# Indie: 'Jobcentres to send poor and hungry to charity food banks'



## treelover (Sep 18, 2011)

' Christian trust is set to hand out parcels to 100,000 this year

By Jonathan Owen and Brian Brady'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...and-hungry-to-charity-food-banks-2356578.html

'Tens of thousands of benefits claimants will be referred to food banks by the Government, which is worried that many Britons face a stark choice: starvation or feeding themselves by begging or stealing. From tomorrow, jobcentres in England and Wales will refer the needy to charity-run food banks that will give them a food parcel. It is the first time in living memory that hungry people will have been passed on to charities in this way.'

This was Duncan Smiths/CSJ idea and imo is a trojan horse/precursor to at least some benefit being paid out in food stamps, shop swipecards, etc. Its incredible now how fast and deep the move to 1930's style welfare is happening, and as happened in Canada, Australia, Denmark, etc the lack of opposition has been glaring, except Israel where the unions etc challenged it.


----------



## treelover (Sep 18, 2011)

'The scheme will operate from more than 70 food banks run by the Trussell Trust, a Christian charity. It will open another 60 in the next six months, according to Jeremy Ravn, a director. "We are forecasting that we will feed somewhere between 90,000 and 100,000 this financial year," he said. "And we'd expect 30-40 per cent of those to be [caused by] problems over benefits."

its on a big scale as well...


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

In Canada, you are always referred to a food bank when you claim welfare.  It makes sense, welfare is there as a temporary gap and therefore doesn't give you a lot of money.  At our local food bank, you need a referral from welfare to get the food.


----------



## treelover (Sep 18, 2011)

I wasn't endorsing your system, idiot, i was criticising it...


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

treelover said:


> I wasn't endorsing your system, idiot, i was criticising it...




Seems only fair, I spend most of my time criticizing yours.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 18, 2011)

I don't quite understand the 'from tomorrow' bit, followed by statistics showing an increase in demand from months ago and even last year.

What exactly has changed other than an increase in demand?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> In Canada, you are always referred to a food bank when you claim welfare. It makes sense, welfare is there as a temporary gap and therefore doesn't give you a lot of money. At our local food bank, you need a referral from welfare to get the food.


how can welfare be for "temporary gaps" when unemployment is rising you goon?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 18, 2011)

> "And we'd expect 30-40 per cent of those to be [caused by] problems over benefits."



Is this just a role previously played by CAB and other volunteer groups now being taken on by Job Centres?

Not a new scheme at all. Always been there.

In Spain I speak with many homeless people. In almost every city they have a choice of where to get free food parcels, or meals. If they don't want to show their ID, in many places they pay about 60 Cents for a full meal. Most of the organisations seem to be chrch run. I don't know, but suspect the government rewards The Church handsomely.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> how can welfare be for "temporary gaps" when unemployment is rising you goon?



We have two systems.  When you first loose your job, you go onto Employment Insurance for up to 40 weeks.  It's Federally run, so everyone gets pretty much the same amount.  If, after the 40 weeks, you still haven't found a job, you can apply for welfare.  It's provincially run and the amount varies by province.

We don't have the same level of unemployment that you have and there are always some type of job.  It might not be the job you want or in your field, but there are always jobs.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> We have two systems. When you first loose your job, you go onto Employment Insurance for up to 40 weeks. It's Federally run, so everyone gets pretty much the same amount. If, after the 40 weeks, you still haven't found a job, you can apply for welfare. It's provincially run and the amount varies by province.
> 
> We don't have the same level of unemployment that you have and there are always some type of job. It might not be the job you want or in your field, but there are always jobs.


Even in the 90s recession in the UK there was normally 'some type of job', it's not like that this time around.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 18, 2011)

Yes there are always jobs. Maybe I could apply to be the chief of police? Maybe I could work for two hours a week for less than the minimum wage. As it happens, you now need an NVQ to work in a chemist as a dispensary assistant. Yes there are jobs, about one per hundred or so applications for them, that require qualifications and tons of experience, for the minimum wage.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> We have two systems. When you first loose your job, you go onto Employment Insurance for up to 40 weeks. It's Federally run, so everyone gets pretty much the same amount. If, after the 40 weeks, you still haven't found a job, you can apply for welfare. It's provincially run and the amount varies by province.
> 
> We don't have the same level of unemployment that you have and there are always some type of job. It might not be the job you want or in your field, but there are always jobs.


There isn't here. Of what relevance to here is your post?


----------



## Lo Siento. (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> We don't have the same level of unemployment that you have and there are always some type of job. It might not be the job you want or in your field, but there are always jobs.


Unemployment in Canada is 7.3% and rising. So no, there aren't ALWAYS jobs.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There isn't here. Of what relevance to here is your post?


No, you can work and pay tax for fifty years and be treated like scum the second you lose a job or get sick. Surprised people don't sue the government to get back their National Insurance.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> We have two systems. When you first loose your job, you go onto Employment Insurance for up to 40 weeks. It's Federally run, so everyone gets pretty much the same amount. If, after the 40 weeks, you still haven't found a job, you can apply for welfare. It's provincially run and the amount varies by province.
> 
> We don't have the same level of unemployment that you have and there are always some type of job. It might not be the job you want or in your field, but there are always jobs.



you don't understand how the labour market operates


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Even in the 90s recession in the UK there was normally 'some type of job', it's not like that this time around.



I know - it's a real mess over there.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> We don't have the same level of unemployment that you have and there are always some type of job. It might not be the job you want or in your field, but there are always jobs.



From what I can deduce...

Canada (Aug figures)
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/subjects-sujets/labour-travail/lfs-epa/lfs-epa-eng.htm?WT.mc_id=twtB0063



> Employment was little changed for the second consecutive month in August and the unemployment rate edged up 0.1 percentage points to 7.3%.





> This summer, the average unemployment rate for students aged 15 to 24 was 17.2%, slightly above the rate of 16.9% recorded in the summer of 2010.



UK (Sept figures)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...ment-rises-80000-in-three-months-2354975.html



> Some 2.51 million people are now unemployed, representing 7.9 per cent of the total workforce. Youth unemployment rose by 78,000 to 973,000.





> Almost a fifth of 16 to 24-year-olds are now out of work.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> you don't understand how the labour market operates




It's more like I don't understand how the unemployment figures are calculated, especially ours.

For me, it is easy to calculate the unemployment level if you can use the numbers of those on benefits.  When I was unemployed, I didn't collect any benefits - how do they know to add me to the employment numbers???


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> ...When I was unemployed, I didn't collect any benefits - how do they know to add me to the employment numbers???



They don't. This is possibly a more relevant point to the OP. More people will be referred to food banks whilst their claim is being processed. Thus, slowing down the perceived climb in rate of unemployment. At least, that's how some people will see it.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> It's more like I don't understand how the unemployment figures are calculated, especially ours.
> 
> For me, it is easy to calculate the unemployment level if you can use the numbers of those on benefits. When I was unemployed, I didn't collect any benefits - how do they know to add me to the employment numbers???


Your employer tells them that you've lost your job, and the government counts you as unemployed until you get a new employer or register as self-employed.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Sep 18, 2011)

Stanley Edwards said:


> They don't. This is possibly a more relevant point to the OP. More people will be referred to food banks whilst their claim is being processed. Thus, slowing down the perceived climb in rate of unemployment. At least, that's how some people will see it.


govt gets a copy of your P45 surely? They count you as unemployed until you go back on PAYE


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 18, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> govt gets a copy of your P45 surely? They count you as unemployed until you go back on PAYE



Most unemployment figures are based on the number of people receiving benefit (I think). Or, at least that's how I understand the accusations of corrupting figures.

e2a; a quick Google suggests I'm wrong, but I don't know either way.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Your employer tells them that you've lost your job, and the government counts you as unemployed until you get a new employer or register as self-employed.


If you don't claim you don't get counted in the official figures - in the labour force survey figures.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> If you don't claim you don't get counted in the official figures - in the labour force survey figures.


there's another set of figures you get counted in, right?


----------



## revol68 (Sep 18, 2011)

Lo Siento, you're very naive about the governments desire for counting everyone who is out of work.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> there's another set of figures you get counted in, right?


 Yes, but not in the unemployment rate figures.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Sep 18, 2011)

revol68 said:


> Lo Siento, you're very naive about the governments desire for counting everyone who is out of work.


I guess so.


butchersapron said:


> Yes, but not in the unemployment rate figures.


ah, ok.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 18, 2011)

As someone unemployed in the 80's, having to visit a community centre, where tins of mince (sourced from the European beef mountain) were being given out to those on benefits, I can tell you there's nothing more demeaning. What made it even worse were pensioners there looking down there noses at me, no doubt thinking I was a "scrounger" (the same media onslaught against the unemployed was going on back then) and that, unlike the old folk, surviving on a meagre pension, I didn't deserve what they'd fought in the war for.

Edit to add: Unfortunately, the poor do not spontaneously come together as one.


----------



## revol68 (Sep 18, 2011)

fuck that i'll take my chances nicking from M&S before being patronised by some fucking pity pornographer.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 18, 2011)

> The claimant count is measured by the JobCentre Plus administrative system. It measures the number of people claiming unemployment-related benefits. Since October 1996 this has been the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. It does not include people claiming other benefits



From the official government website. I'm still not sure an unprocessed claim will count.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> If you don't claim you don't get counted in the official figures - in the labour force survey figures.


Also, what happens to a couple? Isn't it the case that the main claimant is counted, but their unemployed partner isn't necessarily? I'm not sure...


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Sep 18, 2011)

A while ago, an independent/charity benefits adviser told me that the JobCentre staff couldn't/wouldn't officially point people in the direction of food handouts, because that would be tantamount to admitting that the benefits 'what the [law/government/whatever] says you need to live on' is insufficient.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Sep 18, 2011)

with inflation, unemployment benefits must have dropped quite considerably in value since 2008?


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> A while ago, an independent/charity benefits adviser told me that the JobCentre staff couldn't/wouldn't officially point people in the direction of food handouts, because that would be tantamount to admitting that the benefits 'what the [law/government/whatever] says you need to live on' is insufficient.




Hmmm - minimum wage isn't enough to live on.   I'm assuming that benefits are lower.....


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 18, 2011)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> A while ago, an independent/charity benefits adviser told me that the JobCentre staff couldn't/wouldn't officially point people in the direction of food handouts, because that would be tantamount to admitting that the benefits 'what the [law/government/whatever] says you need to live on' is insufficient.



I think this article is referring to the expected 30 - 40% increase of parcels the charity expects to handout as a result of people claiming JSA, but waiting for the claim to be processed, and not receiving a crisis loan. The Job Centre is now just providing info' that CAB, and others would have previously provided.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Sep 18, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> with inflation, unemployment benefits must have dropped quite considerably in value since 2008?


I dread to think what the real-term adjustment would be, if you took into account the 20 per cent or whatever it is price rises in electricity/gas, plus food inflation due to commodities speculation, like wheat-based products like bread and stuff going up massively...


