Poverty fears as food bank users soar

Lily and Bob Mockett, right, with helpers Suzanne Stewart, left, and Darlene Roth at the Weymouth Food Bank

Steve Jones at Sainsbury’s in Weymouth

First published in News
Last updated
by

THE NUMBER of people using Weymouth Food Bank has increased fourfold over the past year, according to the latest figures.

And organisers say the unprecedented rise is set to increase further.

Nearly 1,200 people relied on the food bank in 2013 compared to just 330 people in 2012.

During the first four months of 2014 over 430 referrals were made to Weymouth Food Bank, marking a 35 per cent increase compared to last four months of 2013.

Weymouth Food Bank coordinator Bob Mockett said: “The past rises were big increases and I think we won’t be far off double the number of people using the service this year.”

Fellow coordinator Lily Mockett said: “We have had a massive increase in people coming to us last year, and this year, on the whole. The situation is getting worse, not better.”

The news comes as a national report was released by Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty last week.

The Below the Breadline report revealed Dorset’s Trussell Trust food banks alone provided 9,982 people with three days’ emergency food between April 1 2013 and March 31 2014.

In the South West, there has been a 77.25 per cent rise in those using food banks, with 105,521 people now using the service.

The report also investigated reasons behind huge rises in people using food banks and suggested increased benefit sanctions were a major factor.

In the document, the Trussell Trust estimated 49 per cent of those referred to food banks had to use them due to problems with social security payments or because they were refused a crisis loan.

Weymouth Food Bank is run entirely by volunteers and is supported by donations from 10 churches, giving food to people with referral vouchers.

Speaking about the dramatic rise in food bank use, Mrs Mockett criticised David Cameron and said the Government’s slogan that ‘we are all in this together’ was hypocritical because increasing numbers of people are living in poverty while the Prime Minister lives in comparable luxury.

She said: “It’s ridiculous. I really don’t understand what this government are doing.

“Some of the people using our service have had their benefits stopped, or have lost their jobs and are unemployed and have nothing to get by on.

Mrs Mockett said under-employment was also a big issue for the people who use Weymouth Food Bank. We get people who are on 16 hours and they can’t live on what they get for 16 hours.

“They are supposed to get some top up but that takes six weeks to come through and what can they do until then?

“They have no security – they can be working this week and not the next so they have to go through the paperwork process again and again.

“There should be something actually at the Job Centre that can give them this money.”

Cllr Francis Drake, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council’s spokesman for social inclusion, said: “Food bank use is rising because people are struggling to afford things, which is also why they are turning to cheaper places to buy their food.

“The country is in a terrible state and the Government is stopping a lot of payments to try to save money, but as a result people are struggling. If you have a household income and then all of a sudden it stops what would you do? You’d have to turn to food banks.”

Reacting to the fact that food banks like the one in Weymouth were funded by donations and run by volunteers, he said: “There’s got to be more money invested in services like food banks. It might come to the fact that the council might have to help the food banks with money. I hope it doesn’t have to come to that but it’s a possibility.”

One mum who started using the food bank earlier this year said: “When it was first suggested that I use the foodbank I was horrified. I work but my husband was made redundant last year and suddenly the bills just mounting up.

“I felt ashamed that I couldn’t feed my family properly but here are so many people in the same situation. We are not lazy and we are not scroungers. We don’t want handouts but it is a godsend at the same time.

“Having said that I can’t wait until we don’t have to use it and we can pay our own way.”

For more information on Weymouth Food Bank or to donate, please call 07531 167465.

 

• Allowance sanctions the highest since 1996

Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions showed 874,850 Jobseekers Allowance sanctions have been applied under new polices since October 2012, which is the highest amount ever recorded in a 12-month period for JSA claimants since the allowance was introduced in 1996.

But over half – 58 per cent – of benefit sanctions that were challenged between October 2012 and September 2013 were successfully appealed at independent tribunal, suggesting those who used food banks because their benefits payments were stopped may have been able to avoid having to rely on food banks altogether.

 

• Shop gets ready to back charity

Despite the ever-increasing rise in the number of people using food banks in Weymouth, businesses in the community are rallying round to help Weymouth Food Bank cope with demand.

Steve Jones, manager of Sainsbury’s in Weymouth, said the supermarket is keen to get involved in organising donations for the food bank.

He said: “It’s a great way for us to help the community and we would love to help out.

“Donating food is equally as important as putting money in a collection tin or donating, so it should be thought of in the same way as making other charity donations.

“It’s an important way for the community to help itself.”

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:08am Wed 25 Jun 14

ThomasFairfax says...

The "forgotten" scandal of the effect of the cuts and other austerity measures of this wretched ConDem coalition government. As other news has filled our headlines for some months, the plight of those who now rely on the distribution of food to feed themselves and their families has been pushed to the back pages or even ignored by the press and media.
It is now reported that the number pf people reliant on foodbanks in Weymouth has increased fourfold in the last 12 months.
In the South west generally, there has been a 78% increase in the number of foodbank users and nationally, the figure is even higher with now more than 1 million people regularly receiving food assistance from the Trussel Trust and the other foodbank providers. In this the 21st Century when men have been on the moon, when governments spend £billions on prestigious project in the fields of railways, airports, government IT improvements, spots events and the development and manufacture of advance weapons systems to kill more people more quickly, it is outrageous and shameful that today, in this country over 1 million of our people face the stark reality of choosing between food charities or starvation.
The government propaganda machine and many ConDem coalition MP's, would have you believe that the increase usage of foodbanks is nothing to do with cuts in befits, delays in progressing claims or any other government action and that foodbank users have "brought it upon themselves by their choice of lifestyle. That is an absurd, patronising lie both despicable and shameful from politicians, and complete abdication of their responsibility.
I have commented elsewhere, that this situation should cause us all to search our conscience and highlight this stain on our society. For the last few years, it is a disgrace which has grown steadily, and over the last 18 months has reached epidemic proportions which may well now be out of control. Giving an amount of food to the foodbanks for distribution is a short term and valuable contribution to alleviating the problem, but it is not the solution.
The government and its MP's must be made to understand (if they do not already understand) the effects which their policies, and their arrogant defence of such policies, have on ordinary families in this country and the resentment within society towards their continuing drive for austerity and "savings".
The "forgotten" scandal of the effect of the cuts and other austerity measures of this wretched ConDem coalition government. As other news has filled our headlines for some months, the plight of those who now rely on the distribution of food to feed themselves and their families has been pushed to the back pages or even ignored by the press and media. It is now reported that the number pf people reliant on foodbanks in Weymouth has increased fourfold in the last 12 months. In the South west generally, there has been a 78% increase in the number of foodbank users and nationally, the figure is even higher with now more than 1 million people regularly receiving food assistance from the Trussel Trust and the other foodbank providers. In this the 21st Century when men have been on the moon, when governments spend £billions on prestigious project in the fields of railways, airports, government IT improvements, spots events and the development and manufacture of advance weapons systems to kill more people more quickly, it is outrageous and shameful that today, in this country over 1 million of our people face the stark reality of choosing between food charities or starvation. The government propaganda machine and many ConDem coalition MP's, would have you believe that the increase usage of foodbanks is nothing to do with cuts in befits, delays in progressing claims or any other government action and that foodbank users have "brought it upon themselves by their choice of lifestyle. That is an absurd, patronising lie both despicable and shameful from politicians, and complete abdication of their responsibility. I have commented elsewhere, that this situation should cause us all to search our conscience and highlight this stain on our society. For the last few years, it is a disgrace which has grown steadily, and over the last 18 months has reached epidemic proportions which may well now be out of control. Giving an amount of food to the foodbanks for distribution is a short term and valuable contribution to alleviating the problem, but it is not the solution. The government and its MP's must be made to understand (if they do not already understand) the effects which their policies, and their arrogant defence of such policies, have on ordinary families in this country and the resentment within society towards their continuing drive for austerity and "savings". ThomasFairfax
  • Score: 14

