Hungry Britain

That's too simplistic. Any country needs defence.

Must say I agree with Aka's comments. I know, as I'm sure many of us do, people who have absolutely no intention of working, and have a very comfortable life style courtesy of benefits and the odd bit of work for cash in hand. What was set up to be a safety net has become, for some, a lovely soft mattress and they don't give a damn about the fact that if they got off their bone idle behinds and started contributing to the economy they would, by paying taxes, helping others who genuinely cannot work.

We don't need that much, though, Jingle Cameron is confident enough to say 'money no object' when he wants to.

Its hard to tell who can and cant work, some people say they have depression so cant work because they cant get up in the mornings. lol
Does any of us want to get up in the morning?. I know 2 people who say this but ive seen the same ones out on the early bus going to the shops or the football match. I see people in my work every day sitting by the tv saying they are disabled but they seem to fit enough to me. My neighbour walks the dog every day 5 times and his partner goes too, he carries a stick but rarely uses it and they are both on benefit, I cant see how the partner cant go to work even just part time, they have a lovely council house. another neighbour hobbles in the front door with his stick, he goes out the back and gets the washing in without the stick, he was seen carrying a sofa on his back once. These are the people who are the scroungers and we are the fools who are paying taxes for them. These are the ones who ,if they miss their appointment with the dwp will get their benefit cut and go bleating to the food bank, bless their hearts

Have you got net curtains cactus?

Perhaps cactus your neighbours are doing the right thing by taking regular exercise? Or would they be better sitting in the house drinking/taking drugs/watching sky? Not all disabilities are obvious, perhaps your neighbours have epilepsy or a heart condition which they are trying to alleviate by taking short bursts of regular exercise? Maybe they have cancer and their popping in and out on the early bus are because they are attending appointments for radiotherapy? I understand your anger at people who milk the system and we all appreciate there are some, and yes in an ideal world people would buy good second hand furniture and make do, but what about those people who suddenly find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own? What this heated discussion has shown is that there are many people who are concerned about families having to use food banks, what we cannot agree on is why they are having to use them.

That' not njce jingls. Cactus obviously sees some of this going on in her neighbourhood and tbe scroj gers take money from people in genuine need, whom everyone wants to help wben the are down on their luck.
Perhaps we all need to go back and read The Beveridge Report for ourselves and see exactly what it said.

Excuse typos please, hope you can get the gist

It's so difficult. Some of my friends and relatives, and one daughter, live or lived on Estates- because they needed help. And yet they are the ones who screamed at me for wearing pink coloured glasses and 'not having a clue' about the massive (their words NOT mine) abuse of the system and how a huge proportion of their neighbours were just taking the of the system. The stories they tell are just incredible, and they did not pick them up for the Daily Mail or the Sun, but their own daily observations.

So, I totally agree children should not go hungry or made victims (they already are, in so many ways)- and I can understand how paternalism is so 'paternalistic' for fail of a better word. And still- if parents prefer to buy fags, alcohol, drugs, expensive toys for themsleves or the kids, flatscreen tvs or holidays to Benidorm, or whatever- can we keep pumping more and more money into their hands, until some percolate by 'accident' to the children. Much better to provide breakfast clubs, and free nutritious school meals and after school homework support- instead of giving it to the parents who are shown to not be responsible and put kids first?

Edwina is so irritating and condescending- but she does have a point. Priorities for too many have changed, and not for the better- good food for the kids seem to be right at the bottom for too many.

rosequarze

The was for the remark. Not the typos.

[Jingls]

I am strongly in favour of breakfast clubs in schools, not means tested, but for every child. It is a good communal start to the day and it is not just children from families on benefit who dont get fed in the morning, There are feckless parents within the benefit community and the working community and it is important that the cycle of deprivation and dependency is broken. School breakfast clubs, and school dinners are a good way of teaching children to eat together, at a table, to chat and socialize, it is good for all children, regardless of their family income.

My thoughts precisely GillT57.
I have said before, child allowance (or whatever it is called) should be diverted to provide school meals. At least then the children could be fed nutritious meals.

Agree Joelsnan I don't care how it is funded but all school meals should be free. And yes, breakfast clubs serve many functions exactly as Gill says. I used to fund these when I worked for Children's Services.

Totally agree Joelsnan and Aka. It is often those parents who are working and earning just above the benefit scale who are often the worst off.
It would appear that some people would be happy to see the children of those on benefits in a workhouse.

I just wonder cactus60 which part of "having depression and being unable to work" is funny?