----------



## BigTom (Sep 18, 2011)

afaik, unemployed=claiming unemployment benefit. Economically inactive=not in work.
I'm not sure where someone who is on ESA but in the work support group would fall, eg: not on unemployment benefit but claiming and actively seeking work in some way.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 18, 2011)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> Also, what happens to a couple? Isn't it the case that the main claimant is counted, but their unemployed partner isn't necessarily? I'm not sure...



there are two sets of figures, the claimant count, which is everyone on JSA and is pretty much accurate and the labour force survey, which is what it says, a survey with the results extrapolated out to get a national total.  this is the internationally recognised measure of unemployment and should include anyone who is without any job at all and is actively seeking one - so these figures include people who aren't claiming benefit


----------



## smokedout (Sep 18, 2011)

BigTom said:


> afaik, unemployed=claiming unemployment benefit. Economically inactive=not in work.
> I'm not sure where someone who is on ESA but in the work support group would fall, eg: not on unemployment benefit but claiming and actively seeking work in some way.



me neither, although in theory they should be included in the unemployment figures, i bet they aint though  (feels FOI request coming on)


----------



## BigTom (Sep 18, 2011)

you might not need to FOI it, it may well be in the details of the Labour Force Survey that ONS do.. I'd also guess they weren't, anything to keep the numbers down


----------



## smokedout (Sep 18, 2011)

could well be, will have a look

tomorrow


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

Not anyone who is without a job - there are qualifications, i.e actively seeking work in last month, ready to start work etc


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not anyone who is without a job - there are qualifications, i.e actively seeking work in last month, ready to start work etc




How would they know that I've started looking for a job?


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 18, 2011)

smokedout said:


> there are two sets of figures, the claimant count, which is everyone on JSA and is pretty much accurate and the labour force survey, which is what it says, a survey with the results extrapolated out to get a national total. this is the internationally recognised measure of unemployment and should include anyone who is without any job at all and is actively seeking one - so these figures include people who aren't claiming benefit


Have they actually mentioned that they are stopping crisis loans for new claimants? It's been pretty much automatic for years that you get one until your claim is sorted.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> How would they know that I've started looking for a job?


Labour Force *Survey*


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> How would they know that I've started looking for a job?


You have to start straight away, they give you a 'homework diary' type of thing that you have to fill in detailing what you have done to find work, and you have to come and sign on every two weeks to show it to them and sign to say that your circumstances haven't changed.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not anyone who is without a job - there are qualifications, i.e actively seeking work in last month, ready to start work etc



true, which either could or could not apply to people in the work support group, there's definitely potential for a spanner in the works here


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> You have to start straight away, they give you a 'homework diary' type of thing that you have to fill in detailing what you have done to find work, and you have to come and sign on every two weeks to show it to them and sign to say that your circumstances haven't changed.


She means how do they know she's become employed if she's not signing on.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

smokedout said:


> true, which either could or could not apply to people in the work support group, there's definitely potential for a spanner in the works here


These qualifications shows a pretty clear bias towards favouring the claimant count i think.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> She means how do they know she's become employed if she's not signing on.


Ah


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 18, 2011)

AnnO'Neemus said:


> A while ago, an independent/charity benefits adviser told me that the JobCentre staff couldn't/wouldn't officially point people in the direction of food handouts, because that would be tantamount to admitting that the benefits 'what the [law/government/whatever] says you need to live on' is insufficient.



There's a documentary on the net somewhere about New Zealand's welfare 'reforms' in the 1980s and the early 1990s. They talked to some relevant boffins (nutritionists and the like) and asked them what the bare minimum people could live on was.

They figured out what that bare minimum cost in NZ dollars per week. . . and then set the dole at 80% of that figure.

E2A: It's here:

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/in-a-land-of-plenty-2002


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 18, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Have they actually mentioned that they are stopping crisis loans for new claimants?



Is this true? If anything I've seen things improve recently. Until not so long ago you made your phone call and couldn't get a crisis loan until you'd attended the following appointment, it's only in the last two weeks I've known someone ring for a crisis loan straight after the initial phone call.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> There's a documentary on the net somewhere about New Zealand's welfare 'reforms' in the 1980s and the early 1990s. They talked to some relevant boffins (nutritionists and the like) and asked them what the bare minimum people could live on was.
> 
> They figured out what that bare minimum cost in NZ dollars per week. . . and then set the dole at 80% of that figure.
> 
> ...


The US poverty line is use today is supposed to represent the same purchasing power as it did in 1963 - and that level was just under 25 cents per meal (about $1.38 in 2005). They estimated that 1/3 of the budget was spent on food, so they tripled this pathetically low number, and that's the definition that's been in use ever since.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 18, 2011)

The thing that people never seem to grasp, is once you have benefits so low/ or not at all, it doesn't "spur people on " to get a job. In fact it almost has the opposite effect because you spend all your efforts trying to eat and keep everything together. Your main energies are not in job hunting then, just surviving.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 18, 2011)

Chip Barm said:


> Is this true? If anything I've seen things improve recently. Until not so long ago you made your phone call and couldn't get a crisis loan until you'd attended the following appointment, it's only in the last two weeks I've known someone ring for a crisis loan straight after the initial phone call.


I got the impression that SE thought they were, I was asking if it has been mentioned.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 18, 2011)

What do you get in a food parcel then? Goblin meat pudding? Tinned swan?

E2A - the answer turns out to be:


Tinned vegetables
Tinned meat
Tinned fish
Tinned fruit
Orange juice
UHT milk
Sugar
Tea/coffee
Cereal
Pasta sauces
Pasta
Rice
Packet mash
Rice pudding


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 18, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> I got the impression that SE thought they were, I was asking if it has been mentioned.



I see.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 18, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Yes there are always jobs. Maybe I could apply to be the chief of police? Maybe I could work for two hours a week for less than the minimum wage. As it happens, you now need an NVQ to work in a chemist as a dispensary assistant. *Yes there are jobs, about one per hundred or so applications for them*, that require qualifications and tons of experience, for the minimum wage.



Our local radio station carried a report a couple of weeks ago about a new garden centre opening offering 75 new jobs, many only part-time, getting over 3,000 applications! 

I feel so lucky to be able to maintain a decent income as self-employed, with a fall-back position of regular approaches from my last employer to go back & work for them, I would hate to be out there hunting in the general job market especially now I am in my late 40s.

I feel so sorry for anyone looking for work ATM, especially the young.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> The thing that people never seem to grasp, is once you have benefits so low/ or not at all, it doesn't "spur people on " to get a job. In fact it almost has the opposite effect because you spend all your efforts trying to eat and keep everything together. Your main energies are not in job hunting then, just surviving.



It spurred me on to find a job.   

I either found a minimum wage job or we had no money for groceries.  As I said earlier, three resumes and two job offers in a 7.+ unemployment rate.  I don't want to work baking donuts for eight hours a day, but with more government help coming, there was no option.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Our local radio station carried a report a couple of weeks ago about a new garden centre opening offering 75 new jobs, many only part-time, getting over 3,000 applications!
> 
> I feel so lucky to be able to maintain a decent income as self-employed, with a fall-back position of regular approaches from my last employer to go back & work for them, I would hate to be out there hunting in the general job market especially now I am in my late 40s.
> 
> I feel so sorry for anyone looking for work ATM, especially the young.



We get stories like that a lot over here.  Last one I remember was for a call center.  The lineup went around the block.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Our local radio station carried a report a couple of weeks ago about a new garden centre opening offering 75 new jobs, many only part-time, getting over 3,000 applications!



Actually, thinking about this, it's no wonder so many people applying for jobs moan about not even getting a response to their application, how can companies find the time or justify the cost of responding to that number of applications?

I used to take pride in responding to every applicant that applied for jobs when I was in positions of recruiting, but the highest levels I can remember (80s & 90s) were about 40 for one particular job and just over 80 for a new project offering 12 positions.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Actually, thinking about this, it's no wonder so many people applying for jobs moan about not even getting a response to their application, how can companies find the time or justify the cost of responding to that number of applications?
> 
> I used to take pride in responding to every applicant that applied for jobs when I was in positions of recruiting, but the highest levels I can remember (80s & 90s) were about 40 for one particular job and just over 80 for a new project offering 12 positions.



Over here, they say that only the successful candidates will get notified.    Since most jobs have to be applied for over the internet, it wouldn't hurt them to send a reply saying no.  imo, anyways.

Good for you responding to all those applications.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

_


Maurice Picarda said:



			What do you get in a food parcel then? Goblin meat pudding? Tinned swan?
		
Click to expand...

_ 
_http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-projects_
_http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/documents/foodbank/ShoppingList.pdf_
_Milk (UHT or powdered) _
Sugar (500g)
Fruit juice (carton)

Soup

Pasta sauces

Sponge pudding (tinned)

Tomatoes (tinned)

Cereals

Rice pudding (tinned)

Tea Bags/instant coffee

Instant mash potato

Rice/pasta

Tinned meat/fish 

Tinned fruit

Jam

Biscuits or snack bars


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 18, 2011)

The list I found was Trussel as well; they obviously ring the changes occasionally.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> _http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-projects_
> _http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/documents/foodbank/ShoppingList.pdf_
> _Milk (UHT or powdered) _
> Sugar (500g)
> ...




I was watching a reality show this morning and the family had to go and get their weeks groceries from the food bank.  It was dismal looking place.  She was given a box of staples, allowed to choose 10 other items, and one meat.   Horrible places, but they are needed.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 18, 2011)

Staples would be different in Canada, presumably. The only Canadian I know has a terrible habit of using powdered onion soup mix as an ingredient in all kinds of things. Mixed with mayonnaise it becomes a dip for crudites, sprinkled over a lasagne it serves as gratin. She'd be very upset if the food bank didn't hand any over.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> I was watching a reality show this morning and the family had to go and get their weeks groceries from the food bank. It was dismal looking place. She was given a box of staples, allowed to choose 10 other items, and one meat. Horrible places, but they are needed.



From next April 400000 disabled people will need food parcels due to all out of work benefits being taken away from them:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1015/1015vw48.htm
_The Government estimates roughly 400,000 disabled people will lose all out of work benefits as a result_


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> _http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-projects_
> _http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/documents/foodbank/ShoppingList.pdf_
> _Milk (UHT or powdered) _
> Sugar (500g)
> ...



Not exactly healthy.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Staples would be different in Canada, presumably. The only Canadian I know has a terrible habit of using powdered onion soup mix as an ingredient in all kinds of things. Mixed with mayonnaise it becomes a dip for crudites, sprinkled over a lasagne it serves as gratin. She'd be very upset if the food bank didn't hand any over.



Staples are flour, sugar, crackers, eggs, milk, bread.  Luxuries are jam and ketchup.  Onion soup mix is a seasoning.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

weepiper said:


> Not exactly healthy.



Or appealing -> I don't like sponge pudding, rice pudding or tinned meat.  I'd be one of those who would try to trade my items off.

Damn good thing I found a job and I don't have to go through that.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

Is the PCS going to refuse to hand out the vouchers for these parcels?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> Onion soup mix is a seasoning.



I don't know how much money would be saved and how many starvelings could be fed if we withdrew the governor general from your absurd country and left you to the tender mercies of the French, but it would clearly be the right thing to do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> Staples are flour, sugar, crackers, eggs, milk, bread. Luxuries are jam and ketchup. Onion soup mix is a seasoning.


What century are we living in if jam is considered a luxury? A Middle Ages peasant would have had jam.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

weepiper said:


> Not exactly healthy.



Healthier than starving to death.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Healthier than starving to death.


That is very true. They should be grateful. Count their lucky stars. Thank god. Etc. Etc.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What century are we living in if jam is considered a luxury? A Middle Ages peasant would have had jam.






			
				 aa milne said:
			
		

> The King asked  The Queen, and
> The Queen asked  The Dairymaid:
> "Could we have some butter for
> The Royal slice of bread?"
> ...


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Healthier than starving to death.



I meant it was rather a turnaround from the previous Milk Tokens/Healthy Start vouchers which could only be spent on things like fresh milk or fruit and vegetables. Apparently it's no longer important to ensure the poverty-stricken get adequate vitamins.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What century are we living in if jam is considered a luxury? .



