Jump to content

Foodbank Collection


Drew

Recommended Posts


Hopefully the collection was as successful as usual

There is clearly a need which is a shame, but I’m certain it’s not all down to laziness and ‘everyone’ avoiding work

Christmas coming up, would be nice to choose a game & perhaps ‘bring a toy’ local causes for local people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whydowebother said:

Hopefully the collection was as successful as usual

There is clearly a need which is a shame, but I’m certain it’s not all down to laziness and ‘everyone’ avoiding work

Christmas coming up, would be nice to choose a game & perhaps ‘bring a toy’ local causes for local people

An excellent idea WDWB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully the collection was as successful as usual

There is clearly a need which is a shame, but I’m certain it’s not all down to laziness and ‘everyone’ avoiding work

Christmas coming up, would be nice to choose a game & perhaps ‘bring a toy’ local causes for local people
It looks like it's been another really, really generous contribution by the supporters, hopefully the best yet.

It's definitely not all down to laziness, the vast majority of people who come along are just people in trouble for lots of different reasons. Don't get me wrong, there are wasters who get food but for every one of them there are another ninety-nine who need help, some of them needing help desperately. And a good chunk of those ninety-nine are people with "jobs" that pay so poorly and with so little security that all they can do is make choice between keeping a roof over their heads or feeding themselves.

We need to ask ourselves what it says about our society, about us, that working people have to resort to food banks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:

It looks like it's been another really, really generous contribution by the supporters, hopefully the best yet.

It's definitely not all down to laziness, the vast majority of people who come along are just people in trouble for lots of different reasons. Don't get me wrong, there are wasters who get food but for every one of them there are another ninety-nine who need help, some of them needing help desperately. And a good chunk of those ninety-nine are people with "jobs" that pay so poorly and with so little security that all they can do is make choice between keeping a roof over their heads or feeding themselves.

We need to ask ourselves what it says about our society, about us, that working people have to resort to food banks.

Well said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ricky.

A simple “like” would probably be more appropriate. That’s what the “like” function is for. There honestly is no need to comment on every post on the forum.
If you simply agree, a “like” is fine.
If you disagree with a comment, ignore or post your counter argument.
If you feel there is something to add that will bring a different point of view, post your comment.

Hope you take this in the constructive fashion it was intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, doonhamer said:

Ricky.

A simple “like” would probably be more appropriate. That’s what the “like” function is for. There honestly is no need to comment on every post on the forum.
If you simply agree, a “like” is fine.
If you disagree with a comment, ignore or post your counter argument.
If you feel there is something to add that will bring a different point of view, post your comment.

Hope you take this in the constructive fashion it was intended.

DH. 

I know you mean it well and will use that approach from time to time, but on threads which are important imo then I may well use my current approach to help keep a topic (such as this one) front and centre.....

Edited by St.Ricky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

It looks like it's been another really, really generous contribution by the supporters, hopefully the best yet.

It's definitely not all down to laziness, the vast majority of people who come along are just people in trouble for lots of different reasons. Don't get me wrong, there are wasters who get food but for every one of them there are another ninety-nine who need help, some of them needing help desperately. And a good chunk of those ninety-nine are people with "jobs" that pay so poorly and with so little security that all they can do is make choice between keeping a roof over their heads or feeding themselves.

We need to ask ourselves what it says about our society, about us, that working people have to resort to food banks.

In order to say anything about society we need to fully understand how someone gets into a situation where they need a foodbank in the first place.

Who exactly are you talking about here in this bolded sentence? Are you talking about people in full time jobs?

I can understand the problems faced by those on zero hours contracts and on part time wages but not working enough hours to get tax credits and this includes self employed people. IMO that is the group needing urgent help. Who else are you specifically talking about?

FWIW, I think it is fantastic that we have a society where so many people come together to open and run foodbanks to prevent those who fall through the cracks from starving. I can't understand anyone criticising the idea of them at all. Another debate altogether is how many we need and how we can tell definitively whether opening up a foodbank drives "want" rather than fulfilling "need". 

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:

It looks like it's been another really, really generous contribution by the supporters, hopefully the best yet.

