UKC

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britons-driven-to-food-banks...

In reply to Timmd:

The numbers of people at food banks is a huge problem, I do agree.

But I also wonder how many visitors have iphones and sky TV.

In reply to knighty:
Some of the people I've heard about have neither, but I guess it helps to emotionally distance oneself from the problem to wonder about things like that.

Toilet roll gets given out too with the food parcels because it was found people can be that hard up...

In reply to knighty:

I suspect that a high proportion of visitors spend a significant amount of money on non-essentials.

I suspect that there are some visitors that are in real poverty, for a variety of reasons.

I believe that not to help those that are in real poverty is shameful.

In reply to Eeyore:

I'm onboard with everything you just said.

The problem is that food banks seem such a short term charity. I want to know how we can help the needy in the longer term (and also separate those who spend inappropriately from those who are in true poverty).

In reply to knighty:


But for many, it'll be a short term solution during hard times, not a lifestyle choice.

Read this - misconceptions hold sway over public understanding of poverty and benefits:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/01/the-guardian-view-on-s...

EDIT - having read your later reply, I suspect we're in agreement.

In reply to knighty:
It isn't an easy problem to resolve, so don't expect a straightforward reply.

From my perspective it is better to help those in real need and accept that those in some need might take advantage of the system; rather than ignore those that are in real need.

If someone could come up with a system that does what I suspect you want then I think they would be elected president of the world. A compromise is nearly always necessary to move the world towards your 'utopia'. Never believe that your utopia is achievable (or that all others share your view), life is about compromise, choose what is important to you and try to influence the world to follow - but don't expect to achieve much.

In reply to knighty:

Some do, some don't.
A friend of mine uses a food bank because he is totally skint yet he still manages to go shooting once a week (£20 plus petrol to get there)

In reply to Dax H:

I think things like this are the problem, the more support that becomes available (food banks etc) the more certain people will adapt their lifestyle to suit it. For many, why bother budgeting for food because you can just get it for free once you run out of cash.

Maybe if food banks would take their phones, or other possessions off them in return for food the useage of the would drop all of a sudden.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Because not having a phone really wouldn't assist someone to get out of poverty?

Sky TV and phones come with contracts that are difficult to get out of and poverty can happen very, scarily suddenly.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:
I once had a thought that (ideally) we need different approaches to shaping society for different people, because some people will adapt their life styles to the support from the state, while others will hate the idea of doing that, so all that's ever going to happen in the real world is a 'best guess', at the right combination of looking after people and pushing people towards making their own lives better for themselves.

In reply to Timmd:


Is that the reason? Or is it that toilet paper is a product with no shelf life, that everyone uses and if you supply it free people will take it?

As for the initial article - a frustratingly one-sided puff piece from the organisation that runs food banks. As for the attempt to compare it with the NHS at the end - it was a bit poor.
Imagine if we provided a service where people could just walk in and be treated for free. What would happen?
Well we do - A and E depts.
And what happened? They got/get overwhelmed, hence 111 number, walk-in centres, minor injury centres...
I have no doubt that were Red Cross to open free clinics they would also be busy.

Does that mean evil government are driving more and more people into sickness? Of course not.

In reply to Timmd:
.


I egularly pinch rolls of toilet paper from the loos of supermarket cafés etc.......................every little helps !

In reply to knighty:



I think we're such a consuming society people are almost brainwashed into thinking the latest iPhone and a massive tv are essentials. There are a lot of people who work in low paid jobs who have to use food banks and are probably really embarrassed about it, but when ever there's a chance to get something for nothing you'll always find low life's exploiting the system. It bugs me that some people think smoking and having a few cans everyday are more important than feeding their kids, we need to change some people's views that they are owed a living from the government, the only problem is where to start ?.

In reply to Timmd:


I think ours absolutely spot on, the only problem is how ?

In reply to Timmd:


The day we all commence our lives on the same starting-line perhaps we could discuss this subject in a balanced manner, until then........................................

In reply to Dax H:



Think he may have his priorities a little mixed up, but why buy food when you can get it for free and spend your money on things you enjoy ? People moan about the state of the country without realising that they're the ones adding to the problem.

In reply to Wsdconst:


As I replied to Timmd, give everyone an equal start in life then we can discuss these matters.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


Wholeheartedly agree. We need a society that provides free education and free healthcare to all.
It needs to be married with a system that provides support if you can't find a job, and really should offer extra support if you choose to have a child.

Where can we find this socialist utopia?

In reply to Pyreneenemec:

If only we could, I work with the rich and live with the poor, and let's just say opportunity knocks on some peoples doors a lot more than others. Maybe people just got sick of trying.

In reply to off-duty:




I haven't seen much of it lately; anyone know if it's still around?

In reply to off-duty:

>



I know, I know, but how can the poorest compete in a society where so much has been done to favour the likes of private land-lords ( evil, dirty profiteering scumbags that they are) .Is it any wonder people give up trying ?

In reply to Pyreneenemec:
>
Do you feel the same about, say, taxi drivers, or owners of corner shops?

Or is this another thing you won't discuss until everyone has an equal start in life?

In reply to Timmd:

How do you account for the fact that Germany, not a country renowned for its poverty levels, has the biggest food bank sector in Europe?

In reply to Postmanpat:



Compare what is comparable. Little property speculaters have pushed prices well out of reach of many reasonably paid hard working people. These people at least might have some choice, the poorest members of society will have to take what's left.

