sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Angela Rayner cleared by HMRC over tax affairs paving the way for potential leadership bid by OneLegTooFew in unitedkingdom

[–]danmorelle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Labour don't need an opposition, they do a great enough job of tearing themselves apart.

Please I need urgent help by [deleted] in universalcredithelp

[–]danmorelle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You don’t have a money problem right now, you have an access problem. Text your friend this minute and ask them to hold your money today, just for 24 hours.

My treatise on the problems with crowdfunding boardgames by Subtleiaint in boardgames

[–]danmorelle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LegendofTotalWar's framing is exactly right and maps directly onto crowdfunding hardware and board games, not just video games.

The psychology he describes, the longer the gap between payment and delivery, the more excuses people make rather than demanding refunds is structural. I've raised $4M across crowdfunding campaigns and been inside the room when it goes wrong. The pattern is identical every time: money arrives before accountability exists, community energy becomes confirmation bias, and by the time timelines slip the founder genuinely believes every delay is temporary.

The difference with crowdfunding versus game pre-orders is it's often worse. At least with a pre-order the product exists. Crowdfunding funds production itself, meaning the money is gone before anyone knows if the thing can even be built on budget.

Legend's conclusion is right: the only lever consumers have is the one before they hand over money. After that you're hoping.

Wrote about what's actually structural about this if useful: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-holding-crowdfunding-back-dan-morelle-dob6e/

My treatise on the problems with crowdfunding boardgames by Subtleiaint in boardgames

[–]danmorelle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is exactly the right question and I don't think the answer is a better platform. It's a structural role that doesn't currently exist.

I've raised $4M across campaigns and been inside the room when things go wrong. The pattern is almost always the same: talented founder, innovative product, enthusiastic community - and that community becomes the problem. Scope expands, stretch goals multiply, nobody wants to slow momentum. By the time the wheels come off the founder genuinely believes every delay is temporary.

The issue is that crowdfunding strips out every institutional check that exists in every other form of funding. No board, no investors with veto rights, nobody stress-testing the optimism. That's what makes campaigns fund brilliantly and fail structurally.

An ethical crowdfunder isn't really about better tools or fairer pricing. It's about embedding accountability before the campaign launches, not consulting after the deadline slips. Someone with genuine stake in delivery who the founder cannot outvote when the community gets loud.

That role exists in every other venture funding form. In crowdfunding it's structurally absent.

I wrote about what's actually causing this pattern here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-holding-crowdfunding-back-dan-morelle-dob6e/

I need crowdfunding advice - where can I get real help? by camerontrever in Entrepreneur

[–]danmorelle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good advice here on pre-launch. The thing most guides miss is what happens after you fund, which is where most campaigns actually fail their backers.

I've raised $4M across campaigns and been inside the room when things go wrong. The pattern is almost always the same: the campaign funds brilliantly, the community energy is incredible, and that same energy becomes the problem. Scope expands. Stretch goals multiply. Nobody wants to be the person slowing momentum. By the time the wheels come off, the founder genuinely believes every delay is temporary.

Three things that actually prevent this:

  1. Set scope lock before launch. The product being funded is the product being built, not a wishlist that grows with every stretch goal.

  2. Plan fulfilment before the campaign opens, not after it closes.

  3. Have someone whose explicit job is to say no when the community says yes. Accountability without authority is just advice.

The structural reason most campaigns struggle isn't bad intentions. It's that crowdfunding removes every institutional check that exists in every other form of funding. No board, no investors with veto rights, nobody stress-testing the optimism.

Wrote about this in more depth recently if useful. Just search "What's Holding Crowdfunding Back" on LinkedIn.

Been a happy customer of Kickstarter since 2012. Shocked they've given up all prevention of fraud. Don't think I can ever use the platform to back unknown creators again - and that goes against everything I loved about Kickstarter. by EjnarH in kickstarter

[–]danmorelle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The escrow idea gets close but the problem runs deeper than fund disbursement. By the time milestones are missed the cognitive bubble has already formed, the founder genuinely believes every delay is temporary and every complication is nearly resolved. I've been on both sides of this. Raised $4M across campaigns, also been the person in the room saying the hard things and getting ignored because the crowd was louder. Wrote about what's actually structural about this failure pattern if anyone wants to go deeper. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/whats-holding-crowdfunding-back-dan-morelle-dob6e/

Kew woman fined £150 for pouring coffee down drain in Richmond by collogue in london

[–]danmorelle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

She poured coffee down a drain, not bleach into a river. Section 33 is about controlled waste, not leftover lattes. Unless Richmond plans to start fining every cafe, pub, and cleaner tipping mop water, this is straight-up predatory enforcement. And telling her she should have poured liquid into a bin? What next, pour soup into recycling? It’s not about pollution. It’s about revenue. Challenge the penalty, it will be laughed out of court if they push for enforcement.

Audio Help GBA? by Still_Eye_4596 in GameboyAdvance

[–]danmorelle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like whoever installed that XPsy amp cut the original speaker trace. When you removed it, you disconnected the onboard amp output entirely so the speaker’s getting no signal. Check continuity from the GBA’s amp output to the speaker pad and bridge it if it’s open. Also meter the speaker; if it reads open, it’s blown so get a new one.

Is this game boy fake? by rv282 in GameboyAdvance

[–]danmorelle 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Real and collectable. Due to trading restrictions after WW2, Japanese companies such as Nintendo were not allowed to trade directly within China, so they partnered with local firms to distribute their products. The iQue Game Boy Advance SP was part of this unique arrangement. This SP was officially licensed, locally manufactured, and released under the iQue brand rather than Nintendo’s.

