[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...g-Britain.html

[smudgie]

Supply more food banks, more people will use them.
Take them away and people will do the same as we had to, go hungry until that Giro hit the mat.





Now then, I am not saying I want them doing away with, just that it is all to do with supply and demand.
As a nation we are generous and charitable, donating for the less well off.
Not the perfect answer but it all helps

[empire]

to get more food bank money we need to cut foreign aid by 60 percent, and cut giving money to the eu by 80 percent, so we would be saving alot of money to help the poor.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by empire

to get more food bank money we need to cut foreign aid by 60 percent, and cut giving money to the eu by 80 percent, so we would be saving alot of money to help the poor.

I agree with this, as awful as it sounds our people need help first and foremost and as the UK is in a recession we need to get ourselves back on our feet first before looking after foreign countries.

[Crimson Dynamo]

A day after the BBC admitted to misquoting David Cameron on foxhunting, the broadcaster made another admission of error last night over the numbers of people using food banks. A Newsnight package on welfare initially declared that ‘numbers using food banks will hit a million this week’, but this figure was clarified with a short correction at the end of the programme:

‘In our welfare discussion we said there were a million people estimated to use food banks. There were actually a million uses by a smaller number of people than that.’

The flagship current affairs show wasn’t the only operation to make the mistake, which is based on a Trussell Trust press release titled ‘Foodbank use tops one million for the first time’. The Guardian headline today reads ‘Low pay and benefit sanctions push food bank users beyond a million’, and the Daily Mail says: ‘Storm as food banks claim they are feeding 1m people.’

But as the Trussell Trust admits in the small print, the claim that over one million unique people used food banks in the past year is inaccurate. ‘These are not all unique users,’ it says. ‘This is a measure of volume.’ Indeed, the one million figure has been calculated by tallying the number of vouchers handed out, and taking into account how many people each voucher can feed. However, the Trust says that ‘on average, people needed two foodbank vouchers in a year’. As the independent Full Fact points out, this means the actual number of people using food banks is likely to be around half the headline one million figure.

The report on the BBC News website this morning is more careful with the numbers. It reads:

‘The Trussell Trust said three days’ food was given out 1,084,604 times in the 2014-15 financial year, though it is not clear how many people got help because some visited more than once.’

Journalists ought to question the reliability of statistics, but there should also be a responsibility on the behalf of respected charities not to deliberately mislead.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...e-help-no-one/

[Josy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

A day after the BBC admitted to misquoting David Cameron on foxhunting, the broadcaster made another admission of error last night over the numbers of people using food banks. A Newsnight package on welfare initially declared that ‘numbers using food banks will hit a million this week’, but this figure was clarified with a short correction at the end of the programme:

‘In our welfare discussion we said there were a million people estimated to use food banks. There were actually a million uses by a smaller number of people than that.’

The flagship current affairs show wasn’t the only operation to make the mistake, which is based on a Trussell Trust press release titled ‘Foodbank use tops one million for the first time’. The Guardian headline today reads ‘Low pay and benefit sanctions push food bank users beyond a million’, and the Daily Mail says: ‘Storm as food banks claim they are feeding 1m people.’

But as the Trussell Trust admits in the small print, the claim that over one million unique people used food banks in the past year is inaccurate. ‘These are not all unique users,’ it says. ‘This is a measure of volume.’ Indeed, the one million figure has been calculated by tallying the number of vouchers handed out, and taking into account how many people each voucher can feed. However, the Trust says that ‘on average, people needed two foodbank vouchers in a year’. As the independent Full Fact points out, this means the actual number of people using food banks is likely to be around half the headline one million figure.

The report on the BBC News website this morning is more careful with the numbers. It reads:

‘The Trussell Trust said three days’ food was given out 1,084,604 times in the 2014-15 financial year, though it is not clear how many people got help because some visited more than once.’

Journalists ought to question the reliability of statistics, but there should also be a responsibility on the behalf of respected charities not to deliberately mislead.


http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeeh...e-help-no-one/

The trussel trust is only one of many charities running food banks in the uk, however the figures shouldn't mater one bit when that number is at least how many families/people had to rely on emergency food packs.

Not really sure why people are trying their best to prove that figures are wrong when the simple fact that people need to rely on charities to eat at all should be horrific enough.