In reply to Timmd:
Without denying that some people really are up sh!t creek and need help I find it strange how some people prioritise their expenditure. Food these days is really very cheap compared to the past and compared to other expenditure. My basic food bill has risen by ~25% in the last 15 years yet my phone/internet/gas/electric bills have all risen at least twice that and I'm quite sure I'm eating far better food now than I was as a student 15 years ago.
I was unemployed for a few months this year, taking home my £73 a week JSA which only covers 60% of my basic mortgage really made me think about the value of things and I now often find myself comparing the prices of the non essential things to the basics of food and bills. Doing this really makes you wonder about the value of things like phone contracts/TV subscriptions/beer/fast food.
I still have my extravagances but I certainly know what I could get rid of if I needed to save money.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


I really think the general public have to consider their own part in the whole property price, if we didn't bend over backwards to pay stupid prices for houses taking out ridiculous levels of debt then the people selling the houses would have to drop the prices to sell them. Places without the assumed "right to own a property" don't seem to suffer so badly with house price increases because many people are happy to rent.
If we could take the medicine, increase interest rates and reduce the loan to property value levels maybe we'd all be better off in the end.
If we built some more council houses it would help too.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:

They have bought an asset to provide an income, just like a taxi driver. They haven't changed the overall supply and demand of housing. If they didn't exist so house prices might be marginally lower but rental prices would be commensurately higher. Either way, thei idea that buying an asset makes one a "dirty,evil, scumbag" seems a little odd. Do you feel the same about people who own or rent 3 bedroom properties when they only require two?

Incidentally, how do defined profiteering? Most London property's would struggle to produce 1 or 2% net yields nowadays.

In reply to Timmd:

1,000,000 food parcels. Each providing 3-4 days worth of food. That's 4,000,000 days of food at most.

Compared to maybe 63Mx365 = 23bn days of food consumed by the UK annually.

Let's keep things in perspective.

In reply to off-duty:


People who work in food banks have said they found a need for the provision of toilet roll, though people asking if there was any. Have fun with your conjecture though.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Decent housing, like sufficient food and decent health-care are fundamental requirements of an advanced caring society. Replacing council-housing with private land-lords was a recipe for disaster. It's hard to be sypathetic to a property speculater that ( because of the system) takes an extortionate rent for substandard accommodation. Alas these scumbags fall within the ' I'm all right Jack' majority that will ensure Tory Britain has a long and miserable future ahead of it.

In reply to Timmd:


I suppose if you're shoving it in one end, there's a need created at the other

In reply to Pyreneenemec:

Stop spouting your own political dogma.

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/council_house_building_margaret_thatcher_la...

In reply to Pyreneenemec:

It's hard to be sypathetic to a property speculater that ( because of the system) takes an extortionate rent
>
Are you going to answer my question about how you define "profiteering" or "extortionate rent"

In reply to Wsdconst:

People don't just turn up at food banks and treat it like a free Asda. You will usually be referred by one of the agencies - social worker/benefits etc. You can only use them for a limited number of times, as you are then referred to help to assist you further.

For example. Someone might have a delay in receiving benefits and are without any money. The food bank is a short term stop gap until it gets sorted.

I saw food parcels being delivered to OAPs in New Zealand in the early 2000's. Little did I know it would become a part of Britain in the future.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Profiteering: imposing higher rents for housing previously provided by the public sector, more often than not on short-leases to further profit when they hike up rents again putting it out of reach of more and more of society's poorer members.

In reply to Timmd:

Perhaps the solution is a more old fashioned approach, instead of a food bank referral, 100m2 of allotment and few packs of seeds. Will occupy the mind as well as the body.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


Not my experience, we rent a house out. We let at the local rate minus about 10% and it is never empty. Property that sits above the rate stands empty for a long time.

In reply to Pyreneenemec:

This is an unusual definition of "profiteering" to say the least.

So, the rent charged should stay the same regardless of the fact that public sector rents were subsidised by the taxpayer, and regardless of the cost or current value of the property?

So a taxi driver should charge the same fares now as he did in 1980, despite the fact the cost of his cab might have quintupled?

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


Thank you for your suggestion.

How do you propose we do that?

In reply to Bellie:

People go to charities and feed them sob stories to get food hampers then gloat about it on Facebook too, I live among these people and have a real world view. How hard do you think it is to turn on the tears and make people feel sorry for you? If you read my posts you would see I've mentioned the genuine people too, but like I said before, some people exploit it. I'm from barnsley for gods sake, no one can tell me about poverty or what does or doesn't happen.

In reply to off-duty:


Bollocks! If you choose to have a child, you should have to pay for it! Why should I (or anybody else) pay for it?

JW

In reply to Pyreneenemec:

Yeah, 3 terms of labour and how many council houses did they build to reverse the Tory tide? They encouraged home ownership as much as anyone, they had no issue with unregulated banks handing out 100% mortgages to buy to let landlords either.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Fair enough... read up your earlier post. My point still stands that whilst some may be able to take the p@ss, it wont be for long as you can only be helped a number of times. I guess if those you mention want to gloat on FB about receiving a basics parcel - its a different kind of pity they need... and are probably the minority that would scam anything.

I'm not sure the ability to cry gets food chucked at you though ; )

I'm from just outside Barnsley and worked there for long enough too - and can include having my car nicked and joyrided around one of the renown estates as one of my real world experiences. Still like the place though - even though I'm officially a Dee Da!

In reply to Pyreneenemec:


An ever expanding population outstripping the supply of new housing is what drives property prices up, not a relatively small number of private landlords (as a fraction of the total housing stock) stepping in to replace state providers.
Anyway, its got nothing to do with food banks.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Which is why people should act more responsibly and when they do have some cash save a bit for a rainy day instead of racking up debt on sh*t they don't need. Then if they ever do find themselves in hard times they've got something to fall back on without being a burden to society, but hey, why bother when there's always a bleeding heart handing out stuff for free?

In reply to pec:

I'm very fortunate, I somehow managed to save (nearly) enough to get through 3 (extremely) 'rainy days'. Life isn't as simple as you wish it to be.

