Not sure if I can say as it is advertising. I could pm though I think if you want. But seriously there are sime red hot deals out there right now shouldnt be too difficult to find a deal for yourself.
Yeah I wouldn't mind a PM please if you don't mind
Pre loaded swipe cards with restrictions on what it can be spent on.
So when you need something it can't be spent on such as "luxuries" such shoes or a winter coat you have to sell your credits at a usurious price. Going racket. I can see a whole new vulture industry starting up.
It would be helpful to the debate if someone in charge of a food bank were to do a survey of the claimants (anonymously, of course) to find out the main causes of people needing to be given food. Then the government could look into the main causes of people being in need of help.
I almost went to a food bank last times I was unemployed (June-August last year,and the past 3 months) mainly because the last time my JSA was refused but by the time I got it, I had pretty much spent my last week`s pay,and the week in hand and was promised some holiday pay and got JSA eventually. I worked out I received around £1200 over a three month period without having to pay rent which was covered by Housing Benefit--that`s £100 a week and yet for most of February/March I was literally starving without food in the house. I was drinking though! I accept responsibility for the parlous state I was in and shall simply make sure now I am back in work--I put aside more tins of food etc,stock the fridge (with my beloved beer) get a freezer full and have some kind of income for a rainy day. People have got to help themselves. I`m a single man who can spend £6 at Iceland when economising and that covers the basics for the week. £6! Surely people must be able to put food as a priority in their lives?
A friend got some food from a food bank last time I was unemployed. Be honest,it just helped me have some spare cash for booze! He used to sell the Big Issue,although he had somewhere to live. Food banks have imo joined the whole cycle of enabling people to become dependent--probation officers,social workers,DSS only landlords,drugs and alocohol do-gooders;that whole world of `it`s the system`s fault`,there`s always someone else to blame.
Foodbanks are excellent for those who want to spend their money on other things.
Yet other charities that dont run food banks are pointing out why people need to use food banks, seems the only people who dont like the truth are the government, unless the government is now saying all the chairites are ganging up on them and all the charities are telling lies. And the CAB have pointed out the big increase of hard working people needing to use food banks.
I watched a programme last evening about housing benefit, which people are given to keep a roof over their head. I was amazed that the rent is not given to the landlord, but to the tenant, to spend on whatever they want;. this leads eventually to eviction. Why is the rent not paid, by the council or whoever, directly to the landlord?
I watched a programme last evening about housing benefit, which people are given to keep a roof over their head. I was amazed that the rent is not given to the landlord, but to the tenant, to spend on whatever they want;. this leads eventually to eviction. Why is the rent not paid, by the council or whoever, directly to the landlord?
It would be helpful to the debate if someone in charge of a food bank were to do a survey of the claimants (anonymously, of course) to find out the main causes of people needing to be given food. Then the government could look into the main causes of people being in need of help.
There is a whole raft of reports from The Trussell Trust, Citizen's Advice and other charities that have done exactly that, easily found online. Latest raft of reports were released just this week.
Amongst those who are working the main reason was zero hours contracts, or a cut in working hours. Namely not enough paid hours of work.
Amongst those not working the main reason was benefit delays, closely followed by sanctions. It's easy to say those sanctions have themselves to blame, and in a lot of cases that is true, but 60% of sanction decisions are over turned on appeal so the majority of people sanctioned are sanctioned wrongly, basically illegally. What is the government doing about that fact?. Nothing, in fact there have been reports in some sections of the press that the DWP are considering the introduction of a charge to launch an appeal against a benefit decision. So instead of tackling the actual problem, they are looking into making it impossible for those sanctioned by mistake, wrongly or illegally to challenge the decision. Absolutely disgusting. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/people-stripped-benefits-charged-decision
I watched a programme last evening about housing benefit, which people are given to keep a roof over their head. I was amazed that the rent is not given to the landlord, but to the tenant, to spend on whatever they want;. this leads eventually to eviction. Why is the rent not paid, by the council or whoever, directly to the landlord?
