why oh why do some squigs not seem to understand the difference between giving money to a charity, which is highly regulated so you know most of your donation will definitely go to the charitable person in question, and giving the same money to Jack, who is not transparent, and you have no idea whether your money will go to a food bank, crap wigs, or a trip to per Rialto?
Surely an economist of all people would understand the concept of cash dispersal?
They don't care. That seems to be the crux of it.
I think, as said yesterday, by handing money over to Jack, they get the feeling of having done
something to support someone doing
very important work - but don't ask them what that work is because they neither know or care; it doesn't impact their lives or lifestyle or social circle.
It means they don't have to feel bad when they ignore the plight of genuine poor or working class people, because they're already delegating their responsibility to Jack to fight the good fight on their behalf. Same goes for Nigella et al.
When you attack her, you attack them. They take it personally because they're invested in her to do the right thing. Nothing you can say will change their minds because they see themselves as too damn smart to be fooled.
These people cannot ever relate to what it is like to be poor. For all they know (and care), Jack's description is accurate.
ETA: I also hold the belief that some people are sceptical of giving to charity because of the salaries of their CEO's etc. Jack is
grass roots if that makes sense.