It's definitely not all down to laziness, the vast majority of people who come along are just people in trouble for lots of different reasons. Don't get me wrong, there are wasters who get food but for every one of them there are another ninety-nine who need help, some of them needing help desperately. And a good chunk of those ninety-nine are people with "jobs" that pay so poorly and with so little security that all they can do is make choice between keeping a roof over their heads or feeding themselves.

We need to ask ourselves what it says about our society, about us, that working people have to resort to food banks.

There are folks who don't see the extent of the problem. The causes as well as the users are many and varied and the scale is frightening. Austerity, low wages, zero hour contracts and a fast changing labour market and benefits system can tip people into poverty quickly. When I first arrived in Paisley it had the highest savings ratio per person in the country. People lived within their incomes and put money aside for the proverbial rainy day. Changes in credit availability, increased consumerism and working and career patterns all play a part. A large number of people are considered to be one months pay check away from severe problems so any interruption or pressure to pay bills can cause problems. Encouraging people to save is no longer fashionable.. A pity I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, doonhamer said:

Ricky.

A simple “like” would probably be more appropriate. That’s what the “like” function is for. There honestly is no need to comment on every post on the forum.
If you simply agree, a “like” is fine.
If you disagree with a comment, ignore or post your counter argument.
If you feel there is something to add that will bring a different point of view, post your comment.

Hope you take this in the constructive fashion it was intended.

You do know you are wasting your time as a simple like doesn't satisfy his craving for attention? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

There are folks who don't see the extent of the problem. The causes as well as the users are many and varied and the scale is frightening. Austerity, low wages, zero hour contracts and a fast changing labour market and benefits system can tip people into poverty quickly. When I first arrived in Paisley it had the highest savings ratio per person in the country. People lived within their incomes and put money aside for the proverbial rainy day. Changes in credit availability, increased consumerism and working and career patterns all play a part. A large number of people are considered to be one months pay check away from severe problems so any interruption or pressure to pay bills can cause problems. Encouraging people to save is no longer fashionable.. A pity I think. 

Show me a person who is one months pay check away from severe problems and 9 times out of 10 I'll show you a person who is either in self-inflicted debt or can't budget or most likely both. The number of people who are in this position is vanishingly small. People sometimes need help - we all get that, but stop trying to make out that this is a society-caused problem.

 

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Show me a person who is one months pay check away from severe problems and 9 times out of 10 I'll show you a person who is either in self-inflicted debt or can't budget or most likely both. The number of people who are in this position is vanishingly small. People sometimes need help - we all get that, but stop trying to make out that this is a society-caused problem.

 

