Benefits loss drives people to foodbank

David Hartridge, project manager for the Foodbank in Swindon

David Hartridge, project manager for the Foodbank in Swindon

First published in News

MORE than 1,500 people have had their Job Seekers’ Allowance withheld while an investigation is carried out into whether they have broken eligibility rules – only to later win their appeal.

During this period many have no form of income, which is one of the reasons being put forward to explain the increased use of the Swindon Foodbank.

Between September 2012 and 2013 there was a total of 1,586 appeals lodged by applicants with a positive outcome, which is slightly more than those made against.

There are a number of reasons a suspension of benefits might be triggered, such as missing a meeting or leaving a job. However, while investigations are being carried out payment is stopped, often leaving applicants with no other option but to turn to the Foodbank for help.

David Hartridge, project manager at the Foodbank, said: “It is something we have seen much more of recently. Before a decision on an appeal is made it can be a very worrying time for people. They are often left with nothing coming in and are in limbo.

“These people do not know whether their appeal is going to be successful or not so there is that added worry.

“This is occurring across all types of people as well, from single young men, to couples and even families and expecting families.”

A BBC Panorama programme on Monday said that almost 140 local authorities provide funding to foodbanks but Swindon Council does not. Options have been explored on how to provide help but this is limited due to the charitable status of the Trussell Trust, which is behind the Foodbanks.

However, David said he is in regular contact with the council, Jobcentre Plus and Department of Work and Pensions, who refer people to the Foodbank.

The council has a scheme in which it gives out food parcels to those who need it, giving out 1,500 since April 1 last year. Any who are not eligible are passed on to the Foodbank.

David said: “We are happy to be working with these organisations and it is a good thing they refer people to us. It is of a benefit to everyone if we work together.

“The Foodbank just wants to help people who are in need of help and is not a political organisation.”

One accusation levelled at the Foodbank on the programme was that the Foodbank acts as a disincentive for people to buy food as it is provided free, something David denies.

He said: “I think that is a judgement which is made with the belief that people have the money to pay for food and heating and other items. Very often this is not the case and people are forced to make a choice between the two.

“The service the Foodbank provides has wider implications. It can help people who may have wider health problems as it solves the pressures they may have to find food or we can help keep people who may be forced to steal food from committing a crime.”

A DWP spokesperson said: “Every day Jobcentre Plus advisers are successfully supporting people to move off benefits and into work as part of the Government’s long-term economic plan to help people secure their future.

“It is only right that people claiming benefits should do everything they can to find work if they are able. The rules regarding someone’s entitlement to Jobseekers’ Allowance – and what could happen to their benefits if they don’t stick to those rules – are made very clear at the start of their claim.

“We have a well-established system of hardship provision for sanctioned claimants, who have little or no other resources available to them, to ensure they are supported throughout the duration of a sanction.”

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:46am Wed 5 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Foodbanks are vital.
You would need to be so far removed from society and reality to think anything else.

Example - A home carer looking after a family member is entitled to less than £60 a week.
Food, phone (to stay in touch with doc and person who is ill), car, insurance, MOT, clothes, personal hygiene, letters, household bills the list goes on. How is £60 supposed to cover the cost of living?
The above is not looking at luxury items like chocolate or god forbid a pint.

Ask job center for advice - Have you considered an extra income or looking to work from home? This is a great idea except that in order to qualify for the £60 a week you need to be caring for more than 35 hours a week, in reality it is 24 hours a day but there is no difference to why you care for the person only that they need care.
Nobody wants to do half a job or not be able to do your job to the best of your ability so doing both is taxing on body and mind.
The alternative is to use a home for care which will cost the tax payer even more money and as Panorama has shown in the past care homes.

Thankfully society has Edwina Currie to keep our moral compass straight....hang on a minute, she is accusing people of lying and cheating..didnt she....politics has a short memory when it wants.
Foodbanks are vital. You would need to be so far removed from society and reality to think anything else. Example - A home carer looking after a family member is entitled to less than £60 a week. Food, phone (to stay in touch with doc and person who is ill), car, insurance, MOT, clothes, personal hygiene, letters, household bills the list goes on. How is £60 supposed to cover the cost of living? The above is not looking at luxury items like chocolate or god forbid a pint. Ask job center for advice - Have you considered an extra income or looking to work from home? This is a great idea except that in order to qualify for the £60 a week you need to be caring for more than 35 hours a week, in reality it is 24 hours a day but there is no difference to why you care for the person only that they need care. Nobody wants to do half a job or not be able to do your job to the best of your ability so doing both is taxing on body and mind. The alternative is to use a home for care which will cost the tax payer even more money and as Panorama has shown in the past care homes. Thankfully society has Edwina Currie to keep our moral compass straight....hang on a minute, she is accusing people of lying and cheating..didnt she....politics has a short memory when it wants. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -2

1:19pm Wed 5 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

I dont think anyone would disagree that food banks are needed or that the welfare state doesn't have those who do fall through the net. But as with many things it a catch 22. Do we let things get bad so that Govt are forced to look at changing the system or do we have the food banks and other organisations pasting over the cracks so the Govt doesn't need to care or change? And before the usual suspects jump down my throat I do actually support the food bank on a regular basis.

The real question is why in 2014 in a so called civilised society we actually need them at all, that is the real scandal!
I dont think anyone would disagree that food banks are needed or that the welfare state doesn't have those who do fall through the net. But as with many things it a catch 22. Do we let things get bad so that Govt are forced to look at changing the system or do we have the food banks and other organisations pasting over the cracks so the Govt doesn't need to care or change? And before the usual suspects jump down my throat I do actually support the food bank on a regular basis. The real question is why in 2014 in a so called civilised society we actually need them at all, that is the real scandal! house on the hill
  • Score: 2

1:33pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Couldnt agree more why are they needed?

Unless you have a job with a wage above cost of living after bills etc...pay has been frozen for most people for the last number of years but the cost of living has continued to rise.

Many other local councils in the UK support foodbanks yet Swindon does not, are they being restocked by concerned locals therefore do not need funding?

If the foodbanks were not there to paper over the cracks what would the outcome be? petty crime? shop lifting? something more serious?

