It has always existed, as you say there was always those who believed you make your own luck, yet due to work from reformists and philanthropists the message got to those who did feel that a progressive community would benefit from the promotion of an altogether more equal civilised society.
At first the support came from the church and friendly societies.
There wasn't any state help and therefore more were willing to see them get a leg up, today that process appears to be moving in reverse as sanctions make those who can't manage worse off and the slums areas are reappearing.
Therefore comparisons can be drawn, it's becoming more accepted that sections of society be left to 'sink or swim', and again it's the role of the churches, hostels and benevolent trusts set up to provide aid.
With working people conditioned not to concern themselves as these shirkers are not tax payers., it's made even worse as there's no excuse now that you aren't aware of it because in the modern day the word is the touch of a button away.

Was this me?... It could've been. This is a perfect example of the individualism argument, its not seen as a positive that this woman whoever she was made an enjoyable Christmas for her children on welfare...
It's not taken into consideration the child support received from the absent parent, any loans taken, toy/food savings clubs, help from family. But yes the general consensus is now how can she do that? It almost seems they would be more satisfied if the kids had nothing and she was begging for scraps doesn't it?..

The removal of coverage to protests, media bias, demonisation of sub groups, removal of charity funding, reforms it all adds to the burden, and yes there will always be nice people who will try to help its not advocated, in fact it's the welfare reforms that are blamed for many of the issues in the UK today. From the leafy burbs to major towns and cities the neo liberal laissez faire attitude is generally accepted as it was in the 40s, a direct correlation, that can be denied and ignored but it doesn't make it any less true.

Good post and great read as ever Ammi.

However,I never generalise.I said the people who usually are hardline and mention benefit scroungers,never add that they know the scroungers are a minority and that the vast majority of those on benefits are not so.

The press do this all the time, highlight, one or 2 extreme cases and never highlight that they are the minority,thereby by having such things all over their front pages, they present it as the norm and not a rarity.
Which some people then pick up and sadly take as gospel.

Also, (extreme luxuries are obviously different), for people to say however,who have used the conveneince of things like pampers for their own children,to then expect people on low incomes to have to use different means, such as towelling nappies,that need to be washed, dried and used over and over,for those children in very poor families,well I think that is wrong.
What would be good for say my child,if I ever have any, is something I would hope to see available for all Parents and their children.
Just one example.

Why should a poor family or one on benefits,be expected to not only be but to have to treat their babies and children like really low class individuals.

Actually, aside from the hardliners, I don't find that attitude, I find Mothers who know some parents cannot afford pampers or huggies in a week,that help out by giving some of theirs.
They don't expect them to, or tell them they should buy towelling nappies and have to clean, them, steep them, even boil them at times then wash them and dry them.

It is the hardline attitude of 'I'm alright Jack',that helps demonise the poor and those on 'entitlements',(I actually hate the word benefits as to such individuals too),that helps fuel stronger and less caring attitudes towards such individuals via the media and in some others too.

I have seen the desperation of people going to a foodbank, in the 21st century in the UK.
They need generally to be referred to same,and can only go a few times,just for basic food items, they maybe could buy cheaper food,no doubt about that but much of the cheaper food is vile, Asda smart price food is gross,I wouldn't touch that with a bargepole or expect anyone to eat it,let alone buy it.

Buying food still has to be cooked,uless they are expetced too to have to live on cold food, if you have one those obscene pre pay meters for gas and/or electric, they are paying over the odds for the energy to do so,which causes more 'poverty' for want of a better word.

Here is an example I have been given permission to mention while out canvassing,which fortunately with help from the law firm I was at had a reasonably better outcome in the end after unfortuately 2 court cases however.
One individual who became really ill and could no longer work, got into difficulties with their energy payments.
They had pay as you go meters installed and the arrears they had were set at a figure each week as to repayments which would be taken off the funds they put on when they topped up the meters.

They were in hospital later for further operation and treatment,for over 8 weeks.
When they came out, there was no electricity or gas in the house as the payments had still been taken,despite them not topping the meters up when in hospital.
They then topped the meters up with some funds, the repayment figure was taken off the topped up amount as usual but because theyw ere in arrears on the arrears, they then found each day a further 80p was being deducted from the meter in addition to the repayment figure.

