The Great Big Homelessness/Capitalism/Socialism Thread

Windofchange

Cakeguts wrote: »

We wouldn't need to if the NHS did what it is supposed to do.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

Is that the best you can come up with?

Why would shelter list those that it helps or their addresses?

It houses nobody. It's not a housing charity. It's a left-wing political lobby. Like I said. You don't seem to have absorbed this; evidently you imagine that as it's a housing charity it must do something for the homeless. If so you've fallen for the spiel. Anything it puts out in the way of survey results, so-called research or anything else is highly likely to be a pack of lies, either outright lies or lies of omission. I wouldn't believe anything Shelter said on any subject, any more than I'd believe the BNP or the Labour Party. They exist to demand free money from other people and to be generous with other people's money while making a nice little living themselves. if that's their level of moral incompetence why would they not lie all over the place? They are Mr. Bumble the Beadle, basically.

I have plenty of time for charities that actually do something: educational charities that provide education, for example. On that basis, I donate to my old college, and my employer doubles what I give them. My old college educates people, hence it does something. Shelter just whines and spews propaganda, yet enjoys the same treatment as a charity that actually does something - and of course diverts, misuses and squanders charitable donations that could have gone to someone worthwhile.

westernpromise

Windofchange wrote: »

Or from an internet advertisement:



Compass Advocacy Network

Looks like this charity has no overheads - 100% of the money raised goes to help people directly. I'd still like your donation to go to McMillan please. The forum will wait for you to post a screenshot.

Call me suspicious, but what does "100% of the proceeds" mean? What are the proceeds of a donation and how do they differ from a donation?

economic

Since no one has come up with a charity that advertises clearly what percentage of donations goes directly to the people/animals that need help, I will have to stay up all night to think of ways to spend the £1,000. Or better still I might invest it in a tech stock - that actually will do some good to mankind.

It’s a shame really. I was honestly going to donate. Pity all this cash lying around doing nothing

kinger101

Windofchange wrote: »

Are any of you simpletons able to keep any thread on topic for more than a couple of pages!? Awesome, let's discuss your mental health problems and disseminate the NHS again for the 20000000th time in the last month.

While I agree with much of what you've posted, the NHS does have many failings. Dentistry is one. Mental health care another. Palliative care. And some of the food given to patients would cause a riot if given to prisoners.

I know much of it is a funding problem, but the dentistry is just !!!!-poor management. Anyone paying for NHS dental care is being ripped-off. Private is vastly cheaper as they actually do something other than post-mortems and insults.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

It houses nobody. It's not a housing charity. It's a left-wing political lobby. Like I said. You don't seem to have absorbed this; evidently you imagine that as it's a housing charity it must do something for the homeless. If so you've fallen for the spiel. Anything it puts out in the way of survey results, so-called research or anything else is highly likely to be a pack of lies, either outright lies or lies of omission. I wouldn't believe anything Shelter said on any subject, any more than I'd believe the BNP or the Labour Party. They exist to demand free money from other people and to be generous with other people's money while making a nice little living themselves. if that's their level of moral incompetence why would they not lie all over the place? They are Mr. Bumble the Beadle, basically.

I have plenty of time for charities that actually do something: educational charities that provide education, for example. On that basis, I donate to my old college, and my employer doubles what I give them. My old college educates people, hence it does something. Shelter just whines and spews propaganda, yet enjoys the same treatment as a charity that actually does something - and of course diverts, misuses and squanders charitable donations that could have gone to someone worthwhile.

Shelter provides advice and support to the homeless and those struggling with accommodation issues. It's a shame you don't regard that as help.
Given that they don't claim to house them directly, I'm not sure I understand your complaint. It sounds like you're doing the equivalent of complaining that cancer research isn't trying to solve the malaria crisis.

Unless that was your point, but I still don't agree. Helping someone through the labyrinth of council housing, especially when there are some things the council won't disclose until you ask them directly, seems like a worthwhile thing to do to help the actual or potential homeless. It'd be greally if they provided accommodation themselves but it's not in their remit. I just don't see this fraud.

Herzlos

economic wrote: »

It’s a shame really. I was honestly going to donate. Pity all this cash lying around doing nothing

Of course you were. Noone believes you. You asked for an impossible condition that doesn't prove any actual point; it's obvious that 100% of donations can't go to the cause.

If you're so keen to donate instead of showing off to strangers on the Internet, then find your own charity to donate to.

Moby

economic wrote: »

I am still waiting for suitable ads. All ads posted so far are not suitable as evidenced by GreatApe.

Totally predictable response.:rotfl:

Windofchange

Herzlos wrote: »

Of course you were. Noone believes you. You asked for an impossible condition that doesn't prove any actual point; it's obvious that 100% of donations can't go to the cause.

If you're so keen to donate instead of showing off to strangers on the Internet, then find your own charity to donate to.

It's just tedious isn't it? I'm not surprised large numbers of people just don't bother with this section anymore. It pretty much goes along the lines of thread started, enter Economic and Great Ape, thread trashed, everyone move along. I guess when you're unemployed and sitting around in your bedroom all day, you need someone to show off to. It's why I say with quite some confidence that this guy's life is far from the bed of roses he paints on here.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

Shelter provides advice and support to the homeless and those struggling with accommodation issues.

But no actual housing. It just shows people, disgracefully, how to blag as much as possible, at other people's expense: off taxpayers, off council taxpayers, off landlords, etc. The actual "accommodation issues" are solved entirely by other people, with nil help from the likes of Shelter.

That's not a charitable activity.

What is needed is perhaps some sort of kitemark scheme for charities. Where a charity actually provides something - in the sense that Macmillan actually provides sick people with nurses - they would be entitled to sport a suitable logo. Where they are just political advocates for other people to do more or they'll thcweam and thcweam and thcweam until they're thick, like Shelter, they should have to display a different logo. Perhaps a symbolic leech inside a zero, for instance, as this would sum up Shelter perfectly.

We would all then know to treat such charidees' pronouncements and so-called research as the parti pris fake news political propaganda that it actually is.