Food banks

The thread about PMQs got me thinking about one of the topics that was ""discussed" - food banks. I found this rather excellent article: Food banks: is Cameron on the money? | The FactCheck Blog

What interests me is not so much whether Cameron or Milliband were right or wrong, but rather the scale of the need for such a service. At first I was simply shocked. Then I realised that, actually, accessing benefit payments is so bound with bureaucracy that people could indeed starve to death while the petits fonctionnaires shuffle paper around.

The people who run the food banks have realised this, and their website emphasises that the food is merely an emergency service. They also provide help with getting proper benefit payments from the state. This is the other side of the coin from benefit scroungers. The food banks help people who are genuinely deserving, but whom the welfare state has failed.

http://www.trusselltrust.org/

Seems its a massive thing in Spain also.

Originally Posted by Nippy

The food banks help people who are genuinely deserving, but whom the welfare state has failed.

You're right, but it's not about the inefficiency of the offices, it's the deliberate policies to deny benefits at the drop of a hat, which can carry on for weeks after the "sanction".



According to this article, compiled in co-operation with the Trussell Trust, that accounts for something less than half the food bank recipients, the rest being victims of doorstep lending which continues unregulated and makes its practictioners rich.

BBC News - The growing demand for food banks in breadline Britain

And on the flip side I know 3 families that are on benefits and get help from a food bank, they see it as a way of getting something for nothing :rant:

I'm shocked that many people are using them. And I'm guessing most of those users represent a household i.e. several mouths to feed. I though people in desperate straits got crisis loans/handouts from the local authority? Or am I way out of date there?

Originally Posted by go_slow

And on the flip side I know 3 families that are on benefits and get help from a food bank, they see it as a way of getting something for nothing :rant:

Who'd have thought the people on benefits don't get 5-bed Belgravia mansions, luxury cars and all the beer and tabs provided for them? Next you'll be telling me they're only the 3rd generation skivers. Perish the thought people on benefits might be suffering hardship, or something. Or might want their kids not to have to make the choice between food and heating

Originally Posted by go_slow

And on the flip side I know 3 families that are on benefits and get help from a food bank, they see it as a way of getting something for nothing :rant:

I wondered about that when I was reading it... nice people like the Trussell Trust probably don't ask awkward questions.

People with little money seem to prioritize in a weird way. Was round at my gf's colleagues house for lunch at the weekend, both of them earn a v low wage, they have 3 kids and their council house was at a bloody baltic temperature presumably to save on the gas bill. And yet a 55" telly and skybox grace the lounge. Get warm first people, then waste money on shit entertainment

Maybe they're just keen environmentalists...

Originally Posted by Slothbear

I'm shocked that many people are using them. And I'm guessing most of those users represent a household i.e. several mouths to feed. I though people in desperate straits got crisis loans/handouts from the local authority? Or am I way out of date there?

Read the BBC article I posted, crisis loans are loans and have to be repaid. Might be all right if you can get a decent job - one that actually pays enough to live on without having to resort to benenfits again to be able to live. Trouble is, there aren't a lot of those around ATM. Even if you have something that takes you off the unemployment stats...

Statistics cast doubt on coalition's '500,000 new jobs' claim | UK news | The Guardian

Originally Posted by Slothbear

And yet a 55" telly and skybox grace the lounge. Get warm first people, then waste money on shit entertainment

People prioritise things differently, the lower orders give a greater priority to TV. You could argue with entertainment at home there's less temptation for them to go out and spend money. If you spread the cost of that set and Sky box over a period of years it's not massive, maybe they didn't have holidays or new cars to pay for it. Heating a house is something like £100 a month, every month.

Originally Posted by Tomcat

People prioritise things differently, the lower orders give a greater priority to TV. You could argue with entertainment at home there's less temptation for them to go out and spend money. If you spread the cost of that set and Sky box over a period of years it's not massive, maybe they didn't have holidays or new cars to pay for it. Heating a house is something like £100 a month, every month.

Fair enough. I was being a bit snobbish there really. And it was a very nice lunch!

Originally Posted by Tomcat

Who'd have thought the people on benefits don't get 5-bed Belgravia mansions, luxury cars and all the beer and tabs provided for them? Next you'll be telling me they're only the 3rd generation skivers. Perish the thought people on benefits might be suffering hardship, or something. Or might want their kids not to have to make the choice between food and heating

Whatever.

Originally Posted by go_slow

Whatever.

Well you've convinced me.

There's truth in most of the above posts.

Originally Posted by go_slow

Whatever.

There'll always be people who will rip the arse out of any benefit, whether state provided or charitable. But when I read the Trussell website, I thought they'd made sensible provision to prevent long term use (or abuse) of the facilities. Three weeks of support is the standard, although no doubt that could be extended in dire circumstances.

Originally Posted by KorkyKat

There's an element of truth in most of the above posts.

My point was one view from personal experience but of course there was the predictable response.