I smoked and drank more through those rainy days than at any other time of my life even though I had to rely on financial contributions from friends to get me through (all paid back and never a penny taken from the state).

It is so easy to say 'act responsibly', but sometimes it is more about surviving and surviving doesn't always mean food in your belly.

In reply to pec:


I'm guessing you've never been on minimum wage, on a zero-hours contract so hardly ever able to put much money away, not able to find a 'real' job as most of the ones available have been replaced by zero-hours versions with no security and no certainty of income. Then subject to the hard sell of mobile and tv companies eager to make a buck from you when you chance upon a period of frequent work?

In reply to off-duty:


Here. But I suspect you know that.

You just need to find a way to hold on to it.

In reply to Bellie:

Yeah I'm not saying everyone is a scammer at all, just that whenever someone offers a helping hand some people take advantage, sorry about your car,when I was young my mum had a metro and every weekend it used to get nicked and dumped in the same place,we found out it was two guys who couldn't be arsed to walk home from the pub 😄 good old Barnsley ehh

In reply to Wsdconst: http://www.trusselltrust.org/how-it-works

Have a read of this - people don't just "go to charities with a sob story" - their needs are assessed by other parties and they're referred (not saying some of this doesn't go to people who are less in need than others). Have you seen what you actually get? I have - it's not exactly luxury brands - and lots of people ask for stuff that can be cooked only with a kettle as they have no money for the gas meter.

And you only get so many parcels (for a whopping three days' worth of food - you'd live like a king!!) before you're not allowed any more for a month, so it's not really feasible that someone lives off these things all the time.

In reply to pec:


Yep it's really easy building up savings on £6.50 an hour...

In reply to john arran:


Then you're guessing wrong but I was brought up to be resourceful and live within my means whatever they were.

In reply to abr1966:


maybe there are some lessons in life that can be indirectly taught at school. As many people futures are set in stone at quite an early age. Apart from the merits of education itself, basic financial planning or even it's terminology seems to be misunderstood by a large proportion of the population. More specific lessons in finances could never ever harm. Granted kids might leave school not knowing the largest lake in the world, the dates of the bronze age, but if they at least understood interest rates, inflation, APR etc.. they'd waste less money in later life.

In reply to Eeyore:



Perhaps if you hadn't smoked or drank at all before it started raining you might have had enough to last more than three days but that was your choice.
If you didn't fall back on the state then well done (I mean that sincerely) but for too many people the state is their first resort not their last.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that their shouldn't be a welfare state, just that it should be a bare minimum to get by otherwise it creates perverse incentives and too many people abuse it.


The idea is that if you act responsibly when survival isn't the issue it will be easier to get by when it is. You make your bed and you lie in it as they say.

In reply to abr1966:


And to fork out for a mobile phone contract and suchlike too apparently.

In reply to pec:

My mate I was in the forces with is on benefits currently, he did 24 years as a soldier. I gave him my old phone and pay a sim contract for him. So sad to hear how badly he'd be judged by you if you walked past him. You wouldn't even imagine some of the situations he's been in....I'm confident he p##s all over you in most aspects of life.
Better hope bad fortune and poor health doesn't come your way..

In reply to Postmanpat:



Could you specify how public sector rents have been subsidised by the taxpayer?

In reply to Timmd:

Some of you cleaely don't understand what it's like to be unable to afford to eat, feed your kids, etc.

A few points I'd hope you consider-

+ there really are a lot of people that can't eat a fit diet to keep their health up. Seriously. Go work a foodbank and see.

+ normally you may be able to afford sky tv, and that 30quid May mean you stay sane and be what keeps you off antidepressants or from alcoholism. Sometimes 'unnecessaries' are necessary! As an example I while I was suffering badly with depression and also skint I paid out 9.99 a month on a game subscription because it kept my mind off things and gave me some social interaction and stopped me going to the pub for a pint just to stop spiralling down. I'm not saying that 9.99 stopped me from killing g myself but at points it made a huge difference (before someone asks, my Internet is needed for work so that has to be paid for).

+ it's not just people who have no money for a long time. in some ways they have more support, while those who have a bad month due to sickness/transport breakdown/u expected bills has no back up and the food bank can help just for a week or two. A lot of Peoria can JUST ABOUT manage but any expected problem can push them over the edge.

+ People who volunteer at foodbanks don't go home saying "what a load of scrounging c***s", they go home and tell people how bad things are for those they're helping and put a lot of effort in trying to get more donations for the next week. So stop sitting in your comfortable situation guessing, go speak to the people who are actually working in these places.

In reply to Timmd:


A couple of lines from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_Kingdom

So there's no surprise there's been a large increase in people using food banks in the last 7 years, as there's been a massive increase in food banks in the last 7 years.

In reply to Timmd:

I do some voluntary work in a local foodbank. People are referred by Social Care, GPs, Job Centre and get a max 6 weeks food to tide them over plus advice on how to get further support. There are always going to be issues around whether users of alcohol, drugs, gambling should be supported and whether some people are exploiting the system, but I would prefer that people were given the benefit of the doubt - in my experience most people using it are genuine. I can only see more people needing this facility as cuts to Social Care and NHS start to bite. One plus point though is the generosity of local communities and local supermarkets in supporting these schemes.

In reply to pec:

Congratulations for remaining so independent in the face of societal unfairness. While never having been in quite that situation myself, due to having been able to earn more since the major job security and welfare cuts of recent decades, I rather think that if I were to be trapped by some of the clearly exploitative measures I read about nowadays I would be thinking: "why should I give up any of the precious little I'm being allowed to earn now to cover the next time I'm not given enough hours to earn even that much?"
I'm sure there are people who would take pretty much anything on the chin, but if I was trying hard to make myself financially responsible and was thwarted by government dogma (in the form of hopeless job opportunities, job security or salaries outside of SE England,) I'd be tempted to play the game from the other side and use any opportunities or loopholes available to reduce the losses from some of the perceived wrongs, knowing full well that those benefiting from (and voting for) the draconian laws would be similarly acting in blatant self-interest.