Common statement from my childhood? "What do you want? Jam on it?"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

It is an insult to hand out only unhealthy food. It sends a clear message to the recipients of the overprocessed shite: We don't give a flying fuck about you.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

weepiper said:


> I meant it was rather a turnaround from the previous Milk Tokens/Healthy Start vouchers which could only be spent on things like fresh milk or fruit and vegetables. Apparently it's no longer important to ensure the poverty-stricken get adequate vitamins.



The food in the parcels is for people who may well not have access to a refridgerator.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

weepiper said:


> I meant it was rather a turnaround from the previous Milk Tokens/Healthy Start vouchers which could only be spent on things like fresh milk or fruit and vegetables. Apparently it's no longer important to ensure the poverty-stricken get adequate vitamins.



This is not the only food they can eat, it is to supplement their food budget.  We are assuming these people get benefits.

Also, the food has to have a decent shelf life.  The last thing the food banks want to do is end up giving someone moldy bread or sour milk.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

This is an article posted by someone else when this was last discussed (some assumptions that charity foodbanks are a good thing notwithstanding):

The hunger market: Nation's dominant food bank cares more about bottom line than feeding poor 



> The complicated trail Blake discovered in her search for the missing pizzas is an example of how business interests influence the nation's charitable food network. Increasingly, the distribution of free food and groceries is managed for the benefit of big charities and corporations, rather than in the spirit of serving hungry people.



The whole original post is worth reading actually:



q_w_e_r_t_y said:


> Also a secondary market will develop (as already exists with asylum seekers) where people exhange vouchers for cash at 75-50% of face value. The restrictions on the scheme will also be telling at the moment as I understand it, the charity relies on public services (GPs, Teachers, probation officers etc) to identify people. In general this isnt undertaken officially but "officialising" it, may mean that people who may have previously been identified may not be - if anything if it becomes an official safety net, rather than an unofficial one it may mean that more not fewer people fall through it.
> 
> The proposal seems to be a voucher for exchange for a package of goods through charities. In the states, companies donate food that they are trying to get rid of, such as out of date labelling, out of date food, product that didnt take off etc. They can then write these off against tax - up to twice the production value, so its advantageous for them to donate. Its also quite common that the nutritional value of packages is low, as companies dump whatever they dont want - most donations are biscuits and cakes closely followed by fizzy drinks.
> 
> ...


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> This is not the only food they can eat, it is to supplement their food budget. We are assuming these people get benefits.
> 
> .



They have to use food banks because of the length of time it now takes to get benefits.
All detailed here:-
http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-projects


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> Over here, they say that only the successful candidates will get notified. Since most jobs have to be applied for over the internet, it wouldn't hurt them to send a reply saying no. imo, anyways.
> 
> Good for you responding to all those applications.



TBH, in the case of the 40 applicants for the one job, 30+ had no hope whatsoever, so they just got a standard letter saying 'thanks, but no thanks on this occasion'.

The 80+ for the new project all got a brief telephone interview, and it did my head in drawing up a short-list of 24 for face-to-face interviews for the 12 positions, but, again everyone got letters if they were unsuccessful - it just seemed the polite thing to do, but I doubt I would have done that if it was 100 - 400+ applicants per position.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What century are we living in if jam is considered a luxury? A Middle Ages peasant would have had jam.


Blackberries are in season, as are scrumped apples - with the sugar you could make your own.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> This is not the only food they can eat, it is to supplement their food budget. We are assuming these people get benefits.
> 
> Also, the food has to have a decent shelf life. The last thing the food banks want to do is end up giving someone moldy bread or sour milk.



from the article in the OP:


> Under the scheme, *people whose benefits have been delayed, or have been refused crisis loans*, will be referred to their local food bank. A claimant will be limited to three consecutive referrals – each time giving them enough food for three days.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> This is not the only food they can eat, it is to supplement their food budget.


Doesn't matter. There is a failure of logic there. The milk that could have been sold fresh has been turned into uht shite. The meat/veg that could have been sold fresh has been turned into overprocessed and no doubt addititve-stuffed shite. But no, it's overprocessed because it is cheaper to distribute it that way. Perhaps the problem is with the very concept of a 'food bank' or 'food parcels'. The food may not be rotten, but the model of distribution is. Perhaps what people need, and would like to have, is access to decent markets and the money to buy fresh food at them. Food parcels for the homeless, for those with problematic, chaotic lives, are one thing. Food parcels doled out just because the recipient is out of work are an insult.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> They have to use food banks because of the length of time it now takes to get benefits.
> All detailed here:-
> http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-projects




Your banks seem similar to ours.  As for the waiting time - it's six weeks if you are quit and four weeks if you are terminated.  You are "supposed" to have saved enough money to help you hang on until benefits start - no loans.

Sadly, even with benefits, most local families still rely on the food bank.  If they don't have to spend $1 on pasta, etc., they can spend it on something else - like rent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Blackberries are in season, as are scrumped apples - with the sugar you could make your own.


They are. It depends where you live and what cooking skills you have though. We don't live the peasant's existence, so we don't learn the peasant's skills. My mum makes jam. I wouldn't know how to. I know it involves boiling stuff, but beyond that I know little.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't matter. There is a failure of logic there. The milk that could have been sold fresh has been turned into uht shite. The meat/veg that could have been sold fresh has been turned into overprocessed and no doubt addititve-stuffed shite. But no, it's overprocessed because it is cheaper to distribute it that way. Perhaps the problem is with the very concept of a 'food bank' or 'food parcels'. The food may not be rotten, but the model of distribution is. Perhaps what people need, and would like to have, is access to decent markets and the money to buy fresh food at them. Food parcels for the homeless, for those with problematic, chaotic lives, are one thing. Food parcels doled out just because the recipient is out of work are an insult.



Then I missed the point.  I thought these banks were for the poor, not  the homeless.   Here, the homeless aren't given food packages - where are they gonna put them????   Here, they are feed at "soup kitchens".

Erm - do the homeless get given a tin opener???


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They are. It depends where you live and what cooking skills you have though. We don't live the peasant's existence, so we don't learn the peasant's skills. My mum makes jam. I wouldn't know how to. I know it involves boiling stuff, but beyond that I know little.


Easy to find out, library is free or the whole of Mrs Beeton is online for free..

If I were going to be skint I'd rather be given the stuff to make a sponge pudding with than one in a tin.

 


spring-peeper said:


> Then I missed the point. I thought these banks were for the poor, not the homeless. Here, the homeless aren't given food packages - where are they gonna put them???? Here, they are feed at "soup kitchens".
> 
> Erm - do the homeless get given a tin opener???


They are here too, food parcels are more for the poor who have access to cooking facilities.


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They are. It depends where you live and what cooking skills you have though. We don't live the peasant's existence, so we don't learn the peasant's skills. My mum makes jam. I wouldn't know how to. I know it involves boiling stuff, but beyond that I know little.



I make my own jam, and I'm not a peasant 

How does a homeless person make jam if they don't have a stove inside their cardboard box?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> Then I missed the point. I thought these banks were for the poor, not the homeless. Here, the homeless aren't given food packages - where are they gonna put them???? Here, they are feed at "soup kitchens".
> 
> Erm - do the homeless get given a tin opener???



No. You've missed my point. It is more forgivable to give overprocessed shite to the homeless because they are less likely to have the means to plan their meals well. Here, you have people who are poor being given shit food just because they are poor. That is simply wrong.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> If I were going to be skint I'd rather be given the stuff to make a sponge pudding with than one in a tin.


Yes. Even better, how about giving people the choice by handing out a means of exchange. Something they could hand over to shops, perhaps? Money?


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. You've missed my point. It is more forgivable to give overprocessed shite to the homeless because they are less likely to have the means to plan their meals well. Here, you have people who are poor being given shit food just because they are poor. That is simply wrong.




So is setting up the food bank as a profitable business.

I'm being to think that their is big money to be made if you are helping the poor.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> So is setting up the food bank as a profitable business.
> 
> I'm being to think that their is big money to be made if you are helping the poor.



nooooo, you don't say.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> So is setting up the food bank as a profitable business.
> 
> I'm being to think that their is big money to be made if you are helping the poor.



No. Creating a model of food distribution that relies on food with a long shelf life that's been packed full of additives is a flawed model. There are better ways to distribute food, ways that leave the nutrients in it.


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 18, 2011)

weepiper said:


> Not exactly healthy.



We got one at work the other week for a kid and it had a big punnet of blueberries, bag of spinach and a bag of lettuce among other things, pasta and sauce, tinned soup and bread rolls are all I can remember


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Sep 18, 2011)

In the 80s, butter from the EU 'butter mountain' & tinned minced beef from the EU 'beef mountain' was handed out to the unemployed. You just went to the local council offices, showed your dole card & they gave you as much as you could carry away. There was stacks of it. Folk were feeding the minced beef to their dogs.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2011)

Chip Barm said:


> We got one at work the other week for a kid and it had a big punnet of blueberries, bag of spinach and a bag of lettuce among other things, pasta and sauce, tinned soup and bread rolls are all I can remember



That sounds much better. I hate the implication in that list up there that poor people would just be eating processed shite anyway so why bother trying to give them anything decent.


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 18, 2011)

weepiper said:


> That sounds much better. I hate the implication in that list up there that poor people would just be eating processed shite anyway so why bother trying to give them anything decent.



Ideally we'd like to see people eating healthily, but the kid wanted some processed shite


----------



## josef1878 (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is the PCS going to refuse to hand out the vouchers for these parcels?



As well you know the PCS is a trade union. Given the choice of seeing somebody go hungry or directing them to somewhere they could get some food, what would you do? Governments come up with this shit not PCS members


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

josef1878 said:


> As well you know the PCS is a trade union. Given the choice of seeing somebody go hungry or directing them to somewhere they could get some food, what would you do? Governments come up with this shit not PCS members


I wasn't having a go at PCS members. I was asking if the union had any plans to oppose the charitisation of welfare, given that they were in part at least, behind the previous ban on Job centre advisors being able to direct people to these places and so are pretty obviously aware of the shortcomings of the scheme. I was asking if they intend to you know..._fight the proposals._


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> So is setting up the food bank as a profitable business.
> .



Actually not, totally dependent on people giving either money or food as requested in the reference I gave. Demand is outstripping supply, it is going to be a very hard winter for an ever increasing number of people.


----------



## josef1878 (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> _http://www.trusselltrust.org/foodbank-projects_
> _http://www.trusselltrust.org/resources/documents/foodbank/ShoppingList.pdf_
> _Milk (UHT or powdered) _
> Sugar (500g)
> ...



What kind of cunt would dish out a tinned sponge pudding with no tinned custard?


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

josef1878 said:


> What kind of cunt would dish out a tinned sponge pudding with no tinned custard?



The custard is with the steamed pudding these days.


----------



## josef1878 (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I wasn't having a go at PCS members. I was asking if the union had any plans to oppose the charitisation of welfare, given that they were in part at least, behind the previous ban on Job centre advisors being able to direct people to these places and so are pretty obviously aware of the shortcomings of the scheme. I was asking if they intend to you know..._fight the proposals._



I think you know the position PCS have taken re welfare reform. People with no money have for years been given details about where they can get a meal, bath, clean clothes etc. Some of us give a shit you know. No matter what the leadership would like us to boycott.


----------



## josef1878 (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> The custard is with the steamed pudding these days.



In the same tin? Surely that would be too soggy.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

josef1878 said:


> I think you know the position PCS have taken re welfare reform. People with no money have for years been given details about where they can get a meal, bath, clean clothes etc. Some of us give a shit you know. No matter what the leadership would like us to boycott.


Show me where i've had a go at a PCS member or suggested that you don't give a shit. I asked a straightforward factual practical question if the PCS intended to boycott these plans to extend the charitarisation of welfare provision. Now either you know, in which case you can tell me, or you don't in which case i'm not interested in your fantasy about PCS members being attacked.


