To give a homeless man a meal deal rather than the money?

[TheSeventhHorcrux]

There is a homeless man sat outside the Tesco Express with a little cup asking for money. Instead of giving him
Money I went inside and bought him a meal deal (crisps, ham sandwich and drink) and gave that to him. He was very polite and grateful about it and I thought nothing more of it until my friend then later accused me of being patronising by presenting him with food rather than te money.
When I lived in South Aftica I would often give food rather than money as in many cases the money went on drinks and drugs etc.
Am I being unreasonable to "control" the expenditure of this man (as put by friend) and not just give him money. I'm quite concerned now that he would have been offended, as my friend certainly thinks so!

I think its best to give food to nourish the beggar rather than money which may not buy the best things for them. I used to give pies and tea to beggars in our town. But it is disgraceful that we spend millions abroad, whilst people in UK are reduced to begging and living rough. We should always look after our own before others in foreign states IMO.

I think its best to give food to nourish the beggar single mums claiming income support rather than money which may not buy the best things for them.

Yes, it does look different. I'm inclined to side with Greensleeves here the more I think about it - very patronising and unpleasant.

It's the wealth divide that grates me the most. I went to Harrods today with the family I look after and it was full of people swanning around in tgeir furs buying encrusted iPad cases sold at £2200 where just outside a man sat in the gutter probably with little idea where he would sleep that night.
This is a disgrace and speak volumes about our country.

*their
*speaks

sorry!

Varya, the millions we spend abroad is the tiniest, tiniest % of GDP, literally 0.0 something. If homelessness in the UK could be solved by chucking that money at it, it would have been done already. People in the UK are homeless for many, many reasons it is not as simple as extra funding. The idea that someone is more or less worthy of "our" help because they are one of "us" purely by dint of being born on one side of a line on a map is bonkers, nasty and simplistic.

But Seventh, why shouldn't they spend THEIR money?

Wealth is not a crime, unless you get it by means that are either illegal or morally questionable. We NEED wealthy people - I am by no means in their league but I do earn over £40,000 a year now and with that I pay a heck of a lot of tax and I do support charities. I also work hard and I do a valuable job.

I have nothing but sympathy for people reduced to begging and for other people in horrible circumstances - I've been there and it's shit. But how does me spending money I've earned on an item of clothing I've had my eye on or a pretty item for my house mean that it's a "disgrace" other people don't have the same?

If we gave every 18 year old exactly the same amount of money right now, no one with more or less - in forty years time would they all have the same? Or would you expect some to be wealther than others?

This is an interesting article:

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/29/tribute-homeless-woman-tree-exeter

It isn't as simple as "give a homeless person a home and they'll be happy and everything will be tickety boo" as the article shows. Homelessness can be the lesser of two evils - it was for me. I had friends I could feasibly have stayed with but I couldn't - it would have been too miserable to have been reliant on other people's pity.

To be honest though, if you need to feed your kids would you really care whether you had the food or the money you needed to buy that food? Really, what difference does it make? Do you put people who utilise food banks on some kind of lower strata? No. If I lost my job and needed benefits to feed the kids what difference would it make to my 'worth' whether I received vouchers/similar or money - I didn't earn either but they're available to me and everyone else and thank god for that.

I think there are people on this thread out for an argument and to bang the same old drum, not to any effect, but it causes bad feeling so... result!

yy OP to your last post. It is disgusting. Perhaps 'Disgusted of Derby' will stop impotently crticising you on this thread and actually go and lobby their MP.

I agree with Greeny

haven't read the whole thread but I suppose one way to look at it is that the food you bought him will not have killed him. Whereas, very possibly, the money someone else gives him one day well might. Yes, once you give him the money it is his to spend how he chooses, but (if he was, I have no idea but worse case scenario) alchoholics and drug addicts are hardly in the best position to make good decisions. Of course, it could be the cash that gets him into a shelter, and by not giving him cash he's not so hungry but on the streets tonight. You can't know. Maybe, if you see him regularly, alternate giving cash and buying him food? I don't think you did a bad thing.

Lying, I actually agree with you but I bet if a thread was started stating that people on benefits should only be "paid" in food/clothing vouchers that couldn't be used on fags/booze everyone would go MAD

It's coming, I think, porridge... maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow - but soon - or eventually. The government (any party) is all about 'control' and they'll focus attention in the wrong place until the cows come home.

If I smoked/drank (I don't) but needed to feed the kids, the smoking/drinking would take a back seat if I couldn't afford it. If I were on benefits which were vouchers, the net effect would be the same but it's a decision that I'd make for myself anyway so what difference does it make?

When you earn you have control, when you don't earn, you don't really. And no... I'm definitely not going to start a thread about that !

I can't believe the slating that OP had here, absolutely pathetic. If human interaction is the key thing then OP did that in spades... it's her choice to give food rather than money and NOBODY has the right to criticise her for that.

Porridge- I'm by no means slating people for being wealthy but there is a degree of wealth that becomes disgusting. I like to buy nice things just as much as the next person and I'm intelligent and politically aware enough to realise that communism is not sustainable. But there is a difference between earning £40,000 a year and treating yourself to nice clothes and earning squillions and buying - and I joke not - a £40,000 necklace from Harrods. Nobody needs a £40,000 necklace. That is more than twice the average yearly take home pay and it is this is disgusting

I am not convinced that the Tories will be back in power after the next election. I think many people are looking at the deconstruction of the welfare state with utter dismay. They wanted reform, not effective abolition for vast swathes of the population.

*that is disgusting.

Blimey! I just can't type today

Porridge - reading over that made me realise I sound ranty. I'm not, my apologies, I was merely trying to clarify myself

Seventh - they put food on your table though, these disgusting rich bastards, yeah?

Boffin... I agree with you but I think that whatever party is in power, they will have the same choices to make and will upset great swathes of the population anyway... there isn't the structure in place to effectively gather in more money and put it to use where it's really needed.

Tories, Labour, Liberals... what's the difference? None of them deliver on their promises or really follow their mannifesto so who's to know beforehand what they're going to do. Once they're in, they have x-number of years to muck up the country, which they seem to do with alacrity - before buggering off to massively overpaid new roles when they leave government.

I wouldn't even know who to vote for in the next election... they're all as bad as each other. That's a shocking position for the voting public to be put in really and I'm angry about it.

Agree entirely Lying

Choices are fine but it's the rhetoric of vile I am hoping will go away.

I agree with Lying

Seventh, I do see your point, but I can't agree with it. The more you take from people with wealth, the more you remove the incentives to achieve that wealth in the first place. Yes, it would be nice if there was more of a gap between rich and poor but just at the moment i think we all pay enough tax - maybe that is a selfish view but I wouldn't be able to afford a child if I had to pay any more out from my salary.

It really is all relative and it's worth remembering that just as us "normal" people widen our eyes at a £40,000 necklace, so would people in the third world at our people living in poverty. Yet we don't insist that people on benefits donate 10% to Oxfam, or whatever

it does boil down to, I'm afraid, people doing what will make them happy with their money.

I think the old-style Welfare State has gone for good, regardless of who is in power next. It is unaffordable in its old form.

And it was a Coalition government. The LibDems too.

You could develop a set of domestic policies that emphasis the dangers of polarisation of wealth, encourage pride in paying tax and voting, big up essential workers and people who work keeping the country's infrastructure going, modernise disability benefits so they corresponded to real life situations, ditto unemployment benefits, improve access to extended schooling, and simplify the justice system, but nobody does these things. Or rather people like Ruth Kelly and her ilk attempt to tackle it all, but they aren't sufficiently supported.

Quite, boffin. You could also pursue economic policies that are designed to support business and industry, rather than feeding the gaping maw of 'financial services' (which should there to serve business, not to rip off business, consumers and taxpayers at every turn - see fraud mis-selling scandal after mis-selling scandal).

Boffin, I'm thinking I want you for PM.

I used to do it all the time, next time add a pack of chewable vitamins