I hear that some people in UK are so poor that they are unable to buy food.
Yet many of these people manage to go to nail parlours and sun tanning salons etc.
Then there is the big spending on lavish gifts, toys and designer clothes and still no
money left for food and heating.
I donât know how anyone can know for certain if the people who are buying lavish gifts etc. are the same ones who are struggling to feed their families.
Well⌠the definition of poverty has risen over the years to levels some of us would have thought quite luxurious in our childhoods. Many charities do fantastic work on very slim budgets but some of the more politicised/top admin-heavy ones do seem to have vested interests in ratcheting up âpovertyâ or the breadline or whatever their cause is, to unimaginably high levels on order to further they themselves making a very nice living out of the charity.
Umm, perhaps the ones who go to nail parlours are not the same people as the ones who canât buy food.
Some people are desperately poor, some are fairly poor, some are not poor, some are quite well off, some are very well off and some are filthy rich.
You do not need to a degree in sociology to work that one out.
Of course if you personally know people who go out and buy lavish gifts and visit the nail bar and then go home and sit there cold and hungry, by all means tell us more But, saying âI hearâ does not cut it. I hear a lot of things and I believe very little of it.
Evidence please? Yes there have been some nasty scandals about appalling behaviour by a very few charities, but I do not think this is widespread. Do you also think animal charities shouldnât highlight the worst cases to ty to get donations ?
Oxfam would be one example where investigations showed top heavy admin draining an enormous amount of the charityâs receipts to their lifestyles and benefits packages, thus depriving people the charity could have helped, of support.
There was coverage of Oxfam in particular for this some years back and questions were asked about other charities.
That is why exactly social media is so dangerous in my view. So many impressionable people see things and hear things and then they think that they âknowâ. It does not seem to occur to them that they may be being manipulated.
By all means read and listen but be aware of the source and ask yourself what agenda is being pushed. There are at least two sides to every story. Unless you either have first-hand experience to guide you, or you have complete confidence in the source of your âinformationâ, it is wise to keep an open mind.
The UK Gov are as usual doing their very best to keep poor people poor but more importantly keep rich people rich,the bill at the local nail bar in Westminster is hundreds of thousands of pounds a year,all funded by the taxpayer,maybe it would be better to publicise this sort of information.
To me, financial poverty means not being able to afford the basic comforts.
What is happiness âexactlyâ?
Dickens said, âAnnual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six , result happiness.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result miseryâ
I think we all understand what these concepts mean, maybe we do not all agree exactly where âthe poverty lineâ should be drawn but why do we need to be exact. Everybody should be able to afford decent food, decent housing, decent clothing, and the means to live a fulfilling life such as transport, communication tools.
But in fact the sort of misinformation this thread started with is precisely the sort of thing the UK mainstream media has been saying for decades - in fact much of the comment to similar effect on social media actually originates in the Daily Mail or Telegraph or Murdoch stables, or those linked with them in Tufton Street, etcâŚ
I think that you should go into food banks and talk to the people there. There is much in work poverty in the UK as well as those who rely on benefits.
People once heard that the world was flat, but I believe that has now been disproved.