I appreciate that The Mail article I posted reinforces wht you had said above my post Jed but I posted it for the benefit of Dean et-al who seemed to think that there was no black market for vouchers and that ticket providers were all 'squeaky clean' and incorruptible.
I challenged that view without supportive evidence at the time but The Mail has now provided some helpful comments to support both our views which I thought worthy of note.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
GnV
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 75
Straight Female, 72
France
Forum
Quote by deancannock
well GNV....Dean...(aka Neil here !!!)
As it is a Doctor, social worker or police etc that give out food bank vouchers....and I am sure you would accept they are professional type people..... Therefore I would say that all the people visiting the food banks have been checked and verified.
Now if just one person was found ( as you seem to think ), selling the food down the local market , then I am 100% sure again, that the Dailey Wail would have found them and be up in arms with Front page headlines !!!
Perhaps in this case the onus is on you to show...just one person that has been found to abuse the food bank system ?
Yeah, right. They're going to post adverts...
You made the assertion, you prove it dean. It's not for me to disprove it, nor can I be arsed.
...and as for 'professional type people'... errr Crippen was a doctor, the Police in the Plebgate affair, social workers in the childrens scandal.. need I go on? You trust these people without question?
Oh dear.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Fine words Trev, thank you but I still doubt that 100% client's are truly in need which was neil's original claim which I challenged.
Its Dean
Quote by GnV
I'm sorry if that offends, but there will always be people who will take advantage and are cunningly adept at finding the means to be so which is where I was coming from in my response to neil's claim.
Its still Dean
Anyway with regards to the food banks its far better that they are their for the majority who present themselves in need, than removed for the few who are working the system.
There will always be those cheats in all forms of life, it does not make the system bad because of it. It only highlights the depth to which some people will stoop.
Oops!!
How embarrassing
Freudian slip, I'm afraid.
Sorry, yes. It should have been 'dean', of course. Perhaps he's right about the dementia kicking in or maybe it was just that I was half asleep when writing it but it doesn't change the context of what I wrote which R_T seems to support.
I never said that food banks were bad; I merely challenged dean's 100% 'those in need' claim.
Fine words Trev, thank you but I still doubt that 100% client's are truly in need which was neil's original claim which I challenged.
I'd go with a high percentage for sure, but 100% is a highly suspicious and un confirmable.
A goodly number of the 'referrers' organisations mentioned are under so much pressure to do 'something' that there must be a great temptation to issue tickets to 'apparently' needy and 'difficult' cases to process them quickly without a full and proper investigation into genuine need, the only measure by which such claims can be anywhere near verifiable.
You only have to look at the historical evidence of lack of proper action on the part of some of these organisations mentioned elsewhere to understand that there will, by association, be instances where people can apparently present a need and be given the benefit of the doubt without there actually being a genuine need at all.
Indeed, on the contrary, there are instances where people who have presented a genuine need to these 'partner' agencies in other respects have been failed miserably by the system. The papers are full of them! In just one selected at random example, vulnerable children are being let down by councils with ineffective and incompetent leadership, according to the Ofsted chief inspector, who singled out Birmingham as a "national disgrace". and I am sure there are many equally powerful snippets to refer to.
How confident can you be, given such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that this system is so pure?
I'm sorry if that offends, but there will always be people who will take advantage and are cunningly adept at finding the means to be so which is where I was coming from in my response to neil's claim.
I'd be more inclined to accept an argument to say that it is far better that vouchers are issued first to 100% of people who present themselves as being in need to make sure that no-one with a genuine need slips through the net but to sweepingly claim that tickets are issued only to 100% of people truly in need is somewhat naive and misleading.
I'd go with a high percentage for sure, but 100% is a highly suspicious and un confirmable.
A goodly number of the 'referrers' organisations mentioned are under so much pressure to do 'something' that there must be a great temptation to issue tickets to 'apparently' needy and 'difficult' cases to process them quickly without a full and proper investigation into genuine need, the only measure by which such claims can be anywhere near verifiable.
You only have to look at the historical evidence of lack of proper action on the part of some of these organisations mentioned elsewhere to understand that there will, by association, be instances where people can apparently present a need and be given the benefit of the doubt without there actually being a genuine need at all.
Indeed, on the contrary, there are instances where people who have presented a genuine need to these 'partner' agencies in other respects have been failed miserably by the system. The papers are full of them! In just one selected at random example, vulnerable children are being let down by councils with ineffective and incompetent leadership, according to the Ofsted chief inspector, who singled out Birmingham as a "national disgrace". and I am sure there are many equally powerful snippets to refer to.