In that instance,they were back in the same boat again in a short time, either paying loads as to topping up, that left them with even less funds,or having no gas or electricity.
Those on these pre pay meters, get the worst possible deal as to energy prices yet they are ones with the least funds.

So foodbanks are needed,other help is needed too and this is a spiral that goes on day after day, week after week, year after year.
You can get on such a meter an emergency credit of I believe of £5, however once that is used, you will have to pay that back out of the topped up meter as well as the repayment figure, and then also the catch up as to arrears on arrears.

It was Kazanne, I think who said some people are bad with money and that is very true,that shouldn't be a condemnation of someone however, it should be seen as a cry for help once it is unearthed.
However there again,there are so few outlets now that really help people with this kind of scenario.
Which is why I believe, taking more as a basic out of 'entitlements' for essentials like rent,council tax, water, electricity and gas, is the way forward,not under this pay the claimants monthly as to Universal credit nonsense and leave them to get on with it.

People who are bad with money and planning,a good number should be seen as being vulnerable, leaving them to get on with it and making things harder for them should not be in any way seen as a way forward.
No govts; have done enough,this one has done even less on this situation as to energy.
These pre pay meters should be outlawed in my view,usage assessed and the average weekly payment deducted from the entitlements and paid direct to the supplier.

Most of these people don't have bank accounts either so they cannot pay by direct debit, which will cost them even more to pay cash or by pre pay meter again.
Energy costs as is the case for many average working people too, is a big contributor to helping create poverty.
The big companies do nothing and want nothing done either.

Yes food may be cheap,however it is one thing among many that for anyone with a really low income, is just one more thing in a load of minus situations a what you spend limited funds on.
Sometimes, more often than people may care to think, it does come down to, even if you have children too, do you eat or heat in the home.
What can you afford to do least.
Often it is really impossible to do both.

The difference between now and the 40s is that likely little could be done to help people in poverty whereas now it should be possible to eradicate it.
Sadly govts; do little, in this ones case nothing at all, they have even removed the funding as to places where people in difficulites could get at least advice from or even legal help when needed.

When I come across it, and it is happily not the majority, the hardline attitudes I do come across have no little or no solutions and are said in dismissive tones as to the indications that is 'the poors fault'.
When it is never as simple as that,nothing to me is either all balck or all white.
I find even more and more, situations have loads of grey areas as to them, and often in the things I have come across, it is rarely just the individual poor's fault at all.

..I don't know what you mean by was it you/who made the thread, I have no idea, it was quite a while ago ..but the point of my mentioning it as an example is that judgements are made from people whatever their personal situation and most of those negative judgements even from people who would relate more closely to her...I think that feeling it's an 'I'm alright Jack' thing is equally taking a section of society and labelling them in a negative way, much like with 'scroungers' being referred to as a label from some....for many people it's less of an I'm alright Jack and more ...there but for the grace of good go I and many, may people do what they can and are able to...there still obviously is also charity and help organisations as well as there always was...and those are still going because people do care and there is empathy and they do want to give their time to actively do something....

..I personally don't believe that anyone on benefits should only have those to be on breadline and not be able to have some luxuries as well, whether it be for themselves or their children...because without those the stress factors become higher, which just creates more health issues and less likelihood of being able to work etc..

The study is based on attitudinal change, you can't really debate that without referring to attitudes, and that is just one...
I don't think the case for luxuries will be won, a warm secure home and food is the minimum requirement, that's all anyone truly needs to be able to attempt to lift themselves out of poverty initially, sadly that for many is a dream.

..I'm just going to look at a little section of your post for now Joey, just because I haven't got much time but I'll read it all through again later...but I do think that diet issues are a real problem and I guess all came about with the rise of the fast/convenience foods..because also there are more working parents now, either single parents or both parents working which they often have to do financially so obviously a lot more convenient etc...it's worrying that some children can't identify common fruits or vegetables in their 'natural' form...but often schools do find it difficult to educate on this and on healthy eating etc because many parents don't actually want it either, the children may be willing to try things but some parents oppose it and say they would rather their children eat chicken nuggets etc ..and I agree, it's not all black and white and also why I have this thing about parent's being judged and ughhh, they're a bad parents etc...because in my experience there are very few bad parents, most parents do what they think is best for their children and act out of love even when their action might be a bit misguided..so that's more about helping to educate them rather than judge them..and who responds positively to being judged/that's not the way at all to try to make anything better...

..and it's just as much as a generalisation than other ones are and just as negative...


