The Mail on Sunday would like people to starve. No questions asked.

I should start off by saying that I don't think that this post contains any radical thought. In fact, I really hope it doesn't. I hope that by the time you reach the end your overall response is “Er, yeah, DUH”, because we all share the same view.
That view is that people should be nice to each other and help each other out.

The Mail on Sunday, however, do not agree. They suspected that some people who work at food banks were bending the rules to help out their fellow man and they were fucking livid about it. So livid, that they sent grey-skinned, Ramsay-forheaded reporter Ross Slater to investigate and find out why the fuck food banks were giving out food to those who needed it.

Personally, I find the results quite comforting, but the tone of the article is akin to that used when writing about the abuse of the elderly in care homes. Here are some of the highlights, or lowlights really, for me-

- “Scroungers flout Trussell Trust's '9 Visit' rule to stock up”
I find it hard to believe that anyone 'flouts' at a food bank. This isn't like using your phone at the cinema or going the wrong way around a car park. Desperate people, or scroungers as they are affectionately titled throughout this article, aren't visiting a food bank for a tenth time because they 'just don't give a shit' and 'fuck the police' and whatever; they're visiting because they don't have a choice.

- “Fraudsters routinely take advantage of the handouts.”
Again, not fraudsters, just desperate people. The word fraudsters is used so often in this that I'm worried BBC's fraud vigilante Dom Littlewood is going to get involved. In fact, the only person who definitely committed fraud in this, is Ross Slater. GET 'IM DOM.

- “Staff at a supermarket, where shoppers are encouraged to buy extra food and donate it to a local food bank, were alleged to be later turning up to claim the food themselves.”
The more I thought about this, the more hilarious I found the concept of it. I mean, really, does anyone believe this? Please allow a sketch to illustrate it's absurdity.
Supermarket worker- “FFS, that woman just bought some tinned potatoes in water to take to the food bank. I really wanted tinned potatoes in water for dinner.”
Steve- “Oh, sorry man. You can just buy a tin at the end of you shift though, right?”
Supermarket worker- “No, Steve, I can't. I really wanted that particular tin of potatoes in water. It's fucking irreplaceable.”
Steve- “Well, I guess there's only one thing to do then.”
Supermarket worker- “What's that?”
Steve- “We're going to the food bank and we're going to get your tin of potatoes in water back!”

And that's just the intro, folks. After predictably hateful bile about asylum seekers and JSA and stuff, we finally get to The Investigation. Ross' big moment.

His report is essentially this- after telling workers at a Nottingham food bank that he had recently become unemployed, as had his wife, and as a result of being caught out by high winter fuel bills he was now struggling to feed his family, he was given food without having to jump through a load of hoops to prove how poor he is.
This bit reminded me of that episode of Friends where Joey goes to work for Chandler and creates an imaginary life. Click- Ross just created another starving child!

Hilariously, and totally relevantly, the report highlights the name and age of the woman who interviewed Ross. She's called Katherine and apparently, she's in her sixties, which totally explains why she believed his story; it's the cataract in both eyes, hunched over posture and stupid, liquidised old person brain. Katherine, you mug.

After “presenting” his voucher like a fucking Golden Ticket at the food bank, Ross was then given £40 worth of shopping. “This included basics, like bread and pasta, as well as less essential items such as chocolate pudding”- NO TREATS FOR POOR PEOPLE. Also, anyone who's ever eaten one of those microwaveable puddings knows that they're no treat at all, and will take the skin off your mouth for up to 8 hours after heating.
We're also treated to a photo of Ross, surrounded by his loot, with a jar of pasta cooking sauce nestled next to his dick whilst he's holding a box of bran flakes like it's a small baby. I can only imagine that the photographer gave him the following directions- “Ok, right, Ross, look poor. No, poorer...poorer... Frown, poor people are sad Ross.”
It is stated, clearly, though, that Ross did return all of the items, so that's ok.

Thankfully, they got the view of someone objective and really in touch with The Issues. Senior Tory MP Brian Binley says that “food banks are run by very kind people. They do not understand that there are some people who will take advantage.”
I feel like he uses the word 'kind' here like some people, ignorant people, use the word special. Piss off, Binners, you patronising arsehole. I think they understand very well, but maybe they don't want to spend their drive home worrying that the man they refused food to that day was having to explain to his children that there was no pie-made-to-withstand-nuclear-fallout for dinner tonight because Daddy didn't look poor enough at the food bank today.

Of course, it's easy to mock the shit out of this article, it deserves it, but the attitudes lurking within it are pretty awful.
I really hate how, now, whenever anyone recalls anything shit that's happened in their life, they're accused of peddling a “sob story”. Bad things happen to people and sometimes they want to talk about them. If you're sobbing, then maybe you're doing so because it's really fucking sad. Or, you're like me and start crying at a supermarket checkout when you see an elderly man who's buying loads of cheap ready meals for one. Or something. The people awkwardly shuffling into food banks aren't trading sob stories for tinned goods; they're explaining why they're there in the first place and I imagine it's quite painful.

Another thing that becomes clear throughout this is that the MoS really wants some criteria, guys. “Individuals experiencing severe financial hardship are able to claim food vouchers but there are no clear criteria on who should be eligible”. Er, MoS? I think the criteria is “severe financial hardship”. Maybe they want some hard figures to work with; a measure of human tears using one of those cylinders you used to measure liquids with in science at school (...measuring cylinders?) or a temperature reading of the heat coming off of their face as they have to queue for food handouts? A hunger score on a scale of one to ten?

Overall, the Mail seems to be most concerned that “increased awareness of food banks is driving a rise in their use”, as if a new supermarket that's launched and, thanks to a killer ad campaign, people are ditching Sainsburys in favour of Food Bank. I think they want to keep food banks a secret, like an underground club night, because the less people that know about them, the less people will use them and that looks better. It's less uncomfortable for everyone.
Sure, people will go hungry, but at least then we won't have to think about poor people.

I don't find the fact that 913,000 people have visited a food bank suspicious, definitely not suspicious enough to get Ross Slater on the case. I find it sad. And worrying.
However, I also see that as 913,000 people who are a bit less hungry now. Maybe they'll get a better night's sleep.
And I think that's good.


PS.
Rather than bitching about this please-god-let-this-be-a-double-bluff-and-Ross-Slater-is-actually-undercover-to-prove-how-heinous-the-Mail-really-is article, like I have, we can all just do this instead http://www.trusselltrust.org/donate