Muslims, racists, individuals and attitudes.

[thebish]

how much experience have you had giving soup or other foodstuffs to the homeless dave's of this world? (just my unsatisfied curiosity)

You spoiled a sensible argument by being unnecessarily smug there.

if you say so.. I am still interested to know, given that Pru so easily dismisses the view of a person who has known homelessness inside out (Ralph) as "crass" - where he gets the solid foundation of knowledge from which to make such a judgement.. Also I think it is fair enough when someone attacks other people for not doing enough to ask him how much he does...

[Prufrock]

I did not claim that anecdote was good evidence - merely better than the evidence of a made up person in a made up scenario!

and - not really the same kind of statement as your prisoner analogy... in this case - a person who knows what it is to be homeless says that a piece of sculture can be uplifting for homeless people... he is describing feelings and his direct personal experience not advocating government policy...

you too have cash that could have been used to help homeless people and yet you choose to use it for something else - that is not an argument for saying that ALL of your cash should be used to help homeless people - you choose to do other stuff with your cash too... I don't berate you for that or suggest you should use the money differently...

Tim has chosen to spend some of his cash on making this sculpture - I'm guessing it is not ALL of his money - and he may very well take soup to the homeless and have a DD to shelter for all you or I know...

you make the same kind of choice as he does - you give some of your cash to shelter - but not all of it. I am sure shelter magazine has never run an article saying that it's nice that Pru gives his £3 a month to shelter - and that's plenty - no, really - absolutely enough - what they are really grateful for is the £4769 per month that he spends on chocolate and Doritos - that's what they really need, more chocolate and doritos in Pru's trolley.

going back to homeless dave and your imagined scenario...

"Any soup, lads?"
"No Dave, sorry, Pru did set aside a tiny bit of cash for soup but he spent most of it on other stuff that he does in his life. But don't worry, it's our long term economic plan. For every £50 Pru spends on digital media we get back £8 to spend on soup. Probably. I mean we haven't done the maths, but...It's a reckon."


how much experience have you had giving soup or other foodstuffs to the homeless dave's of this world? (just my unsatisfied curiosity)

1) it *is* the same kind of statement as my prisoner analogy (which for the sake of clarity btw is a true story, I have meet prisoners who made this argument ). This was someone who knows what it is like to be a prisoner saying how harsher prison conditions and the death penalty would act as a deterrent to her and other criminals. It's the personal is political cheap card.

2) the difference, the key difference, is I don't pretend the rest of the money that I spend otherwise it's spent to help homeless people. If this bloke had said "I'm spending this money because I think the church is ace and everyone should know how good we are", then fine, but don't pretend that sending this cash it's about helping homeless people. It's not. It's self-aggrandizing. If I tried to argue that I spent money on my Netflix subscription because sitting at home with my massive telly watching tv made me appreciate what I have and so more likely to help homeless people, I'd be an arsehole. That doesn't in itself man I shouldn't have Netflix. (Also, I bloody wish I had £4769 a month to spend I anything, never mind chocolate and Doritos )

3) I'm not sure how instructive it is to the debate (I'd be no more or less right whether I gave £1 or £1k, or volunteered 1 hour or full time) but to satisfy your curiosity... I've never done any work in a soup kitchen; however my day job involves working with vulnerable people, many of whom are or have been homeless. I also volunteered in prisons and meet prisoners many of whom were homeless. So I'm not just academically imagining what I think my abstract notion of homelessness might be like.

[Prufrock]

how much experience have you had giving soup or other foodstuffs to the homeless dave's of this world? (just my unsatisfied curiosity)

You spoiled a sensible argument by being unnecessarily smug there.

if you say so.. I am still interested to know, given that Pru so easily dismisses the view of a person who has known homelessness inside out (Ralph) as "crass" - where he gets the solid foundation of knowledge from which to make such a judgement.. Also I think it is fair enough when someone attacks other people for not doing enough to ask him how much he does...

Much worse, by your own standards, is that apostrophe .

Tbf I think they were fair arguments against what you thought I meant, though not against what I actually mean.

I didn't call Ralph crass. He's (wrongly IMO) taken them at face value. What is crass is the claim that these sculptures will "help" homeless people.

And to be accurate, although this is not a distinction without difference, I'm not criticising this guy for not doing enough. I'm criticising him fire claiming something which is aggrandizing and proselytizing as in fact being charity. It's independent of any charity he does our or doesn't do.

[Prufrock]

At the risk of being excommunicated from the site, a consideration that thought, word and deed, might well count beyond our earthly actions someday....

"Mr Prufrock, I'm St Peter and I've waited a long time to meet you. Step this way sir, we need to talk.."

I'm certainly no saint but I try to live my life morally and to look after others. The only thing on my charge sheet that wouldn't be on most religious people's is not believing in God. Not that I want any part in the totalitarian nightmare of heaven, but a lack of beliefis a pretty shitty reason to send me to hell, isn't it

aye - agree 100% - one of the reasons i don't believe there is such a place...

To try to have two discussions at once: what would your argument to the children with AIDS charge be?

(I'm not trying to be cheap, I'm sure that if I happened to believe in God Unitarian would be the sect for me, I like that the ones I've met seen happy to not know stuff and struggle with lots of stuff they believe god has done. I don't think I could ever get past the suffering question though. It's almost enough in itself to disprove a benevolent god for me).

[Bruce Rioja]

however, Shelter, like all the other charities I give to, spend at least 70% of the money donated directly on charitable activities.

Do we know - is there actually some list available as to the percentage of donations, by charity, that actually reach the intended cause?

[Prufrock]

Yeah, they have to publish accounts, including what they spend all their money on. Think they're accessible (they used to be) through the charities commission website.

Edit: the website is here:(http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/sh ... ePage.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). They've updated it so you can search (by number is easiest)and it gives a summary of the latest accounts. The% they use is of income spent on charitable activities which I don't prefer. Many big charities carry money over to the next year/ make investments which skews the figure.

Shelter's last 3 years % of expenditure spent in charitable activities are 65, 68 and 69%. They invest most of the rest. It was in the low 70s when using staying giving to them, so is getting worse. Will have to keep an eye on that. The NSPCC, the other charity I give to last year spent 76% on charitable activities.

[Bruce Rioja]

Yeah, they have to publish accounts, including what they spend all their money on. Think they're accessible (they used to be) through the charities commission website.

Ta mate, I'll have a look. A mate of mine is a minor celebrity (you won't know him) who's constantly asked to be the face of some or other charitable organisation's campaign. He did some digging and is now convinced that if you do set up a DD with a charity it'll be around 20 months worth of payments before the first of your money gets to the intended cause.

[Prufrock]

I've stuck the link above. They've made it a lot easier to find. You used to have to go through the accounts! Some have woeful figures. IIRC that charity the fella used to try to flog swimming with sharks for on here spent about 25% on charitable activities vs about 50% on "generating charitable income". In other words, "subsidising wankers swimming with sharks".

[Lord Kangana]

The only Issue I'd take with Shelter is that they upped the Chief Exec's (or whatever the top guy is referred to) whilst simultaneously restricting the pay of the proles who actually work in the field.

Now, I can't remember the chaps name , but I'm sceptical as to what a 6-figure salary CEO (or whatever) is bringing to a charity...
1)I'd heard of it before he arrived.
2) I've not noticed its profile any higher since he arrived.
3)Has he directed more money to actually dealing with homelessness? It seems to be on the (inexorable) rise since the turn of the century.

What is a £100,000+ payment to one individual achieving that just giving it physically to homeless people (or even paying their rent if we aren't trusting them with money) wouldn't?

I remain a huge sceptic of charities - now more than ever - as they appear to want to run themselves like a business. They are self-evidently not. Because if they want to run like a business, they have to apply rules that don't apply to them as charities.

[TANGODANCER]

So, in a nutshell, what is the real concensus? Me, I think the sculpture aspect is fine as an inspirational gesture, a homeless Jesus as a supporter of the poor is no new idea, not is charity as Christianity is run on it along with Faith and Hope, and there are statues of just about everybody that in churches, cathedrals and museums all over the world. ( The Bible states no graven images, but that idea seems to be ignored by most) I'll stick with the museum idea rather than town councils though, because the rest will never happen there. It will die the death somewhere along the line. Jesus and heaven have been used as an inspiration for two thousand years (almost) and yes, I believe in both, but I hope if/when I ever get up there there is a St Alfred available....

[Harry Genshaw]

I've stuck the link above. They've made it a lot easier to find. You used to have to go through the accounts! Some have woeful figures. IIRC that charity the fella used to try to flog swimming with sharks for on here spent about 25% on charitable activities vs about 50% on "generating charitable income". In other words, "subsidising wankers swimming with sharks".

Cheers for that link Pru, it made for interesting reading for the 3 charities I regularly donate to. The variations on charitable spending was a mere 50% to 86%. The amount of millions my preferred animal charity take in too

[Prufrock]

The only Issue I'd take with Shelter is that they upped the Chief Exec's (or whatever the top guy is referred to) whilst simultaneously restricting the pay of the proles who actually work in the field.

Now, I can't remember the chaps name , but I'm sceptical as to what a 6-figure salary CEO (or whatever) is bringing to a charity...
1)I'd heard of it before he arrived.
2) I've not noticed its profile any higher since he arrived.
3)Has he directed more money to actually dealing with homelessness? It seems to be on the (inexorable) rise since the turn of the century.

What is a £100,000+ payment to one individual achieving that just giving it physically to homeless people (or even paying their rent if we aren't trusting them with money) wouldn't?

I remain a huge sceptic of charities - now more than ever - as they appear to want to run themselves like a business. They are self-evidently not. Because if they want to run like a business, they have to apply rules that don't apply to them as charities.

Preaching to the choir there, fella. One of their more pernicious arguments IMO is that both the high salaried chiefs, and the paid chuggers lead to a net increase in the amount donated. They claim to have lots of research to support this, and I don't doubt it exists, but what it shows is that *that charity* makes a net profit. I'm fairly certain that this is because these charities hoover up money that would likely have gone to other charities anyway. So they're getting paid £8ph to take £9ph from other charities rather than generating fresh money. To be justified, imo they have to be bringing in a net increase in money donated to charity full stop. Totally agree that competition shouldn't play a part in the sector.

Some are much better than others though. And I think we're better off with Shelter and the NSPCC than without. (And I'm sure there are religious charities that fall into that bracket too. Christian Aid seems the obvious one though I (probably wrongly!) recall reading something about along the lines that they were requiring Africans to convert before they'd help them.)

[thebish]

And to be accurate, although this is not a distinction without difference, I'm not criticising this guy for not doing enough. I'm criticising him fire claiming something which is aggrandizing and proselytizing as in fact being charity. It's independent of any charity he does our or doesn't do.

can you point me to the place where the sculptor is claiming his sculpture is charity? I haven't seen that...

[TANGODANCER]

Christian Aid seems the obvious one though I (probably wrongly!) recall reading something about along the lines that they were requiring Africans to convert before they'd help them.)

See there goes that old, " God says, man says" , thing again. I really doubt that God would ever support a conversion by force ruling. That would be as useful and genuine as offering me a season ticket for Old Trafford as long as I signed a loyalty pledge.

[thebish]

3) I'm not sure how instructive it is to the debate (I'd be no more or less right whether I gave £1 or £1k, or volunteered 1 hour or full time) but to satisfy your curiosity... I've never done any work in a soup kitchen; however my day job involves working with vulnerable people, many of whom are or have been homeless. I also volunteered in prisons and meet prisoners many of whom were homeless. So I'm not just academically imagining what I think my abstract notion of homelessness might be like.

I know you have - when you talk about domestic violence or refuges and their work I am more likely to listen because I know you have volunteered there - you told us - which is why I asked about homelessness - since you did dismiss very easily and perfunctorarily as "crass" Ralph's direct experience and knowledge of how homeless people ARE comforted by the idea that God is with them... (I know this independantly of Ralph too - not least from the Leonard Stocks Centre... the sentiment that "God cares" most often comes from a direct experience of christians caring - they collate the two...) I was genuinely surprised that Ralph used this phrase "God cares" of the idea of the sculpture... it was entirely unprompted as it hadn't even occurred to me that this might be a benefit of such a sculpture. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised as this is what I presume is part of the intention of the sculptor - to express the idea that Jesus identified with the poorest of the poor - and that this says something about who God is...

[Prufrock]

Christian Aid seems the obvious one though I (probably wrongly!) recall reading something about along the lines that they were requiring Africans to convert before they'd help them.)

See there goes that old, " God says, man says" , thing again. I really doubt that God would ever support a conversion by force ruling. That would be as useful and genuine as offering me a season ticket for Old Trafford as long as I signed a loyalty pledge.

Aye, though tbf you'd do it if your kids feeding depended on it. To be clear I have only a vague recollection of reading something about it a while back, it might not be true and it might not have been Christian Aid.

[thebish]

At the risk of being excommunicated from the site, a consideration that thought, word and deed, might well count beyond our earthly actions someday....

"Mr Prufrock, I'm St Peter and I've waited a long time to meet you. Step this way sir, we need to talk.."

I'm certainly no saint but I try to live my life morally and to look after others. The only thing on my charge sheet that wouldn't be on most religious people's is not believing in God. Not that I want any part in the totalitarian nightmare of heaven, but a lack of beliefis a pretty shitty reason to send me to hell, isn't it

aye - agree 100% - one of the reasons i don't believe there is such a place...

To try to have two discussions at once: what would your argument to the children with AIDS charge be?

(I'm not trying to be cheap, I'm sure that if I happened to believe in God Unitarian would be the sect for me, I like that the ones I've met seen happy to not know stuff and struggle with lots of stuff they believe god has done. I don't think I could ever get past the suffering question though. It's almost enough in itself to disprove a benevolent god for me).

I don't really believe in an interventionist God who has made a world and then tampers with it - sometimes averting disaster, sometimes not, on a whim... not sure why you'd pick out children with AIDS - there are millions of injustices in the world - shit happens - it isn't cos people are bad or faithless - it isn't karma - it's, quite frankly, simply the world as it it is in all it's glorious and brutal randomness...

I have tried to imagine what kind of world would "prove" a benevolent God - in the sense that i think people mean that - where nothing goes wrong... it always ends up feeling like quite a bleak place to me... I can't quite grasp how such a world might look or feel.. i don't know how you could have beauty without ugliness or joy without despair or peace without division... it's kinda also why I am pretty turned off by the conventional idea of heaven - and not really that fussed if there is such a place.

[thebish]

Christian Aid seems the obvious one though I (probably wrongly!) recall reading something about along the lines that they were requiring Africans to convert before they'd help them.)

See there goes that old, " God says, man says" , thing again. I really doubt that God would ever support a conversion by force ruling. That would be as useful and genuine as offering me a season ticket for Old Trafford as long as I signed a loyalty pledge.

Aye, though tbf you'd do it if your kids feeding depended on it. To be clear I have only a vague recollection of reading something about it a while back, it might not be true and it might not have been Christian Aid.

I'll wager your recollection is utter and complete bollox. I have quite a lot to do with christian aid and you are a long way wide of the mark in making that allegation (even if hedged.)

[Prufrock]

And to be accurate, although this is not a distinction without difference, I'm not criticising this guy for not doing enough. I'm criticising him fire claiming something which is aggrandizing and proselytizing as in fact being charity. It's independent of any charity he does our or doesn't do.

can you point me to the place where the sculptor is claiming his sculpture is charity? I haven't seen that...

Nope, my mistake: I thought he was the one saying there should be one in every park. That's the idea that I think is crass when argued to be anything other than proselytizing.

[thebish]

And to be accurate, although this is not a distinction without difference, I'm not criticising this guy for not doing enough. I'm criticising him fire claiming something which is aggrandizing and proselytizing as in fact being charity. It's independent of any charity he does our or doesn't do.

can you point me to the place where the sculptor is claiming his sculpture is charity? I haven't seen that...

Nope, my mistake: I thought he was the one saying there should be one in every park. That's the idea that I think is crass when argued to be anything other than proselytizing.

so - in effect - what ARE you actually talking about??

and - IIRC - you WERE criticising him for not doing enough - you said he should not make the sculpture and give the equivalent cash to the homeless on top of whatever else he might be doing that you and I know nothing about...