Even if they were not available I could not see why the gov would make any change. Maybe a food riot as has happened in Italy where people do not have access to this service.
If you couldnt feed your family what would you do?
Couldnt agree more why are they needed? Unless you have a job with a wage above cost of living after bills etc...pay has been frozen for most people for the last number of years but the cost of living has continued to rise. Many other local councils in the UK support foodbanks yet Swindon does not, are they being restocked by concerned locals therefore do not need funding? If the foodbanks were not there to paper over the cracks what would the outcome be? petty crime? shop lifting? something more serious? Even if they were not available I could not see why the gov would make any change. Maybe a food riot as has happened in Italy where people do not have access to this service. If you couldnt feed your family what would you do? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 1

1:43pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dc the 2nd says...

i admit i'm not close to this issue, but something nags at me about the potential cyclical nature of food banks:

Food banks give food to people who would be buying it from local stores, the stores then lose income and therefore reduce workers, those workers might then end up needed food banks.

Does that make sense? High possibility i am being thick here or missing the point here....
i admit i'm not close to this issue, but something nags at me about the potential cyclical nature of food banks: Food banks give food to people who would be buying it from local stores, the stores then lose income and therefore reduce workers, those workers might then end up needed food banks. Does that make sense? High possibility i am being thick here or missing the point here.... dc the 2nd
  • Score: -3

2:55pm Wed 5 Mar 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Food stamps would be ideal.
Food stamps would be ideal. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 2

2:58pm Wed 5 Mar 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Couldnt agree more why are they needed?

Unless you have a job with a wage above cost of living after bills etc...pay has been frozen for most people for the last number of years but the cost of living has continued to rise.

Many other local councils in the UK support foodbanks yet Swindon does not, are they being restocked by concerned locals therefore do not need funding?

If the foodbanks were not there to paper over the cracks what would the outcome be? petty crime? shop lifting? something more serious?

Even if they were not available I could not see why the gov would make any change. Maybe a food riot as has happened in Italy where people do not have access to this service.
If you couldnt feed your family what would you do?
The answer to you question is very much the same as for the UN World Food program.
CONTRACEPTION!
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Couldnt agree more why are they needed? Unless you have a job with a wage above cost of living after bills etc...pay has been frozen for most people for the last number of years but the cost of living has continued to rise. Many other local councils in the UK support foodbanks yet Swindon does not, are they being restocked by concerned locals therefore do not need funding? If the foodbanks were not there to paper over the cracks what would the outcome be? petty crime? shop lifting? something more serious? Even if they were not available I could not see why the gov would make any change. Maybe a food riot as has happened in Italy where people do not have access to this service. If you couldnt feed your family what would you do?[/p][/quote]The answer to you question is very much the same as for the UN World Food program. CONTRACEPTION! A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -2

3:21pm Wed 5 Mar 14

benzss says...

dc the 2nd wrote:
i admit i'm not close to this issue, but something nags at me about the potential cyclical nature of food banks:

Food banks give food to people who would be buying it from local stores, the stores then lose income and therefore reduce workers, those workers might then end up needed food banks.

Does that make sense? High possibility i am being thick here or missing the point here....
Where does the food given to the food banks come from?
[quote][p][bold]dc the 2nd[/bold] wrote: i admit i'm not close to this issue, but something nags at me about the potential cyclical nature of food banks: Food banks give food to people who would be buying it from local stores, the stores then lose income and therefore reduce workers, those workers might then end up needed food banks. Does that make sense? High possibility i am being thick here or missing the point here....[/p][/quote]Where does the food given to the food banks come from? benzss
  • Score: -5

4:05pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dc the 2nd says...

benzss wrote:
dc the 2nd wrote:
i admit i'm not close to this issue, but something nags at me about the potential cyclical nature of food banks:

Food banks give food to people who would be buying it from local stores, the stores then lose income and therefore reduce workers, those workers might then end up needed food banks.

Does that make sense? High possibility i am being thick here or missing the point here....
Where does the food given to the food banks come from?
right, i get it...sorry.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dc the 2nd[/bold] wrote: i admit i'm not close to this issue, but something nags at me about the potential cyclical nature of food banks: Food banks give food to people who would be buying it from local stores, the stores then lose income and therefore reduce workers, those workers might then end up needed food banks. Does that make sense? High possibility i am being thick here or missing the point here....[/p][/quote]Where does the food given to the food banks come from?[/p][/quote]right, i get it...sorry. dc the 2nd
  • Score: 1

4:05pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Couldnt agree more why are they needed?

Unless you have a job with a wage above cost of living after bills etc...pay has been frozen for most people for the last number of years but the cost of living has continued to rise.

Many other local councils in the UK support foodbanks yet Swindon does not, are they being restocked by concerned locals therefore do not need funding?

If the foodbanks were not there to paper over the cracks what would the outcome be? petty crime? shop lifting? something more serious?

Even if they were not available I could not see why the gov would make any change. Maybe a food riot as has happened in Italy where people do not have access to this service.
If you couldnt feed your family what would you do?
The answer to you question is very much the same as for the UN World Food program.
CONTRACEPTION!
So that would solve all issues?
Did you come up with that instead of thinking?

The company you worked for went bankrupt (through no fault of yours) and you lost your job you are +45 years of age and need a similar income to your previous one. The skill set you gained in that work place was specific and you have been forced to take a much lower paid job to ensure some money coming in. Fall behind with bills and housing becomes and issue, heat, eat or pay bills.
So how would your idea of contraception help here?
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Couldnt agree more why are they needed? Unless you have a job with a wage above cost of living after bills etc...pay has been frozen for most people for the last number of years but the cost of living has continued to rise. Many other local councils in the UK support foodbanks yet Swindon does not, are they being restocked by concerned locals therefore do not need funding? If the foodbanks were not there to paper over the cracks what would the outcome be? petty crime? shop lifting? something more serious? Even if they were not available I could not see why the gov would make any change. Maybe a food riot as has happened in Italy where people do not have access to this service. If you couldnt feed your family what would you do?[/p][/quote]The answer to you question is very much the same as for the UN World Food program. CONTRACEPTION![/p][/quote]So that would solve all issues? Did you come up with that instead of thinking? The company you worked for went bankrupt (through no fault of yours) and you lost your job you are +45 years of age and need a similar income to your previous one. The skill set you gained in that work place was specific and you have been forced to take a much lower paid job to ensure some money coming in. Fall behind with bills and housing becomes and issue, heat, eat or pay bills. So how would your idea of contraception help here? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 1

4:09pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

dc the 2nd wrote:
benzss wrote:
dc the 2nd wrote:
i admit i'm not close to this issue, but something nags at me about the potential cyclical nature of food banks:

Food banks give food to people who would be buying it from local stores, the stores then lose income and therefore reduce workers, those workers might then end up needed food banks.

