Food bank debate: 20 things you need to know about food banks and hunger in Britain

Campaign: Trussell Trust Chairman Chris Mould, Rachel Reeves MP, Jack Monroe, Unite's James Bevan, Maria Eagle MP and Mirror's Ros Wynne-Jones.
In the House of Commons today, MPs face a critical debate on the rise of food bank use and the increase in hunger levels in the UK today.

The Labour Party are using Opposition Day to discuss the food bank petition I launched with the Daily Mirror and Unite the Union – that gained an astonishing 100,000 signatures in just two days, demonstrating an overwhelming strength of public feeling.

At lunchtime, I’ll be speaking to MPs and campaigners before the debate, sharing my own experiences of poverty in a supposedly developed country.

Since starting to raise awareness of food bank use in the press last April with Oxfam’s “Walking The Breadline” report, I’ve realised how many lies and how much propaganda is out there. And I hear the same tired rhetoric again and again, from everyone from ordinary people to MPs and Lords.

So, on the day of the Opposition Day food bank debate, here’s 20 things you should know about food banks and hunger in Britain today.

1. Food bank use in the South East, the region known for its wealth and relative prosperity, is up over 60% this year.

2. A decade ago, food banks were almost unheard of in the UK. The Trussell Trust, the UK’s largest network of food banks, now opens new food banks in Britain every week to cope with the increase in referrals.

3. The Government commissioned a report into the rise in food bank use in June this year. DEFRA investigated, and the Government are refusing to publish the report.

4. Thousands of families face the prospect of relying on emergency food handouts this Christmas.

5. Some people who are in full time work are using food banks to support themselves and their families. Many of these work zero hour contracts – people are employed, but can work little or no hours in a week. They have no financial stability, and are not guaranteed enough to pay their rent, bills, or buy food.

6. Half a million people received emergency food assistance from a Trussell Trust food bank between April and December 2013. This is more than the number assisted in the entire year before (346,992).

7. Robin Aitkin in the Telegraph claims that: “A new service is being offered to more and more communities, and naturally people are using it. The sustained media interest in food banks has acted as a giant advertising campaign.” This is simply untrue. People cannot simply turn up to a food bank and ask for help, they need to be identified as being in need by a healthcare professional or social services or similar, and referred with a form or a voucher. It isn’t, as certain politicians would have you believe, an opportunist desire for free food.

8. Figures from the Trussell Trust show that changes to the benefit system are the most common cause for food bank use in Britain. Nearly a third had been referred after benefits had been delayed, and a further 19% due to their benefits being cut or stopped.

9. 3 in 10 people say they are now struggling to feed themselves and their family because of the rising cost of food.

10. Lord Freud (again) thinks that food banks are a good thing and that local authorities should ‘ramp up support in kind’. Speaking at a recent conference on welfare reform, he said that it is “absolutely appropriate” that charities should provide free food parcels to people hit by benefit cuts and delays.

11. Niall Cooper, the national co-ordinator of Church Action On Poverty, says: “Where are we as a society that people in work are having to turn to food banks? It’s a big question but it does not feel like one the Government wants to answer.”

12. All 152 councils in England have set up welfare assistance schemes to replace the crisis loan and community care grant elements of the social fund, which until April were provided by the DWP. Some schemes offer food vouchers in place of cash assistance, and a number are working in partnership with food banks. Despite 87% of benefit claimants being in work, almost two-thirds of the local council welfare schemes stipulate that working people are not eligible for their help.

13. Nottinghamshire council is proposing to close its welfare assistance scheme in April, and will cease to refer people to food banks or offer additional support.

14. Lord Freud (again!) claims that there is no robust evidence of a link between welfare reform and the rise in food bank use. However over half of the people referred to food banks are there due to delays and cuts in benefits, and benefit sanctions.

