Rise of the foodbanks

When I was working I knew families who relied on foodbanks and free school meals because so much of their benefits went on heating inadequate housing. The children would have breakfast and lunch at school then whatever was available at home for tea. The parents ate when the children had finished. The parents felt very ashamed.

I don't know if they're being used as a political tool. Maybe the increase of coverage is because people are less ashamed of using them as they now realise that so many do and there is no shame in being poor.

Certainly in this area people can only use foodbanks for a limited number of visits each year, as low as 3 or 4 I believe. I have no idea what they do after that.

That very vocal lady from the tv programme Benefits Street was interviewed on the news yesterday. The first thing she did was to light a cigarette. Have you seen the price of them lately? Perhaps she knows how to work the system but I very much object to my taxes being used for her cigarettes.

How do we direct the money away from the likes of her to the people who really need it?

White Dee isn't on benefits any more, Liz. She came off them some months ago and is now relatively wealthy, after banking £100,000 from being on Celebrity Big Brother, and earning fees for interviews and TV appearances.

Liz46 I totally agree. I sometimes log into the local Netmums and see people stating how they cannot manage but they have the latest phone etc.as it usually states what type of phone was used, if one was, and probably the most expensive package of Sky.

I think it a good idea that giving vouchers will be trialled soon and that may stop the buying of cigarettes and alcohol and more spent on food.

whenim64 - I'm speechless for once.

I hope White Dee shared her new-found wealth with her neighbours, when. I've a feeling she may have done.

I am not comfortable with tax payers voicing what benefit claimants should or should not spend their money on , many find claiming benefits humiliating why pour more humiliation on them - and I speak as a tax payer

Oh Charley - who will decide what's on the acceptable list? And obvs the'd need to decide on what sort of food. And who would this scheme apply to? We have examples on GN of posters who have fallen on hard times and claim benefits - would they be included?

GrannyTwice I have no idea, I did not make up the rules. This is something I read recently.

Anniebach, for the sake of argument, would you be ok with parents spending money on cigarettes at the expense of their children getting nourishing food?

Having said that, if food vouchers are issued, anyone who wants to will find a way of trading them.

Perhaps some problems can not be solved and we will have to agree to have different opinions.

Liz46, yes,but I wish they wouldn't. it's wrong to assume the majority on benefits do this and so the majority should not suffer further humiliation with food vouchers . Those who don't care if their children eat nourishing food could easily sell food to buy cigarettes

I dislike this two tier system where some tax payers believe they are superior and can dictate what those who do not pay tax should spend their money on . I do not have the right either morally or legally to tell others what to eat

People on benefits have become outcasts and are spoken of as if they are sub human and all because the likes of the Daily Mail splash stories of a very small number of benefit claimants

An early post spoke of mothers having a certain type of mobile and then said - they proberly have x sky packages , proberly does not mean they have

I live in a very middle class town where there is only a small amount of social housing, but our food bank is often having to put out appeals for more food because the need is very real. I know that many of the users are people struggling to find work or dealing with health issues and I'm told demand has quadrupled. All recipients are given vouchers to access the food bank and are limited to a certain number of times they can get them.

My mother was a tobacco addict. As a child we scrimped for food, clothes, rent payments etc. and often (I realise now) my mother didn't eat so that there was more for us children, but she smoked - often borrowing cigarettes and paying them back when she was in funds. I don't begrudge her the price of the cigarettes because it was literally the only 'pleasure' she had at that time. One time she won the pools - a few hundred pounds, which was a huge amount of money to us - and she bought herself an astrakhan coat with it. Looking back it seems to me to have been a crazy thing to do when we were so poor, but I understand that just for once she must have felt she deserved something nice for herself.

People on benefits are a mixed bunch, but they are just people and I wouldn't begrudge them a few simple 'pleasures'.

There is no upsurge in reference to foodbanks. They have always been in the news. It's just that many people ignore the references.
Foodbanks do not give fresh food. This charity does.

www.fareshare.org.uk/

It's appalling that in the sixth richest country in the world we should need both of them. If the government stays in power we will need more of them as they are not going to increase benefits and are going to cut the benefits cap.

This is an interesting website about who benefits. It tells stories of how people improve their lot because of having the help given by benefits.

www.whobenefits.org.uk/page/content/front

If you read the tweets down the right habd side, it is very enlightening. Like grannyactivist says, people on benefits come from all walks of life.
I do not like the idea that there are the deserving and undeserving, as anniebach says.

There is quite definitely an upsurge in references here in Aberdeen. This is a city with less than 1% unemployment and since indyref the local press is suddenly full of articles/pix of collections and donations. The 45 seem to have adopted this as their cause célèbre.

I suppose you have lost quite a lot of your news lately, Katek. They have to fill the newspapers with something. It was probably always there, but just a few paragraphs on page 20. Now it's frontpage news.

Katek, in Aberdeen fairshare work with the Cyrenians.

Cyrenians do amazing work with the homeless in Aberdeen. They have a hostel near the docks which is on main route into town and you can often see the residents standing around the car park entrance for a quick fag!! Obviously banned in hostel!!

Why should I have my benefits in vouchers? Will all the vouchers be for food? If so, how will I pay my rent, council tax, utility bills etc. Will I be able to buy diesel for the car or will it be decided that I shouldn't have a car if I'm on benefits? Will I be given a dispensation because I receive Disability Living Allowance?

Btw I don't smoke, drink, gamble, have Sky TV or an expensive mobile phone. Neither do I have expensive clothes or take foreign holidays.

Exactly, Vampire, and there are lots of others like you.
People on benefits are made to feel bad enough as it is, without trying to do this to them. I would have thought that IDS had enough problems without adding this idea to them.

I went on the AgeUK website to check something that Cameron said about someone on minimum wage working for 40 hours a week. I discovered that I would not be eligible for any tax credits or housing benefit. They would assume that, as a single person living where I do, I would only be paying £75 per week for rent, whereas there are no places for rent at £300 per month. I said I was a 60 year old single person.
So after paying rent I would have £100 a week to pay all my bills, etc. Cameron said that people working at minimum wage for 40 hours a week should be grateful that their tax bill has been reduced by two thirds by this government. Can't imagine that. I think they would prefer not paying tax.

A book was published in America this week about how the poor are made to feel worthless. I feel sorry for people in that situation, but I also feel sorry for people who think like that. They must have very mean souls.

I think I'm right in saying (though correct me if I'm wrong) that most people are on unemployment benefit for only a short period of time and yet the impression is often conveyed that there is a huge swathe of work-shy people who have been unemployed for years. There are, no doubt, some people - who don't have the inclination or ability to work or who live in areas of very high unemployment - who may claim out-of-work benefit for many years, but I don't think they are typical.

I think there will always be people who, for a number of reasons including emotional/psychiatric issues, dysfunctional background/chaotic lifestyles, physical or intellectual incapacity, etc. etc., will find it almost impossible to obtain and hold down a job.

Although the unemployment figures have been significantly reduced, most of the new jobs are low paid and insecure - and many people have been encouraged to opt for a form of "self-employment" that does not provide them with a proper income but removes them from the unemployment statistics.

A substantial amount of taxpayers' money is being used to "top up" the very low pay that increasing numbers of people are receiving - and often from large, profitable companies that could afford to pay their employees a decent wage. It seems the British people are content with a policy that subsidises highly profitable companies (which, to make matters worse, are also reluctant to pay the proper amount of taxes) and yet see nothing wrong with making further cuts that will affect low paid workers and the unemployed.

As durhamjen says, the UK is a relatively wealthy country and yet substantial numbers of people are living hand to mouth and having to rely on foodbanks. With this government's announcement of further in-work/out-of-work benefit cuts, many families will find themselves in even greater difficulty. Cue more family breakdown, more psychiatric illnesses and more misery. What a disgrace in the 7th richest country in the world.

My other bugbear is zero hours contracts. Asking you to be flexible is one thing but it's totally different to be told some weeks you'll work 25 hours but another one you won't work at all. Obviously it's perfect for the employers to only have to pay someone when they need them but the benefit system isn't geared up to this sort of contract.