Food banks

Actually!

The 'nit-picking' accusation was the childish response, durhamjen. Have you actually read what's actually been said on this thread today?

Many charities would close if the government didnt contribute masses of money to them

Absolutely, soontobe
Although I would add that charities accepting taxpayers' money (and money from the public for that matter) should be open to scrutiny and answerable to the Public Accounts Committee, I cannot quite see the logic of DWP people going into food banks unless they are doing a survey on how the delays will affect people.

It will be interesting to watch, roseq, and see how anything he says is any different to what Fareshare already do.
I wonder if he's heard of Fareshare.

What childish response, Nonnie?

Food banks are where people go to get a week's supply of food for a family when they have run out of food and money, usually because they have been sactioned by the DWP.
Soup kitchens tend to be mainly used by the homeless, but not exclusively.

What is a hybrid soup kitchen/food bank?

Not just food, apparently, all waste.

Hugh F-W on food waste tonight on BBC1 at 9 pm.

Ana Nonnie and RoseQ good posts, and of course the soup kitchens and food banks are different, it's obvious.

* The government has no right to take over a charity*

Many charities would close if the government didnt contribute masses of money to them.
A lot of the bigger ones are run with at least 50% government funding, whichever government is in power. At least, that used to be the case. I assume it still is.

Around our area, we have a hybrid of foodbank/soup kitchen. Donations from stores and foodbank goes to make hot meals. Not sure of the ratio of poorer people to wealthy ones. They encourage wealthier ones to get the poorer ones to go.

Seems I am far from alone in thinking there is a difference then, despite the childish response.

www.fareshare.org.uk/

The soup kitchen equivalent of the food bank.

The DWP has no right to go in a food bank. The DWP has caused the terrible rise in the number of food banks in this country by the number of sanctions they make, over 1000 a week.

Food banks are run by charities. The government has no right to take over a charity.
The Trussell Trust had
2 in 2004
22 in 2007-8
Then there was the financial crash where it went up to
100 by 2011.
close to 1000 by January 2014.

Now some of you might think it's good that we have so many food banks that the government want to put advisers in.

I think it's appalling. I am not proud of living in a country where this has happened.
It is going to become worse when universal credit comes in and people have to wait for five weeks before they get any benefit.

still shameful that they have to exist.
Perhaps I am a pessimist (although I am usually a glass half-full person ) but I think this is something that will not go away, whatever resources are thrown at it. From the same article I posted above:
While societies have been using various methods to share food with the hungry for millennia, the first soup kitchens in the modern sense may have emerged in the late 18th century

Free food given to the poor , hot or cold - no difference
There is a difference, though. A soup kitchen would provide a hot meal and company, whereas Trussell Trust foodbanks provide a minimum of three days emergency food and support to people experiencing crisis in the UK. enabling people to make meals for themselves.

In some countries such as Great Britain, increased demand from hungry people has largely been met by food banks, operating on the "front line" model, where they give food out directly to the hungry. Instead of providing hot meals, front line food banks and pantries hand out packages of groceries so that recipients can cook themselves several meals at home. This is often more convenient for the end user. They can receive food for up to a dozen or so meals at once, whereas with a soup kitchen, they typically only receive a single meal with each visit. Food banks typically have procedures needed to prevent unscrupulous people taking advantage of them, unlike soup kitchens which will usually give a meal to whomever turns up with no questions asked. The soup kitchen's greater accessibility can make it more suitable for assisting people with long-term dependence on food aid. Soup kitchens can also provide warmth, companionship and the shared communal experience of dining with others, which can be especially valued by people such as widowers or the homeless. In some countries such as Greece, soup kitchens have become the most widely used form of food aid, with The Guardian reporting in 2012 that an estimated 400,000 Greeks visit a soup kitchen each day

But I am sure you all knew that anyway.

To my mind a soup kitchen is hot meals at that moment for whoever needs it, and they are usually, but not always, used by people who live on the streets or have chaotic lives. Food banks are only for those referred to them by GP, SS or DWP and provide food items based on the family size, usually a week's worth I believe, and it is food to be taken home and cooked by the recipients. Soup kitchen exist where I live, run by a church, and their clients are the homeless, not families. Not nit picking, just saying it as I believe it to be and still shameful that they have to exist.

And I disagree with you Nonnie

I disagree AB

I work in a food bank and know how many who use them feel, I also know people who need them but refuse to go near because they say they remember what their parents and grandparents felt of the shame of having to go to soup kitchens . How many meals allowed or if the food is hot or cold is nit picking, it's free food for those who cannot afford to buy food

I suspect that soup kitchens, like Sikh kitchens welcome everyone who comes and do not limit the number of times they come. On the other hand food banks are only for those who have the correct chittie and the number of visits are very limited. I think it is two buy it was a long time ago that I read it. Therefore I think there is a huge difference and it is not nit-picking.

I see nothing wrong with the DWP or anyone else going into food banks to try to sort out the issues which brought people there. Help is help, wherever it comes from and unless you have used food banks yourself you cannot know how the people feel.

Why not? I'm pretty sure not everyone on GN knows that soup kitchens are still operating in most cities, as the only threads about providing food for those who need it have related to food banks.

I'll leave you to your grumblings (for the time being, that is, in case I get a 'hurray!' from anyone...)

I think everyone knows that soup kitchens serve hot food and food banks provide food to be taken home - no need for an explanation needed I would have thought for the vast majority on GN.

So yes, IMO it was nit-picking - otherwise why the need to point out the difference?

You're obviously determined to ignore the fact that a) the first food banks were introduced in the UK when Labour was in power and b) every other country in Europe and most of the rest of the world has them.

I know that isn't right that they are necessary, but constantly blaming the Tory government for everything that's wrong everywhere and anywhere is ridiculous.

So cold food to take away cannot be compared with hot food eaten on the premises, reminds one of Osbourns pasty tax.

Free food given to the poor , hot or cold - no difference ,

No - must you always accuse me of nit-picking, Riverwalk?

Anniebach has mentioned the stigma attached to the soup kitchens of old before in connection with present day food banks. It wasn't clear whether she was aware that soup kitchens are still being run in this country, alongside food banks.

Isn't that rather nit-picking Anna?

The principle is the same ... providing food for those in need.

Food banks are not soup kitchens, although a soup kitchen may sometimes be run from the same premises.

Food banks provide food parcels, soup kitchens provide a hot meal.