Secret Bankrupt Millionaire

ruggedtoast

The thing is there is no tradition of philanthropy in the UK. Thats why stuff like this is often contrived and odd.

I find the whole premise of some, supposedly in disguise, millionaire infiltrating the proles to work out who might be deserving and who might not be, quite distasteful. The real issue should be why, in 2009 in this supposedly rich country, we still have this level of inequality.

Considering how much the property bubble has contributed to this I thought it was in particularly poor taste to have btl "millionaires" on there handing out little bits of cash and plugging their business ever few minutes.

JanCee

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The thing is there is no tradition of philanthropy in the UK. Thats why stuff like this is often contrived and odd.

I find the whole premise of some, supposedly in disguise, millionaire infiltrating the proles to work out who might be deserving and who might not be, quite distasteful. The real issue should be why, in 2009 in this supposedly rich country, we still have this level of inequality.

Considering how much the property bubble has contributed to this I thought it was in particularly poor taste to have btl "millionaires" on there handing out little bits of cash and plugging their business ever few minutes.

There is a history of philanthropy in the UK. The whole village of Port Sunlight in the NW was created by a philanthropist;

from wikipedia
Lever's stated aims were "to socialise and Christianise business relations and get back to that close family brotherhood that existed in the good old days of hand labour." He claimed that Port Sunlight was an exercise in profit sharing, but rather than share profits directly, he invested them in the village.

I am sure there are many more, but that is the most famous one that I know about.

Maybe these days something like that wouldn't happen because he would just be accused of being another greedy BTL investor.

lostinrates

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The thing is there is no tradition of philanthropy in the UK..

I suppose it depends how far back we are saying ''historical'' is

pipkin71

Max_Headroom wrote: »

I question their motivation, plenty of genuinely wealthy (and indeed plenty of entirely unwealthy) people manage to help others financially or in other ways without making a big fuss about it.

Agree Max.

I've never understood why someone would shout at how much they give to charity, rather than quietly just continue to give without it being known.

There's also been a few instances on MSE where people have done something, which to all intents and purposes is a lovely thing to do, but then shout about it, when it would have been more respectful for them not to have said anything.

chucknorris

pipkin71 wrote: »

Agree Max.

I've never understood why someone would shout at how much they give to charity, rather than quietly just continue to give without it being known.

There's also been a few instances on MSE where people have done something, which to all intents and purposes is a lovely thing to do, but then shout about it, when it would have been more respectful for them not to have said anything.

Although I agree with you in general sometimes there are good reasons to mention (rather than shout about) it. I remember when someone posted details of contributing to an animal rescue centre in Northern Ireland that was saving dogs from being put down on this website and several other people contacted that charity and contributed too.

Sapphire

chucknorris wrote: »

Although I agree with you in general sometimes there are good reasons to mention (rather than shout about) it. I remember when someone posted details of contributing to an animal rescue centre in Northern Ireland that was saving dogs from being put down on this website and several other people contacted that charity and contributed too.

Agree – but that's rather different from announcing loudly, to all and sundry that you are giving away some of your money, especially when you can well afford to do so. I know people who have very little, including some not-very-well-off pensioners, who still contribute to worthwhile causes, yet never shout about it.

This parading of affluence is all to do with the nouveau-riche celebrity 'culture' this 'government' is largely responsible for, I'm afraid. I find it rather disgusting.

lostinrates

I know a very, very rich an who does lots of good things despite taking alot of public flack. Very small percentge of what he does is made public: but when it does any flurry of interest in his income source via that ''editorial advertising'' means he's able to do more good things.

I'd rather people did good things and got the ego stroke than nothing good got done. People are, in the main shallow and we all have faults: almost all of us do. At least this fault has a redeeming action.

chucknorris

Sapphire wrote: »

Agree – but that's rather different from announcing loudly, to all and sundry that you are giving away some of your money, especially when you can well afford to do so. I know people who have very little, including some not-very-well-off pensioners, who still contribute to worthwhile causes, yet never shout about it.

This parading of affluence is all to do with the nouveau-riche celebrity 'culture' this 'government' is largely responsible for, I'm afraid. I find it rather disgusting.

That's why I stopped watching that programme.

Sapphire

chucknorris wrote: »

That's why I stopped watching that programme.

I didn't even start – seeing clips from it made it obvious to me what it was about. :rolleyes:

Jennifer_Jane

Sapphire wrote: »

I didn't even start – seeing clips from it made it obvious to me what it was about. :rolleyes:

Absolutely agree. I'm sure there's something more fascinating to watch, or if not I'd prefer to watch my toenails grow*.



*Actually, I play a lot of spider solitaire -- I'm very good!

Jen
x

PS - Woohoo - I'm top of the page...