Staff at Nottingham’s Citizens’ Advice Bureau

About that Daily Mail on Sunday story that was all over the place yesterday –

Photo: So this happened today in the Mail on Sunday.  Among the absurdities, it states quite clearly they asked him loads of questions, despite the headline!

Yes, what about it? Just, how horrible it is; how perfectly hateful it is.

What the hell is that even for? To demonstrate that someone who goes to considerable trouble to ask for help eventually gets help to the tune of a few bags of food items? Why is that supposed to be a bad thing?

Why do so many people make a point of being so hateful?


  1. Blanche Quizno says

    “We must never help anyone because there are assholes out there who will try to take advantage of our kindness and generosity. Who cares that the assholes are only 0.0000001% of the people we help?? The fact that assholes are able to take advantage means we should cut off all help for everyone. Fuck them. Stupid, useless, annoying needy people.”

  2. woodsong says

    How MOS Reporter Got 3 Days of Groceries… No Questions Asked

    The woman, called Katherine, who was in her 60s, asked our reporter a series of questions about why the food bank vouchers were needed.

    After asking for details of how much Jobseekers’ Allowance was received, the assessor’s questions turned to the dietary requirements of the reporter and his family.

    Sounds to me like there were plenty of questions asked! Being handed a form to fill out is also being asked questions. That title is seriously misleading. It sounds like the only question he wasn’t asked was “Can you prove any of what you’re telling me?”

    I’m glad to hear that there is a service out there where people who need help can go to get it without having to jump through more than an hour’s worth of hoops. Good for the fine people at Nottingham’s Citizens’ Advice Bureau!

    And shame on Ross Slater for spinning their willingness to serve as a problem.

  3. says

    Yes it does indeed remind me of the ACORN undercover. First thing I thought of yesterday – or second thing, after the blood-red mist of rage cleared.

  4. DaveXreally says

    The piece refutes its own headline–There were several questions asked: name address, phone number, why, how much other allowance, how much do you need…

    “Senior Tory MP Brian Binley welcomed this paper’s investigation, saying he had ‘always been very suspicious’ of the level of abuse in some food banks.

    He said: ‘There are also a lot of dishonest people who will cadge their way into situations.

    ‘Food banks are run by very kind people. They do not understand that there are some people who will take advantage.’

    I doubt that the kind people are as clueless as Binley says.

    I hope the reporter donated at least L38.35 so some kid could eat his 21p of processed peas.

  5. sc_770d159609e0f8deaa72849e3731a29d says

    The reporter donated only a tenner.

    Not just a creep, but a cheapskate too.

  6. Pliny the in Between says

    It’s an age old problem – if you are part of an aid organization chartered with the task of providing actual aid, you have to accept a certain amount of breakage to ensure that people in need have access. If you are a bureaucrat charged with providing excuses, then you can do all the due diligence you need.

  7. Crimson Clupeidae says

    Blanche Quizno @1, I agree. I have made that point many times to the local rightwingers. I’m willing to pay a little more because of the tiny bit of fraud, in order to support the thousands that actually need assistance, most of whom only use public assistance for a relatively short time.

    Hell, one of those fraudsters was my stepmom. For many years, I’ve said if she worked half as hard…working…as she does trying to avoid work and get public assistance, she would have done ok for herself. Eventually, she got old enough to actually qualify legitimately….

  8. Shatterface says

    It would cost many times as much money to check if someone is in genuine need than the food costs.

    I hope this guy goes undercover to ‘expose’ homelessness and gets burnt to death by his readers.

  9. AsqJames says

    “Senior Tory MP Brian Binley welcomed this paper’s investigation, saying he had ‘always been very suspicious’ of the level of abuse in some food banks.

    Brian Binley? This Brian Binley?

    On 17 June 2009 it was revealed that Binley had claimed over £50,000 in expenses, renting a flat from his own company, BCC Marketing. Two months after beginning to rent the flat, expenses rules were changed to clarify that MPs could no longer rent properties from businesses in which they had an interest. Binley appealed to the Speaker of the House Michael Martin, whilst still claiming for the flat. Binley lost his appeal after two and a half years, during which time he still claimed for the flat in question. Binley has not had to repay the £57,000 he received while the Speaker deliberated.

    Yep, that Brian Binley. He’s got a nerve criticising a charity for giving an apparently penniless man £40 worth of food for his family.

    He said: ‘There are also a lot of dishonest people who will cadge their way into situations.

    Yeah, there’ll always be some people who will take advantage and game the system. I wonder whether the proportion of fraudulent food bank use approaches even one tenth the proportion of MPs who flipped their second homes, paid family members for non-jobs or otherwise abused the “no questions asked” expenses system?

Leave a Reply

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