How confident can you be, given such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that this system is so pure?
I'm sorry if that offends, but there will always be people who will take advantage and are cunningly adept at finding the means to be so which is where I was coming from in my response to neil's claim.
I'd be more inclined to accept an argument to say that it is far better that vouchers are issued first to 100% of people who present themselves as being in need to make sure that no-one with a genuine need slips through the net but to sweepingly claim that tickets are issued only to 100% of people truly in need is somewhat naive and misleading.
and your proof neil?
I doubt it is 100% as you say... just as benefits claimed are not 100% those entitled.
I don't doubt there are people who are correctly deserving but I would doubt any claim that everyone using the facility is TRULY deserving and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the food sold finds its way into alternative markets providing a nice tidy little income for someone...
In a way, no different to international aid finding it's way into the pockets of despots, thieves and vagabonds but on a different scale.
I doubt it is 100% as you say... just as benefits claimed are not 100% those entitled.
I don't doubt there are people who are correctly deserving but I would doubt any claim that everyone using the facility is TRULY deserving and I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of the food sold finds its way into alternative markets providing a nice tidy little income for someone...
In a way, no different to international aid finding it's way into the pockets of despots, thieves and vagabonds but on a different scale.
Quote by Lizaleanrob
i just watched bbc's panorama report of food banks, i know we had them but was unaware and shocked at just how many there was and what percentage of the population was needed to use them.
in this day and age why are so many people in need of this service in such a civilised and prosperous country such as ours
What is the percentage of those in need of them against those who use them as a cheap food source?
Quote by deancannock
I got made redundant !!!
You may think not a thing to be cheerful for....BUT
I was just about to hand my notice in as got a new job with more money.....now I get 4 months redundancy pay as well....RESULT !!!
I fink dat's dishonest....
actually, I did the same thing over 25 years ago....
Quote by MidsCouple24
but they are going to claw it all back by increasing everyone's insurance premiums, they have to, otherwise they could fold.
The payments being made at the moment are just the tip of the iceberg, there will be a lot more to come.
And people are still asking where the money would have come from to prevent much (but not all) of the flooding.
If I heard it correctly, the insurance industry told the PM over lunch today that premiums will not rise
Just like Clegg said, no increase in school fees eh?
Quote by MidsCouple24
People may do not have the choice in where reservoirs are built, we have plenty of places to put them, such as vast uninhabitated areas of Cornwall, the Derbyshire Dales, National Parks all over the UK, and since it is the job of water companies to provide water for its customers they should be made to foot much of the bill for constructing them.
But... where do they get the money from?
Quote by Bluefish2009
Having watched the the news over the last few weeks you can't help but feel for the people of flooded somerset, who's farms and homes are awash and roads that are now only accessible via boat
then this morning on the news hundreds of homes in surrey and surrounds who's gardens extend into the Thames all complaining that last night they got flooded
now having a house on the Thames at a premium price comes at a price surely and if you wish not to be flooded then the obvious choice would be to purchase a house either on a hill or somewhere other than the banks of a river :doh:
meanwhile 3 weeks later the poor souls in somerset are only victims of a lack of maintenance by the environment agency who's houses do not back onto the river for prestige or any other self centred reason i know who deserves the most help in my book and the most TV coverage.
I think it is always going to be a fact that a highly populated Urban area will take president over less populated countryside, whether that be preventative or help with the clean up
Ah, but....
It's the less populated countryside that produces the crops and the animals for food....
Still, I suppose given the fields are currently under water, that some enterprising yound go ahead farmer will consider planting rice...
Jed, it's got sweet fanny adams to do with climate change and you know it!
It's just an excuse for piss poor planning and greed in the extreme.
If climate change is the culprit, why aren't the Netherlands and such places which lie significantly below sea level also in dire straights?
They are not, because they managed the land correctly, simple.
Here, in rural SW France in the foothills of the Massif Central, in the 6 years we have been here, ditches are cleared at least twice a year.
Where we lived in rural England, I cannot recall ditches ever being cleared and I am dismayed to learn that there was extreme flooding where we used to live, nearly 300 feet above sea level!
What I do recall is though, the amount of money - local tax payers money - spent on a grand new town hall and huge salaries to match for the newly appointed Chief Executive. The old town hall was perfectly adequate for a small, but growing market town and the old Council Chief Secretary managed the whole thing quite well. After he retired, the Rates went up. The number of flunkies went up. Salaries soared (over £100k a year in the 1980's for the CE alone!) services diminished. I learned only recently that the new town hall is now to be abandoned and an ever greater palace is to be built!