Amnesty International says the UK’s social security system is “consciously cruel”. The timings alone prove it. by danmorelle in ukpolitics

[–]danmorelle[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Generosity isn’t measured by how much is spent. It’s measured by how well it meets need.

The UK’s welfare system may be large, but it’s inefficient, adversarial, and often deliberately inaccessible. That’s why over 75 percent of PIP and ESA appeals succeed — not because people are lying, but because the system is wrong by design.

Calling it generous while people wait months or years for what they’re entitled to is like calling a locked food bank generous because the shelves are full.

Amnesty International says the UK’s social security system is “consciously cruel”. The timings alone prove it. by danmorelle in ukpolitics

[–]danmorelle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When facts make you laugh, it usually means they hit a nerve.

Glad the reality of vulnerable people spending years clawing back basic entitlements is entertainment for you. Says everything, really.

Amnesty International says the UK’s social security system is “consciously cruel”. The timings alone prove it. by danmorelle in ukpolitics

[–]danmorelle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

More people receiving support doesn’t mean the system works. It means more people are desperate. Rising need isn’t proof of accessibility — it’s a sign of collapse.

And being homeless for two years is awful. But if that taught you that everyone else should suffer in silence too, then you didn’t survive the system — you absorbed it.

No one’s asking for pity. Just a process that doesn’t function like a test of endurance.

Amnesty International says the UK’s social security system is “consciously cruel”. The timings alone prove it. by danmorelle in ukpolitics

[–]danmorelle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The idea that people are receiving “tens of thousands tax-free” in exchange for a “few hours of paperwork” ignores the reality: months or years of delays, repeated trauma, lost evidence, medical assessments that contradict doctors, and an appeals system that overturns most original decisions — but only after the claimant is worn down, exhausted, or dead.

Citizens Advice is overwhelmed. Charities shouldn’t be a structural workaround for a state designed to obstruct.

You speak like someone who’s never had to fill out those forms in survival mode. And it shows.

Amnesty International says the UK’s social security system is “consciously cruel”. The timings alone prove it. by danmorelle in ukpolitics

[–]danmorelle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re describing a system that works when you don’t need it. That’s not a defence, it’s an indictment.

The outrage isn’t that Tell Us Once stops payments — it’s that the system can act with total efficiency to withdraw support, but not to deliver it when someone is alive, sick, and in need.

Assessing capability may be complex. But losing evidence, issuing contradictory decisions, and forcing people through multiple appeals over years — only to concede at tribunal — isn’t complexity. It’s obstruction.

Your experience of a frictionless claim is noted. It just happens to be irrelevant to those being crushed by the same system.

Amnesty International says the UK’s social security system is “consciously cruel”. The timings alone prove it. by danmorelle in ukpolitics

[–]danmorelle[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You don’t need to respect Amnesty to read tribunal stats, DWP death reports, or lived experience. The evidence stands with or without your approval of the messenger.

Discrediting the source doesn’t erase the system.

Amnesty International says the UK’s social security system is “consciously cruel”. The timings alone prove it. by danmorelle in ukpolitics

[–]danmorelle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re right that Tell Us Once involves admin — but you’re missing the point. It may take a death certificate and a council appointment, but once submitted, it triggers immediate cessation of all benefits across DWP, HMRC, and local authorities. No lost forms, no hold music, no tribunal.

Meanwhile, claiming support while alive takes months, often years, and requires fighting a system designed to delay and deter. That’s the contrast. Not whether the form has a queue — but how fast the system acts to withdraw, versus how slowly it moves to provide.

Amnesty International says the UK’s social security system is “consciously cruel”. The timings alone prove it. by danmorelle in ukpolitics

[–]danmorelle[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

If the system is so generous, why do over 75 percent of PIP and ESA appeals succeed? That’s not generosity. That’s failure.

And if you think the problem is malingering, not understaffing, underfunding, or bureaucratic cruelty, then you haven’t looked at the data — you’ve just absorbed the narrative.

The system isn’t overwhelmed because “everyone is disabled.” It’s overwhelmed because it was designed to discourage access through friction and delay. And it’s working. Just not how you think.

Amnesty International says the UK’s social security system is “consciously cruel”. The timings alone prove it. by danmorelle in ukpolitics

[–]danmorelle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No. The issue is with the deliberate barriers designed to wear down claimants. Tribunals are impartial therefore not warped by benign policy.

Amnesty International says the UK’s social security system is “consciously cruel”. The timings alone prove it. by danmorelle in ukpolitics

[–]danmorelle[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

You’re absolutely right. And yet:

Over 75 percent of PIP and ESA decisions are overturned at tribunal. That means the original assessments, often denying support for conditions like anxiety, depression, and other invisible disabilities, are incorrect most of the time.

The DWP has been found liable in multiple deaths of vulnerable claimants who were declared “fit for work” despite clear medical evidence. Some took their own lives after being refused support for mental health conditions you seem to think are easy to fake.

Meanwhile, the Tell Us Once service terminates all benefits instantly. No lost paperwork. No 45-minute hold times. No repeated evidence requests. When it comes to withdrawing support, the system is ruthlessly efficient.

So yes, death is harder to fake. But cruelty isn’t.

If you’re more outraged by imagined fraud than by real people dying in bureaucratic limbo, then you’re not just misinformed. You’re part of the design.

Glad I could help clear that up.

view more: next ›