MooseBreath Posted 20 June 2014 Posted 20 June 2014 Based on what? Are you an expert in the field of assessing and recorde... blah blah...? With the job that I do I have very likely had more dealings with homeless people of all types than yourself. I am no expert but I do have genuine experience of dealing with people who live on the streets. Unlike you I believe, I have actually had converstaions with them during their time in my care and yes, many were utterly wasted and wasters, others were desparate, most were not there by choice and would swap their existence in a heartbeat. In your original reply you made a sweeping generalisation as you so often do. Not all "tramps" are bone idle scroungers that choose their lifestyle and don't have the nouse to change. As has been said you need to get a genuine perspective on things before you judge all books by the same cover. I really don't care. All necessary support systems are in place in abundance and yet these tramps still choose to live in their own manky filth. You can make as many excuses as you like, the fact is that if a tramp didn't want to be a tramp then they wouldn't be a tramp. 99% of them are just weak little victim-playing blokes who are desperate fpr sympathy and for someone to blame.
MooseBreath Posted 20 June 2014 Posted 20 June 2014 Is Moose asking if I have experience? I volunteer for an organisation that has mostly ex-homeless people also working for them. We also have conversations with homeless people. Is that not experience enough to know. We also have contact details and receive regular updates from organisations that deal with homelessness mental illness and the vulnerably housed. What is your experience based upon Moose? Reading newspapers whos agenda is to keep those in government happy? I'm sorry but classing them as all tramps is an insult to those that are ex-forces and have served for this country and have difficulty adapting to civilian life for many reasons including PTSD. As I said there are a few unsavory types but they are able to adapt because they have been on the streets for a long time and probably do have places away from the areas we are talking about. The ones that are being targeted are most likely short term homeless who have suddenly found themselves without anywhere to stay and no knowledge of who to ask for advice or where to go. But I can see you are unable be open minded on the topic so maybe i should just delete my post as my points just rebound off your skull. No offense intended. Why haven't down and out 2 (better, stronger, better) been out and rounded up the several hundred homeless people in the uk and set them up with housing benefit? You could solve homelessness within weeks. Until you can provide a robust answer to that question I won't have any respect for your organisation or the 'work' that they do.
Rincewind Posted 20 June 2014 Posted 20 June 2014 Why haven't down and out 2 (better, stronger, better) been out and rounded up the several hundred homeless people in the uk and set them up with housing benefit? You could solve homelessness within weeks. Until you can provide a robust answer to that question I won't have any respect for your organisation or the 'work' that they do. What a Troll.
Guest MattP Posted 20 June 2014 Posted 20 June 2014 Why haven't down and out 2 (better, stronger, better) been out and rounded up the several hundred homeless people in the uk and set them up with housing benefit? You could solve homelessness within weeks. Until you can provide a robust answer to that question I won't have any respect for your organisation or the 'work' that they do. Because reading poetry is far more effective than getting people a house. In all seriousness from the literature I've read from DNO, the last thing they want to do is reduce homelessness, use of food banks etc while the Tories are in. It's a organisation desperate to use these issues as ammunition for their own political purpose. As has been stated, if they really wanted to help they would round them up and show them what they have to do. But like most things these days people prefer an excuse to a solution.
Rincewind Posted 20 June 2014 Posted 20 June 2014 As has been stated, if they really wanted to help they would round them up and show them what they have to do. But like most things these days people prefer an excuse to a solution. http://downnotoutleicester.wordpress.com/training/ We aim to assist those in housing, in shared housing, in hostels and on the street to learn new skills and to gain confidence in themselves through our Media Skills Training, http://www.nosecondnightout.org.uk/about-nsno/ http://www.nosecondnightout.org.uk/real-stories/ Does this fellow look like a trsmp?
Jimothy Posted 20 June 2014 Posted 20 June 2014 They might be able to find them easier to round them up if people didn't stick spikes in the ground so they kept moving around.
Strokes Posted 20 June 2014 Posted 20 June 2014 If an organisation solves the issue it has set up to do, what purpose remains for it after and the positions from within?
Jimothy Posted 20 June 2014 Posted 20 June 2014 If an organisation solves the issue it has set up to do, what purpose remains for it after and the positions from within? Because homelessness is a finite problem? Find say the one hundred in Leicester (pure guess) and there will never ever be another homeless person?
Strokes Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 Because homelessness is a finite problem? Find say the one hundred in Leicester (pure guess) and there will never ever be another homeless person?You are missing my point! Im talking about why would such an organisation put itself in such a position. You could apply this question to many, many, charities and organisations. Finite problems can still be solved, can they not?