..and I don't agree, I think that a holiday/break of some kind for a family who has struggled for many years can be of importance as well...there again it would be judging them to feel that we know what they need ....every case is different....

I think you're getting bogged down with the terms used they are not in the study and have nothing to do with it, 'I'm alright jacks' and 'scroungers' are just terms used on here in fairness.

Every case is not different, What point is a week in bognor if your basic needs are not met? It's a sticking plaster.

That is true as to some not all on benefits which you point out, however this thread is 'attitudes' to poverty.
How people end up in any kind of poverty is often dictated by income,personal circumstances, such as the homeless, and then as Kazanne said, people can be bad with money too.

There will be some people better off on benefits probably,however a great many people on benefits should be in my view.
If you have had someone who has a had a good career,maybe a Nurse or Doctor or Teacher,who has worked a fair bit of their lives,who then through illness or disability then cannot work any more ,they should be still have an income at a decent level.

In addition,I haven't a clue how someone working, who then finds themselves out of work due to the loss of their jobs,who then have to cope with running a home, pay bills and feed and clothe themselves on the paltry jobseekers allowance they get, survive at all.
That is an obscene amount to pay adults.

However,this is about attitude to poverty, I mentioned some instances I have come across and the cost of energy, I found, is what was pushing a good many people into poverty.
Then this obscene bedroom tax, that in another instance ended up taking around £15 from someone out of their entitlements they were told they had to have to live on, also help push people into poverty.

Real poverty, apart from the homeless is more rare,I admit,however in the last 5 years particularly,with energy costs rising massively, then the bedroom tax/charge too,things have got worse.
People have in effect had benefits payments drastically cut in real terms.
With the bedroom charge.
There were few smaller properties for anyone living in a 2 bedroomed or 3 bedroomed house/flat to move to, however they were still expected to pay the extra charge, even though they can go nowhere else at present.
Out of what they should have to live on.

All those things and more, add to reduction of income,and end up helping as to creating poverty.
Even people working are struggling,people who have part time work,don't have part time bills for instance.
I am only 23 and now living on my own, with 2 Cousins, however even I am appalled at my energy costs over the last 4 years in the main.
Nothing has come down, since they have risen so heavily.
The govt; altered things as to energy bills but that didn't make the bills less, it made the 'increase to the bills less'
They still went up, that all adds to poverty too.

It is the attitudes to poverty that is behind this good thread of Kizzy's,contrasting it with the 40s.
In the 40s,likely people made massive pans of broth etc; and not only one family benefited from that as it was shared.
That is unlikely to be the case now and some people probably do eat badly and unhealthily because it is cheaper to do so.
That's when they can make a decision as to heat or eat.

Managing ever rising costs, is bad enough for anyone, for someone on a tighter budget it must be near impossible, who by robbing Peter to pay Paul a lot of the time,then that can take them into poverty, who then get a usually cold response and are seen as wasters by some.

As I pointed out, in response to Kazanne's valid poinnt to that, as to some people being bad with money, then they need help to manage it, and deal with people as to business for them.
Not judge them or condemn them but help them, answer all cries for help and also look for them too.
Not sweep them under the carpet like the past few govts; have done, which have now seen and presided over record rises in usage of foodbanks.

Easy to scoff at people in difficulty,easy to dismiss them as irrelevant too.
I never really thought people in any kind of poverty existed,then I came across one, then more, then in my view ,far too many I already know about,with the figures rising.
Nothing done to find them and help them 'cope'.
That is a good word 'cope',most people can easily, a great many others cannot, often through their own failure but also through absolutely no fault of their own.

Poverty should be a really dirty word in the UK in the 21st century and govts; have the power to look for them and give crisis assistance when needed.
Do they seek them out, no, there are no likely votes from them and so like others they dismiss poverty as if it doesn't exist.
Which only makes the problem get bigger and thereby worse.

The media, when this comes up and supporters of the Conservatives particularly,always say, there were foodbanks under Labour too.
There were and it is right to criticise that fact they needed to be in existence at all then too.

However,in 2010,something like 45,000 usage of foodbanks was the situation, now it is, in just the last 5 years, now over 1,000,000 usage,recently announced.
These are mostly people in poverty in the UK in the 21st century and some are working people too.

Everyone is not perfect and people get into great difficulties, the hands to help them out of that are getting fewer and fewer, and the policies of this govt; in particular as to energy bills inaction and the introduction of things like the bedroom tax/charge, have made things a great deal worse,in my view.

As I said, easy to be in a comfy chair and brand them all incompetent wasters, sadly that isn't an answer, nor even right actually in my view.
People in poverty.I see as a cry for help and it is time, since there is more of it now, that more was done to practically help,rather than take the atitude of just dismissing them or pay a bit of lip service to the issue.

..I'm not bogged down with anything, they're both terms of generalising people and inaccurate....

..I think that things like holidays/breaks etc can be much of much benefit in terms of stress related mental health issues which can make trying to find employment even more difficult or even impossible in some cases and definitely something that children would benefit from rather than never have anything nice or to look forward to like their peers and that people deserve more than just being on the breadline and that's something I've known communities to come together to provide for families on occasions and knowing those family's problems and their struggles and I guess that showing 'community' is still very much present today ...but we're obviously not going to agree so I'm just going to leave it at that, I don't think I have anything else to add to the thread or my previous thoughts....

They are both accurate... it's to what extent they are accurate that is the question, again this isn't really the real issue though what labels differing sub groups are given.
I've never known a community to provide a holiday for anyone, where is this wonderful community?

100% true...what people also forget is in addition to the £600 tax free incomes with 2 parents who don't work and half a dozen children, theres the ncome for both, the child benefit for 6, free house, free nhs, free dental, free glasses etc but also in some cases as crazy as it sounds children are living with parents so irresponsible and selfish, the kids are developing health problems as a result....through the smoking in the home, the dreadful diet, the boozing, the drugs in the house, the general ggression and borish behaviour has impacted upons the childrens emotional and mental development too, some fo these parents are into dog breeding too as a means of supporting their partying life styles...ive known some parents in these kind of homes who tie the bedroom doors shut to lock the kids up all day...in many cases kids have developed such health problems they've qualified for disability living allowance. I kid you not. and of course all of that money is spent on the parents. ive seen it. no wonder such people can afford to trash homes or throw out kids toys and tv sets

this does happen and it happens all the time behind closed doors. with social services cut backs and political correctness gone mad, its gotten harder for social workers or the general public to actually intervene. and so the madness goes on

Nope, with the 'troubled' families' initiative intervention is actually easier if it's required.

its not, it just appears to be. this is one reason we saw with the horrific Rochdale abuses for thousands of victims over 20 years.....there were simply to many laws too many rules and regulations so much so that no one could actually interfene sufficiently....look how long it takes us to export terrorists? its idiotic laws written by idiots who never actually calculate the damage these laws do...they actually prevent us in many cases from acting on our most basic moral principles

You are right again Kizzy.

You've seen all this., well I know from things I see, if I see something I perceive to be wrong, I do all I can to see that it is put right.

If I actually saw for sure what you state above,then I would be calling the police,especially if children were being kept behind tied doors.
Have you reported this after seeing it with your own eyes and therefore able to prove what is happening.

If you have,what happened and did you keep on at it.Surely it was investigated when you reported it.

I came across someone in desperate need, they were totally unable to fend for themselves and would have been walkovers from any officialdom, sadly there are loads of people like that, who do not and also cannot speak up for themselves.
I was sure they should have more entitlements and made calls on their behalf.

When they heard nothing,I did so again, with them at my side obviously to give me the authority too.
Eventually after persistence, they did get more funds coming in, funds they should have had ages ago but no one did anything to find such people.

So if I had seen what you decribe in the post above,I 'd have acted bigtime.
Did you report it, not once but as many times as necessary, to get results and what happned if you did.
I would love to know as that is what I would have done had I come across the horrific scenario you outline in the post above.

If that goes on anywhere, it should be stamped out totally,all authorities and in some cases,like the one above, the police too, should be informed.
You seem sure you have seen all this,enough to publicly say it, and you clearly also believe it to be wrong, hopefully you acted on it too,I know I surely would have and gone on and on about it too until something was done.

There are a myriad of agencies in this country helping people in need. I'm not saying everything is perfectf, obviously it's not - far from it, but to compare it with the 1940s, when we were at war and when we were immediately post-war, continues to be one of the more ridiculous discussions on this forum.

Again the study is concerned with attitudinal change in the general population not what help is and isn't available Why when there are a million people relying on foodbanks these agencies aren't acting as a safety net?
It's not ridiculous Livia, it's very apt due to the widening social gap.

