Emergency food bank now open Options

[GMR]

"A new food bank serving Newbury, Thatcham and Hungerford, dedicated at a Newbury Church service on Saturday, will help to meet a rising need for emergency food, in face of Government cuts". [Story from today's Newbury Weekly News]


With the recent - revealed - £1.8 million (or whatever it is) payment to the top 20 earners at WBC couldn't it be suggested that they cut back on their wages a bit to help the less well off (or less fortunate than themselves)? On top of that this £3.9 million give away to Capitalist guzzling Property developer Grainger (or soon will be a capitalist guzzling beneficiary) to a more concerning cause; i.e. sell the land and then give profits to help the poor. After all they said they didn't want it; it was a free tax payers money give away anyway.

[JeffG]

Only three threads with completely different subjects caused by exactly the same things?

Could do better.

[GMR]

Only three threads with completely different subjects caused by exactly the same things?

Could do better.

Exactly; if you've got a good thing then never let repetitiveness or reality hold you back.

I was Muhammad Ali (that great philosopher) who said:

"It's the repetition of affirmations that leads to belief. And once that belief becomes a deep conviction, things begin to happen."

[CharlieF]

"A new food bank serving Newbury, Thatcham and Hungerford, dedicated at a Newbury Church service on Saturday, will help to meet a rising need for emergency food, in face of Government cuts". [Story from today's Newbury Weekly News]

And good people donate to this - the Baptist Church in Cheap St has been doing a wonderful job.

The irony is that food brand owners have mountains of unwanted stocks, that are surplus for so many reasons (short codes, packaging redesign, a promotion that has expired but not the shelf life etc) but they don't want to release this perfectly good stock into their regular distribution channels at discounted rates because erodes brand values. So the brand owner has basically got 4 options:

They can destroy the stock; Export; Sell to a discount channel - OR - Redistribute the food in a charitable way that doesn't dissipate brand values.

It breaks my heart that fourth one, the model set by Second Harvest and Fare Share are not universal and the most obvious, route for a brand owner that cares about their corporate reputation.

Mustn't harp on I suppose, but it's something I researched and had quite a bit published on a few years back, and it still astonishes me that it is primarily individuals that contribute the actual food not companies and that it is churches organising the distribution points.

[GMR]

And good people donate to this - the Baptist Church in Cheap St has been doing a wonderful job.

The irony is that food brand owners have mountains of unwanted stocks, that are surplus for so many reasons (short codes, packaging redesign, a promotion that has expired but not the shelf life etc) but they don't want to release this perfectly good stock into their regular distribution channels at discounted rates because erodes brand values. So the brand owner has basically got 4 options:

They can destroy the stock; Export; Sell to a discount channel - OR - Redistribute the food in a charitable way that doesn't dissipate brand values.

It breaks my heart that fourth one, the model set by Second Harvest and Fare Share are not universal and the most obvious, route for a brand owner that cares about their corporate reputation.

Mustn't harp on I suppose, but it's something I researched and had quite a bit published on a few years back, and it still astonishes me that it is primarily individuals that contribute the actual food not companies and that it is churches organising the distribution points.

You make a good point, and yes you should harp on about it; if we don't then who else will?

[Cognosco]

You make a good point, and yes you should harp on about it; if we don't then who else will?

Look all this talk about the poor is being a bit biased isn't it? What about the poor millionaires and bankers give a bit of thought to all their suffering they need to be catered for too as they are used to an affluent style of living and would miss this more than the poor who are used to scrimping and going without! They need tax cuts etc or else the wealth will not trickle down to the poor will it? After their cut they have put into offshore safe havens of course?

[GMR]

Look all this talk about the poor is being a bit biased isn't it? What about the poor millionaires and bankers give a bit of thought to all their suffering they need to be catered for too as they are used to an affluent style of living and would miss this more than the poor who are used to scrimping and going without! They need tax cuts etc or else the wealth will not trickle down to the poor will it? After their cut they have put into offshore safe havens of course?

Yes, you make a good point. Maybe we could send them our blessings and our love; saying we regularly think of them... not those ******* poor who constantly make ordinary people feel bad.... unless they've got no conscience.

[Strafin]

You make a good point, and yes you should harp on about it; if we don't then who else will?

Agreed, very good point well made.

[motormad]

Only three threads with completely different subjects caused by exactly the same things?

Could do better.

Obviously the only icy grip one's having is that of ones own hand after it's been in the freezer for 10 minutes, because it "makes it feel funny".



There is always going to be different social and economic levels. Some people will struggle, others will get by, others will have a good quality of life. There's varying degrees of all three but ultimately there has to be people in all three categories.. Always will happen and always will happen.

Now helping people is one thing but harping on about the point by spamming the board gets tedius. Rather one high quality thread then 3 ***** ones.

[On the edge]

And good people donate to this - the Baptist Church in Cheap St has been doing a wonderful job.

The irony is that food brand owners have mountains of unwanted stocks, that are surplus for so many reasons (short codes, packaging redesign, a promotion that has expired but not the shelf life etc) but they don't want to release this perfectly good stock into their regular distribution channels at discounted rates because erodes brand values. So the brand owner has basically got 4 options:

They can destroy the stock; Export; Sell to a discount channel - OR - Redistribute the food in a charitable way that doesn't dissipate brand values.

It breaks my heart that fourth one, the model set by Second Harvest and Fare Share are not universal and the most obvious, route for a brand owner that cares about their corporate reputation.

Mustn't harp on I suppose, but it's something I researched and had quite a bit published on a few years back, and it still astonishes me that it is primarily individuals that contribute the actual food not companies and that it is churches organising the distribution points.

Quite agree.

Just a point, the welfare cuts start to take effect for real this month, its going to be an even worse start to Spring for some this year and we'll see the results for years to come as I cant see that much planning has been done by the powers that be to at least mitigate some of the worst effects.