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

First topic message reminder :



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

NemsAgain wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I do grasp them Nems, they were way harder back then, now you have all kinds of support and benefits for people for which you did not have anywhere near the same back then.
So what you and sassy did was uncalled for, I take your view point in what you have gone through or do today to help, I did not question it did I?

Sorry that was poor Nems

Didge, you put personal info up for debate.

Of which I am pointing out on a certain forum you and sassy were from, that was a big issue not allowed to be done was it not?


Now is that not correct, people could not question what other posters had experienced Nems

Catman wrote:

Sassy wrote:What?   Questioning you is mocking you?   Oh right, nobody is allowed to disagree and question you, is that it.   Your word is law and we must agree with everything you say?   So why do you come on a forum to debate then Didge if nobody is allowed to question you when you state something that we disagree with to the bottom of our souls.

So when you keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again we are just supposed to say 'ok Didge, you have said it so many time we know it's right' even when we know it's totally wrong?  

Don't be ridiculous.   Man up and debate, don't go into,' oh they are being mean to me' mode, it's beneath you.

Even the RW say the same thing about him!   

You should here what both Left and right say about you if of course you want to get silly?

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Yes it has, you just haven't read or listened.   Just because you have the same amount of money coming in, does not mean you have the same outgoings, or the same emergencies, or the same conditions,   You just won't accept that, it doesn't make you right, it means for some reason you refuse to understand it.

Again you are talking about different situations.

Thus that is not an answer.

We are talking about people in the same situation.

Try again

No we are not, it is not possible for anyone to be in exactly the same situation as someone else. Are you going out of your way to be dense?

PhilDidge wrote:

Catman wrote:

Even the RW say the same thing about him!   

You should here what both Left and right say about you if of course you want to get silly?

And quite frankly i really couldn't give a damn!  :D 

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Again you are talking about different situations.

Thus that is not an answer.

We are talking about people in the same situation.

Try again

No we are not, it is not possible for anyone to be in exactly the same situation as someone else.   Are you going out of your way to be dense?

And it starts, did not take long I guess.

Yes many people can be in very similar situations Sassy, all you are doing is avoiding why some can manage and why some cannot, there is more to this which would make an interesting debate, but which it seems you do not want to discuss.
For one I think again many are taking advantage of the rise in food banks, I mean why not, they are there and what real checks are being done on entry to one?

So again some people on very similar situations are not having the need to go to one, as of yet I have not seen any valid reason to suggest why this is the case.

Didge, might I suggest we both take a deep breath and you actually read this and try and take it in.

You can have two people living in exactly the same type house, with exactly the same bills, but they will never have exactly the same circumstances.

One might have children that need shoes, or the other might have a sick relative they have to use money to visit, or one might have a car breakdown and because they have got to have that car to go to work, they have to repair it. Do you understand? Same income, same gas, electric, water, rates, but they will never, ever, have the same circumstances.

I am well aware of the points you are making Sassy, but are things always as they seem?

For example Oxfam claim 13 million people in the UK are living in what is termed as official poverty, now that is a huge amount of people would you not agree? Even though what is termed as official poverty to me is misleading. Now what is the difference here between all these people in poverty and those using food banks?

What really is poverty? I would say someone who genuinely needs to use a food bank is, and by that I mean someone genuine, but how can 13 million people be seen as in poverty yet no where near that figure use food banks?

I feel there is more to how or what is going on here, again I am not denying there are genuine people who need to use food banks, I think the figure is being clouded with people taking advantage of them to be honest, as already we have people from one charity class 13 million in poverty, can you then see how people who by Oxfam would be deemed fit to use food banks, because they are already classed in poverty, yet may be able to afford food?

Are you now starting to see my point?

PhilDidge wrote:I am well aware of the points you are making Sassy, but are things always as they seem?

For example Oxfam claim 13 million people in the UK are living in what is termed as official poverty, now that is a huge amount of people would you not agree? Even though what is termed as official poverty to me is misleading. Now what is the difference here between all these people in poverty and those using food banks?