Does that make sense? High possibility i am being thick here or missing the point here....
Where does the food given to the food banks come from?
right, i get it...sorry.
Its also donated by many locals as well. Companies like Tesco etc are not allowed to give to, well I say not allowed company policy doesnt allow this.
Your first comment did tickle though thanks for that.
[quote][p][bold]dc the 2nd[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dc the 2nd[/bold] wrote: i admit i'm not close to this issue, but something nags at me about the potential cyclical nature of food banks: Food banks give food to people who would be buying it from local stores, the stores then lose income and therefore reduce workers, those workers might then end up needed food banks. Does that make sense? High possibility i am being thick here or missing the point here....[/p][/quote]Where does the food given to the food banks come from?[/p][/quote]right, i get it...sorry.[/p][/quote]Its also donated by many locals as well. Companies like Tesco etc are not allowed to give to, well I say not allowed company policy doesnt allow this. Your first comment did tickle though thanks for that. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: -1

9:51pm Wed 5 Mar 14

house on the hill says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Couldnt agree more why are they needed?

Unless you have a job with a wage above cost of living after bills etc...pay has been frozen for most people for the last number of years but the cost of living has continued to rise.

Many other local councils in the UK support foodbanks yet Swindon does not, are they being restocked by concerned locals therefore do not need funding?

If the foodbanks were not there to paper over the cracks what would the outcome be? petty crime? shop lifting? something more serious?

Even if they were not available I could not see why the gov would make any change. Maybe a food riot as has happened in Italy where people do not have access to this service.
If you couldnt feed your family what would you do?
The answer to you question is very much the same as for the UN World Food program.
CONTRACEPTION!
So that would solve all issues?
Did you come up with that instead of thinking?

The company you worked for went bankrupt (through no fault of yours) and you lost your job you are +45 years of age and need a similar income to your previous one. The skill set you gained in that work place was specific and you have been forced to take a much lower paid job to ensure some money coming in. Fall behind with bills and housing becomes and issue, heat, eat or pay bills.
So how would your idea of contraception help here?
As someone who was made redundant at 46, I have to disagree as I am now earning more than I ever have doing something completely different because I was prepared to change and move and start at the bottom again and work hard. Ok so not everyone either can or would be prepared to do that, but sometimes people are their own worst enemies. There are some in real need through no fault of their own but there are also some who haven't taken the chances when offered when they could have made a change. We need better education but also to teach about responsibility and that life is what you make it and you do choices.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Couldnt agree more why are they needed? Unless you have a job with a wage above cost of living after bills etc...pay has been frozen for most people for the last number of years but the cost of living has continued to rise. Many other local councils in the UK support foodbanks yet Swindon does not, are they being restocked by concerned locals therefore do not need funding? If the foodbanks were not there to paper over the cracks what would the outcome be? petty crime? shop lifting? something more serious? Even if they were not available I could not see why the gov would make any change. Maybe a food riot as has happened in Italy where people do not have access to this service. If you couldnt feed your family what would you do?[/p][/quote]The answer to you question is very much the same as for the UN World Food program. CONTRACEPTION![/p][/quote]So that would solve all issues? Did you come up with that instead of thinking? The company you worked for went bankrupt (through no fault of yours) and you lost your job you are +45 years of age and need a similar income to your previous one. The skill set you gained in that work place was specific and you have been forced to take a much lower paid job to ensure some money coming in. Fall behind with bills and housing becomes and issue, heat, eat or pay bills. So how would your idea of contraception help here?[/p][/quote]As someone who was made redundant at 46, I have to disagree as I am now earning more than I ever have doing something completely different because I was prepared to change and move and start at the bottom again and work hard. Ok so not everyone either can or would be prepared to do that, but sometimes people are their own worst enemies. There are some in real need through no fault of their own but there are also some who haven't taken the chances when offered when they could have made a change. We need better education but also to teach about responsibility and that life is what you make it and you do choices. house on the hill
  • Score: 1

8:26am Thu 6 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

house on the hill wrote:
I dont think anyone would disagree that food banks are needed or that the welfare state doesn't have those who do fall through the net. But as with many things it a catch 22. Do we let things get bad so that Govt are forced to look at changing the system or do we have the food banks and other organisations pasting over the cracks so the Govt doesn't need to care or change? And before the usual suspects jump down my throat I do actually support the food bank on a regular basis.

The real question is why in 2014 in a so called civilised society we actually need them at all, that is the real scandal!
Unless here illegally, everyone in this country is entitled to any number of benefits to house them, feed and clothe them.

Despite the bleating of some, the amounts of benefits payable to most people do allow them to eat to a perfectly acceptable level. People tend to forget that the average adult should only be consuming around 2200 calories per day, half the reason so many people are obese is because some eat that in a single meal, especially if washed down with a beer or wine.

As people have pointed out, benefits are not calculated to allow those in receipt to smoke heavily, drink booze daily, buy takeaways a couple of times a week, use drugs, keep pets or any number of other things that people on benefits decide to do with their money.

Let's take a woman in a good job on £50,000 per year. If she decides she like handbags and spends £35,000 a year on them, would anyone be rushing around donating food to her because she's whinging that she can't afford any?
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: I dont think anyone would disagree that food banks are needed or that the welfare state doesn't have those who do fall through the net. But as with many things it a catch 22. Do we let things get bad so that Govt are forced to look at changing the system or do we have the food banks and other organisations pasting over the cracks so the Govt doesn't need to care or change? And before the usual suspects jump down my throat I do actually support the food bank on a regular basis. The real question is why in 2014 in a so called civilised society we actually need them at all, that is the real scandal![/p][/quote]Unless here illegally, everyone in this country is entitled to any number of benefits to house them, feed and clothe them. Despite the bleating of some, the amounts of benefits payable to most people do allow them to eat to a perfectly acceptable level. People tend to forget that the average adult should only be consuming around 2200 calories per day, half the reason so many people are obese is because some eat that in a single meal, especially if washed down with a beer or wine. As people have pointed out, benefits are not calculated to allow those in receipt to smoke heavily, drink booze daily, buy takeaways a couple of times a week, use drugs, keep pets or any number of other things that people on benefits decide to do with their money. Let's take a woman in a good job on £50,000 per year. If she decides she like handbags and spends £35,000 a year on them, would anyone be rushing around donating food to her because she's whinging that she can't afford any? ChannelX
  • Score: -1

9:17am Thu 6 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
I dont think anyone would disagree that food banks are needed or that the welfare state doesn't have those who do fall through the net. But as with many things it a catch 22. Do we let things get bad so that Govt are forced to look at changing the system or do we have the food banks and other organisations pasting over the cracks so the Govt doesn't need to care or change? And before the usual suspects jump down my throat I do actually support the food bank on a regular basis.

