Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Food Banks: Ipswich.

A food bank charity says it has handed out 913,000 food parcels in the last year, up from 347,000 the year before.

The Trussell Trust said a third were given to repeat visitors but that there was a “shocking” 51% rise in clients to established food banks. It said benefit payment delays were the main cause.

In a letter to ministers, more than 500 clergy say the increase is “terrible”.

The government said there was no evidence of a link between welfare reforms and the use of food banks.

However, the Trussell Trust, the largest food bank provider in the UK, said benefits payments had been a particular problem since welfare changes were introduced just over a year ago.

Some 83% of food banks reported that benefits sanctions – when payments are temporarily stopped – had resulted in more people being referred for emergency food.

The second biggest reason, given by 20% of food bank users, was low income.

“In the last year, we’ve seen things get worse, rather than better, for many people on low incomes,” said Chris Mould, chairman of the Trussell Trust.

This is the Ipswich Foodbank.

Families in need

FIND is a Christian-based registered charity that was founded in 1990 to provide emergency assistance to families or individuals affected by poverty or dispossession. FIND befriends without judging and gives support to those in need. The charity started over 20 years ago by Maureen Reynel MBE has grown to be an essential support mechanism in the local community.

Food Bank

Our food bank fund targets work to establish and distribute food to people in need. This is a key part of the work of FI…

Readers of Ipswich Unemployed Action may be interested to know what this group’s approach is to fighting the cuts which lie behind the rise in Food bank users.

Here it is:


FIND Quiz 2014 Flyerda





Written by Andrew Coates

April 19, 2014 at 10:15 am

31 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It’s the same story in Bradford:


    And as we all know, Benefit Sanctions are THE NUMBER ONE cause!!!

    Landless Peasant

    April 19, 2014 at 12:36 pm

    • yes.

      The worrying thing here is that the Ipswich Food Bank is run by a group that enjoys good relations with the Rotary Club and other conservative (not to say Conservative) groups that have caused the problems in the first place.

      Andrew Coates

      April 19, 2014 at 3:50 pm

      • The Rotary Club alliance jumped out at me, though if FIND are fighting the causes of such poverty then that’s good. What a shame it has to be supported by the Rotary Club which if our local one is to go by, is inhabited by hard core tories who hate anyone who isn’t of their ilk.

        I know of a local couple who are well into the Rotary Club, the only time they will agree to help out with any cause is if they get group or individual publicity for it. This marks them out to me as self serving arseholes of the worst kind.


        April 20, 2014 at 12:36 pm

      • Andy you are forgetting that this IS a Christian country, with Conservative values… haha…

        That is to say, one group of Conservatives shoot down the working class… the other aims to help, subject to be converted to their faith so not being a sinner, and very much conditional to do as and what they dictate.

        Why give benefit hand outs when you can force the poor to stick their hands out to beg for basic food to live on? So lets rejoice that although people are starving, at least they can pray and be taken care of. *cough*

        The main issue here is, the belief that the poorest is society are poor because they are wasters not wanting to work or achieve anything…. compared to those born with a silver spoon in their mouth, relatively wealthy families if not loaded and with all the contacts and opportunities effectively from the day they are born.

        Take Cameron for instance he was set up for life and couldn’t possibly fail. Not particularly strong as a politician either, at all, but walked it into No.10 even when not winning a majority. If all those contacts failed, near on impossible, he would have still made it to be an MP with additional responsibilities for something or another.

        For the average person, you start at the bottom, whether relatively poor or family not doing too badly financially. You go out there to get an education trying to create a career path. You seek work trying to align a career. You start with a poor credit score as not having a credit history. You attempt to improve this to open doors, and realise the credit score is more important than any qualification. You don’t have a fail-safe safety net to fall back on or able to jump queues or cheat through other avenues.

        Of course this isn’t limited to the Conservative Party, many in the conservative circles are singing from the same hymn sheet – and despite the candidates and MPs fielding for Labour its often the same with them too – so it is really patronising when the ruling party says phrases such as “we are all in this together” and “hard working families”.

        The difference is the pre-forged paths at birth of these people. I do not doubt for one moment that clowns such as Cameron and Obsourne have worked hard to get places, no one denies them that, however there is no resistance to prevent them getting places with it; whereas for the rest of us, the truth is we only normally ever get one chance at any one particular objective, if it doesn’t pay off for whatever reason we fail. Typically, someone else then beats us to it.

        I don’t think the majority of users of food banks ever felt 10 years ago or so that they would be doing that. Some people live safe lives, others are proactive and wont let life carry them somewhere naturally to fail. I think its the people who want to succeed more in life by taking smaller risks that ended up at the food banks, not the so-called benefit scrounger family types that haven’t worked in the last century or so, wanting to take take take rather than give.

