The Great Big Homelessness/Capitalism/Socialism Thread

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Please post here...

Windofchange

Ok, so from a thread on brexit and house prices that got the Great Ape treatment:

GreatApe wrote: »

Just clear the streets of the homeless
>90% are drug or alcohol addicts

Put them in rehab or in prison (drugs are illegal but we don't jail many people for use)
For those thinking that is evil its surely better for the police to take them in process them and decide which is the best option. Prison rehab or if its just a kid that's run away from home social services etc.

The stupid idea is just to leave them there on the streets.
Having said that I am sure the social services do all that can be done
Those on the streets primarily want to be on the streets and most are repeat offenders.

The data that he is using to base his assumptions on from 2002:

GreatApe wrote: »

Four out of five homeless people in Britain are regular drug-users - and almost half have used heroin or crack in the last month. The figures, far higher than previously acknowledged, have shocked homelessness experts.

'We were aware of drug use among people we work with,' said Shaks Ghosh of Crisis, which commissioned the research. 'What we never expected, in our worst dreams, was this level of use and addiction.'

One in four of Britain's homeless use cocaine or ecstasy, researchers found. One in three use tranquillisers. Only 4 per cent do not use either drugs or alcohol at all

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2002/jul/14/homelessness.drugs

Two reports from the last couple of years that state it is nowhere near as much as he is claiming:

39% having drug and alcohol problems:

https://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/our-research/homelessness-and-health-research

Or 29% if you prefer Crisis:

https://www.crisis.org.uk/ending-homelessness/health-and-wellbeing/drugs-and-alcohol/

Of course, more relevant up to date facts are not enough for the Ape:

GreatApe wrote: »

No they are not most homeless people are dysfunctional and in hard drugs.

How can you help them if you ignore the facts?

And of course the fact that a 2002 study differs from a 2015 one in something such as societal change is down to the fact that all studies are useless. This is despite my Crisis report stating that things have changed, and now it is far more common for regular Joe's to be caught up in all this.

GreatApe wrote: »

As for which report to believe.
It is clear that all the reports are rubbish and unreliable else you wouldn't get hugely varying statistics from 29% to 95% on drugs.

All this washed down with the usual you just don't understand, you're not a master of stats like me, I know a policeman who said that all homeless are druggies.

This isn't even a comment on capitalism vs communism. There are losers in North Korea I'm sure. It is simply asking Great Ape to back up his prejudices with facts, which to date he has not been able to do. All he is able to do is have a rant about a study from 15 years ago, and then give some anecdotes such as I was at a wedding the other day and someone I know is a policeman.

Windofchange

And before the inevitable stop making things up:

GreatApe wrote: »

The truth is almost all of them are addicts I say this as I have members of my family who are police officers and deal with them. Why would they lie.

Pretty much sums up Great Ape's ability to formulate a reasoned and researched argument. I know someone who says this therefore point proven.

westernpromise

Rackets like Crisis and Shelter should be stripped of their charitable status and the directors personally surcharged to recoup all the tax they have fiddled. These outfits don't home or assist a single person. They are just scumbag arms of the Labour Party, demanding free money for !!!!!!!!!!s at other people's expense. They are fake charities who do exactly nothing and who fritter donations on lobbying for even more of other people's money.

A few personal bankruptcies among the riffraff who staff them and we'd soon stop hearing from them. Parasites. The money recovered could then be spent on actually alleviating homelessness rather than on paying themselves to bleat about it.

Herzlos

westernpromise wrote: »

Rackets like Crisis and Shelter should be stripped of their charitable status and the directors personally surcharged to recoup all the tax they have fiddled. These outfits don't home or assist a single person. They are just scumbag arms of the Labour Party, demanding free money for !!!!!!!!!!s at other people's expense. They are fake charities who do exactly nothing and who fritter donations on lobbying for even more of other people's money.

A few personal bankruptcies among the riffraff who staff them and we'd soon stop hearing from them. Parasites. The money recovered could then be spent on actually alleviating homelessness rather than on paying themselves to bleat about it.

Do you have any evidence of those outlandish claims?

LHW99

You can search for details of charities here
http://www.charitychoice.co.uk/charities
and many provide free reports on their income etc.
For example, for Crisis, 61.4p in the £1 goes on "charitable activities"

Windofchange

LHW99 wrote: »

You can search for details of charities here
http://www.charitychoice.co.uk/charities
and many provide free reports on their income etc.
For example, for Crisis, 61.4p in the £1 goes on "charitable activities"

Ah, I was just about to post a similar link.

I think you can absolutely argue that certain members of the charity sector are paid too much, but at the same time you have to run the operation and you have to pay those people a wage, so it isn't possible for 100% of donations to go to those who need them, however streamline you are.

To say that these organisations don't help a single homeless person is so obviously wrong that it isn't worth a response.

economic

westernpromise wrote: »

Rackets like Crisis and Shelter should be stripped of their charitable status and the directors personally surcharged to recoup all the tax they have fiddled. These outfits don't home or assist a single person. They are just scumbag arms of the Labour Party, demanding free money for !!!!!!!!!!s at other people's expense. They are fake charities who do exactly nothing and who fritter donations on lobbying for even more of other people's money.

A few personal bankruptcies among the riffraff who staff them and we'd soon stop hearing from them. Parasites. The money recovered could then be spent on actually alleviating homelessness rather than on paying themselves to bleat about it.

Thanks for this post. I never felt bad about never giving anything to charity. But now i actually feel good about it!

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

economic wrote: »

Thanks for this post. I never felt bad about never giving anything to charity. But now i actually feel good about it!

You'll never be happy if you believe that all charities are parasitic. Being altruistic is quite fulfilling.

61% of every £ received is spent on the cause, the rest is spent running the organisation. That's not bad. You don't need to feel bad about not giving. But you'd feel better if you gave.

economic

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

You'll never be happy if you believe that all charities are parasitic. Being altruistic is quite fulfilling.

61% of every £ received is spent on the cause, the rest is spent running the organisation. That's not bad. You don't need to feel bad about not giving. But you'd feel better if you gave.

Its a very inefficient way of giving money if 40% of it goes to admin and other costs.

This is because:
- Either they do not receive that much from the public
And/or
- The charities are run very inefficiently

Charities also do not pay any tax on the money they receive.

I have paid significant sums of money in income tax and part of that goes to benefit claimants (i.e. the poor). This is a lot more efficient then giving to some charity for the poor as there is no CEO or high cost admin etc. Its essentially a wholesale charity.

Perhaps what should happen is all charities should be run by one single organization who distributes the money depending on where the charitable would like the money to go.

charities should not be run like companies.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

economic wrote: »

Its a very inefficient way of giving money if 40% of it goes to admin and other costs.

This is because:
- Either they do not receive that much from the public
And/or
- The charities are run very inefficiently

Charities also do not pay any tax on the money they receive.

I have paid significant sums of money in income tax and part of that goes to benefit claimants (i.e. the poor). This is a lot more efficient then giving to some charity for the poor as there is no CEO or high cost admin etc. Its essentially a wholesale charity.

Perhaps what should happen is all charities should be run by one single organization who distributes the money depending on where the charitable would like the money to go.

charities should not be run like companies.

Oh right so the DWP staff don't get paid. I imagine a massive government department such as the DWP is highly inefficient. The CSA for example used to cost more to run than it actually collected.