[joeysteele]

I have always used the term 'usage' in my posts on foodbanks, I am aware some people come 3 times, some 2 and many once.
I know because I help out at one.

I say again the figures are irrelevant, except in the fact that 'usage' of them was 50,000 in 2010, when this govt; came to power and all figures now state that distribution of stock has hit over 1,000,000 at least currently.
That 50,000 was bad enough and I equally condemn Labour for not doing more as to them by then too.

It changes nothing at all as to what should be the great scandal now of such an increase of people and usage in just under 5 years under the Conservative led govt;
50,000 to over 1,000,000, a totally indefensible disgrace.

That is the only relevant fact, in my view.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I have always used the term 'usage' in my posts on foodbanks, I am aware some people come 3 times, some 2 and many once.
I know because I help out at one.

I say again the figures are irrelevant, except in the fact that 'usage' of them was 50,000 in 2010, when this govt; came to power and all figures now state that distribution of stock has hit over 1,000,000 at least currently.
That 50,000 was bad enough and I equally condemn Labour for not doing more as to them by then too.

It changes nothing at all as to what should be the great scandal now of such an increase of people and usage in just under 5 years under the Conservative led govt;
50,000 to over 1,000,000, a totally indefensible disgrace.

That is the only relevant fact, in my view.

If you apply the same logic to the 2010 figure and the same person used the foodbank 3 times that would mean of that the true figure was 16,667 today that figure today equates to 361,535 which means 344,868 more people are using foodbanks today than 5yrs ago or an extra 68,974 people per yer over the last 5.
But like you say it wouldn't matter who, why or how many, it's been reported these are the nations undesirables.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

If you apply the same logic to the 2010 figure and the same person used the foodbank 3 times that would mean of that the true figure was 16,667 today that figure today equates to 361,535 which means 344,868 more people are using foodbanks today than 5yrs ago or an extra 68,974 people per yer over the last 5.
But like you say it wouldn't matter who, why or how many, it's been reported these are the nations undesirables.

Exactly I did this in another thread ages ago, they just ignored it then too.
You are right it takes the figures of 2010, even at the very lowest estimate from around the figure you state above to well over 300,000 minimum now in 2015.

Some people seem to think that is right and fine for a figure to rise like that in just over 4 years.

That is for me, when they lose the argument totally, they say it is left wing propaganda as a dismissal of the facts.
Hey. well I am from the left now and from what I see on here now, how glad I am as to that and I changed from such a party that has such hardline support.
Before anyone says I am getting at Conservative voters there, think before you say it, after the insults and rubbish that has been thrown at Labour supporters these last few weeks and the derision I have had to put up with.

I have always stated usage over people as to statistics.
Which is in fact, looking at usage even more damning as to the govt; in power at the time, since it seems people are now needing to use them more than once anyway now.
In 2010 being the rarity to do so, just over 4 years later, almost heading to be the norm.

Another fact, some will ignore because of their scant disregard for anyone elses view that is daring to think their precious Conservative govt; could even be wrong on anything.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Exactly I did this in another thread ages ago, they just ignored it then too.
You are right it takes the figures of 2010, even at the very lowest estimate from around the figure you state above to well over 300,000 minimum now in 2015.

Some people seem to think that is right and fine for a figure to rise like that in just over 4 years.

That is for me, when they lose the argument totally, they say it is left wing propaganda as a dismissal of the facts.
Hey. well I am from the left now and from what I see on here now, how glad I am as to that and I changed from such a party that has such hardline support.
Before anyone says I am getting at Conservative voters there, think before you say it, after the insults and rubbish that has been thrown at Labour supporters these last few weeks and the derision I have had to put up with.

I have always stated usage over people as to statistics.
Which is in fact, looking at usage even more damning as to the govt; in power at the time, since it seems people are now needing to use them more than once anyway now.
In 2010 being the rarity to do so, just over 4 years later, almost heading to be the norm.

Another fact, some will ignore because of their scant disregard for anyone elses view that is daring to think their precious Conservative govt; could even be wrong on anything.