8:12am Wed 25 Jun 14

Newground says...

The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners.

Do they not get the same pension as everyone else?

Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?
The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank? Newground
  • Score: -35

8:27am Wed 25 Jun 14

Rocksalt says...

Newground wrote:
The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners.

Do they not get the same pension as everyone else?

Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?
I think these pensioners are involved in running or coordinating the foodbank.
[quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?[/p][/quote]I think these pensioners are involved in running or coordinating the foodbank. Rocksalt
  • Score: 34

8:34am Wed 25 Jun 14

PHonnor says...

If there is one reason alone not to vote tory next year its this. Its an absolute outrage that we live in the 7th richest country on the planet and we have the shame of having our fellow countrymen surviving on handouts. The least this goverment should be doing is making sure its citizens are fed but they cant even do that so have to rely and those who actually care to fill the void.
If there is one reason alone not to vote tory next year its this. Its an absolute outrage that we live in the 7th richest country on the planet and we have the shame of having our fellow countrymen surviving on handouts. The least this goverment should be doing is making sure its citizens are fed but they cant even do that so have to rely and those who actually care to fill the void. PHonnor
  • Score: 21

8:44am Wed 25 Jun 14

K9 says...

Who is allowed to use a food bank? I'd quite like free food rather than paying for it. A rise in usage does not necessary mean a rise in demand. It may be becoming more well known as it hasn't been going too long, or, as more people use it, the stigma associated with using it lessens.
Who is allowed to use a food bank? I'd quite like free food rather than paying for it. A rise in usage does not necessary mean a rise in demand. It may be becoming more well known as it hasn't been going too long, or, as more people use it, the stigma associated with using it lessens. K9
  • Score: -9

9:06am Wed 25 Jun 14

Rocksalt says...

Dear Dorset Echo. Please could you ask Councillor Drake to clarify his remarks. He seems to be saying that the council fund or part-fund food banks. Please can he was tell us how this will be funded.Will other spending be cut or are UKIP planning to press for an increase in Council Tax next year ? Or is he just making things up as he goes along ?

Secondly, is he content to use public money to fund donations to people with drug and alcohol issues, who also use food banks. As it happens,my personal view is that you can't let people starve, whatever their circumstances. But I am not convinced that the people who voted for Mr Drake necessarily share that view.
Dear Dorset Echo. Please could you ask Councillor Drake to clarify his remarks. He seems to be saying that the council fund or part-fund food banks. Please can he was tell us how this will be funded.Will other spending be cut or are UKIP planning to press for an increase in Council Tax next year ? Or is he just making things up as he goes along ? Secondly, is he content to use public money to fund donations to people with drug and alcohol issues, who also use food banks. As it happens,my personal view is that you can't let people starve, whatever their circumstances. But I am not convinced that the people who voted for Mr Drake necessarily share that view. Rocksalt
  • Score: 12

10:55am Wed 25 Jun 14

CaughtJester says...

K9 says...

"Who is allowed to use a food bank? I'd quite like free food rather than paying for it. A rise in usage does not necessary mean a rise in demand. It may be becoming more well known as it hasn't been going too long, or, as more people use it, the stigma associated with using it lessens."

Users are directed to food banks by referral, which must be made by a doctor, social worker etc. You can't simply pitch up and ask for free food. So what we're actually seeing is an increase in the numbers of those whose circumstances mean they qualify for such support.
K9 says... "Who is allowed to use a food bank? I'd quite like free food rather than paying for it. A rise in usage does not necessary mean a rise in demand. It may be becoming more well known as it hasn't been going too long, or, as more people use it, the stigma associated with using it lessens." Users are directed to food banks by referral, which must be made by a doctor, social worker etc. You can't simply pitch up and ask for free food. So what we're actually seeing is an increase in the numbers of those whose circumstances mean they qualify for such support. CaughtJester
  • Score: 22

11:33am Wed 25 Jun 14

portland rebel says...

K9 wrote:
Who is allowed to use a food bank? I'd quite like free food rather than paying for it. A rise in usage does not necessary mean a rise in demand. It may be becoming more well known as it hasn't been going too long, or, as more people use it, the stigma associated with using it lessens.
try reading the article, it clearly states that most , have had their benefits sanctioned, or are waiting for benefits, which take about 6 wks.
[quote][p][bold]K9[/bold] wrote: Who is allowed to use a food bank? I'd quite like free food rather than paying for it. A rise in usage does not necessary mean a rise in demand. It may be becoming more well known as it hasn't been going too long, or, as more people use it, the stigma associated with using it lessens.[/p][/quote]try reading the article, it clearly states that most , have had their benefits sanctioned, or are waiting for benefits, which take about 6 wks. portland rebel
  • Score: 12

12:13pm Wed 25 Jun 14

JoeyJo says...

There is a limit to how many times a user can use a food bank, usually about 3-4 times per year.
There is a limit to how many times a user can use a food bank, usually about 3-4 times per year. JoeyJo
  • Score: 13

12:25pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Top Gear says...

Hope the people who get this FREE food don't smoke or buy drink. If they can afford to smoke or drink then they should be buying food like the rest of us.
Hope the people who get this FREE food don't smoke or buy drink. If they can afford to smoke or drink then they should be buying food like the rest of us. Top Gear
  • Score: 11

1:22pm Wed 25 Jun 14

shy talk says...

As with claiming benefits background checks are carried out and this takes time. I suspect the people giving referrals for people to use food banks; do not carry out background checks to ascertain need. There are genuine people out there who need help in feeding themselves and should be helped.

However some plead poverty but still afford to smoke, drink, televisions, Internet, mobile phones, keep pets, and breed like rabbits the list goes on. The more food banks open the use goes up as well.

People blame the government and rightly so. You could say that successive governments have created a welfare dependant society.
As with claiming benefits background checks are carried out and this takes time. I suspect the people giving referrals for people to use food banks; do not carry out background checks to ascertain need. There are genuine people out there who need help in feeding themselves and should be helped. However some plead poverty but still afford to smoke, drink, televisions, Internet, mobile phones, keep pets, and breed like rabbits the list goes on. The more food banks open the use goes up as well. People blame the government and rightly so. You could say that successive governments have created a welfare dependant society. shy talk
  • Score: 10

2:43pm Wed 25 Jun 14

More Morals Please says...

What is going on with society??

We see football players getting £300,00 a week to entertain, police officers o longer on the street in numbers as we cant afford them and now residents of the UK having to rely on hand outs for food. The way this country is run and the "look after myself" attitude adopted by many is not the UK I grew up in.

I have been out a purchased food for families without before and helped others where I can, maybe it would be good for more in the communities to look after neighbors if you can.

The current government is and was always going to be a Tory driven government. What do the Tories do best...make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

By now we should stop investing billions in war and super fast railways that make no difference to life. Instead put money into towns to solve employment issues and support people who cant do it them selves.

Putting together a project to bring more businesses to Weymouth town via subsidizing silly rents which in turn will grow the local economy would be far more appealing than some of the wasteful projects this council do locally.

There is so much that can be done to help but instead we sit back and take the same tripe from the rich people in power who at the end of the day dont care and it isnt there problem. when you have a lack of options in government so much so that you have to vote UKIP or not at all you know that this country is already in a dark era.
What is going on with society?? We see football players getting £300,00 a week to entertain, police officers o longer on the street in numbers as we cant afford them and now residents of the UK having to rely on hand outs for food. The way this country is run and the "look after myself" attitude adopted by many is not the UK I grew up in. I have been out a purchased food for families without before and helped others where I can, maybe it would be good for more in the communities to look after neighbors if you can. The current government is and was always going to be a Tory driven government. What do the Tories do best...make the rich richer and the poor poorer. By now we should stop investing billions in war and super fast railways that make no difference to life. Instead put money into towns to solve employment issues and support people who cant do it them selves. Putting together a project to bring more businesses to Weymouth town via subsidizing silly rents which in turn will grow the local economy would be far more appealing than some of the wasteful projects this council do locally. There is so much that can be done to help but instead we sit back and take the same tripe from the rich people in power who at the end of the day dont care and it isnt there problem. when you have a lack of options in government so much so that you have to vote UKIP or not at all you know that this country is already in a dark era. More Morals Please
  • Score: 9

2:48pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Tinker2 says...

Newground wrote:
The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?
Muppet,why don't you read the caption under the photo and then the article before making dumb comments?
[quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?[/p][/quote]Muppet,why don't you read the caption under the photo and then the article before making dumb comments? Tinker2
  • Score: 14

3:25pm Wed 25 Jun 14

WykeReg says...

No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected.

The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people.

The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been.

But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was).
No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected. The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people. The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been. But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was). WykeReg
  • Score: -6

3:31pm Wed 25 Jun 14

WykeReg says...

PHonnor wrote:
If there is one reason alone not to vote tory next year its this. Its an absolute outrage that we live in the 7th richest country on the planet and we have the shame of having our fellow countrymen surviving on handouts. The least this goverment should be doing is making sure its citizens are fed but they cant even do that so have to rely and those who actually care to fill the void.
Living in the world's 7th richest country is meaningless if you try to spend like the 5th or 6th richest country. You need to cut your coat according your cloth.

To further put things into perspective, Britain' GDP is 20% larger than the State of California. Problem is, we have double the population - twice the people and only a measly 20% advantage. Not too spectacular is it?
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: If there is one reason alone not to vote tory next year its this. Its an absolute outrage that we live in the 7th richest country on the planet and we have the shame of having our fellow countrymen surviving on handouts. The least this goverment should be doing is making sure its citizens are fed but they cant even do that so have to rely and those who actually care to fill the void.[/p][/quote]Living in the world's 7th richest country is meaningless if you try to spend like the 5th or 6th richest country. You need to cut your coat according your cloth. To further put things into perspective, Britain' GDP is 20% larger than the State of California. Problem is, we have double the population - twice the people and only a measly 20% advantage. Not too spectacular is it? WykeReg
  • Score: -7

3:46pm Wed 25 Jun 14

More Morals Please says...

WykeReg wrote:
No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected.

The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people.

The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been.

But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was).
Labour inherited Tory genius ideas like the millennium dome (contract for that was signed for in Tory reign). Both parties are as bad as each other and have been awful with our countries financial affairs.

The rich richer and poor poor is what happens with Tory goverments but by no means do I want a labour or a UKIP one. There needs to a change to this country and I would look at Germany as a role model.

They went through structured austerity that has left the country in a good position. They rejected the nuclear power that England jumped on (oh how we see the fukishima crisis unreported now the nuclear energy bill which needed countries support has been signed off) and invested in renewable energy which is paying off for them,

Germany are prospering in hard times.

The welfare state that is the UK needs changing, we have a habit of funding lives of complete and utter scum but under funding or penalizing people who really need it.
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected. The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people. The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been. But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was).[/p][/quote]Labour inherited Tory genius ideas like the millennium dome (contract for that was signed for in Tory reign). Both parties are as bad as each other and have been awful with our countries financial affairs. The rich richer and poor poor is what happens with Tory goverments but by no means do I want a labour or a UKIP one. There needs to a change to this country and I would look at Germany as a role model. They went through structured austerity that has left the country in a good position. They rejected the nuclear power that England jumped on (oh how we see the fukishima crisis unreported now the nuclear energy bill which needed countries support has been signed off) and invested in renewable energy which is paying off for them, Germany are prospering in hard times. The welfare state that is the UK needs changing, we have a habit of funding lives of complete and utter scum but under funding or penalizing people who really need it. More Morals Please
  • Score: 4

3:54pm Wed 25 Jun 14

every user name was taken says...