One of the more stupid ideas of Ian Duncan Smith and this government.
They were warned that benefit cuts would essentially force some people to prioritise heating and eating over paying the rent if that change went ahead, but they went ahead with it anyway.
Mind the mental health charity warned that a lot of those affected had mental health problems and wouldn't be able to budget properly, but still the change was made.
Housing Benefit can only be paid direct if a claimant has a history of failing to pay the rent (by which time it's likely they will have already been evicted) or in exceptional circumstances.
I'm not denying that people can fail to prioritise or budget their money but addiction is not as easy as just stopping for most people. Cigarettes are incredibly addictive and hard to give up so perhaps they might have spent £8 or whatever it is now for a packet of cigarettes almost without realising, out of habit if you like.
Plus, if someone's life is that grim that they are reliant on foodbanks and whatever else then maybe those cigarettes are the one and only pleasurable thing, or 'crutch' that they have in life.
You can't just say "oh that person smokes" or "that person has an iPhone" and therefore they don't deserve any assistance because you don't know where they got the items from or their actual circumstances.
What annoys me so much about 'smoking' is IF it was sooooo bad for people it should be banned outright and none should be sold in shops.
It probably IS the poorest people who smoke - but what else have they got? If they enjoy it and it's not banned it's difficult to tell them don't smoke buy some beans instead.
There is a whole raft of reports from The Trussell Trust, Citizen's Advice and other charities that have done exactly that, easily found online. Latest raft of reports were released just this week.
Amongst those who are working the main reason was zero hours contracts, or a cut in working hours. Namely not enough paid hours of work.
Amongst those not working the main reason was benefit delays, closely followed by sanctions. It's easy to say those sanctions have themselves to blame, and in a lot of cases that is true, but 60% of sanction decisions are over turned on appeal so the majority of people sanctioned are sanctioned wrongly, basically illegally. What is the government doing about that fact?. Nothing, in fact there have been reports in some sections of the press that the DWP are considering the introduction of a charge to launch an appeal against a benefit decision. So instead of tackling the actual problem, they are looking into making it impossible for those sanctioned by mistake, wrongly or illegally to challenge the decision. Absolutely disgusting. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/people-stripped-benefits-charged-decision
BIB, if these are the reasons,that still doesn`t explain why somebody needs to go to a charity for food. I`ve had a benefit delay--so instead of receiving a JSA paymenta fortnight after losing my job I received--a quarter of it-- three weeks later in which time I had my current week and final week of pay to live on with no rent to pay since Housing Benefit was taken care of. Sanctions still mean you have received some benefit (I don`t think the first payments can be anctioned) and not having enough unpaid work or zero hour contracts still mean you have income. In all three cases you would and should be budgetting anyway as you`re in a vulnerable financial situation and you should make sure the first spend is on food.
If my JSA had been on time,I would have received £334 in one week with my last pay cheque. In early unemployment JSA is almost a bonus on your last pay cheques coming in. I`d argue nobody should get JSA until a month or so after they`ve lost their job. I still say the system is more abused than people even want to imagine. It`s too easy getting the money and sometimes it`s unneeded.
BIB, if these are the reasons,that still doesn`t explain why somebody needs to go to a charity for food. I`ve had a benefit delay--so instead of receiving a JSA paymenta fortnight after losing my job I received--a quarter of it-- three weeks later in which time I had my current week and final week of pay to live on with no rent to pay since Housing Benefit was taken care of. Sanctions still mean you have received some benefit (I don`t think the first payments can be anctioned) and not having enough unpaid work or zero hour contracts still mean you have income. In all three cases you would and should be budgetting anyway as you`re in a vulnerable financial situation and you should make sure the first spend is on food.
If my JSA had been on time,I would have received £334 in one week with my last pay cheque. In early unemployment JSA is almost a bonus on your last pay cheques coming in. I`d argue nobody should get JSA until a month or so after they`ve lost their job. I still say the system is more abused than people even want to imagine. It`s too easy getting the money and sometimes it`s unneeded.