What really is poverty? I would say someone who genuinely needs to use a food bank is, and by that I mean someone genuine, but how can 13 million people be seen as in poverty yet no where near that figure use food banks?

I feel there is more to how or what is going on here, again I am not denying there are genuine people who need to use food banks, I think the figure is being clouded with people taking advantage of them to be honest, as already we have people from one charity class 13 million in poverty, can you then see how people who by Oxfam would be deemed fit to use food banks, because they are already classed in poverty, yet may be able to afford food?

Are you now starting to see my point?

But Nems is working in the field and has already posted what goes on and Sassy has posted info about how food banks work!   

No Didge, Oxfam WOULD NOT DEEM THEM FIT TO USE FOOD BANKS. Food banks are not just for when you are poor, food banks are for when you have a real financial emergency and cannot buy anything, would starve otherwise, not just for when you have to live on bread and beans. You don't get it at all, you don't understand what food banks do or what they are for.

Didge?

Are you just going to be repeating the same old drivel over and over again on this thread?

Ok i havent read all the pages so i apologise if this has already been posted.

Yes there is a problem in the UK and food banks are vital for a lot of people decent ones and not just the drugged up people the right wings think they cater for.

Sassy wrote:No Didge, Oxfam WOULD NOT DEEM THEM FIT TO USE FOOD BANKS.   Food banks are not just for when you are poor, food banks are for when you have a real financial emergency and cannot buy anything, would starve otherwise, not just for when you have to live on bread and beans.   You don't get it at all, you don't understand what food banks do or what they are for.

But as seen 13 million are deemed as in poverty and please I can read sassy, I do not need caplocks on every post please.

Thanks

You are missing my point here, we have an official poverty level, again which I dispute, but how can we determine what is poverty or real poverty for food banks when like with Oxfam, they claim officially 13 million are. I am not disputing people with real emergencies, but again this is not the case for everyone is it?
I do understand food banks and I am showing how there is serous flaws here, based clearly as i am showing!

Oh God, you are missing the point, you don't seem to understand a thing. You are showing nothing but the fact you do not get it in any way, shape or form. Poverty is a level of living where you are on subsistance level, food banks are for emergencies. I'm not debating this anymore, its like talking to custard.

SEXY MAMA wrote:Ok i havent read all the pages so i apologise if this has already been posted.

Yes there is a problem in the UK and food banks are vital for a lot of people decent ones and not just the drugged up people the right wings think they cater for.

Yep!

Sassy wrote:Oh God, you are missing the point, you don't seem to understand a thing.   You are showing nothing but the fact you do not get it in any way, shape or form.    Poverty is a level of living where you are on subsistance level, food banks are for emergencies.   I'm not debating this anymore, its like talking to custard.

I am missing no point, now being as people who need emergency food are what people sassy?

Its up to you if you do not want to debate, I am showing how seriously flawed this all is.

SEXY MAMA wrote:Ok i havent read all the pages so i apologise if this has already been posted.

Yes there is a problem in the UK and food banks are vital for a lot of people decent ones and not just the drugged up people the right wings think they cater for.

Nobody even said that was the case sexy, this is about how people on similar problems can manage , how levels of poverty are classed and how easy it would be to claim food emergencies basing the classification already in use.

Hi by the way

PhilDidge wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:Ok i havent read all the pages so i apologise if this has already been posted.

Yes there is a problem in the UK and food banks are vital for a lot of people decent ones and not just the drugged up people the right wings think they cater for.

Nobody even said that was the case sexy, this is about how people on similar problems can manage , how levels of poverty are classed and how easy it would be to claim food emergencies basing the classification already in use.

Hi by the way  

Ah ok

Hello    :D 

:D 


Blessing to you and your family Sexy

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Oh God, you are missing the point, you don't seem to understand a thing.   You are showing nothing but the fact you do not get it in any way, shape or form.    Poverty is a level of living where you are on subsistance level, food banks are for emergencies.   I'm not debating this anymore, its like talking to custard.

