IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

16 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Food-banks
Andy Capp
post Nov 9 2015, 07:50 PM
Post #21


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:46 PM) *
I am talking about either abusing food banks. I also said that some people have problems with handling their money; is a food bank the answer?

They were originally set-up for people in crisis. Food banks are no-more an answer than an ambulance is an 'answer' to RTAs, but they are still necessary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Nov 9 2015, 07:51 PM
Post #22


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Nov 9 2015, 06:49 PM) *
You'll always get people who manipulate the system. For instance I've known a good few 'honest and upright' who'll fatten an insurance claim with no qualms whatsoever - again, because it's so easy. That doesn't mean insurance is wrong because it discourages prudence!


That maybe the case; but the question is do we need food banks or do we need to educate people on how to use the money they get.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Nov 9 2015, 07:53 PM
Post #23


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 07:50 PM) *
They were originally set-up for people in crisis. Food banks are no-more an answer than an ambulance is an 'answer' to RTAs, but they are still necessary.





But are they though? Why do some people need it, while other don't (but in are the same situation; i.e. getting the same money).

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 9 2015, 07:53 PM
Post #24


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:51 PM) *
That maybe the case; but the question is do we need food banks or do we need to educate people on how to use the money they get.

We will 'need' both.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 9 2015, 07:54 PM
Post #25


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:53 PM) *
But are they though? Why do some people need it, while other don't (but in are the same situation; i.e. getting the same money).

Because it is unlikely that two situations are identical. Often 'need' comes around when a change in circumstances occur.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Nov 9 2015, 07:55 PM
Post #26


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 07:53 PM) *
We will 'need' both.





No; because one will cancel out the other. From talking to people who use them and don't use them it boils down to ability to handle money.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 9 2015, 07:57 PM
Post #27


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:55 PM) *
No; because one will cancel out the other. From talking to people who use them and don't use them it boils down to ability to handle money.

I refer you to my last comment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Nov 9 2015, 07:58 PM
Post #28


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 07:54 PM) *
Because it is unlikely that two situations are identical. Often 'need' comes around when a change in circumstances occur.





That is true; but that could be down to one person takes on more than another. By giving that person - who can't handle money - help with food disadvantages the ones that are thrifty. It isn't actually helping that person who needs help. Education is better than just giving willy-nilly.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Nov 9 2015, 07:59 PM
Post #29


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 07:57 PM) *
I refer you to my last comment.





And I refer you to my last comment.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 9 2015, 08:02 PM
Post #30


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:46 PM) *
I am talking about either abusing food banks. I also said that some people have problems with handling their money; is a food bank the answer?


That's a wholly separate question. It doesn't matter a fig if people are abusing Food Banks, because we, as a community, aren't paying for them. Put it this way, my neighbour cuts my hedge for nothing because he likes to keep the area neat. That actually 'encourages' me to be lazy and untidy - so should he stop?

Yes, some people do have problems handling money and the running of their households. But where is the standard? It's not only benefit claimants that have this issue of course. Are you suggesting we should take the 'feed my kids at school' policy of the Coalition a stage further and have dormitories at schools because some parents let their kids stay up too late, to the detriment if their education? If we do, guess who gets to pay!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 9 2015, 08:06 PM
Post #31


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98




I'm wholly with you on the education issue. We could actually make a start, in a small way by setting up training courses for corporate tax accountants on morality and integrity.....


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 9 2015, 08:10 PM
Post #32


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:58 PM) *
That is true; but that could be down to one person takes on more than another. By giving that person - who can't handle money - help with food disadvantages the ones that are thrifty. It isn't actually helping that person who needs help. Education is better than just giving willy-nilly.

No-one suggests giving willy-nilly, but how does someone who can't handle money being given a dozens free tins of of blue stripe baked beans disadvantage the prudent one?

QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:59 PM) *
And I refer you to my last comment.

Your contrived scenarios doesn't cover all eventualities. Of course some people need help with money management, but I also believe there are genuine people in need too. Two people on the same income doesn't guarantee that both have the same outgoings.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Nov 9 2015, 08:21 PM
Post #33


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 9 2015, 08:10 PM) *
No-one suggests giving willy-nilly, but how does someone who can't handle money being given a dozens free tins of of blue stripe baked beans disadvantage the prudent one?


Of course it does. You are giving extra to the bad handler of money and nothing to the prudent one. The prudent one will quickly learn to play the game though. But in the long run does that achieve anything? As for a dozen free tins of beans; that isn't the issue here.

