|
Post by Barney McGrew on Apr 16, 2014 5:52:24 GMT
A food bank charity says it has handed out 913,000 food parcels in the last year, up from 347,000 the year before. The Trussell Trust said a third were given to repeat visitors but that there was a "shocking" 51% rise in clients to established food banks. It said benefit payment delays were the main cause. In a letter to ministers, more than 500 clergy say the increase is "terrible". The government said there was no evidence of a link between welfare reforms and the use of food banks. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27032642What a shocking indictment in the one of the largest economies in the world. £10 billion a year given in foreign aid while our own queue up for charity food parcels. Proud to be British? Not any more mate.
|
|
|
Post by sesley on Apr 17, 2014 7:59:22 GMT
Ciggies, booze, sky tv.verses food?...how many of that number choose the those over buying food
|
|
|
Post by Barney McGrew on Apr 18, 2014 5:49:10 GMT
Ciggies, booze, sky tv.verses food?...how many of that number choose the those over buying food You could try visiting a food bank to check. Next time you leave your ivory tower that is. Or you could type "food banks " into Google News and reading a few news articles then you may know a bit more about how many turn up in BMWs, wearing Rolex watches and carrying iPhones as well.
|
|
|
Post by Ned Long on Apr 18, 2014 12:52:37 GMT
Provide something for nothing. Then act surprised when the freebies are snapped up. Do you really suppose that if there were NO foodbanks, we would have bodies littering the streets looking like escapees from Belsen? I appreciate that living on welfare at the bottom of the social heap cannot be easy, or pleasant. But with a little planning, and a little prioritising, nobody on welfare need go hungry.
Of course, if your priorities are the latest mobile, or a SKY package, or booze, then things might get a little harder. Put it another way. If Milliband were to increase welfare payments by (say) 10% (which he cannot without committing electoral suicide) do you think that it would make any difference to the demand for a free hand-out? I think not. The government intends to cap welfare to the average wage, and I can see nothing wrong with that; not if you want to encourage the work shy to seek employment and support themselves.
|
|
|
Post by PeterL on Apr 18, 2014 21:18:56 GMT
Ciggies, booze, sky tv.verses food?...how many of that number choose the those over buying food Anyone who can afford to spend £21.50 a month on Sky TV or spend several pounds on booze or fags every month in my opinon as no right to use food banks
|
|
|
Post by Barney McGrew on Apr 19, 2014 5:53:22 GMT
Has everybody on this board suddenly become illiterate?
"Some 83% of food banks reported that benefits sanctions - when payments are temporarily stopped - had resulted in more people being referred for emergency food.
And more than 30% of visits were put down to a delay in welfare payments.
The second biggest reason, given by 20% of food bank users, was low income."
Then read the rest of the article.
Now go and look up what you need to do to get food from food banks, how long you can get it for and how many days supply you can get and how often.
Then you can tell me how a man who has worked for low wages all his life can save up in case he becomes unemployed or sick.
I really cannot argue with the idiotic view that almost 1 million people are idle scroungers who all gamble their money away, smoke, drink and have Sky t.v.
|
|
|
Post by PeterL on Apr 19, 2014 7:30:16 GMT
I really cannot argue with the idiotic view that almost 1 million people are idle scroungers who all gamble their money away, smoke, drink and have Sky t.v. No one on this board is saying that, but what we are saying is if anyone can afford Sky TV, or to spend several pounds every week or month on smoking or drinking. Should not be intitled to use food banks
|
|
|
Post by Barney McGrew on Apr 20, 2014 6:09:57 GMT
I really cannot argue with the idiotic view that almost 1 million people are idle scroungers who all gamble their money away, smoke, drink and have Sky t.v. No one on this board is saying that, but what we are saying is if anyone can afford Sky TV, or to spend several pounds every week or month on smoking or drinking. Should not be intitled to use food banks So if I choose to take a couple of bags of shopping up to a food bank to help a family whose benefit claim has been delayed for weeks or is on very low pay I should instruct the staff not to give the food to anyone who smokes, has Sky t.v. or likes a pint? This is just 3 days supply of food for someone who has fallen on hard times donated by people who don't want to see hungry people in this country, not a lifetime of free shopping at Tesco paid for out of the public purse we're talking about. Should I get them to sign the pledge to give up smoking, drinking and Sky t.v. forever as well? To my mind if a man has fallen on hard times he should be helped not left to starve by people who have no idea what it's like to go hungry and then told he must give up everything else before anyone will help him. The old National Assistance board would come in and count the tea spoons and tell the poor to sell all but one before they'd get help.
|
|
|
Post by sesley on Apr 20, 2014 8:25:58 GMT
Food banks are for people with no money. So those that can buy ciggies and booze can buy food, they just have to make a choice food or habit.
|
|
|
Post by PeterL on Apr 20, 2014 16:13:30 GMT
Barney if you had to decide who should and who should not receive food parcels How would you come to that decision?
|
|
|
Post by Barney McGrew on Apr 21, 2014 5:49:59 GMT
Food banks are for people with no money. So those that can buy ciggies and booze can buy food, they just have to make a choice food or habit. It's 3 days supply of basic food for God's sake. Not a lifetime of foie gras and quail's eggs from Fortnum and Mason. How much food can a packet of fags buy?
|
|
|
Post by Barney McGrew on Apr 21, 2014 6:02:42 GMT
Barney if you had to decide who should and who should not receive food parcels How would you come to that decision? I don't have to. As far as I am concerned there may one or two undeserving cases, there are conman and scammers in every walk of life.but usually people have to be referred by an agency such as the DWP or a doctor or social services because they are deemed to be in need of food. They are entitled to 3 days supply of basic foodstuffs twice a year. It's not people pulling up in BMWs and Jags filling the car boot. It's two or 3 bags to feed the individual and his kids for 3 days until they get permanent help. There are thousands of low paid people using food banks because they can't pay the bills and feed their family. What are going to tell them to do? Cancel their Sky t.v. for 3 days? Not to have a pint for 3 days? As I said there are scammers and thieves in every branch of life, but I'm not going to stop people robbing the blind by not giving to the blind am I? Read the original link and see why people use food banks. If that was sorted we wouldn't need food banks.
|
|
|
Post by sesley on Apr 21, 2014 7:34:08 GMT
Packet of fags bottle of booze or 3 days of food. You can buy cans of beans, soup, pasta even sausages .there are enough pound shops around now. It can't be hard to buy basic stuff instead of fags.
|
|
|
Post by PeterL on Apr 21, 2014 7:49:46 GMT
Packet of fags bottle of booze or 3 days of food. You can buy cans of beans, soup, pasta even sausages .there are enough pound shops around now. It can't be hard to buy basic stuff instead of fags. Some people think fags are just as important as food
|
|
|
Post by sesley on Apr 21, 2014 10:26:41 GMT
Well thats why they are short of money for food and after a while suffering from ill health
|
|