https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...itain_logo.png


Sure Blame New Labour 1997-2010
they could have set it up.


[UNICEF
Formation 11 December 1946; 74 years]

I don't get the reference, Arista. what are you saying?

Blair could have set up help
to go forever

So you're blaming someone who hasn't been in power for over a decade but none of the three Tory PMs we've had since then?

I am blaming all
But mostly Blair's New Labour

No, you're not blaming all, you're pretending to in order to place the blame on a government who has been out of power for over a decade.

The Tories have been making life difficult for the working class and impoverished since they regained power. Benefits meant to help people are used as weapons in the Universal Credit scheme and the Tories see fit to have people reliant on food banks and charity instead of fulfilling their role as a government and sorting out the issue themselves and you have a bunch of tory sheep praising them by saying it's not the government's problem when it very much is because a government is meant to tackle issues that plague the populace.

It's All Blairs Fault
he left it in, the sloppy hands of G. Brown

We weren't relying on Unicef before the current Tory reign. This is an issue born out of the administrations that have been running the show for the past ten years.

You can pretend otherwise but all you're doing is defending people who don't give a **** about you.

But in Blair's long time in Power
he could have set it all up
to run, forever.

Why not the Tories who have been running the show for a decade who created this problem in the first place? More people are reliant on food banks than ever before and that's not something that began before the Tories took charge.

The cognitive dissonance of tory supporters is just bizarre.

That’s an interesting one ...

Who’s the wealthiest ... a homeless guy with zero debts or the guy with a big house buy mortgaged to the hilt and untold debts ....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

The guy with the house.

Maybe a complete overhaul?

Reduce family allowance so it covers clothes and whatever but then schools provide each child with breakfast , dinner and a meal at the end of the school day ?
The schools have the setup all ready and waiting ..


That way all the kids get three decent meals per day and we may see more pupils attending school.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Just to expand, the homeless guy starts every day in debt just in order to eat, the guy with the big house doesn't.

I always got the impression that Children in Need helped children ABROAD mainly ??

Is there a record of where all their money goes , I wonder ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Why should the poorest in society be made even poorer? No one is as maligned as poor people in need of help. We have this purely fictional standard that we can't even give a few extra pennies unless we can take it away somewhere else. Governments give billions to their friends, and no one says anything, but want a kid to get a free meal then we have to make sure they've earned it and can be trusted not to blow it all on scag. It's inhumane.

But it’s not his ... it’s owned by the bank ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So presumably if he wants to sell it, he won't be allowed?

I’m not suggesting making people poorer just reduce the allowance ( the part for the kid’s food) and give it to schools who then ENSURE that every child gets three meals a day .. three ‘healthy’ meals as well .


Seems like an improvement if thousands of kids are going hungry every day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

For the first time in HISTORY UNICEF will help feed children in the UK
 

If he’s morgaged it to the max and has other debts ( credit cards most likely) then he COULD sell the house but the money would go to the bank not him ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think you'll find it's the other way around.

Government should be feeding the kids. Kids shouldn't have to rely on charity.

You're taking away money from the very poorest, so how will that not make them poorer? I'm pretty sure that they don't have cash reserves they can dip into if they're a bit short one week. Their only options are debt (which they will struggle to pay back), or go without, which brings us back to why are we making the poorest people poorer?

That's how loans work until they're paid off. A house is an asset, which is part of building up wealth.

It’s money to feed their kids but in my suggestion the schools would be doing that .. robbing Peter to pay Paul ..

I said it was a big change ..



Maybe a compromise.. schools offer every child breakfast and lunch ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There are many who owe more than the houses are worth though plus they will probably have other loans / debts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yeah, I didn't mean you were being cruel, it's just always an accepted standard for poor people. They always have to prove they've earned something or can be trusted in a way we never ask of the powerful. We have the money, we are just manipulated a a society to believe a) that we don't and b) we should spend it on the things that align with the government.

I think you have to remember that making debt repayments is still in a different stratosphere to sleeping in a cardboard box.

Nah CiN is for kids in the UK, Comic Relief is the abroad one I think. If you really want to know I'm sure it's all googleable.

That's like saying a homeless white man has more privilege than a rich black woman. Obviously the person with the house is wealthier.

Its hugely **** that they have to really. We are a rich country in the grand scheme of things, that UK kids are going without food actually breaks my heart. Our local foodbank is desperate for help as soo many families are having to use it recently..

...I’m not sure that I agree that eating all meals at their schools would be beneficial to a child...family meals together are a very important thing...and very valued at the end of a school/work day by parents and children...

They have to have a referral though, from jobcentre, or social or something like that. Its not just a shop they rock up at and get free stuff, thus freeing money for other things.

Also, you can only get a couple of referrals per year apparently.

So the amount of people using foodbanks as free shopping to buy more alcohol and stuff, is minuscule if anything. And they cannot do it repeatedly anyway..

True enough...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Also very true :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Oh yea . I wholeheartedly agree but sadly we are seeing so many kids that are just not getting fed enough in the current system


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Interesting ... I presumed people just walked in a queued up as and when they pleased ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Nice use of the word "privilege" to be purely about money to sit aside your agenda-driven use of race in this scenario.

Nah, thats a common misconception, pushed by the right wing press generally.

Some people might take the piss 2/3 weeks a year and spend their benefits on booze or whatever, but it is not a thing that can be ongoing, at all. So many do think they can just turn up and get it as often as possible so there simply must be many parents using their benefit on booze, when in reality, people have to jump through hoops to get a food bank voucher, and theres safeguards in place to ensure pisstaking cannot happen also. Fairly decent system really, the chance of fraud is quite tiny.

do you have links to back this up?

We have a food bank advertise on our neighbour app, no vouchers or referral required, just turn up, it was really surprising to see that as it has to be open to abuse, they only advertised once, they are probably over run

https://www.turn2us.org.uk/About-Us/...sing-foodbanks

https://fullfact.org/economy/why-are...ng-food-banks/

Am wondering if the twice a year thing is just our local one..I only knew about that as a friend was having universal credit delays (delays wet on nearly 4 months, and you can apparently only get one advance payment, so a months worth of the bare minimum needed to live on, spread out over 4 months) and could only get the 2 and was told thats the limit. Happy to retract that bit as that might be a local thing rather than universal. However. if you need referals from professionals, fairly sure they are not just giving the vouchers out willynilly to people who reek of booze and turn up every monday:laugh: Its definitely not as easy as so many think it is.

Cherie, it appears yours is breaking the usual rules, and for what reason I have no clue as obviously if its just used by all, with no safeguarding at all there will be huge amounts of abuse, which is why they did it where you need referals to begin with. I wonder if that was maybe some private independant company trying to help out poorer people, sort of like those cafes that will give free food to those who need it..either way, advertising once and thats it kind of says it went under quite quickly, which it would if just being basically a supermarket that people can go to and use when they wish but not pay! Do you have a link by any chance to the one you are talking about? I find it totally bizarre that any foodbank would do that and would be intersted in seeing how long they have been open and stats too would be intersting..assuming they keep them of course


I should maybe ammend what I said to..there are strict rules for trussel trust foodbanks, which are the 'official' ones, but smaller ones might exist that do not have such rules, but they would not stay open long with no restrictons in place D: And no, thats not (only/mainly) because of feckless parents boozing away their child benefit, but because if the chance is there, many would take it. Like, assuming an independant one is just like a supermarket..even those in work, or very rich would be tempted to just go there, fill up and save money. For example, some middle class people saving for a mortgage/holiday would do this if it was possible, as they would save quicker..the potential for abuse is endless.

Totally bonkers if some exist who literally just let people go endlessly and get whatever they want.

Another thing my friend found, was that she did not get to chose any of the stuff she got. That makes sense to me, they make up parcels that contain enough to live on temporarily and thats that. But so many around here were shocked, as they thought a foodbank was basically a free tesco.

I got a bunch of advent calanders for one near here a few weeks back. Don't generally do anything like that but the advert was on about how some kids wont even have a calender, will get nowt for xmas, and so on and it made me feel awful..and lucky. We are quite skint but, loaded compared to some. Cannot imagine not having enough money to feed my kids..am so lucky that the few times pay has messed up, I have family who can help me. Too many don't.

I was whinged at by a 'friend' for buying advent calendars. As chocolate is not a necessity and I should have given tins of beans or something :umm2: I know its not a necessity, but the kids are still normal kids, just in hard times. I found it quite awful that they thought no treats should ever be allowed to be given. Hardly the childs fault they are in this situation.

I dread to think what it will be like next year, when all the job losses hit.