If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
To an extent it does, but the difference there is that it is the actions of our governments which have lead to the problems. Those actions have been taken in our name and so we have some moral responsibility.
besides, I think there is a HUGE difference between supporting some in their attempt to try and eat/educate/gain health care etc and providing them with materiel possessions. Don't you?
Actually we are bailing out the banks. Unless they are forced into remedying their actions then they will do it again, and again.
Yes robbed. I don't disagree with that sentiment.
Do you donate to all victims of robbery, or just high profile ones?
This isn't about taking the moral high ground, it about making those responsible for this situation to rectify it themselves.
I did too, but apparently the Directors of farepack's parent company and those of the bank are up there with any other thief IMHO.
I hope that wasn't aimed at me, because if it is then I'd like you to back that up with any quote of mine which could give you that impression.
The poor working class scum, you refer to, are the same people who are bailing out the rich underclass scum who are going to enjoy a bumper Christmas this year at the expense of the poeple they ripped off. And at yours too.
No - we are bailing out the injured parties here. Government should be legislating against this happening again and taking whatever action they require to get the money back. In the meantime, I was inclined to help my fellow human being in trouble.
If I was aware of a fund for general victims of robbery who are on low income, yes, I would donate to them. Perhaps you know where one can do that?
But these poor people CAN'T make a difference themselves ...
No - that wasn't directed directly at you. I added that as a general comment at the end of my post and I was unclear. Sorry!
But I still maintain, if it was your granny that was ripped off by Farepak, your views would likely be quite different.
I will Jim .. thanks.
MOK - I have great respect for your posts .. I guess I am just of a rather sensitive nature.
It's sad to see the tabloids chasing people for donations to this fund, and proudling claiming how "they" have given Christmas back to the victims, instead of hounding the culprits in the same way that they would hound a minor celebrity for taking drugs.
I'm also interested to see that "only" £5m has been raised when you consider the wealth in this country. Surely people like Branson, McCartney, HM QE2 etc aren't holding on to the same principles as me...?
And by bailing them out, you are also letting the Govt off the hook. It is they who should front up the £35m stolen and then suing the individuals concerned for the return of the money. Don't tell me that it can't be done because there are ways and means to do anything you want to (like this) it just takes political will and a little effort.
If they don't want to sue then you can be damned sure that there is a way to fine these people for something...
Why only those on low income? Is the loss of £500 quid to me any less?
I don't know, but then as you can probably gather it's not something I would be looking out for either
I'm not sure it would because I would still be going after the thief, not his neighbour.
I was merely demonstrating how they have a large amount of disposable income
It's not that much to give £10, yet only 90 out of 450ish gave anything more than 1p.
That's completely true. What's that saying about biting the mouth that feeds you? If they want to go on a luxury holiday this christmas then fine, but I hope all of their constituents who were left high and dry show their appreciation at the next election.
Maybe MPs should be putting more pressure on the government to step in, or to accellerate the compensation process, or to pay something before its complete so these families have something for christmas. And, it would be a nice gesture if MPs could give even a little. Just in the same way, that's it's nice if our national football team can sing their own anthem.
But it's their money and they can do what they want with it. The fact they have several thousand voters to thank for that money shouldn't enter into the equation. Of course it's the MPs fault. But it's christmas, and as much as most people hate it, it's about the kids really, and a lot of kids are going to be miserable because of this.
I guess we are just two different types of people ... you would leave someone to bleed in the street because its the police's duty to catch the thief and the NHS's job to patch them up. I would help them regardless.
Neither is wrong but I prefer 'my' people ...
Not to mention the work I do for the NHS or course
I understand your perspective and it's laudable that you feel the drive to offer financial support. I just believe that it's "small picture thinking". [eta...] Let me explain because it is linked to the NHS thing.
We could have spent money and time on finding a treatment for measles, or we could (as we did and continue to) spend time and moeny on providing a innoculation. Which do you think offers greatest benefit? In this situation we can focus our effort (and the media's attention) on giving these people less of a Christmas than they planned, or we can focus our effort on forcing the Govt/Bank/Owners to give them the Christmas they wanted and kick the arses of those who put it in peril in the first place
It may not be the most horrific thing thats ever happened but these people were just trying to make a nice christmas for their familys why does it have to become this huge issue about whos resposible and who should pay out we all know the answer to that.
From the BBC site last night :-
"Organisers aim to deliver the money, in the form of vouchers, before Christmas.
They will be sent to Farepak agents - who handled payments on behalf of savers - by December 18 although this date may be brought forward.
Those affected by the Farepak collapse should receive some 15 pence for every £1 they had saved, based on the response fund. "
Do they?
Or, like most people, do they have a mortgage that reflects their income?
Many people would consider our income to be quite high, but we don't have the money to bail out HBOS.
It sounds like a huge amount of money, £56,000, but it isn't really that much.
And why should they give private money to bail out thieving bankers and robbing directors?
The people responsible are the directors of Farepak- all of whom still have their knighthoods and their houses- and the lending directors of HBOS plc. Those are the people who should be bailing out the response fund- and although HBOS gave £2m to the fund, that's a tiny amount compared to the interest they made from Farepak's customers. Those are the people you should be vilifying- the people who did this.
It'd odd how the robbing bankers and thieving directors don't get any abuse, but the MPs do, and companies which don't donate cash do. What on earth is going on with that?
The reason why I won't donate is twofold- firstly, and most importantly, I don't have unlimited wealth and I don't think a turkey is a deserving cause, and secondly I don't see why I should have to part with my wedge to get the knighted directors of Farepak and HBOS off the hook. People should be attacking those people, people should be vilifying them, putting their address and home telephone numbers in the public domain.
And whilst people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds, it's about giving some kids a good christmas which I think is quite important. Of course, the people responsible should cough up; but that's a legal process that will take months if not years, and that's little comfort to 6 and 7 year olds wondering why santa hasn't come this year.
Since a lot of these families are desperate, they're turning to their MP to find out what can be done. Of course MPs cant give cash out to each individual family, but by not even bothering to donate to the fund doesn't it send out the message they're not too bothered? Only 90 / 450 gave anything.
Even if they all just gave £10, it would have been better than nothing...
In some cases that's true, but in other cases people have been saving up for 'just' a Christmas, from my own experience we ran a saving scheme at the co op and people would save £1 or £2 a week to build up so they could afford food and stuff for Christmas. But you're right; money a good Christmas does not make. It's not about a new xbox 360, or anything like that - but a good meal, a few presents for the kids, lots of sweeties, miles of fairie lights and hopefully lots of family does make it enjoyable; and that does cost some money.
But I concede that point, you're right, you don't need money for a good Christmas. It helps sometimes though
I just feel bad for those families, because christmas doesn't really matter so much at our age, it's for young family - it's for the kids. And I'd rather we missed out a bit than them be upset because santa doesn't love them.... lol.
for those of you who really care about people who need help this christmas, buy your presents from oxfam unwrapped.
Exactly, this keeps getting refered to as an 'emergency' but it really isnt. Its sad certainly, and unfortunately for those who have lost money. But as others have said this is a banking issue which should be sorted out by the government and the courts, not some charity drive.
And if MP's were asked to donate £10 to every family in their area which was poor at Christmas that would probably be more than their entire wages in some areas.
To compare, there wasn't a charity fund when Allders went bust, with people losing their money on undelivered items; there wasn't a relief fund when PowerHouse went bust, when Courts went bust. It happens, and its incredibly shit, but it isn't for MPs to bail people out, either with public funds or private.
If other people want to donate then that's great, but it isn't for me.
I am somewhat aghast.
Farepak was widely known to generate the majority of its revenue from its core business in Christmas hampers but, in addition, it sold High Street Gift Vouchers and supply gifts.
How can you assume that it was X Boxes for 'Junior' that they are going to be buying and not food? Maybe some were buying X Boxes - but greater amounts of peopel were not. Most of these people used their savings to buy the hampers etc with contents that they usually can't allow themselves to afford.
I do not think you are intending to be unsympathetic but I do believe you have a poor understanding of how and why these saving schemes operate - which is predominantly for Christmas hampers.
No, I just meant £10, not for every family, just to the fund. Probably wouldn't go very far but it's the meaning or something.
Budda, I agree with you it's not for charity it's for the banks, but since it's going to take time for that process to complete... well it's Christmas
Dude, it's called hyperbole; a concept which posters on this board, myself included, are all too adept at using.
That's very true. But Christmas is that one time of year when we are able to sit back and consider others before ourselves ... well, that's the way I was brought up to think.
Obviously, the world is changing around me so quickly that I can't keep up ...
I really regret starting this thread.
It may well be hyperbole - X Boxes or no X Boxes - but the implication was that the majority were saving for presents and not hampers - whcih does not coincide with Farepak revenue statements.
But the money for both food and presents has gone. No - they won't starve ... Lidls are doing a can of baked beans for 13p, don't you know?