I never said it did
The area is purely residential so it's not as if people are there for work. They could live anywhere else nearby.
Is "affordable housing" a red herring when it comes to roughsleepers?
- Thread starter Tefal
- Start date
I never said it did
The area is purely residential so it's not as if people are there for work. They could live anywhere else nearby.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
I never said it did
The area is purely residential so it's not as if people are there for work. They could live anywhere else nearby.
Misread what you said, sorry.
I learnt a thing or two from that program in particular that 'affordable' is pretty much meaningless depending on where these houses are built.
Due to both my serious health problems and my good lady getting into serious debt which is surprisingly easy with credit card companies throwing cards at you and increasing credit limits without so much as a by your leave. Anyway to cut a long and painful story short we lost everything and a housing association bought the house and fortunately we still live there but now pay rent which is pretty good seeing what others pay for the same accommodation but a private landlord.
Not sure what we would have done otherwise and we are no spring chickens.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
From today's Guardian, an excerpt from a piece suggesting why some areas are worse for beggars and dossers than others:
The other powers looked at in the research were community protection notices and public space protection orders (PSPOs). These can be used by councils and other agencies to prohibit certain activities and again can result in prosecution if breached.
PSPOs have attracted particular controversy because of some councils’ use of them against rough sleepers or people who are begging.
Researchers looked at prosecution rates amongst young adults in England and Wales for the three powers and found significant differences between areas.
Young adults in Norfolk were three times more likely to be prosecuted than those in Greater Manchester or the West Midlands, with 39 prosecutions representing 47 in every 100,000 people in that age group.
The highest rate, and third highest number, of prosecutions was in Durham, where 97 young adults were taken to court – a rate of 145 per 100,000.
Commenting on councils’ use of these powers, Simon Blackburn, chair of the Local Government Association’s safer and stronger communities board, said many antisocial behaviour offences were serious issues for local residents and businesses, and councils were keen to protect them from offenders.
“Councils will take a proportionate approach to using the tools at their disposal to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour,” he said. “Crime and antisocial behaviour varies from place to place and that is why councils, who know their areas best, are responding in different ways.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...persal-orders-new-antisocial-behaviour-powers
The other powers looked at in the research were community protection notices and public space protection orders (PSPOs). These can be used by councils and other agencies to prohibit certain activities and again can result in prosecution if breached.
PSPOs have attracted particular controversy because of some councils’ use of them against rough sleepers or people who are begging.
Researchers looked at prosecution rates amongst young adults in England and Wales for the three powers and found significant differences between areas.
Young adults in Norfolk were three times more likely to be prosecuted than those in Greater Manchester or the West Midlands, with 39 prosecutions representing 47 in every 100,000 people in that age group.
The highest rate, and third highest number, of prosecutions was in Durham, where 97 young adults were taken to court – a rate of 145 per 100,000.
Commenting on councils’ use of these powers, Simon Blackburn, chair of the Local Government Association’s safer and stronger communities board, said many antisocial behaviour offences were serious issues for local residents and businesses, and councils were keen to protect them from offenders.
“Councils will take a proportionate approach to using the tools at their disposal to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour,” he said. “Crime and antisocial behaviour varies from place to place and that is why councils, who know their areas best, are responding in different ways.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...persal-orders-new-antisocial-behaviour-powers
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Credit cards IMO do have stupidly high limits for a lot of people. Plus it makes it too easy to spend money you don't have. It needs tougher regulation.
I have only in the past year gotten 2 myself after not having one for about 10 years.
I got 1 as it's interest free for like 36 months and it was cheaper than getting a loan. The plan was to spend once on it and then slowly pay it off. I end up however though spending on it here and there as I use it on 1 site and that site only. I plan on stopping that as much as I can plus I pay more than I spend so it is going down and I have plenty of time left to clear it.
The other I got was the halifax clarity for abroad usage. I had been using someone else before for many years and borrowing it and just giving it back and them the cash when done however got my own now. Will be used abroad only and paid off in full at end of holiday. I also have revolut as backup.
