Theres a lot written about Sanctions.. a bit more..

I Read this about sanctioned people still required to do Work Programme: (On https://thepoorsideoflife.wordpress.com ) : -
---------------
"Can you imagine the torment that they feel? The feeling of constantly being hungry and cold? The workfare placement is torture to them. They won’t have much strength to do the work required. If they aren’t doing their work to a so called standard then the workfare provider can report them to the Jobcentre who can sanction them again on top of their sanction."

 -------------

And theres been many commentaries decrying any COMPARISONS to enforced work/ slavery? 

Think on this: In * a place* in europe, in WW2 A V2 rocket factory had a work-camp allocated to it. Inadequate food was given. But not only did they work at the factory - they were asked FOR NO REASON to carry rocks each day for a 1/4 mile walk. Many died.

The scenario described above - Its not far from forced to do work programme whilst hungry, weak, demoralised, punished.

Both scenarios remove freedom. Both are Punitive. Both extremely unhealthy.

Id say more. But Really I think point made.

Some , like IDS, say sanctions drive compliance? No they drive Destitution.

Another Lie From The Green Party exposed - BY SUE JONES

 

 Sue Writes: ...

Just to clarify, Rachel Reeves has NEVER said she will be "tougher on welfare." Those saying that she did are lying. She issued a statement shortly after being misquoted. It was Natalie Bennett who perpetuated that misquote too (See here - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/15/rachel-reeves-labour-benefit-recipients ).

What Rachel actually said was "tougher on the CAUSES of high welfare spending - such as low wages, high private sector rents, private company outsourcing - especially that of IDS, his vanity projects have cost us millions , paying for failed private company contracts - and unemployment. Here is the Hansard record where this was clarified to Caroline Lucas too, so the Greens should stop shamefully lying about the misquote.

In the middle of crucial debate about the WCA and the plight of our disabled people, initiated by the WOW campaign, Lucas lost all of my respect when she chose political point scoring instead of constructive debate and said this:

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green); I was disappointed that Rachel Reeves, on taking up her post as shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, used the opportunity of her first interview to say that she would be tougher than the Tories on people on benefits.

Kate Green (Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions); Stretford and Urmston, Labour)
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West did not say that. She said that she would be tougher on welfare spending, not on people on benefits.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East, Labour)

Does the hon. Lady agree that there are some forms of welfare spending that we should bring down? In my view, one of those is the excessive amount that is paid to private landlords through housing benefit. I am certainly in favour of reducing that form of welfare spending. Is she not?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green)

I am very much in favour of that if the hon. Lady wants to put it under the heading of welfare spending... Source: Hansard. The link - http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140227/debtext/140227-0001.htm#14022773000001

See - 27 Feb 2014 : Column 457 1.29 pm, on the 2nd page of the Hansard record.

Nonetheless the GP has continued to misquote Reeves, to my disgust, using negative campaigning and smear tactics akin to the Tories to promote their own party.

Selection of Helps?

Today looked through two things. at great depth as they both on surface seemed worthy exploring the help requests.

The first one..... although stated as concrete, came down to nothing I could constructively do or suggest to get the resolution that the person wanted. So it was something I wouldnt try at.

The second one, someone had tried to put me into helping them so it wasnt them doing the "work" and it was full of contradiction, looked very devious and I wasnt therefore going to delve into that one either.

There are times to say NO!

But I looked into both. Maybe I should refine my gut even further....

Ah well.

(updated) Peer Review Info / Rhetoric and Resistance of The Govt to admit it.

I wrote to Sir Gerald Kaufman, my MP

 > Regarding an outstanding as yet undisclosed report on DWP investigation of 60 Welfare Related Deaths.

I understand the DWP told the Guardian it had no plans to disclose these internal reports.

It is held that the DWP intends to invoke section 36, which is designed to protect information whose disclosure under FOI would, or would be likely to, prejudice “the maintenance of the convention of the collective responsibility” of ministers; would, or would be likely to, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, or the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation; would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely otherwise to prejudice, the effective conduct of public affairs.

Im sure this is a self protectionist measure too far . I know you share my disgust of Welfare Reforms and its antisocial nature.

