[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

[bitontheslide]

I would like to know more about these foodbank figures too

Do they constitute unique usages by individuals or do they reflect repeat usage by the same individuals over a period of time, because its not at all clear to me.

Let me explain why this is important:

if 10 people use a foodbank in a week, and the figure does not refer to uniques, then those 10 people would register 520 visits for a year, 2600 visits in 5 years, all generated by those same 10 people.

I think the basis of measurement has to be made clear before anything useful can be deduced from the figures, and forgive me, but I've never seen any context for the quoted figures.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Is that 1,084,604 people rely on emergency food (because that's what your statement suggests), or that food banks have been used 1,084,604 times? I just don't believe one in sixty of the population rely on food banks to eat.

That particular set of figures has been manipulated so many times by so many different people, I find it hard to believe anyone where those stats are concerned.

Food banks were around during the Labour government, they've increased. That's a good thing, isn't it? I acknowledge that lots of people are in need but don't believe it's all the fault of the Tories any more than the recession was totally the fault of Labour. My own local council is one of the fastest in the country to paying benefits to those in need. It's a Tory council. They've also not raised the council tax for eight years and yet services have improved. The Tory councillors in my district council have just increased from 36 to 40, so 40 out of 45 councillors are Tory. They must be doing something right.

Does it matter? the food banks are being used more and that's the amount of people that had to be given a 3 day emergency food pack and that's from the 2014/2015 statistics when we aren't even half way through this year, which takes me to Joeys point..figures shouldn't matter because no one should have to rely on a food bank, saying the more food banks there is the more they will be used doesn't make it any less awful that people cannot afford to feed themselves and their families.

I'm not really sure why you find the figures hard to believe either when it's reported that their is over 13 million people in the UK living below the poverty line and working people make up more than half of that.

Edited to add - The figures I posted are only from 1 charity that has over 450 foodbanks, obviously the numbers would be higher if adding all of the charities together.

[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.

[Gstar]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I can't sympathise with that when there's thousands of people with scared children that risk losing their homes, livelihoods and healthcare because of these cuts.

I was being sarcastic. The divide and superior attitude is disgusting in this country and it's only gonna get worse

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

So am I just victim of Sun propaganda as well lol?

Yes there are legitimate debates to be had over all these issues, its the beauty of politics (sort of) that nothing is black and white. Parties engage with these debates, people engage with them and yes, newspapers engage with them too. But even just one person's decision of who to vote for will typically be formed out of a melting pot of considerations, I still say it's too simplistic to reduce the vast majority of people's decision down to: who the Sun told them to vote for.

I didn't say that did I?

I gave you some sociological information to support my theory, I don't like the suggestion on the thread I'm attacking you or your view I'm really not at all.
I feel that maybe the tabloids are just being used as a tool of social control, obviously it's just one aspect of how individuals form their political attitude however I feel it's underestimated.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Is that 1,084,604 people rely on emergency food (because that's what your statement suggests), or that food banks have been used 1,084,604 times? I just don't believe one in sixty of the population rely on food banks to eat.

That particular set of figures has been manipulated so many times by so many different people, I find it hard to believe anyone where those stats are concerned.

Food banks were around during the Labour government, they've increased. That's a good thing, isn't it? I acknowledge that lots of people are in need but don't believe it's all the fault of the Tories any more than the recession was totally the fault of Labour. My own local council is one of the fastest in the country to paying benefits to those in need. It's a Tory council. They've also not raised the council tax for eight years and yet services have improved. The Tory councillors in my district council have just increased from 36 to 40, so 40 out of 45 councillors are Tory. They must be doing something right.

I've addressed this for you in another thread at length not long ago, is it necessary to repeat the same information?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Load of tossers, even if you argue that the Tories don't have the mandate of the majority of the country I would bet good money that a great deal more people would back them and the agreed democratic process than would back these violent mask-wearing, graffiti-spraying idiots

Sorry anarchists but there is no appetite for revolution and overhaul in this country. Tomorrow morning Cameron will get on with the real world business of governing the country; some of these protesters will wake up in a police cell. I know who will cut the more sorry figure then.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I've addressed this for you in another thread at length not long ago, is it necessary to repeat the same information?

You'd be really wasting your time Kizzy.
It is not information, large or otherwise, that is wanted to be heard,since the need for foodbanks is denied and even if they are there, the people using them are just scrounging.
Despite the fact that those 'sent' to them have to be assessed and referred by social services, a charity, the CAB or welfare group.
They even ignore the fact that people struggling on short hours work contracts,thereby supposedly being in work by this govt; are referred to them as well.

If this were a Labour govt; that had seen foodbank usage go from 50,000 to over 1,000,000, the same people would be screaming out loud, 'so much for Labour being for the poorest', and they would be hammering Labour out of sight.
The difference is, if we had a Labour govt; and this had happened under them, you and I at least would also be condemning same too,as we are now.
(Hang on though, we are just probably being left wing militants).

It should not be an us and them situation at all, nothing party political about it at all, it is a simple fact,and you have be right on the bottom to get anything from foodbanks in the first place..
Foobanks should not even be in existence at all in the UK in the 21st century and certainly usage of them should never be increasing in use from 50,000 in 2010 to over 1,000,000 in just a paltry 5 years.
Some won't acknowledge that just because their govt; can do no wrong whatsover.

