Well, we have had Sal Paradise telling us that he hasn't had a pay rise in three years – so he will certainly be worse off.

His response, unfortunately, is that nobody else should have one if he can't – certainly not those nasty nurses and teachers, what with their gold-plated pensions, and those homecare workers with their massive expense accounts.

Whoa - I ask again for you to read what is written not what you want it to say. I have never said that because I haven't had a pay rise that nobody else should get one. If I have please show me where - otherwise show some class and retract the statement i.e. admit you where wrong.

So the second paragraph is just a figment of your warped imagination. As I has said before you sometimes behave like a child who doesn't get her own way - petty and immature, IMO you have a lot of growing up to do - being surrounded by the chattering classes on here does you no favours. No doubt Him, Mr Fish etc will jump to your defence security in numbers or perceived gravitas by association.

Not necessarily, if he/she has altered his/her outgoings. The crash (the only one, the one caused by the Labour party

) certainly made me alter my spending habits. Plenty of "Whoops" items in my freezer these days. In fact, I'm off to the supermarket in a bit for a bit of a rummage in the reduced section.


I think he/she is disputing that point.

[urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/21/iain-duncan-smith-trussell-trust-food-bank_n_4486547.html?utm_hp_ref=tw[/url


Meanwhile the ever-popular Ian Duncan Smith and his Dept for Work and Pensions continue to paint themselves into a corner on the topic of foodbanks and in particular their continued refusals to meet with one of the largest foodbank organisers The Trussell trust, preferring instead to blame foodbanks for the rise in foodbanks.

Indeed a DWP spokeswoman said "The Trussell Trust itself says it is opening three new foodbanks every week, so it's not surprising more people are using them."

So there you have it straight from the DWp themselves, its nothing to do with poverty or forcing the unwaged and low waged to turn to charity for the basic foodstuffs via the medium of turning off their benefits, its the fact that the Trussell Trust is expanding quicker than any of the well known supermarkets can keep up to - of course its obvious really isn't it, you open up a foodbank and people will come, not because they are in dire need but because you give them free food - why didn't we notice this before, all hail the DWP for pointing this out.

What they fail to acknowledge, spectacularly fail to acknowledge, time and again, and again, is that I (for instance) could not walk into a Trussell trust foodbank in the same way that I do with Asda and demand a food parcel of free basic foodstuffs, toilet paper and sanitary towels (yes, those also), and neither can anyone else - you have to be referred to them by a qualifying authority which could be a doctor, health visitor, social worker, CAB and even the police, and arrive at the door with a qualifying voucher where they are given three days supply of basic provisions and lots of free advice, and a cup of tea.

Its not a lifestyle choice as the delightful Mr Duncan Smith seems to think it is, its not an alternative to the weekly shop down at Waitrose and the Trussell trust aren't opening three new outlets a week (some of which will be very temporary units) because they have a gaggle of wealthy shareholders clamouring for more and more dividend from their investments - they are emergency support centres which they would be happy to point out to the DWP if only they'd meet with them, but when you have the head of the DWP walking out a few minutes into a Commons debate on the issue you can see the problem that poverty charities have when trying to deal with these self centred single minded buffoons.

So they should be banned?

Who ?

Foodbanks.

Why?

Just asking.

One question I have about foodbanks is do they ask for any evidence that the person coming for food is unemployed or otherwise strapped for cash to the point of not being able to afford food at a supermarket? I ask only because I wondered whether it was possible for a well off person or indeed a person actually able to afford to pay for food to walk in and just get some food without cost.

You have to be referred by one of several people, CAB, docs, social workers even the police.

See above.

And you can't go back another day and in Oliver Twist style ask for more, not unless you've been referred again, none of which is apparent to IDS or indeed anyone else at the DWP because they won't talk to the foodbank charities.

I read that article and thought he's having a giraffe isn't he?

Days after being roundly slated for walking out of the food bank debate in The Commons he comes out with this stupidity.

I've referred people to food banks and I'd estimate that in the majority of cases the referer will have been round to the person's house and found the cupboards pretty much bare with little to nothing in the fridge. Accompaning this you'll usually find that the person is on card fed gas and electric that they don't have any money for.

I know people who work for a housing association, they've started collecting themselves between the team for food parcels by buying the odd extra tin or bag of pasta that they keep in the office, since the under occupancy charge came in it's fairly common for them to coome across people who are drastically in arrears with little to no food in the property.

But hey, it's a lifestyle choice, not a very pleasant one it would seem to me but it's their choice after all.

Is that how it works, not only do you have to be referred by someone, those people who refer have to do a check which involves going through peoples cupboards, checking their financial situation etc etc.

Yeah that's exactly how it works.
Often, as I'm mooching about and spy a particularly unkempt garden I kick the door in rifle through the occupants cupboards, check their bank statements before casualy tossing a food bank voucher over my shoulder and sauntering on my way.

Yes. You have. You were at the front of the queue here during the pensions dispute complaining about how overpaid public services – who you informed us didn't work in "The Real World" should be dragged down to the level of people like you, in "The Real World".

You reduce your outgoings – if/when your income declines.

Did Jesus do that before helping people?

Reading the right wing posts on here and other forums I am beginning to realise what is wrong.

It should be a criminal offence to be poor, malnourished, ill, disabled and not be employable,
It should be a criminal offence to care about human beings who need help and try to change things that could improve the situation.
If you have no humanity and are of the opinion that me me me is the only social process available then you should be lauded.
As a right wing apologist you should realise that those who have the most are so GREEDY that anyone who even thinks about having a care for others should be immediately incarcerated without trial.
As right wing apologists, pre enlightened Scrooge is the person you should aspire to as this is how you believe the system should be.
The word Nasty is pornographic and should be deleted.

There are however people still with social conscience who will risk right wing claptrap and continue to help those in need or who have fallen on hard times. Thank you for your efforts.

I hope everyone has as good a time as possible during the next few days, including those who stick their fingers in their ears, wear blinkers and sing la la la and hope someone will take away the worlds problems for them.
There is still hope for you yet, optimist that I am

I already have done.

Your attempt to pretend that reducing one's outgoings doesn't mean that one is worse off if one's pay is frozen or reduced is still risable, though.

Surely you mean "risible"?
We'll have to agree to disagree.

No i did not I have never said that because I haven't had a pay rise nobody else should get one - which is what you claimed.

So either prove it by finding a quote I have made that says what you claim or retract. We both know what is going to happen - neither because you cannot prove it, you would have if could have and you haven't got enough about you to admit when you are wrong.

What I did say was that many in the private sector will have little sympathy with civil servants striking for compulsory pay increases when many in the private sector - like me - haven't had a pay increase in a number of years. That isn't anything like what claim I said. Again please read what is written not what you want it to say.

At best, it was nothing other than sophistry.

Try taking it to its logical conclusion: 'Oh, I'm not worse off because my boss slashed my pay by a huge: I cut my outgoings by giving up my house and now I sleep on a bench in the park, so I'm not actually worse off.'

Is that why you replied to "Graeme" on another thread while replying to Jerry Chicken?