In reply to pec:

The 3 'rainy days' were not meant literally. Each 'day' lasted well over a year. One of those 'days' was my wife dying from cancer. Please don't assume that everyone who drinks and smokes is a waster. I've always tried to act responsibly sometimes life doesn't repay that effort.

In reply to EarlyBird:


Yes. The construction of council houses was paid for out of local taxes or subsidised by central government. The capital cost of the houses to the councils was thus way lower than in the private sector. Thus the council were able to make a break even return on their investment at a much lower rent than the actual market rent, courtesy of the taxpayer.
Essentially the council was sitting on very valuable but undervalued assets with no need to make a return because the taxpayer provided paid for it and provides an alternative source of income via taxes.

In reply to knighty:



Are you a Daily Mail reader by any chance?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not making the maximum profit does not necessarily equal subsidising. particularly in those cases where the alternate is to pay far higher rents in housing support.

In reply to pec:

And how much do you have saved for it?

In reply to andy:
Ok, but actually where I live there are a lot of different food banks e.g my daughters school do one, do they vet people ? No,they help anyone who asks for it, my local tescos do one, they hand food out to pensioners, do they vet them ? No,do they check there savings ? Of course not, the local sali army give out food parcels, do they do background checks ? Guess what, no, they don't. My sister works for the social services if someone tells a social worker they can't a afford food, then they basically will get referred to the food bank ASAP as the first priority is the child's welfare, and after recent bad press no social worker wants to make their life any harder.
Just to add our local church also provides a food bank and doesn't do checks,maybe trying to recruit more parishioners.

In reply to KevinD:

It's not about making a maximum profit. It's about being enabled to make an uneconomic or zero return because taxpayers enable it.

If a bank gave you £50k to set up a coffee shop in which you charged half price for coffee, and the bank gave you money to cover your living costs, don't you think that would be a subsidy? I do.

You may of course think that this is a good arrangement, for all sorts of reasons, but it is nevertheless a subsidy.

In reply to Wsdconst:

You seem to be making a good case for the state to take charge of providing for the needy, rather than adhoc charities. Is this what you want?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Apart from the councils were making money for those. Just not as much as some others would lend for. To take your bank example do you feel a bank which has a lower mortgage interest rate than a rival is subsidising the customers?

In addition you seem to be doing your best to ignore the fact that yes, in some cases, it was completely subsidised as housing benefit. The problem is that need didnt disappear with selling them off cheap and so now the council has a substantially higher subsidy to pay.

In reply to Wsdconst: Really? You got any references for all these (as in they're distributing, not collecting)? Not doubting it, but I deal with Trussell Trust and they have an arrangement with Tesco to collect food in store and distribute it so I'd be very surprised if a local store is running their own. I also deal with the chap that runs all the food banks in County Durham and they have all sorts of collection points but no schools actually distribute food in the area, so again surprised if schools are actually distributing on a regular basis. And the Barnsley sally army food bank is run by Trussell Trust - see above...

All the food banks we deal with have eligibility criteria and limits on what they'll provide, so I'm surprised so many near you don't.

In reply to RockAngel:


Yes, it's delivered to my door every day.

I find it a very sheltered view to come to that conclusion from one post. I generally think this way through the independent and empirical data that I can see around me. Lunchtime walks around town reveal many people on benefits and they are all (okay, mostly) waving around the latest iphones. Also walking through council estates and seeing rows and rows of houses with dishes on them. It doesn't take a genius to work out.

In reply to KevinD:

Hence the use of the term "uneconomic return".

Arguably, but not if they were doing it because they thought it was to achieve an greater overall return.


But neither the central nor local government has the capital cost of land purchase and construction.

But as I say, there are reasons why you might consider the subsidy a good thing.


But going back to the original point. Do you believe that making a normal economic return should be described as "extortionate" or "profiteering" just because the private owner doesn't have the economic advantages of the public sector to enable it to charge lower rents?

In reply to knighty:


Useful for knowing which way is south and navigating your way around a strange city though. Far more reliable that moss on a tree...

In reply to knighty:

It's mighty impressive that you can spot what phone everyone on benefits has, nearly as impressive as knowing who is and isn't on benefits. It's like some kind of really disappointing super-power.

In reply to abr1966:


I'm genuinely sorry your mate is now on the dole, I'm well aware that anyone could be made unemployed, I've been there myself. How would I judge him? Depends on a lot of things which simply walking past him wouldn't reveal.
I don't know how long he's been unemployed or how long he will be but I can't believe that after 24 years of continuous employment he wasn't able to put a few grand aside "just in case". Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't which brings me to my point that considering that anyone could become unemployed remarkably few people ever make any provision for it.
None of this applies specifically to you or him as I don't know you, but there are plenty of people out there spending money like water on stuff they don't need. As an example there's been record car sales recently, how many people are spending £15-20K on a new car when £2-3K car would do whilst they haven't got a bean saved up?
Too many people assume its the state's job to step in and provide for them. Well as a last resort it should, but only a bare minimum otherwise it removes the incentive for individuals to take responsibility for themselves.
The problem is not that our benefits system isn't generous enough, its that too many people have lost their resourcefulness, have too great a sense of entitlement and have forgotten what real poverty looks like.


Actually, I probably can


You know next to nothing about me but frankly that's irrelevant anyway.


You don't know that it hasn't or what provision I might have made for it or the choices I made to do so.

In reply to Eeyore:

I ll be honest I have no idea what I want, what you want or anyone what else wants/needs anymore. I don't know how the uk will ever turn itself around, it seems to be a vicious circle of half measures, good ideas that are pulled due to funding,the laziness of some and the greed of others all being stirred around in a big pot and the more I try to think of a solution the more problems I find, I'm off for a lie down now, my head hurts.

