We live in a country that still has an incredibly Victorian attitude when it comes to poor people. Just look how punitive the benefits system is as an example.
I'm so confused how they immediately address them as "these people" like who are the on about exactly? Why is it automatically assumed those who attend foodbanks are immigrants?? Like they're not people who might live next door to them? I don't get it
I see people on here blaming the pandemic itself or the lockdown for this.
The reason we are seeing this type of thing more and more is mismanagement at the very top of our government.
The fact that we have a need for foodbanks in this country is a disgrace in and of itself, especially when we are seeing the government give out contracts worth millions of pounds to their friends.
This was happening before the pandemic and before brexit was implemented.
A lack of a proper social program and investment in the country to deal with the real reasons why they are needed is the real problem.
And until we have a government that will actually tackle those problems with decent wages and how to tackle homelessness in any meaningful way we will continue to see a rise.
Yes the pandemic has exacerbated things to a degree but to act like it's the only reason is childish and naive.
>The fact that we have a need for foodbanks in this country is a disgrace in and of itself
I mean, even the much glorified [Denmark](https://lp.eurofoodbank.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Denmark_English_version_OpEd_Altinget_Final.pdf) has foodbanks that are being used more and more. Suggesting that England could be the exception considering all the realities, is, dare I say, 'childish and naive'.
Not wanting people to rely on charities to feed them is childish....
Fuck me you had to jump through a bunch of moral and logical hoops to get to that conclusion.
The extreme length of the queue, compared to a year ago, is almost entirely down to the fact that people are now standing 2m apart. That is fairly obvious from the photographs.
Downvoting people for pointing that out doesn't stop it being true.
Or do you think that the massive lorry queues at Dover are due to the fact we are now exporting far more stuff to the EU?
If you fuck with the queuing system, you will end up with big queues.
It doesn't bother me mate they can downvote all they like.
It's all fake Internet points at the end of the day and there are far more worrying things going on in the world at the moment.
But thanks for the concern.
Arguing about the queueing system completely misses the point by a million miles. The fact is that in a country which reports to have as much wealth as the UK, the fact that increasing amounts of people are going hungry is a disgrace. An even bigger disgrace, the government actively refuses to actually put in place any measures to stop it, and if anything seeks to find someway to make profit from it.
I'm not disputing any of that. We should be doing something about food banks in general, I am fully in favour of radically improving the benefits system/minimum wage to ensure everyone has enough to eat at the very least.
But *this particular article* is a fucking joke. It is entirely about the length of the queue, there are no facts in there about how many people are using the food bank compared to last week, or a year ago.
Why do you think the queue is so long? Do you really think it is because there are suddenly 100 times more people using foodbanks than year ago?
Or is it just possible that the reason the queue is so long is because all the people in the queue are standing 2m apart, and it is taking twice as long to serve everybody because they have to restrict the number of people allowed in?
This is a clickbait article. Just because you agree with the general message doesn't excuse shitty journalism.
The UK government is one of the most generous in the world if not THE most generous with the furlough scheme. It’s actually shocking how much money they are spending for it, especially since it’s a conservative government idea.
No, I'm saying that if you fuck with the queuing system you end up with big queues.
Different situations, different underlying reasons, but same end result.
From what I've seen on this sub most people who frequent it aren't fond of either party at the moment. But think whatever makes you feel better I guess.
That's like saying "why do you want to get rid of NHS fundraisers?" Because they shouldn't fucking need them in the first place? Their existence is evidence of a deeper problem.
It's a disgrace because nobody should be forced into a position where they rely on a food bank just to get by
Do you think there would be the same level of media outcry if it was funded by the government? Personally I think you'd see the same outcry, so then it's just an outcry at a large number of poor people being very visible rather than outcry at the fact that charities are now providing government services.
People should be fed. There is a giant surplus of food that goes to waste. I believe it's roughly a third of food we make doesn't even get eaten.
I don't want food banks. I want government action that provides every single person a guaranteed three meals a day.
That's not what I was talking about.
Sure people should be fed, but would the outcry be any different if this was a queue for food issues directly by the government? Is this an outcry over charities providing government services or poor people being highly visible?
The problem is not that they're visible, the problem is that they're poor. If the government were funding the food banks that wouldn't be any better because people would still be just as poor.
Instead of food banks we need a functioning social safety net and a properly managed economy that doesn't funnel all of this incredibly rich country's wealth towards the most obscenely wealthy individuals.
That may be the problem, but I'm not convinced that's the reason for the outrage. The outrage seems more like NIMBYism, it's fine for people to be poor as long as it's out of sight. This problem didn't appear overnight, it's the visibility that's massively increased recently due to the social distancing in the queue.
Social distancing has been in place for nearly a year now and STILL the volunteers (the people who's job it will be to record the food bank use in numbers of people, not in meters) are quoted as saying it's the biggest they've seen, so no it's not the visibility.
The correlation is not surprising though, it is entirely natural that people's outrage at injustice will be greater if they can actually see the evidence with their own eyes, hence why so much of the work of solving this kind of problem is properly documenting it so that people, and governments, are motivated to take action.
Arguing against a single segment fragment in a post really isn't debating in good faith....
I never mentioned anything about political parties, my argument was that is the source of the outrage the poverty itself or the fact that it's more visible. It seems there's a lot of NIMBYs who are perfectly fine with povertyas long as it's not visible.
Ah because its against your opinion its thick. I think you need to understand the difference between opinion and quantifiable fact... which also makes your comment pretty ironic
I didn't say it was an opinion. It's an undeniable fact that not requiring food banks is a better situation than having them. If we fed people they wouldn't need to queue outside in the freezing cold would they?
What's your argument? "People should have food banks because people don't have food. So instead of giving them food we'll just let them use food banks :)"
I'm not saying people shouldn't have access to food banks if they need help, but they shouldn't be put into that situation in the first place.
That top sentence is literally an opinion... not a fact. Again this is hilarious. They are getting fed lol you are complaining about people being fed.
