It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Feedback
This is from the funding section of the paper...
This research was funded by a grant provided by the Trussell Trust Foodbank Network. The research question, design, analyses, and writing were soley devised by the study authors. The views expressed reflect only the authors’ interpretations of the findings. RL and DS were also supported by a Wellcome Trust Investigator Award during the course of this research.
...so make of that what you will. They were also using Local Authority data with regards JSA claims/sanctions, so I'd argue their data isn't solely based on numbers provided by Trussell. As a scientist myself, I'd say the outcome would be a direct result of the hypothesis they were testing, and how well the data bore that hypothesis out.
Being that the government's position appears to be that there are "many complex reasons why people use food banks" (both TM and Priti Patel are on record as using that phrase), I'd rather they acknowledged (or were challenged to acknowledge, by y'know, professional journalists) that studies linking their own policies and schemes are out there, and the reasons aren't nearly as complex as they'd like us to believe.
Reassuringly, HMRC spends a lot of time and money chasing the self-employed tax cheats, so at least they are attempting to do their job properly.
I forgot to include this quote, some earn £100k putting them in the top 3% earners in the UK:
Anyway, to address your point directly, I think this research on this food bank issue is pretty pointless:
- Well-meaning people collaborate to open a food bank (Trussell is 20 years old, and was active in the UK for 6 years of the labour government, so it's not a reaction to the current govt)
- The food bank implements rules as to who can use it and under what circumstances (or else anyone can turn up and take advantage)
- The rules will typically include extreme hardship (such as having your benefits sanctioned) - you need a special voucher to claim food
- The food bank then decides to pay for an Oxford academic to research when people use the food bank
- The research says that increased use of sanctions (which is a technique to get benefit claimants to comply with terms of benefit provision) correlates with increased use of the foodbank. No shit Sherlock?
This is so predictable, given the organisation funding the research writes its own rules on who qualifies for food, that it seems a waste of charity money to me to pay an academic to write the paper.I can't see any evidence for that at all.
Known facts:
nationalists in Wales used to burn English people's houses down
I knew a very friendly, nice, popular guy (luthier/joiner) who moved to west Wales, learned Welsh, and was ostracised in his new town.
nationalists in Ireland have killed many people, hundreds if not thousands
The most ugly bigoted xenophobia in living history in the UK has been in Northern Ireland
I've been there and seen it. It's still there, most cannot avoid it
I have little knowledge of Scottish nationalism beyond TV and media, but it doesn't all look pretty to me
does anyone here believe that the majority of cash that is not collected by HMRC because of tax evasion is because of "tax cheats" such as the stereotypical "Banker" or wealthy professional?
here's some evidence:
Top 3,000 earners pay more tax than the bottom 9 million
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233686/How-top-3000-earners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html
Top 1% of earners pay over 25% of all income tax
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-27/u-k-s-top-1-of-earners-now-paying-a-quarter-of-all-income-tax
Top 1% of earners pay 27% of all income tax
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/26/nearly-half-of-britons-pay-no-income-tax-as-burden-on-rich-incre/
Top 25% of earners pay 75% of all income tax
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580074/Top-25-earners-pay-75-ALL-income-tax-half-country-contributes-10.html
Bottom 50% of earners pay 10% of all income tax
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580074/Top-25-earners-pay-75-ALL-income-tax-half-country-contributes-10.html
So, do any of you guys know anyone who works cash-in-hand, and declares their income truthfully to HMRC?
If you are actually suggesting that it's only the Jews facing rising bigotry out there, then that's statistically untrue.
That article about the top 1% of earners... is there anywhere that says what that top 1% actually earned? A breakdown of what they earned and then the amount of income tax they paid as a percentage of earnings would be interesting.
Like it or not, Trussell are in a unique position to collect this data, being that they're basically a franchise with food banks across the country. That makes the data they capture "valuable" from an academic standpoint. It's up to them if they choose to fund independent research.
Yes, food banks have been with us since before the current government, but food bank use has increased by more than an order of magnitude on the current government's watch (I'm including the previous coalition government here). As this research points out, those numbers can be clearly linked with increased benefits sanctioning. It may be an obvious conclusion, but it's one that this government are at pains to deny whenever they're taken to task about it.
Other known facts:
You can find arseholes everywhere - Wales doesn't have exclusive rights to xenophobic bullshit.
Example 1: My parents retired to Wales from the English south coast (where they'd lived their entire lives) and were immediately assimilated into the local community with no issues whatsoever from their neighbours or townsfolk and have lived there very happily for twenty years now without a single problem.
Example 2: Our next-door neighbours (in Sussex) originally came from Yorkshire. Their neighbours on the other side originally came from Lancashire ...and neither of them have exchanged a pleasant word in the decade (twelve years, actually, I think) that they've been living next to each-other - because of the War of the fucking Roses, five hundred years ago?!
We seem to have got waaaay off topic though...
My current political quandary is this; I can't remember ever actually liking a leader of a political party (John Smith, maybe? But probably only because he wasn't in post long enough to make any disastrous/stupid/hypocritical decisions?), but I currently actively dislike all the leaders (and their ideologies) that we are saddled with at the moment.
