'Don't give us money': Homeless man says almost all cash given to beggars goes to buy

[JessFR]

On reflection, I think you're right, half right in a perhaps unintended way. If he did it for money, it is hypocritical to be pissed at him if you'd do it yourself, and you're right, a lot of people would. So considering that, I can't really fault him if he did it for money for his own addiction, it would be hypocritical in the face of far worse things ive done for my addiction. But I can still be pissed at him if he did it for free though, cause that I wouldn't do.

 

[spacejunk]

I don't blame the guy, regardless of what the (back) story is.
Knowing what i do of journalism - sleazy tabloids like the daily mail would have almost certainly paid the guy - it's just how they operate - and i think it's just crass and exploitative journalism - it panders to stereotypes and has an overall message of not giving homeless/panhandling people money.

Maybe i read too much into these things, but the message of the article doesn't sit well with me, from the journalistic point of view.

 

[JessFR]

People want to feel justified in doing what they secretly want to do anyway. They don't want to give away money, so they like excuses not too. That way they can say how they're generous but don't give money because it'll get spent on drugs, and therefore not have too without looking selfish. Same thing with stories about charities having administrative costs that mean not all the money goes to the stated purpose.

The worst are the middle class. People living in a nice house with money and luxuries I would consider inconceivable. And yet give nothing, and then just to really rub it in, talk about how THEY are poor and bad off. I hate them and they disgust me.

 

[belligerent drunk]

I don't blame the guy, regardless of what the (back) story is.
Knowing what i do of journalism - sleazy tabloids like the daily mail would have almost certainly paid the guy - it's just how they operate - and i think it's just crass and exploitative journalism - it panders to stereotypes and has an overall message of not giving homeless/panhandling people money.

Maybe i read too much into these things, but the message of the article doesn't sit well with me, from the journalistic point of view.

I don't really know how journalism works, especially in other countries. Could the journalists have just straight up lied/made the story up? I mean, the guy's homeless, it's not like his word counts in the eyes of the majority anyway.

E: what I'm asking is, if you misquote or put words in someone's mouth, especially someone who is a known/important figure, you're going to have an issue, but it's not the same with a homeless guy, right? I'm just asking.

 

[JessFR]

You're probably right, but they wouldn't have made it up, simply because they don't have too. They could just ask several people until someone gives them the answer they want, publish that one and ignore the rest. It's similar to how those comedy segments that try to show how dumb average people are work.

 

[spacejunk]

Journalists fabricate stories all the time.
Have you guys not ever witnessed something, then seen it reported in the media in a completely distorted manner?
I have, numerous times - and tabloids like this are the worst offenders.
They write the story around what they want the narrative to be; sensationalise trivial events and trivialise serious events.

Some media outlets have much higher standards than others, but the Daily Mail is notorious for having low standards of journalistic ethics.

And yes - they can say whatever they want about guys like this with virtual impunity - he has no power socially or financially.
Its not so much that i think they fabricated the story, as they may have twisted it to fit the headline they wanted.

That's how tabloids tend to operate - sensationalism and hype.
Must've been a slow news day.

 

[manboychef]

Regardless of the reasons that he may or may not have said it (as I wrote this I blew my own mind by realizing just how far media news outlets have lowered the bar in that we cannot even make any inference of any sort of concrete fact from what they have written) he has a very prominent facial tattoo. He is easily recognizable and will see backlash from this.

When it comes to homeless people: Their life is already not so great. As a previously homeless addict I know just how miserable that lifestyle is. Any kindness was welcome, even just someone smiling at me, because that sure beat the lack of dignity that comes when people blatantly ignore you.

 

[S.J.B.]

Everybody already knows this, but it's typical of the Daily Mail to treat it as news in an attempt to rile people up.

 

[JessFR]

Everybody already knows this, but it's typical of the Daily Mail to treat it as news in an attempt to rile people up.

Anyone who gets riled up about the homeless population deserves to get ripped off.

Which is why of the many things that weigh on my conscience that ive done to pay for my drug habit, panhandling isn't one of them.

 

[slimvictor]

Whenever I am confronted with a homeless-looking person asking for money, I think to myself, What Would Jesus Do?
And I realize that Jesus would turn their water INTO WINE! Free drugs for everyone!
So I do a little magic spell to turn their water into wine.
If it doesn't work (and, to be honest, it almost never does) I simply give them a couple bucks so that they can make their own magic.

But, being a bit more serious, people in all countries in every era of human history have used drugs.
People with difficult lives use more drugs more often. That is the beauty of drugs - they help us feel better.
Homeless people have incredibly difficult lives, most of the time.
I don't care a bit if they want to get high or drunk.
I can't buy them a house, but I can give them a bit of money to help them feel better for a few hours, at least.
And, when I give it to them, I always treat them with utmost respect, and I even thank them.
Most seem to ignore this, but a few ask me why I am thanking them while I give them money.
I simply explain that I get to go home and feel good today that I helped out a brother/sister in need, which is a better feeling even than getting money (for me, at least, since I don't lack money to live).
So, I am clear with them that we are both benefitting from this exchange, even though the money is only going one way.

