As much as I hate people, I do believe that we are more generous than ever before. For example, a lady in my town started to go through the process of a homeless cafe where homeless people could eat for free and now she's raised over £10,000 for it and has the rent sorted for the place for over a year now. She's had all kinds of people donate things like clothes, cutlery, kitchen equipment and so much more.

Her cafe opens tomorrow and I'm so happy for her. It will be nice for the homeless to have a nice and safe place to eat.

Are you suggesting Joey an I were not brought up with said notion?
Yes I read up on it, the information is there for anyone who wishes to do so.
Joey is young and he has always been into politics, we may be a little more socially aware. :blush:

The fact that we need food banks is an awful situation, no one can argue against that. However, before saying the number have increased with the current government, one needs to examine the reason why. Is it because people are in more need? Is it because the criteria for being eligible has been relaxed? Is it because the current government decided that sufficient banks should be available such that people who need to use one have easy access to it.

I've said this before and I will say it again. Statistics can be manipulated to prove anything. We have a huge deficit, with both parties determined to wipe it out in the next 5 years. I hope people honestly don't expect the number of needy people to reduce in that period, because its just not going to happen, things will get worse, much worse, with either a tory or labour government

I agree, there are various factors like increased awareness, more referrals, a more concerted effort on the part of some charities etc. that have boosted the number of food banks massively, it would always have snowballed so it can be a bit of a fallacy to argue, say, that because ten times more people are using food banks than 5 years ago that ten times more people are in poverty. Germany has many more food banks than the UK has. That is not necessarily a bad thing, Smudgie's point is a very fair one that their growth also demonstrates the strength of charity in this country.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainme...Ha?ocid=LENDHP

America have them too !! maybe the tons of food wasted they mention could be used in some way http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainme...Ha?ocid=LENDHP

If it wasn't for the charities as Smudgie said, there likely would be fewer foodbanks,which would probably mean an even worse situation for those 'deemed' in poverty and needing that emergency assistance.
Not that we would likely hear of much of that,if that were the case.

Many charities,across the board, are clearing up the mess of both govts; over the last decade or so,however it is only this govt; who has cut charitable funding, so now it is even more stretched charities also dealing with the foodbank necessity.

It is shoppers in the main who supply the goods given out,which is wonderful to see and massively welcome.
However, charities should be being aided by govt; to make this service available,not have their funding cut to the bone and still be expected to.

The criteria for the use of foodbanks, remains the same too as it was before 2010, the CAB,social services, or charitable/welfare organisations have to assess people and refer them to a foodbank otherwise they cannot use them,resources are way too low.

Sure but the huge increase in the number of food banks means that more people can now be referred surely, the supply has finally started to catch up with a need that was always there. I can understand the criticism of cutting charity funding but the Trussell Trust has never received government funding anyway, and I suppose there's always a risk that when charities are government funded they might lose their independence which is so important to their operations

They are good points too.
However I didn't say the Trussell trust got funding, it is some other charities that to get funding from the govt; for their work,that have had the funding reduced or even stopped altogether.
They are the charities that in part help assess and find those who need help with food and then get them referred to the foodbanks.

The Trussel trust relies on companies and shoppers for the goods they can give out as emergency food rations for a limited time.
The very fact the word ration has to be used again is one of the saddest for me.

I just think it wrong that in my Country, the UK,in the 21st century that anyone,has to use something called a foodbank.
While those in power do not a thing to alter the situation.
It makes me feel shame as to what is supposed to be a great Nation, even when I am just helping out at one.

Now, Kazanne made another good point,as to wasted food.
Across the UK everyday, food still edible is being thrown out left,right and centre.
Companies could do a lot more to solve that,firstly by reducing the price in the first place and although I am against vouchers,the govt; could give a card to vulnerable people that would get them something like 25% off the cost of their shopping,possibly say once a month.
All that would help and it would be surprising how much it would too.
Leaving people with dignity still, and addressing the problem in some way at least at likely very little cost too.