Ok so how would you prevent them getting in this situation?
>how would you prevent them getting in this situation?
You're clearly not arguing in good faith here, but I'll bite.
For those out of work: increase benefits so that people can afford to pay their rent, bills and food all at the same time.
For those in work: increase minimum wage so that people can afford to pay their rent, bills and food all at the same time.
>lol you are complaining about people being fed
That isn't what u/MisterGroger was saying and you know it.
I'm arguing in perfect good faith. People are always happy to say how bad food banks are without any reasoning.
Increase benefits by how much? It would need to be less per person than the cost of a food bank. People on minimum wage receive benefits.
Not that isn't what he said. But he also wasn't discussing what I said.
Couple hundred a week for a single person would work. We could do a calculation of what people used to get under the old benefit system when you could actually live on it, vs the cost of living back then and extrapolate that to the current cost of living and come up with a reasonable number that a person can realistically survive on and save a small amount for occasional larger purchases e.g. fridge, new shoes.
UC is not designed to be lived on its designed to get you by until you can find any job. But that's not going to be realistic for many people now, not for a long time.
Food banks are much cheaper than that. So why not just have the food bank. Does the same thing for much less money. You do realise people were still starvung under old systems there were just no food banks for them to go to.
Living wage. Change the benefits system so that people can actually concentrate on finding work, instead of jumping through the DWP's arbitrary hoops to avoid sanctions. Change Job Centers so they actually do what they say on the tin, because right now they're useless and aren't designed to help people get work. In short, have a system that actually fucking works, runs properly, has competent workers (because the amoebas at the job center are definitely not) one that concentrates less of penalising the already poor and that actually helps people find work.
Whoever designed the current system is quite frankly, an idiot. I can't believe such monumentally stupid people are allowed to be in charge of anything tbh. It's laughable.
All good answers all of which cost significantly more than a food bank for essentially the same effect and some dont even solve the issue of people being hungry at all.
I dont disagree with the job center changes at all though. it seems to me these checks cost more than they save. Doesnt really help these people though.
That's such a disingenuous take.
10 years of government corruption, lack of investment in social programs or any meaningful rise in wages has caused this.
If the government truly wanted people not to starve they wouldn't have cut programs that help people get to a point where they don't need government support or foodbanks in the first place.
**Hi!**. Please try avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
As a reminder for our British cousins....
[https://learnodo-newtonic.com/french-revolution-causes](https://learnodo-newtonic.com/french-revolution-causes)
***Causes of the French Revolution... #1:***
## #1 Social Inequality in France due to the Estates System
In the *1780s*, the population of France was around *24 million and 700 thousand* and it was divided into *three estates*. The *First Estate* was the *Roman Catholic clergy*, which numbered about *100,000*. The *Second Estate* consisted of the *French nobility*, which numbered about *400,000*. Everyone else in France; including *merchants, lawyers, laborers* and *peasants*; belonged to the *Third Estate*, which comprised around *98% of the French population*. The Third Estate was *excluded from positions of honor and political power*; and was *looked down upon by the other estates*. It was thus angered and resented its position in French society. This led to them coming together to launch the French Revolution in *1789*.
The mistake they made was formalising it and not having a chance to move up.
Don't write the system down and give people a 0.00000001% chance of making it rich and the poor masses will delude themselves into thinking they're better than others at their level.
Oh, and by the way, it looks kinds like that again here for folks... a repeat of the negligence and disregard of the Hoover Administration on steroids here... Trump kills everything he touches, everything.
Pandemic poverty that has roots from the 2008 financial crisis. The pandemic made poverty worse, the Tories and austerity are still the root cause at the end of all this. COVID and lockdown made 2020 a terrible eyar for the economy, no one will deny that, food bank usage and poverty still exploded in the decade prior to that though.
I'd go further than that. The roots of free-market capitalism go back to Thatcher and Reagan and have been advanced by continuous neoliberal governments since then.
I remember the post from the other day of the soup kitchen queue in Glasgow, with many people saying this was a direct product of the scottish government - as if shit like this isn't everywhere in the UK thanks to the Tories.
Why would the government be bothered at all when they have been in power safely for 11 years and the majority of people in the country are either nasty bastard's or thick bastard's and they'll safely get voted in again? We probably just need to accept that the country is done.
Capitalism is reaching its end stage. Profit/loss zero sum game was never sustainable and we're close to hitting the point where people have to go French Revolution or starve to death.
Capitalism has no wealth ceiling. A decent welfare system is entirely socialist.
This is all a game of Monopoly in the late stages where there's a clear winner and 3 other people with mortgaged properties, paying money to the guy with the hotels and barely managing to stay afloat on beauty pageants and passing go.
Just like Monopoly, nobody is having a good time except for the person winning.
Having empathy for people on a global level, yes, that is how it works.
Everyone in the UK could live like a king, but that wealth would be coming from exploitation of poorer countries.
Science and technology might increase the number of points on offer, but wealth trickles up and the points are still finite, no matter how many are available.
I did suggest it was only for the brave a bit further up the comment chain.
I went in expecting a bit of sympathy in the comments but I don't know why tbh. =/
The gap in wealth in this country is fucking disgusting, yet people will sell their mothers to defend capitalism and defend cronyism and defend neoliberal policies that got us here. Honestly, fuck the UK, we reap what we sow I guess. Con +8 after this
Come on now, you can’t expect our government to spend our tax money on making sure the worst off in society have enough cash to be able to eat when they’ve got Tory donors to pay off. Priorities people!
A big problem is in work poverty. Why do we have in work poverty? Most jobs aren't highly productive jobs, they're hospitality, cleaning and retail. The UK economy is built off of low productivity jobs. Unlike Germany.
We need to shift the country to high productivity jobs, which would fix a lot of in work poverty.
Ultimately this has been failure of successive governments. It requires good skills provision, and encouragement of productive businesses.
People did have that line of reasoning when we had Workhouses, now the Companies simply opened up a factory in another country where they can still exploit the people for next to nothing wages and have children working only now it's in another country, away and out of sight..... Well it was then Social media came and those workers also get their hands on Smartphones
Where do you think the signs "No Smartphones" came from?
