Cameron Constituency Food Bank Faces Closure As Local Economy Stalls

dtsazza

RevolvingDoor wrote: »

I don't want to see even more more rough sleepers and children in poverty in our society. Luckily the welfare state, in theory, prevents this type of situation in the majority of cases.

Me neither, I don't want to see rough sleepers. However, I also don't want to see unfairness, amongst other things. In a choice between people sleeping rough as a result of their own actions, and giving them unfair assistance, the former is going to win.

Of course, if people are making sensible, responsible decisions that for some reason lead to them ending up on the street, then we definitely need to look at how that's coming about and fix it. Which is why I suggested earlier that it would be good to look at specific cases, rather than assuming that all homeless people are helpless victims, or undeserving layabouts.

RevolvingDoor

dtsazza wrote: »

Me neither, I don't want to see rough sleepers. However, I also don't want to see unfairness, amongst other things. In a choice between people sleeping rough as a result of their own actions, and giving them unfair assistance, the former is going to win.
Of course, if people are making sensible, responsible decisions that for some reason lead to them ending up on the street, then we definitely need to look at how that's coming about and fix it. Which is why I suggested earlier that it would be good to look at specific cases, rather than assuming that all homeless people are helpless victims, or undeserving layabouts.

But people aren't made to give a list of their past decisions and then it's decided whether they need support or not. IMO shelter is a basic human right and civilised societies should help people when they are in that situation regardless of why they ended up there.

It's the same situation with kids living in poverty, obviously sometimes it is down to the parent's bad decisions but I still would hope society should support the family and try to work with them because is is usually in the child's best interest to stay with their family rather than go into "care."

There is no point going back and forth on this in a debate as I'm not going to change my mind as I used to work with homeless people so I know what challenges they face and I have sympathy for them no matter how they got there.

BertieUK

RevolvingDoor wrote: »

There is no point going back and forth on this in a debate as I'm not going to change my mind as I used to work with homeless people so I know what challenges they face and I have sympathy for them no matter how they got there.

There will be a great number of people who support you 100% including myself, there are vast numbers who have been close to or as you, involved with these human beings who all have feelings as you and I have irespective as to how they got into this situation.

Whatever Government policies may have in store for these homeless people for the future, there still will be a lot of people with compassion for them.

GeorgeHowell

BertieUK wrote: »

There will be a great number of people who support you 100% including myself, there are vast numbers who have been close to or as you, involved with these human beings who all have feelings as you and I have irespective as to how they got into this situation.

Whatever Government policies may have in store for these homeless people for the future, there still will be a lot of people with compassion for them.

Not so much sympathy for them, or for anyone else classified as "vulnerable", that I want to see all incentive removed for individuals to take responsibility for their own lives and to pull their weight as far as possible.

dtsazza

RevolvingDoor wrote: »

But people aren't made to give a list of their past decisions and then it's decided whether they need support or not. IMO shelter is a basic human right and civilised societies should help people when they are in that situation regardless of why they ended up there.

Indeed, though the lack of having to go through this may be for practical reasons (or it might even just be wrong). All I can say is that if someone came to me personally for aid, I would want to know whether they'd brought their situation on themselves before helping. And when they approach the government or aid, as a proxy for myself and other taxpayers, of course I'd like the government to apply the same standards.

As for shelter being a basic human right - I don't believe that in the same way that you do. I don't believe that anything can be an unconditional right, because I don't believe in forced labour (i.e. slavery). If someone doesn't create e.g. shelter for themselves, I do not believe it is fair to force someone else to provide shelter for them. If the first person doesn't provide their own shelter, and no-one else chooses to give them shelter, then that person must go without. It is the only fair way, as I see it.

Asides from the fact that it breaks the link between personal cause and effect, which I believe is absolutely essential.

There is no point going back and forth on this in a debate as I'm not going to change my mind as I used to work with homeless people so I know what challenges they face and I have sympathy for them no matter how they got there.

That's fair enough, I think we have different views on the fundamental principles. And I agree with you that neither of us are likely to convince the other.

(Though if you do think there's a hole in my logic, let me know.)

DecentLivingWage

For a govt to deliberately block a citizen's right to help themselves get a livelihood, shelter and food is and then blame them for it is abuse! Of the worst kind! (PS most britons are decent human beings with more than an ounce of humanity and deep down they are sickened by the brutalization of the poor and helpless ,hence 67% of conservative members think Cameron is going to lose the Election in 2015! I salute them for their integrity - even tho I'm not one!

grizzly1911

dtsazza wrote: »

Indeed, though the lack of having to go through this may be for practical reasons (or it might even just be wrong). All I can say is that if someone came to me personally for aid, I would want to know whether they'd brought their situation on themselves before helping. And when they approach the government or aid, as a proxy for myself and other taxpayers, of course I'd like the government to apply the same standards.

As for shelter being a basic human right - I don't believe that in the same way that you do. I don't believe that anything can be an unconditional right, because I don't believe in forced labour (i.e. slavery). If someone doesn't create e.g. shelter for themselves, I do not believe it is fair to force someone else to provide shelter for them. If the first person doesn't provide their own shelter, and no-one else chooses to give them shelter, then that person must go without. It is the only fair way, as I see it.

Asides from the fact that it breaks the link between personal cause and effect, which I believe is absolutely essential.


That's fair enough, I think we have different views on the fundamental principles. And I agree with you that neither of us are likely to convince the other.

(Though if you do think there's a hole in my logic, let me know.)

I agree there need to be some link between cause and effect but in many cases it is rarely one single thing that is the cause. It is often a catalogue of problems layering up and with multiple bad hands dealt and bid for.

yes there will always be small number and of out and out professional losers, but they still deserve some form of refuge, if they need it. It may not be top dollar but it should be available in safety.

Where we are forced to provide this and welfare, through EU regulation and rules, to members of EU states, then these should be centrally funded IMO by the EU.

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I agree there need to be some link between cause and effect but in many cases it is rarely one single thing that is the cause. It is often a catalogue of problems layering up and with multiple bad hands dealt and bid for.

yes there will always be small number and of out and out professional losers, but they still deserve some form of refuge, if they need it. It may not be top dollar but it should be available in safety.

Where we are forced to provide this and welfare, through EU regulation and rules, to members of EU states, then these should be centrally funded IMO by the EU.

Quite right. We should not be forced to provide any kind of welfare whatsoever to anyone who has not paid UK taxes for a reasonable qualifying period. To anyone who says, "But then they may starve or freeze to death.", the answer is for them to go back to wherever they came from and do whatever they did that kept them alive there. Those who say that is too harsh a position are living in cloud cuckoo land (or at least should go back there). If the Romanian/Bulgarian issue becomes a big one then the majority of the British people will share this view. It could be the final showdown which gets us out of these terrible EU shackles once and for all. If so it will have been worth whatever pain and grief is to come in the meantime.

Moby

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Quite right. We should not be forced to provide any kind of welfare whatsoever to anyone who has not paid UK taxes for a reasonable qualifying period. To anyone who says, "But then they may starve or freeze to death.", the answer is for them to go back to wherever they came from and do whatever they did that kept them alive there. Those who say that is too harsh a position are living in cloud cuckoo land (or at least should go back there). If the Romanian/Bulgarian issue becomes a big one then the majority of the British people will share this view. It could be the final showdown which gets us out of these terrible EU shackles once and for all. If so it will have been worth whatever pain and grief is to come in the meantime.

Ah yes the simple world view of the Daily Mail reader:rotfl:What about the thousands of people who have nowhere to go back to?....or are refused entry by their country of origin eg Iran, Somalia, various African states etc.....There are large numbers of such individuals, many of them held in detention centres. I know this through my work. The problem is we do not have treaty agreements with such countries for the return of these people.

BertieUK

Moby wrote: »

Ah yes the simple world view of the Daily Mail reader:rotfl:What about the thousands of people who have nowhere to go back to?....or are refused entry by their country of origin eg Iran, Somalia, various African states etc.....There are large numbers of such individuals, many of them held in detention centres. I know this through my work. The problem is we do not have treaty agreements with such countries for the return of these people.

I think that the day will come when our survival will largely depend upon limiting the numbers of people coming into our country to a number that can provide for themselves and not to be coming here, as many do now because we are a soft touch, allowing them into our country in the first place was not well thought out.