Food-banks Options

[GMR]

GMR have you never claimed any benefits?

Oh, I've claimed benefits, and I have no doubt that if I was claiming today I probably would visit the food banks.

You have a daughter don't you?

I have 4 children, and yes... including a daughter (actually 2 others).

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?

I would do whatever I could, as you would. However, that doesn't change my query. And it is or was only a query (a discussion point, not a statement of intent).

[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.

[GMR]

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

Which means it is being abused by those that don't really need it.

Or they don't have any money because their benefit claims are taking too long?

Now that is a good argument and a fair point.

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'.

I am not even going to deny people food banks and probably would use one if I was in their position. But that doesn't change my point; for the sake of argument and debate.

[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.

[Blake]

Food banks are a bad idea for a number of reasons. The last thing we need to foster is a state of dependency. The old saying of give man a fish and eats for a day, teach him HOW to fish and he eats for life comes to mind.

In addition, an outrageous level of food is wasted in Britain. Until we waste no food, no food banks should run.

Fortunately, with the return to an economic boom, I am sure they will be phased out by this time next year once people find work again.

[Andy Capp]

Modern society is 'a state of dependency'.

[On the edge]

Food banks are a bad idea for a number of reasons. The last thing we need to foster is a state of dependency. The old saying of give man a fish and eats for a day, teach him HOW to fish and he eats for life comes to mind.

In addition, an outrageous level of food is wasted in Britain. Until we waste no food, no food banks should run.

Fortunately, with the return to an economic boom, I am sure they will be phased out by this time next year once people find work again.

Are you saying no charities should exist for exactly the same reason? I'm not so sure as it would mean rather a lot of empty shops on our High Streets. Still, I'm really pleased it will all be back under control this time next year. I must have missed that bit in the news.

[Spider]

In between my job as a driver I worked in a food bank. Most people are voluntary there. I can tell you people come into the food banks for various reasons. Some people need food to tie them over, until they get their money. But most are referred. Those that are referred are referred by professionals, as stated, but they also must work under a fair criterion. But that criterion is a simple one and can easily bypassed. Over the years many of us have felt that the food banks have been jumped upon, shall we say, by people who want a slice of the cake. And of course this creates a vicious loop. There comes a point that people rely on it because it is there and once that happens it is hard to stop it.

An article in the Mail today explains more (see link below). I know some of you may dismiss the Mail as a scaremongering, but you talk to people who work within food banks and you will see a nod of agreement.

What is the criteria? You are struggling, you have no money, you are in a desperate situation etc. Most of these can be manipulated. Those professionals that have been mentioned probably know that they’ve been hoodwinked, but they can only follow the guidelines that have been set before them. They are not allowed to go around to one’s house and do a search to see if they are actually desperate. It boils down to, after being asked certain pointed questions, the word of the claimant.

As I said, give a helping hand, and it will end up being relied upon and before you know it, it becomes sewn into the fabric of society. Take it away and you will hear cries of cruelty or worse.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-26...ank-claims.html

As for whether people have mobile phones, satellite or other modern cons, well, that isn’t taken into consideration. Even though people do question whether people have got their priorities right. Somebody on £25,000 a year or more can struggle for various reasons. I suppose the questions is how do you define somebody who is poor and who isn’t? In today’s society somebody who is classified as poor is very wealthy compared to those deprived from the 30s or beyond. Whatever way you look at it they seem to be here to stay.

[The Hatter]

We might as well get rid of other charities as well like Oxfam because all they do is feed people in other countries.

[HeatherW]

I was going to comment further on some of the remarks that have been made on this thread, until I read Spiders post and the link he furbished. I don't think there is much more to be added, other than what is the next step. As I have said I have worked for the council in London and continue to work with the major services today and I think everybody agrees that the food banks are a growing problem, but not for the reason usually remarked upon. They were originally set up to help those in-need, but others have jumped on the bandwagon. Which has increased demand. As it has been stated above, offer something free and everybody wants a slice of it, whether they need it or not. And define somebody in desperation? I know of clients who live in large houses, and have assents. Nevertheless, they've claimed the need and have been given access to the food banks. The problem here is the word need. If you haven't got ready cash/ funds you could be described as somebody in desperate need.

[HeatherW]

We might as well get rid of other charities as well like Oxfam because all they do is feed people in other countries.

As far as I could tell nobody is saying get ride of anything. But that doesn't change the problems of abuse. Another point. If they decide to tighten up the checks it could trouble those that are really in need and educationally don't have the tools to take it further. Those that can bend the rules are more astute at getting what they want. That is abusing or bending the rules.

[HeatherW]

Modern society is 'a state of dependency'.

That is true, but are you saying that is a good thing or a bad thing? Create a state of dependency and people will use it to a point of it being a permanent crutch. In other words they reply on it too much. In my profession we are always to willing to run to anybody's aid that needs it. Then virtually take over and do what is necessary. In other words we create a rod for our own back.

[Andy Capp]

That is true, but are you saying that is a good thing or a bad thing? Create a state of dependency and people will use it to a point of it being a permanent crutch. In other words they reply on it too much. In my profession we are always to willing to run to anybody's aid that needs it. Then virtually take over and do what is necessary. In other words we create a rod for our own back.

I think it is neither. Financial banks have created a huge dependency. Food banks in principle are simply a subset. The same above could be said for the NHS.

Whether it is a good or bad thing is not an easy question to answer: it is neither, or both; it is a symptom of modern society. I suggest it is better than what came before.

[The Hatter]

Why don't we just scrap all benefits, if you don't work, don't eat.

[GMR]

Why don't we just scrap all benefits, if you don't work, don't eat.

Why would we scrap all benefits because some criticise or question Food banks? You seem to be saying all or nothing.

[GMR]

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.

This isn't about mobile phones or not, but is the system being abused or not. As for what I want; I am just playing the devils advocate here. As I said before; I am not really bothered.

[On the edge]

Yes we could scrap the welfare state completely, after all, it's only been in existence for around 70 years, so it's not that old. Our grandparents demonstrably managed or we wouldn't be here today. There was some basic state aid, given on the basis that HeatherW suggests, robust means testing and training. Often delivered on a residential basis, in what were called work houses. As far as I can make out, no one then moaned about such things as bedroom taxes etc. They still had the 'do gooders'' like George Peabody and Doc Banardo, but you'll always get interfearers. Apparently a young Clem Attlee only became a socialist because the 'do gooder' he was helping in the East End used to deliberately burn the 'free' breakfast porridge they doled out to paupers in an attempt to discourage them. So be careful what you wish for, Corbyn is bad enough, we don't want another Attlee!

[GMR]

Yes we could scrap the welfare state completely, after all, it's only been in existence for around 70 years, so it's not that old. Our grandparents demonstrably managed or we wouldn't be here today. There was some basic state aid, given on the basis that HeatherW suggests, robust means testing and training. Often delivered on a residential basis, in what were called work houses. As far as I can make out, no one then moaned about such things as bedroom taxes etc. They still had the 'do gooders'' like George Peabody and Doc Banardo, but you'll always get interfearers. Apparently a young Clem Attlee only became a socialist because the 'do gooder' he was helping in the East End used to deliberately burn the 'free' breakfast porridge they doled out to paupers in an attempt to discourage them. So be careful what you wish for, Corbyn is bad enough, we don't want another Attlee!

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

Perhaps there was a certain amount of irony in his post; a Devil's Advocate?

[GMR]

Perhaps there was a certain amount of irony in his post; a Devil's Advocate?

Probably you are right.