Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
garybug

Poverty In The Uk

Recommended Posts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/01/sharp-rise-demand-food-handouts

Britain has seen a sharp increase in the number of people unable to afford to feed themselves at the most basic level, thanks to the worsening economic climate and changes to the benefit system, according to a survey by a leading food charity.

In the past year FareShare, which redistributes waste food from major food manufacturers and supermarkets to social care charities, has seen a 20% rise in the number of people it is feeding – from 29,500 a year to 35,000

This is the Graun, so pushing its own agenda - but I have a couple of anecdotals too.

Someone I know is training to be a teacher in the West of Scotland, and the secondary school has a morning 'club' to give certain kids one decent meal a day, and teach them some of the basics of eating well, staying clean etc.

Wife's friend working in a primary in Leceitershire, takes in cereal & milk for some of her pupils for the same reason.

Sister works in a hospital, and is aware of patients lifestyles - recieving food parcels e.g. from the St Vincent de Paul charity, is seen as normal. In my childhood days in the 70's 80's - only the very poorest got these.

Anyone else seeing this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been continued poverty like this in parts of Wales, North of England for 30 or so years. It is just spreading now.

Nothing will be done. The plan is to keep London a super-city City state with drones commuting in from the Home Counties whilst the rest of the country is kept on poverty level wages, debt, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet they've all got Sky

this is the thing, the parents can afford beer fags and sky, but can't summon the wit to do basic cheap cooking, I don't know the answer, additional benefits will only get wasted as far as I know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMERICA TODAY: Heartbreaking Pictures From New Jersey's Homeless 'Tent City'

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/lakewood-new-jersey-homeless-tent-city-2011-9#the-camp-is-run-by-reverend-steven-brigham-and-welcomes-residents-from-all-walks-of-life-4#ixzz1ZZD7fI9U

Wonder how long before similar images appear in the UK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the thing, the parents can afford beer fags and sky,...

and drugs :(

Some of what I hear is tragic - yet social services are all about 'keeping families together'. Jesus wept...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and drugs :(

Some of what I hear is tragic - yet social services are all about 'keeping families together'. Jesus wept...

It's cheaper to do so.

And there's not a que of lovely middle class parents waiting to take on these children who've been damaged physically and psychologically by their parents, there is however a que of people wanting to remove the benefits which may well pay for sky but if your mum and dad are inept at best and dangerous at worse who the hell are we to want to make that child's life worse.

I just cannot get angry about these people, I can't solve their problems but those at the top could overnight and yet chose not to for reason known only to themselves.

Edited by iLegallyBlonde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's cheaper to do so.

And there's not a que of lovely middle class parents waiting to take on these children who've been damaged physically and psychologically by their parents, there is however a que of people wanting to remove the benefits which may well pay for sky but if your mum and dad are inept at best and dangerous at worse who the hell are we to want to make that child's life worse.

I just cannot get angry about these people, I can't solve their problems but those at the top could overnight and yet chose not to for reason known only to themselves.

you mean politically (give out food voouchers instead of cash) or by some other means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean politically (give out food voouchers instead of cash) or by some other means?

I would go further than food vouchers and say food parcels delivered to the door would cost the same as administering, printing and posting out the food vouchers scheme.

I can be very liberal until people **** up and then all their choices get removed and they can still have their sky, PS3 whatever but it's not at the expense of feeding their children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's cheaper to do so.

And there's not a que of lovely middle class parents waiting to take on these children who've been damaged physically and psychologically by their parents, there is however a que of people wanting to remove the benefits which may well pay for sky but if your mum and dad are inept at best and dangerous at worse who the hell are we to want to make that child's life worse.

I just cannot get angry about these people, I can't solve their problems but those at the top could overnight and yet chose not to for reason known only to themselves.

Can you explain how 'Those at the Top' could solve the problems of the reckless, feckless and could carelesses overnight?

I am sure they would be interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain how 'Those at the Top' could solve the problems of the reckless, feckless and could carelesses overnight?

I am sure they would be interested.

As I have said on another thread, ending all child related benefits would help paradoxically. People, even the feckless, understand money. If there is a cost to having a child, rather than a benefit, these people are less likely to have them. Given that having a child is now a choice, they will chose not to have them.

