Hungry Britain

The food bank featured on the tv programme gave out hampers containing a couple of weeks' worth of non-perishable food. As I said in a subsequent post, the number of times people can claim does seem to vary from region to region, but 3-6 times a year seems to be the norm.

Elegran I see that you know a lot about the old workhouse system, so you know how awful it was for families. However I have to strongly disagree with the statement 'bureaucracy and anonymity don't help the fair distribution of funds'. How else can benfits be got to those who need them? When you apply for benefits there is a procedure to be got through, for anyone [not shameless] this in itself is bad enough, but you expect it.Without printing everyone's name in their local paper who is applying for money, there is simply no other way of doing it.I think it is a fair way, those who are crafty at working the system and lie convincingly will get away with it, but is only a few and not the majority.If there is a problem with this 'vetting' system for applicants then that's another matter[and checks could be made on this] but a friend recently made redundant told us that the procedure was quite stringent in his view.We would need to be made jobless ourselves to really test the system I suppose [relief that I am retired.]

I agree there is simply no other way of doing it. The same questions must be asked of everyone, and they must be phrased, and the answers interpreted, so that those most in need get most help. Perhaps I was a bit sweeping about the anonymity and bureaucracy - as long as there is room for individual circumstances to be considered, and applicants are not reduced to a number on a form, it does not have to be a juggernaut.

The last thing that is needed is a system which assumes that everyone is trying to get more than they should have, and treats everyone accordingly (as cold as charity) That is the attitude of a pocket oppressor.

The other thing to avoid is taking away all autonomy and assuming that all citizens are helpless dependants on the state who cannot make any decisions about the minutiae of the lives of their familes. That is another unhelpful attitude.

agreed.

What about the claimant who wanted benefit to pay a Gardner and a dog walker?

I imagine he got short shrift (though I suppose he would claim that he was providing work for others and spreading the money around)

She did!

I like to have been a fly on the wall for that one, Galen.

Seems to me the idea of the 'deserving' and the 'undeserving' poor is alive and flourishing in 2014! But however undeserving of public assistance you think someone may be, what about the children who may be equally in need? Anyone remember, 'Cathy Come Home'? When children are taken into care because the parents can't provide for them, those toddlers may also be sobbing for their families.

I remember Cathy Come Home. Heartbreaking. These days I guess it would be a b and b for them all together.

Ana Thank you.

Yes jingl Cathy Come Home was directly responsible for changes in the law that meant families could no longer be split up and children taken into care for reasons of homelessness. Not sure how far we have come sometimes though.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/public-health-emergency-declared-as-one-in-six-gps-was-asked-to-refer-a-patient-to-food-banks-in-the-last-year-9136824.html

According to the Trussell Trust 30% of those needing help from a food bank do so because their benefits have been stopped for some reason and they have no money.

The Trussell Trust wants there to be a food bank in every large town. I want the government to make sure there is no need for food banks.

And Durhamjen the local councils threaten to, or have, stopped benefits every one or two months if my DD's situation is anything to go by. I heard yesterday that councils stop benefits for any changes of income be it going up or coming down. This is why people need foodbanks. I agree, People should NOT need foodbanks.

I am pleased to say the doctor my daughter saw was more positive than she expected and he gave her many helpful suggestions. Also suggested that the damaged nerve endings were probably caused by the plaster she had to have when they told her her foot was broken!

I married a into a middle class family who were not very well off but had standards, these standards I adopted so I consider myself middle class now,......By standards I mean being well mannered, not sitting around all day in nightclothes etc.

Are these standards the sole preserve of the middle classes cactus?

Good manners have nothing to do with being poor and/or hungry but it would be nice if their advocate exhibited them a little more frequently.

Absent , ??

Perhaps absent is referring to a previous poster on this thread, Nonu

Thanks sweetie , still not clear though !

I don't think that cactus is going to post any more.

I was wondering that. Probably had a snotty an email from HQ. Or perhaps it was someone else and has been barred.

No - which is a pity in one way, as alternative views can sometimes be insightful. Abusive PMs are of course another matter entirely.

(that was in response to Elegran's post)

The pm' s were bad.

Hope she's not feeling too bad though.

Advocating 'standards' and 'manners' then calling someone a bitch in a pm is a tad hypocritical.