Reasons to doubt Shelter Scotland’s agenda

Times

Regular visitors here will know that, according to research by the charity Crisis, the homeless rate in Scotland is about half that in England and the lowest in the UK. Full details here:

https://www.crisis.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/worst-forms-of-homelessness-less-common-in-scotland-than-england-research-finds/

In the media reporting, limited of course, the other main homeless charity, Shelter, have not commented, yet once more they appear (above) to criticise the SNP Government.

A cursory read tells you that the Times headline is inaccurate nonsense but, equally, Shelter’s communication’s guy seems to deliberately misinterpret the phrase in Scottish Government funding contracts:

No part of the grant shall be used to fund any activity or material which is party political in intention, use or presentation or appears to be designed to affect support for a political party.

Given the news from Crisis, the SNP’s far far better record on building affordable housing, who should have most fear from Shelter attacking them?

The answer is, of course, the opposition parties, all of them, but try search for ‘BBC Scotland housing homeless Shelter’ and you’ll find Shelter feeding BBC Scotland with material to attack the SNP Government and, of course, largely ignoring what it has achieved.

10 thoughts on “Reasons to doubt Shelter Scotland’s agenda

  1. I tend to agree with regard to Shelter. In response to investment by the SG in housing, the BBC Scotland report was lukewarmly supportive and then they presented a short piece by a woman spokesperson from Shelter, who adopted, the ‘not nearly enough’ sneer.

    A lot of spokespersons for generally praiseworthy charities adopt the “I am really angry here (because I am paid to take offence on demand). What is beiong offered is nt nearly enough/a drop in the ocean/worse than useless/too little too late, etc”.

    It is possible, indeed likely, that what they say is edited to fit the editorial slant, but such persons do more harm than good with the impression they convey about their organisation and its attitude. It comes across as hectoring and ‘if you expect me to thank you for that, you are wasting your time.’

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I strongly advice them to exercise great caution with the words they deploy and to whom of a nefarious propagandist twist then deploy such words
      “If you fly with the crows, THEN”
      Because never can such be ever regarded as Charitable
      At the very least Foolish and that would be charitable

      Like

  2. Slightly off -topic but I guess like many here I am frequently incensed at many news/documentary reports on TV that use the general term ‘UK’ when in fact they are referring almost exclusively to ‘England & Wales’ only. In many instances (as we found during Covid) it is often used to either muddy the waters and/or invariably hides a much worse situation than in Scotland. This is becoming intolerable and in my view it is high time the Scot Gov took legal action against those responsible to force them to clearly define the extent of their programme content.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. “.. use the general term ‘UK’ when in fact they are referring almost exclusively to ‘England & Wales’ only”

      This is an issue – and not a new one – that affects the Scottish public’s knowledge and also arguably its confidence in Scotland and its institutions, at least those members of the public not motivated to follow politics closely. And it’s part of a bigger issue – and a big communication challenge – as it sits alongside ‘bias by omission’, ‘negative framing’ and the typical absence of context or perspective in most corporate media and BBC output regarding Scotland.

      I listen to BBC R4’s Today programme for a time just about every morning. There are weekly examples of presenters/interviewers and/or interviewees (unchallenged/not corrected) broadcasting content on ‘flagship’ programme that conflates England or England & Wales with the UK.

      Most of my complaints submitted to the BBC over the past few years have been in essence about this matter. Of course none have resulted in a satisfactory response and nothing has changed. This is despite the BBC’s own editorial guidance being clear about the importance of ‘locating’ a story. (see https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidance/reporting-the-uk/ )

      The guidance states:
      ‘When our UK audiences are affected differently by a story or issue we are reporting we should make it clear.

      ‘We should properly and proportionately label content that has limited applicability across the UK.

      ‘We should normally explain the difference in the first sentence of our report and in News programmes signal it in the headline as well. News Correspondents should try to refer at least once to the people actually affected by the story in their package.

      ‘The exact method of differentiation will vary from story to story. It may be achieved by:
      • simply stating to which part of the UK a story relates;
      • referring briefly to how things are done in other parts of the UK;
      • adopting a more creative “compare and contrast” approach. For example, in a story about schools, highlighting the differences in the curriculum across the country.’

      As any alert consumer of BBC output must know, the notion that the BBC comes anywhere close to following its own guidance on this matter is a JOKE!

      The most recent example for me came earlier this week when the R4 Today programme was making much of Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary and his policy proposal put to the party’s conference on community/neighbourhood policing. In none of its substantial coverage did Today’s presenters or interviewees ‘locate’ the story: they did not point out the geographical extent of a Home Secretary’s powers over operational policing matters.

      To make even more stark the Today programme’s failings, the BBC News website on this occasion recognised these limitations noting: ‘Labour says it will “bring back neighbourhood policing” in England and Wales if it wins the next election.’ !

      (BBC News website article: ‘Labour conference: Party promises to bring back neighbourhood policing’, By Jennifer Scott, Political reporter, BBC News)

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Agreed.

      Also “the government…”

      It should either be the Scottish or UK government or Holyrood/Westminster. It’s really starting to get my back up.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Shelter tries to get more Gov funding by exaggeration.

    The Scottish Gov is building or renovation 6,000 homes a year. 17,000 private houses are built. 50,000 people die. More houses are sold, Within five years there will be enough homes. It is reported there are enough dwelling in Scotland. Some need renovating or are in areas or place where there is less demand. There are schemes for first time buyers.

    They should be campaigning so women have equal rights so they can stay in their own home without having to pay £thousands in legal fees, they cannot afford. Abused women and children can lose their home. Women who co habit (the majority) do not have equal rights with other women and men.

    Homelessness can be caused by social problems. Drink and drug addiction. £250,000 has gone into funding proper rehab facilities. The Scottish Gov is mitigating Welfare cuts. The bedroom tax. MUP. Increased SNHS funding. Increased nursery funding. A guarantee diagnosis of people with additional needs or on the spectrum. Funds to help the vulnerable. A child payment to lower income households. Baby boxes etc. etc.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The head of Shelter is paid a huge sum, like so many CEO’s of high profile charities.
    I knew someone who worked for Shelter, they didn’t sound like the most ethical company to work for, going on her own experience and opinion of course.

    Looks like they are anti SNP, so a tad partisan? Where are they registered?

    Liked by 3 people

    1. It’s the charity scam which is most galling because of the tax breaks.
      Nobody needs a highly paid executive, it’s a pup we were sold on the “creme de la creme” model Thatcher and all since have championed.
      I’d fire the lot, though some might struggle to fit the muzzle..

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply to ArtyHetty Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.