That is just something I am just throwing out that I think could be done by govt;and enacted by supermarkets.
For instance, places can offer 10% off here and there for Pensioners and Students for goods and services,so clearly it can be easy to do.
My annoyance is govts; don't even look at what they could do to help.

Then charities could get back to giving advice and practical support as to their various identities,the way they used to before having to take on, vulnerable people, needing help now and then, with food.

labour will create even more poverty with their anti small business insanity....more expensive time consuming rules and regs, more EU enslavement, scrapping zero hours contracts (even for seasonal part time jobs or commission jobs all based on sales or performance levels - INSANE) no fall in vat, minimum wage rising again....all of this whacks small business employers every time and loses jobs

I disagree 100% as to that.I see no reason why they should or would.

For me, the sooner zero hours contracts are a thing of the past, except for those who 'really' want them, the better too.

You will never get a fall in VAT from any major party,it is the easiest and quickest tax to bring in.
However Labour has yet to increase Vat in govt; actually since it was first brought in.

I'm sorry that's not true more people are not using food banks because they're better advertised, it is because there are more referrals and that is due to the fact that medical/social and education professionals are worried about the health of an increasing number of people.
It cannot be argued that there are more people living in poverty, due to bedroom tax, council tax and sanctions it is not a fallacy.
What other countries do or don't do is irrelevant, we are not Germany.
Yes there is charity in this country, and that's fantastic to a point but is leaning on the already strained pockets of those in the local community the answer?...
Where is the government response? They can't cut and cut and cut and expect those who appreciate there's a problem to cope it's not a sustainable long term plan.
It's going to create more and more resentment.

1) your answer is anti economic nonsense, clearly you've never employed people. The majority like zero hour contracts, they help create jobs when an employed doesn't know if there will be enough guaranteed work for the next 6 to 12 months, especially if its seasonal or sales etc
2) Labour brought it down so youre wrong.
3) labour brought in endless stealth taxes and only changed the vat and tax right at the end, when it was all too little too late
4) these mindless policies added to the 3000 plus new labour laws, stealth taxes, European constitution signed up to by labour, 587 pages of mostly unreadable laws, all hurts employers and jobs. this is why the European countries are in such a diabolical mess. youth unemployment is over 50% in several nations, the overall unemployment rate is over 12%. you help employers, you help them create jobs, jobs create wealth , wealth pays the bills, the taxes, pays the nhs the police, the council, everything...all the wealth comes from the private employers and youre ideas are destroying them and their job creation

cuts are made due to unpayable debt create by new labours insane laws and 1000s of new rules and regs plus new regs of the EU and even more new rules and regulations and red tape and expense from the devolved powers....new labours anti economic policies bankrupted the country

I disagree with that, further this isn't a debate into what created the poverty but attitudes to it, whether the further apart the division between the rich and the poor gets will we begin to see more asking the government to buoy them or not?

No and if I ever did employ people I would give them proper hours and not zero hours contracts.
I know people on them and they hate them they haven't a clue what they will be earning one week to the next.
While their 'bosses' know exactly what they will be getting.

Absolute rubbish,with respect,that so many need to be on zero hours contracts.
Also anyone that is should still be classed as not being fully employed too.

The rest of your post,I dispute as to its conclusions.

The country survived fine before 0hrs, how can anyone live independently, run a car, buy a house or have any kind of security in their employment status on such a contract?
Not knowing when they go to sleep if they will have a job in the morning or not?

Casual labour has been with us for many many many years, its just 0 hours contracts under a different name. It has been both a useful and necessary employment type for generations

Yes casual cash in hand labourers perhaps, but care workers, retail and bar staff? No, they're just creeping into every sector. This isn't really the thread to discuss employment law but I'm surprised they're so advocated by this govt, people in work on these especially with kids will need a lot of tax credit top ups :/

the reality is those staff who are good at their jobs will always be of immense value to all emplyers and will always keep their jobs and always be in high demand, the market dictates this and also dictates they may leave to a better job unless they are treated well and rewarded in line with their value to the business

There isn't an inherent problem with 0 hours contracts. The problem arises where unscrupulous employers use them as a method of avoiding the added burden associated with offering full time employment. There are many job types where it is eminently suitable to offer 0 hour contracts, and its not beyond the wit of man to identify where a company is taking advantage. In those cases fine them, ban them or whatever rather than removing a perfectly legitimate type of employment.

