Pages

Friday 7 March 2014

People.

I was too angry to write this yesterday. I'm still too angry, so I apologise. This will not be eloquent.

I heard people on the radio phoning in to talk about people in need using food banks. Judgemental, small minded people. Here is a selection of some of the disgusting things they said, things that boil my blood even now


"Fat people using food banks? They could do with with being hungry for a while, do them some good"

"Nobody with an iPhone should be allowed access to a food bank"

"If they can afford a range rover they don't need food banks"

"They can afford booze, they shouldn't have access to food banks"

"If people can't find work, why don't they just move?"

"If they can afford branded clothes, they shouldn't be using food banks"


There was more, but I shut my ears to those who've shut their hearts. Circumstances can change on a knife edge. We are advised, by parents, financial planning websites, that we should have a contingency of at least three months salary to buffer in the event of job loss. Be honest, how many people have that? How many people at the lower end of the earning world earn enough to put by even £50 a month? £10? £5? Even if they do, in the event of catastrophe, how long do savings last with fuel bills, rent or mortgages? Most people with a mobile phone are tied into a contract, phone companies won't release you because your circumstances change. And in the modern world, communication is vital in the work market. Should you sell your clothes for less than the value of rags, so that you will be deemed more worthy? You still need clothes, and how do you try and get back into work if you no longer look the part? The buffer once provided by savings, has been slowly eroded and replaced by credit. And when the rock falls from beneath your feet, the credit companies aren't sympathetic. They don't give you time. They will eventually negotiate payment plans, if you hound them enough. But most people are too scared. Too scared of the obligation, too scared of what they owe. Too scared of debt collectors, county court judgements. Too scared of losing everything. The limited help they may receive from the welfare system won't help them, and it's likely that they'll try and meet this debt using money that should be spent on food, on heating. And contrary to popular opinion, there are many reasons for being overweight, not simply greed. And those who are overweight do not have the luxury of being able to simply stop eating until they are thin enough to be deemed worthy, their bodies magically converting fat stores to energy in place of food. No, they will get malnourished, just the same as a thinner person. It is entirely possible to die of malnourishment and still be overweight. Their lack of compassion extended to those with children, families, breastfeeding mothers were shown no mercy. 

"You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it." You people have no right to judge the circumstances of others. Outward appearances deceive, and when circumstances change quickly, it takes time to adapt. I could opt to sell my car, but how long it takes to sell unfortunately is not down to me. Selling possessions, moving house to find work, none of this can happen instantaneously. It can take months or longer. Starving on the other hand... That's a relatively quick process. So if you think you have the right to judge those in need because they don't look to you like they are in need, I'm afraid you're wrong. In every small minded, petty, measly way, you are wrong.

2 comments:

Woodcat said...

A friend of mine commented on this on Facebook as follows. Her words are wise, and illustrate this better than mine:

All very true K___, I'm disgusted by this idea that people should be at death's door before they receive any help. I think people need to understand too that a lot of poorer people are fatter because fresh fruit and veg, meat, fish are out of their price range, where as there are always biscuits, high sugar breakfast cereals etc on specials offer. I used to know a girl when I was little who (other than her free school dinner) used to live on cheap biscuits as it was all her mum (who had fallen on very hard times) could afford. She was chubby, but she was hungry and constantly ill. It's not as if the food banks are handing out caviar and moet! A bit of pasta, rice, a few tins of beans and veg- it's not a huge ask!

Woodcat said...

Exactly. Malnourished doesn't necessarily equate to weight. And when your body is malnourished, no matter how much you eat, if it's junk you stay malnourished, despite that you may maintain or even gain weight. And food banks can only provide the same kinds of food because of storage, shelf lives etc.

The other thing that annoys me is all of the righteously indignant selfish bastards quoting the example of Jack Monroe. Yes, after a lot of work she managed to make a £10 a week shop feed her and her son. But I'd say a lot of it was based on overcoming notions of watch constitutes real food, because basics fish paste isn't. They existed without heating, without lightbulbs in most of their rooms, selling everything they could. She's the exception, not the rule, but more importantly the kinds of food she (and many others) could afford is not the kind of food that fosters either health or jobs. Our lack of generosity of spirit links into a wider model of economic hoarding and selfishness that is destroying our society, when basic needs are seen as greed, there is a huge problem. I do not believe in religion, or God, but right now I wish more people did. Even those who were naturally ungenerous were more socially responsible under the fear of eternal damnation from up on high.