Jimothy Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 You are missing my point! Im talking about why would such an organisation put itself in such a position. You could apply this question to many, many, charities and organisations. Finite problems can still be solved, can they not? Yes finite problems can be solved, hence why I put a question mark. Homelessness is a infinite problem and won't just be solved. It's not like finding a cure for cancer, do that and it's the end of cancer. House all the homeless people, there will still be more homeless people in future. I got your point, but clearly it's you that doesn't understand, especially if you think homelessness is an endable issue once you've sorted out the current batch
Strokes Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 Yes finite problems can be solved, hence why I put a question mark. Homelessness is a infinite problem and won't just be solved. It's not like finding a cure for cancer, do that and it's the end of cancer. House all the homeless people, there will still be more homeless people in future. I got your point, but clearly it's you that doesn't understand, especially if you think homelessness is an endable issue once you've sorted out the current batch If the current batch was sorted and a proceedure put in place to help and target future 'victims' (that was effective and handled by the authorities) Would homelessness still be an issue that would require a charity/organization? Would the said charity/organization actually want that to happen as it would attribute to its demise?
Jimothy Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 If the current batch was sorted and a proceedure put in place to help and target future 'victims' (that was effective and handled by the authorities) Would homelessness still be an issue that would require a charity/organization? Would the said charity/organization actually want that to happen as it would attribute to its demise? Christ you'll argue anything to try and make out you've not totally got this wrong! You've not even admitted your didn't understand the point about finite and infinite problems. There are already procedures in place, yet there are still people on the street, so it's an on going problem. I'm talking hypothetically when I say if you sort the current batch, you won't just get everyone off the street in one go, and every person you help there will be more taking their place. And just because you make procedures and shelter available to one homeless guy, future homeless guy won't necessarily know about these things, hence the on going need for those charities to continue their work.
MooseBreath Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 What amazes me is the number of charities against the number of homeless people. There must be at least ten people claiming that they work in helping the homeless for every one actual homeless person. At least ten, probably more, many of whom are taking a wage from donations. Clearly something is amiss. Sort out the current batch and how many more will you get daily? Half a dozen? Set up a helpline for people to report a new tramp, then have three or four teams of two out in vans. Maximum 12 people required rather than the current thousands.
Jimothy Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 What amazes me is the number of charities against the number of homeless people. There must be at least ten people claiming that they work in helping the homeless for every one actual homeless person. At least ten, probably more, many of whom are taking a wage from donations. Clearly something is amiss. Sort out the current batch and how many more will you get daily? Half a dozen? Set up a helpline for people to report a new tramp, then have three or four teams of two out in vans. Maximum 12 people required rather than the current thousands. Right, you asked me prove you make up stats to peddle your point if view. Honestly, where have those figure come from? Do you know how many homeless people there are? Have you researched how many homeless charities there are in the uk? No you've just decided to say it because it backs your point of view, you've made it up. What you've said has no basis, just something misguided you believe in your head that fuels your own prejudice.
Strokes Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 Christ you'll argue anything to try and make out you've not totally got this wrong! You've not even admitted your didn't understand the point about finite and infinite problems. There are already procedures in place, yet there are still people on the street, so it's an on going problem. I'm talking hypothetically when I say if you sort the current batch, you won't just get everyone off the street in one go, and every person you help there will be more taking their place. And just because you make procedures and shelter available to one homeless guy, future homeless guy won't necessarily know about these things, hence the on going need for those charities to continue their work.How am I totally wrong? I'm talking about motives and gave a hyperbole statement to make my point. Which you are sidestepping and de-railing.
sphericalfox Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 Right, you asked me prove you make up stats to peddle your point if view. Honestly, where have those figure come from? Do you know how many homeless people there are? Have you researched how many homeless charities there are in the uk? No you've just decided to say it because it backs your point of view, you've made it up. What you've said has no basis, just something misguided you believe in your head that fuels your own prejudice. He's trolling. He will say exactly what will rile you every time in response. You are wasting your time. he like others attack Ken, as they feel he and the subject matter are easy targets. It's tiresome and genuinely beyond pathetic. They've even pretended it's banter. Bullying in any form is bullying. You're better spending your time writing a letter to the Pope asking him to convert to Buddhism, that's how likely any of them will concede a point.
