Would 4 years of Corbyn Crash the London Market?

Arklight

MobileSaver wrote: »

I agree but some ended up there because of other poor choices they made. If you looked in your own heart you might realise that no-one forced them to start taking illegal drugs - that's what I take issue with.

Well, don't worry too much, most of the problems for addiction with rough sleepers is due to alcohol. Mind you, if I was mentally ill, had been repeatedly sexually assaulted as a child, and slept in a box outside Wilkos, I'd probably want a drink too. But then I doubtless fall far short of the perfect specimen of humanity (those people, you people, people like you) that you would judge me as.

phillw

MobileSaver wrote: »

I have little sympathy for these people

It shows. You have a choice, either help them becoming contributing members of society or what you're doing.

MobileSaver wrote: »

I agree but some ended up there because of other poor choices they made. If you looked in your own heart you might realise that no-one forced them to start taking illegal drugs - that's what I take issue with.

You obviously don't understand how people make choices. We're not computers running the same operating system. People are programmed from the day they were born from their environment.

When you realize this, your attitude will change.

MobileSaver

phillw wrote: »

You have a choice, either help them becoming contributing members of society or what you're doing.

Agreed, you know my view so won't be surprised I do not do anything to help the homeless. Now that we know your view I would be interested in what percentage of your income you and Arklight donate to the homeless?

phillw wrote: »

You obviously don't understand how people make choices.

I am glad you accept that these people did make a choice...

mark55man

Arklight wrote: »

Yes, that's exactly not the same at all.

Also, for your information, homeless people aren't given housing for free by the council, because then they wouldn't be homeless. The dictionary definition of homelessness is someone without a place to live. Something which has almost doubled under the Tories.

Look I get it, it's not easy having to constantly try and defend heartless Tory policy that has had an appalling effect on virtually every vulnerable person in the country. Its hard work, thankless, and fairly pointless. You have to point to statistics that don't exist to try and make people who are selfish, privileged, and generally ghastly, appear nicer than they are. And they don't even appreciate it, because people who are Tories couldn't actually care less if homelessness went up 10,000%! So have a night off.

Sorry to be late to the party but your last paragraph is the best thing I have read in a long time

Arklight

MobileSaver wrote: »

Agreed, you know my view so won't be surprised I do not do anything to help the homeless. Now that we know your view I would be interested in what percentage of your income you and Arklight donate to the homeless?

More than you, I would hazard a guess. At least neither of us are trying to spread poor blaming propaganda on the internet.

Let me tell you a story, I have a friend who works in an exclusive rehab clinic. One that you would have heard of if I named it. He spends his days trying to scrape up the scattered mental pieces of selfish, childish, trust fund kids. People raised by selfish, childish trust fund parents. People who have jammed so much white powder up their nostrils they can't remember which country they are in and therefore outsource their parenting to a succession of nannies and private schools. Much as they outsource their tax evasion, their insider dealing, and their white collar cheating, to fancy accountants and financial minders.

But because these people stagger out of a chauffeur driven Mercedes into a £2k a night residential clinic they are "respectable."

Yet you think the penniless homeless person hearing voices, trying to remember where his sleeping bag was last seen and where he's least likely to be kicked to death by drunks, is the problem.

I think that's fundamentally where we disagree.

MobileSaver

Arklight wrote: »

But because these people stagger out of a chauffeur driven Mercedes into a £2k a night residential clinic they are "respectable."

Respectable to whom? Certainly not to me. You seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder against people with more money than you and it's clouding your judgment.

I don't care whether someone is rich or poor, if they get involved in drugs then they're on their own. If a private individual (whether a parent or good Samaritan) wants to help them out then that's up to them but don't expect the State (using my taxes) to step in. Of course the problem with left-wing snowflakes like yourself is that for all your talk about helping vulnerable people what you actually want is for someone else to pay for it.

Arklight wrote: »

I think that's fundamentally where we disagree.

No, we fundamentally disagree on whether people need to take responsibility for their own poor choices in life.

Your view seems to be that if someone has had a hard life then it's OK for them to do illegal drugs and presumably you believe taxpayer's money should be spent helping them not blaming or punishing them, maybe even housing them.

What other acts that society has deemed criminal are you OK with? Shoplifting? Muggings? Armed robbery? Rape? Murder? Is there a certain level of criminality at which you agree they need to take responsibility for their own actions or does anyone who had problems as a child get a free pass?

LHW99

Is there a certain level of criminality at which you agree they need to take responsibility for their own actions or does anyone who had problems as a child get a free pass?

And therein lies the question IMO. Not every person who endures problems at any stage of their life end up with addiction / crime etc issues. Some manage to find / already have the inner strength to overcome the bad and make good on their own account.
Research hasn't yet fully explained why these differences occur (genetics, chance help at a particular time, support over a longer period that made a difference). Until that is really understood, some use of taxpayer funds to ameliorate the worst of the effects is (again IMO) justified

Cakeguts

MobileSaver wrote: »

In my opinion the majority of people who are genuinely homeless in the UK are in that position because of their own bad decisions, whether that be crime, drugs or drink. So, yes, I am sorry if it sounds harsh but I don't care too much if more people like that become homeless.

It is often due to NHS failings. The NHS is very bad at treating mental illness. If you have cancer for example they try to catch it early. For mental illness they very often leave it until someone has a crisis or is about to die from it.



The leaving it until a crisis means that some people cannot maintain their tenancies and they become homeless. They are not diagnosed because they can't get a diagnosis until they are seriously ill at which point they have probably stopped going to the doctor or even communicating with people.



People who suffer abuse as children have problems with stress hormone control. Child abuse causes medical changes in the brain which is why people who have suffered from child abuse have a tendency to get a mental illness.



People who have been institutionalised in the armed forces find it difficult to adjust to normal life. Some of them suffer from PTSD so another mental illness.



The other people who can easily become homeless are divorced single men.





For mental illness there isn't anywhere near enough supported social housing. Local councils tend to concentrate on housing people who have had children that they can't afford to house. Having children is a choice. Getting a mental illness is not. Getting any illness is not a choice. The people who need to take more responsibility for their actions are not the ones who have a mental illness they are the people who have children they can't afford. Everyone thinks of the right of people to have children but no one thinks of the children who don't ask to be born to parents who can't afford to have them.

RealElement47

Yes labour will opl the housing bubble but it has to be popped at some point and this is a good thing for most people in this country

Dynametix

If housing was affordable homelessness would have really come down.