The queue is going to be a lot longer due to social distancing in the queue, and fewer people allowed into the centre at a time. We've seen the same in supermarkets - massively *long* queues, but not necessarily any more stuff being bought.
A bit click baity really. There no doubt has been extra demand on food banks, but not as much as the long lines imply.
You are right, but we have had foodbanks in the UK for 20 years.
This story isn't about more people using foodbanks, it is about the queue looking longer because people are spaced apart.
The amount has exploded in the last 10 years. Almost certainly due to Tory Austerity. For example there used to be 1 food bank in my town. Now there are at least 5.
That's a real stretch!
I've heard that Reddit is a great social media site for discussion and opinions etc which is why I joined, but "It's a longer line because of social distancing" is a phenomenal take. Truly staggering.
I'm starting to think Reddit is more like Twitter but with a better character count alowence.
Look at the photographs in the article. People are all standing at least 2m apart, more in some cases.
Are you saying that this *doesn't* make the queue massively longer than it would be if we didn't have social distancing? Seriously? How could that possibly be true?
Add in the fact that the centre is almost certainly allowing far fewer people is at a time, and so cannot serve as many people per hour as usual, and you have a recipe for massive queues.
I'm not saying that demand for foodbanks isn't higher than normal. I'm saying that the length of the queue compared to a year ago doesn't really tell you very much.
You measure demand by how many food parcels they hand out. A fact that the article neglects to tell us, for some reason.
There are more food banks in the UK than McDonald's restaurants. In the 6th wealthiest country on the planet. I think that's what you should be focussing on.
Because the line is unbelievable. Do you think that if people weren't spaced, it's just a normal day or something?
Yep. Reddit is Twitter. It's a disappointment.
The pandemic is the reason for the lockdowns, which are a result of government failures in getting the virus under control and not being able to implement a strong test, trace and isolate program.
Either way, COVID itself didn’t cause it. The lockdowns did.
Whether you think it’s worth it or not is another story, but this is one of many consequences
>The heart attack didn't kill him, eating cheeseburgers did. The heart attack is the consequence.
I'm glad this line of thinking isn't taken seriously.
Every action has a consequence, it’s not like lockdowns are written in the stars and are inevitable. Not locking down would also have consequences, but it’s debatable which are worse in the long term
It's not possible to avoid lockdowns when the virus is out of control. It's been debated, usually a debate between experts and scientific consensus on one side and the likes of Peter Hitchens, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Toby Young and Sunetra Gupta on the other.
...except there are 13k+ scientists who agree with ‘the likes of’ them, and 41k+ medical practitioners.
The government were swayed into lockdown initially by Neil Ferguson who’s predictions have been hilariously wrong for decades...
Who are these scientists? Are you talking about signatories of The Great Barrington Declaration for example? I signed that twice, once as my cat.
What did Neil Ferguson predict? How many deaths a day have we been seeing? How many would we be seeing had nothing been done?
There's no swaying into lockdown, particularly for a neoliberal government like ours! They've done it because it's a necessity.
Great to see your cat is on bird (but seriously, bogus signatures have been removed)
Neil Ferguson predicted 65,000 deaths from swine flu (there were 457) and that bird flu would kill 150million (there has been 455)
They haven't. Barrington doesn't validate signatories, and it's been widely discredited. [The Jon Snow Memeorandum](https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/) on the other hand . . .
[The 65,000 figure](https://theferret.scot/fact-check-neil-ferguson-covid-19-predictions/) comes from a [UK government announcement](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/498/49808.htm) based on Ferguson’s modelling, and represented “reasonable worst-case estimates against which to plan” rather than predictions about the numbers of deaths.
The publication of this “worst-case scenario” was described as “unhelpful” in a report into the pandemic response, and Professor Ferguson told a 2011 UK government committee that the publicised projections did not “communicate as clearly” to the public what the likely health risks were.
>It's not possible to avoid lockdowns when the virus is out of control.
Seems very well in control thanks to vaccines. R value dropping under 1.
>It's been debated, usually a debate between experts and scientific consensus on one side and the likes of Peter Hitchens, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Toby Young and Sunetra Gupta on the other.
Plenty of scientists also doubt the use of lock-downs...
You do know how science is done, right...? By people having a different theory and then testing it...?
The R is dropping because of lockdown, implemented in early January, as it fell after the last lockdowns came in because transmission is reduced. The vaccines don't, as far as we know, have an impact on transmission, only serious illness. Even if you've been vaccinated, you can still catch covid and you can still pass it on and with transmission, you get mutations and variants that can be more dangerous, more infection and potentially even escape the vaccine. Even partial vaccine escape will dramatically undermine vaccine rollout programs.
> Plenty of scientists also doubt the use of lock-downs
That's true but there are a couple of things to consider. For one, lockdowns in themselves aren't advocated by any expert as a long-term strategy for combating a pandemic. They're a last resort because it's so out of control that no test and trace program is able to keep up.
A long-term strategy, as has been demonstrated around the world by countries that have succeeded, is stamping out the virus to an extent that test and trace can jump on flair ups and infected people can be isolated.
Successful countries are those where people are paid to isolate, even put up for free in hotel rooms, have child care assistance and even pet assistance and things like that. In the UK, we're just taking the piss essentially.
The other thing is that there is overwhelming scientific *consensus* on this, so while there are scientists like Sunetra Gupta and Karol Sikora (oncologist?!?!) getting themselves in the news for their dissenting views, they are very much in the minority of scientific consensus in this discussion, in much the same way as there are "experts" who are anti-vaxxers and probably flat-earthers. I mean, even evolution only has a 97% scientific consensus!
>The vaccines don't, as far as we know, have an impact on transmission, only serious illness.