The real question is why in 2014 in a so called civilised society we actually need them at all, that is the real scandal!
Unless here illegally, everyone in this country is entitled to any number of benefits to house them, feed and clothe them.

Despite the bleating of some, the amounts of benefits payable to most people do allow them to eat to a perfectly acceptable level. People tend to forget that the average adult should only be consuming around 2200 calories per day, half the reason so many people are obese is because some eat that in a single meal, especially if washed down with a beer or wine.

As people have pointed out, benefits are not calculated to allow those in receipt to smoke heavily, drink booze daily, buy takeaways a couple of times a week, use drugs, keep pets or any number of other things that people on benefits decide to do with their money.

Let's take a woman in a good job on £50,000 per year. If she decides she like handbags and spends £35,000 a year on them, would anyone be rushing around donating food to her because she's whinging that she can't afford any?
But thats not correct is it?
Could you live on £60 per week?

You use the words most and tend as if you have a knowledge of how people live which you clearly dont.
Your list of luxury items that people apparently spend benefits on beer and take a ways is false yes "some" do but that is like saying everyone of your age group is only a drain on society providing nothing and that we should adopt Logan`s Run state of mind and you are bumped of at 45? That would also be a short sighted idiotic comment to make but illustrates how insane your view is.
Coffee is a luxury being able to fuel a car without calculating how far you can travel on it and when would be the best use it.

Your "example" still leaves £15k which would be enough to have a nice standard of life again proving how little idea you have of the world and society people are living in everyday.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: I dont think anyone would disagree that food banks are needed or that the welfare state doesn't have those who do fall through the net. But as with many things it a catch 22. Do we let things get bad so that Govt are forced to look at changing the system or do we have the food banks and other organisations pasting over the cracks so the Govt doesn't need to care or change? And before the usual suspects jump down my throat I do actually support the food bank on a regular basis. The real question is why in 2014 in a so called civilised society we actually need them at all, that is the real scandal![/p][/quote]Unless here illegally, everyone in this country is entitled to any number of benefits to house them, feed and clothe them. Despite the bleating of some, the amounts of benefits payable to most people do allow them to eat to a perfectly acceptable level. People tend to forget that the average adult should only be consuming around 2200 calories per day, half the reason so many people are obese is because some eat that in a single meal, especially if washed down with a beer or wine. As people have pointed out, benefits are not calculated to allow those in receipt to smoke heavily, drink booze daily, buy takeaways a couple of times a week, use drugs, keep pets or any number of other things that people on benefits decide to do with their money. Let's take a woman in a good job on £50,000 per year. If she decides she like handbags and spends £35,000 a year on them, would anyone be rushing around donating food to her because she's whinging that she can't afford any?[/p][/quote]But thats not correct is it? Could you live on £60 per week? You use the words most and tend as if you have a knowledge of how people live which you clearly dont. Your list of luxury items that people apparently spend benefits on beer and take a ways is false yes "some" do but that is like saying everyone of your age group is only a drain on society providing nothing and that we should adopt Logan`s Run state of mind and you are bumped of at 45? That would also be a short sighted idiotic comment to make but illustrates how insane your view is. Coffee is a luxury being able to fuel a car without calculating how far you can travel on it and when would be the best use it. Your "example" still leaves £15k which would be enough to have a nice standard of life again proving how little idea you have of the world and society people are living in everyday. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 1

9:27am Thu 6 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

house on the hill wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
Couldnt agree more why are they needed?

Unless you have a job with a wage above cost of living after bills etc...pay has been frozen for most people for the last number of years but the cost of living has continued to rise.

Many other local councils in the UK support foodbanks yet Swindon does not, are they being restocked by concerned locals therefore do not need funding?

If the foodbanks were not there to paper over the cracks what would the outcome be? petty crime? shop lifting? something more serious?

Even if they were not available I could not see why the gov would make any change. Maybe a food riot as has happened in Italy where people do not have access to this service.
If you couldnt feed your family what would you do?
The answer to you question is very much the same as for the UN World Food program.
CONTRACEPTION!
So that would solve all issues?
Did you come up with that instead of thinking?

The company you worked for went bankrupt (through no fault of yours) and you lost your job you are +45 years of age and need a similar income to your previous one. The skill set you gained in that work place was specific and you have been forced to take a much lower paid job to ensure some money coming in. Fall behind with bills and housing becomes and issue, heat, eat or pay bills.
So how would your idea of contraception help here?
As someone who was made redundant at 46, I have to disagree as I am now earning more than I ever have doing something completely different because I was prepared to change and move and start at the bottom again and work hard. Ok so not everyone either can or would be prepared to do that, but sometimes people are their own worst enemies. There are some in real need through no fault of their own but there are also some who haven't taken the chances when offered when they could have made a change. We need better education but also to teach about responsibility and that life is what you make it and you do choices.
That is brilliant news well done.
Time constraints etc to learning new skills can be the killer as the bills keep coming.
In the last 3 years I have had to learn new skills 3 times for new jobs but that surely makes your working day more interesting?
My personal situation changed so I had to change with it but so many do not have the opportunity to do so. I love what I do now but kills me to see so many struggle in my hometown, when it really isnt needed.