15. Today there are more than 400 food banks across Britain, with new ones opening every couple of days.

16. Some food banks now open twice a day in order to meet the number of referrals in their local community. The Storehouse, in Southend, changed its opening times earlier this year to accommodate the growing number of people in need in their community. The Storehouse is an independently run food bank, part of the Vineyard church, and not affiliated with the Trussell Trust.

17. Since April this year the number of people referred to food banks because they can’t afford to feed themselves due to benefit changes has increased. Over half of food bank referrals are due to welfare issues, such as cuts and changes to benefits, delays, and sanctions.

18. A mum of two whose husband is in work was referred to Chiltern food bank for help after the council made a mistake with her housing benefit. “I was really embarrassed at first, but the volunteer at the food bank really boosted my confidence and self esteem. She made me feel like I was worth something.”

19. Food banks don’t just hand out emergency food, they also provide other essentials such as nappies, formula milk and sanitary towels.

20. Food banks do not encourage a cycle of dependency. Molly Hodson from the Trussell Trust says: “Our food banks are different to American and Canadian food banks, they are an emergency service. Where there is a welfare provision, nobody should be at a point where they can’t put food on the table long term. We help people out of poverty by working with local agencies and charities for example if someone has debt problems, we put them in touch with a debt counselling charity. We want to help resolve the issues, and make sure people have a route out of poverty.”

You can still sign the petition at www.change.org/foodbanks – and tweet your MP right now to demand they attend the debate



Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/food-bank-debate-jack-monroes-2937649#ixzz2npOTXUUg
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

   A further indictment on this awful coalition..Time to get rid

One mention of food banks and we are all supposed to break out the Andrex tissues, wipe away our tears of sympathy and empty our cupboards into the nearest food bank donation box.

Unsurprisingly, my eyes are as dry as they were at my mother-in-laws funeral. Gove says food bank users have themselves to blame for being 'unable to manage their finances'. I agree.

Food bank users are like terminal cancer patients. There may not be a tomorrow so spend like hell today. It reminds me of children given money in a gift shop. They have to spend it all immediately, driven by a desire to spend not a desire for something they need.

One food bank user commented: "We were given a food parcel. Me and my partner sat down and ate for four hours solid until it was all gone".

To get hold of this free food, users have to wangle a voucher from an agency worker at a job centre or drop in clinic, supposedly to a maximum of three. This limit is not enforced.

Oscar-winning performances of desperation are plenty. A recent BBC documentary showed one man lying that it was his son's birthday in order to procure a voucher.

Individuals like this have become vouchers tourists travelling between agencies, collecting vouchers quicker than genital warts on a student. When a food bank challenges the agencies that have issued them, they hear that "it was easier to hand out a voucher than manage the person".

Undoubtedly these food banks deliver huge cost savings for agency and DWP budgets. Instead of dipping into their own hardship funds, ring fenced for those in moments of crises, they can hand out food bank vouchers.

People are playing the system because it is there to be had.

There are rich pickings for those on the take. As with any market, a black market is quick to spring up in its shadow. Food parcels are just another form of currency where high value items like nappies and baby formula are traded for drinks, fags and drugs.

Some food banks workers have explained how fresh produce and food that needs preparation is regularly handed back in favour of instant gratification and more expensive items. It is a peculiar world when those receiving hand outs can afford the luxury of choice.

Before the food bank even stocks its shelves any out of date items are disposed of. In good middle class homes across the country, sell by dates are disregarded as heartily as the arrival of a fifth child or new lodger in the house.

Of course there are genuine food bank users. But the massive growth in these food banks is not because more people are hungry. It is largely because we are feeding the dirty habits of people perfectly happy to live a life on the take.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/katie-hopkins/food-bank-real-reason-use-has-trebled_b_4121733.html

PhilDidge wrote:One mention of food banks and we are all supposed to break out the Andrex tissues, wipe away our tears of sympathy and empty our cupboards into the nearest food bank donation box.

Unsurprisingly, my eyes are as dry as they were at my mother-in-laws funeral. Gove says food bank users have themselves to blame for being 'unable to manage their finances'. I agree.

Food bank users are like terminal cancer patients. There may not be a tomorrow so spend like hell today. It reminds me of children given money in a gift shop. They have to spend it all immediately, driven by a desire to spend not a desire for something they need.

One food bank user commented: "We were given a food parcel. Me and my partner sat down and ate for four hours solid until it was all gone".

To get hold of this free food, users have to wangle a voucher from an agency worker at a job centre or drop in clinic, supposedly to a maximum of three. This limit is not enforced.

Oscar-winning performances of desperation are plenty. A recent BBC documentary showed one man lying that it was his son's birthday in order to procure a voucher.

Individuals like this have become vouchers tourists travelling between agencies, collecting vouchers quicker than genital warts on a student. When a food bank challenges the agencies that have issued them, they hear that "it was easier to hand out a voucher than manage the person".

Undoubtedly these food banks deliver huge cost savings for agency and DWP budgets. Instead of dipping into their own hardship funds, ring fenced for those in moments of crises, they can hand out food bank vouchers.

People are playing the system because it is there to be had.

There are rich pickings for those on the take. As with any market, a black market is quick to spring up in its shadow. Food parcels are just another form of currency where high value items like nappies and baby formula are traded for drinks, fags and drugs.

Some food banks workers have explained how fresh produce and food that needs preparation is regularly handed back in favour of instant gratification and more expensive items. It is a peculiar world when those receiving hand outs can afford the luxury of choice.

Before the food bank even stocks its shelves any out of date items are disposed of. In good middle class homes across the country, sell by dates are disregarded as heartily as the arrival of a fifth child or new lodger in the house.

Of course there are genuine food bank users. But the massive growth in these food banks is not because more people are hungry. It is largely because we are feeding the dirty habits of people perfectly happy to live a life on the take.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/katie-hopkins/food-bank-real-reason-use-has-trebled_b_4121733.html

Just the view of one rabid RW moron.

I would be much more inclined to believe the testimonies of the charities and agencies themselves rather than the testimony of Katie Hopkins, whoever she is.

Jesus H. Christ - did you happen to notice who wrote that piece Didge? - the absolutely discredited Katie Hopkins, of whom the world says, why doesn't she just dig a hole and jump in it, she is such a no-nothing, stuck up, thinks herself superior, first class, unadulterated Bitch with a capital B.

If you even believe one tenth of that you are flying in the face of all the evidence put forward by those who deal with it and know.

Oh which I share her view. There is genuine people who need help, of that I do not doubt but the numbers being claimed is to me nothing short of a mockery of many people taking advantage of the system. It is easy to take a story and make out many are in need, but how many are really genuinely in need?

People turning up to charities are also going to be in the same boat with not knowing who is taking advantage of the situation, especially when I have seen people pull up inn cabs for one near to where I live or drive up to them. Now you tell me, they can afford the petrol, but not have the common sense to buy bread instead?

Sassy wrote:Jesus H. Christ - did you happen to notice who wrote that piece Didge? - the absolutely discredited Katie Hopkins, of whom the world says, why doesn't she just dig a hole and jump in it, she is such a no-nothing, stuck up, thinks herself superior, first class, unadulterated Bitch with a capital B.

If you even believe one tenth of that you are flying in the face of all the evidence put forward by those who deal with it and know.  

Debate the points not the person sassy, that is not a counter, it matters little of what you think of the person but what is stated, you should know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Hopkins

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

So you know more than the people who have researched it, deal with it etc Didge?.   People CAN'T just turn up, they have to be referred once their circumstances have been looked at.   They have to be guenuinely in need and referred by agencies.   You might not like to face up to the truth of what this government have done to many WORKING people Didge, but it is the truth.

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Jesus H. Christ - did you happen to notice who wrote that piece Didge? - the absolutely discredited Katie Hopkins, of whom the world says, why doesn't she just dig a hole and jump in it, she is such a no-nothing, stuck up, thinks herself superior, first class, unadulterated Bitch with a capital B.

If you even believe one tenth of that you are flying in the face of all the evidence put forward by those who deal with it and know.  

Debate the points not the person sassy, that is not a counter, it matters little of what you think of the person but what is stated, you should know that.

Sorry Didge, but when the person is discredited as she is, it is a counter. It means their opinion is in no way valid because they have been seen to come from a very nasty point of view. Very, very, very, nasty.

Oh I read about this all the time Sassy and I know something is not right when I see things with my own eyes:

This is an excellent article:




It would be foolish to deny that there are more people on the breadline today than at the height of the Great Boom of the early Noughties. How could it be otherwise? People have lost jobs, their pay has been cut, the benefits system is not so generous as used to be. Naturally, more people today are feeling pinched and the household food budget is under strain.
But gauging the real level of food poverty – a cant phrase that claims, wrongly in my view, that there is a special type of poverty which relates solely to food – is far from straightforward.
The first complicating factor is the sheer increase in the number of food banks. Ten years ago, there were hardly any; today there are more than 400 and new ones open every couple of days. So the figures about increasing demand – the Trussell Trust says that usage has trebled in the past year – must reflect, in part at least, the increasing availability of food banks.
To put it another way, a new service is being offered to more and more communities – and, naturally, people are using it. What is more, the sustained media interest in food banks has acted as a kind of giant pro bono advertising campaign; suddenly everybody knows about them.
And it invites the question: is food poverty really worse today than 10, 20 or 30 years ago? There are no statistics to prove the point. The food banks, in Britain, are too recent a phenomenon to allow a proper statistical comparison of that kind. As there were none in the recessions of the Seventies of Eighties, who can say what then was the true level of need? My suspicion is that there were more people suffering worse poverty in those threadbare years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/10517718/Food-banks-the-unpalatable-truth.html

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Debate the points not the person sassy, that is not a counter, it matters little of what you think of the person but what is stated, you should know that.

Sorry Didge, but when the person is discredited as she is, it is a counter.   It means their opinion is in no way valid because they have been seen to come from a very nasty point of view.   Very, very, very, nasty.

Sorry what you think of someone is moot, it is the points being addressed is all that matters, so your views on a person are yours, not their argument

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Sorry Didge, but when the person is discredited as she is, it is a counter.   It means their opinion is in no way valid because they have been seen to come from a very nasty point of view.   Very, very, very, nasty.

Sorry what you think of someone is moot, it is the points being addressed is all that matters, so your views on a person are yours, not their argument  

Not what I think of her, what the country thinks of her.

And if you think that people go to food banks because they are pissing away their money you are not only being very disrespectful to people in real need, who are mortified that they have to do this, but you are flying in the face of every bit of evidence there is, just because you don't want to believe it. The evidence from the professionals who deal with this, says you are completely and absolutely 100% wrong. People who had just pissed away their money wouldn't even get past the first stage.

Could I just ask - what's the difference between putting your hands out for money and putting your hands out for food?

None, in my opinion.

What's the problem?

Sorry but I am not being bought into the fact everyone is in genuine need Sassy, I have stated already there are genuine people but as stated on another thread we have to stop pandering to people who clearly make their own situations here because they are financially poor with their money.
As stated there are countless other people in the same boat with low incomes, who do not need to go to food banks and thus there then is again another factor why people are going and as seen from the article I provided it seems more people are going simply as there are more there.

To say there is evidence when in fact there is no clear evidence at all for why more people are going is thus incorrect. No real investigation has been done in this field and thus claims are just that, claims, but one thing I do know for sure is that far more many people are on a low income and do not need to visit food banks, ask yourself why is that?

PhilDidge wrote:Sorry but I am not being bought into the fact everyone is in genuine need Sassy, I have stated already there are genuine people but as stated on another thread we have to stop pandering to people who clearly make their own situations here because they are financially poor with their money.
As stated there are countless other people in the same boat with low incomes, who do not need to go to food banks and thus there then is again another factor why people are going and as seen from the article I provided it seems more people are going simply as there are more there.

To say there is evidence when in fact there is no clear evidence at all for why more people are going is thus incorrect. No real investigation has been done in this field and thus claims are just that, claims, but one thing I do know for sure is that far more many people are on a low income and do not need to visit food banks, ask yourself why is that?

Others have to rely on support from family, friends and neighbours etc.

Knock 10% off all benefits and people would still get by.

Take the food banks away and people would still get by.

FACT!

Catman wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Sorry but I am not being bought into the fact everyone is in genuine need Sassy, I have stated already there are genuine people but as stated on another thread we have to stop pandering to people who clearly make their own situations here because they are financially poor with their money.
As stated there are countless other people in the same boat with low incomes, who do not need to go to food banks and thus there then is again another factor why people are going and as seen from the article I provided it seems more people are going simply as there are more there.

To say there is evidence when in fact there is no clear evidence at all for why more people are going is thus incorrect. No real investigation has been done in this field and thus claims are just that, claims, but one thing I do know for sure is that far more many people are on a low income and do not need to visit food banks, ask yourself why is that?

Others have to rely on support from family, friends and neighbours etc.

GOOD!

Catman wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Sorry but I am not being bought into the fact everyone is in genuine need Sassy, I have stated already there are genuine people but as stated on another thread we have to stop pandering to people who clearly make their own situations here because they are financially poor with their money.
As stated there are countless other people in the same boat with low incomes, who do not need to go to food banks and thus there then is again another factor why people are going and as seen from the article I provided it seems more people are going simply as there are more there.

To say there is evidence when in fact there is no clear evidence at all for why more people are going is thus incorrect. No real investigation has been done in this field and thus claims are just that, claims, but one thing I do know for sure is that far more many people are on a low income and do not need to visit food banks, ask yourself why is that?

Others have to rely on support from family, friends and neighbours etc.

Yes but why do some of them?
Again I am not denying there are genuine cases out there, but lets look at some have even got into this situation?
Sorry I am not being bought into the belief because there are now more food banks and people going is down to all being in need.

BigAndy9 wrote:Knock 10% off all benefits and people would still get by.

Take the food banks away and people would still get by.

FACT!

Only fact in your narrow mind.

PhilDidge wrote:

Catman wrote:

Others have to rely on support from family, friends and neighbours etc.

Yes but why do some of them?
Again I am not denying there are genuine cases out there, but lets look at some have even got into this situation?
Sorry I am not being bought into the belief because there are now more food banks and people going is down to all being in need.

Because it's impossible to survive on £70 a week and pay all your bills especially if you live alone.

Catman wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Yes but why do some of them?
Again I am not denying there are genuine cases out there, but lets look at some have even got into this situation?
Sorry I am not being bought into the belief because there are now more food banks and people going is down to all being in need.

Because it's impossible to survive on £70 a week and pay all your bills especially if you live alone.

Who gets only £70 a week and lives on their own with no other benefits?

I'm always seeing these low figures bandied around when certain groups have points to prove.

These people on benefits get everything cheaper than those of us who have to go out and work every day.

Free computers for their kids, free activities for themselves and their kids, free this, cheaper that.

Just stop whingeing.

PhilDidge wrote:

Catman wrote:

Because it's impossible to survive on £70 a week and pay all your bills especially if you live alone.

Who gets only £70 a week and lives on their own with no other benefits?

£70 a week isn't enough to pay for food..gas..electric..water rates..TV licence..toiletries etc..

BigAndy9 wrote:I'm always seeing these low figures bandied around when certain groups have points to prove.

These people on benefits get everything cheaper than those of us who have to go out and work every day.

Free computers for their kids, free activities for themselves and their kids, free this, cheaper that.

Just stop whingeing.

Rubbish.

...Oh i forgot to mention the fares to travel to interviews etc.

...And what about stamps to send off CV's etc.

