It seems poverty kills very sad

ILW

The_White_Horse wrote: »

maybe there is a reason

most people see charity as a form of self insurance. that is why they give.

if you could guarantee people they would never get cancer, they would probably never give to cancer charities.

Possibly, but most run the risk of having a Downs or brain damaged baby for example.

nickmason

Generali wrote: »

I try to contribute to disliked charities as much as I can. Puppies and cancer get huge sums of money. Mental illness, refugees and homelessness get very little.

the Donkey Sanctuary charity alone annually receives more in donations than the top three UK domestic violence charities combined.

SingleSue

This sort of thing is something I worry about for mine when they get older and I am possibly not around. Youngest would probably be ok except he would be reclusive but middle son who appears outwardly normal, would struggle to cope with independant living (high performance IQ - 130+ but learning disabilty - less than 70 in verbal understanding)

With those who have a learning disability, it is not like a 'normal' person where you can explain once and they pretty much get on with it, they need to have every step explained, every step arranged etc, it is very unlikely they would remember what to do next after doing the first thing...in short, they need to be led through it and not left to get on with things.

Re the various tests etc during pregnancy, no test can pre determine that a child will become brain damaged during delivery or if they will have a learning difficulty (not caused by the major disabilities tested for during pregnancy, there are thousands of different ones) or have autism etc.

nickmason

The_White_Horse wrote: »

maybe there is a reason

most people see charity as a form of self insurance. that is why they give.

if you could guarantee people they would never get cancer, they would probably never give to cancer charities.

Interesting how many woman are currently sponsoring my brother's Movember, thus giving to prostate and testicular cancer research.

"Insurance" is one factor in why people give. But it's not the major one, or even a dominant one. Pure altruism does exist, often encouraged by religious/spiritual/philosophical belief systems. Self-branding is becoming progressively a greater reason (how many people give money to the poppy-sellers without asking for a poppy in return?) And a very high proportion of donations are spur of the moment feel-good transactions.

One of the reasons why the public doesn't understand why people give is because the vocal public (aided by the media) aren't the ones that give. The vast majority are pensioners, for whom, if there is an insurance element, it's closer to Pascal's wager - that the closer you get to death, the more sense it makes to start doing Godly things.
It's more a case of "there for the grace of God go I", a gratitude that they were spared.

ruggedtoast

PasturesNew wrote: »

My experience with the system is that nobody helps you, they just take weeks to tick some boxes before promising to send you some information, that you don't understand and it all gets hard and you're on your own.

Nobody actually sits down at the start and works out the situation, what's relevant, then takes ownership and gets everything claimed for, filling out the forms if necessary. Doing that from the start, in one go, would save hundreds of pounds and weeks of time in the long run.

You never get to speak to a person these days, it's all call centres, calls logged, packs sent out, unintelligible forms and complex questions where you're not sure what they're asking or why.

They expect you to ask for the right forms for what you can claim .... rather than somebody evaluating a situation and telling people what they can get. Then there are repeated forms/information to be filled out - and long waits.

There's no ownership of the claimant and no listening to/evaluating their circumstances to come up with the answers.

In the OP's case though, there's another discussion thread on MSE about this particular case and it seems as though he was an alcoholic and they weren't claiming for her because they thought she was about to be sectioned. So it's a complex one. She/they were even "hiding" at one point, away from their house.

But somebody knew they existed and should have "owned" their case.

I would agree with that. Its the times you need it most when you are the least able to fight the battles with the state to get help.

Its the same with the NHS unfortunately. In order to get anything other than the most standard help you have to go through a whole chain of people. Any one of whom can be incredibly obstructive if they want, without even really trying.

Percy1983

nickmason wrote: »

Interesting how many woman are currently sponsoring my brother's Movember, thus giving to prostate and testicular cancer research.

I think there can still be an insurance part to it, my other half has given money for Movember and yes she can't get prostate cancer, but I could (or her brother or dad) all of which would have a massive effect on her.

As far as donations to charities go I prefer those which help children and I do a lot of charity work myself with children, I guess its all about making the future generations nice people for me.

nickmason

Percy1983 wrote: »

I think there can still be an insurance part to it, my other half has given money for Movember and yes she can't get prostate cancer, but I could (or her brother or dad) all of which would have a massive effect on her.

I agree there is an insurance element, particularly in the broader sense of the word - ie insuring against it happening to those one knows. One of the main reasons my brother is doing Movember is probably because it's what our father died of, and he recognises that addressing that cause is a good thing, even though for us that particular horse has bolted.

So I don't disagree with you, I was simply trying to undo the opt-repeated fallacy that it is mainly insurance.

As far as donations to charities go I prefer those which help children and I do a lot of charity work myself with children, I guess its all about making the future generations nice people for me.

Sounds like a pretty good reason to me.:beer: I guess some might think you're insuring against being mistreated in the future - but I'd rather consider that working together for the betterment of the human race is part of what makes us human, with the added bonus of making us feel good about doing it. As much as anything, it feels good to give - that's the exchange of value.

drc

Incredibly sad story. I feel that they would possibly have benefited more from actual physical/psychological help/support rather than just giving them more money.

gailey_2

Just felt they should have been under someone radar?

did they go social to claim limited benefits they had?

social services who took their child away?

the people in the soup kitchen they visited weekly

neighbours/freinds/family?

Theres so much talk of big soceity.

I feel these 2would have benefited from supported/sheltered housing.

even just someone to pop in weekly help them fill out forms, sort their post ,ensure they had food in the house and that they were well.

Cameron talks a lot about big soceity but its so hard.

I do know of a few people who help and look out for elderly where they live.

But these 2 were not quite pensioners.

My freinds aunt has learning difficulties and lived with her mother and was her mothers carere until she died.

Luckily she had 4siblings who helped her get a flat, she has a part time voluntry job at charity shop, her sister takes her on holidays and shopping ect.But if she dident have siblings she would have struggled.

Must be such a worry for parents with children with learning difficulties as you wonder when you not around who will look out for them.

Only on newsnight last night they said mental health issues are on the rise.
depression combined with stress makes them do unfortunate things like in this case.

Kind of shocked donkeys get more than mencap.

Never thourght about how donating to health charities ie cancer is form of insurance.
Think a lot of charities people donate due to personal experience or interest and childrens charity/cancer be huge contribution.

Does feel like we live in no frills britain at times as we getting less and what we do get not good enough.
Dont blame all politicians its breakdown in soceity as hate reading paper about all the awful things people do and how the riches can be so selfish..

The_White_Horse

nickmason wrote: »

the Donkey Sanctuary charity alone annually receives more in donations than the top three UK domestic violence charities combined.

but remember, the donkeys can't leave.