The common response is that these places are used by druggies etc but that is just a replacement for thinking so Edwina spoon feeds the simple folk an opinion they can spit back out.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: Couldnt agree more why are they needed? Unless you have a job with a wage above cost of living after bills etc...pay has been frozen for most people for the last number of years but the cost of living has continued to rise. Many other local councils in the UK support foodbanks yet Swindon does not, are they being restocked by concerned locals therefore do not need funding? If the foodbanks were not there to paper over the cracks what would the outcome be? petty crime? shop lifting? something more serious? Even if they were not available I could not see why the gov would make any change. Maybe a food riot as has happened in Italy where people do not have access to this service. If you couldnt feed your family what would you do?[/p][/quote]The answer to you question is very much the same as for the UN World Food program. CONTRACEPTION![/p][/quote]So that would solve all issues? Did you come up with that instead of thinking? The company you worked for went bankrupt (through no fault of yours) and you lost your job you are +45 years of age and need a similar income to your previous one. The skill set you gained in that work place was specific and you have been forced to take a much lower paid job to ensure some money coming in. Fall behind with bills and housing becomes and issue, heat, eat or pay bills. So how would your idea of contraception help here?[/p][/quote]As someone who was made redundant at 46, I have to disagree as I am now earning more than I ever have doing something completely different because I was prepared to change and move and start at the bottom again and work hard. Ok so not everyone either can or would be prepared to do that, but sometimes people are their own worst enemies. There are some in real need through no fault of their own but there are also some who haven't taken the chances when offered when they could have made a change. We need better education but also to teach about responsibility and that life is what you make it and you do choices.[/p][/quote]That is brilliant news well done. Time constraints etc to learning new skills can be the killer as the bills keep coming. In the last 3 years I have had to learn new skills 3 times for new jobs but that surely makes your working day more interesting? My personal situation changed so I had to change with it but so many do not have the opportunity to do so. I love what I do now but kills me to see so many struggle in my hometown, when it really isnt needed. The common response is that these places are used by druggies etc but that is just a replacement for thinking so Edwina spoon feeds the simple folk an opinion they can spit back out. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

10:03am Thu 6 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
I dont think anyone would disagree that food banks are needed or that the welfare state doesn't have those who do fall through the net. But as with many things it a catch 22. Do we let things get bad so that Govt are forced to look at changing the system or do we have the food banks and other organisations pasting over the cracks so the Govt doesn't need to care or change? And before the usual suspects jump down my throat I do actually support the food bank on a regular basis.

The real question is why in 2014 in a so called civilised society we actually need them at all, that is the real scandal!
Unless here illegally, everyone in this country is entitled to any number of benefits to house them, feed and clothe them.

Despite the bleating of some, the amounts of benefits payable to most people do allow them to eat to a perfectly acceptable level. People tend to forget that the average adult should only be consuming around 2200 calories per day, half the reason so many people are obese is because some eat that in a single meal, especially if washed down with a beer or wine.

As people have pointed out, benefits are not calculated to allow those in receipt to smoke heavily, drink booze daily, buy takeaways a couple of times a week, use drugs, keep pets or any number of other things that people on benefits decide to do with their money.

Let's take a woman in a good job on £50,000 per year. If she decides she like handbags and spends £35,000 a year on them, would anyone be rushing around donating food to her because she's whinging that she can't afford any?
But thats not correct is it?
Could you live on £60 per week?

You use the words most and tend as if you have a knowledge of how people live which you clearly dont.
Your list of luxury items that people apparently spend benefits on beer and take a ways is false yes "some" do but that is like saying everyone of your age group is only a drain on society providing nothing and that we should adopt Logan`s Run state of mind and you are bumped of at 45? That would also be a short sighted idiotic comment to make but illustrates how insane your view is.
Coffee is a luxury being able to fuel a car without calculating how far you can travel on it and when would be the best use it.

Your "example" still leaves £15k which would be enough to have a nice standard of life again proving how little idea you have of the world and society people are living in everyday.
I wouldn't have to live on '£60 per week'. I friend of mine returned to the UK a couple of years ago and was out of work for two years. He is a single man, no children. He immediately received £500 per month housing benefit and £72 per week to spend on whatever he wanted.

His rent included all bills, even internet access and cable TV.

I'm not suggesting he was out test driving Ferraris a the weekend, but to suggest he was 'poor' or hard done by is laughable. He had more spare cash than a number of people I know who are in fairly well paid jobs - but who are expected to pay for everything, including those on benefits, themselves.

I use the words 'most' and 'tend' because not all people always do one thing.

You are absolutely wrong about what people spend their benefits on. I know people on benefits and have been around plenty of them, so I know *exactly* what they spend their money on. So do you, I would suspect, but you'd rather deny it and pretend otherwise because it's uncomfortable for you to admit the truth.

The rest of your rambling, incoherent post appears to be you making up ridiculous scenarios and then having a go at me for saying such things - even though I didn't and you did.

I'm not bothering to get into this nonsense with you again because your 'approach' is far too abstract and nonsensical to even attempt to engage with.

I mean, what does 'coffee' have to do with anything?

BTW, you claim £15,000 is enough to have a nice lifestyle on. In my friend's case, he was being given the equivalent of £11,000 per year... and yet you're making out life on benefits means Foodbanks, depression and misery.

And something about killing people aged 45, bizarrely.
[quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: I dont think anyone would disagree that food banks are needed or that the welfare state doesn't have those who do fall through the net. But as with many things it a catch 22. Do we let things get bad so that Govt are forced to look at changing the system or do we have the food banks and other organisations pasting over the cracks so the Govt doesn't need to care or change? And before the usual suspects jump down my throat I do actually support the food bank on a regular basis. The real question is why in 2014 in a so called civilised society we actually need them at all, that is the real scandal![/p][/quote]Unless here illegally, everyone in this country is entitled to any number of benefits to house them, feed and clothe them. Despite the bleating of some, the amounts of benefits payable to most people do allow them to eat to a perfectly acceptable level. People tend to forget that the average adult should only be consuming around 2200 calories per day, half the reason so many people are obese is because some eat that in a single meal, especially if washed down with a beer or wine. As people have pointed out, benefits are not calculated to allow those in receipt to smoke heavily, drink booze daily, buy takeaways a couple of times a week, use drugs, keep pets or any number of other things that people on benefits decide to do with their money. Let's take a woman in a good job on £50,000 per year. If she decides she like handbags and spends £35,000 a year on them, would anyone be rushing around donating food to her because she's whinging that she can't afford any?[/p][/quote]But thats not correct is it? Could you live on £60 per week? You use the words most and tend as if you have a knowledge of how people live which you clearly dont. Your list of luxury items that people apparently spend benefits on beer and take a ways is false yes "some" do but that is like saying everyone of your age group is only a drain on society providing nothing and that we should adopt Logan`s Run state of mind and you are bumped of at 45? That would also be a short sighted idiotic comment to make but illustrates how insane your view is. Coffee is a luxury being able to fuel a car without calculating how far you can travel on it and when would be the best use it. Your "example" still leaves £15k which would be enough to have a nice standard of life again proving how little idea you have of the world and society people are living in everyday.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't have to live on '£60 per week'. I friend of mine returned to the UK a couple of years ago and was out of work for two years. He is a single man, no children. He immediately received £500 per month housing benefit and £72 per week to spend on whatever he wanted. His rent included all bills, even internet access and cable TV. I'm not suggesting he was out test driving Ferraris a the weekend, but to suggest he was 'poor' or hard done by is laughable. He had more spare cash than a number of people I know who are in fairly well paid jobs - but who are expected to pay for everything, including those on benefits, themselves. I use the words 'most' and 'tend' because not all people always do one thing. You are absolutely wrong about what people spend their benefits on. I know people on benefits and have been around plenty of them, so I know *exactly* what they spend their money on. So do you, I would suspect, but you'd rather deny it and pretend otherwise because it's uncomfortable for you to admit the truth. The rest of your rambling, incoherent post appears to be you making up ridiculous scenarios and then having a go at me for saying such things - even though I didn't and you did. I'm not bothering to get into this nonsense with you again because your 'approach' is far too abstract and nonsensical to even attempt to engage with. I mean, what does 'coffee' have to do with anything? BTW, you claim £15,000 is enough to have a nice lifestyle on. In my friend's case, he was being given the equivalent of £11,000 per year... and yet you're making out life on benefits means Foodbanks, depression and misery. And something about killing people aged 45, bizarrely. ChannelX
  • Score: -1

