Welfare Reform

Depth_Charge

Hi

As welfare reform and benefit sanctions bite the Mail don't appear to be too sympathetic towards the food banks or the CAB (see article below that has caused a little bit of a storm)

Ross Slater article the 'undercover reporter' at the CAB / Foodbank beggars belief in my opinion (read it carefully and tell me where you have seen anything as low as this so called undercover reporters covert operation)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608606/No-ID-no-checks-vouchers-sob-stories-The-truth-shock-food-bank-claims.html

Another interesting article here (this time from from the Guardian that is worthy of reporting)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/20/emergency-welfare-scheme-local-councils

My take as always

Any comments welcome

DC

fatbelly

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Hi

As welfare reform and benefit sanctions bite the Mail don't appear to be too sympathetic towards the food banks or the CAB (see article below that has caused a little bit of a storm)

Ross Slater article the 'undercover reporter' at the CAB / Foodbank beggars belief in my opinion (read it carefully and tell me where you have seen anything as low as this so called undercover reporters covert operation)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2608606/No-ID-no-checks-vouchers-sob-stories-The-truth-shock-food-bank-claims.html

Another interesting article here (this time from from the Guardian that is worthy of reporting)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/20/emergency-welfare-scheme-local-councils

My take as always

Any comments welcome

DC

I posted several comments on the Mail article yesterday along the lines of:

1. The reporter wasted the time of a CAB adviser who could have been helping someone genuinely in need.
2. He took away vital resources from a Trussell Trust foodbank
3. He then wrote, and the MAIL published, an article that undermined both organisations.

I suggested
1. A donation to the actual CAB, which is an independent charity not centrally funded by government
2. A food donation to the actual foodbank that he used
3. An apology

All my posts went unpublished on the site because they are 'moderated in advance'.

sourcrates

fatbelly wrote: »

I posted several comments on the Mail article yesterday along the lines of:

1. The reporter wasted the time of a CAB adviser who could have been helping someone genuinely in need.
2. He took away vital resources from a Trussell Trust foodbank
3. He then wrote, and the MAIL published, an article that undermined both organisations.

I suggested
1. A donation to the actual CAB, which is an independent charity not centrally funded by government
2. A food donation to the actual foodbank that he used
3. An apology

All my posts went unpublished on the site because they are 'moderated in advance'.

And why does that surprise me I wonder ???


I think your ideas are spot on Fatbelly !!!:T

Depth_Charge

fatbelly wrote: »

I posted several comments on the Mail article yesterday along the lines of:

1. The reporter wasted the time of a CAB adviser who could have been helping someone genuinely in need.
2. He took away vital resources from a Trussell Trust foodbank
3. He then wrote, and the MAIL published, an article that undermined both organisations.

I suggested
1. A donation to the actual CAB, which is an independent charity not centrally funded by government
2. A food donation to the actual foodbank that he used
3. An apology

All my posts went unpublished on the site because they are 'moderated in advance'.

Hi fatbelly

Spot on points my friend

I am very much with you here, but would go further

Also, did he return the food he took?

After carefully reading the article and related info I would say that this needs looking into further in my opinion. We should not just stand by and let this so called 'undercover reporter' get away with this sort of rubbish.

My take

DC

FireWyrm

So, let me get this straight. Are you in a froth because the undercover reporter found that the food bank system was being routinely and systematically abused by anyone with a believable sob story...or because a Daily Mail reporter found out about it and reported it?

We have never had need of food banks in this country, and no one starved then. Why all up in arms about it now? Are you just intent on making a political point, or are you going to bother to offer evidence to refute what the Reporter found.

Offer something for free, and you'll have people queuing up around the block. It is a fact of human nature. Anyone with half a brain knows this. Food banks are unnecessary (never were necessary in the past) despite far more biting financial circumstances then than now. They encourage people to take advantage and work the system like all charity does and always has.

Also, you really ought to read things before getting all worked up.

After inviting the reporter to help himself to the soap, toothpaste and hot dog rolls they had spare, the volunteers wished him a Happy Easter and he staggered out of the church with his bags. He later returned the goods

The Reporter did nothing other than present himself to the appropriate 'authority' with a lie, expecting to be turned away, or at least asked for some evidence. He was not asked for any other corroborating evidence and just went through the system as though he were genuine. He was handed £40 worth of charity and at no time were there checks to see whether he was actually entitled or deserved any of it.

