UK General Election thread

[C0ckney]

Re food banks. What is the problem? If they can replace benefits (most likely spent on drugs, gambling and fags anyway) with fresh nutritional food and clean water, then it's a win-win for taxpayers and the social welfare of the poor.

yes and perhaps a workhouse too to keep the feckless engaged in productive activities.

[kentonio]

it's quite well known. it's certainly widely quoted in pieces about the issue and by organisations who work with the homeless such as st. mungo's and thames reach.

Jesus H Christ, of course its used by homeless organizations, because it seems like a really powerful way of making people focus on the current day plight of the homeless. It's also complete horse****. If you knew anything about the history of our country, you'd understand quite how much utter horse**** it is. 6 rough sleepers in the whole of London in the 40's? Dear sweet ****ing Jesus...

[regexcellent]

I guess all the people sleeping in the ****ing subway stations and sent out to the countryside don't count.

edit: the blitz is something even elementary school children in the United States learn about

[C0ckney]

ken, do you have anything to present on the subject beyond your incredulity?

[regexcellent]

This is kind of like if you said that Venus is made of cheese, and nobody's ever landed on it so you can't prove otherwise. Besides which ~250 people in a city of 13 million sleeping outside is a hell of a non-problem. Really, it sounds like you've got this whole homeless thing in the bag.

[Dauphin]

Edit - see policies like no second night out.

[kentonio]

ken, do you have anything to present on the subject beyond your incredulity?

Nope, I have absolutely nothing else to say. People distorting historical evidence is something that makes me feel actually stressed, and quite honestly this conversation isn't worth me getting riled up over. I'll leave you to it, and just hope that one day you actually read a history book and reflect on how dumb what you said was.

[regexcellent]

So, 250 out of 13 million is 1/52,000. It would seem that rare genetic disorders like cystic fibrosis and Huntington's disease are much more common than homeless people sleeping outside in London.

[kentonio]

Just in case anyone's interested btw..

London's population, 1939 - 1951 (no census was taken in 1941)

Greater London: 8,615,050 people - 8,193,921 people
Inner London: 4,013,400 people - 3,347,982, people

http://www.20thcenturylondon.org.uk/timeline/1940-1949

[C0ckney]

Nope, I have absolutely nothing else to say.

frankly, that doesn't surprise me. and you are of course welcome to present any historical evidence; i'm always happy to change my views on factual questions.

as i said before questions like was life in britain better in the 1970s or today are impossible to answer simply. they depend entirely on one's point of view and on which group is being discussed. and i didn't even get to the worst parts of thatcher's legacy: the destruction of the working class power and the re-framing of political debate, but no doubt they'll plenty of opportunities to talk about it. thatcher’s legacy is not something that will be resolved in the near future after all...

[C0ckney]

I guess all the people sleeping in the ****ing subway stations and sent out to the countryside don't count.

edit: the blitz is something even elementary school children in the United States learn about

it's a shame they don't teach you about reading in your primary schools otherwise you would have seen that the numbers i gave were for rough sleepers and not the homeless.

[Hauldren Collider]

Uh, is there a difference between "rough sleeper" and homeless people? Over here "rough sleeper" means you need ambien; I just assumed it was British slang. The wiki page "rough sleeper" redirects to homelessness, if that helps.

[C0ckney]

no, they're not the same. a rough sleeper is someone who has to sleep out in the open. a homeless person may be a rough sleeper or may be someone who's in a shelter, or sleeping on a friend's sofa, or in a squat, or a bed and breakfast, etc..

[regexcellent]

Hang on, so, if almost all the homeless people have a shelter to sleep in, what's the problem? It sounds like your shelter program is really well funded and taken care of.

[C0ckney]

well the way it works with rough sleepers is that there aren't enough shelter beds, so they share them, with different people taking them on different nights. in swansea the homeless guys had worked out a fair system to distribute them. it meant that each one would get a bed every 4th or 5th night, until they could access programmes to get off the streets for good. so the number of people who are on the street at least some of the time is much higher than the number on any given night. i'm not sure about situation in london these days, but it's certainly got worse since the crisis. of course there are some people who refuse to go to a shelter or cannot be housed in one, usually because of violence.

the system isn't terrible but there's lots of room for improvement. i could write for hours about this, but i'll limit myself to saying that a lot of the most difficult problems stem from a lack of integration between different services. temporary accommodation, while obviously better than being on streets, is not very good, and certainly a not a real solution. there are broader social problems that cannot be fixed by homeless organisations.