Will you raise this question, over disclosure, of the results at Prime Ministers Questions next week? Im sure all Ministers would be interested to hear the PMs reply.

I think We need to seriously expose this governments lack of application and service to the general public.



Many Thanks


That was because many people are interested in ALL the affects of Welfare Reform, as am I. It is having catastrophic effects on people and communities. Television programmes are using suffering as what some people call poverty porn, which doesnt actually enforce a social conscience, but reinforces a disgust and scum feeling, an anti representation of reality, that shows the RHETORIC of a non caring Govt, and reinforces their ideals of Worthless Scroungers.

The rhetoric is poison.

YOU COULD be out of work next week? Or become ill or sick at any time.

Do you ask your MP about social issues? Rhetoric?  Dont give up.

IT COULD BE YOU .
 -------------

UPDATE 20TH JANUARY...

 Excellent reply from my MP about the DWP . "thank you for your letter 17 the January. This is indeed a very disturbing situation and I shall follow it up. I do not know whether I will get a chance to raise it at Prime Ministers Questions, but I shall write to you as soon as I have any news" can't be fairer than that!

 UPDATE 21ST JANUARY...

Emailed MP courteously as follows:

Thank you for your attention to my earlier briefing.

I note it wasnt possible today for you to raise issue at PMQs

It is an issue that has disturbed me. And I appreciate any highlighting of this you can make in the most public manner possible.

Many Thanks

UPDATE 18TH FEBRUARY 2015

My MP elicited this reply from IDS ...

12 february 2015
Dear Gerald ((edit: again note lack of protocol , Its Sir Gerald))

Thankyou for your letter 19th Jan on behalf of ((your constituent)) regarding Peer Review Information .

The Department for Work And Pensions (DWP) is currently handling several Freedom of Information requests regarding the release of Peer Review information.

The DWP is required to consider the relevant legislation before releasing information. The Department is currently at this stage and will provide appropriate responses to the Freedom Of Information requests in due course.

The RT Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP

-------- This i fear shows that indeed the intent is to use a section 36. And only scratches at an answer.

UPDATE THURSDAY 19TH FEB

This from Samuel Miller ...

t's official: The DWP has just informed me that it will NOT release the 49 internal reviews of benefit-related deaths, even with the personal information redacted. (Disclosing the content of these reviews, even in anonymised and summarised form, may still allow individuals to be identified, states the DWP) The information requested is being withheld as it falls under the exemption in Section 44 of the Act and Section 36 (2) (b) and (c) of the Freedom of Information Act.

19/02/2015
FoI ref

Dear Mr Miller,

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request received on 24/11/2014. You asked for:-
With regard to this article (http://disabilitynewsservice.com/2014/11/dwp-admits-investigating-
60-benefit-related-deaths-since-2012/) published online by Disability News Service, I am
writing to request that the 60 peer reviews, conducted by the DWP following the death of a
customer since February 2012, be mailed to my home address, which is below my signature
links.

Please be mindful that I am only requesting the peer reviews themselves and not the personal
files of benefit claimants, so the Data Protection Act should NOT be triggered by this FOI
request. If necessary, please feel free to redact personal information contained in the 60 peer
review files, which may violate the Act, but NOT the analysis and any conclusions.

DWP response
We wrote to you on 21 January and again on 17 February explaining that we needed more
time to assess the public interest because the information you seek engages an exemption
which requires the public interest to be considered.

I should like to advise that although the Department had conducted 60 Peer Reviews in total
by the time it responded to an FOI request with the figure you have quoted, in fact only 49 of
these reviews had been conducted in circumstances where the claimant had died. The
Department regrets the error in its previous response on this point.

I confirm that the Department holds the information you have requested but it is being withheld
as it falls under the exemption in Section 44 of the Act and Section 36 (2) (b) and (c) of the
Freedom of Information Act

The exemption at section 44 of the FoI Act

Section 123 of the Social Security Administration Act (SSSA) 1992 makes it an offence for
anyone who is employed in social security administration to disclose without lawful authority
any information which he acquired in the course of that employment and which relates to a
particular person. All the personal information contained in a Peer Review report is captured
by this provision.

