Food-banks Options

[Petra]

To All,

A good discussion, but I do feel the welfare state does need a shake up. It also shows that you create something like a food bank, then all crawl out of the woodwork to get their free goodies. The welfare state is not on the agenda here, but food banks were created, not through state funds, but voluntary contributions and help so as it isn’t the tax payer who is footing the bill, just charitable people, then continue regardless. Nobody is really suffering and people are gaining, and usually the lower end of society, so putting on our compassionate masks we can wave the onslaught on and retire to our cosy world knowing our blindness is helping the desperate, dishonest and free-for-alls.

Yours,

Petra

[Don]

Howdy all,

I must praise the food banks. My son got caught short and was directed towards them. The food banks helped and he could feed his family. But I must say, he didn't find it hard to be put on the food banks. He just told the authorities his needs and they gave him a chitty and he went down their and got his shopping. He did think though that there were people using the banks that didn't really need it. They took it though because it was on offer. Whatever reasons people have for using them, my son and I am grateful for them (on his behalf).

[On the edge]

Why would you want to scrap the Welfare state when someone questions food banks? This debate has nothing to do with the welfare state or wishes for it to be scrapped.

The whole tenor of the original post and the supporters of the proposition can be construed as an attack on the welfare state; or that some of the recipients are scroungers. Arguably, criticising food banks as a concept is pretty odd anyway, given that it's a charity and has no call on the public purse. The people who run and support the foodbanks are really the only ones with any real right to decide who gets the benefit.

[GMR]

The whole tenor of the original post and the supporters of the proposition can be construed as an attack on the welfare state; or that some of the recipients are scroungers. Arguably, criticising food banks as a concept is pretty odd anyway, given that it's a charity and has no call on the public purse. The people who run and support the foodbanks are really the only ones with any real right to decide who gets the benefit.

Oh, I agree, whether it is being taken advantage of or not. As you said, and Petra said, it is not the tax payer footing the bill so it doesn't really matter.

[Andy Capp]

With very rare exception, all human beings are programmed to survive and up to now we have been very successful at it.

This discussion reminds me of other similar ones that go along the lines of fatties: they lack self control.

People who are industrious and have through good fortune, are intelligent, can manipulate people into providing them with more resources than is equitable. Other people lack this quality and live hand to mouth. These people manipulate human instinct for compassion and welfare.

It is easy to get sucked into 'Benefit Street' rage, but everyone is simply doing what they can to live.

I feel the hand-downs will become more and more needed as mechanisation takes over and human labour becomes redundant. In effect I think we will have to get used to the idea of something for nothing, unless we embark on some sort of culling program.

In effect I don't resent people, whether scrounging meth-heads or simply unfortunates (I see them as the same thing), I just see it as my duty to be the best I can before being concerned about other people and passing judgement upon them.


There but for the grace of God go I.

[GMR]

With very rare exception, all human beings are programmed to survive and up to now we have been very successful at it. This discussion reminds me of other similar ones that go along the lines of fatties: they lack self control. People who are industrious and have through good fortune, are intelligent, can manipulate people into providing them with more resources than is equitable. Other people lack this quality and live hand to mouth. These people manipulate human instinct for compassion and welfare. It is easy to get sucked into 'Benefit Street' rage, but everyone is simply doing what they can to live. I feel the hand-downs will become more and more needed as mechanisation takes over and human labour becomes redundant. In effect I think we will have to get used to the idea of something for nothing, unless we embark on some sort of culling program. In effect I don't resent people, whether scrounging meth-heads or simply unfortunates (I see them as the same thing), I just see it as my duty to be the best I can before being concerned about other people and passing judgement upon them. There but for the grace of God go I.

Hear! hear! So we end this conversation in total agreement. Unless somebody else has something to add.

[Simon Kirby]

A good discussion, but I do feel the welfare state does need a shake up. It also shows that you create something like a food bank, then all crawl out of the woodwork to get their free goodies.

No, that isn't what the discussion concluded at all. The discussion concluded that foodbanks were rescuing people in dire need and that this charitable niche existed because the welfare state was inadequate. The proposition that foodbanks are abused by the undeserving poor was substantiated on the basis that the undeserving poor are feckless scroungers, but there is no evidence for that and the argument is a circular one.

