One of the most gut wrenching things I've ever heard.
Comments
-
This may be controversial and I don't mean it to be and I am not digging the fella out
I know that there are jobs in new cross that are covered by an agency, they pay 65- 80 quid a day
To be registered you need to be either a UK national or have the paperwork to work here
You need a UK resident address and be able to get to the place of work
I believe there's more to his story and plight and no matter how harrowing and gut wrenching it sounds not all of it adds up1 -
I reckon you'd have to pretty near rock bottom to have called a radio phone in and had such an impassioned plea about how hard it is. Perhaps he wasn't aware of what help is available to him. Because I am lucky enough to have never experienced such poverty, I'm pretty sure if it happened to me I might not know where to turn. He doesn't sound like the sort of chap that would want to admit defeat and ask for help, people have pride. He wanted to believe in the system and his own abilities and get a job.nth london addick said:This may be controversial and I don't mean it to be and I am not digging the fella out
I know that there are jobs in new cross that are covered by an agency, they pay 65- 80 quid a day
To be registered you need to be either a UK national or have the paperwork to work here
You need a UK resident address and be able to get to the place of work
I believe there's more to his story wkd plight and ko matter how harrowing and gut wrenching it sounds not all of it adds up
0 -
It sounds horrible I can imagine how he felt but I can't emphasize with it as I haven't been there to that point
But he didn't sound stupid or incapable of making decisions
There are jobs out there in that area, the issue to me is more likely that poor sod couldn't take the work as by the time he paid his rent as it would stop being covered by the social
He would be worse off
The whole thing raises awareness of a huge problem and my heart went out to the bloke you'd have to be heartless for it not, but it also didn't ring fully true as to there being no option left too him0 -
So over 20% of the population are living in food poverty?scabbyhorse said:7th richest country in the world and we have over 14 million of our residents living in food poverty.....you couldnt make it up.
Utter disgrace, why is everything so expensive and wages so poor.
Are there any other 'anti Government' facts you want to make up?
2 -
0.7% of our gross domestic product sounds like rather a lot to me - although I'm glad we've stopped giving aid to countries wealthier than our own.JiMMy 85 said:I think there are some really silly comparisons on this thread. Overseas aid, as stated earlier by Bourbemouth Addick, is 0.7% of gdp. To make some of the claims here you'd need to know what happens to the other 99.3% of our money. Put it into the proper context, not the go-to Johnny-foreigner bashing kind. Helping the desperate is a moral obligation and, if you want to be selfish about it, a sensible thing to do to avoid being forced to spend even more dealing with conflict and even more immigration.
Helping the desperate at home is equally crucial, but not necessarily at the expense of others who need our help the most. If you guys are really up in arms about it, volunteer at a homeless shelter. Do as others have done and give food to the collectors. Give consistently to a charity that suits your beliefs.
Edited: I was ranting.
Volunteering at homeless shelters and donating food to food banks aren't really the answer. They're nice things to do, but they don't address the problem - homelessness will still exist if I volunteer at a shelter and food poverty will still be a major issue for many even if I donate food because contributing to the relief of the problem doesn't reduce the problem itself.0 -
Which countries wealthier than itself was the UK giving foreign aid to?se9addick said:
0.7% of our gross domestic product sounds like rather a lot to me - although I'm glad we've stopped giving aid to countries wealthier than our own.JiMMy 85 said:I think there are some really silly comparisons on this thread. Overseas aid, as stated earlier by Bourbemouth Addick, is 0.7% of gdp. To make some of the claims here you'd need to know what happens to the other 99.3% of our money. Put it into the proper context, not the go-to Johnny-foreigner bashing kind. Helping the desperate is a moral obligation and, if you want to be selfish about it, a sensible thing to do to avoid being forced to spend even more dealing with conflict and even more immigration.
Helping the desperate at home is equally crucial, but not necessarily at the expense of others who need our help the most. If you guys are really up in arms about it, volunteer at a homeless shelter. Do as others have done and give food to the collectors. Give consistently to a charity that suits your beliefs.
Edited: I was ranting.
Volunteering at homeless shelters and donating food to food banks aren't really the answer. They're nice things to do, but they don't address the problem - homelessness will still exist if I volunteer at a shelter and food poverty will still be a major issue for many even if I donate food because contributing to the relief of the problem doesn't reduce the problem itself.0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9560326/British-still-giving-hundreds-of-millions-of-pounds-in-aid-to-wealthy-countries.htmlOrmiston Addick said:
Which countries wealthier than itself was the UK giving foreign aid to?se9addick said:
0.7% of our gross domestic product sounds like rather a lot to me - although I'm glad we've stopped giving aid to countries wealthier than our own.JiMMy 85 said:I think there are some really silly comparisons on this thread. Overseas aid, as stated earlier by Bourbemouth Addick, is 0.7% of gdp. To make some of the claims here you'd need to know what happens to the other 99.3% of our money. Put it into the proper context, not the go-to Johnny-foreigner bashing kind. Helping the desperate is a moral obligation and, if you want to be selfish about it, a sensible thing to do to avoid being forced to spend even more dealing with conflict and even more immigration.
Helping the desperate at home is equally crucial, but not necessarily at the expense of others who need our help the most. If you guys are really up in arms about it, volunteer at a homeless shelter. Do as others have done and give food to the collectors. Give consistently to a charity that suits your beliefs.
Edited: I was ranting.
Volunteering at homeless shelters and donating food to food banks aren't really the answer. They're nice things to do, but they don't address the problem - homelessness will still exist if I volunteer at a shelter and food poverty will still be a major issue for many even if I donate food because contributing to the relief of the problem doesn't reduce the problem itself.
Not sure if this is what he was referring too, the article is from 2012, but it doesn't seem a great way to spend the money.0 -
I know this is taking the subject off-topic, but there's a reason oil executives don't lobby governments over fusion energy. It's because it's bullshit. There has never been a single instance of anyone getting even close to solving the problem of 'cold' fusion - it's a pipe dream. Wind and tidal energy, on the other hand, are not. They are real, sustainable and other than creating eyesores, make very little environmental impact.cabbles said:
And to think that the Iraq conflict was pretty much pursued because of the oil out there. Energy supply is a major factor to world wide poverty IMO. If oil executives would stop lobbying governments hard on energy policy and actually focus on renewables (particularly fusion http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/) we could really make some inroads into reversing a lot of the problems we face globally.Uboat said:
The war in Afghanistan cost £37 billion and achieved fuck-all, whilst Afghanistan and Iraq cost the US almost $6 trillion, which is a waste of money almost beyond comprehension - although the fact that it works out at about $75,000 per household might help. Maybe it would help if we stopped getting involved in foreign conflicts that we don't understand for a start.Ledge said:Welcome to Britain today .. Hundreds of millions being sent in foreign aid and we've got a bloke, with a degree, rooting through supermarket bins for food.
I know it will never happen, like we will never legalise drugs because those in power don't suddenly want places like Columbia making a shed load of cash (I'm not advocating the legalisation of drugs btw).
2 -
Thank you for that. Very moving and upsetting.
A very dignified and proud man reduced to rooting in bins and it could be anyone of us.0 -
Personally I think they have made some good progress http://www.ted.com/talks/michel_laberge_how_synchronized_hammer_strikes_could_generate_nuclear_fusionLeroy Ambrose said:
I know this is taking the subject off-topic, but there's a reason oil executives don't lobby governments over fusion energy. It's because it's bullshit. There has never been a single instance of anyone getting even close to solving the problem of 'cold' fusion - it's a pipe dream. Wind and tidal energy, on the other hand, are not. They are real, sustainable and other than creating eyesores, make very little environmental impact.cabbles said:
And to think that the Iraq conflict was pretty much pursued because of the oil out there. Energy supply is a major factor to world wide poverty IMO. If oil executives would stop lobbying governments hard on energy policy and actually focus on renewables (particularly fusion http://www.ccfe.ac.uk/) we could really make some inroads into reversing a lot of the problems we face globally.Uboat said:
The war in Afghanistan cost £37 billion and achieved fuck-all, whilst Afghanistan and Iraq cost the US almost $6 trillion, which is a waste of money almost beyond comprehension - although the fact that it works out at about $75,000 per household might help. Maybe it would help if we stopped getting involved in foreign conflicts that we don't understand for a start.Ledge said:Welcome to Britain today .. Hundreds of millions being sent in foreign aid and we've got a bloke, with a degree, rooting through supermarket bins for food.
I know it will never happen, like we will never legalise drugs because those in power don't suddenly want places like Columbia making a shed load of cash (I'm not advocating the legalisation of drugs btw).
They are not saying it won't come at a cost and that it is very expensive at the moment, but I believe that it might just be worth sticking with.