Catman wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Who gets only £70 a week and lives on their own with no other benefits?

£70 a week isn't enough to pay for food..gas..electric..water rates..TV licence..toiletries etc..

Again, who only gets £70 per week?

TV licence is not needed
Neither is aftershaves or perfumes

PhilDidge wrote:

Catman wrote:

£70 a week isn't enough to pay for food..gas..electric..water rates..TV licence..toiletries etc..

Again, who only gets £70 per week?

TV licence is not needed
Neither is aftershaves or perfumes

People on JSA or sickness benefits waiting for appeal.

Deodorants, shaving foam, razors, toilet paper, shampoo, soap are needed.

You really haven't got a clue have you  

A TV licence isn't needed Didge, but the latest HD Sky+ box is essential with that lot.

Catman wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Again, who only gets £70 per week?

TV licence is not needed
Neither is aftershaves or perfumes

People on JSA or sickness benefits waiting for appeal.

Deodorants, shaving foam, razors, toilet paper, shampoo, soap are needed.

You really haven't got a clue have you  

yes and all are cheap and not needed daily, unless you are going out, thus you economise on toiletries

People on who you have claimed living alone get more than £70 per week, you are in error.

You used to be able to claim for travel to interviews.

Can they now get free bus passes, or concessionary ones??

BigAndy9 wrote:A TV licence isn't needed Didge, but the latest HD Sky+ box is essential with that lot.

  


That did make me chuckle.

The point is many do not need many items think they do need.

Get rid of contract phone, get pay as you go mobile.

Get rid of Tele, read a book, will help with skills.

Economise on all requirements.

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:A TV licence isn't needed Didge, but the latest HD Sky+ box is essential with that lot.

  


That did make me chuckle.

The point is many do not need many items think they do need.

Get rid of contract phone, get pay as you go mobile.

Get rid of Tele, read a book, will help with skills.

Economise on all requirements.

All very true, but they will now think you are just on a wind up.

PhilDidge wrote:

Catman wrote:

People on JSA or sickness benefits waiting for appeal.

Deodorants, shaving foam, razors, toilet paper, shampoo, soap are needed.

You really haven't got a clue have you  

yes and all are cheap and not needed daily, unless you are going out, thus you economise on toiletries

People on who you have claimed living alone get more than £70 per week, you are in error.

No they aren't cheap at all you are making things up as you go along.

I'm not in error.

https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance

PhilDidge wrote:Oh which I share her view. There is genuine people who need help, of that I do not doubt but the numbers being claimed is to me nothing short of a mockery of many people taking advantage of the system. It is easy to take a story and make out many are in need, but how many are really genuinely in need?

People turning up to charities are also going to be in the same boat with not knowing who is taking advantage of the situation, especially when I have seen people pull up inn cabs for one near to where I live or drive up to them. Now you tell me, they can afford the petrol, but not have the common sense to buy bread instead?

Agreed. It would be incredibly naive to believe that there aren't vultures around to take advantage of every system going - even the televised couple I saw once loaded their carrier bags into a waiting taxi! Surely they could have caught a bus; the cab fare alone would have paid for a few meals. The sad thing is that the genuinely needy ones will probably be too proud to admit they need help.

BigAndy9 wrote:You used to be able to claim for travel to interviews.

Can they now get free bus passes, or concessionary ones??

Nope.

PhilDidge wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:A TV licence isn't needed Didge, but the latest HD Sky+ box is essential with that lot.

  


That did make me chuckle.

The point is many do not need many items think they do need.

Get rid of contract phone, get pay as you go mobile.

Get rid of Tele, read a book, will help with skills.

Economise on all requirements.

RW hogwash.

Not possible on £70 a week.

Where does someone on £70 a week get money to buy pay as you go mobile?

You Victorianists are so funny!   

The "travel to interview" scheme stopped in 2011.

I'm sure something has probably replaced it.

Maybe you've not been looking for a job Mr Catman.