[Andy Capp]

I'm feckless; I haven't got a good feck in me anymore!

[Simon Kirby]

I'm feckless; I haven't got a good feck in me anymore!

I've mislaid mine from time to time, but it generally turns up somewhere.

[Petra]

Mr Kirby,

I totally agree with you that there are genuine claimants’ which need food banks. I will not argue there. But I think they are few and far between. The majority jump on a free bandwagon, thus obscuring the authentic ones. But that is neither here nor there, as this is not a tax funded operation. Therefore, should we concern ourselves with the ethics here. Obviously not.

The trouble with people like you is that you are reactionaries. Instead of thinking it through, your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist). If the government or an organisation gave away something free it is obvious that people would jump on the bandwagon and want something for nothing for themselves. If it didn’t exist, you wouldn’t mention it or claim about it. Food banks were created to help those that were really desperate. That is for those that have been accidentally fallen short. It was there to tie them over. That is a noble action. But by creating food banks they’ve created a Frankenstein Monster. Once resurrected never reburied. And of course we will always blame somebody for that creation and that is usually the government of the time. If we never had food banks, and at one time we didn’t then people would have managed and nobody would be blamed and everybody will have gone on their merry way.

No matter how much the government wishes to up people’s benefits it will never be enough to stop those food banks.

Maybe people should learn to stand on their own two feet and save for a rainy day. If they want more money then education, training and hard work will get it. I earn good wages, but I had to suffer to achieve my goal. That is living on handouts at times. No food banks when I was going through my training/ education/ university degree. Of course if they were around when I was living by hand to mouth I would have certainly jumped on the bandwagon and got my freebies. Which would mean more money for other little luxuries. But there is no doubt that society has created a Frankenstein Monster that now will never die, and if we want it to die we just blame the government of the time.

Yours
Petra

[Nothing Much]

I dumped University,worked with Biggins and David Suchet. Swept the stage
Prompt corner ,lighting, sound desk. £2.00 a week. But I was living at home at nights.
It was fun. I have a cottage which has muntjac deer eating my shrubbery.

And the Georgian 4 floored pile is still mine.So basically I started out with nothing much.
And ended up OK.
ce

[Andy Capp]

Mr Kirby,

I totally agree with you that there are genuine claimants’ which need food banks. I will not argue there. But I think they are few and far between. The majority jump on a free bandwagon, thus obscuring the authentic ones. But that is neither here nor there, as this is not a tax funded operation. Therefore, should we concern ourselves with the ethics here. Obviously not.

The trouble with people like you is that you are reactionaries. Instead of thinking it through, your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist). If the government or an organisation gave away something free it is obvious that people would jump on the bandwagon and want something for nothing for themselves. If it didn’t exist, you wouldn’t mention it or claim about it. Food banks were created to help those that were really desperate. That is for those that have been accidentally fallen short. It was there to tie them over. That is a noble action. But by creating food banks they’ve created a Frankenstein Monster. Once resurrected never reburied. And of course we will always blame somebody for that creation and that is usually the government of the time. If we never had food banks, and at one time we didn’t then people would have managed and nobody would be blamed and everybody will have gone on their merry way.

No matter how much the government wishes to up people’s benefits it will never be enough to stop those food banks.

Maybe people should learn to stand on their own two feet and save for a rainy day. If they want more money then education, training and hard work will get it. I earn good wages, but I had to suffer to achieve my goal. That is living on handouts at times. No food banks when I was going through my training/ education/ university degree. Of course if they were around when I was living by hand to mouth I would have certainly jumped on the bandwagon and got my freebies. Which would mean more money for other little luxuries. But there is no doubt that society has created a Frankenstein Monster that now will never die, and if we want it to die we just blame the government of the time.

Yours
Petra

I don't see any problem in donating food to people who are hard-up, even if they are not destitute. It is only a problem for me if people take from the hard-up; people like Osborne, or certain city bankers, etc.

Food banks are not a Frankenstein monster, they are just a symptom of modern society, and so what if they are used by the not so needy. We could always go back to the Victorian times where we had real slums and famine. A time where people got what they 'deserve'!

