William's Life's Work Is To End Homelessness.

[BucksorHerts]

Just seen this post about an article in the Daily Mail.
William say's life's work is to end homelessness. His father is (and soon enough himself) the largest land owner in the country.
Instead of posing with the same homeless guy year in and year out asking commoners to end homelessness surely he can carve out some of that land to build low rent flats and studios for the poorest. He never gives up any of his money for anything but is always asking. His expenses are paid for - holidays, children's fees, accommodation etc.
Or even use all the money that comes to them from people who died intestate. It's unhealthy to accumulate so much wealth without doing any work. Even doctors who study for years and save lives do not get anything close to this. It makes no sense.

https://twitter.com/IncaDove/status/1732261729869201635?s=19

What has that got to do with TallerSally's post which is about IHT?

i know - it’s really confusing.

Wracking my brains.... cogs going round...
Nope
Not got it.
Sorry.

Yesterday, 12:01 mentioned inheritance tax.

These threads are all ridiculous now. No point in even bothering.

I'm confused by you talking of wedding invites when we're talking about IHT

Oh, I see. Well that’s kind of obvious isn’t it?
It’s the only reason DW is on the radar today.
Interesting to see that someone actually believed the news about the wedding invites, though.

Huh?

It's not just getting the cash, it is how it is spent

Because of course anyone with even the briefest of experience working with the homeless or vulnerably housed knows there's far more to it that the bricks and mortar part of finding accommodation.

The collaboration that makes up Homewards is quite remarkable in its breadth and the eminence of the individuals who advise it (I don't mean the patrons/ambassadors). It's a welcome initiative

What I'm not sure about is what it is actually doing right now in any of its target areas. Are there any MNs in those areas (or working in relevant areas) who know?

(I know it's far to early to be seeing results, I'm just wondering if there are signs of activity)

I was wondering about why the wedding invitation stories came out now.

They seemed to originate from the Duke, but the greater part of the article mentions no sourcing at all, the only official word from the Grosvenor estate is a polite no comment, and the last bit is from friends of William and Harry.

So why now?

• fluke, there really is a friend in the circle that includes Harry and William who has said something that became known outside the circle and found its way to the press
• it's from somewhere in the Grosvenor camp - because Endgame led to the decision - and it leaked
• it's from somewhere in the Grosvenor camp - same reason but deliberately leaked now to get the hoo-hah over and done with now, rather than at the run up to the wedding
• it's from a palace - but how would they know about the Duke's decision? And what's in it for them to poke this particular hornet's nest?
• it's from the Sussexes - the only other people who would definitely know about any Duke-to-Duke discussions over this. But I don't quite see what's in it for them (other than trying to bury it a bit when there's a Other Stuff going on)

The Mother Of All Derails

Don't take the bait, folks.

I think most likely from someone inside the circle who felt compelled to fire back a bit to defend KC, PW and KM, particularly from from the Dutch version racism claims but also from the general nasty tone of the book toward KM.

Just like all of the “friend of the Sussexes” media comments however, I can’t imagine anyone with the info sharing this without permission from DW and his fiancé.

It seemed well past time for this.

There's more to homelessness than providing housing.

Oh but you wanted to talk about DW.

I don't think those restrictions are that unusual. We have lots of restrictions where I live, no one knows why. An estate built about 40 years ago, around us newer and older housing can do things like put up a sky dish, build a wall round their front garden, put cladding up. We can't. Nothing to do with KC or royalty just some restrictions that were put in 40 years ago and often get ignored but occasionally the council decide to make a stand about something. It is odd.

I bought a house years ago and the one restriction it had was we couldn't keep pigs. No idea why that was there, we were in a big city and couldn't imagine anyone keeping pigs there.

I agree with this. It is doing something long term and sustainable and sometimes using a bit of imagination.

I used to live in a city, there were a couple of multi storey council flats that were unpopular. The council emptied them, did them up, employed a live in manager for each block, turned one flat in each block into a "community centre" for the residents and said only over 60s could live there. They became popular overnight, about 100 older council tenants moved out of their houses and into the flats freeing up housing for 100 families. I thought that was a brilliant idea.

Obviously that one scheme can't cure homelessness but lots of schemes focusing on local resources/local needs could make a big difference.

What a really good initiative - I think it's this kind of thing that would be useful. Taller is right that funding is important - using their signfiacnt wealth in partnership with local communities is the approach that is needed. So using existing land and property to minimise the amount of unhoused, funding community approaches to drug and alcohol use, liaising with community developers to increase community spaces etc.