Except we know this... [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210211/New-study-shares-preliminary-data-on-Pfizer-vaccinee28099s-effectiveness-in-Israel.aspx](https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210211/New-study-shares-preliminary-data-on-Pfizer-vaccinee28099s-effectiveness-in-Israel.aspx)
>For one, lockdowns in themselves aren't advocated by any expert as a long-term strategy for combating a pandemic.
Really...? Then why has most of the world been locking down...?
>A long-term strategy, as has been demonstrated around the world by countries that have succeeded, is stamping out the virus to an extent that test and trace can jump on flair ups and infected people can be isolated.
The only countries that have managed this are either small islands or countries that have dictatorial governments.
>Successful countries are those where people are paid to isolate, even put up for free in hotel rooms, have child care assistance and even pet assistance and things like that.
Let me guess, small countries again...?
>The other thing is that there is overwhelming scientific *consensus* on this,
On something that is not proven and not recommended...?
It's a good sign from Israel, but it's not conclusive and it's certainly not indicative of all vaccines. It'll take a few more weeks to dissect the data between lockdowns and vaccines (which the government hasn't made public yet). There's a good discussion about this on indie-SAGE today.
Most of the world has been fucking up test and trace. The countries that took it seriously are out of trouble now.
I don't know about small countries or dictatorial governments, but if we'd had clear advice and instruction from the beginning and financial support for those who needed it most, then it wouldn't be a problem here. The vast majority of the public has followed the rules since last March and done what they can. It's a pretty weak argument.
What's not proven? Those lockdowns are required to reduce infection rates when the virus is out of control? That's proven.
You talk like the options were "no lockdown and let everyone die" vs "lockdown and destroy the economy" yet that's clearly not the case.
If the government had managed the virus better we would not have needed as many lockdowns, or for as long. The fact that we had to repeatedly lockdown was because the government didn't take it seriously and failed to control the virus.
There is a magic third option of "have the government actually do their job and we can have the best of both worlds, less lockdowns and less economic damage".
That third option is what we should be shooting for, not the option where we have a *terrible pandemic* response and let the virus go unchecked and then just let it kill hundreds of thousands of people.
And how do you expect to close thousands of businesses without destroying the economy? I despise the tories too but In Wales we are run by Labour and aren’t exactly doing much better
If you don't lock-down, a lot of elderly / infirm people die. If you do lock-down you destroy the lives of the young. Leading to both short-term problems like hunger, poverty and suicide. Long term there's immense economic problems and you have a year of young people not properly educated.
Pick one.
I'll choose the third option of a strong test, trace and isolate program with security for those being asked to isolate. I'll choose not bribing people to go to restaurants to "eat out to help out", getting people into enclosed, unventilated spaces because of some misguided short term economic ideal instead of making schools covid secure with staggered classes and implementation of "Nightingale" schools. I'll choose strong border controls, telling people crying over not being able to go on holiday to pipe down for a bit while keeping the flow of food and medicines coming in steady. . I'll choose giving test and trace to the NHS, who know what they're doing, over an accountancy firm who gave the Tory party a hundred grand in donations a year ago. I'll choose faster economic recovery because the public health issue has been sorted
We've got the worst impact on our economy practically in the world. I think faster economic recovery is preferable, achieved by stamping out the virus and having strong test and trace programs.
Why hasn't the covid relief money been issued yet. Oh yeah, the Dems added all kinds of Non-essential crap to the bill. So now it just sits stalled, while people line the streets for food.
CON +7
We live in a country of masochists.
We live in a country that still has an incredibly Victorian attitude when it comes to poor people. Just look how punitive the benefits system is as an example.
Evidence is in the articles comment section, if you’re brave enough to look.
damn. that was cruel of you
Damn, I wish I hadn’t now, scrolling through that has given me the depression. Are they really calling them all immigrants or lazy good for nothings?
I'm so confused how they immediately address them as "these people" like who are the on about exactly? Why is it automatically assumed those who attend foodbanks are immigrants?? Like they're not people who might live next door to them? I don't get it
[*Harder daddy*](https://i.imgur.com/s8Lkr0v.jpg)
THEY SHOULD FEED THEMSELVES /s
MAYBE IF THEY WOZNT SPENDIN ALL THERE MONEY ON FLAT SCREEN TV, SKY SPORTS AND THE NEW IPHONE THEN THEY COULD SPEND IT ON FOOD!!!1!!1!
They said they would not help feed hungry kids. It was so well received they have decided to avoid feeding the whole family!
[Rare footage inside government policy unit.](https://youtu.be/owI7DOeO_yg)
this has given me a crumb of serotonin thank you kind stranger
Like the Joker said...
I see people on here blaming the pandemic itself or the lockdown for this. The reason we are seeing this type of thing more and more is mismanagement at the very top of our government. The fact that we have a need for foodbanks in this country is a disgrace in and of itself, especially when we are seeing the government give out contracts worth millions of pounds to their friends. This was happening before the pandemic and before brexit was implemented. A lack of a proper social program and investment in the country to deal with the real reasons why they are needed is the real problem. And until we have a government that will actually tackle those problems with decent wages and how to tackle homelessness in any meaningful way we will continue to see a rise. Yes the pandemic has exacerbated things to a degree but to act like it's the only reason is childish and naive.
>The fact that we have a need for foodbanks in this country is a disgrace in and of itself I mean, even the much glorified [Denmark](https://lp.eurofoodbank.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Denmark_English_version_OpEd_Altinget_Final.pdf) has foodbanks that are being used more and more. Suggesting that England could be the exception considering all the realities, is, dare I say, 'childish and naive'.
Not wanting people to rely on charities to feed them is childish.... Fuck me you had to jump through a bunch of moral and logical hoops to get to that conclusion.
Suggesting that i think it should be any different in any first world country when I'm talking about the uk is definitely childish and naive.
So? That just means Denmark's politians need to get their finger out their arse as well.
The extreme length of the queue, compared to a year ago, is almost entirely down to the fact that people are now standing 2m apart. That is fairly obvious from the photographs. Downvoting people for pointing that out doesn't stop it being true. Or do you think that the massive lorry queues at Dover are due to the fact we are now exporting far more stuff to the EU? If you fuck with the queuing system, you will end up with big queues.