Having been past the food bank, I have seen and heard a couple before entering discussing that they do not want the same c**p that hey had last time. Then stubbing there real cigarettes out on the floor. If they can afford £9 for a packet of cig's they are not desperate are they?
Having been past the food bank, I have seen and heard a couple before entering discussing that they do not want the same c**p that hey had last time. Then stubbing there real cigarettes out on the floor. If they can afford £9 for a packet of cig's they are not desperate are they? every user name was taken
  • Score: 18

4:22pm Wed 25 Jun 14

PHonnor says...

WykeReg wrote:
No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected. The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people. The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been. But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was).
But the tories are still borrowing at record levels, which begs the question, what are they doing with all OUR money the are saving???
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected. The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people. The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been. But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was).[/p][/quote]But the tories are still borrowing at record levels, which begs the question, what are they doing with all OUR money the are saving??? PHonnor
  • Score: 10

4:24pm Wed 25 Jun 14

PHonnor says...

WykeReg wrote:
PHonnor wrote: If there is one reason alone not to vote tory next year its this. Its an absolute outrage that we live in the 7th richest country on the planet and we have the shame of having our fellow countrymen surviving on handouts. The least this goverment should be doing is making sure its citizens are fed but they cant even do that so have to rely and those who actually care to fill the void.
Living in the world's 7th richest country is meaningless if you try to spend like the 5th or 6th richest country. You need to cut your coat according your cloth. To further put things into perspective, Britain' GDP is 20% larger than the State of California. Problem is, we have double the population - twice the people and only a measly 20% advantage. Not too spectacular is it?
You miss my point, being the 7th richest we should be able to get the basics like feeding ourselves without relying on charity no?
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: If there is one reason alone not to vote tory next year its this. Its an absolute outrage that we live in the 7th richest country on the planet and we have the shame of having our fellow countrymen surviving on handouts. The least this goverment should be doing is making sure its citizens are fed but they cant even do that so have to rely and those who actually care to fill the void.[/p][/quote]Living in the world's 7th richest country is meaningless if you try to spend like the 5th or 6th richest country. You need to cut your coat according your cloth. To further put things into perspective, Britain' GDP is 20% larger than the State of California. Problem is, we have double the population - twice the people and only a measly 20% advantage. Not too spectacular is it?[/p][/quote]You miss my point, being the 7th richest we should be able to get the basics like feeding ourselves without relying on charity no? PHonnor
  • Score: 10

4:29pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Schrodinger's Cat says...

WykeReg wrote:
No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected.

The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people.

The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been.

But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was).
You do talk some nonsense. The other thing that gets "trotted out" all too regularly (and wrongly) is that Labour destroyed the economy. In truth from 1997 to 2008 we had the longest sustained period of steady growth in this country's history. The economic downturn was caused by multinational banks playing fast and loose with their lending. This occurred at a time when the Tories were arguing for LESS regulation of the banking system!! Of course there would still be cuts if we had a Labour government. The difference between the parties is in the scale and pace of the cuts and what part the government should play in job creation. At the end of the day the old divide does still exist - the Conservatives are the party who put the interests of the wealthy business person ahead of the ordinary working person.
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected. The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people. The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been. But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was).[/p][/quote]You do talk some nonsense. The other thing that gets "trotted out" all too regularly (and wrongly) is that Labour destroyed the economy. In truth from 1997 to 2008 we had the longest sustained period of steady growth in this country's history. The economic downturn was caused by multinational banks playing fast and loose with their lending. This occurred at a time when the Tories were arguing for LESS regulation of the banking system!! Of course there would still be cuts if we had a Labour government. The difference between the parties is in the scale and pace of the cuts and what part the government should play in job creation. At the end of the day the old divide does still exist - the Conservatives are the party who put the interests of the wealthy business person ahead of the ordinary working person. Schrodinger's Cat
  • Score: 11

4:39pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Newground says...

Tinker2 wrote:
Newground wrote:
The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?
Muppet,why don't you read the caption under the photo and then the article before making dumb comments?
Tinkerbell,

The caption reads: "Lily and Bob Mockett, right, with helpers Suzanne Stewart, left, and Darlene Roth at the Weymouth Food Bank."

That suggests that Suzanne and Marlene are the helpers.

N'est pas?
[quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?[/p][/quote]Muppet,why don't you read the caption under the photo and then the article before making dumb comments?[/p][/quote]Tinkerbell, The caption reads: "Lily and Bob Mockett, right, with helpers Suzanne Stewart, left, and Darlene Roth at the Weymouth Food Bank." That suggests that Suzanne and Marlene are the helpers. N'est pas? Newground
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Wed 25 Jun 14

iansedwell says...

Newground wrote:
Tinker2 wrote:
Newground wrote:
The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?
Muppet,why don't you read the caption under the photo and then the article before making dumb comments?
Tinkerbell,

The caption reads: "Lily and Bob Mockett, right, with helpers Suzanne Stewart, left, and Darlene Roth at the Weymouth Food Bank."

That suggests that Suzanne and Marlene are the helpers.

N'est pas?
I think you mean, "N'est-ce pas?" or the more informal, "Hein?"

In any case, the piece clearly states that Lily and Bob Mockett are the foodbank coordinators (paragraphs 5 & 6).

Bonne chance à eux!
[quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?[/p][/quote]Muppet,why don't you read the caption under the photo and then the article before making dumb comments?[/p][/quote]Tinkerbell, The caption reads: "Lily and Bob Mockett, right, with helpers Suzanne Stewart, left, and Darlene Roth at the Weymouth Food Bank." That suggests that Suzanne and Marlene are the helpers. N'est pas?[/p][/quote]I think you mean, "N'est-ce pas?" or the more informal, "Hein?" In any case, the piece clearly states that Lily and Bob Mockett are the foodbank coordinators (paragraphs 5 & 6). Bonne chance à eux! iansedwell
  • Score: 9

5:09pm Wed 25 Jun 14

More Morals Please says...

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
WykeReg wrote:
No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected.

The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people.

The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been.

But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was).
You do talk some nonsense. The other thing that gets "trotted out" all too regularly (and wrongly) is that Labour destroyed the economy. In truth from 1997 to 2008 we had the longest sustained period of steady growth in this country's history. The economic downturn was caused by multinational banks playing fast and loose with their lending. This occurred at a time when the Tories were arguing for LESS regulation of the banking system!! Of course there would still be cuts if we had a Labour government. The difference between the parties is in the scale and pace of the cuts and what part the government should play in job creation. At the end of the day the old divide does still exist - the Conservatives are the party who put the interests of the wealthy business person ahead of the ordinary working person.
nonsense in what way?

I am sure that I have read different papers, books and run in different circles to you if that's what you think is nonsense.

So please elaborate
[quote][p][bold]Schrodinger's Cat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected. The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people. The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been. But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was).[/p][/quote]You do talk some nonsense. The other thing that gets "trotted out" all too regularly (and wrongly) is that Labour destroyed the economy. In truth from 1997 to 2008 we had the longest sustained period of steady growth in this country's history. The economic downturn was caused by multinational banks playing fast and loose with their lending. This occurred at a time when the Tories were arguing for LESS regulation of the banking system!! Of course there would still be cuts if we had a Labour government. The difference between the parties is in the scale and pace of the cuts and what part the government should play in job creation. At the end of the day the old divide does still exist - the Conservatives are the party who put the interests of the wealthy business person ahead of the ordinary working person.[/p][/quote]nonsense in what way? I am sure that I have read different papers, books and run in different circles to you if that's what you think is nonsense. So please elaborate More Morals Please
  • Score: -7

5:21pm Wed 25 Jun 14

mr commonsense says...

Why do all the correspondents on here get the wrong end of the stick ?
Poverty is not having mobile phones, Sky TV, running a car, plus lots more. Poverty is living without heating, clothes, perhaps a job, and the aforementioned things. If you carefully look at the life styles of many of these people you would not agree that they deserved food parcels. As for blaming Governments this is nonsense, there is very little poverty in the UK , there are plenty of people who want everything they can get to be given to them. Fact not fiction.
Why do all the correspondents on here get the wrong end of the stick ? Poverty is not having mobile phones, Sky TV, running a car, plus lots more. Poverty is living without heating, clothes, perhaps a job, and the aforementioned things. If you carefully look at the life styles of many of these people you would not agree that they deserved food parcels. As for blaming Governments this is nonsense, there is very little poverty in the UK , there are plenty of people who want everything they can get to be given to them. Fact not fiction. mr commonsense
  • Score: 7

5:29pm Wed 25 Jun 14

cosmick says...

Rocksalt wrote:
Dear Dorset Echo. Please could you ask Councillor Drake to clarify his remarks. He seems to be saying that the council fund or part-fund food banks. Please can he was tell us how this will be funded.Will other spending be cut or are UKIP planning to press for an increase in Council Tax next year ? Or is he just making things up as he goes along ?

Secondly, is he content to use public money to fund donations to people with drug and alcohol issues, who also use food banks. As it happens,my personal view is that you can't let people starve, whatever their circumstances. But I am not convinced that the people who voted for Mr Drake necessarily share that view.
Why dont you e mail cllr Drake ask him the points you want him to clarify in his remarks. Then report them back her. Sure you dont need the ECHO to hold your hand.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: Dear Dorset Echo. Please could you ask Councillor Drake to clarify his remarks. He seems to be saying that the council fund or part-fund food banks. Please can he was tell us how this will be funded.Will other spending be cut or are UKIP planning to press for an increase in Council Tax next year ? Or is he just making things up as he goes along ? Secondly, is he content to use public money to fund donations to people with drug and alcohol issues, who also use food banks. As it happens,my personal view is that you can't let people starve, whatever their circumstances. But I am not convinced that the people who voted for Mr Drake necessarily share that view.[/p][/quote]Why dont you e mail cllr Drake ask him the points you want him to clarify in his remarks. Then report them back her. Sure you dont need the ECHO to hold your hand. cosmick
  • Score: 5

5:37pm Wed 25 Jun 14

maddyub@gmail.com says...

I just want to say that I live in Jersey, one of the richest places in the world, but we have poverty here and we have food banks. Sadly, it is a sign of the times and an incompetent Government who have no idea how ordinary people live.
I just want to say that I live in Jersey, one of the richest places in the world, but we have poverty here and we have food banks. Sadly, it is a sign of the times and an incompetent Government who have no idea how ordinary people live. maddyub@gmail.com
  • Score: 11

5:50pm Wed 25 Jun 14

WykeReg says...

A couple of points to clear things up:

The cause of our present situation is entirely due to the last Labour government. The financial meltdown was an unwelcome and expensive event, not least because the last government rushed in with bailout money when they should at least have let one major bank fail. This has been widely regarded as a catastrophic mistake.

The growth that happened during the Labour years was entirely due to the booming world economy. If Britain had not done well in that time it would have been the fault of the business community and nothing to do with anything the government could do. Labour claimed the credit anyway.

Labour had already ruined the public finances because Brown essentially believed the boom would last indefinitely so he he could spend ahead of tax revenues which were sure to appear. He forgot that a rising tide lifts all the boats, but when the tide goes out you discover who's been swimming naked. When that happened there was no rainy day fund anymore in Britain. "The money's all gone."

Being the 7th richest country is, repeat meaningless. Whatever wealth the country produces, if the government spends just one pound more than it receives our troubles begin. And since the welfare state cannot be reduced quickly the spending runs on autopilot whoever is in power, borrowing continues, and the interest bill goes up and grinds on.

If anyone is unsure about all of this I would hate to see how you manage your own household budget. A phone call to Wonga perhaps? You know how that works out.
A couple of points to clear things up: The cause of our present situation is entirely due to the last Labour government. The financial meltdown was an unwelcome and expensive event, not least because the last government rushed in with bailout money when they should at least have let one major bank fail. This has been widely regarded as a catastrophic mistake. The growth that happened during the Labour years was entirely due to the booming world economy. If Britain had not done well in that time it would have been the fault of the business community and nothing to do with anything the government could do. Labour claimed the credit anyway. Labour had already ruined the public finances because Brown essentially believed the boom would last indefinitely so he he could spend ahead of tax revenues which were sure to appear. He forgot that a rising tide lifts all the boats, but when the tide goes out you discover who's been swimming naked. When that happened there was no rainy day fund anymore in Britain. "The money's all gone." Being the 7th richest country is, repeat meaningless. Whatever wealth the country produces, if the government spends just one pound more than it receives our troubles begin. And since the welfare state cannot be reduced quickly the spending runs on autopilot whoever is in power, borrowing continues, and the interest bill goes up and grinds on. If anyone is unsure about all of this I would hate to see how you manage your own household budget. A phone call to Wonga perhaps? You know how that works out. WykeReg
  • Score: -12

6:32pm Wed 25 Jun 14

PHonnor says...

WykeReg wrote:
A couple of points to clear things up:

The cause of our present situation is entirely due to the last Labour government. The financial meltdown was an unwelcome and expensive event, not least because the last government rushed in with bailout money when they should at least have let one major bank fail. This has been widely regarded as a catastrophic mistake.