I'm thinking of having a brick wall installed on a thread we can bash our heads on
What is obvious is that statistics which praise the govt are accepted and agreed with without question, though those like these that show that food bank use that ultimately in 2015 is humiliating to a rich nation such as ours are immediately disbelieved.
It's laughable, I think the term is 'blind faith'.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm thinking of having a brick wall installed on a thread we can bash our heads on
What is obvious is that statistics which praise the govt are accepted and agreed with without question, though those like these that show that food bank use that ultimately in 2015 is humiliating to a rich nation such as ours are immediately disbelieved.
It's laughable, I think the term is 'blind faith'.

Well said.

[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I have always used the term 'usage' in my posts on foodbanks, I am aware some people come 3 times, some 2 and many once.
I know because I help out at one.

I say again the figures are irrelevant, except in the fact that 'usage' of them was 50,000 in 2010, when this govt; came to power and all figures now state that distribution of stock has hit over 1,000,000 at least currently.
That 50,000 was bad enough and I equally condemn Labour for not doing more as to them by then too.

It changes nothing at all as to what should be the great scandal now of such an increase of people and usage in just under 5 years under the Conservative led govt;
50,000 to over 1,000,000, a totally indefensible disgrace.

That is the only relevant fact, in my view.

Thanks for the clarification Joey.

This is an area that needs the correct data, because its very important. I am not trying to sweep the issue away.

For example, if the average unique usages is 2, it implies that there is a social services that is not reacting fast enough which gives people a problem and they need to use them, but that the issue is resolved within a week ( 2 * a 3 day pack)

Also, when comparing over a longer term, if people are long term users of the service, well the numbers will grow as long as the service is available. So saying the number of usages increased from x to y over a 5 year period doesn't reveal much unless it is in reference to the number of unique uses.

Again, I say, I'm not trying to minimise the issue, but we do need to understand it more.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Thanks for the clarification Joey.

This is an area that needs the correct data, because its very important. I am not trying to sweep the issue away.

For example, if the average unique usages is 2, it implies that there is a social services that is not reacting fast enough which gives people a problem and they need to use them, but that the issue is resolved within a week ( 2 * a 3 day pack)

Also, when comparing over a longer term, if people are long term users of the service, well the numbers will grow as long as the service is available. So saying the number of usages increased from x to y over a 5 year period doesn't reveal much unless it is in reference to the number of unique uses.

Again, I say, I'm not trying to minimise the issue, but we do need to understand it more.

I posted this for you here as it has some figures in.
If you apply the same logic to the 2010 figure and the same person used the foodbank 3 times that would mean of that the true figure was 16,667 today that figure today equates to 361,535 which means 344,868 more people are using foodbanks today than 5yrs ago or an extra 68,974 people per yer over the last 5.

An individual can only use a foodbank 3 times over a year referred by a professional body such as doctor or social worker.

http://www.trusselltrust.org/

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I posted this for you here as it has some figures in.
If you apply the same logic to the 2010 figure and the same person used the foodbank 3 times that would mean of that the true figure was 16,667 today that figure today equates to 361,535 which means 344,868 more people are using foodbanks today than 5yrs ago or an extra 68,974 people per yer over the last 5.

An individual can only use a foodbank 3 times over a year referred by a professional body such as doctor or social worker.

http://www.trusselltrust.org/

So from their graphs, the biggest single contributing factor is delays in receiving required benefit. That is a failure in the system response times more than anything else.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

So from their graphs, the biggest single contributing factor is delays in receiving required benefit. That is a failure in the system response times more than anything else.

Would that include benefit sanctions? I can see how that would cause a need to visit a foodbank especially if there were children in the household.

[Kizzy]

I suggested it as it is how I feel Livia I'm not attempting to influence or preempt how Josy feels.
No matter how you look at it it the situation has mushroomed, almost 69,000 extra people year on year for 5yrs ... I'm sure that 5 years ago all if these people were in our communities struggling we would've noticed?
Are we more compassionate now than we were then, are professionals referring these people for the heck of it, unstable employment, bedroom tax and benefit sanctions or any combination of these don't account for any increase whatsoever?

