Homelessness issues and funding discussion.

[Bletchleyite]

Sleeping in plain sight on a street is dangerous. It is not uncommon for rough sleepers on streets to be urinated on or even worse.

As a result, many rough sleepers will be in more secluded areas, for their own safety. A significant minority hide in plain sight, London's night bus network is good for that, not to mention churchyards, loading bays, etc.

So now we've got one stereotype out of the way...

You been to MK? There may be some "hiding" but there are plenty that aren't.

Many homeless are not beggars, many beggars are not homeless. Same applies to street drinkers, users of Spice, etc, etc.

So that leaves us with "making the place untidy". I just think it is sad that in 2020 people are still seriously advocating locking people up in forced labour because they are "untidy". Out of sight, out of mind?

I think you rather misunderstand if you consider it "forced labour", more a process of rehabilitation to allow them to join society properly, perhaps culminating in a job and a free or heavily discounted flat.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You been to MK? There may be some "hiding" but there are plenty that aren't.

You'll find many of the most aggressive beggars and street drinkers do, in fact, have somewhere to live. Many won't even be homeless in a hostel.

But of hostel homeless, remember hostels turf people out during the day, which has always been an issue. And even those that don't will not, understandably, allow the consumption of alcohol or drugs on the premises.

Take a walk around at 3am and it'll be different to how it is at 9pm or 10pm. Street sleeping is dangerous.

I've not been to MK for a while, and then it was to visit Intu, but I cannot imagine it is significantly different to London or Newcastle. Subways on quiet walkways will attract rough sleepers, I suppose, which is different to Newcastle where most pedestrian subways were filled in years ago.

I think you rather misunderstand if you consider it "forced labour"

It can be couched in a veneer of sympathy, it may even come from an altruistic aim, but what is locking someone up and making them work if it is not forced labour?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've not been to MK for a while, and then it was to visit Intu, but I cannot imagine it is significantly different to London or Newcastle. Subways on quiet walkways will attract rough sleepers, I suppose, which is different to Newcastle where most pedestrian subways were filled in years ago.

It is tents in subways - there are many of them in MK - basically 4 at each junction. The ones who lived near the Xscape even had a brazier lit most evenings at one point, which kicked out a load of smoke and probably caused damage to the subway. Only in the centre, though, not elsewhere.

It can be couched in a veneer of sympathy, it may even come from an altruistic aim, but what is locking someone up and making them work if it is not forced labour?

In that sense it is, though unless you accept the problem won't be solved (or don't consider it a problem, in which case we will definitely differ) I'm not sure of a better option for those who won't engage?

Maybe, though, one option would just be to move it out of the centre to more obscure places where it will cause fewer issues (there's enough undeveloped land in MK) by being very strict on enforcement against begging and soliciting for money without a licence, potentially even make it an offence to knowingly donate to an unlicenced street collector (licenced ones can of course show their licence) or similarly to buy from an unlicenced street vendor. If it's not profitable to be in the centre why wouldn't you choose to be somewhere safer and better hidden?

Mind you, I find chuggers more annoying...

 

[Meerkat]

Mind you, I find chuggers more annoying...

If you can’t be bothered to ignore them give yourself a straight face test by telling them you don’t care or even actively think their charity is a bad idea.

 

[Busaholic]

In this country, most of us that are not part of that top tier of society that has everything tied up ever more in their favour is probably only two pieces of bad luck (or judgment, but more luck) away from homelessness and the potential disintegration, both mental and physical, as well as economic, that often ensues. Just one large helping of bad luck can have the same effect: just a divorce can start the whole domino process. We'll be seeing loads more cases as the result of the situation the country finds itself in, with so many left out in the cold even if all the government promises come to fruition, which isn't going to happen.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Just one large helping of bad luck can have the same effect: just a divorce can start the whole domino process.

Particularly so for men, who are most likely to be street homeless.

Almost 40% of homeless people are homeless because family or friends can no longer accommodate them.

I'm not sure of a better option for those who won't engage

Homelessness legislation is strict, very strict, and local authorities only owe a duty to homeless people who are in "priority need". To get emergency accommodation, you need to be in "priority need", the main categories being pregnant, having young children, or being "vulnerable".

The main homelessness case law is that to be "vulnerable" you must be significantly more vulnerable an ordinary person would be if they were to be made homeless. There is a company called NowMedical who specialise in selling medical reports to councils wanting to claim someone is not vulnerable. Look up Dr John Keen, he's a right charmer.

This caselaw is, remarkably, an improvement on the previous caselaw, Pereira, which set the test as being significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary homeless person (i.e. you must be more vulnerable than all the other homeless people).