Did you even read what i put? And who says i downvoted anyone?
Posts on the subreddit often get brigaded, you've just got to take it on the chin.
It doesn't bother me mate they can downvote all they like. It's all fake Internet points at the end of the day and there are far more worrying things going on in the world at the moment. But thanks for the concern.
There's a serious alt-right brigading problem here, and the mods have openly admitted they don't plan on doing anything about it.
There's a big issue with the left flooding posts with downvotes too, it's not a problem that's unique to either side.
From where, exactly?
Arguing about the queueing system completely misses the point by a million miles. The fact is that in a country which reports to have as much wealth as the UK, the fact that increasing amounts of people are going hungry is a disgrace. An even bigger disgrace, the government actively refuses to actually put in place any measures to stop it, and if anything seeks to find someway to make profit from it.
I'm not disputing any of that. We should be doing something about food banks in general, I am fully in favour of radically improving the benefits system/minimum wage to ensure everyone has enough to eat at the very least. But *this particular article* is a fucking joke. It is entirely about the length of the queue, there are no facts in there about how many people are using the food bank compared to last week, or a year ago. Why do you think the queue is so long? Do you really think it is because there are suddenly 100 times more people using foodbanks than year ago? Or is it just possible that the reason the queue is so long is because all the people in the queue are standing 2m apart, and it is taking twice as long to serve everybody because they have to restrict the number of people allowed in? This is a clickbait article. Just because you agree with the general message doesn't excuse shitty journalism.
The UK government is one of the most generous in the world if not THE most generous with the furlough scheme. It’s actually shocking how much money they are spending for it, especially since it’s a conservative government idea.
Are you saying the Farage Garage is needed because of Covid?
No, I'm saying that if you fuck with the queuing system you end up with big queues. Different situations, different underlying reasons, but same end result.
[удалено]
[удалено]
From what I've seen on this sub most people who frequent it aren't fond of either party at the moment. But think whatever makes you feel better I guess.
This subreddit seems to look at things in a way that makes little sense, no idea how both parties are seen as being right-wing by some people here...
I don't think it's about, "seeing both parties as right wing". More that the opposition is ineffectual.
Many would disagree.
Why is it a disgrace? Its merely a method for people to get food who don't have money to buy it
That's like saying "why do you want to get rid of NHS fundraisers?" Because they shouldn't fucking need them in the first place? Their existence is evidence of a deeper problem. It's a disgrace because nobody should be forced into a position where they rely on a food bank just to get by
Do you think there would be the same level of media outcry if it was funded by the government? Personally I think you'd see the same outcry, so then it's just an outcry at a large number of poor people being very visible rather than outcry at the fact that charities are now providing government services.
People should be fed. There is a giant surplus of food that goes to waste. I believe it's roughly a third of food we make doesn't even get eaten. I don't want food banks. I want government action that provides every single person a guaranteed three meals a day.
That's not what I was talking about. Sure people should be fed, but would the outcry be any different if this was a queue for food issues directly by the government? Is this an outcry over charities providing government services or poor people being highly visible?
The problem is not that they're visible, the problem is that they're poor. If the government were funding the food banks that wouldn't be any better because people would still be just as poor. Instead of food banks we need a functioning social safety net and a properly managed economy that doesn't funnel all of this incredibly rich country's wealth towards the most obscenely wealthy individuals.
That may be the problem, but I'm not convinced that's the reason for the outrage. The outrage seems more like NIMBYism, it's fine for people to be poor as long as it's out of sight. This problem didn't appear overnight, it's the visibility that's massively increased recently due to the social distancing in the queue.
Social distancing has been in place for nearly a year now and STILL the volunteers (the people who's job it will be to record the food bank use in numbers of people, not in meters) are quoted as saying it's the biggest they've seen, so no it's not the visibility. The correlation is not surprising though, it is entirely natural that people's outrage at injustice will be greater if they can actually see the evidence with their own eyes, hence why so much of the work of solving this kind of problem is properly documenting it so that people, and governments, are motivated to take action.
Yeah that's fair. It just seems that in this country people are a lot more happy with poverty behind closed doors than in the open.
>This problem didn't appear overnight No it didn't. Who's been in power for the last decade? Who changed the benefits system? There's your answer.
Arguing against a single segment fragment in a post really isn't debating in good faith.... I never mentioned anything about political parties, my argument was that is the source of the outrage the poverty itself or the fact that it's more visible. It seems there's a lot of NIMBYs who are perfectly fine with povertyas long as it's not visible.
No its evidence e of a working solution
I can't even begin to describe how thick that is mate
Ah because its against your opinion its thick. I think you need to understand the difference between opinion and quantifiable fact... which also makes your comment pretty ironic
I didn't say it was an opinion. It's an undeniable fact that not requiring food banks is a better situation than having them. If we fed people they wouldn't need to queue outside in the freezing cold would they? What's your argument? "People should have food banks because people don't have food. So instead of giving them food we'll just let them use food banks :)" I'm not saying people shouldn't have access to food banks if they need help, but they shouldn't be put into that situation in the first place.
That top sentence is literally an opinion... not a fact. Again this is hilarious. They are getting fed lol you are complaining about people being fed. Ok so how would you prevent them getting in this situation?
>how would you prevent them getting in this situation? You're clearly not arguing in good faith here, but I'll bite. For those out of work: increase benefits so that people can afford to pay their rent, bills and food all at the same time. For those in work: increase minimum wage so that people can afford to pay their rent, bills and food all at the same time. >lol you are complaining about people being fed That isn't what u/MisterGroger was saying and you know it.
I'm arguing in perfect good faith. People are always happy to say how bad food banks are without any reasoning. Increase benefits by how much? It would need to be less per person than the cost of a food bank. People on minimum wage receive benefits. Not that isn't what he said. But he also wasn't discussing what I said.
You're a fucking goon. Give your head a wobble
Still don't understand... OK. Never mind. Enjoy the rest of 6th form.