The growth that happened during the Labour years was entirely due to the booming world economy. If Britain had not done well in that time it would have been the fault of the business community and nothing to do with anything the government could do. Labour claimed the credit anyway.

Labour had already ruined the public finances because Brown essentially believed the boom would last indefinitely so he he could spend ahead of tax revenues which were sure to appear. He forgot that a rising tide lifts all the boats, but when the tide goes out you discover who's been swimming naked. When that happened there was no rainy day fund anymore in Britain. "The money's all gone."

Being the 7th richest country is, repeat meaningless. Whatever wealth the country produces, if the government spends just one pound more than it receives our troubles begin. And since the welfare state cannot be reduced quickly the spending runs on autopilot whoever is in power, borrowing continues, and the interest bill goes up and grinds on.

If anyone is unsure about all of this I would hate to see how you manage your own household budget. A phone call to Wonga perhaps? You know how that works out.
So you admit the boom during Labour years was down to the world economy but what about the bust, world economy as well or as your lead to believe, all Labour's fault? Funny you should mention wonga, didn't their owner donate 500,000 to the Tories recently?
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: A couple of points to clear things up: The cause of our present situation is entirely due to the last Labour government. The financial meltdown was an unwelcome and expensive event, not least because the last government rushed in with bailout money when they should at least have let one major bank fail. This has been widely regarded as a catastrophic mistake. The growth that happened during the Labour years was entirely due to the booming world economy. If Britain had not done well in that time it would have been the fault of the business community and nothing to do with anything the government could do. Labour claimed the credit anyway. Labour had already ruined the public finances because Brown essentially believed the boom would last indefinitely so he he could spend ahead of tax revenues which were sure to appear. He forgot that a rising tide lifts all the boats, but when the tide goes out you discover who's been swimming naked. When that happened there was no rainy day fund anymore in Britain. "The money's all gone." Being the 7th richest country is, repeat meaningless. Whatever wealth the country produces, if the government spends just one pound more than it receives our troubles begin. And since the welfare state cannot be reduced quickly the spending runs on autopilot whoever is in power, borrowing continues, and the interest bill goes up and grinds on. If anyone is unsure about all of this I would hate to see how you manage your own household budget. A phone call to Wonga perhaps? You know how that works out.[/p][/quote]So you admit the boom during Labour years was down to the world economy but what about the bust, world economy as well or as your lead to believe, all Labour's fault? Funny you should mention wonga, didn't their owner donate 500,000 to the Tories recently? PHonnor
  • Score: 14

7:20pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Bert Fry says...

mr commonsense wrote:
Why do all the correspondents on here get the wrong end of the stick ?
Poverty is not having mobile phones, Sky TV, running a car, plus lots more. Poverty is living without heating, clothes, perhaps a job, and the aforementioned things. If you carefully look at the life styles of many of these people you would not agree that they deserved food parcels. As for blaming Governments this is nonsense, there is very little poverty in the UK , there are plenty of people who want everything they can get to be given to them. Fact not fiction.
Those that end their posts proclaiming that is is 'fact' invariably fail to distinguish opinion from fact.
The accepted definition of poverty in the UK is a household whose income is less than 60% of the median UK household income. An alternative definition looks at deprivation, not just material deprivation but also in the social exclusion from ' the ordinary patterns, customs and activities of society'.
[quote][p][bold]mr commonsense[/bold] wrote: Why do all the correspondents on here get the wrong end of the stick ? Poverty is not having mobile phones, Sky TV, running a car, plus lots more. Poverty is living without heating, clothes, perhaps a job, and the aforementioned things. If you carefully look at the life styles of many of these people you would not agree that they deserved food parcels. As for blaming Governments this is nonsense, there is very little poverty in the UK , there are plenty of people who want everything they can get to be given to them. Fact not fiction.[/p][/quote]Those that end their posts proclaiming that is is 'fact' invariably fail to distinguish opinion from fact. The accepted definition of poverty in the UK is a household whose income is less than 60% of the median UK household income. An alternative definition looks at deprivation, not just material deprivation but also in the social exclusion from ' the ordinary patterns, customs and activities of society'. Bert Fry
  • Score: 8

7:28pm Wed 25 Jun 14

iansedwell says...

mr commonsense wrote:
Why do all the correspondents on here get the wrong end of the stick ?
Poverty is not having mobile phones, Sky TV, running a car, plus lots more. Poverty is living without heating, clothes, perhaps a job, and the aforementioned things. If you carefully look at the life styles of many of these people you would not agree that they deserved food parcels. As for blaming Governments this is nonsense, there is very little poverty in the UK , there are plenty of people who want everything they can get to be given to them. Fact not fiction.
The UK government issues a number of detailed documents describing poverty of various kinds in the UK. You can find links to the various documents on the government web site h t t p s:// www. gov. uk/ search ? q= poverty. By the government's own data, there is extensive poverty in the UK and Weymouth and Portland happens to be badly hit.

Many UK charities also publish and make freely available other data.

Please familiarise yourself with those data before you make such wrongheaded assertions. I would have thought that was common sense.

Of course, if you have better data, I am sure you would be keen to make it known to us here.
[quote][p][bold]mr commonsense[/bold] wrote: Why do all the correspondents on here get the wrong end of the stick ? Poverty is not having mobile phones, Sky TV, running a car, plus lots more. Poverty is living without heating, clothes, perhaps a job, and the aforementioned things. If you carefully look at the life styles of many of these people you would not agree that they deserved food parcels. As for blaming Governments this is nonsense, there is very little poverty in the UK , there are plenty of people who want everything they can get to be given to them. Fact not fiction.[/p][/quote]The UK government issues a number of detailed documents describing poverty of various kinds in the UK. You can find links to the various documents on the government web site h t t p s:// www. gov. uk/ search ? q= poverty. By the government's own data, there is extensive poverty in the UK and Weymouth and Portland happens to be badly hit. Many UK charities also publish and make freely available other data. Please familiarise yourself with those data before you make such wrongheaded assertions. I would have thought that was common sense. Of course, if you have better data, I am sure you would be keen to make it known to us here. iansedwell
  • Score: 8

8:04pm Wed 25 Jun 14

monkeydog says...

WykeReg wrote:
No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected.

The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people.

The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been.

