The Great Big Homelessness/Capitalism/Socialism Thread

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

But no actual housing.

Does it claim to provide housing?

It just shows people, disgracefully, how to blag as much as possible, at other people's expense

You mean it helps people understand and utilize their rights?

Do you think it's fair that the councils have something called a "nil income form", which allows their housing benefits to be reinstated when their benefits are cut/sanctioned unfairly, but the only way to get this form is to ask for it by name, and the council will only acknowledge it exists if explicitly asked?

I understand you're coming from a landlords perspective, so you may have a different view.

economic

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.

I never said 100% of donations have to go directly to the cause/help.

economic

Moby wrote: »

Totally predictable response.:rotfl:

Yes predicable because i knew it would be near impossible to find ads that advertised the % clearly.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

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.

When did i ever paint my life "as a bed of roses"?

I chose to participate in these forums as i find economics interesting (hence my name). The problem with these boards is the caliber of the people i am discussing with.

economic

westernpromise wrote: »

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.

In an earlier post i showed that proportionately more money goes to the poor via our income taxes (welfare spending) then some of these charities.

So if people want to help the poor, they should become more productive, demand higher wages and the money will flow to the poor.

westernpromise

Herzlos wrote: »

Does it claim to provide housing?

I think you'd find a lot of people imagine it does. You certainly thought so at the start of the thread. You were outraged at my suggestion that it houses nobody, and when I posted an accurate list of who it has ever housed, you demanded angrily to know why it would publish their names. You still thought it houses people. Then you went and had a look at its website, and you found out I was right: it doesn't do a bean. Go to Shelter saying you need shelter and a nice man in a Jeremy Corbyn T shirt will tell you how to ponce it off somebody else, but he'll actually do nothing.

The name itself is a lovely bit of Orwellian lies. It's called "Shelter" and it doesn't. Fabulous left-wing fakery. What would be wrong with making its ads, notepaper and publications state, at the foot of every page, "Shelter distributes none of its income and provides no housing to the homeless"? At the end of every radio ad for almost anything there is a machine-gun-speed recitation of all the exclusions. Charities should be held to the same standard of honesty. Oriel College Oxford would have no problem showing that, as an educational charity, it educates people. Why shouldn't a so-called housing "charity"?

You mean it helps people understand and utilize their rights?

Does it also help them understand their responsibilities? Does it ever say, to someone who's being evicted for wrecking a property, defaulting on the rent or assaulting the neighbours, "You deserve this, it's your own fault"? To ask the question is to know the answer.

I understand you're coming from a landlords perspective, so you may have a different view.

Well, let's not forget that landlords are often castigated for not adding to the supply of homes. It's untrue, because they buy new builds and let them out, but let's ignore that for the moment and wonder why Shelter gets exaggerated respect, even though it definitely doesn't add to the supply of homes? The housing already exists, and nothing Shelter does adds to the supply - but what Shelter does do is leech up charitable donations that, if made elsewhere, might produce some actual housing. You'd never know this from listening to its pious wittering.

Arklight

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The Brexit thread got hijacked with page after page of irrelevant and off topic posts. This is their thread to discuss that stuff.

This makes me want to discuss Brexit on here now.

Arklight

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.

Another thing that Shelter does is provide legal representation to victims of predatory landlords who have even fewer scruples than they do kind thoughts. Which I suspect is from where the bulk of your anger towards them stems.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

I think you'd find a lot of people imagine it does.

That isn't the problem of Shelter.

You certainly thought so at the start of the thread. You were outraged at my suggestion that it houses nobody

No I didn't, and I'm still baffled you claim it hasn't housed anyone, but this could be an interpretation thing. You presumably (after a few posts providing more detail) mean that it's given no-one a Shelter provided accommodation, which is true. It has, however, helped thousands to arrange or keep accommodation after having hardship or issues with landlords.

Go to Shelter saying you need shelter and a nice man in a Jeremy Corbyn T shirt will tell you how to ponce it off somebody else, but he'll actually do nothing.

Apart from pointing you to the people who can help, tell you what to say and provide you support throughout the whole process. He doesn't take money to just tell people to sod off to the job centre.

What would be wrong with making its ads, notepaper and publications state, at the foot of every page, "Shelter distributes none of its income and provides no housing to the homeless"?

The fact it never claimed to do so? That it's completely irrelevant to it's aims?

Does it also help them understand their responsibilities? Does it ever say, to someone who's being evicted for wrecking a property, defaulting on the rent or assaulting the neighbours, "You deserve this, it's your own fault"? To ask the question is to know the answer.

I'm pretty sure it does. I doubt it goes so far as to blame them, but I'd bet it helps people understand the issues they cause and help them avoid them in future.

Well, let's not forget that landlords are often castigated for not adding to the supply of homes. It's untrue, because they buy new builds and let them out, but let's ignore that for the moment and wonder why Shelter gets exaggerated respect, even though it definitely doesn't add to the supply of homes? The housing already exists, and nothing Shelter does adds to the supply - but what Shelter does do is leech up charitable donations that, if made elsewhere, might produce some actual housing. You'd never know this from listening to its pious wittering.

No-one is castigating landlords for adding to the supply - it's what they do. They do get castigated for predatory practices which is exactly what Shelter exists to deal with.

Arklight

Next up on Westernpromise's list of underappreciated entrepreneurs, seal clubbers.


These unsung heroes of self starting capitalism brave inclement weather to march out onto the polar regions where, like the true strivers they are, they take the opportunity to ruthlessly bash the brains in of thousands of seal pups to sell their pelts on the free market.


And those putrid lefties like Greenpeace and the Labour Party and Diane Abbott too probably, want to stop them because lefties and charities hate striving and want to steal everyone's money.


So much to be angry about...