----------



## josef1878 (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Show me where i've had a go at a PCS member or suggested that you don't give a shit. I asked a straightforward factual practical question if the PCS intended to boycott these plans to extend the charitarisation of welfare provision. Now either you know, in which case you can tell me, or you don't in which case i'm not interested in your fantasy about PCS members being attacked.



Nice to see you on the back foot again. Apology accepted. Let me make it clear. Those of us who give a shit will continue to point people in the direction of the help they need, when they need it. We have better local knowledge. Again, we don't give a fuck about so called national boycotts. I won't see people go hungry.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

I'll take that as a no, you don't know what your national union intends to do and would be much happier reducing the question down to how morally good an individual you are. Any other PCS members who do actually knows that the national union intends to do - if anything?


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

josef1878 said:


> Those of us who give a shit will continue to point people in the direction of the help they need,.



Precisely. I find some of the responses to this thread sickening to be honest. By next April there could be 1/2  a million people not only needing food parcels but facing homelessness, and people here are being critical of what is in the food parcels.
It is enough to make me weep. I knew the country was going to the far right politically, I just had not realised how far.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Precisely. I find some of the responses to this thread sickening to be honest. By next April there could be 1/2 a million people not only needing food parcels but facing homelessness, and people here are being critical of what is in the food parcels.
> It is enough to make me weep. I knew the country was going to the far right politically, I just had not realised how far.



I believe you and the point other people are making may have parted company a while ago.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Precisely. I find some of the responses to this thread sickening to be honest. By next April there could be 1/2 a million people not only needing food parcels but facing homelessness, and people here are being critical of what is in the food parcels.
> It is enough to make me weep. I knew the country was going to the far right politically, I just had not realised how far.



I am being critical of what's in the food parcels as someone who has previously been reliant on Milk Tokens to feed my children. It's possible to be horrified at both the contents and the very fact that this is being presented as acceptable at all.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Precisely. I find some of the responses to this thread sickening to be honest. By next April there could be 1/2 a million people not only needing food parcels but facing homelessness, and people here are being critical of what is in the food parcels.
> It is enough to make me weep. I knew the country was going to the far right politically, I just had not realised how far.



ER, you're talking about something else entirely. Anyway, on the actual point, there are far many other ways for people in need to be provided with the vouchers than through the job centre (the Trussell Trust already recognise things such as CABs, and people such as social workers, health visitors, Doctors and so on as official voucher 'givers'), they can get the same help without undermining the principle of adequate collective welfare provision


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 18, 2011)

Why is it "far right" to argue that people shouldn't be expected to live on shite?


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

weepiper said:


> I am being critical of what's in the food parcels .



The food parcels are designed for the circumstances the people who need them are in.
What do you expect Jamie fucking Oliver running soup kitchens?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> The food parcels are designed for the circumstances the people who need them are in.
> What do you expect Jamie fucking Oliver running soup kitchens?


They're often what supermarkets and fast food chains chuck out - in the US at least - and will be here if these plans are allowed to be extended and normalised. Designed my arse.

I'm reminded of the story of the posh lady giving a talk to the unemployed on how to make soup from chicken bones in the great depression. She didn't have much of an answer when someone shouted _Who ate the chicken?_

You've missed the bloody point anyway.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> The food parcels are designed for the circumstances the people who need them are in.
> What do you expect Jamie fucking Oliver running soup kitchens?



I see you are an arse and not worth engaging with any further.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

best place for the fat tounged wanker


----------



## josef1878 (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'll take that as a no, you don't know what your national union intends to do and would be much happier reducing the question down to how morally good an individual you are. Any other PCS members who do actually knows that the national union intends to do - if anything?



I'll say it again. I don't give a fuck what the national union decides regarding the food token issue. I, sorry, we in the real world will continue to do what we have for fuck knows how many years. You keep attending the campaign meetings fella, i'll keep on doing what i do.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> The food parcels are designed for the circumstances the people who need them are in.
> What do you expect Jamie fucking Oliver running soup kitchens?


 
How do you know what circumstances these people are in? How do you know they're incapable of preparing fresh food for themselves? We're not talking about soup kitchens here - most of the recipients won't be homeless.

Some fairly offensive assumptions going on here.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> The food parcels are designed for the circumstances the people who need them are in.
> What do you expect Jamie fucking Oliver running soup kitchens?



You're not good on awareness are you? You've missed the point on quite a few threads.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Why is it "far right" to argue that people shouldn't be expected to live on shite?



It is far right because it appears some people here have not got any idea just how dire the situation has got since the charities dealing with the homeless and those in need of food has got since the charities has a big wedge of their funding cut at the end of March.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> The food parcels are designed for the circumstances the people who need them are in.



No they're not. They're designed for the circumstances of the people who are doling out the food. 'Food banks' are a terrible idea. They remove the consumer from the producer of the food about as far as it's possible to be removed. Only so much milk comes out of a cow's tit. If some of it is being made into UHT, that means less will be available fresh. Food production and distribution are very very fucked up in this country, leading to far too much produce being turned into processed end products. And these food banks, if that list is typical, are a prime example of the worst offenders in that process.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> How do you know what circumstances these people are in? How do you know they're incapable of preparing fresh food for themselves? We're not talking about soup kitchens here - most of the recipients won't be homeless.



READ THE LINK TO THE TRUSSEL TRUST I POSTED. (I really don't know why I bother.)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

josef1878 said:


> I'll say it again. I don't give a fuck what the national union decides regarding the food token issue. I, sorry, we in the real world will continue to do what we have for fuck knows how many years. You keep attending the campaign meetings fella, i'll keep on doing what i do.


Can you point to me showing the slightest interest in what you think of what the union decides? NO? So why do you insist on telling me over and over whilst blowing your own trumpet - three times now?


----------



## Part 2 (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> The food parcels are designed for the circumstances the people who need them are in.
> What do you expect Jamie fucking Oliver running soup kitchens?



They aren't always tailor made to individual circumstances, in fact they rarely are.

My experience of food parcels has been that they can have some decent and healthy stuff in but they're not going to suit all diets or fit with the cooking facilities of everyone so they can't be relied on as a replacement for cash. I've often seen cereals with no milk for example.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> It is far right because it appears some people here have not got any idea just how dire the situation has got since the charities dealing with the homeless and those in need of food has got since the charities has a big wedge of their funding cut at the end of March.



It's not far right you utter fucking clown. It's the fact that the government isn't providing for people and that this is necessary that's being criticised. Someone on the far right would say they don't deserve anything at all. People here are suggesting they deserve *better.*

You haven't got a clue really, have you?


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> . And these food banks, if that list is typical, are a prime example of the worst offenders in that process.



So you would just let the people who need the food die in the streets because you don't like the menu?
The scandal is that food  banks are needed at all, not what is supplied in the parcels.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> READ THE LINK TO THE TRUSSEL TRUST I POSTED. (I really don't know why I bother.)



1) Don't shout at me you arrogant cunt.

2) That doesn't answer my question.

Try again, soft lad.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> So you would just let the people who need the food die in the streets because you don't like the menu?
> The scandal is that food banks are needed at all, not what is supplied in the parcels.


Tory nonsense.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> 1) Don't shout at me you arrogant cunt.
> 
> 2) That doesn't answer my question.
> 
> Try again, soft lad.


 
If you bothered to read the link it would answer your question.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Tory nonsense.



How do you work that out? I hate tories with a passion.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> So you would just let the people who need the food die in the streets because you don't like the menu?
> The scandal is that food banks are needed at all, not what is supplied in the parcels.



Do you actually read people's posts at all? No, I would like to see everyone on benefits given enough fucking money to buy decent food for themselves - or processed rubbish, if that's their preference. But the production of this kind of shit food for consumption by the poor - and giving them no option to choose unprocessed food if they would prefer that - is simply one more aspect of a fucked up food production process.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> How do you work that out? I hate tories with a passion.


You total clown.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> So you would just let the people who need the food die in the streets because you don't like the menu?
> The scandal is that food banks are needed at all, not what is supplied in the parcels.



You're a clueless twat and you're not worth engaging with. Who said anything about refusing people food? Who said anything about it _not_ being scandalous that food banks are needed? It's possible to agree with both these things and still think that the contents of these parcels are inadequate. What's really scandalous is the fact that you find this difficult to grasp.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 18, 2011)

give me occados vouchers or give me death


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> If you bothered to read the link it would answer your question.



It doesn't. You clearly didn't understand the question.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would like to see everyone on benefits
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## josef1878 (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Can you point to me showing the slightest interest in what you think of what the union decides? NO? So why do you insist on telling me over and over whilst blowing your own trumpet - three times now?



Maybe at the fourth attempt it will sink in. I don't give a fuck what the national union decides. A boycott is futile. It will be ignored by the people who give a shit. Do you get that bit?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

A person whose claim is being processed is a person on benefits as far as I'm concerned. That the incompetent/callous system has not yet given them money is the scandal. If people are destitute, give them some fucking money.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 18, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> You're a clueless twat and you're not worth engaging with. Who said anything about refusing people food? Who said anything about it _not_ being scandalous that food banks are needed? It's possible to agree with both these things and still think that the contents of these parcels are inadequate. What's really scandalous is the fact that you fond this difficult to graso.



If you don't liker what is in the food parcels do something about it.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 18, 2011)

So what? What's your point? How does that refute, or answer, anything that's been put to you here?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> If you don't liker what is in the food parcels do something about it.


Who the fuck are you to pass comment on what others on here already do or don't do. Fuck off.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> If you don't liker what is in the food parcels do something about it.



What makes you think I'm not already doing something about it?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

josef1878 said:


> Maybe at the fourth attempt it will sink in. I don't give a fuck what the national union decides. A boycott is futile. It will be ignored by the people who give a shit. Do you get that bit?


Oh i got it from the first. It just had nothing to do with what i asked. It still didn't on the second, third or fourth times you repeated it. Maybe out there _in the real world_ things are a bit different eh _feller_?


----------



## josef1878 (Sep 18, 2011)

Yes they are.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2011)

In passing, front page of the FT tmw:

£12bn hole threatens plans to cut deficit: Public Finances 25% worse than thought. Prospect of Prolonged Austerity measures.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Sep 18, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> The food parcels are designed for the circumstances the people who need them are in.
> What do you expect Jamie fucking Oliver running soup kitchens?


If food parcels become the norm its quite probable Jamie Oliver will make telly programmes about improving them in the way he did with school dinners. & the hairy bikers will get in on the act as well no doubt, filming in a council flat showing how to make food like mother used to make using only the contents of a food parcel.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> In passing, front page of the FT tmw:
> 
> £12bn hole threatens plans to cut deficit: Public Finances 25% worse than thought. Prospect of Prolonged Austerity measures.



Entirely predictable, and predicted. Here we go, as Idris linked to on another thread about New Zealand, a decade of austerity ended up doubling their national debt. I know this is very naive of me, but really the FT should know better than to be supporting this.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 19, 2011)

spring-peeper said:


> It spurred me on to find a job.
> 
> I either found a minimum wage job or we had no money for groceries. As I said earlier, three resumes and two job offers in a 7.+ unemployment rate. I don't want to work baking donuts for eight hours a day, but with more government help coming, there was no option.


So so glad for you obviously you needed a kick up the arse. When I was that poor, we didn't have a phone, no money to use a call box, no money for stamps to apply for jobs etc.
And there actually was a job there in the first place that you could even apply for, even if you didn't like it.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Is the PCS going to refuse to hand out the vouchers for these parcels?