The French may claim to have more mayors per head of population anywhere in Europe, but at least our local roads are looked after and we get our rubbish collected every week! The cost per household here is a fraction per year of what we paid per month for piss poor service in the UK.
Climate change, my arse
It's just been a feeding frenzy for far too long on an already exhausted cash cow (the British tax payer) and at long last, time has caught up on the lying cheating political class bastards who should now be running for cover in absolute shame at the devastation they have caused by greed to whole communities.
Sadly, the gullible apologetic British public will do no more than touch forelock and be ever so 'umble when accepting payouts of their own money to help rebuild their lives when they should be stringing up these leeches and feeding them to the cattle.
Bah! it makes me so angry.:fuckinghell:
It's just an excuse for piss poor planning and greed in the extreme.
If climate change is the culprit, why aren't the Netherlands and such places which lie significantly below sea level also in dire straights?
They are not, because they managed the land correctly, simple.
Here, in rural SW France in the foothills of the Massif Central, in the 6 years we have been here, ditches are cleared at least twice a year.
Where we lived in rural England, I cannot recall ditches ever being cleared and I am dismayed to learn that there was extreme flooding where we used to live, nearly 300 feet above sea level!
What I do recall is though, the amount of money - local tax payers money - spent on a grand new town hall and huge salaries to match for the newly appointed Chief Executive. The old town hall was perfectly adequate for a small, but growing market town and the old Council Chief Secretary managed the whole thing quite well. After he retired, the Rates went up. The number of flunkies went up. Salaries soared (over £100k a year in the 1980's for the CE alone!) services diminished. I learned only recently that the new town hall is now to be abandoned and an ever greater palace is to be built!
The French may claim to have more mayors per head of population anywhere in Europe, but at least our local roads are looked after and we get our rubbish collected every week! The cost per household here is a fraction per year of what we paid per month for piss poor service in the UK.
Climate change, my arse
It's just been a feeding frenzy for far too long on an already exhausted cash cow (the British tax payer) and at long last, time has caught up on the lying cheating political class bastards who should now be running for cover in absolute shame at the devastation they have caused by greed to whole communities.
Sadly, the gullible apologetic British public will do no more than touch forelock and be ever so 'umble when accepting payouts of their own money to help rebuild their lives when they should be stringing up these leeches and feeding them to the cattle.
Bah! it makes me so angry.:fuckinghell:
Should one go further rob, and condemn the fact that the British government still sees fit to send billions of £'s in aid to despots and ne'er too good dictators with their own space programs and allow the West Country to become a third world sink hole without a second thought?
Without a need to touch the foreign aid budget as outlined by Messrs Cameron and Pickles, what message does it give to the tax payers of Britain who are suffering considerable hardship at the hands of government austerity measures to learn that the money is/was there all along to prevent this catastrophe?
I feel very sorry for the poor people of the West Country and my heart goes out to them whilst at the same time remembering just how the British establishment shags its people rigid, as clearly evidenced in the uncomfortable shiftiness being witnessed in TV interviews with politicians - particularly that creep Smith.
An image of his ugly head on a spike with his pretty little dog stuffed up his arse is even more alluring than the Level's local MP's suggestion about flushing his head down a toilet.
How on earth are these people going to be able to recapture their lives when the flood waters subside?
Without a need to touch the foreign aid budget as outlined by Messrs Cameron and Pickles, what message does it give to the tax payers of Britain who are suffering considerable hardship at the hands of government austerity measures to learn that the money is/was there all along to prevent this catastrophe?
I feel very sorry for the poor people of the West Country and my heart goes out to them whilst at the same time remembering just how the British establishment shags its people rigid, as clearly evidenced in the uncomfortable shiftiness being witnessed in TV interviews with politicians - particularly that creep Smith.
An image of his ugly head on a spike with his pretty little dog stuffed up his arse is even more alluring than the Level's local MP's suggestion about flushing his head down a toilet.
How on earth are these people going to be able to recapture their lives when the flood waters subside?
Quote by Toots
and trust me, even there where activities, clubs, after school care are in abundance,
To say nothing of all those out of school activity clubs such as Swimming, Athletics, Dance Classe, Football, and such like that will most likely struggle or fail due to dwindling or non existent children in them
Quote by M1ssVery
So state schools want to mimic private schools? Besides the kids, who's going to compensate the already worn out staff?
That would require thought/planning and a good amount of money, something Gove seems unable to do or offer.
He's the Secretary of State. The minutiae of making it happen is not his job.
His job is to facilitate it through legislation
Now, i'm not directing this directly at Katniss (honestly) but, being the cynic I am (or have grown to be), is it just conceivable that some job seekers will purposely load the application with 'inappropriate' over-qualifications for the very reasons highlighted by Trev?