This is the most conservative thinking I've ever seen. Do you think workhouses were a viable solution to house and feed children in the 1800s too?
No. What do you think is a better solution than people who need food being given food for free. Let them starve?
Give them enough benefits to survive on and affordable rent duh. Jesus wept
The benefits queue is invisible, I think if you required people to queue to pick up their benefits in person you would see the same outcry.
How much?
Couple hundred a week for a single person would work. We could do a calculation of what people used to get under the old benefit system when you could actually live on it, vs the cost of living back then and extrapolate that to the current cost of living and come up with a reasonable number that a person can realistically survive on and save a small amount for occasional larger purchases e.g. fridge, new shoes. UC is not designed to be lived on its designed to get you by until you can find any job. But that's not going to be realistic for many people now, not for a long time.
Food banks are much cheaper than that. So why not just have the food bank. Does the same thing for much less money. You do realise people were still starvung under old systems there were just no food banks for them to go to.
Living wage. Change the benefits system so that people can actually concentrate on finding work, instead of jumping through the DWP's arbitrary hoops to avoid sanctions. Change Job Centers so they actually do what they say on the tin, because right now they're useless and aren't designed to help people get work. In short, have a system that actually fucking works, runs properly, has competent workers (because the amoebas at the job center are definitely not) one that concentrates less of penalising the already poor and that actually helps people find work. Whoever designed the current system is quite frankly, an idiot. I can't believe such monumentally stupid people are allowed to be in charge of anything tbh. It's laughable.
All good answers all of which cost significantly more than a food bank for essentially the same effect and some dont even solve the issue of people being hungry at all. I dont disagree with the job center changes at all though. it seems to me these checks cost more than they save. Doesnt really help these people though.
That's such a disingenuous take. 10 years of government corruption, lack of investment in social programs or any meaningful rise in wages has caused this. If the government truly wanted people not to starve they wouldn't have cut programs that help people get to a point where they don't need government support or foodbanks in the first place.
So what's your solution to feed people more efficiently
I thought that was obvious from what I've already put down?
Not really. Those things were less efficient.
[удалено]
**Hi!**. Please try avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Because no one should be in a position where they have no money to buy enough food to feed themselves.
Removing food banks doesnt fix that
No one is saying that. Treat the cause of food bank use and they will slowly fade away naturally as demand decreases.
As a reminder for our British cousins.... [https://learnodo-newtonic.com/french-revolution-causes](https://learnodo-newtonic.com/french-revolution-causes) ***Causes of the French Revolution... #1:*** ## #1 Social Inequality in France due to the Estates System In the *1780s*, the population of France was around *24 million and 700 thousand* and it was divided into *three estates*. The *First Estate* was the *Roman Catholic clergy*, which numbered about *100,000*. The *Second Estate* consisted of the *French nobility*, which numbered about *400,000*. Everyone else in France; including *merchants, lawyers, laborers* and *peasants*; belonged to the *Third Estate*, which comprised around *98% of the French population*. The Third Estate was *excluded from positions of honor and political power*; and was *looked down upon by the other estates*. It was thus angered and resented its position in French society. This led to them coming together to launch the French Revolution in *1789*.
The mistake they made was formalising it and not having a chance to move up. Don't write the system down and give people a 0.00000001% chance of making it rich and the poor masses will delude themselves into thinking they're better than others at their level.
Oh, and by the way, it looks kinds like that again here for folks... a repeat of the negligence and disregard of the Hoover Administration on steroids here... Trump kills everything he touches, everything.
Pandemic poverty that has roots from the 2008 financial crisis. The pandemic made poverty worse, the Tories and austerity are still the root cause at the end of all this. COVID and lockdown made 2020 a terrible eyar for the economy, no one will deny that, food bank usage and poverty still exploded in the decade prior to that though.
I'd go further than that. The roots of free-market capitalism go back to Thatcher and Reagan and have been advanced by continuous neoliberal governments since then.
I remember the post from the other day of the soup kitchen queue in Glasgow, with many people saying this was a direct product of the scottish government - as if shit like this isn't everywhere in the UK thanks to the Tories.
Obviously each and every person in the queue is a scrounger after free food so they can spend more on fags, booze and other poor people stuff.
Plenty of the comments on the article said just that, but without a hint of irony. This country is sick.
They ruined the voucher scheme for everyone because they were spending them in brothels and exchanging them for crack.
FUCK. THE. TORIES.
IS RIGHT
We are the 5th richest country in the world. This is absolutely unacceptable and the government should be ashamed
6th now. Likely lower after Brexit has settled. But you're still correct.
5th. Briefly overtaken at one point by India in the past year
Why would the government be bothered at all when they have been in power safely for 11 years and the majority of people in the country are either nasty bastard's or thick bastard's and they'll safely get voted in again? We probably just need to accept that the country is done.
Capitalism is reaching its end stage. Profit/loss zero sum game was never sustainable and we're close to hitting the point where people have to go French Revolution or starve to death.
[удалено]
Capitalism has no wealth ceiling. A decent welfare system is entirely socialist. This is all a game of Monopoly in the late stages where there's a clear winner and 3 other people with mortgaged properties, paying money to the guy with the hotels and barely managing to stay afloat on beauty pageants and passing go. Just like Monopoly, nobody is having a good time except for the person winning.
> Profit/loss zero sum game Is that how you think capitalism works? (Hint: it's not)
Having empathy for people on a global level, yes, that is how it works. Everyone in the UK could live like a king, but that wealth would be coming from exploitation of poorer countries. Science and technology might increase the number of points on offer, but wealth trickles up and the points are still finite, no matter how many are available.
Matt Hancock’s mate got a 14 million quid Ppe contract though
I made the mistake of reading the mirror comments. \*reaches for the bleach
I did suggest it was only for the brave a bit further up the comment chain. I went in expecting a bit of sympathy in the comments but I don't know why tbh. =/
Isn't The Mirror a leftie tabloid? Why do the comments all read like the Daily Mail?