It won't end all the problems alas, but you won't get children born deliberately for the purposes of acquiring benefits.

Where some are so feckless that they spend money on booze or drugs in preference to feeding their kids, then those kids need to be taken into care. Having come into close contact with one case, the amount of money paid to parents is irrelevant when drugs take hold, the kids never see any benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet they've all got Sky

The truest words of wisdom if I have ever heard them!! Yes, they have cable TV because they know that if they spent their money on food and then went to the charity and asked for cable TV, they would get nothing. So they spend their money on cable TV and then ask the charity for food. Yes, that's America today!! America and the UK, going down the crapper together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was in our local news letter. It's normally full of complaints about dog shit.

Foodbank is Coming

In response to a growing need

within Callington and in the

surrounding area for emergency

food supplies, Churches

Together in Callington have set-

up a launch committee to bring

a Trussell Trust foodbank to the

town.

Source :-

Also have notice more and more people with fishing rods knocking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was in our local news letter. It's normally full of complaints about dog shit.

In the home of Ginsters I expect the dogs complain of shit food, too.

Oh, and since when do fishing rods save money? Had to remove a bit of one from the Walkham (about 10 miles from you, even less from me) just on Wednesday 'cos I didn't fancy getting entangled in it while swimming.

Edited by porca misèria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the radio the tories are now proposing to extend the period to 2 years before you can claim unfair dismissal.

How the old ideas keep popping up (U turning again) with each change of government. If Labour get in after the next election for sure it will be all change back again and another U turn.

Basically they're now proposing that the law will revert back to pre 1997 times. In those days employers would keep employees for 1 year and 364 days (just less than 2 years) before sacking them because after 2 years they got a level of job security.

The radio didn't say what their partners in the Coalition, the Libdems, thought of the new proposal. All of a sudden the Libdems are very quiet :rolleyes: Probably they're lobbying for yet more cheap labour to come to the UK.

At least the 3 main party conference season of lies, false promises and confidence trickery will be over by the end of next week, thank goodness.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said on another thread, ending all child related benefits would help paradoxically. People, even the feckless, understand money. If there is a cost to having a child, rather than a benefit, these people are less likely to have them. Given that having a child is now a choice, they will chose not to have them.

It won't end all the problems alas, but you won't get children born deliberately for the purposes of acquiring benefits.

Where some are so feckless that they spend money on booze or drugs in preference to feeding their kids, then those kids need to be taken into care. Having come into close contact with one case, the amount of money paid to parents is irrelevant when drugs take hold, the kids never see any benefits.

I don't agree with 'the ending all child related benefits' would make any difference...it would only make the responsible parents think twice before having one or more...the irresponsible, selfish, addicted, the ones who can't look after themselves let alone another human being, those that don't know any better, will continue to have children money or no money, benefits or no benefits.

Look at other places around the world that do not have a benefit system, parts of Africa for instance, does having little money stop them from having kids?.....no because having kids is a survival mechanism, those without kids are far worse of than those with them, they don't think about how they can feed them before having them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the home of Ginsters I expect the dogs complain of shit food, too.

Oh, and since when do fishing rods save money? Had to remove a bit of one from the Walkham (about 10 miles from you, even less from me) just on Wednesday 'cos I didn't fancy getting entangled in it while swimming.

When your on the dole and go fishing to catch a trout for supper!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with 'the ending all child related benefits' would make any difference...it would only make the responsible parents think twice before having one or more...the irresponsible, selfish, addicted, the ones who can't look after themselves let alone another human being, those that don't know any better, will continue to have children money or no money, benefits or no benefits.

Look at other places around the world that do not have a benefit system, parts of Africa for instance, does having little money stop them from having kids?.....no because having kids is a survival mechanism, those without kids are far worse of than those with them, they don't think about how they can feed them before having them. ;)

Having kids is only a survival mechanism in agrarian societies where most work is undertaken by human muscle and the more bodies there are, the more work is done. Until you have too many and the resources are or become insufficient for a reasonable life or, in some case, any life at all.

In many societies having lots of kids is the result of women having very little choice in what happens to them and/or the result of contraception and safe abortion being difficult or impossible to access. And often leads to poverty and / or starvation.