In reply to RockAngel:


How much I personally have in my bank right now isn't really relevant, you wouldn't really expect me to reveal my bank balance on here would you? But as a self employed person I have no sick pay, holiday pay or pension other than what I provide for myself. It focusses your mind on how you spend (or don't spend) your money.

In reply to Wsdconst:

Don't be too despondent. It is people like you who question, listen and form opinions that I rely on to keep me going in my old age. Life is complex but everyone should be allowed an opinion (unless that opinion is really nasty and I don't think anyone would consider your opinions to fall within this category).

Time for me to retire to the 'rather boggy and sad place'.

In reply to andy:

Right I'll tell you what I can,as far as the Salvation Army goes i suppose it's hearsay but in all fairness ever since I found out that they base eligibility on sexuality I steer well clear,I can say the local primary have a discreet distribution of food parcels to struggling parents though may also collect for a third party too, I do know that all non uniform and fund raising events are based around the children taking items of food into school instead of donating money,our local tescos distributed food around the local old peoples bungalows again I don't know if they also collected for another party but on the sign put up in store there was no mention or logo of a third party. And as far as the church goes, I attended the harvest festival as my daughter was singing and the vicar made a point of telling everyone the donations would be handed out from the church to help local families (and maybe recruit a few more to the congregation too) to be honest it doesn't really matter, what matters is that in a country of wealth and stature people can't afford to eat this is the real problem, I hate to think that just down the road children are going hungry,it's ridiculous, I'm not against food banks, I just wish there wasn't a need for them.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Isn't that a subsidy on the capital cost rather than a subsidy on the rent?

In reply to Eeyore:

The problems we face in modern society really worry me,the fact that in one house the hardest decision to make maybe whether to get the new iPhone or the Samsung, while just down the road it can be whether to have food or warmth. The media really needs to stop putting stories of benefit cheats getting £50,000 a year and a massive house because this just causes people to tar everyone with the same brush, but what really get me down is that I don't see an end or solution. Thanks for your last post it's nice when someone shows an understanding.

In reply to pec:

You sound like you've got a good head on your shoulders, and you've worked hard as well. Then you've been rewarded for your efforts. However not all people have such a good head on their shoulders - where you see "I can work my way out of the situation", they don't see that. They don't see that their cicumstances would be different* if they changed their behaviour. These ones are the ones truly in need of help. Then there are others who are "gaming the system" - but it's not possible to tell who they are without possibly harming those who are genuinely in need. At the end of the day, do you really care that some people got some free food?

In reply to knighty:

I can tell


How do you know they're on benefits? Have you asked them or just judged them? They could be working a poxy zero hours contract job on minimum wage and be in town on a day off.

Also walking through council estates and seeing rows and rows of houses with dishes on them. It doesn't take a genius to work out.

Again, how do you know all of the residents of these houses are on benefits? Have you asked them.

Maybe when someone loses their job and is unemployed they should sew a star to the front of their coats to make it easier for you

In reply to pec:
My point being, that not everyone has the ability to be able to save even a penny a week in a jar. Maybe they have discalcula and don't understand money. Maybe they had a shitty upbringing and their education was neglected just so they could survive childhood.
We don't live in a perfect world, where everyone saves a bit of money every week and they can't think of their own or their children's futures. If we did, there wouldn't be an abundance of those awful pay day loans and Bright House. Too many (young) people, especially before the recession, wanted some expensive car or phone, right now, so got it on loans, hire purchase, etc and never thought about when it would all crash. They still have that mentality and it'll take longer for it to disappear

In reply to EarlyBird:


Primarily, but it effectively enables councils to charge lower rents.

In reply to SenzuBean:


No, not in itself. I'm not actually arguing that they shouldn't exist, indeed they can serve a useful purpose to bridge the gap between signing on and getting some cash for those people who have genuinely been unable to set something aside for a rainy day. However I do think that a lot more people could set something aside if their priorities weren't so skewed and I'm not so naive as to believe that food banks aren't widely abused by those who don't need them.

Nor can I get overly exited about articles (as posted by the OP) about charities with a politcal axe to grind in newspapers with a politcal axe to grind who have a vested interest in overplaying the size of the problem especially since the more generous welfare system they would presumably prefer would actually disincentivise people from behaving more responsibly.

In reply to knighty:

I imagine iphones and Sky TV / Broadband connectoon are essentials in today's Britain. See how far you get in a week without a smartphone.

D

In reply to Dauphin:
I think we are getting to the point where an Internet connection probably is an essential. But you don't need an iPhone for anything. You could instead buy a used Android smartphone off eBay for 20 quid, and put a Giffgaff SIM in it. And, if you want, a used laptop for 50 quid and tether it via the phone.

Nobody *needs* the premium option. Nor does anyone *need* satellite television; Freeview is perfectly adequate, and that assumes you *need* any television at all. I haven't watched mine in a few weeks.

Edit: I do see the point about contracts, but as soon as there is a likelihood of job loss it's time to start reviewing them and planning to end them at the first opportunity. They can always be restarted when money is available again.

Neil

In reply to Dauphin:


You are joking? A cheap pay as you go phone. Freeview tv etc.. library offers free internet and you can borrow books, learn something new and fill time. Certainly better than Sky.

In reply to off-duty:

They (a&e depts) don't get overwhelmed because they are 'free' all NHS healthcare is 'free' but because emergency care, like all healthcare is inadequately provisioned in a country with a rising elderly population.

D

In reply to Postmanpat:


Immigrants.

D

In reply to Neil Williams:


>
To be fair, quite a lot of people use an i phone as their PC. Satellite TV is completely unnecessary.