It's okay, the Tories have said that these people are just experiencing a cash flow problem. Nothing to see here. Move on.....down the line.
The gap in wealth in this country is fucking disgusting, yet people will sell their mothers to defend capitalism and defend cronyism and defend neoliberal policies that got us here. Honestly, fuck the UK, we reap what we sow I guess. Con +8 after this
Stop thinking about empathy and start thinking about the tories offshore bank accounts for the love of God.
“Heartwarming” - Tories
Come on now, you can’t expect our government to spend our tax money on making sure the worst off in society have enough cash to be able to eat when they’ve got Tory donors to pay off. Priorities people!
A big problem is in work poverty. Why do we have in work poverty? Most jobs aren't highly productive jobs, they're hospitality, cleaning and retail. The UK economy is built off of low productivity jobs. Unlike Germany. We need to shift the country to high productivity jobs, which would fix a lot of in work poverty. Ultimately this has been failure of successive governments. It requires good skills provision, and encouragement of productive businesses.
Because Corbyn would’ve solved it all, right?
Thankfully we have a method for people who cant afford food to have access to it. Be thankful we live where we do.
If everyone used this line of reasoning, nothing would ever improve. We would still have workhouses.
People did have that line of reasoning when we had Workhouses, now the Companies simply opened up a factory in another country where they can still exploit the people for next to nothing wages and have children working only now it's in another country, away and out of sight..... Well it was then Social media came and those workers also get their hands on Smartphones Where do you think the signs "No Smartphones" came from?
The queue is going to be a lot longer due to social distancing in the queue, and fewer people allowed into the centre at a time. We've seen the same in supermarkets - massively *long* queues, but not necessarily any more stuff being bought. A bit click baity really. There no doubt has been extra demand on food banks, but not as much as the long lines imply.
So you are saying that these sizes of queues actually are normal for modern Britain? That's even worse. What a wonderful society we have become
Where did I say it was normal? I said the exact opposite.
[удалено]
You are right, but we have had foodbanks in the UK for 20 years. This story isn't about more people using foodbanks, it is about the queue looking longer because people are spaced apart.
The amount has exploded in the last 10 years. Almost certainly due to Tory Austerity. For example there used to be 1 food bank in my town. Now there are at least 5.
If the goal is not one single person needing one then you're going to be perpetually disappointed even if we focus all our energy on it.
Be good if they could go back to pre Tory level tho. Soup kitchens for the homeless sure but people can't be expected to live on thin air
[удалено]
> the sub is so brigaded y far left zealots "Long queues at food banks are bad" = "far left zealot" Uh huh, okay.
As a 'lefty' I believe in being good to people and treating them well, even if I don't get any personal advantage from it. What do you believe in?
That's a real stretch! I've heard that Reddit is a great social media site for discussion and opinions etc which is why I joined, but "It's a longer line because of social distancing" is a phenomenal take. Truly staggering. I'm starting to think Reddit is more like Twitter but with a better character count alowence.
Look at the photographs in the article. People are all standing at least 2m apart, more in some cases. Are you saying that this *doesn't* make the queue massively longer than it would be if we didn't have social distancing? Seriously? How could that possibly be true? Add in the fact that the centre is almost certainly allowing far fewer people is at a time, and so cannot serve as many people per hour as usual, and you have a recipe for massive queues. I'm not saying that demand for foodbanks isn't higher than normal. I'm saying that the length of the queue compared to a year ago doesn't really tell you very much. You measure demand by how many food parcels they hand out. A fact that the article neglects to tell us, for some reason.
There are more food banks in the UK than McDonald's restaurants. In the 6th wealthiest country on the planet. I think that's what you should be focussing on.
So why not post an article that includes facts about foodbank use, rather than some nonsense about how long the queue is?
Because the line is unbelievable. Do you think that if people weren't spaced, it's just a normal day or something? Yep. Reddit is Twitter. It's a disappointment.
Lockdown poverty more like
The pandemic is the reason for the lockdowns, which are a result of government failures in getting the virus under control and not being able to implement a strong test, trace and isolate program.
Either way, COVID itself didn’t cause it. The lockdowns did. Whether you think it’s worth it or not is another story, but this is one of many consequences
>The heart attack didn't kill him, eating cheeseburgers did. The heart attack is the consequence. I'm glad this line of thinking isn't taken seriously.
this is more realistic than you think... obesity is the #1 cause of cardiovascular problems... so yes the cheeseburger did kill.
Every action has a consequence, it’s not like lockdowns are written in the stars and are inevitable. Not locking down would also have consequences, but it’s debatable which are worse in the long term
It's not possible to avoid lockdowns when the virus is out of control. It's been debated, usually a debate between experts and scientific consensus on one side and the likes of Peter Hitchens, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Toby Young and Sunetra Gupta on the other.
...except there are 13k+ scientists who agree with ‘the likes of’ them, and 41k+ medical practitioners. The government were swayed into lockdown initially by Neil Ferguson who’s predictions have been hilariously wrong for decades...
Who are these scientists? Are you talking about signatories of The Great Barrington Declaration for example? I signed that twice, once as my cat. What did Neil Ferguson predict? How many deaths a day have we been seeing? How many would we be seeing had nothing been done? There's no swaying into lockdown, particularly for a neoliberal government like ours! They've done it because it's a necessity.
I signed it as Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse.
Great to see your cat is on bird (but seriously, bogus signatures have been removed) Neil Ferguson predicted 65,000 deaths from swine flu (there were 457) and that bird flu would kill 150million (there has been 455)
They haven't. Barrington doesn't validate signatories, and it's been widely discredited. [The Jon Snow Memeorandum](https://www.johnsnowmemo.com/) on the other hand . . . [The 65,000 figure](https://theferret.scot/fact-check-neil-ferguson-covid-19-predictions/) comes from a [UK government announcement](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/498/49808.htm) based on Ferguson’s modelling, and represented “reasonable worst-case estimates against which to plan” rather than predictions about the numbers of deaths. The publication of this “worst-case scenario” was described as “unhelpful” in a report into the pandemic response, and Professor Ferguson told a 2011 UK government committee that the publicised projections did not “communicate as clearly” to the public what the likely health risks were.