That's a very pertinent question and an important political one at that. It's time that the unions widened the political struggle. Afterall, a number of their members are next in line for food parcels.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 19, 2011)

SaskiaJayne said:


> In the 80s, butter from the EU 'butter mountain' & tinned minced beef from the EU 'beef mountain' was handed out to the unemployed. You just went to the local council offices, showed your dole card & they gave you as much as you could carry away. There was stacks of it. Folk were feeding the minced beef to their dogs.



Not in my experience. There was a limit on what an individual claimant was allowed and the supplies were distributed from a local community hall by volunteers, rather than a council office. It was also a one-off, ad-hoc arrangement. I remember it being near a Xmas period (oh look, we're approaching one now aren't we), you took what you were allocated and that was it. Then the government could present themselves as acting in the interests of the poor, so to deflect their Scrooge image at the time. They also used the process in a cynical manner, as a way to attack the EU. Two birds with one stone. Absolutely, well I can't really express the way I feel looking back on those grim times and its about to get a lot grimmer I can assure you. "Please sir, may I have some more?"







How far we've come eh?


----------



## treelover (Sep 19, 2011)

'From next April 400000 disabled people will need food parcels due to all out of work benefits being taken away from them:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1015/1015vw48.htm
_The Government estimates roughly 400,000 disabled people will lose all out of work benefits as a result'_

_is this correct, alarmist?_


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Sep 19, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Not in my experience. There was a limit on what an individual claimant was allowed and the supplies were distributed from a local community hall by volunteers, rather than a council office.


Yes, I guess it varied from area to area & North Essex has relatively less unemployment but I recall they could'nt get rid of the stuff in our area. It was at the local council offices &(iirc)it was handed out by volunteers, probably the Wrvs. I remember boxes of tinned beef & butter stacked up & they were just trying to get rid of them.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 19, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'From next April 400000 disabled people will need food parcels due to all out of work benefits being taken away from them:-
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1015/1015vw48.htm
> _The Government estimates roughly 400,000 disabled people will lose all out of work benefits as a result'_
> 
> _is this correct, alarmist?_



The quote is from Hansard and  it is an admission by government. (It is why I used Hansard as a reference.)


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 19, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> So so glad for you obviously you needed a kick up the arse. When I was that poor, we didn't have a phone, no money to use a call box, no money for stamps to apply for jobs etc.
> And there actually was a job there in the first place that you could even apply for, even if you didn't like it.




Actually, the problem was transportation.  We live in the middle of nowhere, so no public transportation.  I had to wait for my husband to go on holidays before I could look for a job.  

When you were that poor, how many children did you have at home?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> The quote is from Hansard and it is an admission by government. (It is why I used Hansard as a reference.)


 That's a link to _a submission_ to a Commons Select Committees on Work and Pensions. It's not by the govt at all. Nor is it in Hansard. And that quote is not even in that link either. What it says is that the disability alliance (the people making the submission) reckon that the govt have estimated this figure for 400 000 (they don't support it), and they don't mention these estimated 400 000 needing food parcels. They don't mention food parcels at all.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 19, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Not in my experience. There was a limit on what an individual claimant was allowed and the supplies were distributed from a local community hall by volunteers, rather than a council office. It was also a one-off, ad-hoc arrangement. I remember it being near a Xmas period (oh look, we're approaching one now aren't we), you took what you were allocated and that was it.



must have been organised differently locally, i remember just turning up and taking what i wanted, everyone had fridges full of butter, crap cheese and eggs - i remember the packaging was all eec colours and almost certainly influenced the design of supermarket basic ranges


----------



## smokedout (Sep 19, 2011)

weepiper said:


> Not exactly healthy.



or vegetarian, vegan, halal, kosher etc


----------



## weepiper (Sep 19, 2011)

beggars can't be choosers, can we.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Sep 19, 2011)

smokedout said:


> or vegetarian, vegan, halal, kosher etc


If I got a food parcel containing all my veggie stew ingredients, parsnips, corgettes, leeks, tinned chick peas, herbs etc. I would be happy enough but I suspect many wouldn't. I guess food parcels for veggies would contain cheese & onion pies & other salt/fat laden crap.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Sep 19, 2011)

smokedout said:


> must have been organised differently locally, i remember just turning up and taking what i wanted, everyone had fridges full of butter, crap cheese and eggs - i remember the packaging was all eec colours and almost certainly influenced the design of supermarket basic ranges


Yes, exactly my experience. I suppose the stuff was distributed equally over country & places of lower unemployment had too much. My memory is of the volunteers(whoever they were)being overwhelmed by the amount of stuff they had & anyone who showed their dole card were pressed to take as much as they could carry. The dogs around my way were certainly well fed. Never hear anything about food mountains & wine lakes nowadays. They never did hand out free wine tho.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 19, 2011)

i believe the wine lake is currently being distributed via london off licences at a cost of a fiver for two bottles


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And that quote is not even in that link either.



Yes it is, it is a direct copy and paste. That around 400000 disabled people are going to lose ALL out of work benefit  from April 2012 is government policy. So that will be around 400000 disabled people facing homelessness and starvation.
(With the government not giving a monkey's fuck.)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Yes it is, it is a direct copy and paste. That around 400000 disabled people are going to lose ALL out of work benefit from April 2012 is government policy. So that will be around 400000 disabled people facing homelessness and starvation.
> (With the government not giving a monkey's fuck.)


Why have you edited everything else out? And no it isn't there.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 19, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Even in the 90s recession in the UK there was normally 'some type of job', it's not like that this time around.



Maybe this has something to do with it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ele...r-Labour-nearly-UK-jobs-taken-foreigners.html

' The ONS figures show the total number of people in work in both the private and the public sector has risen from around 25.7million in 1997 to 27.4million at the end of last year, an increase of 1.67million.
But the number of workers born abroad has increased dramatically by 1.64million, from 1.9million to 3.5million.'.
The failure by the last government to protect employment for British people, a policy which was carried out by many other EU nations to protect their nationals, has a lot to do with the present problems.​


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2011)

Do you really want to get this shown up again?


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 19, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> Maybe this has something to do with it.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ele...r-Labour-nearly-UK-jobs-taken-foreigners.html
> 
> ...


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why have you edited everything else out? And no it isn't there.



Yes it is, scroll down the page it is the governments own estimate.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Yes it is, scroll down the page it is the governments own estimate.


I have, it's not. You are wrong on everything.

edit: why did you ignore everything else in my post?


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I have, it's not. You are wrong on everything.
> ?



It is a GOVERNMENT estimate:-
From the Hansard reference:-
_TIME-LIMITING ESA SUPPORT AND OVERALL TIMEFRAME CONCERNS _
_Current Government plans include time-limiting ESA payments to just one year for disabled people in the Work-Related Activity Group who have previously made National Insurance contributions. This not only penalises people who have worked and contributed, but will directly cause an increase in disability poverty. _
_The aim of the Universal Credit is to tackle poverty but this policy directly contradicts that objective. The means-testing which will prevent some disabled people losing all support will result in a disabled person with a partner earning £135 per week after tax (ie under the National Minimum Wage for a full-time position) not receiving alternative support (from income-based ESA). This also puts huge pressure on partners of people losing support and could result in family breakdown, carers leaving work and further costs to government at both local and national level. _
_The Government estimates roughly 400,000 disabled people will lose all out of work benefits as a result_

Then there is this impact assessment by the DWP:-
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa-time-limit-wr2011-ia-revised-apr2011.pdf


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2011)

Now tie that to them saying that they estimate they all need food parcels and you'll be there. You're so close.

edit: the same link to what isn't hansard

Come on. Stop this.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 20, 2011)

stuff_it said:


>



Are you sufficiently literate to generate a reply which uses words? If so, please do so. The figures from the ONS are self evident, as is the ineptitude of the last government in failing to do what many other governments within the EU did, restrict the numbers of people from the newly joined EU members in working their countries for a period. This course was open to the government, for whatever reason, they declined to do so. Rising unemployment rates amongst UK nationals is the result.


smokedout said:


> i believe the wine lake is currently being distributed via london off licences at a cost of a fiver for two bottles



It is being distilled and added to petrol to make up the legally required amount of ethanol in petrol. It is also much smaller, as the incentives for people to produce undrinkable wine have been reduced.

Incidentally, the ethanol in petrol requirement is an absolute disgrace, land that should be producing food is producing ethanol to meet this insane EU requirement.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 20, 2011)

audiotech said:


> That's a very pertinent question and an important political one at that. It's time that the unions widened the political struggle. Afterall, a number of their members are next in line for food parcels.



Civil Servants cannot do this. It would be regarded as a political act, and treated as gross misconduct.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> Civil Servants cannot do this. It would be regarded as a political act, and treated as gross misconduct.


Yes they can. You're a rep ffs. Your own union had agreements to do this.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes they can. You're a rep ffs. Your own union had agreements to do this.



No. We can not.

For a start, it would be classed as refusing to comply with a reasonable request, secondly, it would breach the Civil Service code regarding political activity by Civil Servants. Members of PCS, or any other union, who refused to carry out the activities of their position would go through the disciplinary process and be dismissed. Much as it would go against the grain to hand out food stamps or similar, any Civil; Servant who wanted to keep their job would be obliged to do so.

Don't fall for Serwotka's bullshit, PCS does not have anything like the support for industrial action that he says it has. On the last strike day a hell of a lot of the younger members did not strike. Also remember that the ballot return was woefully low, those actively voting for strike action were a small minority of the membership.

I would not be confident of PCS membership actively supporting sustained industrial action, especially the youngsters who are by and large apolitical. Because of the ability to retire from fifty onwards, the Civil Service is much younger than it used to be. The youngsters don't remember the struggles of the labour movement in the past, nor are they much interested.

On asking a team member why he didn't support the last strike, he replied that he didn't want to lose a days pay, and the pension issue was of no interest to him, because he didn't intend to make a career in the Civil Service. People like that are really beyond persuasion.


----------



## past caring (Sep 20, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'From next April 400000 disabled people will need food parcels due to all out of work benefits being taken away from them:-
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1015/1015vw48.htm
> _The Government estimates roughly 400,000 disabled people will lose all out of work benefits as a result'_
> 
> _is this correct, alarmist?_



You certainly made it up. The Disability Alliance submission does not make that claim.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Now tie that to them saying that they estimate they all need food parcels and you'll be there. You're so close.
> 
> edit: the same link to what isn't hansard
> 
> Come on. Stop this.


 
I haven't stated they will all need food parcels. However if all out of work benefit is removed from 400000 people, (increasing to 700000 in the 2nd link) just how do you think they will get any food?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 20, 2011)

I love the way that you keep trying to paint others as not being the caring, concerned ones roctrevezel. Are you a Lib Dem?


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

stephj said:


> I love the way that you keep trying to paint others as not being the caring, concerned ones roctrevezel. Are you a Lib Dem?



I gave up politics when I realised what a dreadful mistake I made being fooled by Tony Blair. The Lib-Dems have some policies I am totally opposed to, and I would rather commit suicide than vote tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> I haven't stated they will all need food parcels. However if all out of work benefit is removed from 400000 people, (increasing to 700000 in the 2nd link) just how do you think they will get any food?


Yes you have.Why lie?  Whatis wrong with you?


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 20, 2011)

smokedout said:


> i believe the wine lake is currently being distributed via london off licences at a cost of a fiver for two bottles


 
Stanley Edwards is seeking immediate repatriation


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes you have.Why lie? Whatis wrong with you?



No I have not stated that, you assumed I did.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> No I have not stated that, you assumed I did.





roctrevezel said:


> From next April 400000 disabled people will need food parcels due to all out of work benefits being taken away from them:-
> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmworpen/1015/1015vw48.htm
> _The Government estimates roughly 400,000 disabled people will lose all out of work benefits as a result_


----------



## past caring (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> I haven't stated they will all need food parcels. However if all out of work benefit is removed from 400000 people, (increasing to 700000 in the 2nd link) just how do you think they will get any food?