My own view is that no topic as to poverty or injustice is ridiculous,if it gets people talking about it, learning one or two things they maybe didn't know.
Which also gathers a cross section of opinion and possibly even makes someone or even more than one think a bit more as to it,

The attitude of doing nothing and discussing nothing as to it, is why it largely gets swept under the carpet by many,particularly those in power.
Sometimes the more extreme the comparison can be the trigger for a far wider debate, which in my view, has happily happened and for me, been welcome to see on this thread.

A million people? One in sixty? I doubt it.

Of course its apt, and as the gulf between the richest and the poorest widens it will be more and more apt as the opinions as to what could and should be done swing wildly depending on what newspaper you read instead of peeping through the net curtains.

Considering you can visit a food bank 3 times even if these visits are based on that it's anything upwards of 333,333 if that is more acceptable.

Ok, so if attitudes have really changed for the worse, how come so many food banks can spring up?
These food banks are made up of charitable donations from schools, churches, businesses and the public, therefore showing we do care in general.

I don't know what you mean about net curtains...

I doubt very much that one in sixty of the population cannot feed themselves. I wonder how many of those people smoke, drink, own a smartphone etc. etc...? In the 1940s people if you needed money you'd get a visit from the Relief Office and they'd point out which of your meagre possessions you should sell before they gave you a penny. Can't really compare that with today.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

Churches and the public can only do so much that are squeezed too, and the proportion of those who require help is becoming too great.
The change is that many are happy to see governmental support removed via 'spare room subsidies', sanctions to benefits, implement payment of a percentage of council tax from benefits and housing benefit caps but what does that in turn do? Puts huge amounts of pressure on communities to aid the poor in some areas the pressure then affects public services and the poor get the blame.
High streets are full of shiny betting shops and pawnbrokers not reasonably priced butchers and grocers as they were, now we have the cartelesque supermarkets selling high priced low quality food.
The energy companies keep people on low incomes on meters set at one of the highest rates.
What should everyone do? Ask why they're doing it.

It was just an analogy, don't worry about it I'll get sidetracked if I try to explain.

I've covered your 1 in 60 query, in order to sell something you first have to own it, if someone has a smartphone and a big telly on JSA they are most likely on HP,the difference then was it was impossible to get an unsecured loan for goods. Poverty and addiction has been an issue for years, it was prior to the 40s and it continues to be.

Yes in order to sell something you do first have to own it. But I'm not talking about luxuries like big tellies and smartphones, in the 1940s you'd be required to sell your furniture, such as it was, a chair, some saucepans...

I've said all I have to say about this; it's impossible to compare need today to need in the forties.

Seeing as the thread is nothing to do with comparing that then that's fine. it's about changes in attitudes to the poor.

'One resident is shown telling a journalist on the estate: “You talk about Benefits Street exploiting us, it’s the press that’s exploiting us. The Sun are exploiting the people who live here.

“We stick together on this estate. What gives you the right to come down this road and take photos? We are not scum we are good people.”

Producer Kieran Smith from Love Productions said: “It’s not a deliberate attack on the press but you know what, having made series one it’s quite hard to sit there and see the misreporting, the lack of factual argument that people put into the reporting of Benefits Street'

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...ess-series-two

I just think 'some' people are greedy and expect too much sometimes ,even though times are hard , you can get a certain amount of pride from sorting things out yourself,I often see people standing outside job centers smoking and chatting on smartphones ,how can they afford that? I am all for helping people but not helping them to have a good lifestyle from being lazy.I have not seen anyone use a foodbank here,infact not sure we even have one.We all eat far beyond what we need to survive anyway.less food ,healthier people:laugh:

Healthier kids?

'Nearly 100,000 of the poorest children in the UK went hungry last year because their parents’ benefits were stopped or cut, according to a report by a coalition of churches.

A total of more than a million benefit sanctions were imposed last year - sometimes simply because people were late for an appointment at the Jobcentre - although more than 120,000 of those decisions were overturned on appeal.

Researchers found that more than 100 people with severe mental health problems a day were sanctioned. '

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-10079056.html

The wording is usage of over 1,000,000, not just one million actually.It exceeded 1,000,000 in figures out near 2 weeks ago.
People do use them sometimes once, twice and up to 3 times.