Our basket included: Warburton’s bread £1.45; apple juice £1; Fray Bentos steak & ale pie £2.49; Heinz tomato soup 89p; Loyd Grossman pasta sauce £1; Dolmio sauce £1.80; instant mashed potato 28p; creamed rice pudding 15p; long-life milk 56p; Irish stew £1.49; spaghetti rings 34p; sliced peaches in juice 35p; custard 17p; new potatoes in water 15p; plum tomatoes 34p; Silver Spoon sugar £1; tea bags £2; processed peas 21p; kidney beans 25p; tuna steaks £1.39; sardines 60p; spaghetti 16p; meatballs 45p; chocolate pudding 65p; strawberry jam 29p; bran flakes 88p; bread sauce 70p; risotto rice 99p; granola £3.75; baked beans 35p; sticky toffee pudding 65p. TOTAL: £38.35

Actually, what is appalling, is the contents of the basket, half of which I would have handed back as inedible and nutritionally deficient. It is scandalous to offer £3.75 worth of rubbish granola when that money would have bought at least 2Lbs of fresh mince with far more nutritional value.

These food banks obviously mean well, but are grossly inefficient and as a vehicle for feeding those genuinely in need, should be shut down, and re-organised to offer fresh, whole, nutritious food.

Bonniepurple

I've just read the whole thread right through, and one thing jumps out at me - it is not well known that pensioners are excluded from the bedroom tax. In other words, if my parents were council (4 bed ) (they're not), they would not lose any HB, whereas if myself, DH and our 2 girls moved in, we would - because we would underoccupy!:mad:

UC also really worries me, especially with the commitments to take on more work (where??? - I work 22 hours (out of the house for 33 though), am part way through an OU degree, run a small business and look after 2 children! I'm also worried because the self employed will be screwed. Just because something looks good on paper doesn't mean to say that the owner has oodles of cash. Mostly, it is reinvested into the business.

Oh well, General Election next year

Depth_Charge

FireWyrm wrote: »

So, let me get this straight. Are you in a froth because the undercover reporter found that the food bank system was being routinely and systematically abused by anyone with a believable sob story...or because a Daily Mail reporter found out about it and reported it?

We have never had need of food banks in this country, and no one starved then. Why all up in arms about it now? Are you just intent on making a political point, or are you going to bother to offer evidence to refute what the Reporter found.

Offer something for free, and you'll have people queuing up around the block. It is a fact of human nature. Anyone with half a brain knows this. Food banks are unnecessary (never were necessary in the past) despite far more biting financial circumstances then than now. They encourage people to take advantage and work the system like all charity does and always has.

Also, you really ought to read things before getting all worked up.

The Reporter did nothing other than present himself to the appropriate 'authority' with a lie, expecting to be turned away, or at least asked for some evidence. He was not asked for any other corroborating evidence and just went through the system as though he were genuine. He was handed £40 worth of charity and at no time were there checks to see whether he was actually entitled or deserved any of it.



Actually, what is appalling, is the contents of the basket, half of which I would have handed back as inedible and nutritionally deficient. It is scandalous to offer £3.75 worth of rubbish granola when that money would have bought at least 2Lbs of fresh mince with far more nutritional value.

These food banks obviously mean well, but are grossly inefficient and as a vehicle for feeding those genuinely in need, should be shut down, and re-organised to offer fresh, whole, nutritious food.

Hi

Interesting take on Food Banks and charities

Did you read the full article? including the section before he actually went to the food bank as that is what I am basically talking about, how many actual lies do you think he told and what misinformation did he put down on the form he was asked to complete? (see below)


No system is perfect and anything that puts people off going for help has to be avoided where possible

Also do you think there is any relevance or point they are trying to make on mentioning a worker being in her 60s

It was a despicable publicity stunt in my opinion on a well trusted charity where people give up their valuable time free to help others, just like people do on forums like MSE.


Staff at Nottingham’s Citizens’ Advice Bureau handed out a food bank voucher to an undercover Mail on Sunday reporter entitling him to a generous three days’ worth of shopping –without even asking for any identification.

