UKC

Many people think that the majority of homeless people are just sitting around collecting easy money during these hard times.  However some poor chap freezes to death in a tent trying to survive and live his life.

Something is fundamentally wrong with society n general when people are homeless and freezing to death in one of the most wealthy countries in the world.

 

Maybe we can have a discussion about Ben's life and society in general about how it perceives homelessness without the distraction of the dislike and like button?

You either ignore the subject matter or you formulate an opinion.  I think Ben and other homeless people suffering during the cold deserve a bit more than clicking a button rather than offering a view on society and the direction it is moving in.

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/homeless-man-found-dead-tent-icy-temperatures-gri...

In reply to The Lemming:

It seems strange to me that the press have been able to find people who knew him well enough to give fairly detailed comments about his circumstances and that these people knew where he was living, but that no-one appears to have gone to offer him assistance or an opportunity to come indoors during the extremely cold weather. The cold has hardly come as a surprise. 

It's a very sad situation.

In reply to The Lemming:

You're right very sad.

In reply to The Lemming:

Very sad. Some of the comments are appalling. It's as if helping everyone in need is somehow mutually exclusive. 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

Lincolnshire seems to be full of intellectually stunted cowf*cking bastards moaning about "digrasful imigrunts". 

 

 

In reply to Nevis-the-cat: Retford is Nottinghamshire. Not a bad little town, used to do quite a bit of work round there. I can understand him not wanting to go to Worksop if he felt Retford was “home”. it’s half a world away, even though it’s only just down the road. 

This sounds like an unusual case, but even in the last couple of days, I’ve seen people sleeping in doorways in Nottingham, which supposedly has a very good support infrastructure (if you believe the posters exhorting you not to give directly to the homeless).

You could do worse than sending a few bob to 

http://www.frameworkha.org/

If this story upsets you

 

In reply to The Lemming:

Agree tragic - what is your solution?

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

I asked somebody on facebook why she thought immigrants got priority over 'our own' - to do with homeless people being neglected, and mentioned how one's perception and reality can be different things, and asked if she had any figures to confirm her perception/general impression. As yet there's been no reply.

In reply to toad:

I think things like mental health issues, not feeling safe in the shelters, and becoming accustomed to being outside can combine to keep rough sleepers sleeping outside when it gets very cold. 

In reply to toad:

bugger - it is Notts.

--memo to self - must check map before rating--

I've been to Worksop - I can understand why he wouldn't want to go as well. 

Good call on the charity link - I will put my hand in my pocket (and not just to scratch my balls)... 

In reply to toad:

It does, thanks for the link.

In reply to John Kelly:

I work on the fringes of housing/homelessness so have some knowledge of systems etc.  First part of the solution is to accept homelessness is very, very complex. For example, in Wigan, ALL rough sleepers have been offered somewhere safe to go, and this may be the case in other areas.  In some cases, people 'choose' not to take this offer up.  I say 'choose' because their choices are often heavily influenced by other complex problems, especially mental health - often resulting in poor decision making.  Another example: many/most 'homeless' people have at some point been offered some form of tenancy, but can't hold it down (due to things like drug addiction, relationship breakdown etc).

So, the solutions may include 1)  more/better supported accommodation, and an acknowledgement that whilst this might appear expensive it is probably the cheaper (people not in hotels/hospitals/police cells) AND better option in the long run, 2)  emergency cold weather accommodation can help, but most folk would be surprised how low the take up would be (people choosing to sofa surf),  3) better initial enforcement and support for when people start screwing up their tenancies so they can keep their housing rather than be turfed out,  4)  simply building more 'normal' housing will have little impact on homelessness.

 

In reply to Timmd:

Spot on.

In reply to mick taylor:

Complex - very

I suspect that unless you consider enforcement there is probably no chance of getting down to zero 

Not to say there isn't a significant number who could be helped by better shelters, ie not more dangerous than sleeping outside

In reply to mick taylor:

Agree. We can start by paying more tax so that local authorities cac afford to provide essential services. 

In reply to John Kelly:

Don't know.  Bigger minds than mine have tried to solve this one.  One radical idea is to give homeless people a house.

youtube.com/watch?v=2DBNdvDHcnY&

In reply to Jon Stewart:

"Like"

In reply to The Lemming:

Can't get that to play but I would agree radical is required, providing more houses should be part of the solution. Self build?