        Universal Jobmatch

        April 23, 2014 at 8:51 am

  2. Annos

    April 19, 2014 at 8:51 pm

  3. Scroungers flout Trussell Trust’s ‘9 visits’ rule to stock up

    The gutter right wing press,tory society is all about division division.divide and decimate.they will do anything to discredit those they see as the Thatcher phrase “enemy within”.

    justify their callousness minimise condemnation by by whipping up hate propaganda to disguise their unlawful behavior as if it has some justification in the public interest.




    April 21, 2014 at 4:40 am

    • That ‘investigation’by the Mail is beneath contempt.

      “Mail on Sunday undercover film exposes abuse of charity
      Scroungers flout Trussell Trust’s ‘9 visits’ rule to stock up
      Repeat visits undermine the Trust’s claim of 913,000 users
      After the investigation, the food was returned to the charity.”

      In effect it’s getting a reporter to shop-lift.

      I suppose the next time somebody steals from a supermarket they’ll get let off if they return the goods.

      Andrew Coates

      April 21, 2014 at 11:08 am

  4. ken

    April 21, 2014 at 4:45 am


    It looks like Seetec have the Help to Work contract. It would appear they are advertising for people to run it.



    jj joop

    April 21, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    • The same old same old Community Payback shite… only worse.


      April 21, 2014 at 8:52 pm

    • Both still have zero applications! Perhaps all the management gobbledygook speak has put everyone with any sense off applying.

      Another Fine Mess

      April 22, 2014 at 8:45 am

      • What do you expect. The pay scale is derisory 21 – 24K. F*** me gently. They’re taking the f****** piss!

        jj joop

        April 23, 2014 at 11:19 am

    • Who Will They Contract To G4S / SERCO Or ALLEGEDLY An Inhouse Company


      April 22, 2014 at 1:33 pm

  6. Just seen a video showing the delights of the £330,000 a week Courchevel Edelweiss Ski Chalet! £330,000 for a week in a ski chalet – that’s more than TWICE what Jobseekers receive in JSA in a LIFETIME!


    April 21, 2014 at 9:26 pm

  7. Hundreds diagnosed with malnutrition in Wales amid anger over dependence on foodbanks

    two health boards refused to provide data on diagnoses in response to our freedom of information request.


    given the evidence,this is likely to be happening everywhere.


    April 21, 2014 at 11:38 pm

    • I wonder what a diet exclusively from Foodbanks is made up of?

      Andrew Coates

      April 22, 2014 at 10:58 am

  8. Like an article recently on illegal set top boxes exposed I have to ask the fundamental question of why and who does this really serve and to what end.

    I don’t doubt theirs scams to foodbanks anymore than i do with regards to taxes, but when one costs the country billions year in, year out and the other next to nothing, i have to wonder whos mission this reporters actually on.

    Probably what is most defining about this article is that not once did it attempt to answer why one steals food in the first place. No where were the audience lead to a black market style food trading for drugs set up nor for that fact even lead to a single food hoarders pantry, yet regardless of this non existent conclusion an editor allowed it to go to press anyway.

    Ied like to think people could read between the lines but in a world where its seen as less energy to kick a man when his down than pick him up, i wont be holding my breath any time soon.

    Being unemployed doesn’t make you a failure to society, it makes you a scapegoat.

    Welfare reforms don’t reduce poverty, they redefine it.


    April 22, 2014 at 10:51 am

  9. DWP signing-on trials: Online, Clerical drop and go.



    Obi Wan Kenobi

    April 22, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    • Apart from being a trial to set out ever more traps and hoops to trip up claimants, sanction them and make their lives worse, these trials could also be seen as the writing on the wall for most JC+ staff

      Several more layers of guidelines and time ordered activities, with several changes to admin with the addition of email, what could possibly go wrong?


      April 23, 2014 at 7:59 am

    • I am not surprised. Councils nationwide have moved away as much from face-2-face interaction as they cannot be bothered to deal with the people that in effect pay their wages through taxes.

      At the moment (not suggesting anyone does..) if they stop your benefit, you are directed to a call centre to sort it, except you go down the dole office, make their life hell and perhaps kick the shit out of someone… not only would online-only save money on staffing, but moving away from face-2-face (I think they call it…) “customer service” you would be left with little choice but to deal with the phone call queues… and probably decide to give up.

      On the flip-side most claimants would prefer online without having to report to such a depressing place, likely to increase chances of securing work quicker for newly unemployed persons, and its likely to mean a lot of job losses which, added job competition aside, is karma for the staff which by what DWP survey information states everyone hates working there and want to leave within a few months (still there few years later unless pushed) and they might not have created the policy but have implemented such pushing people into poverty further by bullying, creating the need for a food bank.

      I don’t want to compare it to something much more extreme; but in the 21st century in particular, you cannot just claim to be following orders… you have a choice of leaving. The bad apples down the dole office aside, not sure if they still work there, but there are some really nice people (not just creating a balance, genuinely so..) however, personalities aside, they are still involved in the same regime and just as bad as any other!