In reply to Dauphin:



Doesn't really explain it. The proportion of immigrants in the UK, Germany, and France (which also has a big food bank sector) are pretty similar, at least until this summer.

And surely, even were it so, the immigrants needing food would be represented in the poverty stats?

In reply to summo:


You quoted my life - I've got a cheap pay-as-you-go-phone [cost 9 quid], Freeview, go to the library once a week, all very much more than enough for me. Those around me all have smartphones, I know all about them and don't need one myself.

In reply to Postmanpat:


And they could just as well use an Android phone as their PC for a load less money.

I do like iPhones, but they are *not* an essential, even if we consider that Internet access is.

In reply to Dauphin:


I haven't got a smartphone or TV of any sort and my life is a lot richer for it. If only I didn't haven't an internet connection I would waste a lot less time on here!

Anyway, got to use my internet connection to file my tax return now, someone has to pay for the benefits

In reply to abseil:

We could afford sky but I think it is a waste, we go to the library through choice, kids love it. Apart from the books, there are movies and copies most monthly magazines.

In reply to Dauphin:

I do mighty fine thanks with my Nokia 8310.

In reply to RockAngel:


Have you ever been to Stevenage? You can very much tell.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Depends on whether the immigrants can claim status, whatever the official figures, illegal immigration in mainland Europe is far beyond anything we see here, thinking back to 20 plus years ago, Belgium and France and Spain was awash with cheap eastern European tradesmen who were also illegal.

Having thought about it a bit, the church is far more prevalent in Europe in providing charity than here in the U.K. so that probably accounts for a fair proportion of it.

In reply to knighty:

Good for you. I'm talking about norms. Not expressing an opinion about the need or utility of iphones or sky TV as I also have neither. Hardly belong to anything but a suitcase of clothes, some outdoor gear, a box of books and cheap car, but I doubt my experience is typical.

D

In reply to pec:


What proportion of food that food banks distribute do you think is "abused by those who don't need it"? And can you give your source for that proportion?

As I've said we work pretty closely with a number of food banks in the UK and they're all very keen to ensure that the limited quantities of food they have goes to those who really need it. So interested to know how you apparently know something that they don't - indeed I can put you in touch with Trussell Trust and several other organisations who'd be glad to use your knowledge and insight to help them target their work more effectively.

In reply to andy:

It all depends on how you define "really need it" and whether that that takes into account the lifestyle choices people made to be in the position where they appear to need it. Also how thoroughly it possible to truly assess a persons needs rather than take their word for it or rely on what it says on a piece of paper.
The Trussell Trust can never really know what people might have stashed away or if friends and relatives are helping out or what they are actually spending what little money they have got on and of course they have a vested interest in people appearing to need food banks.
They'll be the last people to say, "you know what, we're not needed anymore".

In reply to pec:

So, in short, you're guessing.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Well from I said in the post above it follows that nobody can really know the true numbers but certain parties have a vested interest in overplaying it. A bit like the charity that was running ads before Christmas which claimed that 1 in 3 children in the UK was living in such poverty that "they wouldn't even have a tree at Christmas let alone any presents to put under it" which is clearly bollocks.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I know you didn't ask me and my answer is very 'anecdotal' being based on my experiences but;

The Germans I know are far more compassionate towards helping those less fortunate than themselves. When talking to them about why, the conversation nearly always mentions 'understanding the effects of history' but it is not the only reason given.

In reply to pec:


Who cares what 'lifestyle choices' (or other circumstances) lead someone to go hungry, if they can't feed themselves or their family then at that instant all one needs to know is that they need food. We can't change the past.

They'll be the last people to say, "you know what, we're not needed anymore".

You appear to be an idiot.
jk

In reply to Timmd:
From the interesting Guardian article that Trevers linked - this quote is about the sort of figures the public estimates on these issues vs actual figures...

"John Hills of the LSE has collected a number of myths around social security that have shaped the debate about UK welfare reform. The share of the welfare budget going on unemployment benefits? Estimated at 40%, when the reality (depending on precise definitions) is closer to 1%. Fraud? Estimated at around 20%, when the official figures stand at 0.7%. The proportion of new jobseekers who it is presumed will be still signing on a year down the line? 50%, compared with a reality of less than 10%. All of these myths, of course, encourage hostile ideas about a lazy under-class subsidised by others.

Such misperceptions really are worth worrying about, because they dig social groups into rival trenches, locking in division. The standard response to the exposure of dangerous ignorance is an appeal for debate. Which sounds sensible enough, until one reflects that the errors are often greater on those numbers that get most attention. Ipsos found, for example, that Britons did better in estimating the proportion of women in parliament, a number that never leads the news, than they did on the more closely watched figures on immigration, very likely because of the hysterical way in which the latter numbers are covered.

The real danger, then, is not the public£s decidedly hit-and-miss skill in guessing numbers, but rather deliberately distorted information taking hold. All the more so in a fracturing media world where consumers can confine themselves to outlets that reinforce their prejudices. Already, the FT£s Edward Lucas describes the American political realm as being one where £facts are what you feel comfortable believing£. When that happens, the result is not merely confusion. It is an angry but empty debate, where nobody listens to anything that they do not already think, and democracy is demeaned."

If this thread is anything to go by, then the article's summary that discussion ends in "an angry but empty debate" seems to be pretty accurate.

In reply to Timmd:

I am associated with a Trussell Trust foodbank (only vaguely associated however) and I can tell you several things:
- The general public / supermarkets are incredibly generous with donations
- Often food bank users are ashamed of needing to accept handouts
- Their main concern is with people who come multiple times to redeem foodbank vouchers. The most vulnerable would be (a) single adult males who are unable to work and (b) young people leaving care.

I don't accept that these people all have smart phones and sky tv. I also don't accept that we should withhold support from families with lots of children on the basis that they should be able to support them. For me this is punishing the innocent child and perpetuating the cycle.