If they go buy drugs with the money I gave them, I have no problem with it.
They deserve an escape from suffering, just as the rest of us do.

 

[spacejunk]

Anyone who gets riled up about the homeless population deserves to get ripped off.

By 'riled up' - i assume you are talking about judging homeless folks for how they spend the negligible amounts of money they are able to acquire?
Because i agree; but what does rile me up is the way the issues that lead to homelessness - such as decreased housing affordability across much of the developed world, (housing shortages in some areas and insane increases in rent - and corresponding cuts in the sort of welfare programs that were intended to help with those problems, when they arise (here in Australia, at least).

instead of reporting on that, the bastards stick the boot in to people who are obviously already vulnerable.
i don't really keep up with other countries' governments' policies on social welfare; but the housing crisis isn't limited to Australia or New Zealand - plenty of people in the US are struggling to maintain stable housing arrangements, which is also true of the Uk and parts of Continentsl Europe. And the pattern seems to be leaning increasingly towards cutting services of that nature - not maintaining or (heaven forbid!) improving the way they are funded.

Rather than whip up contempt for the poor bastards, the tabloids (theoretically) have a perfect platform to help spread a bit of empathy and understanding - but they're all about the sensationalist headline.
"Clickbait", in an online context.

The point about the guy's face tattoo, and lack of anonymity and privacy, is a good one that i didn't fully consider - but have had a few journalist friends over the years that have wound up having to work for these sorts of sensationalist media outlets.
Their approach to reporting is so cynical and tawdry - and while i shouldn't pretend to know their motivations exactly, i'd be willing to bet that this story works for the newspaper in the sense that -

a) it taps into average suburbanites' fear and poor understanding of homelessness - and poverty leading people to beg on the street - generally.
b) even if the gentleman quoted and pictured in the story was generously paid for his contribution (or compliance) - it was probably a very small price for the paper to pay. A bargain for them, compared to what some news organisations are prepared to pay for "exclusive" rights to "break" a "story" (obviously not applicable here, as there is no revelation of new information in this article.
c) it got an obviously striking image (the tattooed-face guy's general appearance) onto their front page.

I know it is incredibly cynical, but wouldn't read much deeper into the story at all than that; the paper got a headline and a front-page photo out of the guy. Another issue's copy filled and sent to be published.

He hopefully got paid a bit for having his image and identity splashed across NZ (and - i guess - the world).
But what manboychef says is so true - what little safety and security he has - practically none to begin with - been jeopardised by this; there is the potential that people who don't even know him - but will surely recognise him as the guy that sold them out, or whatever grievance may result from a story like this. Even if he got a few hundred bucks for his picture and the quotes attributed to him (which i sincerely hope) - i suspect the Mail may have essentially offered him something he couldn't refuse.

Sure, all manner of people could potentially hold a heavy grudge against him for being the apprent face and voice of a shabby media campaign telling people not to give money to homeless people - but if he had a relatively large (by a homeless guy's standards) sum of money offered to him to be used as the source of the story (which, i should point out, is pure speculation on my part - simply based on a broad understanding of how dodgy tabloid newspapers operate) - that's really poor form on behalf of the newspaper, in my opinion at least.
I would imagine that someone with over 30 years' experience with homelessness would have something more profound to say to a journalist than "don't give em money, they'll just waste it getting smashed".
It downplays the important issues, and obscures them with this trivial cliché. The whole story just reeks of fabricated bullshit to me.
Hopefully not many people in Auckland (whether they are homeless, resort to panhandling - or not) will read the Daily Mail to start with.
"Beggars" have been using what money they have to seek intoxicated relief from the position they find themselves in.
This kind of patronising tut-tutting isn't new - and it's not helpful. Depriving addicts of money to "support their habit" on some kind of moral principle is thoroughly misguided, and likely to harm more than help people.
Especially as it is coming from a guy who is described as having been living on the streets for over 30 years. Not a social worker or a community leader, who would arguably be better informed to make a statement like "don't give homeless people money".

 

[nuttynutskin]

Depriving addicts of money to "support their habit" on some kind of moral principle is thoroughly misguided, and likely to harm more than help people.

One could argue tho that by giving homeless addicts money to fuel their addiction you're just enabling them to stay homeless and addicted. I think it makes more sense to have more programs to help the homeless with issues like mental health, addiction, getting jobs and getting back on their feet because obviously just throwing money at them isn't ending the homeless epidemic. The problem is a lot of homeless people don't want to go through the hoops even if such programs are available to them. Also, some people choose homelessness basically as a way of life for whatever reason. Other than that, I think you may be assuming/reading too much into the article. I doubt it will affect much of anything honestly.

