What we see in the OP is a potential lack in viewing comments to the article, and a subsidy stick-and-carrot embedded in a report from a (UK [italics]) newspaper. There is thus already enough pathology to easily align with the protection-racketism of the theologian, who first stands in line to get government subsidies and funding for the shelter, so that it's not happening all of the time and Theo can then play the game watching, as voyeur, charity lines from a very special class-difference vantage point.