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. Simply put.. Over time legislation introduced the availability of credit. Somewhere around the 1960's or slightly earlier. This led to a boom in consumer spending, a rise in personal debt levels and the start of a long term decline in savings ratio. This took us into an era of the repossession of goods by sherrifs officers where debt was unpaid. Around the same time credit availability for house purchase became more available, supported by tax relief on interest paid and higher loan to value mortgages. Further changes took place in late 60's, early 70's where a married woman's income was taken into account for the first time giving a general rule of 2 to 2.5 times the male income plus 1 times the wife (not partner as they would have been unprotected under the then Married Women's Property Act). At this point the available credit was restricted by a fairly straightforward multiple of the savings vase in a building society in particular and in banks. Political decisions were made to enable funding through different mechanisms which greatly increased the supply of money. Further changes in income multiples meant that up to 5 times income was being used to apporove mortgages. Credit cards were issued, it seemed, willy nilly as lenders fought each other for a share of the market. All of this appeared to be OK where wages were rising quickly, house prices were rising quickly and jobs were seen as secure. Mrs T arrived, determined to cut inflation to zero. Unemployment rose, house prices fell, but personal debt through credit cards didn't. Deindustrialisation had begun. A higher than recorded unelpoyment rate was avoided by bringing in a health related benefit that was tailored to fit the needs of those made redundant. Benefits dependency began to grow. The above cycle was repeated in the period around the banking crisis. One difference now was that debt levels were already higher than before meaning family financial commitments were running at historically High levels in relation to income. Savings per person fell further. End result of all of this is that many, not an invisibly small, number of people don't have a month's savings to see them through difficulties. Working arrangements no longer follow the earlier historical pattern and jobs are less secure. We have arrived where we are now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. Simply put.. Over time legislation introduced the availability of credit. Somewhere around the 1960's or slightly earlier. This led to a boom in consumer spending, a rise in personal debt levels and the start of a long term decline in savings ratio. This took us into an era of the repossession of goods by sherrifs officers where debt was unpaid. Around the same time credit availability for house purchase became more available, supported by tax relief on interest paid and higher loan to value mortgages. Further changes took place in late 60's, early 70's where a married woman's income was taken into account for the first time giving a general rule of 2 to 2.5 times the male income plus 1 times the wife (not partner as they would have been unprotected under the then Married Women's Property Act). At this point the available credit was restricted by a fairly straightforward multiple of the savings vase in a building society in particular and in banks. Political decisions were made to enable funding through different mechanisms which greatly increased the supply of money. Further changes in income multiples meant that up to 5 times income was being used to apporove mortgages. Credit cards were issued, it seemed, willy nilly as lenders fought each other for a share of the market. All of this appeared to be OK where wages were rising quickly, house prices were rising quickly and jobs were seen as secure. Mrs T arrived, determined to cut inflation to zero. Unemployment rose, house prices fell, but personal debt through credit cards didn't. Deindustrialisation had begun. A higher than recorded unelpoyment rate was avoided by bringing in a health related benefit that was tailored to fit the needs of those made redundant. Benefits dependency began to grow. The above cycle was repeated in the period around the banking crisis. One difference now was that debt levels were already higher than before meaning family financial commitments were running at historically High levels in relation to income. Savings per person fell further. End result of all of this is that many, not an invisibly small, number of people don't have a month's savings to see them through difficulties. Working arrangements no longer follow the earlier historical pattern and jobs are less secure. We have arrived where we are now. 

Very well explained . Oaksoft does not get how severe the situation is for some families.  It would do him the world of good to go along and help in a food bank for a day I'm sure he would grasp the situation.  I'm flabbergasted how politicians got away with austerity cuts to those who actually need it the most. Working conditions rules changed by politicians.  I know a woman from Rothesay who worked at Amazon Greenock. She would get the ferry then bus arrived at Amazon to be told she is not needed today. The same nonsense goes on at the vagan sheese factory in Rothesay. Its common for some to get a call later in the afternoon to go work for two hours. Seriously is this 2020 or 1930. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. Simply put.. Over time legislation introduced the availability of credit. Somewhere around the 1960's or slightly earlier. This led to a boom in consumer spending, a rise in personal debt levels and the start of a long term decline in savings ratio. This took us into an era of the repossession of goods by sherrifs officers where debt was unpaid. Around the same time credit availability for house purchase became more available, supported by tax relief on interest paid and higher loan to value mortgages. Further changes took place in late 60's, early 70's where a married woman's income was taken into account for the first time giving a general rule of 2 to 2.5 times the male income plus 1 times the wife (not partner as they would have been unprotected under the then Married Women's Property Act). At this point the available credit was restricted by a fairly straightforward multiple of the savings vase in a building society in particular and in banks. Political decisions were made to enable funding through different mechanisms which greatly increased the supply of money. Further changes in income multiples meant that up to 5 times income was being used to apporove mortgages. Credit cards were issued, it seemed, willy nilly as lenders fought each other for a share of the market. All of this appeared to be OK where wages were rising quickly, house prices were rising quickly and jobs were seen as secure. Mrs T arrived, determined to cut inflation to zero. Unemployment rose, house prices fell, but personal debt through credit cards didn't. Deindustrialisation had begun. A higher than recorded unelpoyment rate was avoided by bringing in a health related benefit that was tailored to fit the needs of those made redundant. Benefits dependency began to grow. The above cycle was repeated in the period around the banking crisis. One difference now was that debt levels were already higher than before meaning family financial commitments were running at historically High levels in relation to income. Savings per person fell further. End result of all of this is that many, not an invisibly small, number of people don't have a month's savings to see them through difficulties. Working arrangements no longer follow the earlier historical pattern and jobs are less secure. We have arrived where we are now. 

You want me to re-read your post and then you simply repeat what I just said - people have taken on too much debt and no longer budget to save.

Are you competing with TPAK-thingy to see who can post the daftest response to someone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...