You've Never Had It So Good....

Loughton_Monkey

TruckerT wrote: »

It's complicated - that's why I am always quick to accept responsibility for any of my posts which appear under a different name.

TruckerT

So should I answer the rogue post or not?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tomterm8

gazter wrote: »

Question : Hello mr charity, mr job centre, mr benefits office, mr CAB, mr Law Centre. I'm homeless what should I do?
Answer from every single one:
First thing you do is go to your local council who will determine if you fit the definition of homeless, and if so they become legally obliged to house you.

There is no obligation to house someone who is not in priority need.

Many people who are in priority need are still not housed because the council deem them intentionally homeless.

vivatifosi

gazter wrote: »

Question : Hello mr charity, mr job centre, mr benefits office, mr CAB, mr Law Centre. I'm homeless what should I do?
Answer from every single one:
First thing you do is go to your local council who will determine if you fit the definition of homeless, and if so they become legally obliged to house you.

And then it is down to the quality of the staff as to how well they do.

I think the homeless debate is an interesting one. Statistics do indeed show that the numbers are reducing. However this is no consolation to the person who becomes that statistic. Much the same as any third world or developing world person who becomes a statistic of poverty.

Charities know that too, which is why they name the child in Syria who needs shelter, rather than saying that x 0000 children are without homes. We rationalise numbers but actual cases humanize the situation.

I work with homeless people in the library service. By and large it works well. Libraries provide safe, warm places for homeless people to go. But the system is starting to fail. At close of play, most homeless people go to their shelters which are just opening, which is fine. However at this time of year the system fails rough sleepers.

Rough sleepers tend to have drug or alcohol dependency issues, or mental problems that mean that either centres won't accept them or they can't live within the constraints of the centre. It is here that things are getting really tricky. It used to be the case that you could refer such people to the local police custody suite or to A&E to stay warm. Now though the police stations have shut and A&E has closed in many hospitals, so the places you can send people to have reduced.

First hand I've experienced having a desperate rough sleeper asking me how to get a bed for the night when the shelters were full including the bad weather ones. So I phoned the local council who asked for the person's mobile number (their response was "I'm a rough sleeper love, where the f... am I supposed to plug a mobile in?"), they then expected said rough sleeper to wait outside a public phone box for up to two hours in the snow in the hope of a call back. In the end I let him use my phone to call a friend who found him a bed for the night, but he still had to walk miles in the snow to get there as he had no money.

But that's what happens when systems fail and when statistics become human beings. That's the case in the UK, Syria, Cebu in the Philippines, Brazil and Guatemala. In spite of all that, I still agree with Gen that I've won life's lottery being born here.

Southend1

Generali wrote: »

What do you think happens in Guatemala if you're homeless? I would imagine getting a place to live in isn't one of those things.

Not from "the council" maybe, but I expect that just because they are on average financially worse off than the British, doesn't mean they are any less civilised or organised as a society. I expect a combination of provision by charities, religious organisations, local groups etc exists to help people in dire need.

Generali

Southend1 wrote: »

Not from "the council" maybe, but I expect that just because they are on average financially worse off than the British, doesn't mean they are any less civilised or organised as a society. I expect a combination of provision by charities, religious organisations, local groups etc exists to help people in dire need.

The average person makes less than three grand a year. Do you honestly think they have large amounts to give to charity?

The average is three grand a year for housing, schooling, medicine, food, clothing, everything.

I'm not sure how to react to the comments on this thread. Do people think that there is some sort of equivalence between being 'poor' in the UK and being poor in Guatemala? Are people just arguing for the hell of it? My suspicion is that many posters simply don't understand that being sure of having food on the table 99 days of 100 and having ready access to heat, light, shelter, medicine and fresh water puts them comfortably in the top 20% of the world's population.

Three grand a year makes you middle class. Sixty quid a week. The minimum wage is a fiver a day if you work in agriculture, less if you work in a factory. That's what the working poor get. How do you think the sick/unemployed live?

http://www.terraexperience.com/guatemala_minimum_wage.htm

gazter

TruckerT wrote: »

Co-incidentally, I was speaking only two days ago to a 34-year-old single homeless male who is anxiously awaiting his 35th birthday so that the local authority will be obliged to 'take him on'.