You (and treelover) clearly have no grasp of what is being talked about;

There are two forms of ESA - contribution-based and income based. These are more or less equivalent to the old Incapacity Benefit and Income Support when claimed on the basis of incapacity.

With contribution-based ESA and Incapacity Benefit, there were only two conditions of entitlement - have you paid sufficient NI contributions from when you were working? Are you unfi for work? If the answer to both of those questions is "yes", you were entitled to ESA or its forerunner, IB, so long as you remained unfit for work, regardless of any other income you might have coming in - for example ffrom your live-in partner's earnings. The con-dems are proposing to time-limit contribution-based ESA to one year (much like contribution-based JSA is time-limited to 6 months - and has been for as long as I can remember).

What happens at the end of that 12 months will be that either;

a) you remain unfit for work and your income is below the threshold for receiving income-based ESA (the means-tested form of ESA - equivalent to IS claimed on the basis of incapacity) and so you will receive that.

b) you remain unfit for work but your other income is above the threshold for receiving income-based ESA, so you will have to live on that.

Much as I disagree with the changes, it's no use trying to pretend they are something they are not (i.e.that they will leave some people with, simultaneously, no income and no entitlement to benefit) or that they will have effects that even specialists in the field are not claiming (400,00 people will be reliant on food parcels).


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

past caring said:


> There are two forms of ESA - contribution-based and income based.
> .



Nice try but you have not got it right either. ESA is two benefits, the Support Group, (you have to be nearly dead to get that) and, the Work Related Activity Group, will take some time to die but we will make the bastards work anyway.


----------



## past caring (Sep 20, 2011)

No. You're wrong. Again.

It is a single benefit which, after assessment of the claimant's capability for work, is paid at at two different rates, depending on the outcome of the assessment.


----------



## past caring (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Nice try but you have not got it right either.



And a little bit of humility wouldn't go amiss, either, you clown.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

past caring said:


> No. You're wrong. Again.
> 
> It is a single benefit which, after assessment of the claimant's capability for work, is paid at at two different rates, depending on the outcome of the assessment.



Which is effectively two benefits, one permanent and one going to only last a year. (I know in the latter case is divided again but the fact remains after a year on it a lot of people are going to lose a fucking big wedge of their income which can only lead to some people dying.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> No I have not stated that, you assumed I did.


No, you did. Shameless.
Edit: just seen above, you never learn do you?


----------



## past caring (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Which is effectively two benefits, one permanent and one going to only last a year. (I know in the latter case is divided again but the fact remains after a year on it a lot of people are going to lose a fucking big wedge of their income which can only lead to some people dying.



It's not effectively two benefits, you chump - it's one benefit paid at different rates. Back in the day before Tax Credits, claimants got additional amounts of money in their JSA or IS if they had dependent children living with them (now it's paid in the form of Child Tax Credit) but it wasn't one benefit if you had no kids, another if you had one and another yet again if you had two and so on. It was one fucking benefit paid at different fucking rates. Just like ESA.

It seems to me then, that what you're really saying is that the rate of the means-tested form of the benefit (those who lose contribution-based ESA will qualify for this if their income is not too high, remember) is too low - that it is, in fact, not enough to live on. Given that very many people can only ever qualify for means-tested ESA in the first place (because they've become too ill to work before having paid enough NI contributions to qualify for contribution-based) it would seem that you've got your priorities wrong and should be kicking up about this more.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 20, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> Civil Servants cannot do this. It would be regarded as a political act, and treated as gross misconduct.



Good grief, this daft twat is back.


----------



## audiotech (Sep 20, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> Maybe this has something to do with it.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ele...r-Labour-nearly-UK-jobs-taken-foreigners.html
> 
> ...



Maybe this has something to do with it?
2.5 million unemployed.
1.0 on incapacity benefit, with many being forced into employment
*Less than 500,000 vacancies.*

My emphasis.

Source: Owen Jones, "Chavs".

The logic of your argument is similar to the National Front of the 70's. You still a union rep?


----------



## treelover (Sep 20, 2011)

fuck sake the abuse of posters on here is pathetic, Roc makes some interesting points, right or wrong and he is insulted

@PC, all I posted is the report, I don't know what is happening with ESA.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

past caring said:


> It's not effectively two benefits, you chump - it's one benefit paid at different rates..



It is two benefits, one for those who will never be able to work, and one for those who may/might be able to work at some later stage.
I am not going to continue arguing the point, and there is no cause to hand out insults, because you very obviously are not very well informed on the subject of ESA.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

past caring said:


> it would seem that you've got your priorities wrong and should be kicking up about this more.



My priority is to get Unum Provident and ATOS booted out of ANY connection with, or influence on the benefits system, and  a proper work capability assessment used "in house" and not contracted out to a private company. The current system is a sham designed to put hundreds of thousands of disabled and long term sick people into abject poverty, it is also killing people.


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> It is two benefits, one for those who will never be able to work...



That assumes that claimants in the support group will never be considered fit enough to be forced into the work related activity group.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

Jackobi said:


> That assumes that claimants in the support group will never be considered fit enough to be forced into the work related activity group.



Given about the only people getting in to the support group currently are the terminally ill, that is not too likely. (Only 7% would be laughable if it were not such a fucking scandal.)


----------



## past caring (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> It is two benefits, one for those who will never be able to work, and one for those who may/might be able to work at some later stage.
> I am not going to continue arguing the point, and there is no cause to hand out insults, because you very obviously are not very well informed on the subject of ESA.



Point me to the two different claims packs, point me to the two different sets of legislation. Anything, in fact, to give substance to this fucking nonsense.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> It is two benefits, one for those who will never be able to work, and one for those who may/might be able to work at some later stage.
> I am not going to continue arguing the point, and there is no cause to hand out insults, because you very obviously are not very well informed on the subject of ESA.



It is one benefit that may also include certain premiums with a number of conditions of entitlement. Btw I work in DWP, JobCentre Plus to be precise, and whilst I deal with IS new claims i'm well aware what ESA is, apart from a disaster that is.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Btw I work in DWP, JobCentre Plus to be precise, quote]
> 
> So judging by my experience of JCP staff not very knowlegeable about benefits.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> So judging by my experience of JCP staff not very knowlegeable about benefits.



I do ok, I also know you're wrong, so I am knowledgeable enough.


----------



## past caring (Sep 20, 2011)

This is the same curtain-twitching - dob-'em-in-to-government-agencies-if-I-think-they're-up-to-no-good-they'll-almost-certainly-be-fiddling-their-benefits cunt, isn't it?


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> I do ok, I also know you're wrong, so I am knowledgeable enough.



You don't seem very knowledgeable to me. (Mind you neither do Chris Graying and Iain Duncan Smith, or they would have kicked Unum Provident and ATOS out.)


----------



## spring-peeper (Sep 20, 2011)

How did you post without making a comment???

My goodness rottweiler, I quoted you and nothing showed up!!!


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 20, 2011)

Why would Grayling and Duncan Smith kick out ATOS? ATOS represent precisely the type of private company that the neo-liberalist tossers want involved.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

stephj said:


> Why would Grayling and Duncan Smith kick out ATOS? ATOS represent precisely the type of institution that the neo-liberalist tossers want involved.



Because so many ATOS decisions are being overturned at tribunals it is costing the government a fortune, they might as well stop doing work capability assessments at all, and take notice of medical records and consultants who have long term knowledge of a claimants medical conditions.
(Tribunals work on that evidence anyway.)


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Given about the only people getting in to the support group currently are the terminally ill, that is not too likely. (Only 7% would be laughable if it were not such a fucking scandal.)


Imagine if one of them lived near you


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 20, 2011)

You didn't answer my question though, roctrevezel. What motivates the government to continue using companies like ATOS, despite their appalling record?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2011)

treelover said:


> fuck sake the abuse of posters on here is pathetic, Roc makes some interesting points, right or wrong and he is insulted



He called people "far right". I take offence at that so he's only getting what he deserves.

By the way, have you worked out what "the left" is yet?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 20, 2011)

Calls people "far right" and then writes the sort of shit he does about travellers (on the Dale Farm thread).


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> It is two benefits, one for those who will never be able to work, and one for those who may/might be able to work at some later stage.
> I am not going to continue arguing the point, and there is no cause to hand out insults, because you very obviously are not very well informed on the subject of ESA.



That's simply not the case. It's one benefit paid at two different rates. This is how the DWP themselves defined it in the training they gave me when I was volunteering for an independent benefits advice centre.

(Not that it really matters, what bothers me is the fact that vulnerable people will be even more short of cash. Whether they're all on the same benefit or not isn't really the issue)


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Given about the only people getting in to the support group currently are the terminally ill, that is not too likely. (Only 7% would be laughable if it were not such a fucking scandal.)



Not true. When properly coached by advisors who know what the ATOS points system looks for you don't have to be terminally ill to be put in the support group. In most cases you're right but not all.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Imagine if one of them lived near you



Quite a few live near me, I have helped some of them with tribunals.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> You don't seem very knowledgeable to me.



And this is based on what exactly?


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> And this is based on what exactly?



Stating ESA is not two benefits when it very plainly is, evidenced by this proposal to raise the differential between the two benefits to £77:-
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/ucpbn-1-additions.pdf
The Government does not believe it would be right for resources released from this reform to return to the Exchequer. The last Government, constrained by complexity of the existing arrangements, could only set a very small difference between the two Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) components – some £5. The Government believes that this difference is far too small and means that people who need the most support would get a raw deal from these reforms if that was maintained.

c) So as part of these changes, as resources become available the Government intends to raise the weekly rate of the support component equivalent from £32.35 today

_1 in stages to around £77. This will help to focus resources more effectively on severely disabled people. _
1 _All benefit rates are in 2011/12 prices _


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 20, 2011)

1 benefit two components.



> *Entitlement conditions*
> 
> There are two types of Employment and Support Allowance:
> 
> ...


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> 1 benefit two components.



It is two benefits. (I am well aware of the contributory, non contributory elements which is the same as many other benefits.)


----------



## weepiper (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> It is two benefits. (I am well aware of the contributory, non contributory elements which is the same as many other benefits.)



In what way is 'two types of Employment and Support Allowance' two separate benefits? Two types of dog are not different species.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 20, 2011)

Rectrovezel - you're wrong. Stop digging, you'll only make yourself look even more stupid. It's not even an important point ffs.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 20, 2011)

It's one benefit with two components, e.g.

http://www.rnib.org.uk/livingwithsightloss/yourmoney/benefits/Pages/esa.aspx#H2Heading1


> ESA is a single benefit that you can break down into sets of twos. ESA has:
> 
> two *elements*: *contributory* ESA for people who have paid sufficient National Insurance contributions and *income-related* ESA for those who are on a low income. You may qualify for either or both elements.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> It is two benefits. (I am well aware of the contributory, non contributory elements which is the same as many other benefits.)



It is one benefit, it has different conditions of entitlement based on different components.


----------



## past caring (Sep 20, 2011)

Is it on the strength of such "evidence" that he grasses his neighbours up?.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 20, 2011)

stephj said:


> You didn't answer my question though, roctrevezel. What motivates the government to continue using companies like ATOS, despite their appalling record?



When you're ready roctrevezel...


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Rectrovezel - you're wrong. Stop digging, you'll only make yourself look even more stupid. It's not even an important point ffs.



It is a very important point, the DWP deliberately fudge the data for the two ESA benefits for propaganda purposes by leaking part of the data updates to the gutter press the day before the official release. Chris Grayling has had a public bollocking from the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee about it:-
http://www.parliament.uk/business/c...to-chris-grayling-benefit-payment-statistics/


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

stephj said:


> When you're ready roctrevezel...



In my opinion ATOS and Unum have been bribing people in the DWP and successive governments.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 20, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> In my opinion ATOS and Unum have been bribing people in the DWP and successive governments.



Just bribes then? Nothing to do with successive governments that believe in privatisation of the public sector, putting everything out to private companies doing this work because ultimately it cuts down how much they have to give out on benefits?

Which in turn gives rise to the very fuck ups we're getting now.

What would be your solution? Because taking the contract away from ATOS and giving it to another private company won't actually change anything.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

past caring said:


> Is it on the strength of such "evidence" that he grasses his neighbours up?.



I really have no idea what you are on about. I don't "grass" anyone up. The only people who can "grass" are criminals giving the police evidence about other criminals. A law abiding citizen using devious but legal tactics to sort criminals that the police can't or won't is good citizenship not "grassing."
What convoluted mind process thinks that has any thing to do with disabled and long term benefit claimants I have no idea.
Despite the gutter press and government propaganda, fraud in relation to Incapacity Benefit and Employment is so low, it is practically statistically not measurable.
The much advertised on TV "shop a benefit cheat" telephone hotline only has a success rate of 0.31%, so that is another expensive waste of tax-payers money.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 20, 2011)

stephj said:


> Ju
> 
> What would be your solution? Because taking the contract away from ATOS and giving it to another private company won't actually change anything.



I have already stated my solution, and giving the contract to another private company was not it.,


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Quite a few live near me, I have helped some of them with tribunals.


Bullshit after bullshit from you. People like you would only harm anyone anyone in trouble with your ill-informed advice. On your bike.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bullshit after bullshit from you. People like you would only harm anyone anyone in trouble with your ill-informed advice. On your bike.



Without exception anyone I have helped with a tribunal has won their case.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2011)

See what i mean?


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> See what i mean?



Well you will pick on people you know bugger all about. I have been helping people prepare for tribunals of various kinds from time to time since 1990. Including winning three for myself.


----------



## past caring (Sep 21, 2011)

Fucking tobyjug, I knew it.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Quite a few live near me, I have helped some of them with tribunals.



Boat happy were they?


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 21, 2011)

past caring said:


> Fucking tobyjug, I knew it.



Snap!


----------



## treelover (Sep 21, 2011)

it was obvious it was tobyjug, he cares passionately about welfare issues despite his other failings, which of course we all have some, including boorish bullying behaviour


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2011)

He might care passionately but he bullshits and blusters resulting in potentially damaging advice being given to vulnerable people. He's a danger.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He might care passionately but he bullshits and blusters resulting in potentially damaging advice being given to vulnerable people. He's a danger.



I don't see what danger is posed by helping people to win tribunals. (Especially with the current shower in government.|)


----------



## past caring (Sep 21, 2011)

That's the bullshit bit. That and the ESA being two benefits.

Don't I remember you sticking your oar in to take the side of Teejay when he was trying to tell me I didn't understand the rules about Incapacity benefit and the PCA several years ago? Don't do that dance with me again.


----------



## past caring (Sep 21, 2011)

treelover said:


> it was obvious it was tobyjug, he cares passionately about welfare issues despite his other failings, which of course we all have some, *including boorish bullying behaviour*



We should suffer fools gladly, then? Even when they're not harmless?

Fuck's sake.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> I don't see what danger is posed by helping people to win tribunals. (Especially with the current shower in government.|)


You're a known fantasist and liar.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2011)

who did roc used to be?


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 21, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> who did roc used to be?



Tobyjug, apparently.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2011)

No way


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 21, 2011)

Whether they're one or two benefits, is a bit academic when they seem to want to assess everyone as "well" regardless.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 21, 2011)

What next? A return to the Speenhamland System and/or the Poor Laws?


----------



## treelover (Sep 21, 2011)

*Terminally ill patients told their benefits may be cut*

Disability campaigners criticise government for sending out letters about welfare reform bill, which has not yet been passed

'A spokesman said: "It will depend on the individual's capacity to work. Everyone will be assessed on an individual basis and if the decision is that they are able to start the journey back to work there will be a time limit."Speaking of terminal illness is clearly emotive and if they are on their deathbed they will clearly not be going back to work, but if someone is not in that position they may be able to lead a normal life which could involve work. The process of working may even be helpful in giving them a sense of being useful and prolonging their lives.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/21/terminally-ill-told-benefits-cut#start-of-comments

it gets worse, much worse...

as a CIF'er says who would like to spend their last few months in a call centre etc?

Duncan Smith is out of control...


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 21, 2011)

"A [DWP] spokesman said: "From next April people in the work-related activity group will only be able to claim ESA for a year, to bring it into line with other benefits."" http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/21/terminally-ill-told-benefits-cut

Which is a lot more severe than I realised. I was under the impression that it was contributions-based ESA which would be limited to one year, not ESA in general.

I am not sure that the statement is correct.


----------



## treelover (Sep 21, 2011)

maybe we have a latent tea party, its called the Condems..


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 21, 2011)

It is a poor report/statement, the contributions-based element will be limited to one year, not the income-based one.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 21, 2011)

treelover said:


> *Terminally ill patients told their benefits may be cut*
> 
> Disability campaigners criticise government for sending out letters about welfare reform bill, which has not yet been passed
> 
> ...



ffs the stupid twats, I'd like to see someone prove that


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> You're a known fantasist and liar.


 
Have you considered counselling?


----------



## Pinette (Sep 21, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Blackberries are in season, as are scrumped apples - with the sugar you could make your own.


You could definitely make your own jam, but first you will need a cooker which means lecky or gas, sterilised jars and so on which is a problem in itself obviously.  But more importantly you will need the motivation and that only comes when you are in a positive frame of mind and I doubt with all my heart that people on the breadline are in a positive frame of mind.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

Jackobi said:


> "A [DWP] spokesman said: "From next April people in the work-related activity group will only be able to claim ESA for a year, to bring it into line with other benefits."" http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/21/terminally-ill-told-benefits-cut
> 
> Which is a lot more severe than I realised. I was under the impression that it was contributions-based ESA which would be limited to one year, not ESA in general.
> 
> I am not sure that the statement is correct.


 
It is correct, DWPs own impact assessment, eventually some 700000 ESA claimants will lose ALL out of work benefits:-
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa-time-limit-wr2011-ia-revised-apr2011.pdf
look at page 7 table 1


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> It is correct, DWPs own impact assessment, eventually some 700000 ESA claimants will lose ALL out of work benefits:-
> http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/esa-time-limit-wr2011-ia-revised-apr2011.pdf
> look at page 7 table 1



The table indicates that by 2015/16, 700,000 claimants will lose entitlement to *contributions*-based ESA.







They will continue to receive *income*-based ESA if they are entitled, not lose all out of work benefits.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

Jackobi said:


> The table indicates that by 2015/16, 700,000 claimants will lose entitlement to *contributions*-based ESA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That has been altered which is why the shit has hit the fan over the last few days.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Have you considered counselling?



I'm currently training to be a mental health nurse, we use a lot of counselling skills, Rogerian principles etc.

Why do you ask?


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I'm currently training to be a mental health nurse, we use a lot of counselling skills, Rogerian principles etc.
> 
> Why do you ask? I can point you in the right direction if you think therapy will help your pathological lying.



I think you need help with your pathological making assumptions, about someone you know nothing about.


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> That has been altered which is why the shit has hit the fan over the last few days.



Bollocks, as in, 'a load of'.


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> I think you need help with your pathological making assumptions, about someone you know nothing about.



I know lots about you, you've been posting bollocks on here for years.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

Jackobi said:


> Bollocks, as in, 'a load of'.



It isn't check the disability alliance website and Benefits and Work forums latest benefits news item:-
http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/benefits-news

_Thousands of terminally-ill people have begun receiving letters warning them their benefits could be cut in April even though Parliament has yet to approve the changes._

_Under proposals being scrutinised in the Lords, Contributory Employment Support Allowance (CESA) will be time-limited to 12 months from April 2012._

_The changes will be retrospective._

_So people on CESA for 12 months or more when the rule comes into force will have their benefit cut immediately._


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2011)

Great links.


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> It isn't check the disability alliance website and Benefits and Work forums latest benefits news item:-
> http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/benefits-news
> Terminally ill people warned over possible benefit cut
> _Thousands of terminally-ill people have begun receiving letters warning them their benefits could be cut in April even though Parliament has yet to approve the changes._
> ...



Fixed. And your links don't work.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

Jackobi said:


> Fixed. And your links don't work.



I only posted one link, I have edited out the "ghost" one now.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> I only posted one link, I have edited out the "ghost" one now.



Tells me I need a subscription, can you not copy/paste or print screen it or something?

Also, can't find anything on the Disability Alliance site which supports actually what you are suggesting above.


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 21, 2011)

""The letters are now being sent at a cost of *£2.7m*, including letters to people who unaffected by the change but who will experience considerable anxiety," he said.
The Department of Work and Pensions admits it is conceivable the legislation may not be approved but says it is better to warn people early." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14999755

In these times of austerity blah blah, cunts.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 21, 2011)

Aye, well here's always money Jackobi when they need it. The audacity though of "Work and Pensions admits it is conceivable the legislation may not be approved but says it is better to warn people early" FFS!


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

stephj said:


> Tells me I need a subscription, can you not copy/paste or print screen it or something?
> 
> Also, can't find anything on the Disability Alliance site which supports actually what you are suggesting above.



http://www.disabilityalliance.org/dapress.htm
_Terminally ill told benefit may be stopped in April_
_The Government is writing to some terminally ill people to tell them their benefit will be ended in six months. _
_20 September 2011_
_The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) began writing to people affected this week [1] to say that, under Welfare Reform Bill plans, ‘contributory-Employment and Support Allowance’ (c-ESA [2]) will be time-limited to one year from April 2012. Terminally ill people who have accessed c-ESA since April 2011 may lose all out of work help in just six months as a result [3]. _
_Neil Coyle, Disability Alliance Director of Policy, says:_

_‘The impact of cutting support will be devastating for people already told they only have a limited time left to live. Many will have worked for years and will feel they deserve a little support in return till they pass away. The Government has time to change plans before terminally ill people and their families have this avoidable and quite nasty cut imposed.’_​_DWP believe 700,000 people will be affected by 2015/16 from ending support after one year [4]. Some terminally ill people may qualify for alternative help but over 400,000 people must lose all support if the Government’s targeted cut of £2 billion is to be met [5]. _

Also channel 4 news just now:-
http://www.channel4.com/news/700-000-terminally-ill-to-lose-benefits

_Thousands of people with serious illnesses have begun to receive the letters from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). _
_Under the welfare reform bill plans, "contributory-employment and support allowance" (c-ESA) will be time-limited to one year from April 2012, meaning terminally ill people who have accessed c-ESA since April 2011 could lose all out of work help in just six months time._
_The government calculates that at least 700,000 people will be affected by 2015-16_.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 21, 2011)

Which is precisely as the other Guardian/DWP links surely? CESA part of ESA is becoming time limited, but you said "will lose ALL out of work benefits", but which when questioned by Jackobi, you then replied with "that has been altered which is why the shit has hit the fan over the last few days.", but you've not made clear what has been altered.

Not that the above is particularly pleasant reading, or that I trust anything this government says which is likely to get revised again and again to screw more people, but its like trying to contantly work out what's reality and what's your spin?


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

stephj said:


> Which is precisely as the other Guardian/DWP links surely? CESA is becoming time limited, but you said "will lose ALL out of work benefits".
> 
> Not that the above is particularly pleasant reading, or that I trust anything this government says which is likely to get revised again and again to screw more people, but its like trying to contantly work out what's reality and what's your spin?