If you are a single adult, particularly a single male adult, then you can forget getting accommodation.

On top of this, anyone who is "intentionally homeless" is not eligible for help. My old local authority in the north east has a policy to treat anyone with rent arrears as "intentionally homeless", regardless of why those rent arrears accrued; too bad if you lost your job and suddenly couldn't afford your house.

The idea there's all this help available and people are "wilfully" turning it down is, quite frankly, laughable.

This is the context of things like the Travelodge being smashed up. These people have had years of councils refusing to assist, but suddenly now it suits councils they get chucked in a Travelodge and are expected to be eternally grateful for the council's largesse. Yeah right.

So, to answer your question, there is a hell of a lot we can do before we need to lock people up in a workhouse. We could start by treating homeless people with some common decency. In that regard, not much has changed since Cathy Come Home.

It is something to bear in mind when we talk about respecting society. It works both ways. "Society" treats some groups of people very very badly. I obviously don't condone it, but if society's institutions tell you to eff off, is it any wonder there is little respect shown in reply?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I won't reply to the rest of your post because I think it's well thought through and I don't have much argument with it. Where I think we differ is that I think there will be more people who, even with enhanced facilities, will either wilfully or due to general incompetence fall through the net.

This is the context of things like the Travelodge being smashed up. These people have had years of councils refusing to assist, but suddenly now it suits councils they get chucked in a Travelodge and are expected to be eternally grateful for the council's largesse. Yeah right.

There's a difference between thinking you're hard done by and smashing something up that's better than what you had. But then maybe that's me - I certainly have been very angry indeed in my time, and given the size of me if I was it would be a rather scary thing to see, but it's just in my nature to be totally non-violent regardless of how bad it gets.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Where I think we differ is that I think there will be more people who, even with enhanced facilities, will either wilfully or due to general incompetence fall through the net.

Undoubtedly. Expecting to fix 100% of people 100% of the time is unrealistic. Some will fall through the net and never get a chance to change and some will be very content to be out of their mind on Spice and won't want to change.

In between you'll have those who change and succeed, those who change and relapse, and those who just can't manage to change no matter how hard they try. Such is life.

There's a difference between thinking you're hard done by and smashing something up that's better than what you had.

Is being locked down in a small Travelodge room, on your own and away from friends, better or worse? Does the fact it will only be temporary accommodation, and you can expect to be booted out again in a few weeks, change anything?

Let's face it, the councils haven't come over all generous, they're not doing it for the homeless, they're doing it for public health reasons.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Undoubtedly. Expecting to fix 100% of people 100% of the time is unrealistic. Some will fall through the net and never get a chance to change and some will be very content to be out of their mind on Spice and won't want to change.

But then what do you do about them? People have the right to enjoy Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester, say, without being hassled by spiceheads. The rights of the spiceheads don't in my book stand over the rights of society as a whole.

 

[Tetchytyke]

People have the right to enjoy Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester, say, without being hassled by spiceheads.

As I said further up, I don't have any problems with police enforcing public order offences. The well-known issues in Piccadilly Gardens are because they don't enforce them. And yes, it is likely that they will be in and out of prison. Ironic, as prison is likely to be where they got hooked on spice in the first place.

The truth is that many homeless people are not feral spiceheads, and many feral spiceheads are not actually homeless. I think it's really important to understand this distinction.

 

[Camden]

People (decision makers, middle management in public office, others who don't have to deal with the problems caused) have been too idealistic and weak in dealing with the situation. Those that claim to care the most have probably done more than George Osborne in causing and amplifying the problems, hiding behind phrases about how "homelessness is complex" to excuse doing nothing practical, and "we can't arrest our way out of this" to justify allowing smackheads to accost you for change on every street corner.

I think the rise of the police and crime commissioners has been a disaster for the police part of that job title. Politics and "social science" have their place, but that place is behind common sense.

Criminals exploit those on the streets in so many ways, and the lack of any effort to take the issue by the scruff and challenge their presence and legitimacy of claims does no one any favours and makes this trapping aspect of vagrancy all the more potent and damaging. Turning the tide becomes exponentially harder and more costly.

Those that can't help themselves need to have the help imposed, and every incentive (either for individuals or gangs) to beg for money needs to be removed. Both of those require investment, for right wingers to accept that some people just can't and won't ever be able to look after themselves, left wingers to not jump down the throats of anyone who sees that sitting in your own mess begging for money is not any way to leave someone, and for the police to be told to do their jobs and start intervening properly.