[Dynopia]

Hate when people rag on people for giving (probably) unsupported charities funding. Hats off to her I say.

[Vodka_Drinka]

Originally Posted by tiggerpooh

Just look at the BBC1 comedy Birds of a Feather. After Tracey and Sharon's husbands were sent down for armed robbery, Sharon got a job in a supermarket, most of the time being behind the Deli counter, selling cheese and other products. Less than a year later, she was sacked. She had to go on the dole, but did manage to get into work about three years later. She became self employed, and opened her own cafe.

As for Tracey, if I remember, the money her and Darryl had, gradually ran out as the episodes went on. I remember in one episode, in the second series I believe, Tracey went to a cash dispensing machine to get some money and the machine rejected her card, saying it was empty.

So yeah, prisoners wives can easily get into situations that mean they have to start claiming benefits. They haven't got their husbands who can go out to work for them.

It's very different nowadays, to what it was like back in the 1950s and 1960s. Back then, the wife normally stayed at home, cleaning and cooking, plus looking after the kids, while the husband went to work, somewhere.

Nowadays, because of the state of things, with us being in a double-dip recession, both the wife and husband have to work, just to get enough money in to live a decent life. It's not right that both have to work, but at the moment, most couples have to.

I blame Gordon Brown when he was PM for this mess. I hold him soley responsible for the recession that started in 2008. It's still going on and it looks like it's going to get worse. They were saying on the news just before Christmas, that by the end of 2013, we could be in a triple-dip recession.

I thought back in the Summer, we were gradually starting to get out of this finacial mess, but it seems to have wavered back again.

God, Gordon Brown. The man should never have been PM in the first place. I've heard other people say the same thing over the last three years or so.

I know most people will think that I've babbled on a bit much, but I think I have made my point fairly and squarely.

Not sure how you can solely blame Gordon Brown for a global recession? I couldn't stand the man, but lets not get away with ourselves, most of the Western World is in a financial mess and in fact the UK is probably better off than a lot of places. Greece, Spain and our neighbours Ireland come to mind.

There are so many things wrong with your comment I don't know where to start? I assume you think we should hark back to the days when a women's place was in the home, chained to the sink running about after her man?

[*Sparkle*]

Originally Posted by Vodka_Drinka

Not sure how you can solely blame Gordon Brown for a global recession? I couldn't stand the man, but lets not get away with ourselves, most of the Western World is in a financial mess and in fact the UK is probably better off than a lot of places. Greece, Spain and our neighbours Ireland come to mind.

There are so many things wrong with your comment I don't know where to start? I assume you think we should hark back to the days when a women's place was in the home, chained to the sink running about after her man?

I think the fact think "Birds of a Feather" was a fly on the wall documentary provides a clue to their reasoning skills. Assuming they aren't just trolling. Hard to tell on here sometimes.

As for the charitable donation - good for her. It is commendable to think about which charities actually need support, and not just go for something fashionable.

[Winchester Lady]

I am very pleased that she gave to this charity.Only 40% of prisoners kept in prison on remand are eventually convicted so 60% are innocent yet they and their families suffer hugely. And remember that 60%+ of prisoners have a diagnosed mental condition. One day people will look back at our era and be disgusted that we treated mentally ill and innocent people like this. I long for that day.

[Vodka_Drinka]

Originally Posted by *Sparkle*

I think the fact think "Birds of a Feather" was a fly on the wall documentary provides a clue to their reasoning skills. Assuming they aren't just trolling. Hard to tell on here sometimes.

As for the charitable donation - good for her. It is commendable to think about which charities actually need support, and not just go for something fashionable.

Lol I used to watch Birds of A Feather but I don't remember specific details about episodes, apart from the one where Dorian sings Like a Virgin in a nightclub

[milliejo]

It isn't only men who have commited violent crime in prison. There are many women too for petty crimes who often have families at home. The children in those families are victims too, they would be targets of bullying, may have to go into care or stay with a parent with less income. The children may become disturbed and need counselling which needs to be funded too. So do associations and charities that do help them. Judging by peoples reaction, it is tough for this charity to get donations.

[milliejo]

Originally Posted by The Lost Boy

People really think wives/girfriends of scum are victims. Really! You are so out of touch you're on the moon. They know what their other halves are up to & they know the bloody risks.