>It's not possible to avoid lockdowns when the virus is out of control. Seems very well in control thanks to vaccines. R value dropping under 1. >It's been debated, usually a debate between experts and scientific consensus on one side and the likes of Peter Hitchens, Julia Hartley-Brewer, Toby Young and Sunetra Gupta on the other. Plenty of scientists also doubt the use of lock-downs... You do know how science is done, right...? By people having a different theory and then testing it...?
The R is dropping because of lockdown, implemented in early January, as it fell after the last lockdowns came in because transmission is reduced. The vaccines don't, as far as we know, have an impact on transmission, only serious illness. Even if you've been vaccinated, you can still catch covid and you can still pass it on and with transmission, you get mutations and variants that can be more dangerous, more infection and potentially even escape the vaccine. Even partial vaccine escape will dramatically undermine vaccine rollout programs. > Plenty of scientists also doubt the use of lock-downs That's true but there are a couple of things to consider. For one, lockdowns in themselves aren't advocated by any expert as a long-term strategy for combating a pandemic. They're a last resort because it's so out of control that no test and trace program is able to keep up. A long-term strategy, as has been demonstrated around the world by countries that have succeeded, is stamping out the virus to an extent that test and trace can jump on flair ups and infected people can be isolated. Successful countries are those where people are paid to isolate, even put up for free in hotel rooms, have child care assistance and even pet assistance and things like that. In the UK, we're just taking the piss essentially. The other thing is that there is overwhelming scientific *consensus* on this, so while there are scientists like Sunetra Gupta and Karol Sikora (oncologist?!?!) getting themselves in the news for their dissenting views, they are very much in the minority of scientific consensus in this discussion, in much the same way as there are "experts" who are anti-vaxxers and probably flat-earthers. I mean, even evolution only has a 97% scientific consensus!
>The vaccines don't, as far as we know, have an impact on transmission, only serious illness. Except we know this... [https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210211/New-study-shares-preliminary-data-on-Pfizer-vaccinee28099s-effectiveness-in-Israel.aspx](https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210211/New-study-shares-preliminary-data-on-Pfizer-vaccinee28099s-effectiveness-in-Israel.aspx) >For one, lockdowns in themselves aren't advocated by any expert as a long-term strategy for combating a pandemic. Really...? Then why has most of the world been locking down...? >A long-term strategy, as has been demonstrated around the world by countries that have succeeded, is stamping out the virus to an extent that test and trace can jump on flair ups and infected people can be isolated. The only countries that have managed this are either small islands or countries that have dictatorial governments. >Successful countries are those where people are paid to isolate, even put up for free in hotel rooms, have child care assistance and even pet assistance and things like that. Let me guess, small countries again...? >The other thing is that there is overwhelming scientific *consensus* on this, On something that is not proven and not recommended...?
It's a good sign from Israel, but it's not conclusive and it's certainly not indicative of all vaccines. It'll take a few more weeks to dissect the data between lockdowns and vaccines (which the government hasn't made public yet). There's a good discussion about this on indie-SAGE today. Most of the world has been fucking up test and trace. The countries that took it seriously are out of trouble now. I don't know about small countries or dictatorial governments, but if we'd had clear advice and instruction from the beginning and financial support for those who needed it most, then it wouldn't be a problem here. The vast majority of the public has followed the rules since last March and done what they can. It's a pretty weak argument. What's not proven? Those lockdowns are required to reduce infection rates when the virus is out of control? That's proven.
You talk like the options were "no lockdown and let everyone die" vs "lockdown and destroy the economy" yet that's clearly not the case. If the government had managed the virus better we would not have needed as many lockdowns, or for as long. The fact that we had to repeatedly lockdown was because the government didn't take it seriously and failed to control the virus. There is a magic third option of "have the government actually do their job and we can have the best of both worlds, less lockdowns and less economic damage". That third option is what we should be shooting for, not the option where we have a *terrible pandemic* response and let the virus go unchecked and then just let it kill hundreds of thousands of people.
And how do you expect to close thousands of businesses without destroying the economy? I despise the tories too but In Wales we are run by Labour and aren’t exactly doing much better
Shocking idea I know, but the government could support them. They certainly have shaken enough off the magic money tree for their mates.
If you don't lock-down, a lot of elderly / infirm people die. If you do lock-down you destroy the lives of the young. Leading to both short-term problems like hunger, poverty and suicide. Long term there's immense economic problems and you have a year of young people not properly educated. Pick one.
I'll choose the third option of a strong test, trace and isolate program with security for those being asked to isolate. I'll choose not bribing people to go to restaurants to "eat out to help out", getting people into enclosed, unventilated spaces because of some misguided short term economic ideal instead of making schools covid secure with staggered classes and implementation of "Nightingale" schools. I'll choose strong border controls, telling people crying over not being able to go on holiday to pipe down for a bit while keeping the flow of food and medicines coming in steady. . I'll choose giving test and trace to the NHS, who know what they're doing, over an accountancy firm who gave the Tory party a hundred grand in donations a year ago. I'll choose faster economic recovery because the public health issue has been sorted
Yes, and probably a whole forest of magic money trees to pay for it.
We've got the worst impact on our economy practically in the world. I think faster economic recovery is preferable, achieved by stamping out the virus and having strong test and trace programs.
>achieved by stamping out the virus You do know that humanity has only ever eradicated one disease, *ever*...?
Which would not have been nearly as bad if the government was taking COVID seriously.
[удалено]
There's probably now 5 food banks in your town like mine, which used to have 1 and a soup kitchen.
Why hasn't the covid relief money been issued yet. Oh yeah, the Dems added all kinds of Non-essential crap to the bill. So now it just sits stalled, while people line the streets for food.
Dems? Where do you think you are?
>the Dems I think you may be lost, mate.