To think Russell Brand could buy this building himself(67 Posts)
rather than asking the Council to give it to charity - essentially making tax payers do it. He's worth about £10m himself; he could afford it...
If he buys it himself, the situation quietly gets help to limp along.
If he appeals for help using his public platform, he forces the issue out and up for discussion - reminding people that issues like this cannot just be swept under the carpet.
Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.
I just read that article and thought exactly the same thing as you.
If more celebrities and footballers put their money where their mouth is, then society would be in a better condition. Of course councils and the government should be doing more, but often they can’t, or will use it as an excuse to underfund something else that is a life line to many.
My DH informs me that basketball players as individuals, and as whole teams in America, do a great deal for charities. They give a lot of their own money, but also their time. A lot of footballers and celebrities in this country should be ashamed of themselves.
do you really think brand would be quiet if he bought the building and donated it to a homeless charity, or let it to them for a peppercorn rent?
Come on, he'd be constantly going on about it; he has a great platform for doing so. And it would mean he didn't look like a massive hypocrite too (cough cough lily Allen cough)!
Russell Brand has already given from his own pocket - setting up a non profit from his book proceeds.
He has a family, has a child, why on earth should he have to subsidise what the government should be tackling?
There's quite a few reports about his net worth:
I think there is a difference between what the government "should be tackling" (a whole complex topic in itself) and expecting a local council to give away a valuable asset. The council isn't the government. It doesn't make the austerity policies. It would just come out of the funds available to local people, whereas at the moment it can be used to gain a rental income or capital value for those purposes.
I would never believe anything you read about someone's net worth. They can never really know.
My dad is in the music business and his reported net worth made us laugh out loud.
Of course the govt needs to look at property they own and see how they can put it to better use.
He's just trying to open up the debate using his fame/notoriety!
I can't get too excited about how many millions he is worth. I think it's a safe assumption that he is an awful lot better off than a lot of the local residents who could be affected by his suggestion if the council gave up a valuable asset and the budget were reduced accordingly.
He could buy it himself and really make a difference. He might even inspire others to do something similar. But a tenner says he won't. He'll settle for the free online petition option instead!
That article is not very well written- is there a particular building, or is he appealing to the council to find somewhere, like a community centre?
I really don't see why he should buy a building, using his celebrity to raise awareness is positive
It's the building that the charity currently rents from the council. Russell brand is saying that the council should give it to the charity.
Having now read the actual petition- that's not really what's he's asking for.
He's asking them for a change of use for a building.
He's not suggesting that the charity gets anything for free, taking away funds from elsewhere. And there isn't a building that he can just buy.
The charity is losing their building, he's petitioning the council to get them a new building.
THIS is why I don't believe anything in the papers anymore
petition here for anyone who wishes to sign
we are asking that Slough Council agree to a "change of use" for a building in the town that will enable SHOC to have a new home.
But what's that supposed to mean, if the newspaper reports are wrong and he's not actually called for a transfer of the property?
There's still rent to be paid, maintenance to be paid, food and bedding and clothing and sanitary facilities to be provided - it can't be just as simple as a change of use!
Maybe he is planning to do that or to raise funds for it? That would be a good thing.
The SHOC Facebook page says the campaign is to "give us the use of a building". Which is no clearer! Presumably it's an empty council building and Brand is demanding that it be used for the charity permanently without a rent?
Which would again beg the question - how will this affect local residents? Do they agree with a rich celebrity asking their local council to do this, when he could easily pay the rent or buy a building himself - sorry russell, talk is cheap, especially online!
On the other hand, SHOC look to do very good work, that's undeniable. It would be great if a local philanthropist were encouraged to do something along the lines of this suggestion!
It means the news is manipulated.
And Brand isn't demanding anything, he's started a petition!
You obviously don't understand how commercial property works.
A commercial property has a use- i.e. A restaurant/ a hairdresser
To change that use, i.e. to a homeless shelter/ a bar, you apply to the council for "a change of use"
It usually takes 8 weeks or so and the council approves it.
All he is asking for is for the council to sign those papers as a sign of goodwill. (gift is misleading)
The actually owner still gets paid his rent by the business. The charity will still pay the rent, bills etc.
The story should read something like this.
The charity SHOC will not have a building to shelter and help the homeless because their lease ends in April.
Russell Brand is on the case and they seem to have found a suitable building. In the current economic climate and because of the recent fuck up faux pas by some clown at the council, RB has started a petition to ask the council to bypass the usual process and agree to the change of use for the property. It would be a nice gesture he thinks.
Erm - I understand exactly how commercial property works, thank you for the patronising assumption!
Where does it say that the charity will still pay the rent and bills, please? Do you have a link? Unless you've found that somewhere concrete to that effect, you seem to have made a bigger assumption than the BBC and newspapers.
As for the local residents- do you think it matters who is campaigning for a homeless shelter? Why would it matter to residents who owns the building?
Because no-one anywhere is suggesting that they stop paying their bills.
They are asking for a change of use
YANBU. It will end up being the tax payer who pays for it won't it? Regardless of whether they want to or not (I don't, I really can't afford to pay even more). If he/the people who signed the petition care about it then they should make a donation to the charity to buy it/extend the lease. That is how charities work after all.
I honestly wasn't trying to be patronising- looked like you didn't understand the first thing about it.
Change of use is just that. It's simple
Aha - it's in his YouTube speech - here's a screengrab. He wants the council to "DONATE" a building to the charity.
Now, it doesn't say which building, or what it's worth, or whether it would need any work doing before handing it over etc. But the point is, if that building is owned by the council, so that it could use it to raise funds for services in the area, and there is a rich celebrity demanding that it be given to charity, would that be what local tax payers would want? Or would they think, erm, YOU have a big house and lots of cash, YOU house some people in need!
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.