[GMR]

I don't see any problem in donating food to people who are hard-up, even if they are not destitute. It is only a problem for me if people take from the hard-up: people like Osborne, or certain city bankers, etc. Food banks are not a Frankenstein monster, they are just a symptom of modern society, and so what if they are used by the not so needy. We could always go back to the Victorian times where we had real slums and famine. A time where people got what they 'deserve'!

But we are not talking about people who donate their hard earnings to hard-up people. That is commendable. We are talking about people who abuse it and jump on the bandwagon.

I agree that food banks are not a Frankenstein monster, but I do understand what Petra means. I presume she means it was created to help those that are really in need, but it has grown beyond that. Abused by many, thus swamping those that really are in need. The article in the Mail shows you that.

[Blake]

Perhaps the best thing is to phase them out gradually.

[Andy Capp]

But we are not talking about people who donate their hard earnings to hard-up people. That is commendable. We are talking about people who abuse it and jump on the bandwagon.

I agree that food banks are not a Frankenstein monster, but I do understand what Petra means. I presume she means it was created to help those that are really in need, but it has grown beyond that. Abused by many, thus swamping those that really are in need. The article in the Mail shows you that.

This is a discussion that branches out and that is what I'm doing. I reject what I see as a narrow minded view of food banks that you and others have. The point is in an elitist society, we are bound to have these things, but I would rather donate a portion of my wage to the 'unemployable', than to see them out in the street robbing and mugging.

We don't need to phase out food banks, indeed, it could be argued that they are a better thing than cash benefits.

[On the edge]

What criteria would we use to stop the abusers? Then policing the system is going to cost of course. Then you'll get all the wittering from the volunteers and charity givers claiming government interference.

So, OK, let's stop them. Question, how do you stop people setting up charities? Make them illegal? What criteria would you use to legislate? Of course, you could say that the Government agencies were not empowered to give people dockets to use them, but there are other quite simplistic ways the charity could use to 'determine need'.

Why stop there, should we also consider stopping Oxfam, which does the same sort of thing, albeit abroad, and must encourage a dependency culture? Similarly, all those once off appeals to aid apparently distressed areas after emergencies, because it discourages thrift and more importantly the need to insure. Ending this legalised begging industry would doubtless make for a more responsible and robust society - it would certainly end the distress caused by the Northbrook Street Chuggers.

It looks like these scroungers and freeloaders are Worldwide! String em up,it's the only language they understand.

[Andy Capp]

Ending this legalised begging industry would doubtless make for a more responsible and robust society - it would certainly end the distress caused by the Northbrook Street Chuggers.

Prohibition works well for stopping recreational drug use, so why not make charities illegal.

[On the edge]

Prohibition works well for stopping recreational drug use, so why not make charities illegal.

Absolutely! Old Bill would have a field (or should I say flag) day.

....OK son, I'm 'avin yew, possession of a Poppy and a used Big Issue'.....you'll go away a long time for that little lot....

[GMR]

This is a discussion that branches out and that is what I'm doing. I reject what I see as a narrow minded view of food banks that you and others have. The point is in an elitist society, we are bound to have these things, but I would rather donate a portion of my wage to the 'unemployable', than to see them out in the street robbing and mugging. We don't need to phase out food banks, indeed, it could be argued that they are a better thing than cash benefits.

I don't have a narrow view at all, I am just trying to stimulate debate. I am all for helping people and I have no doubt that people who jump on the bandwagon probably need it. I also agree with you about helping those in need and I certainly wouldn't want people on the street. We certainly have a better society than we had, say, seventy years ago. Remember; I've been in that situation so I am one of the last ones who would want to see it abolished. Stimulating debate doesn't mean you agree with what you are putting forward. By the say, it has been an interesting debate and it is nice to see the majority on here supporting it, no matter what.

[Simon Kirby]

...your emotions snap into action, thus overriding your intelligence (if any should exist)...

So much for constructive debate then.

Can I suggest that it is generally better to address your comments to the argument and leave the contributor out of it, unless you actually mean to disrupt the thread.