'm not offering an opinion or agenda here, it's a genuine question - if the need is so dire, why only 3% of the time?

Some say 3 vouchers in 6 months, I wonder if they move on to another food bank or soup kitchen style place.

Or maybe that is the rule, but everyone ignores it and the food banks just keep handing out, meaning there is no incentive not to keep going to get more food.

[edh]

Du1point8 said:

If your benefits have been properly sanctioned then why should I have compassion for them? They have been sanctioned for a reason, they should take some responsibility for themselves.

If they have been improperly sanctioned, then yes you can do one of the following:

Apply for a hardship payment
Find your local welfare scheme

But I would suggest that those that have been improperly sanctioned are probably the same amount that get reported in the paper for having loads of tellies, the latest phones, etc...

It all sounds so easy when you put it like that..

People find out they have been sanctioned when they try and withdraw cash and there's nothing there. Could be a weekend, could be out of hours. Maybe they have no money for the 0345 number to call DWP. Hardship payments are only applicable in some circumstances, and may not meet an immediate need.

http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/

Poverty in other countries is a bit of a red herring - we're the 6th richest country in the world, and thousands of people turn to food banks every week. I don't think that's right.

[wolves_wanderer]

Snozzwangler said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Snozzwangler said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Financial advisors work for free with benefits claimants now? Well, I've learnt something today.

So, where do you stand on a forced review of expenditure...

Who is going to do all these reviews? You don't seem the type to be too keen to pay extra money to fund advisory services for these people, so where you do stand on providing these people who will review people's finances?

Posts by others are answering that question.

You haven't answered mine though.

Evasion, 1/10

[edh]

Justayellowbadge said:

Is that 2 vouchers in 6 months figure correct?

It leads me to a question - 6 days out of 182 is 3.3%.

If there is a genuine ongoing need, why are people not starving in the streets the other 176 days?

If it isn't chronic, but rather an emergency situation, is that because people have failed to allow a 3% contingency? Is it really not possible to save on average 3% on a weekly shop?

I'm not offering an opinion or agenda here, it's a genuine question - if the need is so dire, why only 3% of the time?

It's a good question, but when you're just about subsisting, there is no 3% margin. It's more likely to be a day or two without food than having a bit left over. Millions in the UK have no savings - they laugh when you ask that question.

[Du1point8]

edh said:

Du1point8 said:

If your benefits have been properly sanctioned then why should I have compassion for them? They have been sanctioned for a reason, they should take some responsibility for themselves.

If they have been improperly sanctioned, then yes you can do one of the following:

Apply for a hardship payment
Find your local welfare scheme

But I would suggest that those that have been improperly sanctioned are probably the same amount that get reported in the paper for having loads of tellies, the latest phones, etc...

It all sounds so easy when you put it like that..

People find out they have been sanctioned when they try and withdraw cash and there's nothing there. Could be a weekend, could be out of hours. Maybe they have no money for the 0345 number to call DWP. Hardship payments are only applicable in some circumstances, and may not meet an immediate need.

http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/

Poverty in other countries is a bit of a red herring - we're the 6th richest country in the world, and thousands of people turn to food banks every week. I don't think that's right.

I want you to go and find out how many of these people that are now using food banks coincide with the masses of uncontrolled immigration the UK now has... Want to bet that the numbers somehow are getting close to matching up with EU people coming to the UK with nothing looking for a better hand out?

Im sure there are some that genuinely, but Im pretty certain that there are a hell of a lot more that are due to them turning up on the door step of the UK.

The place in Holborn that gives out free food (mobile van service), there seems to be not one person there out of the 40-50 I see when on my way back from the gym that seem to be originally from the UK and are homeless. Despite there being loads of bins nearby, a lot of the food is simply thrown on the floor and left, maybe they don't like it, but a truly starving person would not be leaving food to waste.

[bitchstewie]

When you think how much food households and stores across the UK waste there really are no excuses for anyone to be hungry - it's fking criminal really.

[Snozzwangler]

wolves_wanderer said:

Evasion, 1/10

I know, I'm bad at evading a question, I'd make a bad politician. You'd get 9.5/10 though!

Even the Trussell Trust agrees


Fishing lessons for everyone!

[markcoznottz]

edh said:

Justayellowbadge said:

Is that 2 vouchers in 6 months figure correct?

It leads me to a question - 6 days out of 182 is 3.3%.

If there is a genuine ongoing need, why are people not starving in the streets the other 176 days?

If it isn't chronic, but rather an emergency situation, is that because people have failed to allow a 3% contingency? Is it really not possible to save on average 3% on a weekly shop?

I'm not offering an opinion or agenda here, it's a genuine question - if the need is so dire, why only 3% of the time?

It's a good question, but when you're just about subsisting, there is no 3% margin. It's more likely to be a day or two without food than having a bit left over. Millions in the UK have no savings - they laugh when you ask that question.

But loads have smart phones nearly new cars blah blah, it's an old circular argument. The fostering of an asset rich cash poor society will always risk people falling through the gaps. The savings culture was destroyed from 2000-2007. Partisan comments that food banks barely existed during the new lab years is not helpful, considering they never had to suffer the consequences of their actions, it was a case of £200m qe, and pass the 'sorting out' to an incoming government. Nice.

[markcoznottz]

edh said:

Justayellowbadge said:

Is that 2 vouchers in 6 months figure correct?

It leads me to a question - 6 days out of 182 is 3.3%.

If there is a genuine ongoing need, why are people not starving in the streets the other 176 days?

If it isn't chronic, but rather an emergency situation, is that because people have failed to allow a 3% contingency? Is it really not possible to save on average 3% on a weekly shop?

I'm not offering an opinion or agenda here, it's a genuine question - if the need is so dire, why only 3% of the time?

It's a good question, but when you're just about subsisting, there is no 3% margin. It's more likely to be a day or two without food than having a bit left over. Millions in the UK have no savings - they laugh when you ask that question.

But loads have smart phones nearly new cars blah blah, it's an old circular argument. The fostering of an asset rich cash poor society will always risk people falling through the gaps. The savings culture was destroyed from 2000-2007. Partisan comments that food banks barely existed during the new lab years is not helpful, considering they never had to suffer the consequences of their actions, it was a case of £200m qe, and pass the 'sorting out' to an incoming government. Nice.

[edh]

Du1point8 said:

I want you to go and find out how many of these people that are now using food banks coincide with the masses of uncontrolled immigration the UK now has... Want to bet that the numbers somehow are getting close to matching up with EU people coming to the UK with nothing looking for a better hand out?

I really don't have time to scan the foodbank vouchers log for "foreign sounding" names when I'm next in. Most EU migrants are working though. My experience & gut feel says you're wrong.

You do see plenty of non-UK citizens at CAB, but not surprising really as they often need help to understand the workings of government and commercial organisations, and struggle to get redress when things go wrong.

[wolves_wanderer]

Snozzwangler said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Evasion, 1/10

I know, I'm bad at evading a question, I'd make a bad politician. You'd get 9.5/10 though!

Even the Trussell Trust agrees


Fishing lessons for everyone!

Not "forced" though as you suggested is it?