Foodbanks can at present only be a temporary measure and it is all donated voluntarily from the kindness of other shoppers in the main.

The point is that anyone needing foodbanks at all in the 21st century in the UK should make the UK powers that be feel really ashamed, it is beyond defending that anyone has to be so down, to have to rely on them in any shape or form.

Volunteers at them are worn out with the ever growing numbers of different people and you have to realise,someone using them up to 3 times, means after them it is near always new people using them afterwards.

Also, even at 1,000,000 usage, if it was assumed and we don't know,that this was in effect something like 334,000 actual people using them, that is still an almightly disgrace and should be a universal massive condemnation of this govt; that has let this happen over the last 5 years alone too.

The cry that Labour had foodbanks too gets made, well fair enough but then that would also need counter balancing, if we all accepted it is 334,000 people with 1,000,000 usage now.
Then as to Labour,who by 2010 had something like only 45,000 usage, that would mean only 15,000 people using them by the same token.

It does not alter in any way, the justified criticism as to this heartless lot as to a massive rise in foodbanks usage over just 5 years.
Labour's figure of 45,000 was at the end of 13 years of govt;,not just 5 years,where this present gov't has seen the figures soar to over 1,000,000.

Or assuming it is people rather than usage, Labour's figure of 15,000 after 13 years of govt; as opposed to the Conservative led govt;of 5 years taking it from 15,000 to 334,000,well over a quarter of a million at least, in that very short time.
Not a statistic I would like a party I supported to have as a fact.

Foodbanks shouldn't exist in the UK at all and if the Conservative party win this election,with their unspecified extra welfare cuts to come of around 10 billion, they have only told us 2 billion so far.
Then foodbanks and I feel sure those in poverty will see numbers soaring like never before,likely eclipsing the numbers rise of just the last 5 years.

So these people using foodbanks and foodbanks don't exist because you haven't seen them.
I help out at one Kazanne,I for sure know they exist alright and I have near cried at the situations some of those desperate for their help are in.

People also have to be referred to them by social services, a Church or a welfare organisation or charity.
They cannot and do not just walk in and demand stuff.

I am not saying they don't exist Joey,I just haven't seen any myself,people are making it sound as though there is one on every street corner Joey,Yes by all means help the needy,but just make sure they are needy first Joey,humans can be devious and will play on people if they can, I am not heartless,i always give to beggars on the street and you know and I know a lot of them are doing ok,but I still give because I also know I will give to one that really needs it,I'm maybe not getting my point across well,I would help anyone ,but also feel people rely too much on others.There is a lot of help out there for people,what more can we do?

Calm down you little tinker, if you could hear how I say what I say you would hear it all done softly.:wavey:
I know you are one of the most decent people on here and even in your 'harder' line at times, you still make valid points

In fact on this thread, I have quoted things you have raised as very valid quite a lot.

Some people desperately need to really on others however,my way is not to turn my back on those people.
You said yourself,some people are bad with money,there are however less and less organisations with the 'time needed' now to ensure they get sorted out.

Even if the usage of foodbanks is only around 334,000,that is no doubt in relation to the population a small number,however it is in my view a disgrace that anyone needs to use them in the UK,and as I said, they cannot just walk in to one, they have to be referred after they have been assessed as being in urgent/dire need.

I think the 45,000 usage left in 2010 by Labour was totally unacceptable too, they didn't get my vote.
A rise however from 45,000 to over 1,000,000 as to usage in just 5 years,well sorry, I would condemn massively anyone in power who presided over that.

Wow. that's a drop isn't it. From 1 person in 60 using a food bank to 1 person in 180.

:joker: Joey I haven't been called a little tinker for years,I quite like it,I hate not agreeing with you as you know how much regard I have for you ,the,same with Kizbot:hehe:, I am just not so read up on it as some,and I suppose I was brought up with the notion,you get out of life what you put in and you get nothing in this life for nothing.I am going to read and study it more as,as I get older politics gets more interesting:blush:

I somehow thought that would make you smile,:wavey:

That isn't the figure though Livia, some people only use it once or twice.
For me in any event, even a quarter of a million plus by a good margin is way too many and is a disgrace.
Nothing at all for the UK to be proud of.

nope, 333,333 is the figure if 1 person used the foodbank 3 times based on 1 million visits. I really hope we don't have to visit this issue again as it's in danger of derailing the thread.