Just found this on the chronicle website

Sounds like its best you never leave Yorkshire
Unprepared for the big wide world

 

Many media institutions have used this tactic to report on the issue of homelessness. I've read reports in the nationals and seen documentaries on TV where journalists have done the very same. This is the most half-arsed attempt I've heard of like, they usually last much longer than an hour.

The accusation here appears to be that it was an attempt to highlight how tight the people of Barnsley are. It doesn't read like that at all to me. It seems like a genuine attempt to understand the hopelessness people feel when they're in such a situation. That's not to say I think the article is particularly good, but it I think the intentions were a lot higher than 'the people of Barnsley are a right tight arsed bunch'. I think the journalist has bitten off a lot more than he can chew, but I'm not sure I should be criticising someone for being ambitious.

I've never been that comfortable with this style of reporting, whether it's done by the BBC or a local paper. The journalist will always be a tourist. They will always know they can just jack it in at any point and go home (after an hour in this case) so they will never understand the reel feelings of hopelessness that someone in such a situation has to deal with. If you're on the street you can't go home, it's not a game, it's real life. As such, I'm not sure anything gained from the report is particularly valid. The claim is that they've tried to walk in someone else's shoes, but they haven't, they've just got their own comfortable, well made, expensive shoes a bit dirty. Having said that, I don't think The Chronicle should come in for any more criticism than any other media source, the more high profile of which use these tactics all the time.

 

It looks as if he has a gold watch on too

 

As an aside, I give money to people on the streets all the time. I'm not bigging myself up, it's just summat I do. I don't claim what I do is right, that it's a morally superior thing to do, that others should do it, it just is.

It used to cause endless arguments with my wife. She couldn't understand why I would give money to someone who, in all likelihood, would spend the money on drink/fags/drugs and I couldn't understand why we have all the direct debits giving money to charitable institutions who spend a great deal of it sending out begging letters or employing people in call centres to ring you up and ask for more money. We don't argue any more, I just get a wry smile if I ever walk past a homeless person and don't give them my money.

When I give money to someone on the streets I know exactly where it's going. It's going to the dirty fella right in front of me with the skin condition, the dodgy eye and the look on his face that he's about to kill me. When you give it to a national charity you have no idea where it's going.

The argument against what I do is always the same - they'll spend it on drink and drugs. What do you think I was going to spend the money on? And I'd be even more inclined to buy such things if I didn't have a house. I've got some money, they haven't, I share it out.

I don't give to charity with conditions attached. Once I've given it away, it' not my money, it's theirs and I have no right to tell them how to use it. I hope they buy some food, sometimes they will, sometimes they won't, but if I was a politician I wouldn't reduce the income of the jobless to food stamps and I won't restrict what I give to vulnerable people to what society thinks they should have. Freedom of choice is one the greatest things we have as human beings. Being human, we will always make the wrong choices, but we should be free to make them. Being on the streets is dehumanizing enough, I won't add to that by only giving what I think they need rather than allowing people the choice to get what they want.

That's what I think and what I do, not an argument telling you how you should think and what you should do.

 

What a load of ******** mate.

Everybody knows Lonsdale trainers are ******* horrific and no person in his right mind would a) call them expensive and b) would wear them in public.

 

Exactly I never give to someone begging on the street. I don't trust them enough to not spend it on drink or drugs. For all I know they could have a nice house or be doing something like this.....

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Homel...-800-pockets/story-20587956-detail/story.html

Annoyed is right.......

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/10/22/public-conflicted-homeless/

It's shocking how little Kirkless Council do to stop beggars on the streets pestering passers by. Same goes for those with clipboards trying to get you to give a couple of quid a month to some random charity. That's just as bad. If people want to give they should give directly to a charity so they know for sure where the cash is going and shouldn't be mivered in a town centre.

 

£800 for 3 days work, if he does it 5 days a week that's £69,333 a year, tax free, think I might take it up myself.

 

Yeah and if you are a begger in London at say Kings Cross you could probably do really well too. 20 pence here, 50 there etc will soon add up with tens of thousands going through the station daily.

 

Even in a serious post you can't resist a fishing pun can you?