I don't get it: homelessness

SiD the Turtle · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:17

Just reading an interesting story on the Beeb here about a family sleeping rough, which has sparked off in my head the whole topic of homelessness.

Now I know we don't live in a perfect world but I thought the system worked like this: if for whatever reason you find yourself with no money, no house, no anything, the state would provide by giving you a council house, jokseekers allowance etc. forever if you are unable to work, or until you can pay, at which point you'd keep the council house, but lose the benefits.

So why are families living on the street. And for that matter, why is anybody living on the street?

Apologies if this sounds ignorant.

dirtydog · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:18

You don't automatically get given a home just because you are homeless.

Phate · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:18

immigration

cleanbluesky · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:20

SiD the Turtle said:
So why are families living on the street. And for that matter, why is anybody living on the street?

Apologies if this sounds ignorant.

Priority, and also the inability of some people to maintain a house given to them.

Bear in mind that disabled people, ill people, generally vulnerable or those experiencing harrasment will all be placed in line before a healthy single person of sane mind who is homeless.

The stock of housing for asylum seekers is completely seperate, and a homeless person wouldn't be 'eligable' for those houses.

Also, many who are mentally unsound have a problem with maintaining their lives.

lay-z-boy · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:21

dirtydog said:
You don't automatically get given a home just because you are homeless.

yeah, thats what i thought?

As for homelessness I would think its hard to get up on your feet after being kicked down, by yourself or others.

/me is happy to have a roof over my head

dirtydog · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:22

lay-z-boy said:
/me is happy to have a roof over my head

Good

I think people tend to take that for granted, but we shouldn't do.

iCraig · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:24

SiD the Turtle said:
Now I know we don't live in a perfect world but I thought the system worked like this: if for whatever reason you find yourself with no money, no house, no anything, the state would provide by giving you a council house, jokseekers allowance etc. forever if you are unable to work, or until you can pay, at which point you'd keep the council house, but lose the benefits.

Imagine the amount of people who would abuse the system. Live in a house all their life and let the state pay it for them?

Also, what about the people who work everyday paying their bills and mortage, and some lazy arse is getting it all for free. There would be uproar.

One of the main causes as to why people are homeless is education. In order to get a house/flat, they need an income. In order to get an income you need some sort of job, and in order to get that job you're going to need at least a basic education. No employer in their right mind would waste time/money hiring somebody for a job they have absolutely no idea how to do.

starscream · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:25

Phate said:
immigration

Indeed. There was no homelessness when immigration was lower.

kitten_caboodle · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:26

iCraig said:
Imagine the amount of people who would abuse the system. Live in a house all their life and let the state pay it for them?

Also, what about the people who work everyday paying their bills and mortage, and some lazy arse is getting it all for free. There would be uproar.

That's Britain today innit?

cleanbluesky · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:27

starscream said:
Indeed. There was no homelessness when immigration was lower.

Are you suggesting that mass immigration has no bearing on housing?

Slinwagh · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:27

starscream said:
Indeed. There was no homelessness when immigration was lower.

Im sorry thats rubbish, there was homeless way before the recent wave of immigration.

kitten_caboodle · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:27

starscream said:
Indeed. There was no homelessness when immigration was lower.

absolute cobblers. I'm not saying it hasn't added to the problem, but you're talking out of your hairy one I'm afraid:

For as long as historical records have been kept, Britain has had a homelessness problem. As far back as the 7th century, the English king Hlothaere passed laws to punish vagrants. William the Conqueror forbade anyone to leave the land where he worked. Edward the First ordered weekly searches to round up vagrants.

The numbers of vagrants has risen and fallen, and precise figures are hard to come by, but we know that 16th century estimates put the numbers of vagrants at 20,000 or more. And it was in the 16th century that the state first tried to house vagrants rather than punish them. I

More info here.

SiD the Turtle · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:29

iCraig said:
Imagine the amount of people who would abuse the system. Live in a house all their life and let the state pay it for them?

Really I mean people who are genuinely destitute. If I CBA to get a job and get evicted, then fair enough. But lets say even if that happens, I have no money, no means of getting a job (as I'm a tramp basically) I would hope that the state would help pick me up again. Simply because the alternative is to be simply forgotten about, and left to spiral into further destitution until you die.

Which sounds a lot like what is happening :eek:

dirtydog · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:30

kitten_caboodle said:
...

starscream is an immigration supporter so he was being sarcastic

kitten_caboodle · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:31

dirtydog said:
starscream is an immigration supporter so he was being sarcastic

ah ok, thanks

Could have made it clear it was sarcasm tho.

robmiller · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:34

kitten_caboodle said:
ah ok, thanks Could have made it clear it was sarcasm tho.

It was pretty obvious :/

kitten_caboodle · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:35

robmiller said:
It was pretty obvious :/

starscream said:
Indeed. There was no homelessness when immigration was lower.

to you maybe. However, with so many idiotic and uniformed comments dotted around OCUK I do find it hard to tell sometimes. It's just a statement, no reason to doubt it's content or intention.

dirtydog · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:39

In fairness I wouldn't have known it was sarcastic unless I had read starscream's

kitten_caboodle said:
idiotic and uniformed comments

before

PhilthyPhil · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:39

iCraig said:
Also, what about the people who work everyday paying their bills and mortage, and some lazy arse is getting it all for free. There would be uproar.

You would think so, but yet... well there isn't :confused:

ChroniC · 29 Nov 2006 at 13:41

question to someone a little more knowledgeable.
Is it against the law to use homeless people as labour and paying them with hostel like accomdation and lower wages.
This works in your favour for cheap labour, and theirs, as a home and platform to greater sucess!