Food banks-shut them down I say

[mongrel]

Up to half a million people are dependent on food banks in the UK.


http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...entary-inquiry

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-of-food-banks


Am I the only person who feels this smacks of the old Medieval poor relief ? Why are people dependent on them in the 21st century? Bugger Big Society, foodbanks erode what I thought was the social contract, that through our work, income, and during the bad times, social security as paid for through national insurance and taxation we should collectively, at the very least, be housed and fed. Since when did charity take over to paper the cracks of poor pay and delays/cuts in benefits ? Why should we pay European levels of taxation for US levels of social protection?

[Gaidin]

Yea, let them starve.

[mongrel]

Yea, let them starve.

It may sound harsh, but if the government and local councils knew that the effect of their policies regarding low pay, bedroom tax and so forth and civil servants knew that the effect of benefit cock-ups would be starvation and possible political consequences arising from that, then they might, just might, pull their fingers from their nether regions and change something for the better.

[Gaidin]

It may sound harsh, but if the government and local councils knew that the effect of their policies regarding low pay, bedroom tax and so forth and civil servants knew that the effect of benefit cock-ups would be starvation and possible political consequences arising from that, then they might, just might, pull their fingers from their nether regions and change something for the better.

So? That's something you do after they change something for the better. Removing the food banks and then telling them to fix it is a great way for them to let people starve while they debate about ways they don't agree about. That's analogous to something we just experienced on this side of the pond, in case you didn't notice.

Sorry but I care about people's lives more than I care about your politics.

[mongrel]

So? That's something you do after they change something for the better. Removing the food banks and then telling them to fix it is a great way for them to let people starve while they debate about ways they don't agree about. That's analogous to something we just experienced on this side of the pond, in case you didn't notice.

Sorry but I care about people's lives more than I care about your politics.

You don't seem to care enough about whether the unwaged and modestly paid should be treated as Medieval serfs. I and others do.

We pay European levels of taxation. We should get European levels of support in return. Instead money pouring into the hands of utility operators who we thought were private businesses relying on shareholders, the banks, private landlords and shoddy employers using the benefits system to line their on pockets and so on. If we had US levels of taxation, so that the least well paid would have some money from the pittance they receive from their zero hour jobs , then you might have an argument. But to tax us all tand tell us that charities will be covering government provision? That is wrong.

[Gaidin]

You don't seem to care enough about whether the unwaged and modestly paid should be treated as Medieval serfs. I and others do.

We pay European levels of taxation. We should get European levels of support in return. Instead money pouring into the hands of utility operators who we thought were private businesses relying on shareholders, the banks, private landlords and shoddy employers using the benefits system to line their on pockets and so on. If we had US levels of taxation, so that the least well paid would have some money from the pittance they receive from their zero hour jobs , then you might have an argument. But to tax us all tand tell us that charities will be covering government provision? That is wrong.

So do it in the right order then. That's the only thing I've said in this thread. Get what you're saying about me right at least.

[justicar5]

So? That's something you do after they change something for the better. Removing the food banks and then telling them to fix it is a great way for them to let people starve while they debate about ways they don't agree about. That's analogous to something we just experienced on this side of the pond, in case you didn't notice.

Sorry but I care about people's lives more than I care about your politics.

A few food riots and council offices burned down would focus the mind of the sadistic inbred toffs known as the Tory party quite well.

Ban food banks so starving peasants flood the streets and riot against public austerity measures. Great idea I don't claim to know anything about the British system of public programs, but in the US, food banks are one of the few public assistance programs I agree with. Food banks give vital assistance to those that truly need it; a welcome alternative to the bloated bureaucracy of "welfare debit cards" that can be used anywhere. The best part about food banks in the US is that they are locally based and privately stocked with donations, which keeps out the sprawling octopus of the federal middle man. If people are truly dependent on them, then the only reason to "ban" them would be to incite the kind of unrest that only real hunger can provoke. Banning food banks....Never in my life have I heard such a ridiculous proposal put forth as a serious "solution" to public problems

Yes, the torys need to be shown the price of their hubris..



Neo-Liberalism needs to be killed, utterly and completely destroyed, it's ideas outlawed under penalty of being placed on hard labour for 1p per hour, and made to buy you own food...at Harrods.

[Gaidin]

A few food riots and council offices burned down would focus the mind of the sadistic inbred toffs known as the Tory party quite well.

I ask you the same thing I ask mongrel, which he has ironically avoided answering. Too damned scared. Maybe you won't be. Do you have enough Rand Pauls in government to pass a law making food banks illegal. The only way volunteers quit is if their job is impossible or unnecessary. Their job is obviously necessary at the moment as far as they're concerned, which is something mongrel refuses to process as you can tell by his latest post. Do you have enough Rand Paul clones to pass a law making food banks illegal, thus making what they do impossible?

[Aymer de Valence]

This must be one of the only things I am actually in agreement with you about.

[Caelifer_1991]

I agree too, one of either two systems ought to be chosen in the long run, either a high tax, high security system, or a low tax, low security system. A high tax, low security system appears to combine the worst of both possible systems. Then again, during a period of extended deleveraging, a high tax, low government expenditure system is to be expected if sufficient growth rates through a low tax, high expenditure system sufficient to overtake increases in loan repayments through expanding debt obligations can't be achieved. As we all know, the Conservative government opted for an austerity based approach as opposed to a growth based one, so it's logical to assume that they believe that a growth based policy would be unsuccessful, whether they're correct or not is another matter.

[caratacus]

I confess to knowing very little about Food Banks apart from what I have read. But are they really fundamental to preventing people starving or are they a fall back when money is tight? Food is very expensive these days but it is still possible to sustain oneself on the little money that the state provides. Although gosh! the stigma attached to dependency on social welfare is greater than it has been for many years. That's the reason the Government has been able to whittle away at the benefits system without a widespread public outcry.

It seems to me, that changes to benefits are directly related to the growth of these Food Banks and to argue otherwise would very difficult. One of the changes introduced by the Tories and their silent twins the Lib Dems (in the Government but not part of the Government) was to phase out the provision of extra money in cases of emergency (Crisis Loans). People could borrow money one week if they were caught out in their weekly budgets and pay it back the next week. Has any research been done on who is using Food Banks and why? Are they the unemployed or low paid etc

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

This is the first thing I agree with you on, Mongrel.

[Gaidin]

Volunteer agencies do that because they want to. They want to help people. Too damn bad for you huh? The only thing that's going to stop them is if you convince your hundreds of Rand Pauls to pass a law saying they can't. Does your government have enough Rand Paul clones? I'm not even sure ours does, and hell we have the damn Tea Party.

[Condottiere 40K]

1, Charity begins at home.

2. In order to have a government small enough to drown in a bath tub, you need to shrink it first. But first order ten billion bucks worth of ships you don't actually need.

[Denny Crane!]

Read what I said to Dante in the other thread.

Mongrel says it is to cover benefit cuts...they started 13 years ago. 1 in 6 use them because benefits problems, 1 in 5 because of low income. The rest for many other reasons.

Scaremongering and misleading propaganda kinda what you accused me of oddly. I jest but only partially because it isnt cut and dried this one but it is being painted that way for political purposes I suspect.

No benefit cuts happened, would food banks have existed? Yes. Give everyone on benefits an extra £50 a week. Would food banks still exist. Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mongrel]

Volunteer agencies do that because they want to. They want to help people. Too damn bad for you huh? The only thing that's going to stop them is if you convince your hundreds of Rand Pauls to pass a law saying they can't. Does your government have enough Rand Paul clones? I'm not even sure ours does, and hell we have the damn Tea Party.

Volunteers can be persuaded to stand down, given a strong moral argument. Saying nothing will not produce that argument.

Read what I said to Dante in the other thread.

Mongrel says it is to cover benefit cuts...they started 13 years ago. 1 in 6 use them because benefits problems, 1 in 5 because of low income. The rest for many other reasons.

Scaremongering and misleading propaganda kinda what you accused me of oddly. I jest but only partially because it isnt cut and dried this one but it is being painted that way for political purposes I suspect.

No benefit cuts happened, would food banks have existed? Yes. Give everyone on benefits an extra £50 a week. Would food banks still exist. Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Possibly. However I believe there is a difference between having a voluntary system offering temporary help those few who fall between the cracks and the state relying permanently on the third sector to replace functions paid for by taxpayers.

[Gaidin]

Volunteers can be persuaded to stand down, given a strong moral argument. Saying nothing will not produce that argument.

The only strong enough moral argument for a volunteer is action and you know it just by the fact that they're volunteering. If action hasn't been taken to make their action unnecessary then you can't make argument that says their action is unnecessary. Not to them. It's just how they are. They're giving their time and money(what, you thought the food was free?) away for free. It's the nature of the beast. Saying something will not produce that argument. Doing nothing will not produce that argument. Doing something might produce that argument. Doing something that produces the right results will produce that argument. And even then they might keep going anyway because you're going to still have people that are on the streets or are poor and can't afford food no matter what kind of system you put in place.

[mongrel]

The only strong enough moral argument for a volunteer is action and you know it just by the fact that they're volunteering. If action hasn't been taken to make their action unnecessary then you can't make argument that says their action is unnecessary. Not to them. It's just how they are. They're giving their time and money(what, you thought the food was free?) away for free. It's the nature of the beast. Saying something will not produce that argument. Doing nothing will not produce that argument. Doing something might produce that argument. Doing something that produces the right results will produce that argument. And even then they might keep going anyway because you're going to still have people that are on the streets or are poor and can't afford food no matter what kind of system you put in place.

We did have a system which didn't have 500,000 begging for food. Why can't we have it back?

Strictly speaking Food banks are largely organized by one company in the UK, on a franchise system .

http://www.the-icsf.org/wp-content/u...z-Nov-2012.pdf

From the above report..... it is important that franchisees understand the value of the pre-existing knowledge and infrastructure that the Trussell Trust has built up, rather than expecting it ‘for free’ because they are starting a charity. On interviewee also emphasised that
having financial readiness as a criteriafor the franchise was also a way of filtering out those who “just think they will have a go at it and those that are committed to it.” In addition, it is important that the franchisee group setting up a Foodbank has enough
money to cover operational costs and franchise maintenance, which includes training and on-going support. Each franchisee makes a one-off donation of £1,500 at start up stage, followed by an ongoing ‘donation’ of £360 per year. This covers approximately one third of the set up and support costs, with the remaining two thirds fundraised by the Trussell Trust.

Money is now being provided by government to local councils to supplement that given by Churches organizing relief. That is our money, not volunteer money. IT does sound to me as if the Trust has a financial interest in the deteriorating status quo.


Also we pay tax and NI for providing social security and now we have to buy tins or the poor out of our own good grace in order to provide provision for which we have already paid taxes?
Retail giants are partnering these schemes, claiming tax relief as they do so and buying stocks their stores for volunteers to buy and fill these food banks, whilst local small retailers lose out on business as poor families are denied the ability to shop locally with ready cash.

Is this reasonable?

Ian Duncan Smith agreed to a pilot scheme where Job Centre staff would be asked to hand out Trussell Trust food parcel vouchers when people were refused crisis loans. He promised to Parliament that “It is important that it does not become a substitute for anything else”. I can only guess that the poor are of less importance now. Crisis loans are 0.00068% of the DWP budget and costs us buggerall because, as unlikebenefits crisis loans are paid back. How is it more efficient to have these people beg food off strangers?

Well im not against charity, good or bad, it has been necessary, however i certainly understand where you come from, and i couldnt agree more.

That said, i think the fight for a less charity dependent society its not made by banning it, or atacking it, it must start with giving diginity to all human beings, and the acknowledgement that Human rights go behond freedom of speech, and Private enterprise. There are other rights quite important, and they are all part of the concept of human dignity. Being dependent on others for percieved basic human rights, its a loss of diginity, im quite sure of it.

Btw UK is not the only Country in the EU sufering from this major Problem. Here in Portugal (wich is the reality i know better) things escalated quite rapidly, and unprecedented on this area ( at least in our modern history). Alot of people feels alot of shame for resorting to charity to feed, and i cant blame then. In fact Oxfam reports, a rise in poverty across the EU for the future, that is no joke at all. Never in Our history there has been so much empty houses, and People needing it,never has been such abundance of food, and so manny needing it. Something is quire wrong with this picture.

I am not sure whether to be saddened or angered by this. Truly awful.

[Gaidin]

We did have a system which didn't have 500,000 begging for food. Why can't we have it back?

Strictly speaking Food banks are largely organized by one company in the UK, on a franchise system .

http://www.the-icsf.org/wp-content/u...z-Nov-2012.pdf

What does that have to do with the nature of volunteering?

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

If we let them starve to death then we can give the politicians extra wages so they can send their kids to Eton and pay for skying trips.Sounds like Boris and David can give this one a thumbs up.
Meanwhile the Queen is sitting on her throne paid for by tax payers .

China's just sent a rocket to the moon and is an economic superpower. So, Mr Cameron... why ARE we still giving them £27MILLION in aid?

• Revelation comes days after China successfully landed probe on the moon
  
• Two weeks ago David Cameron went to Beijing seeking Chinese investment
• Critics called on International Development Secretary Justine Greening to explain why UK aid is going to China and 14 other nations judged ineligible
• The aid to China is enough to pay for 1,000 nurses
  

By JASON GROVES
PUBLISHED: 23:25 GMT, 15 December 2013 | UPDATED: 08:04 GMT, 16 December 2013
Britain is still giving China millions of pounds in aid even though the Communist superpower is so wealthy it has just sent a rocket to the moon.
Official figures seen by the Daily Mail reveal that Britain gave Beijing £27.4million last year – making a mockery of ministerial assurances that the programme was to stop.
The revelation comes days after China flaunted its might by successfully landing a probe on the lunar surface. And only two weeks ago David Cameron went to Beijing to seek Chinese investment to improve Britain’s ailing infrastructure.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2orAwXM6Q I guess the cash given to China and India etc could give every kid in the UK a present Xmas day and some food.It reminds me of the movie Oliver or the Irish famine due to mismanagement.Why send weapons to Al Quida in Syria and starve your own people.The leaders are out of touch and in a EU law straight jacket