So someone whose benefit is delayed by 4/6 or 8 weeks, who has absolutely no other income still shouldn't have any need to go to a food bank?.
Sorry but until the benefit decision is made you now wont have received ANY JSA payment. They don't pay a quarter, or any other amount, until the decision is made.
In the past they would have been able to apply for help such as crisis loans, these have been removed. It is now the case that you are referred to your local authority, and most will now refer you to a food bank.
And how is someone living alone who has to pay part rent, part council tax and all of their other household bills expected to be able to save a decent amount of money for a rainy day or to see them through any delay or sanctions?. All of that from £71 a week?. Really?. And I would say you need to make sure your first priority is your rent, if you don't pay it you lose your home. Your next highest priority is council tax, don't pay that and you can end up in jail. Only when those are paid can you then look at your other priorities.
The government's official figures on fraud and abuse completely disagree with your stance. In fact more money goes unclaimed by people entitled to it than is paid out in fraud and error. Fraud accounts for approx 0.7% of the benefits bill.
JSA accounts for less than 3% of the entire benefit bill, yet it seems to be JSA claimants that take a great deal of the flack. By far the vast majority of the benefits bill goes to pensioners, and the largest share of some benefits such as Housing Benefit, are paid to those in work but on low pay.
We could wipe out a huge proportion of the benefits bill by introducing a proper living wage, so that someone working full time would have no need to claim housing benefits, council tax benefits and/or working tax credits. That alone would wipe billions of the welfare bill.
There is a whole raft of reports from The Trussell Trust, Citizen's Advice and other charities that have done exactly that, easily found online. Latest raft of reports were released just this week.
Amongst those who are working the main reason was zero hours contracts, or a cut in working hours. Namely not enough paid hours of work.
Amongst those not working the main reason was benefit delays, closely followed by sanctions. It's easy to say those sanctions have themselves to blame, and in a lot of cases that is true, but 60% of sanction decisions are over turned on appeal so the majority of people sanctioned are sanctioned wrongly, basically illegally. What is the government doing about that fact?. Nothing, in fact there have been reports in some sections of the press that the DWP are considering the introduction of a charge to launch an appeal against a benefit decision. So instead of tackling the actual problem, they are looking into making it impossible for those sanctioned by mistake, wrongly or illegally to challenge the decision. Absolutely disgusting. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/people-stripped-benefits-charged-decision
No you don't.
You also pay line rental, which is generally another £14-£15.
I pay around £18.00 for unlimited standard broadband, which includes line rental though so mine is even cheaper than yours.
And tea lights and no TV?.
Now I know you're taking the piss.
Not necessarily. I par £15 a month for BB (30 day rolling contract), no BT line rental as it's mobile broadband. It's not as fast or as reliable as BB through a landline, but for it's me better than paying BT for nothing.
I do have my phone to pay for on top of that, and again, that's on a 30 day rolling contract.
I watched a programme last evening about housing benefit, which people are given to keep a roof over their head. I was amazed that the rent is not given to the landlord, but to the tenant, to spend on whatever they want;. this leads eventually to eviction. Why is the rent not paid, by the council or whoever, directly to the landlord?
Why should HB be paid directly to the landlord or HA?
Just because you elgible to claim HB, doesn't mean you're incapable of paying rent.
Should someone earning enough to not need or be eligible for HB, have their wages/slary paid directly to the landlord or LHA too?
There are many, many people that work and claim HB. There's no need for you to be so patronising and derogatory towards someone claiming HB.
Claiming HB does not mean cannot manage money and cannot pay bills.
Why should HB be paid directly to the landlord or HA?
Just because you elgible to claim HB, doesn't mean you're incapable of paying rent.
Should someone earning enough to not need or be eligible for HB, have their wages/slary paid directly to the landlord or LHA too?