Disclosing the content of these reviews, even in anonymised and summarised form, may still
allow individuals to be identified.

This triggers the FoI exemption at section 44 of the FoI Act which recognises existing statutory bars to disclosure contained in other statutes. Section 44 is an absolute exemption which means that there is no requirement to consider the public interest test in such cases.

The exemptions at section 36(2)(b) and (c) of the FoI Act

This exemption covers information which if released would, or would be likely to, prejudice the free and frank provision of advice or which would otherwise, or would be likely otherwise, to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

This is because disclosing the recommendations contained in these reviews, even in anonymised format, would be likely to inhibit the candour of their authors and so undermine their purpose.

This exemption requires the public interest for and against disclosure to be balanced. In this instance we concluded that the public interest weighed in favour of withholding the requested information because of the risks and harm identified above.

If you have, any queries about this letter please contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely
DWP Central FoI Team
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so they used 44 and 36

Attendees of #jesuischarlie march ....

Leaders at #JeSuisCharlie PARIS 11th January 2015

Now I was going to blog about the hijacking of Vox Populi, or something about hypocracy.

But then I came across 21 tweets about the attendees at a march defending free speech.

So rather than have to duplicate, myself, I'll use THEIR voice on my blog.

Thanks to tweeter Daniel Wickham ...

1) King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour Jordan

2) Prime Minister of Davutoglu of Turkey, which imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world Turkey

3) Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forced killed 7 journalists in Gaza last yr (second highest after Syria) Israel

4) Foreign Minister Shoukry of Egypt, which as well as AJ staff has detained journalist Shawkan for around 500 days Egypt 

5) Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, which last year jailed a journalist for "insulting a government servant" Russia 

 6) Foreign Minister Lamamra of Algeria, which has detained journalist Abdessami Abdelhai for 15 months without charge Algeria 

 7) The Foreign Minister of the UAE, which in 2013 held a journo incommunicado for a month on suspicion of MB links UAE

8) Prime Minister Jomaa of Tunisia, which recently jailed blogger Yassine Ayan for 3 years for "defaming the army" Tunisia 

9) The PMs of Georgia and Bulgaria, both of whom have a record of attacking & beating journalists
ONE 
TWO

10) The Attorney General of the US, where police in Ferguson have recently detained and assaulted WashPost reporters USA 

 11) Prime Minister Samaras of Greece, where riot police beat & injured two journalists at a protest in June last year Greece

12) Sec-Gen of NATO, who are yet to be held to account for deliberately bombing and killing 16 Serbian journos in '99 NATO 

13) President Keita of Mali, where journalists are expelled for covering human rights abuses Mali

14) The Foreign Minister of Bahrain, 2nd biggest jailer of journos in the world per capita (they also torture them) Bahrain

15) Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar, which jailed a man for 15 ys for writing the Jasmine poem Qatar 

 16) Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who had several journalists jailed for insulting him in 2013 Palestine

17) Prime Minister Cerar of Slovenia, which sentenced a blogger to six months in prison for "defamation" in 2013 Slovenia 

 18) Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland, where "blasphemy" is considered a criminal offense Ireland 

 19) Prime Minister Kopacz of Poland, which raided a magazine to seize recordings embarrassing for the ruling party Poland

20) PM Cameron of the UK, where authorities destroyed documents obtained by The Guardian and threatened prosecution UK 

 21) Saudi ambassador to France. The Saudis publicly flogged blogger @raif_badawi for "insulting Islam" on Friday Saudi Arabia
 --------

All the links are to articles the tweeter provided that are in public domain.
I understand this is one persons take on hypocracy of attending a free speech march.

A brief tight view of Customer Experience Management.

Customer EXPERIENCE. : How people perceive their interactions. With a thing. That exists. See?

Key role of C.E.M. is achieve maximum lifetime profit from the entire customer/ user base .

That means a lot more than just its words.

 Usually anything C.E.M. does must improve profits, its central to what it IS.

Its VERY close to but distorted from VFM. Where traditional output and outcome is replaced with Focused lower complaints more Right First Time and ultimate outcome = zero or positive impact on profit.