To get back to the UK, government could refuse to pay any further unemployment benefits to parents who were already claiming unemployment benefits. It's been tried in some places in the US - reading studies on whether or not it worked there might be useful.

It would also have to make sure contraception and abortion were available on demand within easy travelling distance by public transport, at clinics open extended hours 7 days a week. So it'd have to deal with the Dorries woman and other pro lifers, the Roman Catholic Church, and that ilk.

Crossing its fingers and hoping the unemployed wouldn't have sex if there was no money to be had from any resulting children would probably not work.

You could stop all benefits to working parents for children, including child benefit and child tax credits, but then working people would have even fewer children.

And by the way, Just over half of children living in poverty in the UK are in households where a parent works or both parents work. Already. Even with the benefits we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/01/sharp-rise-demand-food-handouts

Britain has seen a sharp increase in the number of people unable to afford to feed themselves at the most basic level, thanks to the worsening economic climate and changes to the benefit system, according to a survey by a leading food charity.

In the past year FareShare, which redistributes waste food from major food manufacturers and supermarkets to social care charities, has seen a 20% rise in the number of people it is feeding – from 29,500 a year to 35,000

This is the Graun, so pushing its own agenda - but I have a couple of anecdotals too.

Someone I know is training to be a teacher in the West of Scotland, and the secondary school has a morning 'club' to give certain kids one decent meal a day, and teach them some of the basics of eating well, staying clean etc.

Wife's friend working in a primary in Leceitershire, takes in cereal & milk for some of her pupils for the same reason.

Sister works in a hospital, and is aware of patients lifestyles - recieving food parcels e.g. from the St Vincent de Paul charity, is seen as normal. In my childhood days in the 70's 80's - only the very poorest got these.

several posts underneath blame this on the growth of the uber rich, but doesnt this miss the point, as warren buffet says, it doesnt matter how rich you are you only eat three meals a day. The world is getting shorter of food and therefore so are we.

okay so food is a commodity that is traded, a fact we in the U.K. should be especially aware of as we only produce 60% of our food requirements. Here is the rub, it was always made clear in my lessons at school in the 70's that we couldnt feed our selves and we had to survive by making something those with the food wanted. personally i see the problem here as being exactly that and nothing to do with the kind of politics the comments sections is shouting about. Yet another example of how whole country has a crazy sense of entitlement, form the top to borttom.

oh and of course it is going to get worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

several posts underneath blame this on the growth of the uber rich, but doesnt this miss the point, as warren buffet says, it doesnt matter how rich you are you only eat three meals a day. The world is getting shorter of food and therefore so are we.

okay so food is a commodity that is traded, a fact we in the U.K. should be especially aware of as we only produce 60% of our food requirements. Here is the rub, it was always made clear in my lessons at school in the 70's that we couldnt feed our selves and we had to survive by making something those with the food wanted. personally i see the problem here as being exactly that and nothing to do with the kind of politics the comments sections is shouting about. Yet another example of how whole country has a crazy sense of entitlement, form the top to borttom.

oh and of course it is going to get worse

The world isn't getting shorter of food. There are more obese people than starving people (see Prof Barry Popkin's speech to the International Association of Agricultural Economists). It's just that our systems distribute the food badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have been writing, discussing and pondering about the nature of poverty for centuries

And, all along, the solution was staring them in the face

If only the government had the moral strength to outlaw Sky TV and mobile phone contracts poverty would disappear overnight

It really is that simple

Apparently

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet they've all got Sky

Yes but how do you solve that crisis? Have a whole raft of state-paid interfering busybodies who go and make sure people get their priorities right?

Or give them benefits in direct payments to shops (and that system would be abused still)

or send them govt food packages instead of money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crossing its fingers and hoping the unemployed wouldn't have sex if there was no money to be had from any resulting children would probably not work.

Correct.

You could stop all benefits to working parents for children, including child benefit and child tax credits, but then working people would have even fewer children.

Possible.....but why not let them keep more of what they earn, instead of taking it from them to give it back.

And by the way, Just over half of children living in poverty in the UK are in households where a parent works or both parents work. Already. Even with the benefits we have now.

See above.....plus reducing high housing costs....see the building more affordable, non profit making, secure tenure housing thread. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 330 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.