But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was).
One of the main reasons we are in this 'mess' is the deregulation of the finacial sector starting with Thatcher's government and carried on by Brown. As the same thing was happening in countries around the world at the same time it is patently absurd to blame the Labour government even though it was complicit. As for your comments regarding the rate at which the present government is dismantling the welfare state I hope for your sake that you or members of your family will not be requiring it's services in the future.
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: No surprise to read crass comments about the Tories "making the poor poorer and rich richer" since these are trotted out every time. Things would be no better if Labour were in power. Little Ed has already said his party would not reverse the cuts if elected. The reason we're in this mess, in case you've forgotten, is thirteen years of Labour''s hard work to destroy the economy. Thanks to the deficit and the resulting debt mountain we now have to fork out more than a billion pounds a week in interest on the borrowings. That would feed a lot of people. The real problem for the coalition government is that they haven't been nearly as quick or aggressive enough in slashing the unaffordable welfare state as they should have been. But that's the problem with the welfare state culture - once a benefit is introduced it is not just for Christmas, it's forever whether the country can afford it or not. There is no orchard full of money trees (though Gordon Brown believed there was).[/p][/quote]One of the main reasons we are in this 'mess' is the deregulation of the finacial sector starting with Thatcher's government and carried on by Brown. As the same thing was happening in countries around the world at the same time it is patently absurd to blame the Labour government even though it was complicit. As for your comments regarding the rate at which the present government is dismantling the welfare state I hope for your sake that you or members of your family will not be requiring it's services in the future. monkeydog
  • Score: 5

8:45pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Rocksalt says...

cosmick wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
Dear Dorset Echo. Please could you ask Councillor Drake to clarify his remarks. He seems to be saying that the council fund or part-fund food banks. Please can he was tell us how this will be funded.Will other spending be cut or are UKIP planning to press for an increase in Council Tax next year ? Or is he just making things up as he goes along ?

Secondly, is he content to use public money to fund donations to people with drug and alcohol issues, who also use food banks. As it happens,my personal view is that you can't let people starve, whatever their circumstances. But I am not convinced that the people who voted for Mr Drake necessarily share that view.
Why dont you e mail cllr Drake ask him the points you want him to clarify in his remarks. Then report them back her. Sure you dont need the ECHO to hold your hand.
I could indeed email the councillor. But on this occasion I am more concerned with encouraging journalists to be more challenging when interviewing or quoting local politicians. My emailing the councillor would therefore defeat the object in this instance.

I will also leave it to Mr Drake to decide whether or not he wants to clarify his position. Alternatively, he might be content to look like someone making what appear to be. opportunistic and I'll conceived comments.
[quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: Dear Dorset Echo. Please could you ask Councillor Drake to clarify his remarks. He seems to be saying that the council fund or part-fund food banks. Please can he was tell us how this will be funded.Will other spending be cut or are UKIP planning to press for an increase in Council Tax next year ? Or is he just making things up as he goes along ? Secondly, is he content to use public money to fund donations to people with drug and alcohol issues, who also use food banks. As it happens,my personal view is that you can't let people starve, whatever their circumstances. But I am not convinced that the people who voted for Mr Drake necessarily share that view.[/p][/quote]Why dont you e mail cllr Drake ask him the points you want him to clarify in his remarks. Then report them back her. Sure you dont need the ECHO to hold your hand.[/p][/quote]I could indeed email the councillor. But on this occasion I am more concerned with encouraging journalists to be more challenging when interviewing or quoting local politicians. My emailing the councillor would therefore defeat the object in this instance. I will also leave it to Mr Drake to decide whether or not he wants to clarify his position. Alternatively, he might be content to look like someone making what appear to be. opportunistic and I'll conceived comments. Rocksalt
  • Score: 1

8:57pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Newground says...

iansedwell wrote:
Newground wrote:
Tinker2 wrote:
Newground wrote:
The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?
Muppet,why don't you read the caption under the photo and then the article before making dumb comments?
Tinkerbell,

The caption reads: "Lily and Bob Mockett, right, with helpers Suzanne Stewart, left, and Darlene Roth at the Weymouth Food Bank."

That suggests that Suzanne and Marlene are the helpers.

N'est pas?
I think you mean, "N'est-ce pas?" or the more informal, "Hein?"

In any case, the piece clearly states that Lily and Bob Mockett are the foodbank coordinators (paragraphs 5 & 6).

Bonne chance à eux!
Oui. Vous avez raison.
Es tut mir leid.
[quote][p][bold]iansedwell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?[/p][/quote]Muppet,why don't you read the caption under the photo and then the article before making dumb comments?[/p][/quote]Tinkerbell, The caption reads: "Lily and Bob Mockett, right, with helpers Suzanne Stewart, left, and Darlene Roth at the Weymouth Food Bank." That suggests that Suzanne and Marlene are the helpers. N'est pas?[/p][/quote]I think you mean, "N'est-ce pas?" or the more informal, "Hein?" In any case, the piece clearly states that Lily and Bob Mockett are the foodbank coordinators (paragraphs 5 & 6). Bonne chance à eux![/p][/quote]Oui. Vous avez raison. Es tut mir leid. Newground
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Wed 25 Jun 14

radiator says...

Mean while we send billions to help other countries,something wrong or what?.
Mean while we send billions to help other countries,something wrong or what?. radiator
  • Score: 3

9:46pm Wed 25 Jun 14

Bert Fry says...

radiator wrote:
Mean while we send billions to help other countries,something wrong or what?.
Only wrong if you are selfish and insular and care not one jot for those who are far lass fortunate than ourselves.
[quote][p][bold]radiator[/bold] wrote: Mean while we send billions to help other countries,something wrong or what?.[/p][/quote]Only wrong if you are selfish and insular and care not one jot for those who are far lass fortunate than ourselves. Bert Fry
  • Score: 7

11:51pm Wed 25 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

portland rebel wrote:
K9 wrote:
Who is allowed to use a food bank? I'd quite like free food rather than paying for it. A rise in usage does not necessary mean a rise in demand. It may be becoming more well known as it hasn't been going too long, or, as more people use it, the stigma associated with using it lessens.
try reading the article, it clearly states that most , have had their benefits sanctioned, or are waiting for benefits, which take about 6 wks.
I personally know people here in Christchurch who were sanctioned by the Lansdowne, Bournemouth, Job Centre Plus. Reasons for having benefits stopped included not turning up on time for an appointment. "The A338 Spur Road is closed due to an accident. The whole of Christchurch is gridlocked. Your bus was an hour late. Sorry Sir, that is not acceptable." Seriously, I kid you not.