Jimothy Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 How am I totally wrong? I'm talking about motives and gave a hyperbole statement to make my point. Which you are sidestepping and de-railing. I'm side stepping? Right....okay? So you've just totally ignored my counter argument about how you always be a need for homeless charities because no matter what you do, the problem will never end, so keeping people on the street isn't a aim of these charities because these people will always exist. It's not like a drug company with holding a cure. I get what you mean about morals, but as you can't seem to argue my point, I'm guessing I'm right about it being an endless issue, so the question of those morals is irrelevant.
MooseBreath Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 Right, you asked me prove you make up stats to peddle your point if view. Honestly, where have those figure come from? Do you know how many homeless people there are? Have you researched how many homeless charities there are in the uk? No you've just decided to say it because it backs your point of view, you've made it up. What you've said has no basis, just something misguided you believe in your head that fuels your own prejudice. Ken posted a link on the previous page that says there are 2,400 homeless people. The number of people who work in homelessness was a conservative estimate. Ken has previously stated that DNO was up for an award with over a hundred other DNOs. A quick google search will reveal dozens of homeless charities in every area. Then you've got the large players like shelter who rake in tens of millions in revenue annually. I'd be very surprised if less than 24,000 are involved in claiming to help the 2,400 homeless people, hence a conservative estimate of 10 to 1.
Strokes Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 I'm side stepping? Right....okay? So you've just totally ignored my counter argument about how you always be a need for homeless charities because no matter what you do, the problem will never end, so keeping people on the street isn't a aim of these charities because these people will always exist. It's not like a drug company with holding a cure. I get what you mean about morals, but as you can't seem to argue my point, I'm guessing I'm right about it being an endless issue, so the question of those morals is irrelevant.Where in my original statement did I define it to just homeless charities organizations? It was a sweeping statement about motives of any charities/trusts/organizations, to try and evoke thought. It is not in their interests to completely solve the issues they promote, as it would make them redundant. I don't care enough about the homeless, to get embroiled in a discussion about how to solve it.
Jimothy Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 Ken posted a link on the previous page that says there are 2,400 homeless people. The number of people who work in homelessness was a conservative estimate. Ken has previously stated that DNO was up for an award with over a hundred other DNOs. A quick google search will reveal dozens of homeless charities in every area. Then you've got the large players like shelter who rake in tens of millions in revenue annually. I'd be very surprised if less than 24,000 are involved in claiming to help the 2,400 homeless people, hence a conservative estimate of 10 to 1. You mean this one http://www.nosecondnightout.org.uk/real-stories/ Where it says they've helped get 2800 off the street since 2011, not that that is the actual amount. If that's the one you mean, you might want to learn to read, if not the I apologies but I can't find that link you say Ken posted.
Jimothy Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 Where in my original statement did I define it to just homeless charities organizations? It was a sweeping statement about motives of any charities/trusts/organizations, to try and evoke thought. It is not in their interests to completely solve the issues they promote, as it would make them redundant. I don't care enough about the homeless, to get embroiled in a discussion about how to solve it. Companies and charities who say they are trying end things that are possible to end such as illness obviously have an interest in that illness continuing. But homelessness isn't curable so you can't make sweeping generalisation that covers all types of charities etc. Homeless charities will never be redundant, because the problem, no matter his hard they work, will never end.
Strokes Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 How many people sleep rough each night? According to the latest figures, collected in the autumn of 2013 and published in February 2014, 2,414 people are estimated to be sleeping rough on any one night. - See more at: http://homeless.org.uk/facts/homelessness-in-numbers#sthash.l3pPiVni.dpuf
Jimothy Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 28,000 applications for council houses due to homelessness in a three month spell in 2013. It's not just rough sleepers these charities help, it's these too. As Ken has pointed out before it's not just those sleeping rough.
MooseBreath Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 You mean this one http://www.nosecondnightout.org.uk/real-stories/ Where it says they've helped get 2800 off the street since 2011, not that that is the actual amount. If that's the one you mean, you might want to learn to read, if not the I apologies but I can't find that link you say Ken posted. I was referring to the mirror article. I would have re-linked but my phone doesn't like it when I try to do anything too fancy.
Jimothy Posted 21 June 2014 Posted 21 June 2014 I was referring to the mirror article. I would have re-linked but my phone doesn't like it when I try to do anything too fancy. Just found it. That's just rough sleepers, not people they've helped into shelters etc. Another link said 28,000 people had applied for housing due to homelessness in a three month period last year alone. If it wasn't for charities like Ken's there would clearly be many more on the streets, as it is there are only 2400, you can't punish the charities for their success.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.