Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Lack of support would include money.

Yes, so people who lack food or money commit a lot of crimes huh?

Is that what you are saying?

*Sigh*

Anyhow I am not sure if this is a form of class warfare or simply trying to get the homeless to move elsewhere.

[Keita]

What I was saying?

I was AGAINST that point bro.

[Neonivek]

I know Metal Militia I know.

It is just odd this dance people do to not sound biased when all they can do is just state it in different ways. (not accusing anyone of being biased)

People believe the poor commit a lot of crimes because it makes perfect sense for them to do it. They are the ones who need to do it afterall.

[Keita]

Apologies then, I'm very bad at figuring out if people are 'just saying' =P

But yes, it makes sense in a way. But then again, that's trouble they don't need. They've got bigger problems.

[NobodyPro]

It's only a matter of time before this happens in Australia, we have three conservative parties and the Greens have never been elected (our only real liberal party).

[Neonivek]

It's only a matter of time before this happens in Australia, we have three conservative parties and the Greens have never been elected (our only real liberal party).

Toronto almost did it. Though people are so humanitarian that it was quite the reaction when it was declaired.

Or rather people thought it was so rediculous to make it "Illegal to be homeless" that they questioned the very person who purposed it.

It makes me think that maybe there is a difference between the upper and middle class and their views on the poor and homeless

[eerr]

Absolutely terrible.

[scriver]

"A person" = "poor" or "homeless" in your mind? Sir, I do believe you seem to be projecting.

Let us not dance around the bush. We know what the person who "Lacked support" was refering to.

A person who lacks support. It was a broad statement. It's not about "poor" or "rich" people. Take away a "rich" man's "support" and he'll be the same - he's talking about people in general, and not just about "poor" people.

And by the way, just being "poor" does not equal a person without "support". There's a big difference between poverty and desperation. If I was starving, without money, and without shelters to go to, I'd be lot more inclined to steal either money or food to survive. I wouldy still feel bad about, and I would still consider it morally wrong, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it. Taking away a a persons support does not mean taking away their nice cars and luxuries, not even taking away people's houses - it means taking away their means of survival. Like closing shelters, where people without means can go to eat or sleep. Yes, the large majority of people would rather go hungry than resort to direct crime, but not many people will starve or freeze to death rather than breaking laws. It's not that they have an easier time (or are more prone to) committing crime, it's that people without support often do not have any other way of surviving.

[Neonivek]

Ugh...

I think Ill stop harping on scriver, being right isn't really a priority here is it? (I edited this post to remove a lot of what I just said)

[GlyphGryph]

The problem, Scriver, is that crime and desperation aren't nearly as correlated as crime and opportunity. In my experience, the poor and homeless aren't really inclined towards crime BECAUSE they don't have the support they'd need to really pull it off. What are you going to steal? Food? That's not exactly a reliable way to get it, and you're probably already afraid of the police. Would you steal valuables? Who would you sell it to? Especially since you'll likely get it stolen from you before you can sell it, since you have nowhere to keep it safely. In my experience, the vast majority of crime related to homelessness is targeted against other homeless people, since that's the only opportunity for crime they really have (and I'm not sure how applicable that is to the sorts of crimes your talking about, and its usually a small minority that cause most of the problems)

Now, there are many actions they undertake to survive that are often made illegal, but I'm not sure if that's the same thing, since there's plenty of places where they aren't, and the places where they exist, their goal is pretty much explicitly to get rid of homeless people.

Of course, I could be wrong about all that - but I've been homeless, and from what I've read of homelessness in general, it seems to be the case. Does anyone know of any actual studies that have been done on it, btw?

[scriver]

The problem, Scriver, is that crime and desperation aren't nearly as correlated as crime and opportunity. In my experience, the poor and homeless aren't really inclined towards crime BECAUSE they don't have the support they'd need to really pull it off. What are you going to steal? Food? That's not exactly a reliable way to get it, and you're probably already afraid of the police. Would you steal valuables? Who would you sell it to? Especially since you'll likely get it stolen from you before you can sell it, since you have nowhere to keep it safely. In my experience, the vast majority of crime related to homelessness is targeted against other homeless people, since that's the only opportunity for crime they really have (and I'm not sure how applicable that is to the sorts of crimes your talking about, and its usually a small minority that cause most of the problems)

I don't understand why the victims being homeless as well is relevant at all, unless you're saying it doesn't matter as much if they are? Which I know probably isn't your point.

As for the crimes I'm talking about, I'm just referring to "small" crimes, it's not like I think homeless are more likely to murder, rape or torture just because they're hungry or cold.

[GlyphGryph]

The original comment that provoked this referred pretty explicitly to break-ins and muggings. Hence my comment on how, while its not good, its not really relevant to the sort of crime that has been discussed.

[EmperorNuthulu]

back to the OP topic:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49650922/Draft-Rough-Sleeping-and-Soup-Run-Byelaw

the actual law in england.

its designed to get people off the streets and into shelters.  Not necessarily good or the right way to go about it, but it is not what is has been touted as.  All the laws are directed at doing it in open air public.  Private kitchens and such are perfectly ok.  Also, its been illegal to sleep in the streets of England for over 150 years.  FYI.

Like 90% of shelters are being shut down due to government funding cuts.

So, no, it's not okay.

Fuck the Tories, seriously. What idiots voted them in? There was a reason we avoided it for so long.

Ahh, this question. To put it simply, people were sick of the labour party and have the memories of flies, along with "historical"(thirty/twenty years ago) knowledge thats actually worse than people in Somalia. Since they no longer liked labour,they simply voted for the other main party. That party being the Conservatives. To be fair all Brown had to do to stay in was take out his glass eye, put an eye patch on, get a pirate hat, grow a beard and allow children the vote.

Also, how exactly are they going to punish the homeless, take away their guitars?

[Nilocy]

I'd like to point out that the Westminster council isn't indicative of the entire UK. They're an extremely rich, snobby council who are extremely dislocated (like most rightwingers) from the real problems.

The majority of cities/councils in the UK actively try to help homeless people get off the streets. But, that said, its extremely sad to see something like this happen in 'sensible' Britain. 

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

I'd like to point out that the Westminster council isn't indicative of the entire UK. They're an extremely rich, snobby council who are extremely dislocated (like most rightwingers) from the real problems.

The majority of cities/councils in the UK actively try to help homeless people get off the streets. But, that said, its extremely sad to see something like this happen in 'sensible' Britain.

Or maybe the left wingers kept giving way all the money and now there isnt enough left for everyone cuz the damn public trough is empty.....
Farseer in his comments below hits it on the head and doesnt even realize it:  SOMETHING must be cut.  Education - cant do that,  FREE Healtch Care - oh hell no cant do that, Homeless shelters  - damn thats rough, but gotta start somewhere.  Cuz if you dont, it will ALL dissapear.  It sucks when Big Brother/Nanny/Mommy runs outta free money for ya.

But even though I am a rightwinger I do also see the cynical side of the fact that the homeless probably dont vote......

back to the OP topic:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49650922/Draft-Rough-Sleeping-and-Soup-Run-Byelaw

the actual law in england.

its designed to get people off the streets and into shelters.  Not necessarily good or the right way to go about it, but it is not what is has been touted as.  All the laws are directed at doing it in open air public.  Private kitchens and such are perfectly ok.  Also, its been illegal to sleep in the streets of England for over 150 years.  FYI.

Like 90% of shelters are being shut down due to government funding cuts.

So, no, it's not okay.

Fuck the Tories, seriously. What idiots voted them in? There was a reason we avoided it for so long.