QUOTE
Your contrived scenarios doesn't cover all eventualities. Of course some people need help with money management, but I also believe there are genuine people in need too. Two people on the same income doesn't guarantee that both have the same outgoings.





I am not saying they aren't genuine. But genuine why? Genuine because they can't handle their money so need help with food banks?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Nov 9 2015, 08:22 PM
Post #34


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 9 2015, 08:02 PM) *
That's a wholly separate question. It doesn't matter a fig if people are abusing Food Banks, because we, as a community, aren't paying for them. Put it this way, my neighbour cuts my hedge for nothing because he likes to keep the area neat. That actually 'encourages' me to be lazy and untidy - so should he stop? Yes, some people do have problems handling money and the running of their households. But where is the standard? It's not only benefit claimants that have this issue of course. Are you suggesting we should take the 'feed my kids at school' policy of the Coalition a stage further and have dormitories at schools because some parents let their kids stay up too late, to the detriment if their education? If we do, guess who gets to pay!





I agree we aren't paying for them. But that wasn't my issue. And I also don't care if people use them for whatever reason. None of that was my point.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Nov 9 2015, 08:39 PM
Post #35


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



GMR have you never claimed any benefits? You have a daughter don't you? Correct me if I'm wrong though, but if you do, don't you want the best you can get for her? Would you compromise your morals and beliefs to give her a better life?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 9 2015, 08:56 PM
Post #36


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



It's been niggling me for some time that we only have one way to help people with no income - benefits. That consequently focuses debate on the fecklessness or otherwise of those claiming. There are other things we could promote in tandem that might even make for a better and more balanced society. For instance, why can't our Banks be made to offer very cheap loans to help sole trader business start up. Our colleges offer easy access courses and mentoring to show how to turn ideas into business ventures. Our Councils offering 'social shop premises' for the same? We are a capitalist society, but seem to have little taste for growing capitalists!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 9 2015, 08:58 PM
Post #37


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 07:50 PM) *
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.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 9 2015, 09:23 PM
Post #38


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 08:21 PM) *
Of course it does. You are giving extra to the bad handler of money and nothing to the prudent one. The prudent one will quickly learn to play the game though. But in the long run does that achieve anything? As for a dozen free tins of beans; that isn't the issue here.

You said it disadvantages the prudent one; using your argument it doesn't.

QUOTE (GMR @ Nov 9 2015, 08:21 PM) *
I am not saying they aren't genuine. But genuine why? Genuine because they can't handle their money so need help with food banks?

Or they don't have any money because their benefit claims are taking too long? Or have recently experienced a down-turn in luck.


I find in life a large chunk of 'prudent', 'skilled' and 'thrifty' people are so by a number of things and it is not always completely deserved: fortune has a lot to do with it too, and that includes who your parents are.


I'm not going to deny people food banks, even the ones that are stretching their entitlement. I would rather be where I am then theirs' any day, and there are much bigger villains of the piece than 'benefit scroungers'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JaneGibbs
post Nov 10 2015, 10:56 AM
Post #39


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 22-August 12
Member No.: 8,817



I used to work in a food back a few years ago and the amount of people that came in and had smart phones and even came in a cars was mind blowing. Those that were genuine and actually needed help you found that they couldn't deal with their money properly used food banks more. But they could afford ciggies, drinks etc. From what I've witnessed and read about I do believe they are being abused. And as long as we have them, whatever the government pays in Jobseekers allowance, people will use them if they are there.

As for those still waiting for their dole money, as pointed out above, then I agree that is a legitimate reason. No amounts of education or care with their money will help here.

It has been shown that if you put something in place that is free you will always find takers. Take that away and people will always find ways to manage their affairs. Food banks have grown over many years and will continue to grow while they offer free goodies. This then allows those to redistribute their money to other sources.

Unemployment benefit should only be their for a halfway house until employment is found. Not used as a life style for those that don't want to work.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Brown
post Nov 10 2015, 11:41 AM
Post #40


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 364
Joined: 21-September 13
Member No.: 10,072



That's really sad Jane. One of the ladies we've just taken on needed a job in a hurry, because her partner walked out. As a consequence, she also lost her transport at the same time! Anyway, she felt the Food Bank was a family saver. By the way, most of our people here have mobile phones instead if fixed phones at home. Apparently, the Job Seeker people think that actually helps finding work; you are always contactable. I'm sure a few do abuse the system, as you say that's always the case. I still think most of us are pretty glad the safety net is in place and in reality, it isn't exactly generous.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

16 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 02:25 AM