I don't appreciate the off topic slurs if you wish to discuss employment law make your own thread please.

you cant make a blanket law for every situation and every business, as every situation and every business is entirely different. as ive tried to point out

Schools are providing an estimated £43.5m of unfunded support for children from low income families who have been left “high and dry” as a result of coalition cuts, a poll of headteachers has revealed.

According to the survey, published on Friday, eight out of 10 headteachers (84%) who responded said they were providing more support than five years ago, including food, clothes and washing facilities.

Others said their schools were paying for outings, head lice treatment and haircuts, as well as birthday cards and presents for pupils who would not otherwise receive any. Often teachers were paying out of their own pockets to help those most in need.

More than four out of five (84%) identified a change in financial circumstances among parents of those children affected, while 66% said they were having to step in to provide services that would previously have been delivered by health and social services – of which more than seven in 10 (72%) said they were providing mental health support.'

I expect teachers are especially looking forward to the 12 billion of welfare cuts?

http://www.theguardian.com/education...e-to-cuts-poll

'Every week for the past year, Neil Robson has made a trip to his local Co-op and spent around £20 on a bag of shopping that he then carries to the Wandsworth food bank in south London. Before he leaves home, he consults a list of the most-wanted items on their website, noting what they’re running out of (basic toiletries, UHT milk, tinned meat, tinned fish). This week he adds a tin of sustainably-sourced tuna to the bag.

Robson is a retired human resources manager in his 60s, who has never previously been involved in community charity projects. What drives him to make this regular gesture? “Anger. How can it be that there should be people so stretched for cash that they can’t get the money they need for food? I am not a churchgoer; I do this in a secular capacity. My motto, like a Victorian embroidered sampler, is: ‘My neighbour must not go hungry.’”

Robson has devoted considerable time to researching what might be causing the huge surge in food bank use. “I’ve been reading about people who, through no fault of their own, are not getting the money they need. I am affronted – shocked that in this wonderful country, people are stuck in a situation where they truly don’t have enough money to eat for the next couple of days.”

Food banks have become one of the most potent symbols of the coalition administration and a key theme in the election campaign. In 2010, the food bank was an unfamiliar concept, but five years later, more than 1,000 are operating around the country. The UK’s largest food bank operator said that in 2014-15, it distributed enough emergency food to give more than a million people three days’ supply. The first issue Jeremy Paxman confronted David Cameron with in his televised interview was food banks; Cameron revealed that he did not know how many there were in the UK. The Labour party has said the rise in food bank use is a sign of a failed welfare state, and promised to slash the number of people reliant on them.'

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...have-used-them

all cuts are down to labour bankrupting the nation and also pandering to the workless entitlement bums who have no health problems yet milk every benefit their whole workless lives

That seems unlikely.

The thread is about attitude, if that's his then that's that, he's not the only one to hold that view and it is a perfect example of how the poor are seen by many.

are homeless rate is high, but the same time are leaders care more for outsiders, than helping are own, are country is flooded with refugees, who get treated far better than the people who are trying to find work,

'Asda has removed permanent collection points for food banks from stores across the UK, in a move that has caused alarm among charities and the supermarket chain’s customers.

Following reports on social media that collection trolleys and boxes had disappeared from stores across Scotland, as well as in Hampshire, Lancashire, Norwich and Newcastle, the Guardian has established that Asda, which is owned by the US retail giant Walmart, has removed donation points from all of its UK stores.

Food bank points offer shoppers the chance to donate items they have bought in stores, as well as food brought from home; in some cases Asda’s contributions accounted for 15%-25% of a single charity’s donations.

Several charities told the Guardian they had been affected by Asda’s new policy, which was instituted in January, apparently unannounced.'

Complicit in the cull.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...ores?CMP=fb_gu

I think ASDA has problems looming, listening to the staff, very few are happy at all at present.

This is a bad move from ASDA,it looks petty and uncaring.

:clap1::clap1::clap1: Nothing 'flippant' at all in your comments Matt - the article and headline is a load of B.S.

What is regarded as 'poverty' today is NOWHERE near the REAL poverty of the 40's, 50's, AND 60's.

I KNOW - I lived through part of the 50's in REAL POVERTY.

Poverty as defined by our 21 century AAA rated world power status naturally.

Aye, the 70's were hard as well Kirk.
I can remember my mother trying to batter a tin of peas one Sunday, we had nothing else in the house to eat....mind you we had the excitement of watching the peas escaping from the batter in the hot fat.
She worked full time but never enough money to go around:shrug:

:laugh: I love yer Smudgie. You have to laugh - Do you know that until I was in my late teens (and in charge of my own destiny :laugh:) I thought 'Scallops' were a slice of potato coated in batter and deep fried, because THAT is what my old man told us they were when he made them that way for us as a 'luxurious treat' when we were kids.

Remember 'bread pobs' - bits of stale bread soaked in gravy? :laugh:

And my mother had three jobs and the old man was a coal miner. :shrug:

Haha At the Scallop potatoes.
The batter made them bigger and more filling..wise parents back in the day.
I hated them as I am not a potato fan.

And there are "starving kids in Africa" who would kill for a deep fried battered potato or a bit of bread soaked in gravy.

Comparing ye-olde-timey poverty to modern poverty in an attempt to make it seem like poor people today "have it easy" is both arrogant, and completely pointless. The social and economic contexts are completely different. You're right in that it "doesn't compare" but only because it flat out can't be compared. It wasn't "as bad as" or "easier" OR "harder" - it was an entirely different situation.

Wow...I was a bit shocked that you think like that to be honest.

I've not read all the responses as its been a long day so forgive me if I repeat something someone's already said.

I think modern poverty is very different to the poverty of old. Back then survival for the poor was their only purpose in life. So long as they could put bread on the table and have a suit to pawn to get them through to pay day, they just buckled down and got on with life.

Today we are driven by our aspirations and those aspirations go much further than putting bread on the table and a roof over our heads. We all engage with it, we are surrounded by it; our life is full of material things we think we need.

If you're poor in the modern world you can still have a wide screen tv. Modern poverty can come and go because a lot of people, including the hard working ones, can't manage to sustain comfortability for long. With minimum salaries that haven't kept up with inflation, zero contract hours that give unpredictable earnings and a position of never being able to save because whatever they earn is swallowed up by the cost of living; there are many people in Britain that are okay today but may not be okay tomorrow.

Poverty is subjective. I would consider someone living on baked beans and fears turning the heating up poor. I would consider someone who doesn't own property, has no savings and becomes unemployed poor and I would consider a homeless person to be extremely poor.

Our going back in time comparing our lives then to now has nothing to do with arrogance TS, it is no different to your little tale of your hard times:shrug:
We have all bad them, or at least fear that we will at some point in life.
The gist of the thread has been the difference in poverty in the 40s and modern day, so hearing people's actual experiences in the years in between is more real to me than reading some statistics written down by somebody I don't know a thing about.

No,what is being said (quite explicitly) is that poverty "in those days" was real poverty and that the idea of poverty today is somehow laughable in comparison. A sort of "they wouldn't know hardship if it smacked them in the face, we knew REAL hard times" sort of thing. It's dismissive, disrespectful, arrogant, and shows a huge misunderstanding of how different the issues faced by people in poverty today are compared to yesteryear. Neither has it easier, it's completely different.

Incase you're going to suggest that's not what was being implied:

It wasn't just implied it was stated outright.