I WOULD like to correct some of the inaccurate observations made by Catherine Sedgwick and Trevor Swainsby about poverty (D&S Times, May 20) as they are potentially damaging to organisations like food banks.

1) Poverty is defined via a publicly agreed income threshold – 60 per cent median household income. Very few people choose to fall under it as a lifestyle choice. Working poverty has increased dramatically. 

2) Mentioning factors such as crime, stealing, owning mobile phones etc. conflates opinion and values with fact. Whether one thinks these factors are the cause or effect of poverty does not replace the fact that poverty exists as defined as above. Neither does it mean these factors indicate poverty – they can be found in all strata of society so the caricature used by your correspondents is dodgy!

3) An “increasing number” of people from impoverished backgrounds are not “achieving success”, according to the Social Mobility Commission’s State of the Nation annual reports for recent years! The UK has very little upward social mobility and our younger generation will be the first that ends up poorer than their parents.

4) Food banks cannot be used by anybody as implied. One obtains vouchers for them from care professionals after being identified as being in greatest need. Their growth is because more and more people are being identified as such, not because the banks are being abused.

5) Billions of tax revenue is being spent on corporate welfare which actually makes poverty worse – the amount of tax revenue taken by private landlords has doubled in 10 years to £9.3 bn. This type of “profit” is a dirty word!

Donald Simpson, Newton Aycliffe

THE letters from Catherine Sedgewick and Trevor Mason provided appropriate and accurate responses that show the real life situation (D&S Times, May 19) in response to the Reverend Richard Bradshaw’s letter (D&S Times, May 12).

Trevor’s comment about food banks is spot on.

We have one in Richmond and I recognise how they provide a lifeline to some but a lot of them are an advertisement for churches, charities et al who actually promote them.

Like a lot of folk, I would help anyone in genuine need, especially through no fault of their own.

Finally, just as I thought it was safe to read the rest of the page, we had a patronising letter from the chair of Richmondshire Lib Dems, Philip Knowles.

There is no taking from the poor to give to the rich and he knows it and, no, I do not have a short memory – does a promise not to increase tuition fees ring a bell?

Phil Harnott, Richmond