I am with you on both wind and tidal energy by the way. My reference to oil execs was more 'I wish they had less influence on the governments of the day', should have made that bit clearer.0 - Sponsored links:
-
None of those countries mentioned in the article are wealthier than the UK.ValleyGary said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9560326/British-still-giving-hundreds-of-millions-of-pounds-in-aid-to-wealthy-countries.htmlOrmiston Addick said:
Which countries wealthier than itself was the UK giving foreign aid to?se9addick said:
0.7% of our gross domestic product sounds like rather a lot to me - although I'm glad we've stopped giving aid to countries wealthier than our own.JiMMy 85 said:I think there are some really silly comparisons on this thread. Overseas aid, as stated earlier by Bourbemouth Addick, is 0.7% of gdp. To make some of the claims here you'd need to know what happens to the other 99.3% of our money. Put it into the proper context, not the go-to Johnny-foreigner bashing kind. Helping the desperate is a moral obligation and, if you want to be selfish about it, a sensible thing to do to avoid being forced to spend even more dealing with conflict and even more immigration.
Helping the desperate at home is equally crucial, but not necessarily at the expense of others who need our help the most. If you guys are really up in arms about it, volunteer at a homeless shelter. Do as others have done and give food to the collectors. Give consistently to a charity that suits your beliefs.
Edited: I was ranting.
Volunteering at homeless shelters and donating food to food banks aren't really the answer. They're nice things to do, but they don't address the problem - homelessness will still exist if I volunteer at a shelter and food poverty will still be a major issue for many even if I donate food because contributing to the relief of the problem doesn't reduce the problem itself.
Not sure if this is what he was referring too, the article is from 2012, but it doesn't seem a great way to spend the money.
If you discount tiny 'bank' countries such as Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Brunei, Kuwait, UAE, San Marino, Hong Kong, Bahrain and Oman the UK is in the top 20 wealthiest nations in the world on a per capita basis - and has the sixth largest economy on the planet.
The idea that the UK gives foreign aid to countries wealthier than itself is just ridiculous.1 -
Isn't Iceland richer per capita than us?Ormiston Addick said:
None of those countries mentioned in the article are wealthier than the UK.ValleyGary said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9560326/British-still-giving-hundreds-of-millions-of-pounds-in-aid-to-wealthy-countries.htmlOrmiston Addick said:
Which countries wealthier than itself was the UK giving foreign aid to?se9addick said:
0.7% of our gross domestic product sounds like rather a lot to me - although I'm glad we've stopped giving aid to countries wealthier than our own.JiMMy 85 said:I think there are some really silly comparisons on this thread. Overseas aid, as stated earlier by Bourbemouth Addick, is 0.7% of gdp. To make some of the claims here you'd need to know what happens to the other 99.3% of our money. Put it into the proper context, not the go-to Johnny-foreigner bashing kind. Helping the desperate is a moral obligation and, if you want to be selfish about it, a sensible thing to do to avoid being forced to spend even more dealing with conflict and even more immigration.
Helping the desperate at home is equally crucial, but not necessarily at the expense of others who need our help the most. If you guys are really up in arms about it, volunteer at a homeless shelter. Do as others have done and give food to the collectors. Give consistently to a charity that suits your beliefs.
Edited: I was ranting.
Volunteering at homeless shelters and donating food to food banks aren't really the answer. They're nice things to do, but they don't address the problem - homelessness will still exist if I volunteer at a shelter and food poverty will still be a major issue for many even if I donate food because contributing to the relief of the problem doesn't reduce the problem itself.
Not sure if this is what he was referring too, the article is from 2012, but it doesn't seem a great way to spend the money.
If you discount tiny 'bank' countries such as Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Brunei, Kuwait, UAE, San Marino, Hong Kong, Bahrain and Oman the UK is in the top 20 wealthiest nations in the world on a per capita basis - and has the sixth largest economy on the planet.
The idea that the UK gives foreign aid to countries wealthier than itself is just ridiculous.0 -
“Food poverty is worse diet, worse access, worse health, higher percentage of income on food, and lessAddickted said:
So over 20% of the population are living in food poverty?scabbyhorse said:7th richest country in the world and we have over 14 million of our residents living in food poverty.....you couldnt make it up.
Utter disgrace, why is everything so expensive and wages so poor.
Are there any other 'anti Government' facts you want to make up?
choice from a restricted range of foods.”
Are there any other facts you want me to clear up? meh0 -
On a per capita basis they are marginally richer - although they won't be for much longer once the Hedge Funds and Investment Bankers force them to pay back the $35 billion that they basically stole post-GFC.ValleyGary said:
Isn't Iceland richer per capita than us?Ormiston Addick said:
None of those countries mentioned in the article are wealthier than the UK.ValleyGary said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9560326/British-still-giving-hundreds-of-millions-of-pounds-in-aid-to-wealthy-countries.htmlOrmiston Addick said:
Which countries wealthier than itself was the UK giving foreign aid to?se9addick said:
0.7% of our gross domestic product sounds like rather a lot to me - although I'm glad we've stopped giving aid to countries wealthier than our own.JiMMy 85 said:I think there are some really silly comparisons on this thread. Overseas aid, as stated earlier by Bourbemouth Addick, is 0.7% of gdp. To make some of the claims here you'd need to know what happens to the other 99.3% of our money. Put it into the proper context, not the go-to Johnny-foreigner bashing kind. Helping the desperate is a moral obligation and, if you want to be selfish about it, a sensible thing to do to avoid being forced to spend even more dealing with conflict and even more immigration.
Helping the desperate at home is equally crucial, but not necessarily at the expense of others who need our help the most. If you guys are really up in arms about it, volunteer at a homeless shelter. Do as others have done and give food to the collectors. Give consistently to a charity that suits your beliefs.
Edited: I was ranting.
Volunteering at homeless shelters and donating food to food banks aren't really the answer. They're nice things to do, but they don't address the problem - homelessness will still exist if I volunteer at a shelter and food poverty will still be a major issue for many even if I donate food because contributing to the relief of the problem doesn't reduce the problem itself.
Not sure if this is what he was referring too, the article is from 2012, but it doesn't seem a great way to spend the money.
If you discount tiny 'bank' countries such as Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Brunei, Kuwait, UAE, San Marino, Hong Kong, Bahrain and Oman the UK is in the top 20 wealthiest nations in the world on a per capita basis - and has the sixth largest economy on the planet.
The idea that the UK gives foreign aid to countries wealthier than itself is just ridiculous.
Besides of which the money in question - $4.2 million - came via the EU rather than from the UK's own foreign aid budget directly.0 -
I held this view myself until my family had some issues (not regarding homelessness) and found that a hell of a lot of famous people donate some pretty hefty sums to charities of their choice but keep it quiet. Of course, it could be said that they get a fair tax break on their donations, but it wouldn't be fair to accuse all famous/rich people of not caring or giving.sammy391 said:
this infuriates me too!NorthStandUltra said:Slightly off topic but it annoys me when you hear situations like this & then have a multi millionaire musician, footballer, actor etc asking the skint British public to donate to some charity.
Its a reason why I have lost ALOT of respect for Bob Geldof and the whole band aid thing and how he expects and demands the public to buy the songs and donate yet him and the ones who sing and produce the singles just donate 'time'
0 -
According to Tim Lang.scabbyhorse said:
“Food poverty is worse diet, worse access, worse health, higher percentage of income on food, and lessAddickted said:
So over 20% of the population are living in food poverty?scabbyhorse said:7th richest country in the world and we have over 14 million of our residents living in food poverty.....you couldnt make it up.
Utter disgrace, why is everything so expensive and wages so poor.
Are there any other 'anti Government' facts you want to make up?
choice from a restricted range of foods.”
Are there any other facts you want me to clear up? meh
He also added above all food poverty is about less or almost no consumption of fruit and vegetables.
So 14 million people can't afford to buy fruit and veg?
I think the technical term for that is bollocks.
0 -
Speak for yourself, i wouldn't eat bollocks. Are you angry because your wrong.Addickted said:
According to Tim Lang.scabbyhorse said:
“Food poverty is worse diet, worse access, worse health, higher percentage of income on food, and lessAddickted said:
So over 20% of the population are living in food poverty?scabbyhorse said:7th richest country in the world and we have over 14 million of our residents living in food poverty.....you couldnt make it up.
Utter disgrace, why is everything so expensive and wages so poor.
Are there any other 'anti Government' facts you want to make up?
choice from a restricted range of foods.”
Are there any other facts you want me to clear up? meh
He also added above all food poverty is about less or almost no consumption of fruit and vegetables.
So 14 million people can't afford to buy fruit and veg?
I think the technical term for that is bollocks.0 -
No, I'm angry because I can't afford to buy the saffron and aubergines to go with my lobster.0
-
-
Is there a substitute for lobster?
0 - Sponsored links:
-
So a week on what's the update did this dude get an interview, did they find him and help him or has it all been for nowt0
-
He was going for an interview today at Prets recruitment centre at Victoria station1
-
Absolutely not. We are wealthy enough to ensure that we play our part both at home and abroad. The money should come from other areas.Valiantphil said:Given that you have heard this, and witnessed poverty close-up, should the Government divert the overseas aid budget to address this problem at home ?
Discuss.0 -
what areas?0
-
Personally I feel transport and defence take a lesser priority than those in genuine poverty, but continuing to clamp down on governmental waste, simplifying the tax system and reducing tax avoidance opportunity, etc. are all opportunities.MrOneLung said:what areas?
It is shameful that a developed country has citizens trying to live on a can of spaghetti a day, but for me it's equally shameful that we would stand by and watch humanitarian disasters outwork when we are more than able to intervene.0
