Homeless People 😔 Watch

Prx1
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
Do you think the government should do more for the homeless or do they deserve what they go through?
0
reply
hallaluliah
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
more should be done, but they are not the gov. priority
0
reply
ByEeek
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 week ago
#3
How, in a nation as rich as the UK does anyone deserve to sleep rough?

I would rather see those who avoid payibg tax be vilified rather than those who are the most vulnerable in our society.
8
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
yes, it should be doing much more.

There will always be some homeless people, even if you provide so much, there will still be some. But its shocking to see how many more people on the streets there are now, compared to when I was growing up. My city has far more now, shocking amounts when you walk around.. and even my small town, which never had any for most of my life, now has a couple.

This is a problem that I 100% place at the feet of the tories, and its something they have failed to deal with, and let get worse and worse.
3
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 week ago
#5
I'm more curious about what people suggest be done. I mean obviously the governments approach is shoddy but then again its the government, what do we expect?
More to the point is what do the people who keep saying 'more should be done' think should be done? Especially given they rarely clarify beyond the aforementioned soundbite.
1
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by Napp)
I'm more curious about what people suggest be done. I mean obviously the governments approach is shoddy but then again its the government, what do we expect?
More to the point is what do the people who keep saying 'more should be done' think should be done? Especially given they rarely clarify beyond the aforementioned soundbite.
For me, three things. First is a much much tougher crackdown on drugs+drug dealing. There was a police officer on TV a few weeks ago saying just how many times more drugs are entering the country than there were 20 years ago.. its a massive failure, and its the fuel to the homelessness crisis. Its all well and good providing ways out of being homeless, but if one of the key ways into homelessness (drug use) is still increasing exponentially, things aren't going to get better. I would be onboard with experimenting with legalization.. but either they need to be legal and supported. Or they need to be so illegal that no kid would dream of trying. This half-way house where they are illegal, but only softly so.. isn't working at all.

The second thing, I would do is to reverse the breakdown of the family unit. One of the things that keeps people off the streets is family, strong families who support each other no matter what someone is going through. Its no surprise to me that as the family unit breaks down, more people find themselves without a place to go. The amount of interviews with homeless people who don't have a family left.. divorced parents, fell out with one side, one parent in jail, step-dad abusive etc. Family used to be the key thing that kept people off the streets.. and as families diminish in importance, and as we as a society shift all of the responsibility we used to place on families, on the state... we are finding that the state is far colder and far less willing to help then our families used to be. This one is harder than the first, how do you shift the culture back in a way that values lasting family units? I'm not really sure on how, but removing no-fault devorces would be a start.

The third - subsidize and lower the basic costs of living. Housing, food, fuel/energy. Simple - all should be subsidised far more than they are now.. at the expense of luxory goods. Place a nice tax on luxury goods, anything deemed non-essential, and use that money to directly fund subsidies into the essentials. I live in a country that does this, and it works. Sure your Iphone ends up more expensive, and your branded clothes are a bit more.. but your food becomes dirt cheap, and your bills go down. Its crazy when I come back to the Uk, from living in a much less developed country.. and I can by a PC for cheaper, and yet everyone is complaining about the cost of water and food? Switch these over, and people close to the poverty line will have a much better chance at not falling out of the system.

Both of those are preventative measures for me. I don't see the point in reactionary measurse (more beds, more support places etc) unless you are going to tackle the causes of the rise. Its like mental health.. a million political figures will tell you we need more money to support young people with mental health problems, because more and more are getting them. But none are saying what they are going to do to stop the rise, or even trying to explain why more are having problems. Treating the issue is great, but preventing it is better.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
For me, three things. First is a much much tougher crackdown on drugs+drug dealing. There was a police officer on TV a few weeks ago saying just how many times more drugs are entering the country than there were 20 years ago.. its a massive failure, and its the fuel to the homelessness crisis. Its all well and good providing ways out of being homeless, but if one of the key ways into homelessness (drug use) is still increasing exponentially, things aren't going to get better. I would be onboard with experimenting with legalization.. but either they need to be legal and supported. Or they need to be so illegal that no kid would dream of trying. This half-way house where they are illegal, but only softly so.. isn't working at all.