What I don't understand is why some people seem to think that benefits would stretch to drugs, fags, big dogs, expensive adult toys, holidays in Benidorm (appalling taste these people have eh) and so on, even if food was done without altogether.

And I've got to ask. Is it possible to buy tvs these days that are not flat screen?

To use an overworked politician's phrase, let me be clear on this: there are, without a doubt, a small percentage of benefit claimants whose claims are fraudulent. (The actual figure is less than 1%, or 0.8% to be exact.) So the remaining 99.2% of claimants are apparently regarded by some as having been given more than is necessary to maintain their households. (And just a reminder that state pensions are classed as benefits and account for 47% of all benefits paid.) Trawling through the posts it seems that what is being suggested is that poor people should not drink, smoke, buy good gifts for their children, buy large TV's, own a pet, drive a car etc., but should demonstrate by their lifestyles that they are in fact poor. Is that truly what is being advocated here?

Of course not grannyactivist- but surely putting food on the table for the kids should come before the others? somehow?

I get annoyed when politicians talk about the percentage of public spending that is being used to fund benefits, but then include state pensions within that figure. I do not consider my pension, should I ever get one, as a benefit, it is a contributory system and I have paid into it. If and when I ever get my pension, and they keep moving the goalposts, I will not think of myself as a benefit claimant or recipient.

Also, while we are talking about cheating and fraud, our MPs set such a good example dont they? And slightly off tack; how dare Edwina Currie tell people how to run their lives, she slept with someone else's husband, or is adultery in the middle classes ok, but immoral in the 'benefit class'?

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to live within their means, grannyactivist. Families getting themselves into debt so they can have a certain lifestyle just causes more hardship in the long run.

Overheard in cafe this morning - girl in possibly mid to late twenties "I'm thinking of looking for a part time job Mum". Mother (in horrified tones) "What do you want to do that for? You get enough in benefits don't you?" There is just no hope for some people.

Grannyactivist I do not thing that there is one person on this thread that would not deprive the needy of welfare.
However, when the general public Are funding this welfare, I do think that there should be some acknowledgement that in some instances to goodwill is being abused, especially when many of those contributing are struggling seriously themselves.

I have a close family member who has never worked, a true socialist, but has never contributed to the communal pot, knows the benefits system like a manual, lives rent free in sheltered accommodation now, new teeth, new glasses, holidays abroad etc.
Yet I am divorced, currently unemployed, have worked just about all of my working life, saved a little along the way towards my retirement and am now having to live on these savings because I am not quite old enough for the retirement pension and have just over the limit for benefits. Desperately need to see a dentist and wearing the same glasses for 10 years. Who is the -socialist?/idiot.

Many people who seem to be referred to on here as undeserving poor are those who come from chaotic families with poor education and aspirations.
For this group getting themselves organised and having the skills and confidence to get a job, if there are any around, is very difficult. So many of these skills are unconsciously learnt at home by those lucky enough to have had decent parenting.

Then they need jobs to go to.

Giving Crewe as a local town there are many big distribution centers about 10 miles north near an M6 junction. However public transport to get there to do what is usually minimum wage shift work is non existent.
Outside of the town of Crewe it is a basically rural area.

When I moved "up north" I could not have travelled the eight miles to the town where I worked by public transport, there are about three buses a day which do not fit in with working hours.

Transport is a huge issue with job seeking. Then there needs to be more jobs.

In the last 26yrs Crewe has lost Rolls Royce car production and the "Crewe (railway) Works." This loss of skilled labour hit the town very badly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crewe_Works

"At its height, Crewe Works employed over 20,000 people; in 2005 fewer than 1,000 remained on site, with a further 270 redundancies announced in November of that year, and more cutbacks or even closure possible."

This pattern of the loss of major industry has hit many areas of the country very hard, just look at the state of the former mining and steel making areas. Large scale unemployment has devastating effects on the the physical and mental health of individuals and communities.

But what about those parents who have not been "shown to not be responsible" and would use any benefit they were given sensibly and for the good of the whole family? Should they all be tarred with the same feckless brush and have their children's lives organised over their heads? Would that not make them feel inadequate as well as poor, and that they might as well not bother? Give a dog a bad name and you might as well hang him.

There is a fine line between help where needed and condescension. It takes sensitivity to tread it without stamping on toes (or on the fingers of those who are hanging on grimly to their self-respect). Going in with all guns blazing and informing them that they are doing it all wrong and should let the experts tell them the right way will produce either a class of meek sheep or a resentful mob building a guillotine ready for the Revolution.