Yes it's a charity & yes, she can give it to who she likes. Dosen't make it right though.

Yes, wives and girlfriends of some in prison did know the " bloody risks" to themselves, their children and the rest of their family if they told anyone. They will protect their children first, who are innocent and often trumatised when a parent goes to prison. Some families are both the victims of the crimes and families impovorished by their spouses going to jail... Someone who is in prison may have been a good provider but got done for white collar crime such as fraud, the family then fall on hard times.

[Cassy990]

She won and gave it to her chosen charity, whats the problem? It is her choice, if she believes in their work and the good it does what does it have to do with anyone else?
Maybe these families want to break their ties with crime, maybe it gives women/men the means to leave an abusive partner and establish their lives independantly when they're in jail, maybe it gives a criminal's kids somewhere to go so they don't follow the same path.
How many criticising Catherine's choice of charity actually researched what they do first?

[DavetheScot]

Originally Posted by Cassy990

How many criticising Catherine's choice of charity actually researched what they do first?

Probably a safe bet that none did.

[milliejo]

Originally Posted by Cassy990

She won and gave it to her chosen charity, whats the problem? It is her choice, if she believes in their work and the good it does what does it have to do with anyone else?
Maybe these families want to break their ties with crime, maybe it gives women/men the means to leave an abusive partner and establish their lives independantly when they're in jail, maybe it gives a criminal's kids somewhere to go so they don't follow the same path.
How many criticising Catherine's choice of charity actually researched what they do first?

Exactly.... I actually admire Catherine for choosing a charity that isn't about making her look good, it is sincerely given.

[grantus_max]

Originally Posted by habby

Out of all the worthwhile charities there are, she goes and gives it to one that's for prisoners families!! I'm sure the 'do gooders' will be very pleased.

They should all be giving money to the victims of their crimes, not the other way round. Their families have probably prospered with stolen money and goods anyway. Its ridiculous.

Personally speaking, as soon as someone uses the term 'do-gooder' in a derogeratory fashion, I tend to write off any ensuing opinions as reactionary, knee-jerk, lowest common denominator fodder, only worthy of Daily Mail editorial and Have Your Say comments.

I think we could do with a few more 'do-gooders' myself. People who don't just go for the easy answer, but who actually consider potential consequences and effects that others of a less generous nature may not. People, for example, who don't automatically apportion blame to others simply for being related to someone who's been punished for committing a crime, but who can see how they might be victims themselves - ironically, often due to the knee-jerk reactions of the sort of people who don't like 'do-gooders'.

Catherine Tyldesley has gone up a lot in my estimation since she said who she was donating her winnings to. It's a shame that those of a more mean-spirited persuasion can't quite manage keep their bile to themselves.

[MisterDuck]

Originally Posted by grantus_max

Personally speaking, as soon as someone uses the term 'do-gooder' in a derogeratory fashion, I tend to write off any ensuing opinions as reactionary, knee-jerk, lowest common denominator fodder, only worthy of Daily Mail editorial and Have Your Say comments.

I think we could do with a few more 'do-gooders' myself. People who don't just go for the easy answer, but who actually consider potential consequences and effects that others of a less generous nature may not. People, for example, who don't automatically apportion blame to others simply for being related to someone who's been punished for committing a crime, but who can see how they might be victims themselves - ironically, often due to the knee-jerk reactions of the sort of people who don't like 'do-gooders'.

Catherine Tyldesley has gone up a lot in my estimation since she said who she was donating her winnings to. It's a shame that those of a more mean-spirited persuasion can't quite manage keep their bile to themselves.

Brilliant post, couldn't have put it any better myself. Agree 100%.

[spaniel-lover]

Well if the money was from her salary then that would be different, but she never even had this £10k in the first place, & obviously it's very public, so I think it was a bad decision to choose that charity in this instance.

[grantus_max]

Originally Posted by spaniel-lover

Well if the money was from her salary then that would be different, but she never even had this £10k in the first place, & obviously it's very public, so I think it was a bad decision to choose that charity in this instance.

Why? Because you disapprove of it?

[spaniel-lover]

Originally Posted by grantus_max

Why? Because you disapprove of it?

It's obviously upset a lot of people & is controversial, otherwise nobody would be talking about it; she must be very naive if she thought that there would be no raised eyebrows.

[grantus_max]

Originally Posted by spaniel-lover

It's obviously upset a lot of people & is controversial, otherwise nobody would be talking about it; she must be very naive if she thought that there would be no raised eyebrows.

So what you're saying is that she shouldn't have donated so publicly to a cause that some people disapprove of, because some people might disapprove of it.

Personally, I have more respect for someone who sticks to her principles, in spite of disapproval from a knee-jerk minority, than someone who would rather pander to that minority, regardless of whether or not their disapproval is justified.

[spaniel-lover]

Try putting yourself in the position of somebody who's just been a victim of a crime, say your house has been burgled, you're round at a friend/relative's house watching TV (because the burglars stole you TV) & you see this programme & this woman giving money to this charity - how would you feel?

[The Prumeister]

Originally Posted by spaniel-lover

Try putting yourself in the position of somebody who's just been a victim of a crime, say your house has been burgled, you're round at a friend/relative's house watching TV (because the burglars stole you TV) & you see this programme & this woman giving money to this charity - how would you feel?

I'd rationalise that criminals have families and children who have done nothing wrong and who deserve support whilst excitedly looking forward to getting my new TV on insurance.

[grantus_max]

Originally Posted by spaniel-lover

Try putting yourself in the position of somebody who's just been a victim of a crime, say your house has been burgled, you're round at a friend/relative's house watching TV (because the burglars stole you TV) & you see this programme & this woman giving money to this charity - how would you feel?

Exactly the same, because I don't automatically blame the criminal's family for the actions of the criminal. Unfortunately, your line of argument indicates that you do.

[spaniel-lover]

Originally Posted by The Prumeister

I'd rationalise that criminals have families and children who have done nothing wrong and who deserve support whilst excitedly looking forward to getting my new TV on insurance.

That flippant remark illustrates that you've obviously never been burgled & have no empathy with people who have, I haven't either - but recognise that it must be extremely traumatic.

[The Prumeister]

Originally Posted by spaniel-lover

That flippant remark illustrates that you've obviously never been burgled & have no empathy with people who have, I haven't either - but recognise that it must be extremely traumatic.

What on earth?????

Seriously, you are bordering on hysterical. Burglary IS traumatic, I know plenty of people who have been burgled so quit making assumptions...

Burglary is traumatic but it's not as traumatic as rape or murder (for example). Material goods can be replaced. Are you seriously saying that you would have no empathy for a baby or child who was the baby or child of a burglar; an innocent victim who has done nothing wrong? Do they not deserve support? Or in your desperately blinkered little world, are you just of the Daily Mail 'string 'em up' mentality?

I suspect so.

[grantus_max]

Originally Posted by spaniel-lover

That flippant remark illustrates that you've obviously never been burgled & have no empathy with people who have, I haven't either - but recognise that it must be extremely traumatic.

It's a shame your empathy isn't accompanied by the realisation that there are more victims of crime than just the obvious ones.

[spaniel-lover]

Originally Posted by The Prumeister

I'd rationalise that criminals have families and children who have done nothing wrong and who deserve support whilst excitedly looking forward to getting my new TV on insurance.

Not everybody has insurance - a lot of people can't afford it, I do not have insurance.

[spaniel-lover]

Originally Posted by The Prumeister

What on earth?????

Seriously, you are bordering on hysterical. Burglary IS traumatic, I know plenty of people who have been burgled so quit making assumptions...

Burglary is traumatic but it's not as traumatic as rape or murder (for example). Material goods can be replaced. Are you seriously saying that you would have no empathy for a baby or child who was the baby or child of a burglar; an innocent victim who has done nothing wrong? Do they not deserve support? Or in your desperately blinkered little world, are you just of the Daily Mail 'string 'em up' mentality?

I suspect so.

Say somebody stole my late grandmother's wedding ring, now in monetary value it's probably worth about £10, but it has sentimental value to me.

[grantus_max]

Originally Posted by spaniel-lover

Say somebody stole my late grandmother's wedding ring, now in monetary value it's probably worth about £10, but it has sentimental value to me.

So, are you saying that not only should the criminal be punished by the courts, but their families should be left destitute as well?

I thought you said you had empathy...