10:34am Thu 6 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
Badgersgetabadname wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
I dont think anyone would disagree that food banks are needed or that the welfare state doesn't have those who do fall through the net. But as with many things it a catch 22. Do we let things get bad so that Govt are forced to look at changing the system or do we have the food banks and other organisations pasting over the cracks so the Govt doesn't need to care or change? And before the usual suspects jump down my throat I do actually support the food bank on a regular basis.

The real question is why in 2014 in a so called civilised society we actually need them at all, that is the real scandal!
Unless here illegally, everyone in this country is entitled to any number of benefits to house them, feed and clothe them.

Despite the bleating of some, the amounts of benefits payable to most people do allow them to eat to a perfectly acceptable level. People tend to forget that the average adult should only be consuming around 2200 calories per day, half the reason so many people are obese is because some eat that in a single meal, especially if washed down with a beer or wine.

As people have pointed out, benefits are not calculated to allow those in receipt to smoke heavily, drink booze daily, buy takeaways a couple of times a week, use drugs, keep pets or any number of other things that people on benefits decide to do with their money.

Let's take a woman in a good job on £50,000 per year. If she decides she like handbags and spends £35,000 a year on them, would anyone be rushing around donating food to her because she's whinging that she can't afford any?
But thats not correct is it?
Could you live on £60 per week?

You use the words most and tend as if you have a knowledge of how people live which you clearly dont.
Your list of luxury items that people apparently spend benefits on beer and take a ways is false yes "some" do but that is like saying everyone of your age group is only a drain on society providing nothing and that we should adopt Logan`s Run state of mind and you are bumped of at 45? That would also be a short sighted idiotic comment to make but illustrates how insane your view is.
Coffee is a luxury being able to fuel a car without calculating how far you can travel on it and when would be the best use it.

Your "example" still leaves £15k which would be enough to have a nice standard of life again proving how little idea you have of the world and society people are living in everyday.
I wouldn't have to live on '£60 per week'. I friend of mine returned to the UK a couple of years ago and was out of work for two years. He is a single man, no children. He immediately received £500 per month housing benefit and £72 per week to spend on whatever he wanted.

His rent included all bills, even internet access and cable TV.

I'm not suggesting he was out test driving Ferraris a the weekend, but to suggest he was 'poor' or hard done by is laughable. He had more spare cash than a number of people I know who are in fairly well paid jobs - but who are expected to pay for everything, including those on benefits, themselves.

I use the words 'most' and 'tend' because not all people always do one thing.

You are absolutely wrong about what people spend their benefits on. I know people on benefits and have been around plenty of them, so I know *exactly* what they spend their money on. So do you, I would suspect, but you'd rather deny it and pretend otherwise because it's uncomfortable for you to admit the truth.

The rest of your rambling, incoherent post appears to be you making up ridiculous scenarios and then having a go at me for saying such things - even though I didn't and you did.

I'm not bothering to get into this nonsense with you again because your 'approach' is far too abstract and nonsensical to even attempt to engage with.

I mean, what does 'coffee' have to do with anything?

BTW, you claim £15,000 is enough to have a nice lifestyle on. In my friend's case, he was being given the equivalent of £11,000 per year... and yet you're making out life on benefits means Foodbanks, depression and misery.

And something about killing people aged 45, bizarrely.
For the sixth thread you have commented on you continue to make statements with little or no thought when asked to support your wild comments you either change the subject or as in 4 other threads just not reply.
I am sorry I forgot its your extensive "Life experience" that entitles you to your opinions.
Your first line says it all YOU would not have to live on £60 per week, as in so many other topics until it directly affects you, you only have an opinion and dont care about anything that isnt you.

Your claim that you know what people spend their money on is also based on your factless, feckless life experience?
I can understand your life in the home will make you this bitter little man but as your comment shows you are annoyed at a "friend" (of that I doubt) but it demonstrates that you do not have a clue as to what is happening.

You cannot claim £500 per month in SBC as it is capped to single people with no dependents. Are you making up the argument in your head again?

I will explain sentences for you, in your bile filled comment you suggest that benefits are spent on drink and take a ways I am telling you that coffee is a luxury item so take a way or drink are a million miles away.

Are you aware that 15 is a bigger number than 11? so yes 15K would give you a better life than 11k.
Once again your levels of ignorance are blinding.

You claim to understand the words most and tend yet follow that with a comment that all benefits people spend money on drink and drugs?

I used the film Logan`s run as an example for you to understand a little easier. You state that those people who are wasting money on drink and drugs are useless it was my suggestion that you are equally worthless.