Our reporter Ross Slater, pictured, arrived at the CAB office near the city’s railway station to enquire about food vouchers. After filling out a form giving his name, address, date of birth, phone number and the reason for the visit, the reporter was told to wait for an assessor to interview him.

The woman, called Katherine, who was in her 60s, asked our reporter a series of questions about why the food bank vouchers were needed.

He explained he had been unemployed for a few months and had been caught out by higher than expected winter fuel bills and was strapped for cash and food. He added that his wife had left her job and was not earning and that they had two children to care for. After asking for details of how much Jobseekers’ Allowance was received, the assessor’s questions turned to the dietary requirements of the reporter and his family.

Katherine asked our man to wait while she found out which food bank would be able to help him and then returned with an official voucher signed by the centre’s manager Sarah Webber.

From there the reporter was sent to the Trussell Trust-run food bank at St Philip’s Church in Bulwell, Nottingham, where he presented the voucher to one of several helpers.

FireWyrm

Yes. I read it, but you clearly didnt or you wouldnt be frothing about how he used the system. He gave them his name, address, date of birth. Any and all of that information and 5 minutes of investigation on the part of CAB would have shown he either a) wasnt who he said he was or b) was not unemployed and therefore not entitled to any help.

He caught CAB with their pants down around their navel gazing ankles and therein lies the problem. No one wants to admit that this is a case of the requirement to assess whether the claimant actually deserves the charity. They are so busy being non-judgmental, anyone with half a braincell can work the system and apparently, routinely do. People cheat, it is an uncomfortable fact that the Left continues to refuse to acknowledge.

Oh, and the so-called 'bedroom tax' isnt a tax, it is the removal of a subsidy. Tax is where you take money from earned income.

Depth_Charge

FireWyrm wrote: »

Yes. I read it, but you clearly didnt or you wouldnt be frothing about how he used the system. He gave them his name, address, date of birth. Any and all of that information and 5 minutes of investigation on the part of CAB would have shown he either a) wasnt who he said he was or b) was not unemployed and therefore not entitled to any help.

He caught CAB with their pants down around their navel gazing ankles and therein lies the problem. No one wants to admit that this is a case of the requirement to assess whether the claimant actually deserves the charity. They are so busy being non-judgmental, anyone with half a braincell can work the system and apparently, routinely do. People cheat, it is an uncomfortable fact that the Left continues to refuse to acknowledge.

Oh, and the so-called 'bedroom tax' isnt a tax, it is the removal of a subsidy. Tax is where you take money from earned income.

Hi

He was also asked to put the reasons for his visit or did you not read that.

Under occupancy rules also commonly known as the bedroom tax for discussion purposes what relevance you are trying to gain by this only you can answer.

Interesting and perhaps a little puerile abuse towards the CAB, not worthy of any sort of constructive reply in my opinion.

I see you have had problems so to speak on another recent thread, so I will stand by everything I have put and leave it there with you.

Regards

DC

FireWyrm

Depth_Charge wrote: »

Hi

He was also asked to put the reasons for his visit or did you not read that.

Are you going to offer a counter argument or evidence, or just complain? He gave them a lie. They didnt bother to check it. Five minutes investigation would have exposed him but they didnt bother.

Under occupancy rules also commonly known as the bedroom tax for discussion purposes what relevance you are trying to gain by this only you can answer.

It isnt a tax. Tax requires that you earn the money being taken.

Interesting abuse towards the CAB, not worthy of any sort of reply.

Why is it abuse? CAB did not bother to check or verify the story and that charity is being abused. Why is this a problem for you to understand?

I see you have had problems on another recent thread, so I will stand by everything I have put and leave it there with you.

What problems?

You havnt offered a single argument as to why this expose was in any way factually incorrect. He did what anyone can do. He was given charity he did not deserve. This means that the 'figures' being presented for the numbers of people in need, and the conclusions being drawn from those figures are at best, innacurate and probably wildly out of left field in reality. The Left are making cheap political capital about how hard done by people are. They are not. It is clearly easy to game the system and the guardians are doing nothing to stop or mitigate it. The suspicion is, that they are not, to make themselves appear more useful than they actually are. You have not offered a single piece of evidence to the contrary.