To be frank i cant see this ending well, making them more illegal, as it were. After all all the evidence shows it will not and cannot work. With the yanks disastrous war on drugs being an example par excellence.
Legalization, or at least decriminalization along the Swiss and Portuguese models could well be worth exploring.
1
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
For me, three things. First is a much much tougher crackdown on drugs+drug dealing. There was a police officer on TV a few weeks ago saying just how many times more drugs are entering the country than there were 20 years ago.. its a massive failure, and its the fuel to the homelessness crisis. Its all well and good providing ways out of being homeless, but if one of the key ways into homelessness (drug use) is still increasing exponentially, things aren't going to get better. I would be onboard with experimenting with legalization.. but either they need to be legal and supported. Or they need to be so illegal that no kid would dream of trying. This half-way house where they are illegal, but only softly so.. isn't working at all.

The second thing, I would do is to reverse the breakdown of the family unit. One of the things that keeps people off the streets is family, strong families who support each other no matter what someone is going through. Its no surprise to me that as the family unit breaks down, more people find themselves without a place to go. The amount of interviews with homeless people who don't have a family left.. divorced parents, fell out with one side, one parent in jail, step-dad abusive etc. Family used to be the key thing that kept people off the streets.. and as families diminish in importance, and as we as a society shift all of the responsibility we used to place on families, on the state... we are finding that the state is far colder and far less willing to help then our families used to be. This one is harder than the first, how do you shift the culture back in a way that values lasting family units? I'm not really sure on how, but removing no-fault devorces would be a start.

The third - subsidize and lower the basic costs of living. Housing, food, fuel/energy. Simple - all should be subsidised far more than they are now.. at the expense of luxory goods. Place a nice tax on luxury goods, anything deemed non-essential, and use that money to directly fund subsidies into the essentials. I live in a country that does this, and it works. Sure your Iphone ends up more expensive, and your branded clothes are a bit more.. but your food becomes dirt cheap, and your bills go down. Its crazy when I come back to the Uk, from living in a much less developed country.. and I can by a PC for cheaper, and yet everyone is complaining about the cost of water and food? Switch these over, and people close to the poverty line will have a much better chance at not falling out of the system.

Both of those are preventative measures for me. I don't see the point in reactionary measurse (more beds, more support places etc) unless you are going to tackle the causes of the rise. Its like mental health.. a million political figures will tell you we need more money to support young people with mental health problems, because more and more are getting them. But none are saying what they are going to do to stop the rise, or even trying to explain why more are having problems. Treating the issue is great, but preventing it is better.
Two words: **** and THAT. I don't want to live in a country where my whole family knows my whole business and my whole life is controlled by what my extended family thinks of me
2
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
(Original post by RoIex)
Shut up
A well thought out and intelligent response *claps sarcastically*

Stick to telling the time.
1
reply
RoIex
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
A well thought out and intelligent response *claps sarcastically*

Stick to telling the time.
Shut up x2
0
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by RoIex)
Shut up x2
Oh dear, looks like its time for someone to go to bed
1
reply
RoIex
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Oh dear, looks like its time for someone to go to bed
Who?
0
reply
Sammylou40
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
yes, it should be doing much more.

There will always be some homeless people, even if you provide so much, there will still be some. But its shocking to see how many more people on the streets there are now, compared to when I was growing up. My city has far more now, shocking amounts when you walk around.. and even my small town, which never had any for most of my life, now has a couple.

This is a problem that I 100% place at the feet of the tories, and its something they have failed to deal with, and let get worse and worse.
So you place all the blame at the feet of the tories?
labour governments have no blame?
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by Napp)
To be frank i cant see this ending well, making them more illegal, as it were. After all all the evidence shows it will not and cannot work. With the yanks disastrous war on drugs being an example par excellence.
Legalization, or at least decriminalization along the Swiss and Portuguese models could well be worth exploring.
I'm inclined to agree, I don't think being strict in isolation will ever work, it has to be accompanied by a culture that rejects drugs and some revolution in boarder control that somehow stops the massive amount of drug smuggling that's been getting worse and worse. Given that both of those are going in the opposite direction, just increasing severity of punishments wouldn't work. I would be in favor of experimenting with legalization as many other nations are doing.

(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Two words: **** and THAT. I don't want to live in a country where my whole family knows my whole business and my whole life is controlled by what my extended family thinks of me
I was more thinking of supportive families, not really the controlling type that you describe.

(Original post by Sammylou40)
So you place all the blame at the feet of the tories?
labour governments have no blame?
Not for the recent rise no. Its not really in question that the problem has gotten far worse over the last 10 years of tory rule. I can't place any blame on Labour for that.
0
reply
IreneAddler
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
I'm inclined to agree, I don't think being strict in isolation will ever work, it has to be accompanied by a culture that rejects drugs and some revolution in boarder control that somehow stops the massive amount of drug smuggling that's been getting worse and worse. Given that both of those are going in the opposite direction, just increasing severity of punishments wouldn't work. I would be in favor of experimenting with legalization as many other nations are doing.



I was more thinking of supportive families, not really the controlling type that you describe.


Not for the recent rise no. Its not really in question that the problem has gotten far worse over the last 10 years of tory rule. I can't place any blame on Labour for that.
you can't really control how supportive or otherwise families will be though. and remove no fault divorces? no thanks. i don't want to go back to the 50s.
0
reply
Capitalist_Lamb
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
For me, three things. First is a much much tougher crackdown on drugs+drug dealing. There was a police officer on TV a few weeks ago saying just how many times more drugs are entering the country than there were 20 years ago.. its a massive failure, and its the fuel to the homelessness crisis. Its all well and good providing ways out of being homeless, but if one of the key ways into homelessness (drug use) is still increasing exponentially, things aren't going to get better. I would be onboard with experimenting with legalization.. but either they need to be legal and supported. Or they need to be so illegal that no kid would dream of trying. This half-way house where they are illegal, but only softly so.. isn't working at all.

The second thing, I would do is to reverse the breakdown of the family unit. One of the things that keeps people off the streets is family, strong families who support each other no matter what someone is going through. Its no surprise to me that as the family unit breaks down, more people find themselves without a place to go. The amount of interviews with homeless people who don't have a family left.. divorced parents, fell out with one side, one parent in jail, step-dad abusive etc. Family used to be the key thing that kept people off the streets.. and as families diminish in importance, and as we as a society shift all of the responsibility we used to place on families, on the state... we are finding that the state is far colder and far less willing to help then our families used to be. This one is harder than the first, how do you shift the culture back in a way that values lasting family units? I'm not really sure on how, but removing no-fault devorces would be a start.

The third - subsidize and lower the basic costs of living. Housing, food, fuel/energy. Simple - all should be subsidised far more than they are now.. at the expense of luxory goods. Place a nice tax on luxury goods, anything deemed non-essential, and use that money to directly fund subsidies into the essentials. I live in a country that does this, and it works. Sure your Iphone ends up more expensive, and your branded clothes are a bit more.. but your food becomes dirt cheap, and your bills go down. Its crazy when I come back to the Uk, from living in a much less developed country.. and I can by a PC for cheaper, and yet everyone is complaining about the cost of water and food? Switch these over, and people close to the poverty line will have a much better chance at not falling out of the system.

Both of those are preventative measures for me. I don't see the point in reactionary measurse (more beds, more support places etc) unless you are going to tackle the causes of the rise. Its like mental health.. a million political figures will tell you we need more money to support young people with mental health problems, because more and more are getting them. But none are saying what they are going to do to stop the rise, or even trying to explain why more are having problems. Treating the issue is great, but preventing it is better.
I agree a lot with that you are saying but have a few issues. First off there will always be people bringing drugs in and selling them and homeless people tends to be addicted to these substances so making the use of these substances so illegal will not help the homeless as 1 they have nothing to lose and 2 it will just make there life harder when they get out.

Second I think food in the UK is pretty daym cheap if I'm honest. You can buy a full week of food for less than £5. Yes it's not good stuff, big bag of rice, milk, eggs, bread all shop branded, not named for pennies. Another thing is that since electronics are cheap people tend to buy more off them so making them more expensive may put people off buying them all together which takes money out the economy.

You have some good ideas but just providing what I think, thanks for the read.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by IreneAddler)
you can't really control how supportive or otherwise families will be though. and remove no fault divorces? no thanks. i don't want to go back to the 50s.
Actually you can control how supportive families will be. Culture doesn't just change at random, its technological/political developments that lead big changes, such as the ones we've seen in family-values over the last century. The key dynamic is removing responsibility from the family structure and giving it instead to the government. Elderly care? Not the family.. now its the NHS, Childcare? Not the family, now its government-funded nursery care.. etc. Peice by piece we've replaced family support structures with government structures, and while it has some merit (its much more equal and fair) it also has some big drawbacks - the government is much less understanding and supportive than the average family.

It wouldn't be hard for the government to encourage families to be back at the heart of society. Other nations have and are doing it. You put direct policies in place that incentivize the organization of people as group-units... you make having children and staying together more materially beneficial than not, and people would follow. After a generation or two, it becomes the new norm and enforces itself.

As for no-fault devorces. Marriage doesn't work with them. Hence why marriage is falling apart at the moment, and slowly dying away.

If you wan't no fault devorces, then you need to get rid of marriage (and the married couple) as the core structure of society. Which is ok.. there is no reason why we have to be organized in the way we currently are, and more communal type arrangements can work really well.

What you can't have though, is what we currently have: A society where all its structures are built around married family structure.. but without a functioning marriage-system in place. Either you take marriage back to a form that worked (pre-no-fault divorces).. or you accept that marriage isn't what we want, and in turn change the our societal structures to ones that don't revolve around married units being the norm. One has to change. You can't keep going with a society that is organized around a unit that doesn't function any more.. otherwise you will end up with the mess that we have currently.

I don't want to go back to the 50s in many ways.. but to presume we have progressed in every single aspect is just wrong. We have taken huge leaps forward in some ways.. and leaps back in others. For example - child mental health is far worse than the 50s. Numbers of young people owning homes - worse, number of people marrying, and having children - worse, number of devorces and broken families - worse.. numbers of people abusing drugs/drink - worse. etc. Its blind to think that progress is universal - there are (a minority of) things we can learn from the past.
0
reply
IreneAddler
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
Actually you can control how supportive families will be. Culture doesn't just change at random, its technological/political developments that lead big changes, such as the ones we've seen in family-values over the last century. The key dynamic is removing responsibility from the family structure and giving it instead to the government. Elderly care? Not the family.. now its the NHS, Childcare? Not the family, now its government-funded nursery care.. etc. Peice by piece we've replaced family support structures with government structures, and while it has some merit (its much more equal and fair) it also has some big drawbacks - the government is much less understanding and supportive than the average family.

It wouldn't be hard for the government to encourage families to be back at the heart of society. Other nations have and are doing it. You put direct policies in place that incentivize the organization of people as group-units... you make having children and staying together more materially beneficial than not, and people would follow. After a generation or two, it becomes the new norm and enforces itself.

As for no-fault devorces. Marriage doesn't work with them. Hence why marriage is falling apart at the moment, and slowly dying away.

If you wan't no fault devorces, then you need to get rid of marriage (and the married couple) as the core structure of society. Which is ok.. there is no reason why we have to be organized in the way we currently are, and more communal type arrangements can work really well.

