The research shows that 47% of the children receiving supplies from food banks were aged 5-11, while 27% were under five and a fifth were aged 12-16.

Samantha Stapley, operations manager for England at the Trussell Trust, said the statistics highlighted “just how close to crisis many families are”.

She added: “As a nation, we also must address the reasons why families with children are referred to food banks in the first place. We welcome the government’s decision to maintain free school lunches for children during term time – the next step must be to help families during the holidays.”

The Rt Rev the Lord Bishop of Truro, Tim Thornton, described the figures as shocking, adding: “That so many primary-age children are going without food in our country is of great concern.

The number of people being fed from food banks is the number of people who are not going hungry in this country. Because they’re being fed from food banks.

23 thoughts on “Sigh”

  1. “the next step must be to help families during the holidays”

    A splendid and humane notion. I suggest a working party should be set up to investigate the possibilities of establishing a welfare state in Britain – to those unfamiliar with this idea, the basic mechanism involves taxing those in work and with money and giving a little of the proceeds to those not in work and without money. (The rest of the revenue is generally paid to the persons who implement the scheme.)

  2. I can’t help wondering whether a similar scheme to hand out large TV screens and up to date computer boxes and games would attract such heavy demand.

    By which I mean that these things will already be well established.

  3. Wait a minute – we’re covering 0-16yrs, so up to the 17th birthday with is 17 years. So 5-11 inclusive is 7/17th of the total number of years accounted for, which is 41%. 0-4yrs is 5/17th, 29% and 12-16 5/17, 29%.

    The published figures for the destinations of the food for these groups is 47%, 27%, 20%. (Where’s the missing 6%?)

    So they’re complaining that the food is pretty evenly distributed???

    Their point about the total number of packages taken (not necessarily required) can be debated, but then then seem to throw in statistics for the sake of it.

  4. ““It is very good that the community wants to help and work with those less fortunate and that is a key part of the gospel values. It is, however, also important that we keep trying to understand the deeper reasons why this situation is as it is.””

    Good luck, reverend..!

  5. I give a can of beans to the food bank donation box at our local supermarket. Later that evening it gets given to someone who needs a can of beans. This is ‘bad’ and proves that capitalism is ‘evil’.

    I am taxed more so an army of civil servants can be employed to decide which person is deserving of getting extra benefits so they can buy a can of beans. After months of delays the money gets to the person and they can buy a can of beans This is ‘good’ and a socialist paradise.

  6. But food banks in some areas have too much food, whereas in other areas they have too little. We need a centrally-planned UK-wide – nay, EU-wide – bureaucracy to ensure equitable distribution of such foodstuffs.

  7. — “Imran Hussain, director of policy, rights and advocacy at Child Poverty Action Group, described the data as incredibly worrying but not surprising. “Children are twice as likely to be poor than pensioners,” he said. “The poverty rate for children is 30% and for pensioners it’s 16%. The trajectory for child poverty is that it will hit 5 million by 2022.”’

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and speculate that uncontrolled immigration from the world’s most fucked-up countries plays a significant part in these figures and this “trajectory.”

    Since these children are undoubtedly better fed than they would be back in Shitistan, this is actually a good news story.

  8. He is certainly very busy that Mr Hussain, clearly worth the undoubtedly large stipend he extracts from the charity for all his worthiness and clearly on speed dial for the Graun and the Independent if google is anything to go by. I notice that the IFS and others appear to have introduced a new concept of ‘absolute poverty’ which is receiving less than the median household income from 2010 or something. Along with the relative poverty concept this is presumably designed to allow permanent advocacy for the government to ‘do something about the children’

  9. allthegoodnamesaretaken

    One wonders whether having those children whilst being unable to support them has any bearing on the matter

  10. @Mark T

    Barbara Castle said back in the 1960s that absolute poverty in the UK had gone.

    Good to see that it is making a comeback.

  11. I notice that the IFS and others appear to have introduced a new concept of ‘absolute poverty’ which is receiving less than the median household income from 2010

    Well that will keep the poverty grievance industry employed for ever! Six-figure salaries all round!

  12. And Seebohm Rowntree (yes, he of the Rowntree Foundation family) found in his 1950 study in York that absolute poverty had declined to 3% of the population.

    It will be interesting to see how many people living in “absolute poverty” there are today. And to wonder what percentage of the 97% who were NOT living in absolute poverty in 1950 would cheerfully swap places with someone living in absolute poverty in 2017 Britain.

  13. The Meissen Bison

    The Rt Rev the Lord Bishop of Truro: That so many primary-age children are going without food in our country is of great concern.

    Secondary age children, of course, are of less concern because they will have developed feral instincts and will be able to improve their conditions by judicious muggings, strategic thefts from vehicles and the lifting dinner money from smaller children.

  14. “That so many primary-age children are going without food in our country is of great concern.”

    No it isn’t. He couldn’t care less. If he did, he’d insist the government remove the children from the home. He is an enabler of parents abusing children.

    The government should spend money on orphanages, not welfare.

  15. Back to the food bank bullshit eh?

    If this country were full of starving people the streets would be rife with thin, skeletal people with gaunt, haggard faces and desperate eyes which had looked into–in Hesiod’s words– “hunger’s livid face of woe”.

    Instead the streets are full of fat fuckers ranging from mildly overweight up to grotesquely obese. With the exception of anorexia sufferers and elderly victims of the NHS no one in this country starves to death .

  16. I notice that even the government says, at the end of that article, “Budgeting advice and benefit advances are also available for anyone who needs more help.” That is, even the government knows that most of these people are just spending their benefit cheques unwisely. How many of these people have big-screen TVs, etc.?

  17. 47% of *children* are aged 5-11, so it should come as no surprise to anybody who can count that 47% of children doing X are aged 5-11.

  18. PM TM could easily solve this alleged problem by rescinding IDS changes and reverting to “Caring Labour” Blair & Brown policy:

    DWP & other public sector employees must not mention or promote food banks.

    Use of them will rapidly drop.

  19. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Never in the course of human history have the feckless been so thoroughly insulated from the consequences of their actions (or inactions). But it’s not enough for Bishop Spacely-Trellis. Balls to him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *