Jack Monroe #377 What’s the point?

Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.
ForgettyBetty

ForgettyBetty

VIP Member
fairylights2000 said:
No it's that well known medium for food presenting, radio


I hate parsnips, they taste bitter to me. I love many other types of root veg however, we make Delia's shepherd's pie which has swede in it and I get my husband to put double the amount in :devilish:
Click to expand...
Parsnips are sweeter after a frost, try popping them in the freezer for a day or 2 ? I like to add them to potato for mash (about 1:3 ratio) with a little nutmeg.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 22
TheDragonWithAFlagon

TheDragonWithAFlagon

VIP Member
Lazarus said:
Quiet bedrocks of the community?! I read an article (one of many where he’s talking about himself) the other day where her dad was moaning about how much work fostering was and how little money he got in return.
The pair foster for Southend-on-Sea, a unitary authority in Essex, and receive a total of £206.77 each week to cover the cost of both girls – £83.02 for the younger child and £123.75 for the 16-year-old. So is it enough?

“Not at all,” says David, who works for the fire service. “It sounds like a lot of money but one of the realities of fostering if you have children yourself is that you have to live in a large house, which, of course, is very expensive.”

The family lives in a five-bedroom house, after investing £30,000 to build extra rooms when they made the decision to foster. Living in a larger property means that they now pay almost double the rate of counciltax they would have done otherwise, as well as more for heating and lighting. The family has also had to buy a seven-seater car so that they can all fit in – but of course having a bigger car costs more to insure and fill up with fuel.

“It comes out of my pocket as the foster allowance doesn’t cover it,” he says. David has done a rough calculation of how much he thinks he has spent on fostering.

“I’ve probably paid out £100,000 over the 14 years. Fostering is an expensive business and if we didn’t foster our circumstances would be very different – I would have to find a lot less money every month. I make no complaint because I volunteered for the task and have had many happy times, but I thought the cost of fostering would be met by the local authority and have found out to my cost that’s not the case. It’s like going to work and me taking the fire engine down to the petrol station and paying on my card.”

edit: source -https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2006/03/09/the-great-foster-care-divide/
Click to expand...

And if it was your second child by birth, you received £9.30 ChB for them, £17.10 (IIRC) for the first child and £50.35 IS for the pair of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22
S

Spooons

Active member
TheDragonWithAFlagon said:
Just thinking aloud here...


Having a special shop where poor people could get just the basics branded foods could be a potential extremely lucrative new market.

After all, the supermarkets have the infrastructure to do it.

They could then use their computer/technological structure to link with, say, a voucher system where the government, perhaps through the system set up for the school holiday voucher scheme (already developed and expanded from a government staff voucher scheme), allocates a certain amount to people for food, types of food, toiletries, even clothing, and other household goods.

This would mean that the government would be able to negotiate with the supermarkets to provide, as they do for the employee rewards and school holiday vouchers, a significant discount for the money. Thus meaning the government could reduce the amount given direct to people 'You're getting food, you don't need cash'. Under the auspices of public health, they could decide what they do or don't agree to pay for; no cigarettes, no alcohol, no high salt/fat/whatever is the trend at the moment 'bad food'. Could feasibly, in terms of technology, set it up so that only a maximum amount of calories/fat/whatever could be chosen. But the supermarkets would fundamentally dictate the prices in that absolutely captive market.


The supermarkets would make billions over time as it would mean they were taking a significant proportion of the benefits bill direct from government instead of letting people have full control over what they choose to eat, drink, wash their clothes in, etc. As there would be decisions made about what poor people were allowed to have, it would be possible for both the supermarkets and major food/chemical/pharmaceutical/etc manufacturers to put pressure on for particular items to be included and for government to make decisions upon what is included in the basket of acceptable items.


It's similar to the ASDA vouchers that were dished out years ago - the 'healthy' choices that the vouchers could be used on were all, almost without exception, more expensive per unit than the items that weren't eligible. Lots of high refined carb, low nutrition, lower quality items and overpriced veg got punted out to people in that 'healthy start' spiel. In this case, it would be 'take food here or go without'. There would be records of everything people bought available to government - why are you saying you aren't working? You've not taken your full allowance, so you must be getting food and money from somewhere. You're spending on men's toiletries for the month when you're female and so is your child - have you got somebody else staying with you under the radar? Been sanctioned? Good luck with getting enough calories now, you can't have saved anything up as you don't get cash to put little bits by. Applying for a disability benefit? But you're overweight - our disability assessment team says you'll be fine if you lose three stone, so a) you aren't getting it or b) we're further restricting the total calories you can buy to 7000/week. Let us know when your BMI is at whatever level we deem is acceptable to still have issues.




What she's wittering on about is essentially introducing an environment where, say, a US company with experience, could operate a Food Stamps system, but wider ranging in its removal of agency from poor people. Or a version of where workers would only be able to buy from the company store with their 'income'. Stick in a requirement to 'give something back' in return for the vouchers and you've got indentured labour.
Click to expand...
Tory dream right there
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 21
S

Suffolkmum

Chatty Member
Polly Morphus said:
Yes, and red lentils, cheap root veg (what has she got against parsnips, turnips etc?). Pork and lamb belly also good for v. cheap roasting.
Click to expand...
Completely of topic, but, my mum did a fabulous stuffed breast of lamb. She had quite a way with belly of pork to.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 21
ForgettyBetty

ForgettyBetty

VIP Member
MaineCoonMama said:
Qestion re chinny reckons. Do you grab your chin with thumb and forefinger then pull it down like you're pretending to stroke a beard? This was what we did in my (Australian) school but we called it Benny Beards, used to indicate bullshit. The longer the pretend beard the bigger the BS. This has been bugging me for ages, lmao.
Click to expand...
We had "itchy chin", very similar but rubbing across the bottom of your chin with fingertips
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 21