Food-banks Options

[Petra]

Here is a teaser for you all to answer. Are food banks necessary or just an instrument of abuse? And are people really suffering or just bad at managing their money? Or just very clever?
Food banks are now everywhere, which means that people who are short of money can redirect what they have got (to smart phones, satellite TV etc.) and away from the essentials (such as food) because food-banks supplies that need.

It will be interesting to see how people will come back on this one.

Yours,

Petra

[On the edge]

The great thing about most Food Banks is that they are sourced and run totally independently. So, on that basis, what right have we got to criticise their validity? It does mean that the people who support them clearly feel our State welfare provision is inadequate in some areas and more, are prepared to do something positive themselves to mitigate the situation; apart from just political hand wringing.

[GMR]

The great thing about most Food Banks is that they are sourced and run totally independently. So, on that basis, what right have we got to criticise their validity? It does mean that the people who support them clearly feel our State welfare provision is inadequate in some areas and more, are prepared to do something positive themselves to mitigate the situation; apart from just political hand wringing.

I agree that those food banks are genuine and only wish is to help those in need. But how do we classify those in need? They all basically get the same money so why does one have needs and the other doesn't. Is the answer "thrift?" If the answer if thrift then food banks aren't the answer.

[Simon Kirby]

But how do we classify those in need?

Why would you want to do that?

[GMR]

Why would you want to do that?

Doesn't society do that as a matter of course, anyway? Otherwise any Tom, **** or Harry will just claim Tax payers money.

[Simon Kirby]

Doesn't society do that as a matter of course, anyway? Otherwise any Tom, **** or Harry will just claim Tax payers money.

No, why do you need to "classify those in need"? Are you running a food bank? As I understand it the professionals who make the referrals to the Trussell Trust food banks use their judgement to assess the acute crisis need on the evidence before them - I'm going to take a punt here and say that I doubt the possession of a mobile phone is one of the things they look for to assess that need. Actually they're very likely to have a mobile phone, most people do, and the thing about an acute welfare crisis, its main distinguishing feature, is that it's acute - sudden, unplanned, unexpected. There's little value in a mobile phone handset and it's generally impossible to terminate a phone contract without notice so even if they had no money at all for food I'd still expect them to have their phone and it's asinine to suggest that they're abusing the charity of strangers on that imagined "evidence" when all that we know about the Trussell method of only handing food on referral and then only for there weeks maximum assures us that their method is not open to abuse. My overwhelming concern is for the food bank claimants and the fact that the state welfare system is incapable of preventing, and quite possibly responsible for creating, the kind of desperate situation that no civilised society should ignore.

[GMR]

No, why do you need to "classify those in need"? Are you running a food bank? As I understand it the professionals who make the referrals to the Trussell Trust food banks use their judgement to assess the acute crisis need on the evidence before them - I'm going to take a punt here and say that I doubt the possession of a mobile phone is one of the things they look for to assess that need. Actually they're very likely to have a mobile phone, most people do, and the thing about an acute welfare crisis, its main distinguishing feature, is that it's acute - sudden, unplanned, unexpected. There's little value in a mobile phone handset and it's generally impossible to terminate a phone contract without notice so even if they had no money at all for food I'd still expect them to have their phone and it's asinine to suggest that they're abusing the charity of strangers on that imagined "evidence" when all that we know about the Trussell method of only handing food on referral and then only for there weeks maximum assures us that their method is not open to abuse. My overwhelming concern is for the food bank claimants and the fact that the state welfare system is incapable of preventing, and quite possibly responsible for creating, the kind of desperate situation that no civilised society should ignore.

Actually, the only reason I said what I said was to follow on from Petra's main post to create a debate. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for mobile phones. You are right, there is no value in a mobile phone, other than they have a contract or have to pay for it; and if they were that desperate they could use that money to help them out. Food money is more important than phone money or even satellite money.

My whole point was to create a discussion - following on from Petra's post - not a moral crusade.

[Simon Kirby]

As for mobile phones. You are right, there is no value in a mobile phone, other than they have a contract or have to pay for it; and if they were that desperate they could use that money to help them out. Food money is more important than phone money or even satellite money.

Like I say, it's far from clear how you can know whether the users of a food bank have mobile phones so the posit that phone ownership is correlated with scrounging is at best ungrounded and the redemption value of a handset and contract is moot, but what the hey: if you have a phone contract and you find yourself in acute crisis need the best you could do is give your phone company notice to terminate the contract, but depending on the details if that wasn't actually to cost you money in termination charges the termination could take many months notice and you would still have the on-going liability until the contract terminated, by which time you would more than likely have sorted yourself out and then have the cost and inconvenience of taking out a new contract, having suffered the unnecessary inconvenience all that while of not having a phone at a time when you probably needed one more than ever. You might try and keep your bill down by minimising the use of the phone but you'd still have the phone and as your contract quite probably had free minutes you could still make a limited number of calls. Maybe you have a pay-as-you-go phone in which case you could not buy any more top-ups until you were out of trouble, but you couldn't get the money back on the minutes you'd already bought and so the phone would still be available to you.