homeless man
 homeless man

homeless man

shortness
 shortness

shortness

a hero
a hero

a hero

courting
courting

courting

ons
ons

ons

their
their

their

comming
comming

comming

my heart
my heart

my heart

manly
manly

manly

this
this

this

🔥 | Latest

Bad, Chelsea, and Homeless: The Telegraph @Telegraph Follow Former rough sleeper Ed Sheeran wins permission for "anti-homeless" gates outside £8m London home Former rough sleeper Ed Sheeran wins permission for "anti-homeless" gates.. Pop superstar Ed Sheeran, who spent nights sleeping rough on the streets of London early in his career, has won planning permission to install "anti-homeless" r... telegraph.co.uk feminismisahatemovement: holybucketbatman: fuck-ler: capatalismnt: Please don’t pay for his music. also don’t listen to it, it’s extremely bad He’s wanting to do this to his home:  He submitted the proposal to the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council and the plan was rejected because the proposed four-foot-high railings (fence) and simple cast iron gate (which was chosen purely privacy and security for the front of the home) were considered “too domestic” looking for the former industrial area. The council gave Sheeran a list of options for privacy “railings”, and after changing the proposal Sheeran was given permission that was more in line with the neighbourhood, which is in a conservation area.  A direct quote from Sheeran states: “Dear Natalie Edwards from The Sun newspaper. Your story is bollocks, I have done lots of work in the past for Crisis and Shelter and would never build railings outside my home for that reason.The reason was to keep the paps that you employ from being on my doorstep. Have a good day.” this comment has been substantiated by the local police and security companies that Sheeran and his neighbours have had to contact previously when paparazzi have been taking photographs not only of Sheeran’s house but inside his windows, and constantly knocking on his door and yelling outside his house. Think about this for a moment, a guy bought a house and fixed it up, he was trying to gain some privacy by asking for a simple fence and gate to indicate the property line and gain some distance from the paps, - which the police and council said was fine - and the newspapers who can no longer use these ill-gotten photos and are probably pissed have managed to spin this story to make it seem that this guy (whether you like his music or not), is an asshole and is anti-homeless. And you’re all eating this shit up and believing the newspapers, even though the Sun and Telegraph are well known across the UK for making shit up and lying. smh.  These days you have to fact-check 97% of newspaper articles as much as reddit trolls.
Bad, Chelsea, and Homeless: The Telegraph
 @Telegraph
 Follow
 Former rough sleeper Ed Sheeran wins
 permission for "anti-homeless" gates outside
 £8m London home
 Former rough sleeper Ed Sheeran wins permission for "anti-homeless" gates..
 Pop superstar Ed Sheeran, who spent nights sleeping rough on the streets of
 London early in his career, has won planning permission to install "anti-homeless" r...
 telegraph.co.uk
feminismisahatemovement:

holybucketbatman:

fuck-ler:

capatalismnt:
Please don’t pay for his music.

also don’t listen to it, it’s extremely bad

He’s wanting to do this to his home: 
He submitted the proposal to the Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council and the plan was rejected because the proposed four-foot-high railings (fence) and simple cast iron gate (which was chosen purely privacy and security for the front of the home) were considered “too domestic” looking for the former industrial area. The council gave Sheeran a list of options for privacy “railings”, and after changing the proposal Sheeran was given permission that was more in line with the neighbourhood, which is in a conservation area.  A direct quote from Sheeran states: “Dear Natalie Edwards from The Sun newspaper. Your story is bollocks, I have done lots of work in the past for Crisis and Shelter and would never build railings outside my home for that reason.The reason was to keep the paps that you employ from being on my doorstep. Have a good day.” this comment has been substantiated by the local police and security companies that Sheeran and his neighbours have had to contact previously when paparazzi have been taking photographs not only of Sheeran’s house but inside his windows, and constantly knocking on his door and yelling outside his house. Think about this for a moment, a guy bought a house and fixed it up, he was trying to gain some privacy by asking for a simple fence and gate to indicate the property line and gain some distance from the paps, - which the police and council said was fine - and the newspapers who can no longer use these ill-gotten photos and are probably pissed have managed to spin this story to make it seem that this guy (whether you like his music or not), is an asshole and is anti-homeless. And you’re all eating this shit up and believing the newspapers, even though the Sun and Telegraph are well known across the UK for making shit up and lying. smh. 

These days you have to fact-check 97% of newspaper articles as much as reddit trolls.

feminismisahatemovement: holybucketbatman: fuck-ler: capatalismnt: Please don’t pay for his music. also don’t listen to it, it’s extreme...

Anaconda, Family, and Homeless: fandomsandfeminism Thought: I do NOT think that 50% of the world's bilionaires should be WO- men. I think there shouldn't be any billionaires at all cardboardfacewoman So you are saying 0% of the world should be billionaires? fandomsandfeminism Yes caosdth Why shouldn't their be billionaires? That makes no sense. fandomsandfeminism Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable 4G the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable environmental harm. That level of wealth hoarding is harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of mo- ney in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and it is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly while so much of the world lives in abject poverty Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which all wealth over a certain point is taxed at or very near 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their mo- ney rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to create and regulate economic systems that protect wor- kers and the environment in a way that such extreme levels of wealth accumulation aren't even feasible. aflawedmind The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to actually do fiscally well. What's the point of starting a business if you can't become wealthy? fandomsandfeminism There is a very real difference between "reasonably wealthy" and A BILLIONAIRE twodotsknowwhy wealthy" and A BILLIONAIRE twodotsknowwhy No one is saying you shouldn't have a nice house, we are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously nice houses while your employees are either homeless or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral whenandwhereienter I'll never understand why this concept is hard for people. I think it's because they can't actually fathom how much $1 Billion is fandomsandfeminism Seriously Lets say you have a badass job. A great job. You make $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!), every week ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year. It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars Fuente: fandomsandfeminism 129,277 notas Excessive wealth comes from excessive misery.
Anaconda, Family, and Homeless: fandomsandfeminism
 Thought: I do NOT think
 that 50% of the world's
 bilionaires should be WO-
 men. I think there shouldn't
 be any billionaires at all
 cardboardfacewoman
 So you are saying 0% of the world should be
 billionaires?
 fandomsandfeminism
 Yes
 caosdth
 Why shouldn't their be billionaires? That makes no
 sense.
 fandomsandfeminism
 Because the existence of billionaires is predicated on
 the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable

 4G
 the exploitation of human labor and unsustainable
 environmental harm. That level of wealth hoarding is
 harmful to economies, as it reduces the amount of mo-
 ney in circulation. No one person, no family, could ever
 conceivably even SPEND a billion dollars anyway, and it
 is inherently immoral to accumulate wealth so narrowly
 while so much of the world lives in abject poverty
 Better then to create a wealth ceiling, a point at which
 all wealth over a certain point is taxed at or very near
 100% to incentivize people to actually spend their mo-
 ney rather than hoard it, stimulating the economy and
 bettering the lives of far more people. Better even still to
 create and regulate economic systems that protect wor-
 kers and the environment in a way that such extreme
 levels of wealth accumulation aren't even feasible.
 aflawedmind
 The problem with this is that it reduces the incentive to
 actually do fiscally well. What's the point of starting a
 business if you can't become wealthy?
 fandomsandfeminism
 There is a very real difference between "reasonably
 wealthy" and A BILLIONAIRE
 twodotsknowwhy

 wealthy" and A BILLIONAIRE
 twodotsknowwhy
 No one is saying you shouldn't have a nice house, we
 are saying that having multiple really, really ridiculously
 nice houses while your employees are either homeless
 or at serious risk of becoming homeless is immoral
 whenandwhereienter
 I'll never understand why this concept is hard for
 people. I think it's because they can't actually fathom
 how much $1 Billion is
 fandomsandfeminism
 Seriously
 Lets say you have a badass job. A great job. You make
 $100 AN HOUR. You work 10 hours a day ($1000 A
 DAY), 5 days a week ($5000 a week!!), every week
 ($20,000 A MONTH), thats $240,000 Every Year.
 It would take you 4,167 years to make a billion dollars
 Fuente: fandomsandfeminism
 129,277 notas
Excessive wealth comes from excessive misery.

Excessive wealth comes from excessive misery.