The Great Big Homelessness/Capitalism/Socialism Thread

michaels

OP seems to have posted a divisive title and run.

My two pennies worth, there are many times more homeless than rough sleepers so discussing only the rough sleepers is very narrow.

Windofchange

Moby wrote: »

It's good to read a post from someone who is a fellow front line public sector worker. Like me you actually work with the vulnerable groups being discussed. Instead of being listened too and given credit for the work you do......you are villified and asked if you do this role because you coudn't find work in the private sector. Anyone with an ounce of sense would understand that working in the protection of children or vulnerable adults field is one of the most important jobs someone could do. The impact you have on the future lives of people is massive. The responsibility to get it right is huge and when things go wrong the consequences can be very serious. This is why there are so many unfilled posts in the field. It takes a certain type of person to do this work and credit to you......and me;) and Tromking etc. Some of us choose to do things because we know that quality is not just defined by somethings financial worth. Nothing wrong with being MSE minded but some on here, (judging by their posts) have personal values that would make scrooge seem angelic.:eek:

It's the problem with some of our resident internet experts - no actual experience in what they are discussing, but blah blah blah...

Great Ape I don't think anyone here is suggesting that capitalism has caused all the problems in the UK. I don't think other systems around the world have been proven to be any better - poverty exists anywhere there is man. I think what most on here take exception with is yours and a few others very simplistic views of the homeless and less fortunate. Why not just say, ok here is my view but I accept I don't work closely with these people, therefore maybe I'll take into account the experiences of those who do?

I could give you hundreds of examples of people I have met who have fallen on hard times. As per the above, plenty of ex squaddies who haven't integrated back into civvy street, a guy I met just before xmas who came in with a mixed booze and drug overdose secondary to his wife divorcing him, getting custody of the children and the house, and him now having no fixed address - had been living in his car for the preceding couple of weeks. So many different stories and reasons for being an addict or homeless etc etc. Nobody has yet come to me and said, well, when I was 16 I went to the school careers advice service and they suggested I become a tramp.

Windofchange

michaels wrote: »

OP seems to have posted a divisive title and run.

My two pennies worth, there are many times more homeless than rough sleepers so discussing only the rough sleepers is very narrow.

Yeah sorry for being off the internet for 24 hours - kind of had the real world to tend to, and a new years eve party etc etc. Apologies for the inconvenience caused...

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

Do you have any evidence of those outlandish claims?

Sure. Here is a complete list, taken from Shelter's website, of everyone Shelter has ever housed:



And here are their addresses:


Don't mention it.

westernpromise

economic wrote: »

Not necessarily. How do you know the CEOs are not using the whole charity name as a pretense to gain a lot of money personally?

Its important for people to realize, before giving a single penny to charity, where the money actually goes.

If we stop giving money to those who are run inefficiently, then we force more efficient ones to open up and hopefully people will give money to these charities, where a lot more pennies to the pound actually go to the help that is needed.

And not a single penny Shelter spends goes on housing anyone. They are a political lobby. They should be closed and their funds distributed to charities that actually do house people.

westernpromise

The percentage of its revenues that a charity spends on its ostensible purpose is neither here nor there. The point is that the charitable purpose is frequently non-existent. If you ask people what Shelter does, a lot of mugs would imagine it houses people. It does not. It contributes nothing. It's just a political front lobbying for more tax on other people, its salary bill funded by donors who by and large do not realise this.

This is broadly true of all grievance charidees - Rowntree etc. Very few people would recognise that as a legitimate charitable purpose of public benefit.

Such frauds are a disgrace and an affront.

Private_Church

Windofchange wrote: »

61% of something is better than 100% of nothing I would say. If you have an organisation to run, there are bound to be organisational costs. Anyway, still waiting on the Ape to come along and substantiate his claim that 96% of the homeless are substance abusers.

Whilst I agree, its not value for money. When I looked into The Dogs Trust a few years ago their accounts showed they paid a number of staff £130+k pa and numerous employees were on £86+k a year.They also paid professional fundraisers £millions a year to fundraise for them. When a member of the public signs up to donate £10 a month they are never told the act that TDT pay the fundraising companies up to £180 per person they sign up so the reality was for the first 18 months of donating the Dogs Trust didn't actually make any money.

I now only donate each month via direct Debit to small local charities which I know do not pay high wages but do make a difference in the community.

I would also point out the fact that many high street Charity shops sell brand new products ,directly competing with other local shops who do not receive cahrity status tax/business rates perks. If they wish to sell new products then they need to pay their way like other real businesses do.

I respect people who genuinely want and do make a difference but the Charity "industry" has been infiltrated by uber Capitalists who's main goal is making money and making a difference comes second.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

westernpromise wrote: »

The percentage of its revenues that a charity spends on its ostensible purpose is neither here nor there. The point is that the charitable purpose is frequently non-existent. If you ask people what Shelter does, a lot of mugs would imagine it houses people. It does not. It contributes nothing. It's just a political front lobbying for more tax on other people, its salary bill funded by donors who by and large do not realise this.

This is broadly true of all grievance charidees - Rowntree etc. Very few people would recognise that as a legitimate charitable purpose of public benefit.

Such frauds are a disgrace and an affront.

From the website....

Our vision
We strive every day to give people the help they need, and we campaign relentlessly to achieve our vision of a safe, secure, affordable home for everyone.

Last year, we gave information, support and advice to millions of people facing homelessness or experiencing housing issues. And we won’t stop until there’s a safe, secure and affordable home for everyone.

We helped millions of people in 2016/17, facing the following issues:

24% of people had issues with their tenancy or landlord


20% of people needed to find somewhere to live


19% of people needed assistance with homelessness


18% of people were facing eviction


12% of people had financial issues



They aren't a charity specifically targeting the homeless so why would they house the homeless?? This is a bit of a red herring.

They give free legal advice and they lobby the government in an attempt to improve peoples lives. They're trying to stop vulnerable people being taken advantage of by people who care only about profit.

I don't see a problem with any of that. In fact I might start donating.

Windofchange

Private_Church wrote: »

Whilst I agree, its not value for money. When I looked into The Dogs Trust a few years ago their accounts showed they paid a number of staff £130+k pa and numerous employees were on £86+k a year.They also paid professional fundraisers £millions a year to fundraise for them. When a member of the public signs up to donate £10 a month they are never told the act that TDT pay the fundraising companies up to £180 per person they sign up so the reality was for the first 18 months of donating the Dogs Trust didn't actually make any money.

I now only donate each month via direct Debit to small local charities which I know do not pay high wages but do make a difference in the community.

I would also point out the fact that many high street Charity shops sell brand new products ,directly competing with other local shops who do not receive cahrity status tax/business rates perks. If they wish to sell new products then they need to pay their way like other real businesses do.

I respect people who genuinely want and do make a difference but the Charity "industry" has been infiltrated by uber Capitalists who's main goal is making money and making a difference comes second.

I can agree with that to an extent. Having run the London marathon a few times, I became aware a while back of how not all is at it seems:

https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2014/apr/11/how-small-charities-miss-out-on-marathon-fundraising

Charities that want to buy places have a different entry point. World Child Cancer has a Silver Bond place, which means we get one spot every five years at a cost of £300. The only way to improve on this is to purchase an advertising package with one of the companies that own the remaining available places; these retail at about £2,500 in exchange for each runner. Small charities like us, with no advertising budget, simply don't get off the starting block.

I think the question is what needs to be done to address this? Does a highly paid executive who costs £500k a year to employ make say £1 million a years difference to the bottom line? Is there a way of ever quantifying this? How do you distribute money and resources if there isn't a paid organisation behind it all?

Private_Church

Windofchange wrote: »

I think the question is what needs to be done to address this? Does a highly paid executive who costs £500k a year to employ make say £1 million a years difference to the bottom line? Is there a way of ever quantifying this? How do you distribute money and resources if there isn't a paid organisation behind it all?

There are thousands of highly educated,intelligent retired or semi retired people in the UK with decades of experience in the workplace who would step up and help out on a voluntary basis.

The problem is we are in a race to the bottom with the charity industry because theres a finite amount of money that the public can be squeezed for but the associated costs of actually getting that money out of people will continue to rise.

Charities such as the one I mentioned should be forced to be honest with the public and say "For each one of you we sign up to direct debit donations ,we will pay the fundraising company up to £180-00" and that way the public get to decide whether or not to donate.Its certainly not value for money unless people donate for 5+yrs ....... That would be honest but they don't do honesty.