Rincewind Posted 22 March 2014 Author Posted 22 March 2014 But a lot of people are going to require help. You have to ask if they could do it themselves then why haven't they by now. It's not patronising if it's true Ken. You are assuming again and not treating them as people.
Rincewind Posted 22 March 2014 Author Posted 22 March 2014 The irony about all this shit is that, prior to your radicalisation, most people would have, on the face of it, considered DNO to be a worthy cause. As a result of all this weird preaching, they're coming to cross to me (and, I suspect, other people) as a set of petty, vindictive, incompetent clowns with enormous chips on their shoulders and a very loose grasp of reality. It is the general public that have no grip on reality with misconceptions and stereotyping.
Charl91 Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 It is the general public that have no grip on reality with misconceptions and stereotyping. Ironically, that's a misconception/stereotype that you're spouting there. I meant now if you went to somewhere to sign papers. Homeless people are human too. Again, I wouldn't care? I'd say "Thank you for the offer, but I can read it myself". How is this even an issue? I get patronised on a day-to-day basis, I'm sure it happens to a lot of people quite regularly. I'm sure homeless charities have got much bigger problems then dealing with people being offended on behalf of homeless people over non-issues. All you are doing is undermining the work of the homeless charities you seek to promote; I'm pretty sure in the last few months you've turned this forum from being either pro-charity (or at least uninterested in the topic) to hating DNO.
Strokes Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 It is the general public that have no grip on reality with misconceptions and stereotyping.A generalisation how apt, you are assuming we have absolutley no knowlege or experience with the homeless.
FoxesAreBlue Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 It is the general public that have no grip on reality with misconceptions and stereotyping. Unbelievable!
MooseBreath Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 What I am saying is if you do not have a local connection you would not be considered as high priority. There have been cases where people have been picked up by the police and moved out of the area. prority goes to women with young children, victims of domestic violence and those whose house id unfit to live in. The information is available on the Shelter and Council website. If you have proof of it being otherwise please show it. I do not appreciate being called a liar when I have seen documents to show it is correct. If you don't have a local connection If you don't have a local connection, the council has to consider if you have a local connection with another council's area. If it decides that you do, it can refer you to the council for that area for help instead, providing your household is not at risk of violence there. However, the council doesn't have to send you to another area, even if it is allowed to. The council you applied to may still be willing to house you. If the council wants to refer you to another council, it has to inform you in writing. The decision letter must explain the reasons for the decision. It must also inform you that you have a right to request a review of the decision within 21 days. You previously made a thread specifically to post a link to a document that said that if somebody is homeless then the requirement to be from the local area doesnt apply. As for people being moved out of the area by the police, how many beers had you sank when you heard this? Given there's only about five homeless people in leicester, down and out must know them all pretty well by now? Why haven't you been able to get them off the streets yet?
Zingari Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 I don't know how many are actually living out in the streets , in doorways etc but i think "homelessness" means a bit more than that really . There surely are many more living in unsuitable conditions that we'd not expect in 21c UK
Strokes Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 I don't know how many are actually living out in the streets , in doorways etc but i think "homelessness" means a bit more than that really . There surely are many more living in unsuitable conditions that we'd not expect in 21c UK Why shouldnt we expect them in the UK? What are you doing to prevent it, apart from looking after your own?
Zingari Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 Why shouldnt we expect them in the UK? What are you doing to prevent it, apart from looking after your own? Paying income taxes , community charge national insurance and VAT . I thought that was what at least some of it was meant for . ie minimum housing requirements edit; i think maybe we should try to remember we might be talking about young children here too being housed in bedsits , b and bs etc they shouldn't have suffer living in those conditions because their parents are denied proper and suitable housing
Strokes Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 Paying income taxes , community charge national insurance and VAT . I thought that was what at least some of it was meant for . ie minimum housing requirements edit; i think maybe we should try to remember we might be talking about young children here too being housed in bedsits , b and bs etc they shouldn't have suffer living in those conditions because their parents are denied proper and suitable housing Are they really suffering in b&bs? I just dont know why we shouldnt expect these problems in the uk, it happens in every country in the world.
Zingari Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 Are they really suffering in b&bs? I just dont know why we shouldnt expect these problems in the uk, it happens in every country in the world. Yes i believe it's not a good environment for children to live . Maybe it does happen elsewhere , but over the years we've developed a society that supposedly looks after the citizens . We have a national health service here that is free at point of use , would you argue that other countries don't so why should we ? Do you really want to discard all these minimum expectations that we and our forbears have fought to achieve?
Rincewind Posted 22 March 2014 Author Posted 22 March 2014 Homelessness can mean sofa surfing, living in a hostel or temporally homeless because of flood or fire. You do not have to be a drug user or alcoholic or low intelligence. Circumstances that are unforseen can occur regardless what preparations you make. You could arrive home from work one day to find your missus has packed your suitcase and sold the house. Unlikely but it happens. It would not help if someone then said to you 'Now my dear what would be better than being without somewhere to live, no we cannot let you fill in the form we will find someone to do it for you because you are now homeless you will be unable to do that sort of thing will you?
Strokes Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 Yes i believe it's not a good environment for children to live . Maybe it does happen elsewhere , but over the years we've developed a society that supposedly looks after the citizens . We have a national health service here that is free at point of use , would you argue that other countries don't so why should we ? Do you really want to discard all these minimum expectations that we and our forbears have fought to achieve? Well I could argue all day about the viabilty of the NHS, I would much prefer a private healthcare system. Mostly from a selfish point of view.
Zingari Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 Well I could argue all day about the viabilty of the NHS, I would much prefer a private healthcare system. Mostly from a selfish point of view. I really doubt if i'd be here without the NHS
Turtles Head Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 It is the general public that have no grip on reality with misconceptions and stereotyping. "You are assuming again and not treating them as people" Pot. Kettle.
Strokes Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 I really doubt if i'd be here without the NHSI'm not talking of abolishing healthcare, that's a bit radical even for me. Just that you would need your own healthcare insurance.
sphericalfox Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 Well I could argue all day about the viabilty of the NHS, I would much prefer a private healthcare system. Mostly from a selfish point of view. Having worked in both private and public healthcare, if the country resorted to abolishing the NHS, only the wealthy would be healthy. The NHS has its problems but private healthcare has only one objective and that is satisfying the shareholders.
Webbo Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 Having worked in both private and public healthcare, if the country resorted to abolishing the NHS, only the wealthy would be healthy. The NHS has its problems but private healthcare has only one objective and that is satisfying the shareholders. BUPA doesn't have any shareholders and they provide health care. Other countries manage without the NHS. I'm not suggesting we should scrap it but we should be a bit more honest about it, it's far from perfect.
sphericalfox Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 BUPA doesn't have any shareholders and they provide health care. Other countries manage without the NHS. I'm not suggesting we should scrap it but we should be a bit more honest about it, it's far from perfect. Who is saying it's perfect? What system is BUPA running, a charitable one?
Webbo Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 Who is saying it's perfect? What system is BUPA running, a charitable one? I don't know, it's what they say in all their ads.
Strokes Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 Having worked in both private and public healthcare, if the country resorted to abolishing the NHS, only the wealthy would be healthy. The NHS has its problems but private healthcare has only one objective and that is satisfying the shareholders.That's how I would expect a private company to run. You don't think we pay through the noses for the NHS?
sphericalfox Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 That's how I would expect a private company to run. You don't think we pay through the noses for the NHS? Only because the system of tendering certain aspects is flawed, specifically the PFI mess, which we'll be paying for for decades to come. When private companies and interests just see the NHS as a cash cow milk it it is a serious problem. There are inefficiencies which do need rectifiing but I'd take it hands down over a fully private system having lived in the States under such a system.
Strokes Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 Only because the system of tendering certain aspects is flawed, specifically the PFI mess, which we'll be paying for for decades to come. When private companies and interests just see the NHS as a cash cow milk it it is a serious problem. There are inefficiencies which do need rectifiing but I'd take it hands down over a fully private system having lived in the States under such a system.There are better examples than the USA out there.
sphericalfox Posted 22 March 2014 Posted 22 March 2014 There are better examples than the USA out there. we've hijacked this thread, so I'll leave it there. I'm fairly certain from your initial statement that it wouldn't be worth starting a new thread to talk about the ins and outs of the subject, and I'm fairly certain it's been hammered previously.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.