It’s not about fingers in the ears Pap. As you always say to us, substantiate the point. As said before, we need proof of causation, otherwise it’s just meaningless.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
It’s not about fingers in the ears Pap. As you always say to us, substantiate the point. As said before, we need proof of causation, otherwise it’s just meaningless.
First off, fair play to you for actually being one of the people that recognises the harmful effects of various Tory policies. Second, you don’t need proof of anything. You are free, as you have already demonstrated, to ignore the blowback from the various Tory policies.
I have to say, I found Bucks’ “poor nutrition” argument particularly self-defeating in the wider context. We live in a country where millions people are reliant on food banks, but we’re blaming them for not eating correctly?
Let’s go for “not thought it through”. I like Bucks. He gets a round in. He’s not selfish.
Food banks is one industry the tories have helped grow massively since George’s fiscal policies came in to action.
1 Like
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
Food banks is one industry the tories have helped grow massively since George’s fiscal policies came in to action.
Of course they have, the Tories are supportive of all banks…
4 Likes
Greedy foodbankers are giving away food, for free!
Presumably we’ll have to buy them more tins when this reckless policy fails…
Chancellor George Osborne will this week take the axe to police, councils and welfare as he unleashes the most brutal cuts in history.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/experts-say-scale-george-osbornes-6880341
He will brush aside warnings from police chiefs by pressing ahead with the reductions to their budgets when he unveils his spending review on Wednesday.
Funding to local government, transport and higher education will also be slashed – and experts said the scale of the cuts was unprecedented.
“We have never had anything like it,” said Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies economic think-tank.
Mr Osborne is pushing on with the measures despite being told they may put services such as social care and child protection at risk – and also undermine the fight against terrorism .
Feel free to miss the point of my post Pap. To be clear: 1). You started a discussion very similar to this only a few weeks ago; 2) On that occasion a few posters said that some (note some, not all) of the blame lies with poor lifestyle decisions. I acknowledged then the concern about rising food bank usage.
You did not agree, fair enough, but thats not fingers in the ears either, right?
As Cherts said, where is the evidence of the causes, behind the headline? As CB said, some Trusts have seen falling numbers, which is at odds with government policy being to blame for all the increases.
Originally posted by @Bucks
Feel free to miss the point of my post Pap. To be clear: 1). You started a discussion very similar to this only a few weeks ago; 2) On that occasion a few posters said that some (note some, not all) of the blame lies with poor lifestyle decisions. I acknowledged then the concern about rising food bank usage.
You did not agree, fair enough, but thats not fingers in the ears either, right?
As Cherts said, where is the evidence of the causes, behind the headline? As CB said, some Trusts have seen falling numbers, which is at odds with government policy being to blame for all the increases.
The Faculty of Public Health sees it differently. Their VP, John Middleton.
“It’s getting worse because people can’t afford good quality food.”
Food prices are rising, with some staples going up as much as 20%. Wages are falling. Those in receipt of government aid receive even less.
The Faculty of Public Health clearly thinks there is a link between poverty and nutrition. The Conservative government has plunged thousands into poverty with its policies.
Perhaps its better the fingers are lodged firmly in the ears. The sound of these 170 signatories in this open letter to David Cameron on the issue of food poverty will probably be deafening.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60536-5/fulltext
You may not think government policy is driving malnutrition. They certainly do.
Yes, financial hardship is driving some of this. But for the Trusts where numbers of malnutrition cases are falling, is this also down to government policy then? How can this be? Or, could it be a little more complex and actually there are a variety of causes.
1 Like
I would say a lack of money is the number one reason for going hungry.
1 Like
I’d agree, and the Conservatives have ensured that those nearest the bottom lack for money, and these days, it doesn’t matter if you work or not. Benefits caps, sanctions, reclassifying who is sick and who isn’t, gifting millions of hours of casual work to corporate employers, fucking up anyone already in work and looking for overtime.
It’s not fucking rocket science, is it?
To say that this is all down to Government policy is naïve as it is false. Although some people have been pushed to the brink on a day to day basis (due to policies I do not support btw), two of the biggest contributory factors is education and culture.
My Dad used to tell me this story about when he was at Uni in Leeds. Him and his housemates had a choice. Buy a keg of beer from Theakstons to last them 3 weeks, but have to eat sheeps brain and nettles for those 3 weeks, or eat normally but not being able to afford any beer. They chose the former. I am sure that many people (not all) also make this choice.
The biggest problem is that you can’t lump everyone into the same boat. I am sure that some genuinely struggle. I am sure that some decide that fags and Sky are more important.
The fact that some trusts are showing increases/decreases proves that you cannot draw any concrete conclusions from this, surely? Obviously you will Pap, because as far as you are concerned anything negative that takes place in the UK is down to the Government, and anything positive isn’t. I get that’s how you’re wired – a lot of lefties tend to be. But as I have asked before, many a time (and you have failed many times on this), show me some hard evidence that across the whole of the UK, Government cuts are solely responsible for the countries malnutrition cases.
Fair enough Cherts. You know better than the 170 medical professionals that said it was an issue 
Demanding hard evidence while making unsubstantiated slurs about Sky and ciggies. Well I never!
Where did I say it did? 170 out of how many btw Pap? Also worth noting their stats are from 2013 & 2014, where since we have seen an increase in real wages.
I knew the Sky thing would get you off…
I have already acknowledged the financial hardship point but thanks. You have avoided the question again. Why are numbers in some Trust areas dropping?
You are saying that there is no hard evidence. I am saying that directly contradicts the professional opinions of 170 people who believe that government policy is causing malnutrition. Ergo, those opinions are worthless and don’t constitute hard evidence.
I’m not prepared to take your real increase in wages at face value. Do you have a source for that?
As for the Sky thing, I find it utterly ridiculous that someone refuses to look genuine hardship in the eye in favour of making the same arguments that a fucking Sun reader would make. The scariest thing is that you meant it.
You too have avoided the question.
“…some people have been pushed to the brink on a day to day basis (due to policies I do not support btw)…”
“I am sure that some genuinely struggle.”
Nope, happy to say that some instances are due to it, but not all.
You are extremely good at misrepresenting people Pap, it’s a common theme whether debating with me, Bucks, or Lou.
No I’m stating the obvious, most people are hungry because they are poor, reducing benefits will only compound the issue.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
“…some people have been pushed to the brink on a day to day basis (due to policies I do not support btw)…”
“I am sure that some genuinely struggle.”
Nope, happy to say that some instances are due to it, but not all.
You are extremely good at misrepresenting people Pap, it’s a common theme whether debating with me, Bucks, or Lou.
I’ve got some way to go before I can get to your collective level, Cherts. The claim of no hard evidence is substantiated here.
The fact that some trusts are showing increases/decreases proves that you cannot draw any concrete conclusions from this, surely?
And here…
It’s not about fingers in the ears Pap. As you always say to us, substantiate the point. As said before, we need proof of causation, otherwise it’s just meaningless.
And when confronted with 170 professionals writing an open letter to the PM.
You are extremely good at misrepresenting people Pap, it’s a common theme whether debating with me, Bucks, or Lou.
DOFO, Cherts, DOFO 