In this round the son of Harry (remember him?) Vs the achievement (🙄🙄🙄 ) of Captain Tom:
In this round the son of Harry (remember him?) Vs the achievement (🙄🙄🙄 ) of Captain Tom:
The view that charity is a terrible thing because the state should be doing it all is right up there in the worst opinions known to man. Very prevalent on the extreme left of the extreme left - back at SOAS there were a bunch of people on my politics course who wanted the Big Issue seller banned from selling outside campus.
Individual acts of kindness MUST STOP.
Nope, the state shouldn't be doing it. They should be managing this shit show properly, so the requirement for charity is negligible though.
I don't think there was a 'requirement' for raising money for the NHS. He just thought it would be a nice thing to do.
Talking of Grifters, a classic in the genre who seems to have lost the plot:
What's a grifter.
Con artist, for example Andrew 'the establishment ruined my life' Wakefield who's career as an anti-vax speaker has made him a multi millionaire shagging Elle Macpherson.
And that wasn't even the plan. He was just out to make money on his vaccines and then became anti-vax (for financial purposes) once he was struck off.
I see your point, but I think the one nation Tory support of the big rich businessman kindly donating a fraction of the money he's tax dodging to his hobby horse charity of choice does give governments an excuse for not doing their job properly, though it's probably more a subjective, ideological argument about what governments even are man, so eh.
Historically government wasn't some kind of failsafe welfare mechanism that would do everything for everyone at all times, though somehow in modern times some people seem to see it that way.
A lot of charity sprang from religious groups doing those things instead, out of moral conviction.
Though as I alluded to, we're basically just doing chapter one of some introduction to political philosophy textbook, so it's probably a bit pointless even discussing it.
Indeed, but I think whatever the right balance is, that bloke seething at Captain Tom for wanting to raise money for things is mental.
I assume it is basically mud slinging purely to attract more fundraising for his own pet project that he has decided is now his full time job that can be creamed off as long as possible.
Charity has a very valuable place in society. We obviously shouldn't be relying on charity to feed the poor, that's the government's job but equally do we want our tax money being spent on preserving the habitat of Peruvian Pink Faced Tarantulas? And could we rely on them to do a better job than a charity that is actually interested in the cause anyway?
I think too many people get the 'grifter' tag put upon them now. The nonce in the opening post is one (not 'Daws'), and Lawrence Fox is another; but I think a lot of them are too mental - in the broadest sense, i.e. seriously inadequate - to be doing it with any sort of cynicism. Those people should merely be belittled and lolled at rather than hammered.
Harry's son is going to be fuming.
How don't people see through these cunts?
I'm not sure how a film of it would work. He was just a normal bloke for almost one-hundred per cent of his life, so you're building it up to him walking in his garden and dying. I would make it about his grifting family, like Matilda but with a vulnerable pensioner.
It will be 50% World War 2, 25% being a GREAT DAD, 25% walking incredibly slowly.
It all sounds a bit United Passions.
'They said he couldn't do it...'
I didn't know that. Hopefully it sheds some light on what really happened.Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Zimmer Frames of Fire.