 Usually C.E.M. can say - This better. Obviously it costs this to do. But if return isnt there ( accts dont like the sums, say) then it wont get done. Remember C.E.M. is a corporate revenue generator / loss avoider as a function.

C.E.M. can justify anything that has zero profit impact. Or a +ve one.

-ve one will mean mostly mean NO.

UNLESS -ve for Retention of contract/ avoidance of penalties/ retaining supply chain/ keeping customers /as a matter of public image etc is ok as is mitigation and loss prevention justified.

Even a -VE may be assessed for long term return and be dismissed. 

Theres loads more to it. This is only a part of what C.E.M. does.

some good friends of mine ...

Some good friends of mine need some work in their back garden. Basic slabs / crazy paving.. to enable the space .

Theyve helped me many times and Im really miffed I cant help on this issue for them .

So will you go onto twitter and speak to @missnfranchised

Materials / crash space/ food all will be there for respondents accepted to do the work.

This is where social side of people really should shine.

Can you help?

Its for wonderful selfless couple whos first thought is help others.
They need some now . 

Worcestershire is location

Noos Just In ...

Whilst investigating the message of Christmas this disturbing report from our interpid reporter, who was investigating claims made, intimated and portrayed.
Some readers may find this shocking...

Our reporter:

" yes Meanwhile back in the cam-cave.... rugs pulled back reveal Pentangles and weird squiggly symbols.
 ... and he starts rocking and chanting kcuf ffo Kcuf ffo
 Amongst chantings in the cam-cave: xat moordeb , and snoitcnas (sitting in midst pentangle rocking) - I often heard "bring my dagger & a goat."

We havent heard from our reporter for a few hours..... Hope hes okay.

I wrote to MY MP re Fracking

as a constituent, i hope you dont mind me writing to you about public health.

Im particularly directing this communication as related to what is in common parlance called Fracking.

I ask you directly as a constituent that i will not be affected by fracking under this social estate/ and that noones health will be worsened by effects of fracking.

I will note US drive is to ban it. New York clearly exhibited their disdain by announcing a ban in their area,

Im sure its not area specific but moreso a condemnation of process itself and there are many existant examples stateside of the detriment it can cause to individuals and communities. Backed by scientific fact existant on search evident that unfortunately i cannot give you in this email . I would if i could.

I would ask you that this open license fracking remit this govt have given.. will it affect me as a constituent . and will it affect all your constituents with this renegade permission granting by this govt? And should the open licence that appears to exist be revoked and current contracts be taken back as null?

Many Thanks

 Update 22nd December:

He wrote back with this as part...

"I have long been opposed to fracking, and a little while ago took part in a parliamentary debate on this matter. I do not know to what extent it will affect you directly, but it will affect all of us in general. "

Bedroom Tax And Foodbanks

Well today i watched two debates and personally I feel the Labour representation to the people was phenomenal.

This:

COMMONS

Today's House of Commons debates - Wednesday 17 December 2014

Version: Uncorrected | Updated 21:31

Opposition Day

[11th Allotted Day]

Housing Benefit (Abolition of Social Sector Size Criteria)

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo):

Before I call Rachel Reeves to move the motion, I can inform the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

1.48 pm

Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab):

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the housing benefit social sector size criteria, otherwise known as the bedroom tax, should be abolished with immediate effect.

Today, Members of this House have a chance and a choice: a chance to put right one of the worst injustices we have seen under this unfair, out-of-touch Government; and a choice to make about where they stand on the question of how we treat some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of our society. In just a few hours, we could vote to abolish and repeal the bedroom tax, an extraordinarily cruel and unfair policy that has hit half a million low-income households, two thirds of them including a disabled member and two fifths of them including children, with a charge of more than £14 a week, on average, which most cannot afford to pay, simply because they have been allocated by a council or a housing association a home that the Government now decide has too many rooms.

One week before Christmas we have a chance to bring hope and relief to hundreds of thousands of people who are struggling to stay in their home, pay the bills and put food on the table by scrapping this cruel and punitive tax on bedrooms, which is yet another example of Tory welfare waste.

After much admirable input to the debate by Labour,and much ludicrous counter the motion distraction, obfuscation and downright disregard for human suffering, the Conservatives coupled with the Liberal Democrats , amongst which MUCH abhorence of this policy has recently been stated, probably as popularist soundbite,  Voted AGAINST the motion.

I ask that if you wish you explore all statements from Hansard on this motion debate. Housing Benefit (size regulations) Debate.

I think i shouldnt tell you how to make your minds up. You will, if you look, see abhorrent disregard for welfare of those suffering the consequences .

Moving on , the next motion is following. . 

Food Banks

4.43 pm

Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab):

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the number of people using food banks, according to the Trussell Trust, has increased from 41,000 in 2009-10 to 913,000 in 2013-14, of whom one third are children; recognises that over the last four years prices have risen faster than wages; further notes that low pay and failings in the operation of the social security system continue to be the main triggers for food bank use; and calls on the Government to bring forward measures to reduce dependency on food banks and tackle the cost of living crisis, including to get a grip on delays and administrative problems in the benefits system, and introduce a freeze in energy prices, a national water affordability scheme, measures to end abuses of zero hours contracts, incentives for companies to pay a living wage, an increase in the minimum wage to £8 an hour by the end of the next Parliament, a guaranteed job for all young people who are out of work for more than a year and 25 hours-a-week free childcare for all working parents of three and four year olds.

I welcome the Minister for Civil Society to his place in what is, I think, his first debate from the Front Bench, but I note that the Environment Secretary is not taking part in this debate. She transferred a question about food poisoning away from her Department just this week. She does not want to talk about food aid today, but she is—[Hon. Members: “Welcome!”] I would like to welcome the Environment Secretary to her place. She transferred a question about food poisoning away from her Department last week. This week she does not want to take part in a debate about food aid, yet hers is the lead Department. I just wonder what part of food policy she thinks she is responsible for.

Since the last Opposition-day debate on food banks a year ago, things have worsened. Over the past six months, there has been a 38% increase in the number of people seeking food aid from the Trussell Trust’s 420 food banks. The Trussell Trust expects the full-year numbers to be over 1 million. The report of the all-party parliamentary inquiry into hunger in the UK, entitled “Feeding Britain”, published last week, said that 4 million people are at risk of going hungry, 3.5 million adults cannot afford to eat properly, and half a million children live in families that cannot afford to feed them.

Nobody would choose to go to a food bank if they had any other option. Let us be clear about that. Research conducted by Oxfam, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Church of England and the Trussell Trust and published in November, entitled “Emergency Use Only”, indicates the truth of what many of us who have visited our local food banks have seen. People are acutely embarrassed to have to go to a food bank. They feel ashamed to have to accept such help, but the research is clear: people turn to food banks as a last resort, when all other coping strategies have failed.

The Trussell Trust says that 45% of people who visit the food banks that it operates do so because of problems with the social security system, a third because of delays to determining their benefit claims, and the rest because of benefit changes and sanctions, often unfairly applied, which have left them with no money.

------

I would ask you to consider my own MP's input to this debate: 

6.10 pm

Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab):

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) talked about Members of this House who have been around for some time. Well, I have been around for some time and I have never known a situation like this.

Last Saturday, I attended a Christmas lunch for pensioners at the Trinity House community centre in my constituency. It was a lovely occasion, but I did ask myself what kind of lunch some of the people would have been having if they had not been there. I went to a school and the head teacher told me that the meal provided for children there was the only proper meal they had all day; I had to ask myself what happens during holiday periods.

I went to the New Covenant church for a carol service last Sunday in another part of my constituency. I had a chat with the pastor and I was told of the things that were done at that church. He told me about its food programme and its food bank. He told me that the church has volunteers who work there and in the community but cannot find jobs when they have left the volunteer period.

That night, I went home and saw on television a commercial that said, “Help Unilever and Oxfam fight hunger in the UK”. I found it utterly shaming that a commercial such as that had been made, where people were saying that there was so much hunger in this country that action against it had to be organised. Despite the damage done by this Government, this is one of the richest countries in the world, and it is utterly humiliating that people should have to go to food banks to get a meal.