I am missing no point, now being as people who need emergency food are what people sassy?

Its up to you if you do not want to debate, I am showing how seriously flawed this all is.

You are not showing how seriously flawed this is, you are showing you simply don't understand it. And you are not debating, you are repeating the same stupid thing which shows you don't understand, over and over ad nauseum.

PhilDidge wrote::D 


Blessing to you and your family Sexy

Yours too Didge    

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I am missing no point, now being as people who need emergency food are what people sassy?

Its up to you if you do not want to debate, I am showing how seriously flawed this all is.

You are not showing how seriously flawed this is, you are showing you simply don't understand it.   And you are not debating, you are repeating the same stupid thing which shows you don't understand, over and over ad nauseum.

I am not repeating anything, I am showing now that due to classifications 13 million people can claim to be in poverty by a terminology of what is classed as in poverty. Are you suggesting none within this group cannot pass the case they would not need emergency food now then?
Are you saying it is not anyone from this classification then?

I'm going to say this one last time. Poverty is when you are living at subsistance level, hand to mouth, having to live on bread and beans etc, not being able to afford to have the heating on, no money left at the end of the week, whatever you do or go without but managing to feed yourself, even if it's on crap.

Food banks are for when something happens, and that subsistance is thrown out of kilter, and instead of being able to at least eat, even if it is just bread, you can't even do that, an emergency. Then, when it has been confirmed that you are in that state, you can't feed yourself, you get a voucher for some food. You can only do that three times a year, so if you are on subsistance level, you have to pray that you won't get more than three emergencies a year.

Do you understand that? And if you go on about the number of people living in poverty again, I will know you don't.

Yes but surely people on the poverty line are those in greatest peril of needing food emergencies because they may get an unexpected bill for example? I mean this is what your link to the charity says:

Every day people in the UK go hungry for reasons ranging from redundancy to receiving an unexpected bill on a low income.

Thus anyone can walk up, show they have no money in their account, show a bill and is given food, even though they have money for food, yet they have showed they are on minimum wage, thus in the poverty line can they not?

So again the amount of people in the poverty line would be the most vulnerable, would they not? Why is that so difficult to understand?

I have just shown how easy it would be for someone to obtain food by the testing means of the charity.

It was not that difficult either.

That Factcheck article has a very interesting graph...



Foodbanks were introduced into this country to cater mainly for vagrants, the homeless and those that had dropped out of society for one reason or another. The rise from 07 onwards is mainly due to the results of the recession kicking kicking in and since then the attack on the welfare system by this Tory led coalition. That article is around a year old now and the estimates are that another 350,000 people have been directed to food banks so it's no coincedence that this has happened under the watch of that clown Iain Duncan Smith.

It does have a very interesting graph and some very interesting facts Irn.

Evening by the way!

What i can't understand...If there are less people unemployed etc...Then why is the DWP taking so much longer to process new and some existing claims when they have to move onto a different benefit?

Part of the reason for the increase in food bank use is the delay in the process of claims.

  

Also...Why do they have premium rate phone lines when you need to ring up about a delay in the process of claims?

Irn Bru wrote:That Factcheck article has a very interesting graph...



Foodbanks were introduced into this country to cater mainly for vagrants, the homeless and those that had dropped out of society for one reason or another. The rise from 07 onwards is mainly due to the results of the recession kicking kicking in and since then the attack on the welfare system by this Tory led coalition. That article is around a year old now and the estimates are that another 350,000 people have been directed to food banks so it's no coincedence that this has happened under the watch of that clown Iain Duncan Smith.

The difference between 2009 and now is astounding, and as you say, it was brought in to feed vagrants etc.

I think channel 4 did a fact finding on that claim Catman, don't think that claim is true either.

PhilDidge wrote:It does have a very interesting graph and some very interesting facts Irn.

Evening by the way!