There is also the issue of easily available credit. I mean I took out paypal credit interest free loan for a new washing machine. I needed one anyway but the fact I could get interest free meant I ended up going for one which was £1800 (top of the range). Rather than just spending half that £900 on one which would probably be just as good. However it's only like £60 a month i'm paying towards it interest free so not a huge deal but it's for like 30 months.
Then I also got a ZOPA loan for solar panels. Which I aim to pay off within 12 months of the original 36 month agreement. It's low interest at 3% but higher then mortgage so it makes sense to clear it first before overpaying on mortgage.
Before last year I had zero loans or credit apart from mortgage and student loan and I was proud of that fact. But I now see how easy it is for people to get trapped by debt. As soon as zopa, paypal and credit card (2 of which are interest free) are paid off I will terminate the credit agreements with the card company and paypal so I can't use them again.
Clarity card I will keep for holiday use only.
Last edited:
I see the guardian has done the usual where they compare the portion of black men affected by the orders (in fact affected by prosecutions for breaking the order, so something they have to actively choose to break within 48 hours after being clearly warned) vs the portion in the population in general. The problem is that the population in general doesn't necessarily represent the subset of people who are likely to be hanging out on the street, making noise etc.. and given this is prosecutions for breaking the orders then short of taking the decision to ignore breaches by some black people in order to massage the stats then there perhaps isn't anything the police can do here or even anything to illustrate that they ought to do something (other than perhaps collect some more detailed stats).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
I didn't quote the start of the article as it had nothing to do with affordable housing, nor rough sleeping, perhaps best to start a different thread, should you think it worthy of discussion, with great respect?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,360
- Location
- The Orion Spur
Cheap housing isn't going to fix this, these people need help to get their life back together, many are suffering from mental health problems but often the support isn't there or the process is too hard for someone on the streets with these issues to pursue, Universal Credit for example really isn't designed for people like this in mind, they will just keep getting sanctioned and then your back on the streets again, it's a never ending cycle.
I just don't believe that the way to motivate people into work is saying you will be homeless and destitute if you fail to follow 'these' guidelines, everyone should have at least a roof over their head and basic amenities regardless of their circumstances, that shouldn't be a luxury afforded by those only with a job or good mental health, give these people the help, support, and stability they need, and then they will have a platform to be able to gain some control in their life and work and improve upon their situation, support in the form of stability is key here, rather than using fear of destitution as a motivator, trust that for the whole, human beings want to be happy and successful in life.
Society isn't going to go into meltdown if a very small proportion of people are given a free bedsit/apartment and basic allowance/food vouchers to live, we are not all going to give up our jobs and put our feet up and watch sky TV because that assistance is available to us, you have to have trust and have faith in people, in society, we want more than that, I myself have stayed in poor jobs for many years due to being scared to progress because of the real fear of destitution due to a potential failure of a life changing decision, people are scared to make positive changes in their life because the safety net isn't there if things go wrong.
I just don't believe that the way to motivate people into work is saying you will be homeless and destitute if you fail to follow 'these' guidelines, everyone should have at least a roof over their head and basic amenities regardless of their circumstances, that shouldn't be a luxury afforded by those only with a job or good mental health, give these people the help, support, and stability they need, and then they will have a platform to be able to gain some control in their life and work and improve upon their situation, support in the form of stability is key here, rather than using fear of destitution as a motivator, trust that for the whole, human beings want to be happy and successful in life.
Society isn't going to go into meltdown if a very small proportion of people are given a free bedsit/apartment and basic allowance/food vouchers to live, we are not all going to give up our jobs and put our feet up and watch sky TV because that assistance is available to us, you have to have trust and have faith in people, in society, we want more than that, I myself have stayed in poor jobs for many years due to being scared to progress because of the real fear of destitution due to a potential failure of a life changing decision, people are scared to make positive changes in their life because the safety net isn't there if things go wrong.
Last edited:
This.
When drink and drugs take hold of you then its hard to get out of.
Its easier to sit there and do the bare minimum just to get by because its the easiest thing to do. Whether if its sleeping on the streets and begging or staying in a low paid job all your life.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
The problem is, until you admit that some people are vermin, you will never be able to resolve any possible situation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,360
- Location
- The Orion Spur
This type of sentiment really doesn't help.
Last edited:
Yes, some people are vermin. Being homeless is far from a prerequisite for this state of being. There are plenty of very affluent vermin up and down the nation. What's your point?
The problem is that central Manchester is similar to London in that real estate is expensive. If a developer buys a plot of land, they're going to build a set of luxury apartments on it rather than a block of council owned flats which won't net them anywhere near as much profit. It's all greed at the end of the day.
But i agree, there's no reason why homeless absolutely need to stay central, it's likely only because the sheer footfall volume that any begging makes it worthwhile doing in the centre than on the outskirts of central Manchester.
We were outside a pub in Chorlton last weekend, and a homeless guy was asking everyone for change. There was a couple on a table not far from ours who even offered to buy him some lunch and a coffee, but he just wasn't interested. As soon as a beggar turns down free food, you can quite clearly tell that he's only after money for drugs/fags/booze etc.
But i agree, there's no reason why homeless absolutely need to stay central, it's likely only because the sheer footfall volume that any begging makes it worthwhile doing in the centre than on the outskirts of central Manchester.
We were outside a pub in Chorlton last weekend, and a homeless guy was asking everyone for change. There was a couple on a table not far from ours who even offered to buy him some lunch and a coffee, but he just wasn't interested. As soon as a beggar turns down free food, you can quite clearly tell that he's only after money for drugs/fags/booze etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,360
- Location
- The Orion Spur
The thing is though that is the nature of addiction, it takes priority over all else, I don't think that really changes anything, when your homeless that fix is the only thing keeping you going.
but its also something that giving them free accommodation won't fix either - some people don't want to change so what do you do then? Force them into therapy or leave them to their life?
I don't know the answer, but it would normal and understandable for everybody else who works hard to get a place to live feel resentment to those who get given one for free.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 13,360
- Location
- The Orion Spur
Why should they feel resentment? honestly, that kind of thinking bewilders me, resentment because someone has the absolute most basic amenities for free? Do you not believe everyone deserves at least that as a bare minimum?
That's the problem in this society, we are so scared to help people properly because they might not 'deserve it' or work hard enough for it, we don't want to upset the middles classes, being educated and working full time affords you much more than the bare necessities in life, is that not enough?, should we make sure the underprivileged, mentally ill, and downright unlocky stay homeless to appease our sense of fulfilment?
Aardvark makes a good point though wrt even providing free accommodation (or the basic amenities to survive). If you're an addict, then you don't care about those kind of things. So what's the point throwing valuable resources at someone who's not interested.
He's right though, there's no answer to the problem (at least not easy). It's hardly humane for a western society to be forcing homeless addicts into therapy in order for them to beat their addiction. Not to mention i thought one of the key rules to beating addiction was the willingness to want to beat the addiction. Again, if people don't want to be helped, then forcing them through therapy is a waste of time too.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Because they aren't working for it tbh when they could.
They should be offered re-hab for free.
After re-hab they should then be housed in a publicly run business of sorts. given a job where their payment is a roof and three square meals. their work produces products which can then be sold to re-coup costs of re-hab and providing these meals and housing.
They are then free to stay there so long as they work and stick to the rules (no drugs, etc). The idea being that they use this experience to find a paying job and move out into the real world again.
Basically a full rehabilitation.
I can see why it could upset some, especially other people on low incomes who have to work incredibly hard to pay for the rent, bills, council tax etc.. when perhaps the person next door gets a similar flat for free, council tax exempt and has benefits equivalent to what is left of the working person's disposable income. That could easily cause resentment and provide some negative incentives for people whose work options are limited... why should they bother with min wage either.
So while we ought to provide people the basics in the form of accommodation and enough money to live etc.. we also need to make sure that work provides benefits and that people who could work are prompted to do so, regularly and get penalties if they can't even manage basic things like turning up to a scheduled meeting when they have little else going on in their lives.
Must be Red Tories then. Most Labour councillors are.