Young people leaving care, with no family to support them, should be a particular concern. They often do not earn the full adult minimum wage, they do not have savings and often have an education that has suffered from changing schools frequently.

In reply to stubbed:

Can I ask why you think, young people leaving care should be a particular concern v single males unable to work? Just wanting to understand your views not looking to disagree.

In reply to jkarran:



This isn't helpful.

In reply to Eeyore:


At the end of his post he says: "Young people leaving care, with no family to support them, should be a particular concern. They often do not earn the full adult minimum wage, they do not have savings and often have an education that has suffered from changing schools frequently."

In reply to Eeyore:

This is personal but I guess because I have my own children and feel more empathy with children who might have suffered through no fault of their own.

In reply to hokkyokusei:

Yes I read that, what I hoped to get a better understanding of was why b) was selected rather than a).

It is a minor point but could help in understanding why people hold the views they have.

In reply to stubbed:

Thanks, your answer was pretty much expected. I can fully understand your answer so please do not view this post as a criticism.

In reply to Eeyore:

Probably not but it's accurate. If you type daft stuff people will assume you're daft whether that's true or not.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

I'm not going to dispute whether the statement was accurate or not.

I just hoped that my minor input would stop this happening;

'If this thread is anything to go by, then the article's summary that discussion ends in "an angry but empty debate" seems to be pretty accurate.'

In reply to Eeyore:

>"From my perspective it is better to help those in real need and accept that those in some need might take advantage of the system; rather than ignore those that are in real need."<

It's for the same general reason that I've always been happy to pay tax while accepting that there are some wealthy people who could afford to pay tax that take advantage of the system so as to avoid it. It's somewhat amusing that poor people with bent moral compasses are so often portrayed as the lowest of the low, but that wealthy people with bent moral compasses are so often portrayed as boxing clever.

In reply to moffatross:

People should start describing themselves as 'welfare efficient'.

In reply to Eeyore:

I work in a foodbank each week in an advisory role, although I'm employed by a charity. Food bank users are uniformly in deprivation but its a sudden crisis which prompts referral to the FB. Crises are often caused by sudden housing problems, benefit delay/administrative mess-up and relationship breakdown.

Domestic violence survivors and people with mental health problems are horribly over represented. Most of the people I meet care for children. Care leavers are over represented because they don't have family to turn to and often have other compounding problems.

It's hard to precise, but the phones I see are generally old and knackered. Its hard to get a job, communicate with your kids' school or even claim child benefit without a phone these days. On jobseekers allowance (JSA), without a phone one would be lucky to avoid a sanction (loss of benefits for 4 or 13 weeks, potentially much longer) because of the requirement that recipients be "actively seeking" and "available for work" which entails the use of a phone, at least from the perspective of the DWP.

There are exceptions of course, but I see very few people who are simply skint or have over spent that week. Most are hugely embarrassed by being referred (by a statutory agency, you can't just turn up - at least to our FB) and see turning to the FB as "letting their kids down".

There's a CoE / Oxfam report which is well summarised here (it's worth noting that the criticism of the DWP sanction regime was guardedly accepted, in part, by Iain Duncan Smith):

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2014/11/fixing-holes-in...

FBs shouldn't exist; they can't counter poverty, only alleviate crises and patchy voluntary provisions is a poor second best compared to an effective welfare state. Until we get one of those, it's worth volunteering. FBs are cheerier than they ought to be and although there are some awful stories to be heard, there's a lot of good humour and decency too.

In reply to Eeyore:

I work in a foodbank each week in an advisory role, although I'm employed by a charity. Food bank users are uniformly in deprivation but its a sudden crisis which prompts referral to the FB. Crises are often caused by sudden housing problems, benefit delay/administrative mess-up and relationship breakdown.

Domestic violence survivors and people with mental health problems are horribly over represented. Most of the people I meet care for children. Care leavers are over represented because they don't have family to turn to and often have other compounding problems.

It's hard to precise, but the phones I see are generally old and knackered. Its hard to get a job, communicate with your kids' school or even claim child benefit without a phone these days. On jobseekers allowance (JSA), without a phone one would be lucky to avoid a sanction (loss of benefits for 4 or 13 weeks, potentially much longer) because of the requirement that recipients be "actively seeking" and "available for work" which entails the use of a phone, at least from the perspective of the DWP.

There are exceptions of course, but I see very few people who are simply skint or have over spent that week. Most are hugely embarrassed by being referred (by a statutory agency, you can't just turn up - at least to our FB) and see turning to the FB as "letting their kids down".

There's a CoE / Oxfam report which is well summarised here (it's worth noting that the criticism of the DWP sanction regime was guardedly accepted, in part, by Iain Duncan Smith):

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2014/11/fixing-holes-in...

FBs shouldn't exist; they can't counter poverty, only alleviate crises and patchy voluntary provisions is a poor second best compared to an effective welfare state. Until we get one of those, it's worth volunteering. FBs are cheerier than they ought to be and although there are some awful stories to be heard, there's a lot of good humour and decency too.

In reply to pec:




So...you have no idea. Yet you know that these places are "widely abused"? So if someone makes a "lifestyle choice" of which "we" (because of course the only people who do this are "them") disapprove then we should let them of their kids go hungry?

Do you think it's just possible that the people who run thes various agencies who assess people's needs might just have a teensy weensy bit more insight into their circumstances and needs that "we" do? No, daft idea - forget I said anything...

In reply to afghanidan: Great post and great insight, thanks. Perhaps you could invite some of our friends from here to come and meet a few clients, to give them the benefit of their advice so they can make better "lifestyle choices".

In reply to afghanidan:


If you want precision, you should get knighty on the case. He can read the IMEI number from 300 paces.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I think Knighty's responses changed during the course of this thread and I suspect that was more to do with how people challenged him/her rather than what he/she thinks.