In reply to mick taylor:

They look like sensible ideas. I guess it comes back down to politics, and a climate of opinion that's against higher taxation and so-called scroungers. How do we persuade people otherwise? 

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Quite. The extra money, I think, would need to be raised by the local council and so would come from council tax and business rates mainly. One could anticipate the howls of outrage with councils being accused of inefficiency, corruption etc, the usual sort of self serving bollox one hears from a segment of the electorate every time they're asked to put their hand in their pocket.

In reply to Removed User:

are you saying you would pay more?

and if so 

would you prefer that to be in

Taxation

directly to the homeless

a homeless charity

another system

i would happily pay a bit more but given homelessness seems to be a fairly intractable issue i do wonder if more of the same would actually solve the problem - im thinking self build this pm

In reply to Bob Kemp:

My guess is that, for one cohort of homelessness, its less to do with money than many think - more to do with politicians having the leadership balls to invest in the long term.  For example, supported accommodation for some people would reduce incidence of hospital/prison/social care etc., making it easier to progress, improve health and contribute (volunteering/work) - so would be cheaper. 

But it might take more than 5 years to measure the success.....

In reply to The Lemming:

The problem is not money or available services (although more would help)

a huge percent of homeless have had irrevocably f*cked up lives. Their stories are heartbreaking. But the problem is broken childhoods and mental health. Housing barely comes into it

if we actually want to fix this problem we need a genuine visionary and socialist 50-75 year plan. I think most of the damage is done but we could potentially save and assist the next generation. 

In reply to mick taylor:

Agreed. Like so many things, spending at the right time in the right place saves in the long term. The second of my points looks like where the problem lies. 

In reply to Kemics:

From my limited knowledge of this issue, i would concur. Housing or perceived lack of is not the immediate issue. It is treating the root causes, and ensuring there is adequate services with which homeless and vulnerable can engage. 

 

In reply to John Kelly:

Yes.

Probably in local taxation. Edinburgh, my city, is pretty well organised in looking after homeless people but they do need more cash, not just for the hostels but for additional social services to help homeless people back into the community.

In reply to mick taylor:

It's not just having good policy ideas, the push back from local communities is often fierce when there is an attempt to establish any kind of service associated with homelessness, drink, drugs or mental health to the point where they often seem to simply stall in the face of protests. Hard to tackle this especially while they're so stigmatised as a group.

It'll take a long time to chip away at the toxic us and them, tax-payer, scrounger, deserving and undeserving poor narrative many of us have grown up with before we as a community and as individuals will genuinely treat homeless and rough sleeping people as human beings in need of help rather than fear and vilification.

Also: dogs. People with dogs who may be the only real friend they have left are often faced with having to give the dog up to access the services they need even where they are available.

jk

In reply to The Lemming:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/mar/02/sunderland-offer-temporary...

Here’s  one little positive story 

In reply to The Lemming:

I don't live in a town nor come into direct contact with homelessness on a regular basis, so commenting without much knowledge of the issue.

But I would think that at a time like this, before putting blame anywhere, one should see what shelter and food is available in a town. Surely if shelters have empty beds and hot food on offer then the choice not to use them is individual, a basic freedom of choice (yes I appreciate there are issues involved in this choice), we can't force homeless into care.

If everywhere is full and they are desperate for a roof over their heads then shame on those with empty second homes, holiday let's, annexes, unfinished housing etc.

In reply to Removed User:

I find our council pretty good, quick efficient but I'm not sure best placed for this particular issue-don't have a solution but the problem has been intractable and wonder if something more funky is needed

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I would agree with your sentiment. Where the trouble starts is agreeing on the "We".

Mick Taylors post is good, and gives an insight into how complex this all is. We could put all  the money we want into this, but I suspect there would still be people on the streets.

Maybe the answer is that there, will always be what we term "homeless people".
Not saying I like the answer.

In reply to J1234:

When I was a kid we had tramps, today's equivalent I suppose? I'm guessing that even back then in the 60s there was housing available but they chose an alternative life. I think chose rather than forced into an alternative way being the big difference with current situation. 

The tramps used to travel, from memory they even had houses where they might be fed when passing through. Somehow the word spread amongst them of where a charitable family lived and they would knock on the door when in town. These are hazy memories and obviously very different from today.

I never recall seeing people sleeping on the street in those days. When and why did it all change?

In reply to Moley:

I am just reading As I Walked Out One Midsummer Morning and Laurie Lee lives amongst the homeless, infact he is himself homeless by choice. He identifies at least 3 types of homeless. His type, Tramps who could I assume be all sorts, and unemployed (this was mid 1930s) roaming the country looking for work.

 

In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

I wonder how many of those comments are posted by real people and not troll factories.

 

In reply to The Lemming:

Why is something wrong? Given the amount of effort put into helping people like Ben surely it says that lots of things are fundamentally right not wrong?

 

And yet you haven't even bothered to find out what provision there is to help people like him, so any opinion you have of it is entirely uninformed. Do you think that type of evidence is a hindrance?

 

In reply to mick taylor:

Yes, but you can't invest in the long term when central government govt makes savage cuts to your budget. 

 

In reply to winhill:

Do you believe there is or is not a homelessness problem in the UK?

From watching the news and walking round Manchester and Sheffield I'm pretty sure I've got sufficient information to make a judgement that there is. 

In reply to The Lemming:

I remember when I first went to see my brother who lives in San Francisco in about 2003/2004 I was astonished about the amount of homeless people who you passed in every underpass, junction and doorway.  I could not understand that a wealthy society could have so many who had fallen right through the cracks and the juxtaposition with 'normal' people going about their lives was jarring.  I was grateful we lived in a society without this problem in the UK.

Now on my way to work through central Bristol I see the same situation on our streets with homeless people in every nook and cranny.    How did this go so wrong over the last fifteen years?

In reply to winhill:

I presume you've 'bothered to find out' if this amount of effort exists or not? If you have, perhaps you could share the evidence?

How do you know The Lemming hasn't bothered to find out?

 

 

In reply to winhill:

I thought I'd bother to find out a bit more about homelessness policy in the UK and found this:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/20/mps-condemn-abject-failure-...

I've had a look at the actual report too. It's a pretty scathing condemnation of the current position.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubacc/462/46202....

In reply to Bobling:

Reading is very similar. I share your thoughts. It seems to be a significant indicator that the country is going to shit.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Well said, but I do wonder how people who care about the homeless didn't know about this PAC report already. Many of the homeless clearly do want housing and most of it is down to underfunding and poor strategy in the interection between government and local government. Homeless charites, hostels and refuges are really struggling due to financial pressure in local government support and national government rule changes brought in during austerity.

In reply to The Lemming:

Here in Canada we have the same issues. Vancouver is notorious for the size of its homeless population and most cities I have been in, even small ones, have a problem. In recent winter storms, the Mayor of Toronto opened up significant additional space for the city's homeless and yet some still chose to stay out.

As others have said, mental health is a large part of the issue where a lack of resources to tackle this huge area of health care leads to self medication and addictions and the problem snowballs. 

In reply to The Lemming:

There was a reality TV show a few years back where a few cargo cult south sea islanders were brought to the UK to see how we live.

When they came across the homeless issue they were absolutely perplexed - "how can people not have a home? If someone doesn't have a home we get together and build him one".

It wasn't even a moral question for him, it was simply what you would do with any problem in the society - get together and provide a solution.

I appreciate it's not just about bricks and mortar, but the wider issues still come back to the same thing - that portion of our society needs help and we're not prepared to provide it. In the island community, things would simply collapse if people stopped helping each other, but we've built systems to allow society to continue. It still harms the quality of environment we all share though - if we saw that clearly we would provide the resources needed, until then compassion on its own will never be enough.

In reply to Ciro:

In many parts of our society we've allowed our responsibilities to be taken over by government agencies.

This might be good when things work but obviously can cause problems when those agencies can't or won't deal with the issues.

You'll remember Mrs Thatcher's often taken out of context quote about 'there being no such thing as community' or whatever it was.

We are responsible for what we allow to occur in our communities and we can't simply pass those responsibilities onto other organisations and assume that that's the end of the matter.

Central and local government haven't helped matters by seeking to control more and more of our lives.

In reply to baron:

Personally, I think you're looking at that problem upside down... we no longer have tribal society so we can't take the responsibility locally - the problem is in how we use our elected governments to tackle the issue.

We must use governments more, not less to organise our response to problems such as this on a national scale.

We can't expect to resolve these issues without delegating that control to the government - it's our way of overriding or own greed and apathy.

 

In reply to Ciro:

So, as an example, we no longer police our own neighbourhoods but hand that responsibility to a police service.

This is fine until, for whatever reason, the police no longer meet our expectations.

Having handed over control of our communities to the police we are then almost powerless to exert any direct control over the lawless amongst us for fear of either breaking the law or being labelled vigilantes.

Or, we expect somebody to help the homeless because we no longer feel that these people are our direct responsibility, they are societies.

Except there's no such thing as society, we are society.

Admitedelly many of societies problems could be solved with an endless supply of money but given that such a supply probably won't be forthcoming in the near future we might need to do more to help ourselves and others.

In reply to baron:

The money is there - we are one of the richest nations on the planet - we just choose not to use our wealth to tackle these issues. 

If we're not prepared to do it through taxation, what makes you think will donate our time and effort instead?

In reply to Ciro:

The number of rough sleepers is miniscule compared to our population.

Many governments have failed to address this issue and as others have stated money isn't always the issue.

The threads about a man dying because, possibly, nobody thought it was down to them.

While we continue to think that it's someone else's responsibility such trajedies will continue.

Evidence for people freely giving their time and money was clearly visible during the recent cold spell when the institutions we entrust with our safety were often not available.

In reply to baron:

People helping out in times of crisis is great, but it's not the same as the work that's required day in, day out to solve problems of homelessness, addiction, poverty and poor mental health.

I don't have the skills and knowledge to do that work, and when I'm outside my own work hours I'm not studying social services.

When I say I want the government to tax me more and use that money to help those less fortunate than myself is not about abdicating responsibly, it's about us collectivising responsibility and contracting experts to do the job.

Some interesting links, rather than newspaper articles

https://fullfact.org/economy/homelessness-england/

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2018UKbn_17bc1n_4047#ukgs3...

Seem there is about £33.8bn spent on social exclusion (whatever that may include) I suspect that a more efficient use of the money might be better than raising taxes.

Sad as it is, the gentlemen refused to be housed.

In reply to Ciro:

Just to point out that if you wish that more of your money went to that less fortunate, then you already have a mechanism to achieve that, namely giving to charity.

So what you really mean is that you want government to tax other people more, and use *that* money to help the less fortunate. 

In reply to Ciro:

On the subject of taxation, the government currently takes 40% of earnings over 45k, and if you then spend the money you'll likely pay 20% of that in VAT.  The lion's share of tax receipts go, rightly,  to helping the less fortunate.  So a vast amount is already being taken by the government and a vast amount is being done with it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Please don't try to tell me what I mean, it's rather rude. Phrase it as a question and you'll come across as a lot less arrogant

I can give to various charities, but it's never going to be as effective as a holistic government program to tackle the root causes of our social problems. 

Charities simply don't have the power to do that so they will always be tackling the symptoms more than the cause.

A vast amount is being done, but a walk around any city centre will show you it is not enough.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's the problem with logic.  It points out difficult and thorny issues.  I don't earn anywhere near £45k however those that do earn that sum and above probably work exceptionally hard to achieve that, so where is the incentive to work hard if all that effort is taken away from you?

Maybe I'd go looking for loopholes to try and keep as much of what I earn as possible and then this subject would morph into another direction.

maybe the clarion call of more taxation isn't the magic solution.

In reply to Ciro:

Well, if you had said: "I want the government to tax EVERYONE more and use that money to help those less fortunate than myself" then I would not have commented, but you said: "I want the government to tax ME more and use that money to help those less fortunate than myself", as though your contributions alone would be sufficient to fund the holistic government program that you want.  

If we add up all the things that people would like the government to spend more money on -- NHS, schools, abolishing student loans, mental health, providing care for the elderly, disability benefits, affordable housing, social housing, dysfunctional families, troubled teens, care leavers, transport infrastructure, and a huge list of other things -- it comes to rather a lot. 

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Except you didn't attempt to query whether I should have used "us" instead of "me" - which would have been a fair point that I'd have gladly acknowledged - you tried to turn "me" into "others", and I don't believe for a minute you're too thick to know the difference.

Of course it comes to a lot. If you try to run society on a shoe string budget lots of people will fall through the gaps. Personally I think we should spend what it takes to reasonably plug those gaps - it saves lives and improves the environment we all live in (less crime, etc.).

In reply to The Lemming:

I worked far harder when I was on production lines for little more than minimum wage than I did in the city of London over the £45k threshold. There's plenty of incentive to keep going improving your salary if money is what you're after, even if the tax rate has gone up - aside from anything else, once you're over 45k your pay rises tend to be a lot more substantial than people who are significantly under it - you'll likely still take home more extra per month than the guy who's still striving to get up there.

 

In reply to Ciro:

But "me" + "others" = "us"!  I was not meaning to imply that you were not including yourself.

I don't think one can describe a third of GDP taken in tax as a "shoe string budget".  By world standards and by historical standards it is quite high. It's also in line with EU and other rich-country averages, though lower than some such as Scandinavia.

There would still be gaps, there is even in Scandinavia.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Straight away, in the first paragraph after the intro, it says that LAs have responsibility for housing the homeless, in the context of a death, the first place to look would what provision the mandated authority (Nottinghamshire) provided or failed to provide.

The hysterical approach is to claim it is a sign of society falling apart (especially as LAs have had the duty since 1996).

My LA pays Framework £4Million a year to treat homelessness and the signs are that they are getting fed up of the virtue signalling hysteria people who refuse to try to under stand the situation keep throwing up.

Just on Thursday this week they have been using social media for a bit of counter propaganda:

"Truth or myth? - Giving money directly to homeless people is the most effective way to help them. 

Myth - Giving money, food or clothes directly is understandable but it doesn't resolve a person's problems. Specialist support and treatment is required and we recommend giving money to these organisations so that your care and generosity can have a positive impact.

Truth or myth? There is no help for homeless people in Nottingham. 

Myth - There is support and services in Nottingham, but some people choose to reject that help (perhaps from disillusionment in the past). Some people also have to be evicted from shelters due to violence or drug misuse, but help is still available to those willing to address those issues. "

Truth or myth? - All people who beg in Nottingham are homeless...

Myth - the majority of people asking for money have somewhere to stay. They are likely to need support for their often complex issues but do not necessarily need housing help."

The reason they've done this is the hysteria from local charities and Christian groups looking for Works.

They are a 95% Labour authority that has decades of experience of looking after the homeless and have not taken kindly to people like yourself and Lemming screaming that they are failing in the statutory duty to help.

 

In reply to winhill:

Who’s claiming society is falling apart? Not me. 

Are you saying that the parliamentary committee are virtue-signalling?

 

Could you please cite where I have been ‘screaming’. This is a complete misrepresentation    . I cited a newspaper report and a parliamentary report. 

 

In reply to Coel Hellier:

We were world leaders on social care back when we set up the NHS and the welfare state, why should we settle for mediocrity now?

Of course there will always be gaps, no system will ever be perfect. That's no reason not to do the best you can.

 

In reply to The Lemming:

Are we looking at this the wrong way round? In a rich country the beggars in the streets can get enough cash to get by. In a poorer country far fewer would get enough cash to get by and so there would be fewer of them. It’s because we live in a rich country that begging is a just about worthwhile activity for very poor people. 

And they beg where they get the most cash - on the streets where people with cash walk by.

 

In reply to captain paranoia:

York's the same. The shelter is always full, there are always numerous people sleeping in doorways, under the bridges and camping in the parks. Something seems to have gone very badly wrong in the last few years. My guess would be some combination of a squeeze on social services, cuts to drug and alcohol rehab funding, mental health service underfunding, the botched move to universal credit and depleted council housing stock all acting as a push out of and a barrier to return to stable living. I suspect that's combined with a growing city center night-time entertainment economy meaning there is a bit more money to be had on the streets here than in quieter towns acting as a pull into York.

jk

In reply to Ciro:

That ^