What you can't have though, is what we currently have: A society where all its structures are built around married family structure.. but without a functioning marriage-system in place. Either you take marriage back to a form that worked (pre-no-fault divorces).. or you accept that marriage isn't what we want, and in turn change the our societal structures to ones that don't revolve around married units being the norm. One has to change. You can't keep going with a society that is organized around a unit that doesn't function any more.. otherwise you will end up with the mess that we have currently.

I don't want to go back to the 50s in many ways.. but to presume we have progressed in every single aspect is just wrong. We have taken huge leaps forward in some ways.. and leaps back in others. For example - child mental health is far worse than the 50s. Numbers of young people owning homes - worse, number of people marrying, and having children - worse, number of devorces and broken families - worse.. numbers of people abusing drugs/drink - worse. etc. Its blind to think that progress is universal - there are (a minority of) things we can learn from the past.
I think no fault divorces are less harmful for the children and for the relationship of the couple in the long term and there is evidence to support that. The focus on putting blame for the deterioration of the marriage causes a lot of pain and bitterness, when in a lot of cases there isn't one guilty party.
What would you do? Remove the nhs and the welfare system? You may not like it but we can't go back in time and start tearing away institutions that support the most vulnerable.
The current government is already pretty pro marriage and family and provides tax incentives for married couples. Being in a relationship or married is already more financially beneficial than being single. But if an unhappy couple is going to get divorced then they are going to get divorced, and banning no fault marriages isn't conducive to happy marriages and families.
and what all of this has to do with homelessness anyway I really have no idea. this isnt the solution.
Last edited by IreneAddler; 1 week ago
2
reply
Sinnoh
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
Talking about if they "deserve" it is... well a) you're not going to solve anything if that's your explanation and b) bit of a Victorian attitude isn't it

In 2017 the government said they planned to end rough sleeping in London by 2022... not gonna happen.
2
reply
username1539513
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
Actually you can control how supportive families will be. Culture doesn't just change at random, its technological/political developments that lead big changes, such as the ones we've seen in family-values over the last century. The key dynamic is removing responsibility from the family structure and giving it instead to the government. Elderly care? Not the family.. now its the NHS, Childcare? Not the family, now its government-funded nursery care.. etc. Peice by piece we've replaced family support structures with government structures, and while it has some merit (its much more equal and fair) it also has some big drawbacks - the government is much less understanding and supportive than the average family.

It wouldn't be hard for the government to encourage families to be back at the heart of society. Other nations have and are doing it. You put direct policies in place that incentivize the organization of people as group-units... you make having children and staying together more materially beneficial than not, and people would follow. After a generation or two, it becomes the new norm and enforces itself.

As for no-fault devorces. Marriage doesn't work with them. Hence why marriage is falling apart at the moment, and slowly dying away.

If you wan't no fault devorces, then you need to get rid of marriage (and the married couple) as the core structure of society. Which is ok.. there is no reason why we have to be organized in the way we currently are, and more communal type arrangements can work really well.

What you can't have though, is what we currently have: A society where all its structures are built around married family structure.. but without a functioning marriage-system in place. Either you take marriage back to a form that worked (pre-no-fault divorces).. or you accept that marriage isn't what we want, and in turn change the our societal structures to ones that don't revolve around married units being the norm. One has to change. You can't keep going with a society that is organized around a unit that doesn't function any more.. otherwise you will end up with the mess that we have currently.

I don't want to go back to the 50s in many ways.. but to presume we have progressed in every single aspect is just wrong. We have taken huge leaps forward in some ways.. and leaps back in others. For example - child mental health is far worse than the 50s. Numbers of young people owning homes - worse, number of people marrying, and having children - worse, number of devorces and broken families - worse.. numbers of people abusing drugs/drink - worse. etc. Its blind to think that progress is universal - there are (a minority of) things we can learn from the past.
There's nothing stopping people now from supporting other members of their family even with divorces; marriage isn't inherently good in any case. I don't see a correlation between them. All removing no fault divorce would do is force people who are in miserable or abusive marriages to stay together, to the detriment of society and their children
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (364)
67.03%
No (179)
32.97%

Watched Threads

View All