In reply to afghanidan:

You talk about an improved state welfare system. But that's the stable door.

The solution is better education at all levels, proper training for employment, better mental health services, building new public housing stock, then you won't need FBs or the welfare state so much. If everyone paid a few percent more tax ( I mean everyone) then in a generation things would improve.

In reply to andy:

I think the point people were making is a little different to what you suggesting. Many people who are unemployed now etc. Might be living hand to mouth... Then when they get a job, they instantly get a new phone contract, borrow for a car, holiday, Xmas etc.. without thinking that they might become jobless again before these commitments are paid off. A lifestyle of highs and lows, not good for mentally stability either.

In reply to jkarran:

(The Trussell Trust... they have a vested interest in people appearing to need food banks.
They'll be the last people to say, "you know what, we're not needed anymore". )


I could try and explain what I'm getting at here. How its to do with laws of unintended consequences, about how well intentioned interventions can often exacerbate the very problems they're intended to solve, about how the constant redefining of poverty and misdiagnosis of problems as poverty when they're not means we'll never eliminate it.
I could, but I'd have to go over a lot of what I've already said and a lot more besides and I can't be arsed, its descended into insults so I'm calling it a day on this one.

Perhaps we might find something to agree about on another thread, one about climbing even and perhaps realise that people aren't idiots because they don't share your political opinions.

In reply to pec:


yep..... just like Oxfam have a vested interest in starvation or the NSPCC do in kids being sexually abused...

In reply to summo:

No, it's the safety net. If your plan A solution works then nobody need use it.

In reply to Timmd:
What I find curious is the implication by the Trussell Trust that this poverty is something new, and that this is evidenced by the recent growth of food banks. What is new is the food banks, not the poverty. Previously nobody knows what people did in similar circumstance- of a sudden cash flow crisis-but presumably they went to a money lender or borrowed off friends if possible, or went without. The food banks represent a new and arguably better way to deal with these problems.

The argument that the growth in food banks demonstrates a growth in poverty is a bit like saying that the growth in NHS demonstrated declining national health.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>Previously nobody knows what people did in similar circumstance- of a sudden cash flow crisis-but presumably they went to a money lender or borrowed off friends if possible, or went without.

From my experience it was a mixture of the above. It is hard for anyone who hasn't been there to understand, I've only nearly been there and I'm only just beginning to understand.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that this is a new problem, they are just trying to solve a problem that the 'state' increasingly wants to ignore.

In reply to Eeyore:


I think there is narrative that says the government is driving people into poverty and that the growth of the food banks demonstrates this.

It is probably true that the administrative failings associated with the changes in the benefits system-missed payments, mistaken assessments etc have contributed to and exacerbated the problems of short term financial crisis. Does anyone really believe that such failures are new? I seem to remember similar things being reported when tax credits were introduced.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Where have they said this?

Previously nobody knows what people did in similar circumstance- of a sudden cash flow crisis

You might not know that doesn't mean nobody knows....people in those circumstances know.



Poor analogy.......most extra demands for the NHS are due to an ageing population.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I agree and don't think this is very helpful.


I don't know anyone who says this is a new thing, I know many that consider it is becoming a more common problem and that any sort of sympathy/compassion has reduced over the last 2 decades.

In reply to abr1966:


I'd infer it from this "Hundreds of thousands of Britons driven to food banks by poverty in the past year are seen as “collateral damage”"



On an individual basis of course they do, but the there is not much reliable research (so I've read) to give an overview.


They are now but they weren't in the fifties and sixties.

In reply to abr1966:


Funnily enough, there's an increasing body of opinion that the aid industry is actually part of the problem rather than the solution.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2010/03/development-aid-industry-is-part-of-the-prob...

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2012/02/27/reflections-on-aid-effectiven...

At the very least, the law of unintended consequences can't be ignored. Food for thought perhaps?

In reply to melocoton:
Be very careful of how you compare aid to disaster areas or developing nations with the current situation in the UK. I wouldn't argue against either of the two links you provided.

In reply to melocoton:

Well you refer to 'an increasing body of opinion'....I'm not sure about that, or if it is increasing what proportion of evidence this represents.

I would never say it's straightforward....aid has been robbed and plundered far too readily and I've seen this first hand. I'd still argue that those people needing aid are the priority and a focus on this is essential.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I have to agree. I was a teenager in the 70's, and saw far worse poverty then than exists now, no food banks then though. There was far worse poverty in the 80's, too I believe. Food banks, as I linked to above, are a very recent phenomena.

In reply to Big Ger:

My final view on the subject. I believe the foodbanks are a result of a partial breakdown of 'support networks' and the compassionate response to this.

In reply to summo:

My grandfather had an allotment and grew a lot of food (my dad's family were pretty poor, with no family holidays, and fruit and nuts in the Christmas stocks and the like), but I dare say that's more of a long term solution, and that hungry people can't wait for things to grow. The job centers require people to put more time into looking for work now too (how productively is open to interpretation), which might mean less time spare for people to grow food on their allotments. I think it's ment to be good for the mental health to grow your food though.

There's a couple of group in Sheffield, called Abundance & Regather, between them they gather fruit from bushes and trees in and around Sheffield, and use food which would otherwise get thrown away and cook and serve it in a cafe, where people can pay what they think it's worth, with the ethos being about not wasting food.

Sheffield can seem rather 'village like' at times, in how a lot of people can have just two other people connecting them where they don't know each other, and I gather that Sheffield Food Collective (an umbrella organisation which fund raises and collects food donations for any food banks needing donations) was set up when the founders became aware of an increase in the use of food banks, and more of a need for people to donate food to them.

In reply to Eeyore:


The food banks are "support networks"

In reply to Postmanpat:

They are now.