Given the shift in emphasis in recent years towards 'job seekers' from 'unemployed' benefits, people who want to run the system - for whatever reason - will load the system in their favour. They have to present themselves for jobs (many of which they would deem inappropriate) to keep the allowance so why not make it as difficult as possible for the employer to decide to employ?
Given the shift in emphasis in recent years towards 'job seekers' from 'unemployed' benefits, people who want to run the system - for whatever reason - will load the system in their favour. They have to present themselves for jobs (many of which they would deem inappropriate) to keep the allowance so why not make it as difficult as possible for the employer to decide to employ?
Quote by northwest-cpl
The man wants state schools to be like private schools - presumably with classes of 15 cherry picked children or is that not what he means by 'more like private schools'.
I wonder if he has actually seen children at the end of a normal school day, never mind a 10 hour day.
He is a buffoon, locked into his own view of education based on his privileged schooling.
Oh dear.
You should actually read up on people you intend to slag off before doing so.
He did not have a privileged upbringing at all. He is from very humble beginnings.
Michael Gove is who he is today as a result of his own capability. His admission to Oxford was on his own merit.
And if you care to dig deeper, his upbringing after adoption at the tender age of 4 months was in a caring Scottish Labour supporting family.
I think you misjudge him.
Quote by toots
He had no idea as to the impact of what ten hours per day may have on a child or their families but instead simply said it would be a good thing,
Go on, enlighten me. What will the impact be?
Poor chap can't do right for being accused of being wrong.
It's about time the liberalists who fucked up education were brought to book by someone strong enough to stand up to them.
Kids need to be taught discipline and to have standards. There is nothing wrong in my view them being in school for 10 hours - perhaps them may even learn something for a change!
Many parents have indicated in the past that a longer day in school for their kids would suit the parents - breakfast clubs and evening activities abound.
Maybe he is responding to the 'modern' lifestyle. When I was a kid, my mother didn't work so she could look after the 6 of us. Modern liberalistic views of womanhood now insist that women are allowed to go out to work without a thought for the consequences on their offspring. This translates to so many of the other problems facing society these days. Kids left to their own devices; the 'school run' causing so many accidents outside school gates; obesity, driven by kids being fobbed off with funds to buy a MacDo rather than being fed properly which, itself, leads to hyperaction, ensuing boredom and eventual lawlessness because of lack of supervision...
Well, you did ask!
The visit of the French President to England today has produced one of the best pieces of franglais ever from the Daily Telegraph journalist Michael Deacon. Enjoy!
He writes:
Pauvre François Hollande. Il jamais pleut mais il pours. First, tout le monde heard que le président de la France a been enjoying le hanky-panky avec une belle actrice qui n’est pas la Première Femme. Then, aujourd’hui, il had to rendre visite aux Anglais – qui sont obsessed avec les scandales sexuels, particulièrement si ils sont tout about les Français! Il était dans le soup et no mistake.
Le purpose de son visite était to parler avec David Cameron about le trade, la defense, la pas très likely reforme de l’Union européenne, etc. Mais il aussi had to give un conférence press. Et c’etait difficile d’être confiant que les journalistes anglais wouldn’t poser des questions sur le “comment va votre père”. Quel pain dans le derrière!
Mais Monsieur le President est un cookie smart. Donc, il used le plus vieux trick dans le livre: il began par droning on pour ages et ages about les choses incroyablement boring, par exemple l’économie, et les projets d’infrastructure, et la France. Tres clever! Les journalistes anglais would soon être fast asleep!
Malheureusement, however, les Anglais woke up, just in time pour poser les questions. Un homme de Channel 4 went first. Mais c’était fine: il seulement voulait to ask about la treaty renegotiation. Simple! Pas de sweat! Un pièce de gâteau!
C’était tout looking bon. Mais then, désastre – dans le forme d’un journaliste du Télégraph, Monsieur Christopher Hope.
“Est-ce que vrai que votre rumpy-pumpy a made la France un laughing-stock?” a dit cet rogue impertinent. “Est-ce que vous still having une affaire avec Julie Gayet, et do vous wish elle était ici maintenant?”
Monsieur Hollande wrinkled son nez, as if un fly a landed sur it.
“Je decline a comment!” a dit il, froidement. Et ça c’était tout ce qu’il had to dire sur le matter.
Les journalistes français étaient outraged. Pas avec leur président, mais avec les journalistes anglais. Comment dare ils! Damn ces journalistes anglais, avec leurs questions insolents about le slap et tickle! Pourquoi couldn’t ils show propre respect à leurs betters!
Àpres tout, c’était seulement un roll dans le hay. Silly rosbifs. Il étaient flogging un cheval mort. Et Monsieur Hollande était no Berlusconi.
Monsieur Cameron n’a pas dire anything. During son own speech il did parler beaucoup about l’importance de “relationship” et “partnership”, mais il meant entre la France et le Royaume-Uni, pas entre Monsieur Hollande et les hot babes.
Les journalistes français asked some questions gentils about l’économie, et après ça, c’était tout over. Temps pour le déjeuner. Pour some raison, Monsieur Cameron était très keen to take him au pub. Probablement il wanted to get some bières down him so ils could parler about les saucy bunk-ups.
Now, that's good journalism :lol2:
He writes:
Pauvre François Hollande. Il jamais pleut mais il pours. First, tout le monde heard que le président de la France a been enjoying le hanky-panky avec une belle actrice qui n’est pas la Première Femme. Then, aujourd’hui, il had to rendre visite aux Anglais – qui sont obsessed avec les scandales sexuels, particulièrement si ils sont tout about les Français! Il était dans le soup et no mistake.
Le purpose de son visite était to parler avec David Cameron about le trade, la defense, la pas très likely reforme de l’Union européenne, etc. Mais il aussi had to give un conférence press. Et c’etait difficile d’être confiant que les journalistes anglais wouldn’t poser des questions sur le “comment va votre père”. Quel pain dans le derrière!
Mais Monsieur le President est un cookie smart. Donc, il used le plus vieux trick dans le livre: il began par droning on pour ages et ages about les choses incroyablement boring, par exemple l’économie, et les projets d’infrastructure, et la France. Tres clever! Les journalistes anglais would soon être fast asleep!
Malheureusement, however, les Anglais woke up, just in time pour poser les questions. Un homme de Channel 4 went first. Mais c’était fine: il seulement voulait to ask about la treaty renegotiation. Simple! Pas de sweat! Un pièce de gâteau!
C’était tout looking bon. Mais then, désastre – dans le forme d’un journaliste du Télégraph, Monsieur Christopher Hope.
“Est-ce que vrai que votre rumpy-pumpy a made la France un laughing-stock?” a dit cet rogue impertinent. “Est-ce que vous still having une affaire avec Julie Gayet, et do vous wish elle était ici maintenant?”
Monsieur Hollande wrinkled son nez, as if un fly a landed sur it.
“Je decline a comment!” a dit il, froidement. Et ça c’était tout ce qu’il had to dire sur le matter.
Les journalistes français étaient outraged. Pas avec leur président, mais avec les journalistes anglais. Comment dare ils! Damn ces journalistes anglais, avec leurs questions insolents about le slap et tickle! Pourquoi couldn’t ils show propre respect à leurs betters!
Àpres tout, c’était seulement un roll dans le hay. Silly rosbifs. Il étaient flogging un cheval mort. Et Monsieur Hollande était no Berlusconi.
Monsieur Cameron n’a pas dire anything. During son own speech il did parler beaucoup about l’importance de “relationship” et “partnership”, mais il meant entre la France et le Royaume-Uni, pas entre Monsieur Hollande et les hot babes.
Les journalistes français asked some questions gentils about l’économie, et après ça, c’était tout over. Temps pour le déjeuner. Pour some raison, Monsieur Cameron était très keen to take him au pub. Probablement il wanted to get some bières down him so ils could parler about les saucy bunk-ups.
Now, that's good journalism :lol2:
Quote by nellie-mwgc
I agree with banning smoking in cars that have children in them and i also agree with banning smoking in cars in general, in fact i would also agree with banning smoking completly as i hate the smell of smoke and am fed up of the effect is has on my breathing problems, its an irritant that makes my asthma worse, i avoid going near anyone smoking but often its impossible to keep away completly.
:thumbup:
Quote by Jed
It is a shame we cannot ban all parties and have independent MP's who might vote for policies they believe in instead of being forced to tow the party line, but even if they were all independents some would still band together in their own interests.
That, actually, is how it is although the more liberal amongst the electorate would have it changed to proportional representation and 'lists'.
It's why MP's who fall foul of the party whip can remain in Parliament; they are technically speaking independent. They owe their allegiances to The Sovereign first and foremost and they are not paid by which ever political party they are aligned to but by the State. True, they maybe under some obligation to the constituency party who stumped up the funds for their election campaign and may find themselves deselected at the next election but their legal status is as independent but, as you say, banded together in their own interest.
The leader of the biggest band, traditionally, is the one called by the Sovereign to form a Government.