Yes, good evening Didge.

I just don't believe for a moment that so many people are using foodbanks because they can't manage their money. The numbers are huge and it must be a distressing and dehumanising experience to have to go their and ask for food for free.

It's not on.

PhilDidge wrote:Yes but surely people on the poverty line are those in greatest peril of needing food emergencies because they may get an unexpected bill for example? I mean this is what your link to the charity says:

Every day people in the UK go hungry for reasons ranging from redundancy to receiving an unexpected bill on a low income.

Thus anyone can walk up, show they have no money in their account, show a bill and is given food, even though they have money for food, yet they have showed they are on minimum wage, thus in the poverty line can they not?

So again the amount of people in the poverty line would be the most vulnerable, would they not? Why is that so difficult to understand?  

I have just shown how easy it would be for someone to obtain food by the testing means of the charity.

It was not that difficult either.

How many more times, NO THEY CAN'T. They have to be referred and what they say checked, they have to be referred by a social worker, or a doctor, or CAB, and given a voucher. You have been told that over and over and over.

Well we will have to disagree on that Irn, hope you had a good day by the way.

Reading that fullfact report shows many views to me on this and I am not denying there are also many genuine people out there in need, but making political points out of these types of threads to me are as seen by what I posted showing culpability to both parties when in power, makes casting blame solely to one wrong .

Anyway unemployment is down again today, so lets hope less people will be in need of them in the future!

It is political, IDS and this Government have made it political, they have said so.

Sassy wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:That Factcheck article has a very interesting graph...



Foodbanks were introduced into this country to cater mainly for vagrants, the homeless and those that had dropped out of society for one reason or another. The rise from 07 onwards is mainly due to the results of the recession kicking kicking in and since then the attack on the welfare system by this Tory led coalition. That article is around a year old now and the estimates are that another 350,000 people have been directed to food banks so it's no coincedence that this has happened under the watch of that clown Iain Duncan Smith.

The difference between 2009 and now is astounding, and as you say, it was brought in to feed vagrants etc.  

Of course it was. If we believe that the Tories that living off benefits was better than working then that has to be the answer. They can't have it both ways.

Sassy wrote:It is political, IDS and this Government have made it political, they have said so.

As have you Sassy throughout this thread.

PhilDidge wrote:Well we will have to disagree on that Irn, hope you had a good day by the way.

Reading that fullfact report shows many views to me on this and I am not denying there are also many genuine people out there in need, but making political points out of these types of threads to me are as seen by what I posted showing culpability to both parties when in power, makes casting blame solely to one wrong .

Anyway unemployment is down again today, so lets hope less people will be in need of them in the future!

Not bad Didge but chucking it down right noe and blowing a gale. We agree on many things but on this we are apart. Unemployment is down but wages are running well below price inflation so people are poorer and have less to spend.

The ONS

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/december-2013/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-Earnings

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:It is political, IDS and this Government have made it political, they have said so.

As have you Sassy throughout this thread.

Of course I have, it is.

Irn Bru wrote:

Sassy wrote:

The difference between 2009 and now is astounding, and as you say, it was brought in to feed vagrants etc.  

Of course it was. If we believe that the Tories that living off benefits was better than working then that has to be the answer. They can't have it both ways.

Again reading the article shows that many people by the report that was done showed many needed them before the coalition and yet little was done in that time, by your reckoning, what is worse, when they have them now, or when they did not have them?

PhilDidge wrote:I think channel 4 did a fact finding on that claim Catman, don't think that claim is true either.

They did a series of programs designed to paint benefit claimants as thieves, as after the first program the next few were about shoplifters and pick pockets etc....Blatant propaganda probably sponsored by the proprietor of the Daily Heil who has very close links with Cameron.

They were all bloody actors...What i found quite amusing about that tragic program was that they had supposed drug dealers on one, showing their stash live on TV   ....And people fall for that sort of shite!

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Of course it was. If we believe that the Tories that living off benefits was better than working then that has to be the answer. They can't have it both ways.