 :D 

Catman wrote:Where does someone on £70 a week get money to buy pay as you go mobile?

Tesco - you accept a free mobile off a friend or family (I know plenty of young people who just throw them away) and you go to Tesco - get Doug on it too - it's absolutely dirt cheap - waaaay cheaper than a contract.

Catman wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


  


That did make me chuckle.

The point is many do not need many items think they do need.

Get rid of contract phone, get pay as you go mobile.

Get rid of Tele, read a book, will help with skills.

Economise on all requirements.

RW hogwash.

Not possible on £70 a week.

The only people who only get £70 a week live with other people.
Thus have other people to help.

Veritas wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Oh which I share her view. There is genuine people who need help, of that I do not doubt but the numbers being claimed is to me nothing short of a mockery of many people taking advantage of the system. It is easy to take a story and make out many are in need, but how many are really genuinely in need?

People turning up to charities are also going to be in the same boat with not knowing who is taking advantage of the situation, especially when I have seen people pull up inn cabs for one near to where I live or drive up to them. Now you tell me, they can afford the petrol, but not have the common sense to buy bread instead?

Agreed.  It would be incredibly naive to believe that there aren't vultures around to take advantage of every system going - even the televised couple I saw once loaded their carrier bags into a waiting taxi! Surely they could have caught a bus; the cab fare alone would have paid for a few meals. The sad thing is that the genuinely needy ones will probably be too proud to admit they need help.  

Very much agree, there is very much genuine ones out there, but how do we know who are, people just turn up and am sure some people are saving a fortune by doing so, which only again hurts the issue for the genuine ones.

I just have gone on the Gov website and this is what a single person (I created a fictional person) can claim if renting for example in a one bed place.








You’ve completed our benefits calculator.

[th]Entitlement[/th][th]Per year[/th][th]Per week[/th][th]Notes[/th]

Means-tested income entitlements
Tax Credits	£0.00	£0.00	On the basis of the data entered you are not entitled to Tax Credits
Income Support	£3,738.64	£71.70
Means-tested bill reductions
Council Tax Support	£1,197.06	£22.96	Your full Council Tax bill of £25.09 per week will be reduced to £2.13 per week because of your entitlement to Council Tax Support.
Housing Benefit	£7,800.00	£150.00	You should not have to pay rent as you qualify for full Housing Benefit. For more information on what qualifies see eligible rent for Housing Benefit.
Total Entitlements	£12,735.70	£244.66

Your benefits
Your results are based on 2013-2014 benefit rates.
The results table shows all the benefits you can claim (it may list ones you’re already receiving too) and the amount you should get. The calculation is based on the information entered and is an estimate, not a guarantee of entitlement. If the amounts we’ve given you differ from what you’re getting at the moment, you should contact the agency that pays the benefit for further advice. 
Use the links below to get more information and to find out how to claim.

• Income Support
  
• Council Tax Support
  
• Housing Benefit
  

Your other entitlements
We have used the information you have entered to search for other entitlements you may qualify for. The links below provide more information on benefits and allowances you may qualify for. To find out more please click on the links

• Local welfare fund
  
• Funeral Grant
  
• NHS Low Income Scheme
  
• Discretionary Housing Payment
  
• Warm Homes Discount
  
• Boiler Grants
  

Yes...But they still only get £70 to pay for all the things that i have listed which isn't possible.

Yes and they get plenty of help on other things too, if you read like with bills, of which I found out you can add to the housing benefit.

PhilDidge wrote:Yes and they get plenty of help on other things too, if you read like with bills, of which I found out you can add to the housing benefit.

People that live in housing association or council flats don't get any help with their bills end of.

....I suppose you know better than people who actually live in council/ha property now   

I just rang and asked about it, not difficult really. Seems there are many things they can do to help.

PhilDidge wrote:I just rang and asked about it, not difficult really. Seems there are many things they can do to help.

Rubbish.   

No, it is not rubbish, just because you claim so I am afraid.