Govt minister celebrates opening foodbank

[Nearly Sane]

Good old David (Mundell).

http://www.thenational.scot/news/mundell-under-fire-for-hypocrisy-after-agreeing-to-open-food-bank-in-constituency.5476

[Anchorman]

I saw this elsewhere this morning.
I thought it was a spoof - but it wasn't.
The ultimate in irony - and insult to the people his ravvle of a government have forced into this situation.

[Hope]

With personal debt at the level it is - £1 trillion - are the government, banks and big business the only ones responsible for the situation we find ourselves in?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

Yes, humans are stupid and greedy, government, big business and wankers depend on it.

Gonnagle.

[L.A.]

With personal debt at the level it is - £1 trillion - are the government, banks and big business the only ones responsible for the situation we find ourselves in?

Nothing to do with those individuals who chose to take on all this record debt?

A friend of my daughter did some volunteering at a local food bank and couldn't help but notice that none of the clients seemed to be lacking expensive smartphones.

[Rhiannon]

Actually far worse than the food banks is what appears to be a major cause of them - the benefits sanction. I've only just heard of this and am shocked beyond belief, not least because they are designed to deliberately affect a person's health.


“it would be usual for a normal healthy adult to suffer some deterioration in their health if they were without . .  . sufficient money to buy essential items for a period of two weeks”. (DWP guidelines)

'Sanctions' last for between 4-13 weeks.

Full article here:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/why-are-so-many-people-using-food-banks

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

Sanctions, yes I forgot sanctions over on the why are SNP thriving thread, a joke, this is Job centres only incentive ( incentive ) to help citizens back into employment, the Tories live in cloud cuckoo land, I think Cameron watches to many channel 4 programmes.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

I doubt Cameron has the first idea what effect 'his' policies have.

[cyberman]

A friend of my daughter did some volunteering at a local food bank and couldn't help but notice that none of the clients seemed to be lacking expensive smartphones.

You can have a smartphone for about £20 a month. If you haven't got a computer, it's a very cheap way of providing your household with entertainment, access to online services, email, communications, information, etc,etc.

Presumably finding Victorian values too liberal, you have gone right back to Elizabethan ones!

The notion (as very clearly implied) that if a household possess a smartphone they are not in genuine need is dreadful and stupid.

[Anchorman]

Not only that, it might simply mean that the smartphone was purchesed months - even years - before circumstances meant that food banks made the difference between an empty belly and a basic meal.

[wigginhall]

I have a smartphone for £10 a month.   It's a classic tabloid argument - they're not starving, look, they have a TV. 

[L.A.]

Sure, I'd agree with those points to a degree - but these are not the starving individuals that the media portray - they are simply people a bit short of cash who have found an easy option.

[Anchorman]

Sure, I'd agree with those points to a degree - but these are not the starving individuals that the media portray - they are simply people a bit short of cash who have found an easy option.

-
Tell that to those in my local church group who help administer the two food banks in my area.
Tht's an area of smallish towns, where most people know who is - and is not - pretending to be in need.
I wish more were pretending.
Too many are victims of this inhuman government's sanction policy.
When some idiot sanctions you because the bus you were on in an effort to meet a job centre interview is twenty minutes late because it broke down, and that sanction will take between three and six weeks to correct, then, even though you know you will get the money you are due back, that doesn't help feed your family for a month.
And that applies to the DOZEN people put in that position by the criminal actions of this rotten government.

[Rhiannon]

Sure, I'd agree with those points to a degree - but these are not the starving individuals that the media portray - they are simply people a bit short of cash who have found an easy option.

Did you read the link in my earlier post? Lose your childcare, lose your job, how do you feed your kids whilst waiting for problems with benefits to iron out? A friend of mine north of the border used to eat two slices of toast a day after her husband left her and her children. A good bank would have made the world of difference.

[BashfulAnthony]

I doubt Cameron has the first idea what effect 'his' policies have.

I think Cameron morphs into Mrs. Thatcher when he gets home at night!

[Rhiannon]

I doubt Cameron has the first idea what effect 'his' policies have.

I think Cameron morphs into Mrs. Thatcher when he gets home at night!

That suggests he would at least have convictions. I've yet to see anything that suggests he does. What is Cameronism? I haven't a clue.

[cyberman]

these are not the starving individuals that the media portray - they are simply people a bit short of cash who have found an easy option.

What makes you think that?

[ProfessorDavey]

Good old David (Mundell).

http://www.thenational.scot/news/mundell-under-fire-for-hypocrisy-after-agreeing-to-open-food-bank-in-constituency.5476

Pretty crass but not surprising of the Tories. Lets face it the food bank is the perfect example of David Cameron's 'Big Society' (a term he has quietly dropped). The Big Society agenda was always about 'privatising' resposibilities of government to others. In this case not necessarily to big business (although often they are there in the background) but to the third sector of charities and volunteers. It fits perfectly with the shrink government agenda.

And there are too many who are facing both ways over this - wring their hands about the terrible cuts in necessary welfare etc imposed by government and its effects, yet first in line to sign up to the government's agenda by running the food banks - and claiming pride in doing so.

[Nearly Sane]

Apart from being an incorrect characterisation of schizophrenia, it's also a fairly thoughtless use of a term for mental illness that you have just used.

[ProfessorDavey]

Apart from being an incorrect characterisation of schizophrenia, it's also a fairly thoughtless use of a term for mental illness that you have just used.

Yes you are correct - apologies. I think you know what I meant (and is often a colloquial use of the term), but I recognise this was not appropriate and have changed it. Although actually my use and its definition is recognised:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/schizophrenic

Note:

'2. a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.'

Do you have any comment on the actual point - that those running food banks seem to nod to disapproval of the government's approach while signing up as a key component of the government's agenda to transfer responsibility from itself to charities.

[Nearly Sane]

Apology accepted, I did indeed know what you mean but I find the colloquialism is something to be avoided.

I am not sure I see the problem. If people see a need that they think is caused by govt policy and think needs to be addressed, then why not do something to help. That does not seem contradictory to me, since the alternative is surely just to do nothing see people suffer and then go 'Told you so'

[ProfessorDavey]

Apology accepted, I did indeed know what you mean but I find the colloquialism is something to be avoided.

I am not sure I see the problem. If people see a need that they think is caused by govt policy and think needs to be addressed, then why not do something to help. That does not seem contradictory to me, since the alternative is surely just to do nothing see people suffer and then go 'Told you so'

But the food banks are simply a response to government policy but a necessary part of their implementation. Remember that access to the food banks usually requires the person to have their needs assessed and to receive a voucher that is used in the food bank. The assessment and issue of the vouchers is done through various governmental organisations. Food banks that give food only in exchange for these vouchers are an integral part of that government policy.

[Nearly Sane]

But the food banks are simply a response to government policy but a necessary part of their implementation. Remember that access to the food banks usually requires the person to have their needs assessed and to receive a voucher that is used in the food bank. The assessment and issue of the vouchers is done through various governmental organisations. Food banks that give food only in exchange for these vouchers are an integral part of that government policy.

I still don't get what sort of approach can be taken that preserves the moral purity of having nothing to do with govt policy, and therefore uses the suffering of people as a reproach, without then effectively being part of the cause of that suffering as well.

Are you really taking a position that it would be better for Trussell Trust to stop trying to help people in the short term because in the long term any suffering is offset by the collapse of the govt policy?

[cyberman]

But the food banks are simply a response to government policy but a necessary part of their implementation. Remember that access to the food banks usually requires the person to have their needs assessed and to receive a voucher that is used in the food bank. The assessment and issue of the vouchers is done through various governmental organisations. Food banks that give food only in exchange for these vouchers are an integral part of that government policy.

I still don't get what sort of approach can be taken that preserves the moral purity of having nothing to do with govt policy, and therefore uses the suffering of people as a reproach, without then effectively being part of the cause of that suffering as well.

Are you really taking a position that it would be better for Trussell Trust to stop trying to help people in the short term because in the long term any suffering is offset by the collapse of the govt policy?

I'm with NS on this, Prof. The idea that you should stand by and let people suffer just in order to encourage their tormentors to reflect on their responsibilities is middle class pomposity at its worst.

[floo]

With personal debt at the level it is - £1 trillion - are the government, banks and big business the only ones responsible for the situation we find ourselves in?

Nothing to do with those individuals who chose to take on all this record debt?

A friend of my daughter did some volunteering at a local food bank and couldn't help but notice that none of the clients seemed to be lacking expensive smartphones.

That annoys me, if they can afford such luxuries then they should be able to afford food.