What kind of moron are you?
Its either ignorance or stupidity which one are you?
Are you this way because of no visitors or because your perception is that no one cares about you?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgersgetabadname[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: I dont think anyone would disagree that food banks are needed or that the welfare state doesn't have those who do fall through the net. But as with many things it a catch 22. Do we let things get bad so that Govt are forced to look at changing the system or do we have the food banks and other organisations pasting over the cracks so the Govt doesn't need to care or change? And before the usual suspects jump down my throat I do actually support the food bank on a regular basis. The real question is why in 2014 in a so called civilised society we actually need them at all, that is the real scandal![/p][/quote]Unless here illegally, everyone in this country is entitled to any number of benefits to house them, feed and clothe them. Despite the bleating of some, the amounts of benefits payable to most people do allow them to eat to a perfectly acceptable level. People tend to forget that the average adult should only be consuming around 2200 calories per day, half the reason so many people are obese is because some eat that in a single meal, especially if washed down with a beer or wine. As people have pointed out, benefits are not calculated to allow those in receipt to smoke heavily, drink booze daily, buy takeaways a couple of times a week, use drugs, keep pets or any number of other things that people on benefits decide to do with their money. Let's take a woman in a good job on £50,000 per year. If she decides she like handbags and spends £35,000 a year on them, would anyone be rushing around donating food to her because she's whinging that she can't afford any?[/p][/quote]But thats not correct is it? Could you live on £60 per week? You use the words most and tend as if you have a knowledge of how people live which you clearly dont. Your list of luxury items that people apparently spend benefits on beer and take a ways is false yes "some" do but that is like saying everyone of your age group is only a drain on society providing nothing and that we should adopt Logan`s Run state of mind and you are bumped of at 45? That would also be a short sighted idiotic comment to make but illustrates how insane your view is. Coffee is a luxury being able to fuel a car without calculating how far you can travel on it and when would be the best use it. Your "example" still leaves £15k which would be enough to have a nice standard of life again proving how little idea you have of the world and society people are living in everyday.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't have to live on '£60 per week'. I friend of mine returned to the UK a couple of years ago and was out of work for two years. He is a single man, no children. He immediately received £500 per month housing benefit and £72 per week to spend on whatever he wanted. His rent included all bills, even internet access and cable TV. I'm not suggesting he was out test driving Ferraris a the weekend, but to suggest he was 'poor' or hard done by is laughable. He had more spare cash than a number of people I know who are in fairly well paid jobs - but who are expected to pay for everything, including those on benefits, themselves. I use the words 'most' and 'tend' because not all people always do one thing. You are absolutely wrong about what people spend their benefits on. I know people on benefits and have been around plenty of them, so I know *exactly* what they spend their money on. So do you, I would suspect, but you'd rather deny it and pretend otherwise because it's uncomfortable for you to admit the truth. The rest of your rambling, incoherent post appears to be you making up ridiculous scenarios and then having a go at me for saying such things - even though I didn't and you did. I'm not bothering to get into this nonsense with you again because your 'approach' is far too abstract and nonsensical to even attempt to engage with. I mean, what does 'coffee' have to do with anything? BTW, you claim £15,000 is enough to have a nice lifestyle on. In my friend's case, he was being given the equivalent of £11,000 per year... and yet you're making out life on benefits means Foodbanks, depression and misery. And something about killing people aged 45, bizarrely.[/p][/quote]For the sixth thread you have commented on you continue to make statements with little or no thought when asked to support your wild comments you either change the subject or as in 4 other threads just not reply. I am sorry I forgot its your extensive "Life experience" that entitles you to your opinions. Your first line says it all YOU would not have to live on £60 per week, as in so many other topics until it directly affects you, you only have an opinion and dont care about anything that isnt you. Your claim that you know what people spend their money on is also based on your factless, feckless life experience? I can understand your life in the home will make you this bitter little man but as your comment shows you are annoyed at a "friend" (of that I doubt) but it demonstrates that you do not have a clue as to what is happening. You cannot claim £500 per month in SBC as it is capped to single people with no dependents. Are you making up the argument in your head again? I will explain sentences for you, in your bile filled comment you suggest that benefits are spent on drink and take a ways I am telling you that coffee is a luxury item so take a way or drink are a million miles away. Are you aware that 15 is a bigger number than 11? so yes 15K would give you a better life than 11k. Once again your levels of ignorance are blinding. You claim to understand the words most and tend yet follow that with a comment that all benefits people spend money on drink and drugs? I used the film Logan`s run as an example for you to understand a little easier. You state that those people who are wasting money on drink and drugs are useless it was my suggestion that you are equally worthless. What kind of moron are you? Its either ignorance or stupidity which one are you? Are you this way because of no visitors or because your perception is that no one cares about you? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 1

12:08pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

For crying out loud, I wouldn't have to live on £60 because that's not what I'd get if I was on benefits.

You really are a piece of work. It's absolutely pointless even attempting to hold a rational discussion with you.

Hope you get the treatment you need, rather than the pills they keep giving you, as it'd be a relief for all of us.
For crying out loud, I wouldn't have to live on £60 because that's not what I'd get if I was on benefits. You really are a piece of work. It's absolutely pointless even attempting to hold a rational discussion with you. Hope you get the treatment you need, rather than the pills they keep giving you, as it'd be a relief for all of us. ChannelX
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
For crying out loud, I wouldn't have to live on £60 because that's not what I'd get if I was on benefits.

You really are a piece of work. It's absolutely pointless even attempting to hold a rational discussion with you.

Hope you get the treatment you need, rather than the pills they keep giving you, as it'd be a relief for all of us.
Now that is a comment for a different thread isnt it?
I am not sure you know what the word rational even means. Stating that something is true because "in your life experience" is a ridiculous statement as people do not know your life experience, neither has it been recorded by an independent to verify your life experience and how it would be relevant to the topic. That is why its irrelevant.

Just to explain to you how a discussion thread works.
The main article provides information about something that is happening and invites others to make comments based on that.

I gave an example of a situation many people face not you specifically if it was you specifically I would of stated that the comment was directed at you. Yet you replied saying that it wasnt the case for you.
Read comments and articles properly, personally I think it your aggressive attitude that stops you from any level of accuracy in your comments. If that is the case on here I imagine it runs through everything you do. I have some contact details if you need to talk to someone about your anger.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: For crying out loud, I wouldn't have to live on £60 because that's not what I'd get if I was on benefits. You really are a piece of work. It's absolutely pointless even attempting to hold a rational discussion with you. Hope you get the treatment you need, rather than the pills they keep giving you, as it'd be a relief for all of us.[/p][/quote]Now that is a comment for a different thread isnt it? I am not sure you know what the word rational even means. Stating that something is true because "in your life experience" is a ridiculous statement as people do not know your life experience, neither has it been recorded by an independent to verify your life experience and how it would be relevant to the topic. That is why its irrelevant. Just to explain to you how a discussion thread works. The main article provides information about something that is happening and invites others to make comments based on that. I gave an example of a situation many people face not you specifically if it was you specifically I would of stated that the comment was directed at you. Yet you replied saying that it wasnt the case for you. Read comments and articles properly, personally I think it your aggressive attitude that stops you from any level of accuracy in your comments. If that is the case on here I imagine it runs through everything you do. I have some contact details if you need to talk to someone about your anger. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ChannelX says...

