Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think Russell Brand could buy this building himself

66 replies

Rebeccaslicker · 22/01/2018 13:13

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...

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-berkshire-42751825

OP posts:
veuveo · 22/01/2018 20:50

I think you take all of those pieces of information and make up your own mind.
I agree that the word donate is the problem, but I'm much more likely to go with the official petition.

KidLorneRoll · 22/01/2018 21:40

If he quietly got on with helping people he wouldn't get his fucking stupid attention seeking face on the telly.

Prick.

weetabix07 · 22/01/2018 23:33

@Rebeccaslicker totally agree. 👍🏻

HangingRoundInABofAlorsStance · 23/01/2018 01:20

Shoc were at council-owned Serena Hall Burlington Road for 20 years and voluntarily gave up their lease early as part of a commercial deal with the council according to the local paper.
www.sloughexpress.co.uk/gallery/slough/120816/slough-homelessness-charity-to-move-site.html

They moved to a church hall - St Michael's Church hall in Whitby Road last September.

“As a church we wanted to do our bit for the community. We were clear we wanted to help and they have agreed that they will pay for the use of electricity and so on but we won’t charge for use of the building. Letting them use it is part of our mission.”
www.oxford.anglican.org/tag/slough-homeless-our-concern/

St Michael's Church Hall is the current address listed at companies house but Shoc still need to change addresses on their online presence. Whether this or the distance of the new location accounts for a 50 percent drop in footfall, not sure, but a dip was reported.

Committee member Cllr Wal Chahal (Con, Upton), who works closely with Slough Homeless Our Concern (SHOC) said the charity has experienced roughly an intake dip of about 50 per cent since it moved to its Whitby Road site in September. He said its non-central location meant many homeless people either struggle to get to its day centre or do not know where it is and asked if SBC could help find SHOC a new home.

The charity only has the church hall until April.
www.sloughexpress.co.uk/gallery/home/126427/comedian-russell-brand-starts-petition-to-find-shoc-a-new-home.html

Council has allegedly asked why Slough has been brought into a Windsor problem (huff post)
Slough Borough Council has labelled the petition “bizarre”, adding that they were “bemused” that Brand was targeting Slough, rather than Windsor.

A council spokeswoman told HuffPost UK: “Perhaps he could direct his petition to the route of the issue as opposed to us mopping up an issue that is, of course, somewhere else.”

I am aware there's only a few miles in it - that said, the charity is daycentre rather than a night shelter. I assume it was viewed that Windsor homeless would be 'cleansed' to Slough although according to this, homeless might be moved out of Slough itself.
www.sloughexpress.co.uk/gallery/slough/126168/council-may-move-homeless-families-out-of-borough-following-report.html

So what you seem to have is the council having wanted to redevelop a site, a deal made - no idea what, to end the long-standing tenancy early, and a local church stepping in as a stop-gap. I assume the change of use cannot refer to the church hall as that would be to do with the diocese not the council, would have been done already and, in any case, it would not appear to be the ideal venue long term.

I agree that transparency in naming the building and what is being asked for is needed. But that in 3 months time it would be lovely for those that need help, actually having somewhere to go.

Shoc rely on donations to keep going
localgiving.org/charity/shoc/

Rebeccaslicker · 23/01/2018 07:52

Great digging! the sort of research Brand should have done, by the sound of it.

the commercial deal is interesting - that usually means they got an incentive to go (cash, release from dilaps liability etc. It's also possible that the council is an existing donor and they didn't want to fall out with it!). If the council gave them a deal, it would only be fair for Brand to acknowledge that, as it's cash in the charity's coffers.

The articles serve to convince me even more of two things:

  • this is a great cause and the right kind of campaign could actually have raised a lot of money, as the focus of a royal wedding is the kind of one off exposure a local charity can only dream of ; and
  • Brand has rushed into it thinking his fame is enough of a contribution - plus it raises his own profile, as PPs have said. He's gone for meaningless waffle and an online petition which doesn't address the actual issues; it's just getting people to click a link online Hmm
OP posts:
Rebeccaslicker · 23/01/2018 07:56

Also thank you for the link - I've just donated Smile

OP posts:
makeourfuture · 23/01/2018 08:39

Brand can suggest whatever he likes. Where is the issue here?

Rebeccaslicker · 23/01/2018 08:42

Ah the make alarm bell went off!

Funny that you can't see the issue with a very rich man wanting a local council to give up a building for free (sorry, "donate" a building). I'd have thought that was the exact opposite of your usual propaganda, somehow!

OP posts:
makeourfuture · 23/01/2018 08:49

"Lilly Allen" tripped the algorithm.

Whizbang · 23/01/2018 08:49

Fully agree with you Rebecca.

Rebeccaslicker · 23/01/2018 08:53

See, make, I hate it when you make me SMILE. It's NOT BIG, NOT CLEVER. It's jus a SHAME for me.

How do I know so many lily Allen songs? Argh.

OP posts:
makeourfuture · 23/01/2018 08:54

I think we have it set for two leftie celebrity mentions per thread to trip it now, it senses a trend forming.

southeastdweller · 23/01/2018 09:04

He's been rich for a long time yet I can't find anything online about significant donations he's made, likewise he's campaigned for the homeless for years but not housed any of them (and him or his publicist would surely leak this kind of thing to the press).

So yes, YANBU. All these celebs should put their money where their mouths are or just shut the fuck up and do a collective one.

HangingRoundInABofAlorsStance · 23/01/2018 09:54

Whilst The Giving Pledge is amazing, that is a lot easier when you are a billionaire.

southeast As I said before, he gave profits from his book Revolution to set up a non-profit cafe employing former drug users in recovery and help them return to work.

Also he will have given his time for free in stand-up or booksigning fundraisers.

He has done more than many celebs in a similar position and he was hardly born into wealth, on the contrary.

on top of that some believe philanthropy is activism and he does advocate.
www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/russell-brand

I will accept however that from my digging, it might not be quite as clear cut as big bad Slough council though. That said, I have zero ideas how these things really work so don't know the deal that was made or whether the charity's hand was forced.

HangingRoundInABofAlorsStance · 23/01/2018 10:10

He gave 3k to the East Sussex rape and incest crisis centre.
He gave a 'generous donation' to the Hillsborough Family Support Group.
He has also done various benefits.
As well as the non profit coffee shop...

veuveo · 23/01/2018 11:28

Nah, they won't believe any of that.
He's only in it for himself.
Couldn't possibly want to do any good
Hmm

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread