By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Novotel injunction rejected on 11:56 - Nov 14 by monytowbray
Surely a part of that, and I can completely see why, is throwing a lot of vulnerable, hungry, poor, addicted or mentally unwell people in a shared space? I can't imagine a homeless hostel is the easiest environment to navigate socially. I've had a few homeless folks say stuff along those lines to me.
I would therefore say it's not as simple as saying people are on the streets "by choice" without elaborating on why, considering such lazy tropes can easily become a way to dehumanise homeless folk more.
If you had an option of drowning or burning to death you'd probably have a reason for which you choose, but neither are your actual "choice". I'm sure the actual answer is people having their own space to live.
"lazy tropes"
More vacuous newspeak
Try reading the post again.
I qualified my comment well enough. I am also well aware of the numerous reasons that leads someone to be homeless, and sleeping rough - and also the reasons why some choice not to use the accommodation provided.
However what I learned was you have to go through each stage to understand what is needed.
And that does not mean simple knee jerk newspeak response, as with your comment
There is accommodation. So lets recognise that, and move on to the reality that some choose not to take accept what is on offer. That is the starting point. Not the end. Not any 'it's their fault etc' as you are trying to twist my comment into.
-1
Novotel injunction rejected on 14:31 - Nov 14 with 1827 views
Novotel injunction rejected on 14:28 - Nov 14 by HARRY10
"lazy tropes"
More vacuous newspeak
Try reading the post again.
I qualified my comment well enough. I am also well aware of the numerous reasons that leads someone to be homeless, and sleeping rough - and also the reasons why some choice not to use the accommodation provided.
However what I learned was you have to go through each stage to understand what is needed.
And that does not mean simple knee jerk newspeak response, as with your comment
There is accommodation. So lets recognise that, and move on to the reality that some choose not to take accept what is on offer. That is the starting point. Not the end. Not any 'it's their fault etc' as you are trying to twist my comment into.
Yeah but you can’t address any starting point without giving reasons, otherwise you leave all to assumptions.
What exactly is “newsspeak”? I agree with you a lot in principle but you don’t half double down when someone reasonably tells you you’ve again put your foot in your mouth. I’m not saying you personally are blaming the homeless for being homeless, just explaining how wording stuff without fully acknowledging the wider point you are making will arm those who seek to invalidate with any disingenuous point they can.
And I say this as someone recently accused of misogyny and belittling rape victims by a handful of right wing enablers because I made my initial point in a lazy manner before validating why the testimony in question was in fact disingenuous and being used as a transphobic weapon.
Novotel injunction rejected on 14:31 - Nov 14 by monytowbray
Yeah but you can’t address any starting point without giving reasons, otherwise you leave all to assumptions.
What exactly is “newsspeak”? I agree with you a lot in principle but you don’t half double down when someone reasonably tells you you’ve again put your foot in your mouth. I’m not saying you personally are blaming the homeless for being homeless, just explaining how wording stuff without fully acknowledging the wider point you are making will arm those who seek to invalidate with any disingenuous point they can.
And I say this as someone recently accused of misogyny and belittling rape victims by a handful of right wing enablers because I made my initial point in a lazy manner before validating why the testimony in question was in fact disingenuous and being used as a transphobic weapon.
Novotel injunction rejected on 14:35 - Nov 14 by monytowbray
Next week on TWTD - Glassers once again claims Harry gets a free pass from the left side of the board…
I do think he gets a fairly easy ride at times, if he was a right winger talking with such hatred and bile he wouldn't last long - you can join Lagos as a rightie now though....
Novotel injunction rejected on 14:37 - Nov 14 by itfcjoe
I do think he gets a fairly easy ride at times, if he was a right winger talking with such hatred and bile he wouldn't last long - you can join Lagos as a rightie now though....
I think he gets a much harder time than some of the favourable historic right wingers of the board though. Alas almost everyone I’d consider fairly WOKEY COKEY here has at some point or another pointed out issues in Harry’s wording or name calling.
Novotel injunction rejected on 14:40 - Nov 14 by monytowbray
I think he gets a much harder time than some of the favourable historic right wingers of the board though. Alas almost everyone I’d consider fairly WOKEY COKEY here has at some point or another pointed out issues in Harry’s wording or name calling.
I guess like everything our own biases show in these things on every side
Novotel injunction rejected on 14:28 - Nov 14 by HARRY10
"lazy tropes"
More vacuous newspeak
Try reading the post again.
I qualified my comment well enough. I am also well aware of the numerous reasons that leads someone to be homeless, and sleeping rough - and also the reasons why some choice not to use the accommodation provided.
However what I learned was you have to go through each stage to understand what is needed.
And that does not mean simple knee jerk newspeak response, as with your comment
There is accommodation. So lets recognise that, and move on to the reality that some choose not to take accept what is on offer. That is the starting point. Not the end. Not any 'it's their fault etc' as you are trying to twist my comment into.
"There is accommodation. So lets recognise that"
Sorry Harry, that's not the case at all, and certainly not a straight-forward as you put it in your previous post.
The rigmarole someone who is homeless is put through in order to even apply for help is nothing short of a disgrace. And the entire process is not designed to help but to frustrate and deter people from applying. Awful process run generally by awful people.
For the odd person involved in the process who would like to help their hands are tied by so much red-tape the average bod wouldn't believe you if you explained it to them.
The hostel scenario you mentioned is such an unrealistic option for most people it may as well not exist for them.
Take how a young girl sleeping on a heath in a small tent with her friend bring her sandwiches and crisps was offered a place in a hostel; full of grown men, many with drug/drink problems, a number fresh from prison. For the authorities to even suggest that for her showed how much disdain they had for people 'like her'.
They wouldn't put their own kids in there would they.
That was one real-life scenario I came across and am using that as a single example only to offer a picture of the hostel option. She was just one person, but the system's failings are a constant let-down as people who are struggling in life are looked-down upon and treated worse than dogs.
I have also known adults who have been offered rooms in such places which is equally daunting for them if they come from a regular background and have found themselves at the mercy of the local authorities.
For applicants who are granted temporary accommodation whilst their applications are 'assessed' some of that accommodation is appalling, and I mean disgusting.
And that is our 'own' that some of the others speak of when they cry "What about our own homeless?" but don't really mean it because they don't really care, else they would know what goes on.
As for foreigners being in hotels it's not their choices or their fault that there's inadequate facilities in place.
Novotel injunction rejected on 14:37 - Nov 14 by itfcjoe
I do think he gets a fairly easy ride at times, if he was a right winger talking with such hatred and bile he wouldn't last long - you can join Lagos as a rightie now though....
None of the lefties take him seriously, so why do the ´righties'?
Novotel injunction rejected on 14:37 - Nov 14 by itfcjoe
I do think he gets a fairly easy ride at times, if he was a right winger talking with such hatred and bile he wouldn't last long - you can join Lagos as a rightie now though....
Novotel injunction rejected on 10:45 - Nov 14 by DinDjarin
Struggling does not just mean financially. Getting a doctors appointment, school classroom sizes touching 40 in my youngests school, trying to get council / social housing plus plenty more. Thats the struggle.
Bottom line for me is just walking around Ipswich you can see how many homeless we have but they dont get £4300 a month. Times that by the rest of the country and its a disgrace how many live on the streets in a 1st world country.
[Post edited 14 Nov 2022 10:48]
That is entirely due to this Government's political choice to have a small state (the basic principle of Conservatism) or austerity or low taxation for the richest. Whatever you call it it's the same thing. When there was a political motivation to get those homeless off the street, the Government was able to do so. There no longer is. Now it is the immigrant's fault somehow.
It is very little to do with immigration. None of those waiting for an assylum application to be heard are in your child's school. None of those waiting for their cases to be heard who could actually be working in building houses, the NHS or schools are able to do so, either.
The idea that the issues you list are because we are swamped by immigrants and not because this Government chooses not to invest in public services is one of the greatest cons they have pulled on the electorate for a long time.
Novotel injunction rejected on 17:15 - Nov 14 by Nthsuffolkblue
That is entirely due to this Government's political choice to have a small state (the basic principle of Conservatism) or austerity or low taxation for the richest. Whatever you call it it's the same thing. When there was a political motivation to get those homeless off the street, the Government was able to do so. There no longer is. Now it is the immigrant's fault somehow.
It is very little to do with immigration. None of those waiting for an assylum application to be heard are in your child's school. None of those waiting for their cases to be heard who could actually be working in building houses, the NHS or schools are able to do so, either.
The idea that the issues you list are because we are swamped by immigrants and not because this Government chooses not to invest in public services is one of the greatest cons they have pulled on the electorate for a long time.
Exactly it's just finger-pointing deflection.
All those problems exist because of a lack of funding, or rather cuts in direct funding, cuts in advice centres for people who have fallen foul of the system and have no clue how to find help and frankly because the haves don't give a flying sh1t about the have-nots.
To blame even hundreds of thousands of new people for the way this nation fails its own people is laughable, but shows how gullible the public can be.
Easier to dupe someone than to convince them they've been duped and all that.
They refuse to listen so it's frustratingly pointless, unfortunately.
Novotel injunction rejected on 14:31 - Nov 14 by monytowbray
Yeah but you can’t address any starting point without giving reasons, otherwise you leave all to assumptions.
What exactly is “newsspeak”? I agree with you a lot in principle but you don’t half double down when someone reasonably tells you you’ve again put your foot in your mouth. I’m not saying you personally are blaming the homeless for being homeless, just explaining how wording stuff without fully acknowledging the wider point you are making will arm those who seek to invalidate with any disingenuous point they can.
And I say this as someone recently accused of misogyny and belittling rape victims by a handful of right wing enablers because I made my initial point in a lazy manner before validating why the testimony in question was in fact disingenuous and being used as a transphobic weapon.
[Post edited 14 Nov 2022 14:34]
"half double down"
some kind of quilt ?
0
Novotel injunction rejected on 18:16 - Nov 14 with 1511 views
Novotel injunction rejected on 14:56 - Nov 14 by jeera
"There is accommodation. So lets recognise that"
Sorry Harry, that's not the case at all, and certainly not a straight-forward as you put it in your previous post.
The rigmarole someone who is homeless is put through in order to even apply for help is nothing short of a disgrace. And the entire process is not designed to help but to frustrate and deter people from applying. Awful process run generally by awful people.
For the odd person involved in the process who would like to help their hands are tied by so much red-tape the average bod wouldn't believe you if you explained it to them.
The hostel scenario you mentioned is such an unrealistic option for most people it may as well not exist for them.
Take how a young girl sleeping on a heath in a small tent with her friend bring her sandwiches and crisps was offered a place in a hostel; full of grown men, many with drug/drink problems, a number fresh from prison. For the authorities to even suggest that for her showed how much disdain they had for people 'like her'.
They wouldn't put their own kids in there would they.
That was one real-life scenario I came across and am using that as a single example only to offer a picture of the hostel option. She was just one person, but the system's failings are a constant let-down as people who are struggling in life are looked-down upon and treated worse than dogs.
I have also known adults who have been offered rooms in such places which is equally daunting for them if they come from a regular background and have found themselves at the mercy of the local authorities.
For applicants who are granted temporary accommodation whilst their applications are 'assessed' some of that accommodation is appalling, and I mean disgusting.
And that is our 'own' that some of the others speak of when they cry "What about our own homeless?" but don't really mean it because they don't really care, else they would know what goes on.
As for foreigners being in hotels it's not their choices or their fault that there's inadequate facilities in place.
So there is accommodation. Lets move from there.
Yes, I have both experienced homelessness - ended up in St Mungos,Charing Cross. it was the old Charing Cross hospital. 3 years ago I volunteered at the local 'crisis at Xmas' Not entirely altruistic - it was that or the other halves relatives
Both demonstrated what I stated. Previously those 'on the streets' were alchos. Those in the spike (hostel) survive by working in West End kitchens casually and then pssing it away.
Pretty much EVERY perosn at the Xmas 'shelter' was drig (smack, mostly) dependent. As well as feeding them there were also outreach workers who had given up their Xmas to work with them. And as I learnt many did not want to be 'helped'. That was their choice. Though whether someone who makes that choice can be considered to have the mental capacity to make that choice, is a moot point.
How do you resolve this ?
Well, stop peddling the twaddle as above, which seeks to mythologise the homeless. Those who want to get off the streets do. Not overnight. But the help is there. From volunteers rather than the government
That there are more homeless now than before is down to drug dependency, talk to anyone working with these people. That requires you to get the tenner needed for the next fix. Anything else is a waste of time with that mindset.
mostly it is about volunteers trying to manage the day to day needs of those people. Bluntly, until they are found dead in some house, hedge or outbuilding. That is the stark reality, I'm afraid.
0
Novotel injunction rejected on 19:04 - Nov 14 with 1483 views
Novotel injunction rejected on 17:22 - Nov 14 by jeera
Exactly it's just finger-pointing deflection.
All those problems exist because of a lack of funding, or rather cuts in direct funding, cuts in advice centres for people who have fallen foul of the system and have no clue how to find help and frankly because the haves don't give a flying sh1t about the have-nots.
To blame even hundreds of thousands of new people for the way this nation fails its own people is laughable, but shows how gullible the public can be.
Easier to dupe someone than to convince them they've been duped and all that.
They refuse to listen so it's frustratingly pointless, unfortunately.
I spoke to an individual yesterday who has a serious health condition and has spent several periods in hospital. A few weeks ago, they collapsed and needed rushing to hospital. They were told the ambulance would be 8 hours. After further contact from the person with them the ambulance was able to be prioritised and attend within 3 hours.
Once in hospital they said it was the worst they have ever seen it. Patients using the emergency call would wait an hour to be seen.
They are currently working for a corner shop run by a major supermarket having had to give up their previous professional job due to their health. It is the first time they have not been paid by their employer when off sick. They had a return-to-work interview and were told that on this occasion they would not face disciplinary action but further absence due to sickness in the near future would see them face it. This is an individual in no position to be able to afford to join a union. The CAB is overrun.
When they visited the foodbank, they were told that in future they would need a voucher from the doctor to receive help.
Every part of this experience is directly due to Government policies. None of it is due to any impact of immigration. This is only one heart-breaking real-life story.
There are worse details to it too, but I don't want to over-share.
Novotel injunction rejected on 18:16 - Nov 14 by HARRY10
So there is accommodation. Lets move from there.
Yes, I have both experienced homelessness - ended up in St Mungos,Charing Cross. it was the old Charing Cross hospital. 3 years ago I volunteered at the local 'crisis at Xmas' Not entirely altruistic - it was that or the other halves relatives
Both demonstrated what I stated. Previously those 'on the streets' were alchos. Those in the spike (hostel) survive by working in West End kitchens casually and then pssing it away.
Pretty much EVERY perosn at the Xmas 'shelter' was drig (smack, mostly) dependent. As well as feeding them there were also outreach workers who had given up their Xmas to work with them. And as I learnt many did not want to be 'helped'. That was their choice. Though whether someone who makes that choice can be considered to have the mental capacity to make that choice, is a moot point.
How do you resolve this ?
Well, stop peddling the twaddle as above, which seeks to mythologise the homeless. Those who want to get off the streets do. Not overnight. But the help is there. From volunteers rather than the government
That there are more homeless now than before is down to drug dependency, talk to anyone working with these people. That requires you to get the tenner needed for the next fix. Anything else is a waste of time with that mindset.
mostly it is about volunteers trying to manage the day to day needs of those people. Bluntly, until they are found dead in some house, hedge or outbuilding. That is the stark reality, I'm afraid.
Substance abuse is pretty much always a symptom of mental health issues. Underfunding of mental health services will be a direct cause of homelessness.
Novotel injunction rejected on 19:17 - Nov 14 by noggin
Substance abuse is pretty much always a symptom of mental health issues. Underfunding of mental health services will be a direct cause of homelessness.
I have some limited experience of working among homeless people. Some of the stories are harrowing but the most abiding memory still is "there, but for the grace of God, go I". One was an ex-teacher. Family breakdown and mental health problems featured highly for most.
Novotel injunction rejected on 18:16 - Nov 14 by HARRY10
So there is accommodation. Lets move from there.
Yes, I have both experienced homelessness - ended up in St Mungos,Charing Cross. it was the old Charing Cross hospital. 3 years ago I volunteered at the local 'crisis at Xmas' Not entirely altruistic - it was that or the other halves relatives
Both demonstrated what I stated. Previously those 'on the streets' were alchos. Those in the spike (hostel) survive by working in West End kitchens casually and then pssing it away.
Pretty much EVERY perosn at the Xmas 'shelter' was drig (smack, mostly) dependent. As well as feeding them there were also outreach workers who had given up their Xmas to work with them. And as I learnt many did not want to be 'helped'. That was their choice. Though whether someone who makes that choice can be considered to have the mental capacity to make that choice, is a moot point.
How do you resolve this ?
Well, stop peddling the twaddle as above, which seeks to mythologise the homeless. Those who want to get off the streets do. Not overnight. But the help is there. From volunteers rather than the government
That there are more homeless now than before is down to drug dependency, talk to anyone working with these people. That requires you to get the tenner needed for the next fix. Anything else is a waste of time with that mindset.
mostly it is about volunteers trying to manage the day to day needs of those people. Bluntly, until they are found dead in some house, hedge or outbuilding. That is the stark reality, I'm afraid.
"So there is accommodation. Lets move from there."
No there isn't accommodation. You can't just repeat that and say let's move on.
There is an inadequate number of mostly inadequate hostels.
To keep saying most people who are homeless are homeless deliberately is not remotely true and if you have had experience in the field then you would know this.
Please stop pushing this untruth. You are not helping.
When someone is homeless they have to approach the Housing Dept at their local council. They must have a local connection, (there are only exceptions when someone literally has no local connections anywhere else).
They have to go through an interview, fill in forms. Their medical records, if they can produce any, are sent off to a faceless assessor. That assessor will go through those records and try to dismiss any claim that person has to housing help from the council. Most applicants are rejected out of hand.
The stipulation is this:
Can the applicant cope with street homelessness the same as* someone who does not have health difficulties. In other words if you have no health problems you do not have a claim to help with priority housing which means you will be so far back in any queue it is unlikely to be in your lifetime. (Children aside etc. I am referring to the average adult).
But the process is corrupt and even those in absolute need will be ignored, overlooked by a greedy 'healthcare professional' who receives a set fee for saying "no". Only the very worst health wise will receive some sort of accommodation.
Not necessarily suitable accommodation or even the sort you'd want to stay in, but at least something. But no, not just anyone who walks in off the street. It is a painful process from which most are rejected.
I have no idea why you keep suggesting otherwise.
The worst myth is that all people are homeless because of drug/drink abuse, when the truth is many turn to drugs/drink to get through the day.
It's not always the cause but often the result of being ignored by the system.
So for people who cannot work there is often little to no help. If you cannot work you cannot support yourself. If the council will not house you then you become homeless. It is a common problem which you have yet to acknowledge for some reason. Maybe you're making the mistake of assuming all people who cannot work are unable to because they are drug/drink addicts. It's simply not the case.
Novotel injunction rejected on 19:17 - Nov 14 by noggin
Substance abuse is pretty much always a symptom of mental health issues. Underfunding of mental health services will be a direct cause of homelessness.
Nope, and no one gets issued with 'mental health' either.
There maybe an argument as to why some become an addict. My experience has been, and those I have worked with, is that it is more someone's addictive being than any lack of funding to 'cure' them.
Would removing heroin simply mean those addicts would become hooked on booze instead ?
Heroin addicts cut right across the social class. It's just the more wealthy, the easier it is to hide.
I came to the conclusion that heroin should be prescribed........free. Take it off the streets and it would be harder to get hooked. On a cost basis alone it must be cheaper than having to deal with the crime involved, plus the misery and the degradation of those who turn to prostitution.
I read somewhere of some Lord who stated in the House that he had been taking heroin for years. Only his would have been pure heroin, in a regulated amount.
Odd how in war opiates are OK - 70 million speed tablets were issued by the British during WW2.
Alright to be blown up in war, but not shot away in peace it would seem..
0
Novotel injunction rejected on 20:18 - Nov 14 with 1399 views
Novotel injunction rejected on 18:16 - Nov 14 by HARRY10
So there is accommodation. Lets move from there.
Yes, I have both experienced homelessness - ended up in St Mungos,Charing Cross. it was the old Charing Cross hospital. 3 years ago I volunteered at the local 'crisis at Xmas' Not entirely altruistic - it was that or the other halves relatives
Both demonstrated what I stated. Previously those 'on the streets' were alchos. Those in the spike (hostel) survive by working in West End kitchens casually and then pssing it away.
Pretty much EVERY perosn at the Xmas 'shelter' was drig (smack, mostly) dependent. As well as feeding them there were also outreach workers who had given up their Xmas to work with them. And as I learnt many did not want to be 'helped'. That was their choice. Though whether someone who makes that choice can be considered to have the mental capacity to make that choice, is a moot point.
How do you resolve this ?
Well, stop peddling the twaddle as above, which seeks to mythologise the homeless. Those who want to get off the streets do. Not overnight. But the help is there. From volunteers rather than the government
That there are more homeless now than before is down to drug dependency, talk to anyone working with these people. That requires you to get the tenner needed for the next fix. Anything else is a waste of time with that mindset.
mostly it is about volunteers trying to manage the day to day needs of those people. Bluntly, until they are found dead in some house, hedge or outbuilding. That is the stark reality, I'm afraid.
You sound like some right "it's all their own fault" winger there Harry.....
You are the obsolete SRN4 to my Fairey Rotodyne....
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
