Is this virtue signalling or is it genuine consideration?

This article written by a former street homeless guy is useful and to the point I think
www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/24/homelessness-is-now-part-of-all-our-lives-heres-what-you-can-do-to-help?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1569320123

I'm sure most of us know that sponsors make conditions before they will give a penny and one of them is always that their logo and name be plastered all over every available space.

If the community event doesn't agree to this, they simply don't get the money.
Most choose to agree and survive.

Very few big sponsors approach charitues or community event in person, it's all done through marketing agencies.

For smaller groups, a school sports team, for instance, a local firm might agree to buy uniforms or equipment but they too want some visible return, at the very least the logo and name on shirts and programmes.

I don't see much wrong with this. It's great PR and helps local people feel good about their community, as well as generating more business for the sponsor. win-win.

We wouldn't have a Rescue Helicopter on call if it wasn't for the Westpac Bank and those who bank with them.

Another major bank sponsors sports and nationally acclaimed classical and cultural music events.

We benefit in the long run by their 'grandstanding'

I do see what you mean Graces Gran. I also agree with Monica, as in charity or giving should be a private matter. I see Facebook also started a thing about getting people to donate to a charity on behalf of your own birthday. There is no way Id expect anyone to do this. I just felt it was a bit like blackmail and would not ask this of friends or family, or anyone really. If I was ever doing anything for charity, I may ask folk privately to donate(but only folk I know very well). I certainly wouldn't want it all over Facebook.

I am just uncomfortable about people, especially slebs, grandstanding their charitable giving and woke political beliefs.

Like all those American Museums, and now some British ones plastering the name of the donor on every gallery and every picture, to make sure your realise how charitable the donor is. If you go to any Arts venue in the Uk and buy a programme it always lists ll the donors to the charity or production. Sometimes in categories that indicates how much they probably donated.

As far as I am concerned, charitable giving in any way, cash or kind, is a private matter to be done anonymously or certainly so as not to attract attention. Anything else is just PR.

As they say ^ the greatest pleasure is giving by stealth and having it discovered by accident^

As for political beliefs, be seen to be living them before you mention them. Tony Robinson, of Blackadder fame was an active member of the Labour Party and on the NEC and never grandstanded his political beliefs, he just lived them.

I think he is no longer a Labour party member, but although I do not like him particularly, I have more respect for him than for Emma Thompson flying in for an ER demonstration.

In every city I would think that there is an organisation that has been set up to help those who live on the streets. We certainly have one in our city.
They provide clothes, toiletries, healthcare and even the drug substitutes to help those that want to give up the real thing. We have a food stall in the centre every night. There is quite a lot of support here.
Like the food banks they accept donations and can judge better than us what is needed. That is where my old down jacket is going. Not a good idea giving money Pantglas, it doesn’t usually get spent on food.

Just realised it was radio... anyone have a link please?

Does anyone know if there is somewhere online where I can see the “offending footage” please?
I feel most of us haven’t seen it so really don’t entirely know what we are talking about and are making assumptions.

This is NOT a dig by the way - before someone thinks it is. I now feel I need to see the real thing for myself!

Thank you.

I think you need to take those "political" descriptions further Fiachna50 and you will find they are based on how people believe society should behave.

Both those with a conservative or a liberal view of society can and are very judgemental of the other. (I don't know how you get over that, I must admit).

Politics, on the other hand, is much more complex and does, of course, have a view on economics.

I dont think people are divided so much by social beliefs as by political beliefs and money. Folk who have money and folk who dont. Politically, Ive never seen our islands so divided.

I don't think it is necessarily either virtue signalling or genuine consideration it's just people behaving as they behave.

We are seeing more clearly than ever that people are divided in their social beliefs between those who are liberal in the way they see life and those who are conservative (not politics, both just descriptors).

The liberal is willing to accept the views and choices of others whereas, from a conservative point of view people are rules bound and judgemental of others as they see people's fate entirely of their own making.

Any thought also for allergies/intolerances they may have - nuts, eggs, dairy, wheat etc? Perhaps giving money for them to buy their own food would be better after all?

Given the money that family has I would have been more impressed had they built a homeless shelter and supported it. These celebs like Mr Cumberbatch and Miss Thompson also get on my nerves and dont get me started on Bono and Geldof.

Why say that her daughter was giving vegan food to the homeless? Because it's made people think (and us talk) about their dietary needs. I'd not give meat (unless I'd asked them beforehand) because I'm veggie (and I think if I ate meat or fish after all these years, I'd feel ill, even if it didn't make me ill). Yet I'd never considered that the homeless lacked vegetables. (But I did used to give one rough sleeper oranges when I saw him because I thought he got little vitamin C)

I would have thought that if you're genuinely homeless then any sort of food is welcome. This does remind me of that joke though. "How do you know someones' a Vegan? They tell you!"

I agree - it's always good to highlight the issues but I think it's important to make sure that charitable work (esp by celebrities) has a proper context rather than simply playing to the PR machine, if you know what I mean? I'm just concened that young people who are genuinely inspired to help might pitch up on the streets with homemade food that could present a problem if it's not been cooked/chilled/stored properly or put themselves at risk by working unsupported with a community that often has complex needs and challenges.

I take your point SirChenjin.
I know very little about the Smiths and their charitable work and it could probably have been more constructive.
We are discussing it though so if it makes us think a bit and maybe act in a positive way, even if it’s as simple as donating to a food bank it has served a purpose.
I have, from a previous poster, got the impression that Jayden does work with the homeless but was not at the interview.

That was to Pamela

Not really - highlighting the issue of homelessness is commendable, but perhaps it could been done in conjunction with homeless charities who have a great deal of experience of working with this community and know how best to co-ordinate resources. Jaden could have used that interview to talk about their work and encourage anyone who was interested in helping to contact their local homeless charity and ask about volunteering options or donating money or items that are needed.

It's all very well being 'woke' and promoting your own charitable endeavours but it's important to make sure that it's not going to undermine or conflict with the great work that charities on the ground are already doing.

Vegan food must be truly horrible if you're not allowed to give it to hungry people.

A no win situation for the Smiths then.
Maybe they thought that their gesture may encourage others to give? If that was the reason then there was no point keeping quiet.
If they were virtue signalling then it still had the effect of drawing attention to the homeless and hungry. Does the end justify the means?

I suppose the main thing to remember is that someone benefited from it, but it doesn't sit easily with me; it feels like exploitation.

Again, MissAdventure, totally agree. If it was me, I'd hate for anyone to feel dehumanized. I'd also feel embarrassed to draw attention to myself. I think people who use their fame to try to do good things sometimes lose sight of the former.

Saetana that works on an individual basis but, unfortunately, not if you're providing meals for large groups of people. Totally get what you're saying, though. I sometimes wonder what will happen to me if I end up in assisted living and get served meals with meat, etc. I once went to a buffet after a memorial service for a hospice patient and got physically ill after accidentally eating a dish containing chicken. I'd also gotten sick after eating some Kentucky Fried Chicken years before (NOT by accident). Those were the only two times I went off the veggie wagon, so to speak.

Even if it was a publicity ‘stunt’ she fed some homeless people who would otherwise have gone hungry, I don’t they cared whether it was vegan or not, or whether it was to promote the person a book, or a film, it was food!

I'd further dignify people by not making a song and dance out of it, too.