It is also not at all funny seeing a person that you know is already unwell looking gaunt and haggard because they aren't eating properly, if at all. The wonderful people who started the welfare state at the end of WWII must be rolling in their graves.
[quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]K9[/bold] wrote: Who is allowed to use a food bank? I'd quite like free food rather than paying for it. A rise in usage does not necessary mean a rise in demand. It may be becoming more well known as it hasn't been going too long, or, as more people use it, the stigma associated with using it lessens.[/p][/quote]try reading the article, it clearly states that most , have had their benefits sanctioned, or are waiting for benefits, which take about 6 wks.[/p][/quote]I personally know people here in Christchurch who were sanctioned by the Lansdowne, Bournemouth, Job Centre Plus. Reasons for having benefits stopped included not turning up on time for an appointment. "The A338 Spur Road is closed due to an accident. The whole of Christchurch is gridlocked. Your bus was an hour late. Sorry Sir, that is not acceptable." Seriously, I kid you not. It is also not at all funny seeing a person that you know is already unwell looking gaunt and haggard because they aren't eating properly, if at all. The wonderful people who started the welfare state at the end of WWII must be rolling in their graves. breamoreboy
  • Score: 3

11:53pm Wed 25 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

mr commonsense wrote:
Why do all the correspondents on here get the wrong end of the stick ?
Poverty is not having mobile phones, Sky TV, running a car, plus lots more. Poverty is living without heating, clothes, perhaps a job, and the aforementioned things. If you carefully look at the life styles of many of these people you would not agree that they deserved food parcels. As for blaming Governments this is nonsense, there is very little poverty in the UK , there are plenty of people who want everything they can get to be given to them. Fact not fiction.
True indeed. We'll start from the bankers and work from there, okay?
[quote][p][bold]mr commonsense[/bold] wrote: Why do all the correspondents on here get the wrong end of the stick ? Poverty is not having mobile phones, Sky TV, running a car, plus lots more. Poverty is living without heating, clothes, perhaps a job, and the aforementioned things. If you carefully look at the life styles of many of these people you would not agree that they deserved food parcels. As for blaming Governments this is nonsense, there is very little poverty in the UK , there are plenty of people who want everything they can get to be given to them. Fact not fiction.[/p][/quote]True indeed. We'll start from the bankers and work from there, okay? breamoreboy
  • Score: 4

1:10am Thu 26 Jun 14

iansedwell says...

Newground wrote:
iansedwell wrote:
Newground wrote:
Tinker2 wrote:
Newground wrote:
The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?
Muppet,why don't you read the caption under the photo and then the article before making dumb comments?
Tinkerbell,

The caption reads: "Lily and Bob Mockett, right, with helpers Suzanne Stewart, left, and Darlene Roth at the Weymouth Food Bank."

That suggests that Suzanne and Marlene are the helpers.

N'est pas?
I think you mean, "N'est-ce pas?" or the more informal, "Hein?"

In any case, the piece clearly states that Lily and Bob Mockett are the foodbank coordinators (paragraphs 5 & 6).

Bonne chance à eux!
Oui. Vous avez raison.
Es tut mir leid.
:-)
[quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]iansedwell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Newground[/bold] wrote: The recipients of the food in the photo seem to be pensioners. Do they not get the same pension as everyone else? Does every pensioner need to use a food bank?[/p][/quote]Muppet,why don't you read the caption under the photo and then the article before making dumb comments?[/p][/quote]Tinkerbell, The caption reads: "Lily and Bob Mockett, right, with helpers Suzanne Stewart, left, and Darlene Roth at the Weymouth Food Bank." That suggests that Suzanne and Marlene are the helpers. N'est pas?[/p][/quote]I think you mean, "N'est-ce pas?" or the more informal, "Hein?" In any case, the piece clearly states that Lily and Bob Mockett are the foodbank coordinators (paragraphs 5 & 6). Bonne chance à eux![/p][/quote]Oui. Vous avez raison. Es tut mir leid.[/p][/quote]:-) iansedwell
  • Score: 0

2:49am Thu 26 Jun 14

westbaywonder says...

What a sad and ironic place this island has become.
It would be nice to see David Cameron not have his £90 hair trim this week and donate the money to a food bank to help out some citizens.
Becoming more and more ashamed of this land as the years go by.
What a sad and ironic place this island has become. It would be nice to see David Cameron not have his £90 hair trim this week and donate the money to a food bank to help out some citizens. Becoming more and more ashamed of this land as the years go by. westbaywonder
  • Score: 1

10:23am Thu 26 Jun 14

liejacker says...

Ironic that the story about increasing use of food bank wraps around an ad showing Pizza Express - the most expensive form of cheese on toast you can get, by tastecard - a must for patrons of corporate crap restaurants.

Vivid illustration of the shameful polarisation in our society.
Ironic that the story about increasing use of food bank wraps around an ad showing Pizza Express - the most expensive form of cheese on toast you can get, by tastecard - a must for patrons of corporate crap restaurants. Vivid illustration of the shameful polarisation in our society. liejacker
  • Score: 2

12:17pm Thu 26 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

westbaywonder wrote:
What a sad and ironic place this island has become.
It would be nice to see David Cameron not have his £90 hair trim this week and donate the money to a food bank to help out some citizens.
Becoming more and more ashamed of this land as the years go by.
Good to see he gets it done on the cheap. Years ago Nicky Clarke was charging £250 a time. In modern money that's roughly 3 1/2 weeks JSA.
[quote][p][bold]westbaywonder[/bold] wrote: What a sad and ironic place this island has become. It would be nice to see David Cameron not have his £90 hair trim this week and donate the money to a food bank to help out some citizens. Becoming more and more ashamed of this land as the years go by.[/p][/quote]Good to see he gets it done on the cheap. Years ago Nicky Clarke was charging £250 a time. In modern money that's roughly 3 1/2 weeks JSA. breamoreboy
  • Score: 3

6:57pm Thu 26 Jun 14

wurzelbasher says...

Don't worry people; by going without you are doing great work by contributing to our Foreign Aid package!!
Don't worry people; by going without you are doing great work by contributing to our Foreign Aid package!! wurzelbasher
  • Score: 1

9:05pm Sat 28 Jun 14

breamoreboy says...

wurzelbasher wrote:
Don't worry people; by going without you are doing great work by contributing to our Foreign Aid package!!
Which is presumably far lower than the bill for non-working people on benefits, which is 3% of the total paid out in benefits. 33% of benefits goes in Working Tax Credits and the like and pretty much all of the rest goes in pensions. Just saying.
[quote][p][bold]wurzelbasher[/bold] wrote: Don't worry people; by going without you are doing great work by contributing to our Foreign Aid package!![/p][/quote]Which is presumably far lower than the bill for non-working people on benefits, which is 3% of the total paid out in benefits. 33% of benefits goes in Working Tax Credits and the like and pretty much all of the rest goes in pensions. Just saying. breamoreboy
  • 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