The Trussell Trust operates as a “social franchise”, which means that each food bank is run as an independent charity but the central organisation provides training, guidelines and logistical support. The details vary from town to town but the overall set-up is the same. Doctors, social workers, the police and various charities hand out vouchers to people in crisis. With this voucher, they can then collect three days’ worth of food from their local food bank. Food banks were designed as an emergency stopgap: the aim is that people should collect no more than three parcels, by which point they should, in theory, have found a more sustainable solution.
When a series of reports drew links between government welfare policies and increased food bank usage, the DWP repeatedly insisted there was insufficient evidence for these claims. “Figures used in the media about food banks have been self-reported by food bank providers and their users, and the statistics have not been independently checked or verified,” the DWP said in 2013. Chris Mould of the Trussell Trust told me he “would push back very strongly on criticism of the data”, and emphasised that the trust complies with Office for National Statistics guidelines as best it can.
between half and two-thirds of users end up at food banks because of problems with benefits. This includes delayed payments, changes to benefits such as the reduction in Disability Living Allowance and financial penalties known as sanctions. As a condition of receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA), claimants are required to demonstrate that they are actively looking for work, usually by applying for a set number of jobs a month, and to participate in various training schemes. If they fail to meet their targets they can be sanctioned, meaning that their benefits are cut. Equally, people receiving Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) because of a disability or a long-term health condition can be sanctioned for failing to attend a mandatory interview or training programme. In the year to September 2014, 895,000 sanctions were placed on ESA and JSA claimants, up from 564,000 in the final 12 months of the last Labour government.
Now this is interesting ...
On 19 December 2014, the NG7 Food Bank in Nottingham closed. In the 30 months before its closure it had fed over 5,500 people but it decided its position was untenable. In a media statement in November it objected to the local council using food banks, it said, as an alternative to state welfare provision, writing that “despite our best ongoing efforts, we have recognised that we are not being used as a temporary service of last resort, but rather being seen as a part of the long-term strategy of replacement for statutory services, [which] have a duty and the resources to address a large part of the need. We recognise that other approaches are now required to attempt to change the current situation for many in our communities.”
Of central concern to NG7 was the council’s provision of emergency funds, such as crisis loans or benefit advances. These used to be administered by the government’s Social Fund, but in April 2013 the fund was abolished and responsibility for emergency hardship payments was devolved to local authorities on a discretionary basis. Nottingham City Council’s hardship fund is designed to support a range of people in short-term need, including those fleeing domestic violence, care leavers, and those waiting for a decision on a benefit claim or who have recently experienced a disaster. NG7 objected to the council’s policy that “the expectation would be that they [applicants] seek help from friends or family and the food banks”. In other words, the council is using food banks as an excuse to give out fewer emergency payments.
So it would seem the government's draconian policies and measures leave people without benefits so they are forced to use food banks. Government also seems to be using food banks as an extension of the benefits system to save money which partly explains the growth.
I pinched some of the above from a long-winded, but interesting article. You can read the full thing here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/why-are-so-many-people-using-food-banks
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Here's the statement in full:
Nick Vamos, CPS head of special crime, said: "We have considered files of evidence from 14 police forces in respect of allegations relating to Conservative Party candidates’ expenditure during the 2015 General Election campaign.
“We considered whether candidates and election agents working in constituencies that were visited by the Party’s ‘Battle Bus’ may have committed a criminal offence by not declaring related expenditure on their local returns. Instead, as the Electoral Commission found in its report, these costs were recorded as national expenditure by the Party.
“We reviewed the files in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and have concluded the tests in the Code are not met and no criminal charges have been authorised.
“Under the Representation of the People Act, every candidate and agent must sign a declaration on the expenses return that to the best of their knowledge and belief it is a complete and correct return as required by law. It is an offence to knowingly make a false declaration.
"In order to bring a charge, it must be proved that a suspect knew the return was inaccurate and acted dishonestly in signing the declaration. Although there is evidence to suggest the returns may have been inaccurate, there is insufficient evidence to prove to the criminal standard that any candidate or agent was dishonest.
“The Act also makes it a technical offence for an election agent to fail to deliver a true return. By omitting any ‘Battle Bus’ costs, the returns may have been inaccurate. However, it is clear agents were told by Conservative Party headquarters that the costs were part of the national campaign and it would not be possible to prove any agent acted knowingly or dishonestly.
"Therefore we have concluded it is not in the public interest to charge anyone referred to us with this offence.
“Our evaluation of the evidence is consistent with that of the Electoral Commission. While the role of the Commission is to regulate political finances and campaign spending, the role of the CPS is to consider whether any individual should face criminal charges, which is a different matter with different consideration and tests.
“One file, from Kent Police, was only recently received by the CPS, and remains under consideration. No inference as to whether any criminal charge may or may not be authorised in relation to this file should be drawn from this fact and we will announce our decision as soon as possible once we have considered the evidence in this matter.”
I thought as much ....
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
the article says HMRC provided the figures:
"The figures were disclosed in a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to the journalist Fraser Nelson as part of his investigation into growing wealth inequality in Britain. His findings will be broadcast in Channel 4’s investigations programme Dispatches, entitled How The Rich Get Richer,"
Do you know how to get FOI data for this?
personally I think it's immoral for the state to expect private charities to provide remedies for flaws in the provision of assistance to those who need it. A G7 country with a welfare state should have no need for such charities