Also because this has happened under their govt;it doesn't need to be happening so the figures are then smokescreened and always questioned.

So no one will ever get any likely acknowledgement at all from those who don't want to hear the truth as to foodbanks, and it wouldn't matter likely what evidence there was as to them.

The fact they exist and usage has gone over 1,000,000, should,in my opinion, be a reason for universal shame across the UK, and a massive criticism of the govt; in power when such a rise of usage from 50,000 to over 1,000,000 occurred too in their time in power.

[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/

[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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Now you're talking JoeyOnly kidding

I would hope you are.

I am not however,were that to ever be that case I would be off from the UK like a greyhound out of a trap.
Just as I will be too if the UK votes to leave the EU, if this referendum actually takes place and the UK does.

I will head off to support a forward looking EU Nation not stay and support a backwards looking Nation.
My own future in the UK is now on hold until that referendum is either abandoned or takes place.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I've addressed this for you in another thread at length not long ago, is it necessary to repeat the same information?

I wasn't talking to you, Kizzy. I'm through talking to you.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Josy

Does it matter? the food banks are being used more and that's the amount of people that had to be given a 3 day emergency food pack and that's from the 2014/2015 statistics when we aren't even half way through this year, which takes me to Joeys point..figures shouldn't matter because no one should have to rely on a food bank, saying the more food banks there is the more they will be used doesn't make it any less awful that people cannot afford to feed themselves and their families.

I'm not really sure why you find the figures hard to believe either when it's reported that their is over 13 million people in the UK living below the poverty line and working people make up more than half of that.

Edited to add - The figures I posted are only from 1 charity that has over 450 foodbanks, obviously the numbers would be higher if adding all of the charities together.

Does it matter? Of course it matters! Whether a million people are using foodbanks, or fifty thousand people are using them twenty times? Yes, I'd say it matters quite a bit if you're going to quote statistics. Unless it's crystal clear what you mean it just upholds the thinking that you can say anything with statistics.

I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't people on low wages or relying entirely on benefits. I'm suggesting that the problem isn't as big as the left suggests. And having foodbanks is a good thing, because there are now more, could that not mean that more people are being helped, rather than there are more people in need? And yes, joey's right, it's unfair that people should have to rely on foodbanks. But it's the reality of life right now, and if those people in need can be helped, the more foodbanks that are set up the more people will be helped.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Germyle

I was being sarcastic. The divide and superior attitude is disgusting in this country and it's only gonna get worse

No G.
its going to get better


Get on the Ladder

[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.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Does it matter? Of course it matters! Whether a million people are using foodbanks, or fifty thousand people are using them twenty times? Yes, I'd say it matters quite a bit if you're going to quote statistics. Unless it's crystal clear what you mean it just upholds the thinking that you can say anything with statistics.

I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't people on low wages or relying entirely on benefits. I'm suggesting that the problem isn't as big as the left suggests. And having foodbanks is a good thing, because there are now more, could that not mean that more people are being helped, rather than there are more people in need? And yes, joey's right, it's unfair that people should have to rely on foodbanks. But it's the reality of life right now, and if those people in need can be helped, the more foodbanks that are set up the more people will be helped.

No wonder your through talking to me because I know that you know the information you requested from Josy as you asked me the exact same and recieved a full and frank response complete with statistics.
Yet you're choosing to ignore it so you can badger her to attempt to labour your point, the problem is huge and due to the promise of more cuts it's understandable that would prompt a wave of apprehension across the country. This is what has created the anti austerity protests, it isn't lefties or yobs.. it's people desperately worried about the NHS, their families and their jobs.

[bitontheslide]

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.

[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.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Does it matter? Of course it matters! Whether a million people are using foodbanks, or fifty thousand people are using them twenty times? Yes, I'd say it matters quite a bit if you're going to quote statistics. Unless it's crystal clear what you mean it just upholds the thinking that you can say anything with statistics.

I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't people on low wages or relying entirely on benefits. I'm suggesting that the problem isn't as big as the left suggests. And having foodbanks is a good thing, because there are now more, could that not mean that more people are being helped, rather than there are more people in need? And yes, joey's right, it's unfair that people should have to rely on foodbanks. But it's the reality of life right now, and if those people in need can be helped, the more foodbanks that are set up the more people will be helped.

My point is though that it doesn't matter the size of the problem, the fact it's a problem in the first place is terrible.

[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/

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Josy

My point is though that it doesn't matter the size of the problem, the fact it's a problem in the first place is terrible.

I agree that there is a problem. And it's a big problem. But it's not a problem that's happened only within the last five years. And the response to the problem is that people are doing more to help other people. I don't think that the problem has mushroomed, only that the response is grown. No one wants to see people in need and most decent people can see past the "poverty porn" that's so prevalent on our TVs. I believe that as the economy improves so those in dire need will reduce, with more jobs and a higher standard of living.

Kizzy has suggested I am badgering you. I hope you don't feel like that as it obviously isn't my intention.

[bitontheslide]

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]

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 £1100 worse off, I don't envisage this changing for many following 12 billion in cuts.