Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10970518)

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

Originally Posted by Zizu (Post 10970636)

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 10970683)

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.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 10970683)

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.

Originally Posted by Alf (Post 10970235)

I said the same to Marcus Rashford.

While what he was trying to achieve was very noble of him, he was asking the wrong people for the funding. It's not the governments job to pay for people's children. However, there is a charity that raises millions every year, actually called "Children in need" I told Rashford, by tweet, to pester them, it makes far more sense.

Originally Posted by Zizu (Post 10970632)

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

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 10971054)

This thread made me think actually about who uses foodbanks.

And apparently 'more than half' of users are disabled (or were in November 2018, which is unlikely to have changed much)..which is rather bloody depressing.

“More than half of food bank users are disabled people or those with a long-term health condition. The initiatives by Trussell Trust shows that society is reaching out to them but they must wonder why there is a government denying them adequate social protection.”

https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/n...-thirteen-cent

Plus seemingly the most common reason for needing one is the ridiculous 6 week wait for universal credit. Which has been purposely built that way for some reason. Surely there could be different way to do it, especially when loads of 'hardworking people' will be claiming now, or soon.

(Slightly offtopic but - Thats interesting too actually, so many I know who used to scream about universal credit being way too high, people can apparently live luxury lifestyles, should be for bare essentals, not even a little for anything thats not essential, etc etc..are now up in arms as its too low to live on apparently, now that they are the ones having to claim..)

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 10971037)

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.

Originally Posted by Smithy (Post 10970134)

Shocking

Originally Posted by Alf (Post 10970235)

I said the same to Marcus Rashford.

While what he was trying to achieve was very noble of him, he was asking the wrong people for the funding. It's not the governments job to pay for people's children. However, there is a charity that raises millions every year, actually called "Children in need" I told Rashford, by tweet, to pester them, it makes far more sense.

Originally Posted by Alf (Post 10970277)

You might want that, but other tax payers don't.

Originally Posted by arista (Post 10970373)

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

Originally Posted by Ammi (Post 10971085)

...breakfast clubs and providing breakfast boxes etc for children is something that is already being done in many schools, Zizu...which was also pre-pandemic...I don’t know if you have anything similar at your own school...and those are funded in various different ways, locally...but I’m not sure if a school involvement is an ideal either, rather than providing in the home because a child in poverty and need of food etc, would indicate a parent/parents in poverty as well, the whole family, obviously...

...and because of the extraordinary times that we’re living in atm, rising poverty is looking at being a long term thing, we can’t fathom at all atm how the impact is going to unfold...UNICEF are projecting at least 5 years for wealthier countries such as the U.K...for poor countries, I can’t even imagine...

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper (Post 10971227)

JRM cutting through the noise to highlight that unicef are the villains, not the cruel tories.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W (Post 10971232)

wtf is wrong with him?

Even if doing what they're doing is a political stunt, it doesn't take away from the good deed, a deed which shouldn't be required anyway.

Originally Posted by Dezzy (Post 10970377)

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.