 

[manboychef]

I agree with both spacejunk and nuttynutskin. I feel like the calvin in hobbes comic strip that is drawn in a neo-cubist style. Calvin basically states that: Because his dad had opened his eyes to another viewpoint other than his own he was having a hard time moving around the world because he was seeing everything from all angles (back front and sides all at once). Let me find the comic and post it.

I guess I should incorporate the two to create a new viewpoint. (I find it amazing that in CE&P more people do not read the views of others, actually consider them, and then refocus their own viewpoint after coming to a more reasonable understanding)

viewpoint: The idea that these people have slipped through the cracks, or cannot help themselves is fairly relevant. There are many countries that help out those in need, however I am from the states (we are forced bootstrappers here). It seems like we spend way more money on our military, and on prison to actually afford to help these people. Most of these people would not be on the streets if they had a choice. Think on this for a second. In philadelphia there are vast tracts of houses that are condemned and lay vacant. Why then shouldn't some tax money go into fixing up some of these properties to create apartments to keep people off the street in the winter? Why are rehabs so expensive? Why is it up to the citizens to pay their taxes, and also give these people money? Our security blanket that is supposed to protect people by offering health services, mental health services, cheaper housing, food, access to jobs, and access to get clothes and transportation for said jobs is severely lacking because the funds for that are constantly under attack by lawmakers that care little for their constituents. We also have a culture here that views homelessness and addiction as a moral problem and not a humanitarian one. I am sure most of the people would still panhandle, but should we not treat them just a bit better?

 

[JessFR]

One could argue tho that by giving homeless addicts money to fuel their addiction you're just enabling them to stay homeless and addicted. I think it makes more sense to have more programs to help the homeless with issues like mental health, addiction, getting jobs and getting back on their feet because obviously just throwing money at them isn't ending the homeless epidemic. The problem is a lot of homeless people don't want to go through the hoops even if such programs are available to them. Also, some people choose homelessness basically as a way of life for whatever reason. Other than that, I think you may be assuming/reading too much into the article. I doubt it will affect much of anything honestly.

In no case in my experiences with homelessness would it be accurate to say they didn't get social services simply because of the hoops. And the hoops are insane and make up a full time jobs worth of work as it is.

 

[manboychef]

In no case in my experiences with homelessness would it be accurate to say they didn't get social services simply because of the hoops. And the hoops are insane and make up a full time jobs worth of work as it is.

That is exactly what I mean. If you have an addiction that must be fed it is hard to wait at the civic center for eight hours to get a bus pass. A lot of homeless people have lost important documents as well (birth certificate, SS card). That makes obtaining services extremely difficult. If you do not have an address you receive mail at it is hard to find a bunch of forms of ID.

 

[nuttynutskin]

As far as not wanting to go through the hoops, one example I can think of is the homeless shelter here... The only real requirement for being provided a bed and food is that you're sober, but that alone is going to turn off a lot of people. Or as far as work, even if provided the opportunity a lot of homeless people would rather panhandle because it's easier. I'm not saying this is the case for all of the homeless but I'm willing to bet it accounts for quite a bit, especially when I hear that having food isn't really a problem. It's a complicated issue tho and kind of a vicious cycle. Like what's already sort of been touched on, if you're dirty, without an address or necessary paperwork I would imagine it makes it really hard to do just about anything to get out of homelessness even if you want to. That's the reason I think more resources and opportunities are a better answer than just throwing money at the problem. Especially for homeless vets. The way we treat even non-homeless vets as far as the lack of mental health care or care in general is pretty lousy, although I think it's slowly getting better.

 

[manboychef]

This is good. This guys conversation may have done what it was intended to do, which was to spark conversation about the homeless lifestyle.

 

[slimvictor]

This is good. This guys conversation may have done what it was intended to do, which was to spark conversation about the homeless lifestyle.

Yes, maybe so.
Too many people are afraid of homelessness and homeless people.
If they can just understand that they are human beings, and we are all brothers and sisters...

 

[Keif' Richards]

Wait a minute, hold the phone, stop the presses...

This guy is trying to say that a large portion of the beggar population are spending their proceeds on drugs and alcohol? Now I've really heard everything.

 

[Purposefull]

I've long realized that once I hand a stranger be they homeless, a con artist or just casual stranger down on their luck some cash they're free to do with it as they please. It's no longer my money, it's theirs.
I do occasionally hand strangers money, but it usually depends on if they have a great bullshit story or not. The better the bs story the more likely to get some money from me. I've been on both sides of this. Having been homeless and addicted I can tell you that there were days that just a scrap of food would have made all the difference and other days when I really could have used the bus fare.