People are affected by poverty porn as that is what it was designed to do.
The economy has recovered slightly and yet households are currently on average Ł1100 worse off, I don't envisage this changing for many following 12 billion in cuts.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I suggested it as it is how I feel Livia I'm not attempting to influence or preempt how Josy feels.
No matter how you look at it it the situation has mushroomed, almost 69,000 extra people year on year for 5yrs ... I'm sure that 5 years ago all if these people were in our communities struggling we would've noticed?
Are we more compassionate now than we were then, are professionals referring these people for the heck of it, unstable employment, bedroom tax and benefit sanctions or any combination of these don't account for any increase whatsoever?

People are affected by poverty porn as that is what it was designed to do.
The economy has recovered slightly and yet households are currently on average Ł1100 worse off, I don't envisage this changing for many following 12 billion in cuts.

You are doing nothing wrong Kizzy, you have highlighted again as I did and others and Josy on another thread ages ago.

We are concerned about foodbank use and feel any decent govt; in power would have done something about the need for them at all.

This lot have been told for near 3 years now as to the really big rises in foodbank need and done nothing at all as to it, except help create the circumstances where more people will need to use them.

You can go on until you are blue in the face and get nowhere because some do not see this as the govts; fault at all.
It the peoples fault for being in need in the first place.
Shocking, absolutely despicably shocking.

Just to re-iterate,even just on the best figures, just around 16,000 using foodbanks in 2010,13 years after the start of a Labour govt:
Now well over 300,0000 doing so after only 5 years of Conservative govt;
That speaks volumes, those are facts,the 'minimal' facts, not the likely 'maximum' facts.

A new lower benefits cap,cuts and freezes to some benefit increases will not help the situation, it will make it worse and that is what is going to happen,you are correct again.
I admire your persistence, I am starting to realise it is a waste of time to even try to get any compassion for foodbank users from some quarters of society.

I help out at one, I see the desperation and most times embarrassment of those who feel such failures that they have had to be referred in the first place to them.
The scepticism towards foodbanks likely comes from people who have never even seen one, let alone helped out at one.

[Crimson Dynamo]

food banks are a great example of Dave's Big Society, so in many ways he should be thanked for their spread

[Kizzy]

On Saturday I was one of 250 citizens who met at the Queen Street statue of Aneurin Bevan in Cardiff, to protest the Tories’ austerity measures, with the People’s Assembly. Thankfully, it’s my democratic right to do so.

While I was aware that my presence at the rally could attract the media, I’m sure that you’ll be shocked to hear that I didn’t do it for some self-aggrandising purpose. As I’ve previously stated on my blog, I have no wish to be trolled and abused. It would be much easier for me not to engage. I’m not promoting a record or a TV show. My only motivation for attending was to try to make a difference; to further political discourse in my community; to draw attention to a cause that is more than valid, it is vital.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...sembly-cardiff

[Gstar]

um.. thanks

[Kizzy]

Spoiler:

[lime]

After reading through this thread ...Joey and kizzy i am 100% behind you.Not once but repeateldy you both condemed the roioters but expressesd an interset in taking part in the protests.I am not from the UK nor do I live there but am disgusted at the comments aimed at protesters.As a South African its sad to hear protesters shold be shot dead.....that happens in my country along with immigrants being killed

[Livia]

Lime, for the sake of balance, I think only one poster suggested shooting the rioters, and knowing that poster I would say it was not a serious comment. No one is against the right to peaceful protest. That's not what this turned into.

[lime]

Originally Posted by Livia

Lime, for the sake of balance, I think only one poster suggested shooting the rioters, and knowing that poster I would say it was not a serious comment. No one is against the right to peaceful protest. That's not what this turned into.

I get that Livia...I really do and I know that some of the protesters were scumbags.What annoys me is that some FM's mentioning that they would want to join the protests were labeled as disgusting but the poster you mention was not pulled up on his comments...I find his comments disgusting.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by lime

I get that Livia...I really do and I know that some of the protesters were scumbags.What annoys me is that some FM's mentioning that they would want to join the protests were labeled as disgusting but the poster you mention was not pulled up on his comments...I find his comments disgusting.

I think we are probably a little cosseted in this country when it comes to riots and protests. You are looking as it from a much more serious angle, and luckily for us, we have never had to deal with a truly violent riot in this country the way you would understand them. Well, not for a long time. I do understand how you feel, but I think he was just angry, especially as the rioters had defaced a WW2 memorial.

Anyhoo... nice to see you!