There are many, many people that work and claim HB. There's no need for you to be so patronising and derogatory towards someone claiming HB.Claiming HB does not mean cannot manage money and cannot pay bills.
It was not my intention to be patronising or derogatory, and I apologise if it appeared that way. The couple who were being shown on the programme both had learning difficulries, and a new baby. They were given housing benefit and spent it on frivolous things, which resulted in them being evicted, they and their little baby were put out of their home. If the rent had been paid directly to the landlord, they would still have had a roof over their heads, one of the most basic needs we have. Then the Social Services/mental health charity/church should have advised them on budgeting, and any help available to them, including the food bank.
It was not my intention to be patronising or derogatory, and I apologise if it appeared that way. The couple who were being shown on the programme both had learning difficulries, and a new baby. They were given housing benefit and spent it on frivolous things, which resulted in them being evicted, they and their little baby were put out of their home. If the rent had been paid directly to the landlord, they would still have had a roof over their heads, one of the most basic needs we have. Then the Social Services/mental health charity/church should have advised them on budgeting, and any help available to them, including the food bank.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. Foodbanks perpetuate poor financial planning.
I think they should be renamed - 'food aid', 'comestible assistance', anything other than 'bank' - the connotations of that word are entirely incongruous to what FBs are supposed to be there for.
It would be helpful to the debate if someone in charge of a food bank were to do a survey of the claimants (anonymously, of course) to find out the main causes of people needing to be given food. Then the government could look into the main causes of people being in need of help.
I posted this at the start of the thread. It has a lot of facts and figures re food banks.
It is a fact that the more Food banks that appear, there will be more people using them.
I posted this at the start of the thread. It has a lot of facts and figures re food banks.
It is a fact that the more Food banks that appear, there will be more people using them.
Comments
Yeah I wouldn't mind a PM please if you don't mind
Food banks and soup kitchens in many German cities are having trouble keeping up with growing demand.
So when you need something it can't be spent on such as "luxuries" such shoes or a winter coat you have to sell your credits at a usurious price. Going racket. I can see a whole new vulture industry starting up.
A friend got some food from a food bank last time I was unemployed. Be honest,it just helped me have some spare cash for booze! He used to sell the Big Issue,although he had somewhere to live. Food banks have imo joined the whole cycle of enabling people to become dependent--probation officers,social workers,DSS only landlords,drugs and alocohol do-gooders;that whole world of `it`s the system`s fault`,there`s always someone else to blame.
Yet other charities that dont run food banks are pointing out why people need to use food banks, seems the only people who dont like the truth are the government, unless the government is now saying all the chairites are ganging up on them and all the charities are telling lies. And the CAB have pointed out the big increase of hard working people needing to use food banks.
government policy,
There is a whole raft of reports from The Trussell Trust, Citizen's Advice and other charities that have done exactly that, easily found online. Latest raft of reports were released just this week.
Amongst those who are working the main reason was zero hours contracts, or a cut in working hours. Namely not enough paid hours of work.
Amongst those not working the main reason was benefit delays, closely followed by sanctions. It's easy to say those sanctions have themselves to blame, and in a lot of cases that is true, but 60% of sanction decisions are over turned on appeal so the majority of people sanctioned are sanctioned wrongly, basically illegally. What is the government doing about that fact?. Nothing, in fact there have been reports in some sections of the press that the DWP are considering the introduction of a charge to launch an appeal against a benefit decision. So instead of tackling the actual problem, they are looking into making it impossible for those sanctioned by mistake, wrongly or illegally to challenge the decision. Absolutely disgusting.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/people-stripped-benefits-charged-decision
It's also been widely reported that the Trussell Trust were threatened by this government with being shut down if they continued to argue against benefit changes and cuts.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-food-bank-charity-was-threatened-with-closure-by-ministers-aide-9533456.html
One of the more stupid ideas of Ian Duncan Smith and this government.
They were warned that benefit cuts would essentially force some people to prioritise heating and eating over paying the rent if that change went ahead, but they went ahead with it anyway.