Again reading the article shows that many people by the report that was done showed many needed them before the coalition and yet little was done in that time, by your reckoning, what is worse, when they have them now, or when they did not have them?

The people that needed them before the coalition were vagrants and people without any income, didn't qualify for JSA etc.   The people now are WORKING, on minimum wage, or zero hours, because of what this government has brought in.    It was a political decision for them to bring the rules in that caused this.

Some benefit claimants are thieves, are you saying this is not the case?

Fact finding is a tad different on Channel four

Anyway have a read:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-12-018/EN/KS-RA-12-018-EN.PDF

     

Sassy wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Again reading the article shows that many people by the report that was done showed many needed them before the coalition and yet little was done in that time, by your reckoning, what is worse, when they have them now, or when they did not have them?

The people that needed them before the coalition were vagrants and people without any income, didn't qualify for JSA etc.   The people now are WORKING, on minimum wage, or zero hours, because of what this government has brought in.    It was a political decision for them to bring the rules in that caused this.

Really?

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-12-018/EN/KS-RA-12-018-EN.PDF




http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMARK_DS-056350_QID_-499C486_UID_-3F171EB0&layout=TIME,C,X,0;HHTYP,L,Y,0;INCGRP,L,Z,0;UNIT,L,Z,1;GEO,L,Z,2;INDICATORS,C,Z,3;&zSelection=DS-056350GEO,UK;DS-056350INDICATORS,OBS_FLAG;DS-056350UNIT,PC_POP;DS-056350INCGRP,TOTAL;&rankName1=INCGRP_1_2_-1_2&rankName2=INDICATORS_1_2_-1_2&rankName3=UNIT_1_2_-1_2&rankName4=GEO_1_2_1_1&rankName5=TIME_1_0_0_0&rankName6=HHTYP_1_2_0_1&pprRK=FIRST&pprSO=PROTOCOL&ppcRK=FIRST&ppcSO=ASC&sortC=ASC_-1_FIRST&rStp=&cStp=&rDCh=&cDCh=&rDM=true&cDM=true&footnes=false&empty=false&wai=false&time_mode=NONE&lang=EN&cfo=%23%23%23%2C%23%23%23.%23%23%23

What the hell has that got to do with who uses food banks now and who used them in 2009?

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Of course it was. If we believe that the Tories that living off benefits was better than working then that has to be the answer. They can't have it both ways.

Again reading the article shows that many people by the report that was done showed many needed them before the coalition and yet little was done in that time, by your reckoning, what is worse, when they have them now, or when they did not have them?

Quite correct Didge. Many people did need them before the coalition and not many would dispute that but that was down to the collapse of the global banking system that caused the recession. However, it accelerated so much in the past year r so that the numbers coming up now are staggering.

Food poverty 'now a health emergency'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25201759

Everything, if you actually read the report, did you?

I suggest you read this again:

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/food_poverty_living_standards-28692

PhilDidge wrote:Everything, if you actually read the report, did you?

I suggest you read this again:

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/food_poverty_living_standards-28692

How many more times, poverty is not the same as the emergency of needing a food bank.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Again reading the article shows that many people by the report that was done showed many needed them before the coalition and yet little was done in that time, by your reckoning, what is worse, when they have them now, or when they did not have them?

Quite correct Didge. Many people did need them before the coalition and not many would dispute that but that was down to the collapse of the global banking system that caused the recession. However, it accelerated so much in the past year r so that the numbers coming up now are staggering.

Food poverty 'now a health emergency'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25201759

Sassy is,disputing but anyway.

Even before then Irn, from what I am reading, thus if before then we have many food banks now, it shows they were also greatly needed before, thus we could have let down many people before.


Have a good evening Irn, have to go, as feel this is going to go forever round in circles

Cheers

No, Sassy is NOT disputing. Sassy knows that poverty is causing people to live on crap. Its when people can't even AFFORD to live on crap they they use food banks. DOH!