Are you saying that the government definition has not changed for 34 years, or that the local authorities' obligations have not changed over the same period of time?

When did the 35-year-old threshold become a reality?

TruckerT

Nothing to do with threshold for their homelessness. 35 yr old is the threshold in which a single person moves from entitlement for housing benefit from a shared rate to a whole property.
Either the person is misinformed or is telling lies.

gazter

tomterm8 wrote: »

There is no obligation to house someone who is not in priority need.

Many people who are in priority need are still not housed because the council deem them intentionally homeless.

The term 'intentionally homeless' and 'priority need' are not the same thing.

gazter

vivatifosi wrote: »

And then it is down to the quality of the staff as to how well they do.

I think the homeless debate is an interesting one. Statistics do indeed show that the numbers are reducing. However this is no consolation to the person who becomes that statistic. Much the same as any third world or developing world person who becomes a statistic of poverty.

Charities know that too, which is why they name the child in Syria who needs shelter, rather than saying that x 0000 children are without homes. We rationalise numbers but actual cases humanize the situation.

I work with homeless people in the library service. By and large it works well. Libraries provide safe, warm places for homeless people to go. But the system is starting to fail. At close of play, most homeless people go to their shelters which are just opening, which is fine. However at this time of year the system fails rough sleepers.

Rough sleepers tend to have drug or alcohol dependency issues, or mental problems that mean that either centres won't accept them or they can't live within the constraints of the centre. It is here that things are getting really tricky. It used to be the case that you could refer such people to the local police custody suite or to A&E to stay warm. Now though the police stations have shut and A&E has closed in many hospitals, so the places you can send people to have reduced.

First hand I've experienced having a desperate rough sleeper asking me how to get a bed for the night when the shelters were full including the bad weather ones. So I phoned the local council who asked for the person's mobile number (their response was "I'm a rough sleeper love, where the f... am I supposed to plug a mobile in?"), they then expected said rough sleeper to wait outside a public phone box for up to two hours in the snow in the hope of a call back. In the end I let him use my phone to call a friend who found him a bed for the night, but he still had to walk miles in the snow to get there as he had no money.

But that's what happens when systems fail and when statistics become human beings. That's the case in the UK, Syria, Cebu in the Philippines, Brazil and Guatemala. In spite of all that, I still agree with Gen that I've won life's lottery being born here.

You pull the wool over people eyes, you allude to substance abuses, and give the impressions that local authority hostels bar people with such problems. They do not. People who are violent to staff and other residents, or take drugs on the premises are barred.

tomterm8

gazter wrote: »

The term 'intentionally homeless' and 'priority need' are not the same thing.

I know that.

Try reading the post again.

gazter

tomterm8 wrote: »

I know that.

Try reading the post again.

The council has to show you were intentionally homeless, and if so, quite right that they no longer have a duty, with the 'priority' pretty much being expanded over recent years to encompass more and more people. According to my local authority, the following:
Are pregnant;
• Have dependent children living with you
• Are a person who is vulnerable due to old age, mental illness,
handicap or physical disability or other special reason ;
• Are a person who is homeless or threatened with homelessness as
a result of an emergency such as a fire, flood or other disaster;
• Are a person aged 16 or 17 who has not just left the care of a local
authority;
• Are a person aged 18-21 years who was previously under the care
of a local authority;
• Are a person who was previously looked after, accommodated or
fostered (under the Children’s Act 1989) and is vulnerable as a result;
• Are a person who is vulnerable as a result of being a member of Her Majesty’s regular naval, military or air forces;
• Are a person who is vulnerable as a result of serving a custodial sentence, been remanded in custody or committed for contempt of court;
• Are a person who is vulnerable as no longer being able to occupy accommodation due to violence or threats of violence.


It's fairly comprehensive. I can understand why as a matter of public policy that not everyone is covered. People have to be aware of the consequences of their own actions and not make themselves homeless in order to jump waiting lists.

As with everything cracks appear, but I'm find it hard to believe that there are many rough sleepers (that is the general understanding of homeless by the man on the street) that aren't covered by the above.