I already posted the governments own impact assessment, I really don't know what more you want.
The news item only really broke today and 400000 people losing "all out of work benefits" is what has been on every disability forum I can think of.
(I forgot the Benefits and Work benefits news area is members only, I will try a copy and paste)  :-

_Thousands of terminally-ill people have begun receiving letters warning them their benefits could be cut in April even though Parliament has yet to approve the changes._

_Under proposals being scrutinised in the Lords, Contributory Employment Support Allowance (CESA) will be time-limited to 12 months from April 2012._

_The changes will be retrospective._

_So people on CESA for 12 months or more when the rule comes into force will have their benefit cut immediately._

_Earlier this week, delegates at the Liberal Democrat conference in Birmingham passed a motion calling on their MPs to oppose the "​arbitrar​y"​ time limit, contained in the Welfare Bill, and the plans are likely to face stiff opposition in the Lords._
_'​No win situation'​Neil Coyle, of the Disability Alliance, said that while it is uncertain whether the rule will be passed, it is premature for the Department for Work and Pensions to warn recipients of the changes._
_"​The letters are now being sent at a cost of £​2.7m, including letters to people who unaffected by the change but who will experience considerable anxiety,"​ he said._

_"​The government has time to change plans before terminally-ill people and their families have this avoidable and quite nasty cut imposed."​_

_More from the BBC website:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14999755_

More copy and paste from Benefits and Work:-
400,000 disabled people to lose all out of work benefits.
_http://www.disabilityalliance.org/esalimit.htm_
_Welfare Reform Bill (Employment and Support Allowance - Time Limiting - Contingency Fund Advance)_
_ 7 September 2011_
_The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling): As part of his Spending Review announcement, the Chancellor set out his proposal to introduce a time limit of 1 year for those claiming contributory Employment and Support Allowance who are in the Work Related Activity Group. The change will, subject to the passage of the enabling legislation, apply from April 2012. For those in the Work Related Activity Group who have already received a year or more contributory Employment and Support Allowance as at April 2012, entitlement will cease immediately._


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 21, 2011)

Some of the shit being printed in the press is misleading, take the Channel4 headline:

'700,000 terminally ill to lose benefits'

Which is absolute bollocks. 700,000 is the estimated number of overall ESA claimants who will lose entitlement to contributions-based ESA by 2015/16, of which X amount will continue to receive income-based ESA.
It is true that some claimants will "lose all out of work benefits", but this will depend on their [non-]entitlement to income-based ESA.
I.e. If their partner earns a good wage, they will not be entitled to receive any ESA at all.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

Jackobi said:


> It is true that some claimants will "lose all out of work benefits", but this will depend on their [non-]entitlement to income-based ESA.
> I.e. If their partner earns a good wage, they will not be entitled to receive any ESA at all.



The governments own impact assessment, (which I have posted a link to several times) states the 700000 number.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> The governments own impact assessment, (which I have posted a link to several times) states the 700000 number.


It does not state that they will lose all out of work benefits. It clearly states this is their estimate for the numbers of people receiving contributory ESA who will be effected by 2015/16. Jackobi is 100% correct. Stop the bullshitting, stop mixing up facts. This is why you're a danger.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 21, 2011)

I mean I don't understand enough about this stuff to really discuss in any detail, certainly what I've already read makes for grim reading in any case. But, I think I know enough to already be very wary/dubious of anything you say roctrevezel.


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 21, 2011)

Oh fuck off, roctrevezel. Trying to straighten your misguided facts makes it appear that I am supporting this shit.
I already explained that the 700,000 figure was the estimation of the number of contributions-based claimants affected by the proposals.







That is where Channel4 got their misleading figures from, and most likely, the Disability Alliance's 400,000 figure too.


----------



## Fedayn (Sep 21, 2011)

TUSide in my place-ie the senior/lead TU reps in the office-are meeting with our management regarding these changes. I'll dig out what I can that can be posted to see what they're saying.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It does not state that they will lose all out of work benefits. It clearly states this is their estimate for the numbers of people receiving contributory ESA who will be effected by 2015/16. Jackobi is 100% correct. Stop the bullshitting, stop mixing up facts. This is why you're a danger.



I am only quoting what is on the news and other websites. Argue with them.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> I am only quoting what is on the news and other websites. Argue with them.



But that doesn't make sense... earlier you were making yourself out to have expertise in this area and successfully supporting people with tribunals, now you're repeating what the news headlines are saying and when challenged saying 'take it up with them'?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> I am only quoting what is on the news and other websites. Argue with them.


No you're not. What you're doing is misreading an impact assessment then insisting in the face of quite clear evidence to the contrary that your misreading is what the assessment says. Jackobi has already shown you where and why you are misreading. Stop blustering.


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 21, 2011)

stephj said:


> But that doesn't make sense... earlier you were making yourself out to have expertise in this area and successfully supporting people with tribunals, now you're repeating what the news headlines are saying and when challenged saying 'take it up with them'?



Because it is a breaking news item. I have got pissed off with people on this forum fucking about with such a serious subject so I have just requested Full Fact:- http://fullfact.org/
Do a factcheck. I am fucked if I am posting any more links.
I only ever came here because the BBC closed down the OUCH disability forum and I have never come across such a grumpy up themselves shower of bastards in my life.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2011)

What about when you were here before?

Anyway, it's quite simple - stop misreading stuff then posting your misreadings as definitive. Especially when you've been shown to be wrong over and over.


----------



## Jackobi (Sep 21, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> I have got pissed off with people on this forum fucking about with such a serious subject...



I'm very serious, as this will affect a lot people that I know are having difficulty. But you have either deliberately or inadvertently distorted facts, even from links that you quoted. Now I am sceptical about how serious *you* are.



roctrevezel said:


> so I have just requested Full Fact



What will that do?


----------



## past caring (Sep 21, 2011)

Jackobi said:


> Some of the shit being printed in the press is misleading, take the Channel4 headline:
> 
> '700,000 terminally ill to lose benefits'
> 
> ...



Which is precisely what I said earlier.

And as I also said earlier *this clown has form*.


----------



## trevhagl (Sep 22, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> No, you can work and pay tax for fifty years and be treated like scum the second you lose a job or get sick. Surprised people don't sue the government to get back their National Insurance.



very good point, what do we pay it for? It's nearly impossible to get the dole now, and now we're all gonna die before we get pension...


----------



## roctrevezel (Sep 22, 2011)

Jackobi said:


> I'm very serious, as this will affect a lot people that I know are having difficulty. But you have either deliberately or inadvertently distorted facts, even from links that you quoted. Now I am sceptical about how serious *you* are.
> What will that do?



Dig past what the media are saying, (and disability forums) and get to exactly what is behind the news item. I only repeated the "have all out of work benefits away" which is on a number of websites and in a number of news items because that is what I had read.
I did not instigate it.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 22, 2011)

But you repeatedly quoted the bloody DWP assessment that made perfectly clear that this isn't the case as evidence that it applied to all out of work benefits. Don't waste the rest of this important thread making excuses. Just realise that you were wrong and don't go repeating what you _claim_ others have said, check first.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 26, 2011)

Jackobi said:


> roctrevezel said:
> 
> 
> > Because it is a breaking news item. I have got pissed off with people on this forum fucking about with such a serious subject so I have just requested Full Fact:- http://fullfact.org/
> ...


Well, they've just done their report - and guess what, it say exactly the same as what you and others said. Nor sure if rocky has been banned or just left again anyway.


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2011)

Milliband to attack welfare, allocate social housing to workers, 'good neighbours, etc, yet again equating people on benefit with city shysters, dodgy corporations, etc..

I despair, is this the best he can do, listening to focus groups and the doorstep and the former banker Liam Byrne
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/26/ed-miliband-law-abiding-silent-majority


----------



## treelover (Oct 1, 2011)

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

more on the issue


----------



## audiotech (Oct 2, 2011)

If those on ESA and placed in a work activity group are forced into 'voluntary work', then it's not 'voluntary' surely?

"Dole Blitz" from The Sun:

*



			DAVID Cameron is to unleash a raft of tough measures on the workshy to force them into jobs and break apart Benefits Britain.
		
Click to expand...

*http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...ugh-measures-to-get-scroungers-into-work.html


----------



## treelover (Oct 2, 2011)

notice now how there is no pretence to make seperations , all unemployed and disabled claimants are now 'scroungers'


----------



## dennisr (Oct 3, 2011)

treelover said:


> notice now how there is no pretence to make seperations , all unemployed and disabled claimants are now 'scroungers'



that was always doing to be the path they would go down. all going to be blamed for someone else's mess. (the scum at the top of course not the poor bastards at the bottom).


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 3, 2011)

There's one of these food parcel places opening up in Maidenhead of all places. I'm going to be doing a stall there tomorrow so if anyone's about come and say hi etc


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> Precisely. I find some of the responses to this thread sickening to be honest. By next April there could be 1/2 a million people not only needing food parcels but facing homelessness, and people here are being critical of what is in the food parcels.
> It is enough to make me weep. I knew the country was going to the far right politically, I just had not realised how far.



People below the poverty line are disproportionately affected by cnditions that a steady intake of those kinds of food could radically worsen.
Me, I think only a cunt would hand over to a chronic hypertensive or diabetes sufferer the means to fairly quickly more severely damage themselves. Have the government, or Trussell for that matter, paid even lip-service to the basic guidelines on nutrition? Do they even actually care?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> The food parcels are designed for the circumstances the people who need them are in.



No, they're not, they're designed as a stop-gap measure.

The problem with that is that even an economic illiterate can see that the economic and employment situations are such that stop-gap measures are worthless. What is needed is an embedded approach that takes into consideration medium to long-term nutritional needs.

This isn't fucking rocket science, it's exactly what Attlee's government and its immediate successors did, and successfully (and relatively inexpensively) too.



> What do you expect Jamie fucking Oliver running soup kitchens?



Don't be more stupid than you can help. Healthy food rather than processed, over-salted, over-sweetened crap. That's all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2011)

roctrevezel said:


> So you would just let the people who need the food die in the streets because you don't like the menu?
> The scandal is that food banks are needed at all, not what is supplied in the parcels.



No, the scandal resides in both issues.
That the government pay no attention to their own nutritional guidelines in supporting this, and that their cowardly kowtowing to business means that the people are paying for the mistakes of private capital *and* being made to swallow shitty food that is a known cause and exacerbater of various illnesses that are more prevalent among those below the poverty line.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2011)

stephj said:


> Why would Grayling and Duncan Smith kick out ATOS? ATOS represent precisely the type of private company that the neo-liberalist tossers want involved.



The type, yes, but ATOS have caused the government (and the previous one) embarrassment, so they'd probably like to be shot of that particular company.

Wouldn't work though, because any private company, with their mandate to realise "best value" for shareholders, will go down the same route and cause the same embarrassments.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2011)

Pinette said:


> You could definitely make your own jam, but first you will need a cooker which means lecky or gas, sterilised jars and so on which is a problem in itself obviously. But more importantly you will need the motivation and that only comes when you are in a positive frame of mind and I doubt with all my heart that people on the breadline are in a positive frame of mind.



It's quite possible to be on (or below) the breadline and be in a generally positive frame of mind. When you're "up against it" you quickly come to realise that worrying about things you can't change is bad for your health, so you focus on the stuff you *can* do something about.
Haven't made any jam myself tbf, but I made some cracking black puddings last year!


----------



## treelover (Apr 17, 2015)

The Independent is leading tonight with the news that the amount of people using food banks is to reach *one million,* poverty and inequality haven't really featured in the election much yet, I wonder if it will now.


----------