Kerry McCarthy:

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has yet had a chance to visit the excellent FoodCycle Manchester. I am a patron of the organisation and was at FoodCycle Bristol on Sunday. It uses food waste—surplus food—to provide meals for people who cannot afford them. For the 60 or so people I met there on Sunday, it was probably the only nutritious cooked meal they were going to get that week. I urge him to visit.

Sir Gerald Kaufman:

My hon. Friend has got it right, because one sees this again and again. Why? It is because of poverty. The figures show that in my constituency 42% of children live in poverty. Mine is the 10th worst constituency for that in the whole UK. The city of Manchester is fourth in Britain for poverty, and that is according to the Department for Education’s own definition. Children are said to be living in relative poverty if their household’s income is less than 60% of the median national income.

Manchester is a target for this Government. They have taken away more Government funding from my city than from anywhere else in the country, whereas in other parts of the country, such as Surrey, they are actually increasing the amount of Government funding. It is a cynical political trick. They know that they cannot win seats in Manchester, so why make life comfortable for people there? By contrast, in Surrey they do have some hope of winning constituencies. It is a political manoeuvre and my constituents suffer because of it.

The Government’s policy can be summed up:

“For whosoever hath, to him shall be given…but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.”

Benefit sanctions are spoken of again and again. Heaven knows I have a case load, as the Secretary of State knows from his correspondence with me, but people should not look for benefits other than those to which they are entitled by family circumstances. They should be able to have jobs. In Manchester, we have the Manchester living wage, but it does not prevail. If people do not have incomes or jobs they cannot buy food. It is terrible that we have in this country—a progressive western European country—hunger that is categorised by Unilever and Oxfam. The people who provide food banks are fine, decent people. They are good people—valuable people—but we should not need them.

Read the whole debate if you wish.

I was particularly impressed with Maria Eagle and her clearly researched and well held views . Her speeches taken in whole actually stands for people before profit, and that highlights just how bad this govts actions have continued to be. Sir Gerald Kaufman was spot on, and i will leave you to disparage those that werent for the people.

 

The whole foodbanks debate is linked here FOODBANKS DEBATE

Not much intros/ comment from me on this blog piece. Its your mind. I present considerations on both these emotive subjects. Read into it or not. Its completely your choice. 

Helping people Costs nothing or does it?

Now i help people with "admin" type stuff when theyre stuck.
Thats about how I shall describe it.

Sometimes it costs NOTHING.
Others theres bus fares / post/ phonecalls / bits and bobs..

Usually i dont mind and build that in.

You can only build so much in though.

I rescued myself from the always help to the can i do this realistically - even if say its four quid or even a quid.

Because contrary to what some believe im not an affluent philanthropist.

The odd loaf of bread / potatoes.. or have you got an envelope, or envelopes used or phone calls on behalf of, and other stuffs I need not mention because you know.. etc they all add up. Its hard to make it not do so.

This impacts usually without me having any qualm whatsoever.

Then theres times where i scream internally as in Why did I do that, im now short, ah well.

I found Mobile data on 3g was eating me. (money actually) So found the BT Basic deal to get broadband...  then Just found  id used nearly 3gb of 10gb allowance in five days.

Something DOESNT have to give. Just that I have to look at it differently.

Whether I like it or not helping people costs money.

NOW this is where i start a thing....

The Big Society thing Cameron harped on about? Everybody for everbody etc etc... It was never defined. Why? Because it costs money. How does it operate without? The spin on it was spin alone and some swallowed it whole.

Am I making a point here? Am I?

Probably am.

I know people that HAVE and continue to say I'd love to help but cant afford it - theyre everywhere those people.
How much poorer do people in general have to be to see what is going on around them?

Why dont more people help. I'll tell you.
Theres a default setting of placation in loads of minds.
Theres ah "i dont have to because x is already doing that"
Reliance on the few do-ers. Expecting the do-ers to carry on do-ing without making a sound about it.

And theres the "but we all help people where we can"  case - acknowledged.

Is this a ramble? Yeah sort of.

...and yet theres people who offer to help me with probably same issues I have, and I say no - YOU cant afford it.