I bought a house years ago and the one restriction it had was we couldn't keep pigs.

😂When I read certain restrictive covenants I'm always curious as to what happened to drive some of the very specific restrictions. I'm imaging old Peter who had a bunch of show pigs in his back garden foiled by this specific ordinance 😂

Housing First is a great initiative that's worth reading up on.

Folks, we are not simpletons here.

As I’ve mentioned on another thread, individual companies can spend in the upper nine figures (in USD) on social impact initiatives around the world, EACH YEAR.

This means that my derision of Prince William’s absolutely, utterly, pathetically LAUGHABLE £3m budget OVER FIVE YEARS to ‘end’ homelessness is not exactly coming from a place of numbskullery.

£3m, that’s what my company spent last Tuesday.

And as to the comments asking in essence ‘what in heaven’s name would you do with money in tackling homelessness?’, despite this sounding rather like a rhetorical question, I already provided an outline response up-thread. And others have responded too.

As it turns out, there are professionals who have experience and expertise in tackling complex, multi-factorial social issues such as homelessness. It takes a multidisciplinary approach, as for all complex social issues, and this requires HEAVY LIFTING, with typically significant direct and frictional costs.

There is absolutely not a doubt in the world that money is not just a key enabler, it is the one that is in shortest supply. Many people are passionate about helping others, and are often willing to do so on an unpaid, charitable basis. But it takes more than a coalition of well-meaning volunteers. It takes the expertise and resources of health and social care professionals, researchers, suppliers, local government, project managers, etc etc. All this costs… MONEY. MOOLAH. £. DOUGH. CASH. You get the gist.

There are some fab non-profits out there, trying to do their best. @Amara123 Housing First is indeed a very respected approach, I've seen the impact it's having in countries including Germany and Switzerland.

There are plenty of folks outside the social sector quietly spending BIG money with professionals to have real impact, unlike our friends PW (or his buddy Hugh Secret Billions Grosvenor) and the other prancing royal billionaires of this country who could do a lot more but seem more interested in spending pennies while seeking photo-ops with the poor.

The posturing is all the more obscene in that this seems to be all the UK royal family can come up with to justify their existence and the outrageous (inheritance and other) tax breaks they get from the British taxpayer.

Apologies

I meant to start the post by referencing post by @cocolocopocos made today at 07:13

Ah, interesting! So the Duke of Westminster has moved onto the hitlist now? Does this mean even their supporters suspect that H&M were never really invited to the wedding?

And I was giving my thoughts in response to that. Not gratuitously bringing it to the thread for the first time and out of the blue.

i am at a loss as to what H&M has to do with PW and this idea.
PW is misguided at best to think that he can do this

PW is misguided at best to think that he can do this

He's not misguided. He knows full well that whatever minimal effort he puts out will be praised to the hilt. He won't be challenged on what exactly he thinks £3m will achieve over 5 years ( when his family have over the years deprived the treasury of many hundreds of times that) Just like he isn't challenged over the money spent by Earthshot on glitzy dinners compared to how much is spent on prize money ( another thing that is his life's work) It's the same with Kates early years stuff. It needs investment, social workers, health visitors, facilities and money. Not a Princess talking about how taking your kids outside every day is good for their mental health. Both of them are not showing anything tangible, probably deliberately. The DoE scheme has a tangible benefit. The Princes Trust, tangible benefit. Even Invictus, or The Queens annual Christmas party for sick children at Clarence House. Talking to people who will smile and nod at you and not ask difficult questions while the press blow smoke up your arse because you arent Harry and Meghan and they'd like another luncheon at Kensington Palace? Is that going to achieve anything of any benefit?

I live on a 1970s estate, our restrictions are farm animals and fowl. I'm guessing because the land was farmland before the estate was built.

I can understand that but it seemed strange to just pick on pigs. I wondered what they'd do if I moved an elephant in. (joking!)

@Amara123 Indeed, Housing first is very promising. Our LA have 4 single person housing first flats. We could fill 30 easily.

According to my mother (in her 80s, working class family) pigs and chickens, plus a vegetable garden, were fairly common for poor families who had the slightest bit of room. Both animals did well on food waste (plus a bit of 'proper' food). So they supplemented what was earned and grown.

But there were also drawbacks for neighbours in terms of smell and 'respectability' - it was a bit common to have pigs because it meant you couldn't afford much meat otherwise.

Hence pigs being banned!

Our restrictive covenant (inter-war ex-Council) bans me from selling alcoholic drinks!