Mind the mental health charity warned that a lot of those affected had mental health problems and wouldn't be able to budget properly, but still the change was made.
Housing Benefit can only be paid direct if a claimant has a history of failing to pay the rent (by which time it's likely they will have already been evicted) or in exceptional circumstances.
What annoys me so much about 'smoking' is IF it was sooooo bad for people it should be banned outright and none should be sold in shops.
It probably IS the poorest people who smoke - but what else have they got? If they enjoy it and it's not banned it's difficult to tell them don't smoke buy some beans instead.
BIB, if these are the reasons,that still doesn`t explain why somebody needs to go to a charity for food. I`ve had a benefit delay--so instead of receiving a JSA paymenta fortnight after losing my job I received--a quarter of it-- three weeks later in which time I had my current week and final week of pay to live on with no rent to pay since Housing Benefit was taken care of. Sanctions still mean you have received some benefit (I don`t think the first payments can be anctioned) and not having enough unpaid work or zero hour contracts still mean you have income. In all three cases you would and should be budgetting anyway as you`re in a vulnerable financial situation and you should make sure the first spend is on food.
If my JSA had been on time,I would have received £334 in one week with my last pay cheque. In early unemployment JSA is almost a bonus on your last pay cheques coming in. I`d argue nobody should get JSA until a month or so after they`ve lost their job. I still say the system is more abused than people even want to imagine. It`s too easy getting the money and sometimes it`s unneeded.
So someone whose benefit is delayed by 4/6 or 8 weeks, who has absolutely no other income still shouldn't have any need to go to a food bank?.
Sorry but until the benefit decision is made you now wont have received ANY JSA payment. They don't pay a quarter, or any other amount, until the decision is made.
In the past they would have been able to apply for help such as crisis loans, these have been removed. It is now the case that you are referred to your local authority, and most will now refer you to a food bank.
And how is someone living alone who has to pay part rent, part council tax and all of their other household bills expected to be able to save a decent amount of money for a rainy day or to see them through any delay or sanctions?. All of that from £71 a week?. Really?. And I would say you need to make sure your first priority is your rent, if you don't pay it you lose your home. Your next highest priority is council tax, don't pay that and you can end up in jail. Only when those are paid can you then look at your other priorities.
The government's official figures on fraud and abuse completely disagree with your stance. In fact more money goes unclaimed by people entitled to it than is paid out in fraud and error. Fraud accounts for approx 0.7% of the benefits bill.
JSA accounts for less than 3% of the entire benefit bill, yet it seems to be JSA claimants that take a great deal of the flack. By far the vast majority of the benefits bill goes to pensioners, and the largest share of some benefits such as Housing Benefit, are paid to those in work but on low pay.
We could wipe out a huge proportion of the benefits bill by introducing a proper living wage, so that someone working full time would have no need to claim housing benefits, council tax benefits and/or working tax credits. That alone would wipe billions of the welfare bill.
Not necessarily. I par £15 a month for BB (30 day rolling contract), no BT line rental as it's mobile broadband. It's not as fast or as reliable as BB through a landline, but for it's me better than paying BT for nothing.
I do have my phone to pay for on top of that, and again, that's on a 30 day rolling contract.
Why should HB be paid directly to the landlord or HA?
Just because you elgible to claim HB, doesn't mean you're incapable of paying rent.
Should someone earning enough to not need or be eligible for HB, have their wages/slary paid directly to the landlord or LHA too?
There are many, many people that work and claim HB. There's no need for you to be so patronising and derogatory towards someone claiming HB.
Claiming HB does not mean cannot manage money and cannot pay bills.
Exactly, it is a policy designed to make people responsible for their own decisions.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. Foodbanks perpetuate poor financial planning.
I posted this at the start of the thread. It has a lot of facts and figures re food banks.
It is a fact that the more Food banks that appear, there will be more people using them.
http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats
Alot of biased vested interest 'facts' from the operatoes of foodbanks whose interest it In to promote fb use.