Look, I have seen WITH MY OWN EYES, over a number of years, what numerous people on benefits spend their money on. Does that mean they ALL do, no. Does it mean I know full well that a large percentage do, yes, it does - regardless of you simply claiming otherwise.

In another thread, you said mental healthcare provision in Swindon isn't really doing a great job. How would you feel if I said, 'Well, that's just your life experience in your case and a few other people. That counts for nothing, you're wrong and, actually, mental healthcare provision in Swindon is brilliant'?

As for the rest of your post, again, virtually impossible to make any sense of it.
Look, I have seen WITH MY OWN EYES, over a number of years, what numerous people on benefits spend their money on. Does that mean they ALL do, no. Does it mean I know full well that a large percentage do, yes, it does - regardless of you simply claiming otherwise. In another thread, you said mental healthcare provision in Swindon isn't really doing a great job. How would you feel if I said, 'Well, that's just your life experience in your case and a few other people. That counts for nothing, you're wrong and, actually, mental healthcare provision in Swindon is brilliant'? As for the rest of your post, again, virtually impossible to make any sense of it. ChannelX
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
Look, I have seen WITH MY OWN EYES, over a number of years, what numerous people on benefits spend their money on. Does that mean they ALL do, no. Does it mean I know full well that a large percentage do, yes, it does - regardless of you simply claiming otherwise.

In another thread, you said mental healthcare provision in Swindon isn't really doing a great job. How would you feel if I said, 'Well, that's just your life experience in your case and a few other people. That counts for nothing, you're wrong and, actually, mental healthcare provision in Swindon is brilliant'?

As for the rest of your post, again, virtually impossible to make any sense of it.
I hardly think the people you associate with are a reference for the entire community more a reflection of YOUR choice of people to associate with?

I dont use the term "life experience" as it is a shortcut to thinking I use the most recent information I can find before stating my opinion.
Your "friend" who claimed housing benefit live in either a self contained flat or multiple occupancy building as they are the ones that factor in all bills sky, internet etc.. Not the housing benefit office. The benefit cap has been under £500 for quite some time now unless you have dependents which you claimed your "friend" did not.
The fact that so many people are experiencing similar issues across Swindon adds to the value of the comment I made so was not solely based on my opinion that is also on another thread.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Look, I have seen WITH MY OWN EYES, over a number of years, what numerous people on benefits spend their money on. Does that mean they ALL do, no. Does it mean I know full well that a large percentage do, yes, it does - regardless of you simply claiming otherwise. In another thread, you said mental healthcare provision in Swindon isn't really doing a great job. How would you feel if I said, 'Well, that's just your life experience in your case and a few other people. That counts for nothing, you're wrong and, actually, mental healthcare provision in Swindon is brilliant'? As for the rest of your post, again, virtually impossible to make any sense of it.[/p][/quote]I hardly think the people you associate with are a reference for the entire community more a reflection of YOUR choice of people to associate with? I dont use the term "life experience" as it is a shortcut to thinking I use the most recent information I can find before stating my opinion. Your "friend" who claimed housing benefit live in either a self contained flat or multiple occupancy building as they are the ones that factor in all bills sky, internet etc.. Not the housing benefit office. The benefit cap has been under £500 for quite some time now unless you have dependents which you claimed your "friend" did not. The fact that so many people are experiencing similar issues across Swindon adds to the value of the comment I made so was not solely based on my opinion that is also on another thread. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

ChannelX wrote:
Look, I have seen WITH MY OWN EYES, over a number of years, what numerous people on benefits spend their money on. Does that mean they ALL do, no. Does it mean I know full well that a large percentage do, yes, it does - regardless of you simply claiming otherwise.

In another thread, you said mental healthcare provision in Swindon isn't really doing a great job. How would you feel if I said, 'Well, that's just your life experience in your case and a few other people. That counts for nothing, you're wrong and, actually, mental healthcare provision in Swindon is brilliant'?

As for the rest of your post, again, virtually impossible to make any sense of it.
It really is tiresome having to walk you through your own comments. Either stick to your opinion and support it with something other than your own opinion or keep your toxic opinion to yourself.
Also what you state quickly changes when aspects your comments are challenged so you are either making it up as you go along in which case I suggest keeping your opinions to topics like the roads etc and not topics requiring any knowledge of.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Look, I have seen WITH MY OWN EYES, over a number of years, what numerous people on benefits spend their money on. Does that mean they ALL do, no. Does it mean I know full well that a large percentage do, yes, it does - regardless of you simply claiming otherwise. In another thread, you said mental healthcare provision in Swindon isn't really doing a great job. How would you feel if I said, 'Well, that's just your life experience in your case and a few other people. That counts for nothing, you're wrong and, actually, mental healthcare provision in Swindon is brilliant'? As for the rest of your post, again, virtually impossible to make any sense of it.[/p][/quote]It really is tiresome having to walk you through your own comments. Either stick to your opinion and support it with something other than your own opinion or keep your toxic opinion to yourself. Also what you state quickly changes when aspects your comments are challenged so you are either making it up as you go along in which case I suggest keeping your opinions to topics like the roads etc and not topics requiring any knowledge of. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Russell Holland says...

It would be better to put this under the control of local government.

When residents have come to me with issues around Council tax/housing benefit it is generally fairly straightforward to solve these immediately thereby avoiding the potential hardship while any dispute is resolved and at less cost than an appeal.
It would be better to put this under the control of local government. When residents have come to me with issues around Council tax/housing benefit it is generally fairly straightforward to solve these immediately thereby avoiding the potential hardship while any dispute is resolved and at less cost than an appeal. Russell Holland
  • Score: 0

4:39pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Russell Holland wrote:
It would be better to put this under the control of local government.

When residents have come to me with issues around Council tax/housing benefit it is generally fairly straightforward to solve these immediately thereby avoiding the potential hardship while any dispute is resolved and at less cost than an appeal.
Would foodbanks then need to be financially supported by the local council?
[quote][p][bold]Russell Holland[/bold] wrote: It would be better to put this under the control of local government. When residents have come to me with issues around Council tax/housing benefit it is generally fairly straightforward to solve these immediately thereby avoiding the potential hardship while any dispute is resolved and at less cost than an appeal.[/p][/quote]Would foodbanks then need to be financially supported by the local council? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree