Footballer Marcus Rashford fights for free school meals

[planetgeli]

The rich black footballer Marcus Rashford spent some money today.

While children are starving.

 

[editor]

Personally, if he were buying them for his family to live in, I'd have no problem with that*. I believe homes should be bought to live in, not to rent or sell for profit.

So do I, but not all landlords are completely scum, and not everyone can afford to buy a house/flat.

 

[Badgers]

Not sure what difference that makes.

So if you won the lottery you would not buy anything for your family. All of it would go to charity?

 

[Orang Utan]

Please don't link to that rag. It is beneath you and even beneath the Daily Wail.

Anyone quoting the S*n or the Wail can get off their high horse and fuck off

What high horse? I’m on Rashford’s team. Just think people should shut up speculating when they can easily find out for themselves with a quick google

 

[editor]

Scum link but:

Manchester United star Marcus Rashford sets up a property firm

MANCHESTER United’s teenage sensation Marcus Rashford is setting up a property firm to help him invest his millions. Marcus, 19, is to buy homes to rent in the North West after launching Mucs Prope…

www.google.co.uk

Nope. Not clicking on that.

 

[Badgers]

Ah right. I assumed (rightly) that buying a house as an investment meant you’d generate income from letting it. Bit of a gamble to think you might be able to sell it for profit

Do you live in this country?

 

[editor]

What high horse? I’m on Rashford’s team. Just think people should shut up speculating when they can easily find out for themselves with a quick google

From The Sun?

 

[two sheds]

They increase in value, hence are an investment

*Warning: investments can go up or down.

 

[Badgers]

What high horse? I’m on Rashford’s team. Just think people should shut up speculating when they can easily find out for themselves with a quick google

Googling the S*n is 'finding out'

Don't you work in a library?

 

[Lord Camomile]

So do I, but not all landlords are completely scum, and not everyone can afford to buy a house/flat.

Cool, so when did I ever say landlords are completely scum?

I'm honestly not sure if anyone has said that on this thread (but it's a fast-moving thread and I've had to have a shower in the middle of it so I may have missed something...).

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Scum link but:

Please don’t.

 

[MrSki]

Ah right. I assumed (rightly) that buying a house as an investment meant you’d generate income from letting it. Bit of a gamble to think you might be able to sell it for profit

You just said you agreed that leaving investment properties empty is a waste

 

[MickiQ]

Actually I think he has pretty much admitted that he has done this as part of saving for a rainy day. If you have money to invest then property is far and away the best place to put it and Rashford is sufficiently wealthy enough to not even worry about paying a mortgage. he could have bought them and just let them stand empty.
What narks me about the Daily Mail (well on top of all the other things that nark me about it) is that it is criticising someone for doing something it would applaud in almost everyone else, I suspect that landlords and property owners are over represented in its readership.
This is clearly an attempt to dig up dirt on him to discredit him and take some of the shine off his currently very positive public image. If this is the best they can do then it is pitiful to be honest, that headline could also read
"23 Year Old Makes Sensible Long Term Investment Decisions For His Retirement"
No drink/drug problems/no children by different mothers (unlike the PM), hell for all we know they may have interviewed his tenants who turned round and said "Well Yeah actually he's a pretty good landlord, keeps everything maintained, charges a fair rent". You can be certain if he was a bad one it would be plastered all over the story.
There is a certain element on this forum that view landlords as only one step away from baby-eating monsters, but it's not illegal nor is it going to be anytime soon. Why does he need defending when he has done nothing actually wrong?
As for being One of Us and having disappointed Us when He turned out to Not Be One of Us after all has he? What are Rashford's politics? he's never publicly discussed them as far as I know, he has simply campaigned very successfully on one single apolitical issue which has a great deal of broad support including even some Tory backbenchers.

 

[editor]

Cool, so when did I ever say landlords are completely scum?

I'm honestly not sure if anyone has said that on this thread (but it's a fast-moving thread and I've had to have a shower in the middle of it so I may have missed something...).

Sorry, I thought that's what you were inferring because all landlords have to rent out at some profit and that's entirely reasonable if they're charging a fair rent.

But just so you know where I stand on this: I totally believe in social housing and think investment companies who own huge amounts of empty properties bought as an investment should be forced to house people in there at social rents.

 

[Lord Camomile]

What narks me about the Daily Mail (well on top of all the other things that nark me about it) is that it is criticising someone for doing something it would applaud in almost everyone else, I suspect that landlords and property owners are over represented in its readership.

While it's absolutely their standard MO, have they even criticised him, or has it all just been innuendo? I haven't read the article, because it's the Mail and fuck giving them the clicks, but there were some comments on Twitter questioning whether the article actually contained direct criticism of him.

There is a certain element on this forum that view landlords as only one step away from baby-eating monsters, but it's not illegal nor is it going to be anytime soon. Why does he need defending when he has done nothing actually wrong?

Whether he's done something 'wrong' is up to each person and their own personal values; legality is never a mark of whether something is right or wrong.

And again, me disagreeing with something Rashford does is just and only that, and nothing more. There is no objective right or wrong in the universe, we all make up our own decisions on both.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Anyway, while we've been pissing about with this he's probably sorted the NI border too, given he's not in the matchday squad this evening.

 

[Badgers]

Anyway, while we've been pissing about with this he's probably sorted the NI border too, given he's not in the matchday squad this evening.

Probably trading in bitcoin without a mask on

 

[bimble]

Absolute blinder played by the daily mail if people are even talking about the morality of rentier capitalism on this here thread.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Absolute blinder played by the daily mail if people are even talking about the morality of rentier capitalism on this here thread.

I honestly still don't see how this goes down as a success to the Mail? It's not like anyone on the thread has written Rashford off, or downplayed any of his achievements. If anything, the one point of agreement is that the Mail are cunts. So may it always be.

 

[campanula]

It's just about consistency. Many people think both millionaires and landlords* shouldn't exist, so it would be hypocritical if suddenly we give someone a pass because we like one of them.

Well yes. The many injustices regarding housing (and most especially, lack of it), for both personal and political reasons, has always informed my own, possibly naive, politics. But since a massively well remunerated footballer Rashford has been open about buying property as an investment, I think criticism of this decision is entirely justified.
I have been a renter all my life and have no problems with this...but I live in social housing...with some sort of social contract which is frequently lacking in the private rented sector. This would not be the sort of 'investment' I would choose if I cared about social justice.

eta - The Mail is filth (obvs).

 

[Thora]

Isn't it the whole system of housing and landlords that we hate, rather than individual landlords?
Obviously the footballer is grossly overpaid but he's young, he's going to have a pretty short career and he wants himself and his family to have a comfortable future. He's not Jeff Bezos, is he?

Anyway, if I'm picking sides between Rashford and the Daily Mail (or Tories) I know which side I'm on.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Anyway, if I'm picking sides between Rashford and the Daily Mail (or Tories) I know which side I'm on.

This is possibly where a lot of the disagreement is coming from. I personally don't see it as a case of taking sides, more this:

criticism of this decision is entirely justified.

If it turns out he did make that decision, which I'm happy to acknowledge has not been confirmed, ironically because most of us refuse to read the Mail or the Sun

 

[Artaxerxes]

None of us are untainted by the system we live in sadly. It's just an easy for the likes of the mail to sow division in people as they fight against it. Energy gets wasted trying to be ideologically pure.

Just going to reiterate this based on the last couple of pages pissing contest.

 

[Lord Camomile]

The only division has come from people saying "you can't say thaaaaaaat! ", as if we'd said the kid should be up against the firing squad or something

 

[two sheds]

the kid should be up against the firing squad

 

[Thora]

This is possibly where a lot of the disagreement is coming from. I personally don't see it as a case of taking sides, more this:
If it turns out he did make that decision, which I'm happy to acknowledge has not been confirmed, ironically because most of us refuse to read the Mail or the Sun

Yeah sure - ideally he wouldn't buy property as an investment or send his own kids to private school and he'd give all his money to good causes.
But also I don't think it really matters at all in this case that Rashford isn't ideologically pure.

 

[Serge Forward]

Man U

 

[Lord Camomile]

Energy gets wasted trying to be ideologically pure.

But also I don't think it really matters at all in this case that Rashford isn't ideologically pure.

I'm not sure where this idea of Rashford being "ideologically pure" has come from either.

Rashford has (possibly) made a decision, which some of us disagree with. We haven't 'cancelled' him, we have said it undermines all the work he has done, we've just acknowledge that it's a decision we would disagree with.

'cause the thing is, if we didn't make that point, those that do like to hurl abuse would make the point that we don't criticise those we largely agree with.

Again, it's not about Rashford being "ideologically pure", it's about (some) of us being ideologically consistent.

 

[BristolEcho]

Sorry, I thought that's what you were inferring because all landlords have to rent out at some profit and that's entirely reasonable if they're charging a fair rent.

But just so you know where I stand on this: I totally believe in social housing and think investment companies who own huge amounts of empty properties bought as an investment should be forced to house people in there at social rents.

It is definitely wrong to buy property and to rent it out for profit. I don't personally detest anyone that does it and I can't really blame them in this society, and we are all hypocrites in many ways. It is something that should be thought about more though.

As I said earlier poorer people are always lectured by the more affluent about what we can spend our money on so there's nothing wrong with us punching back up and calling out their shit.

This isn't really about Rashford by the way it's just bought up the subject.

 

[MrSki]