      Universal Jobmatch

      April 23, 2014 at 8:12 am

    • Now that’s a post Obi Wan

      If that isn’t tactics to get claimants data then I don’t know what is. I respect the clever hand here but sadly wont be giving it a cigar just yet.
      As usual I noticed absolutely no real guidance to claimants or advisors for that fact on a subject I like to call DPA.

      Not once and it makes no difference that its a trial, did the data subjects rights under law get covered. The slight of hand wording insinuates that its all perfectly legal which I suppose it is if and ONLY IF the data subject agrees to it. This is further highlighted by the instant withdrawal of any claimant from the trial not following the do it my way or else guidance.

      It appears from reading the documents that DWP envision a rocky road so will no doubt target the unknowing so as to build a solid case for its instigation in dew course.

      In the documents, data retention periods are outlined so expect DWP to use DPA exemptions to suit their purpose with all claimants who have summited their data irrespective of whether or not they gave their consent to a particular form of processing.

      These new trial processes will not lower the time spent by advisors when you factor;

      A: The evidence needs checking otherwise why ask for it in the first place and;

      B: In reference to remote signing, someone will need to ring you to ask regular questions and clarifications

      All this remains as such until DWP disclose in more detail HOW they intend to process such data.

      At best it would allow DWP to lower its building stock but will heighten data security risks simultaneously.

      Who was it that said, “their not tracking us, why would they want to track insignificant little old me”?


      April 23, 2014 at 10:13 am

  10. As is perfectly clear DWP only want willing/unknowing claimants to participate. This is so negative effects can be omitted to a manageable if not non existent level so as to scupper any circumstance no matter how legit or lawful that circumstance might be from thwarting yet more unnecessary governmental intrusion and control.


    April 23, 2014 at 10:24 am

  11. Ring you? They will have to change the law.There is no requirement whatsoever under the enabling legislation of JSA that allows them to demand a phone number in order to excercise your rights to claim JSA


    April 23, 2014 at 11:56 am

    • As is defined under DPA, their must be a lawful purpose prior to any processing (this includes the taking) of personal and or sensitive data. Even with lawful purpose the data must be obtained freely by way of consent, without fear of persecution.

      To quantify that for you growl, I don’t see them handing out their own numbers and emails to the extent they will be gavering them, do you ?

      They know a particular change of law would spell direct trouble for them so are going around the houses to make norm a process that is certainly not.

      The one thing that ales them currently is in how to justify demanding full autonomous contact while retaining their own rights to privacy. It is here, right here the argument needs to be confronted or im afraid HELLO CLAIMANTS, DWP JUST FOUND ANOTHER WAY TO SANCTION YOUR BACKSIDE.


      April 23, 2014 at 3:57 pm

    • I overheard someone today saying: “You are under no obligation to answer a withheld number, it is a private number”, I was wondering what they were talking about until they said: “The jobcentre have no right to sanction you for not answering a withheld number.” One reason you should NEVER give the fuckers your ‘phone number!

      NEVER Trust the Jobcentre

      April 23, 2014 at 8:38 pm

  12. Gia, I dont know the DPA side of it but a phone number is not a prerequisite to a claim for JSA. I have had this out with an ‘advisor’ before now.

    They lost, because ironically enough I have worked for the DWP before.


    April 23, 2014 at 10:07 pm

    • Correct growl, but we are not talking signing on for the first time and establishing you are who you say you are,are we.

      Their argument is this;

      “How are you not reducing your chances of being available for work and thus also reducing your ability to actively seek work by not having a phone” followed by “how do we know you have a phone with a working sim” ?

      You see claimants are making the mistake of allowing DWP to put the honest on them when really claimants should be saying “are you suggesting im lying, committing the criminal act of fraud and if so can I have that in writing please”.

      Now DWP wont do that as the moment you prove that’s not the case it puts them into a civil suite of defamation. Your also find when they sanction a claimant for such that they will merely state the offence as not available for work along with they were only trying to enforce business rules. That’s how they get away with winning over appeals against said charge,

      Claimants need to ensure that the actual facts are on the paperwork and not ones that are convenient to helping an advisor and DWP state a case.

      By allowing DWP to be generic in terminology, claimants are signing their own death warrants.


      April 27, 2014 at 8:56 am

      • Like “Failed to Attend”… but what they don’t say is that the Jobcentre was closed for business on Christmas Day!

        jobcentre staff are scum

        April 27, 2014 at 10:49 am

  13. i had my number taken off the system pre wp as i did not want the provider to have it.

    all they need is an address to claim jsa no phone required as they can post a letter nor do they need an email addr or keep a copy of ur cv on record.

    super ted

    April 23, 2014 at 10:18 pm

  14. Reblogged this on Ipswich Food Banks.

    Universal Jobmatch

    January 1, 2015 at 5:28 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: