Homeless in Stafford Town

[PeterD]

Meh. Why waste time with the pleasantries. I've been a long time observer of this forum, but I bit the bullet when I saw homeless people being dragged across the coals.

There are extremes in every social group. Homeless people included. And to start dragging in the folk on benefits and accuse them of sapping our taxes.

I have a friend. She has two kids. An absolute sham of a husband who she has separated with. She works part time. She receives benefits. So she should...not receive those benefits? Or work full time and not be able to care for her two children on her own?

People are quick to criticise but not to look at root causes, affecting factors, and so forth.

Bullshit, when you chimed in there was 1 negative post. You signed up to be offended.

 

[Tilly]

If you don't care

You really don't care

Take your comfort and protection from the Daily Mail

And pray to whichever God you sign up to that you never ever hit shit street

Ignorance is bliss

 

[tek-monkey]

perhaps more could be done (tax breaks ?) to encourage business to form groups to fund ventures like house of bread or the macari shelter as part of their corporate social responsibility

Why 'pay' businesses to do it, and rely on their choices? Just use the taxes they already pay to direct the help where you know it is truly needed, doesn't that make more sense? At least if you aren't a Tory anyway, I'm sure you've seen we couldn't be bothered to spend the 3.5m we were given to help alleviate child poverty.

 

[tek-monkey]

Also, on a similar subject, I was speaking to someone about a cleaning job.

She said “I can’t take on any more cleaning jobs, it will affect my benefits”.

So apparently some people, who could work full time, choose to work part time, with a benefits lifestyle.

The rest of us that work (or worked) are expected to subside this in our tax.

How can this be right?

Someone actually choosing to be part time but claiming benefits?


Edited to say that I’m not knocking anyone who genuinely needs to claim. That’s what the system is for.
My gripe is against those who can work but choose not to.
Choosing benefits as a lifestyle choice as an option instead of working.

On this one I completely understand. Benefits are not fun, they are the minimum you can healthily live on (until UC came in anyway). As they get capped at set levels, going over that level can leave you without the benefit but also without enough wages to cover the difference. Zero hours contracts have exacerbated this massively as its impossible to plan, and you need to reapply for any benefits weekly due to changing circumstances.

 

[Thehooperman]

Bullshit, when you chimed in there was 1 negative post. You signed up to be offended.

And @cj1's initial post was a question not a presumption.

I often offer to buy food or hot/soft drinks for homeless people I see around Stafford and most are polite and won't accept help until I ask again or ask "are you sure that is all you want to eat".

Even then most only ask for basic help. I suspect these are the folk that like their independence and don't take up help from more official sources.

I do accept that there are also homeless people in Stafford who don't have any other options as well but I wouldn't know what they have been offered or what help they can get.

There is however another minority of those on the streets who become offensive if I don't give them money for beer or their "bus" journey home, even though the bus services stopped a good two or three hours earlier. Most of these aren't even homeless and they get absolutely nothing from me.

 

[Carole]

On this one I completely understand. Benefits are not fun, they are the minimum you can healthily live on (until UC came in anyway). As they get capped at set levels, going over that level can leave you without the benefit but also without enough wages to cover the difference. Zero hours contracts have exacerbated this massively as its impossible to plan, and you need to reapply for any benefits weekly due to changing circumstances.

Yes I understand that the system is flawed.

Please understand that I’m not lumping everyone in to the same category.
I realise that some people are genuinely struggling and undergoing real hardship, and the system is there to help them.

My comments were relating to those that do have a choice, and their choice is to not work, claim benefits and therefore take money from the system.
The lady that I was particularly referring to was self employed and had enough offers that she could work full time, she chose not to.

 

[GeneralGreivous]

Well I am in favour of the introduction of a universal basic income.

Some sanity. Hurrah!

 

[tek-monkey]

Yes I understand that the system is flawed.

Please understand that I’m not lumping everyone in to the same category.
I realise that some people are genuinely struggling and undergoing real hardship, and the system is there to help them.

My comments were relating to those that do have a choice, and their choice is to not work, claim benefits and therefore take money from the system.
The lady that I was particularly referring to was self employed and had enough offers that she could work full time, she chose not to.

Thats the problem though, those that take the piss are really in the minority but those in need tend to get tarred with the same brush. If only there was a way that a full time job paid a wage you could afford to live on we'd be laughing, but even those in full time employment often have to claim top up benefits to survive. These benefits are a subsidy to the employer to allow them to pay a lower wage, thus increasing their profit margins. Some need this to survive, but I resent the likes of amazon etc. paying a wage that their staff cannot live on whilst enjoying huge profits and avoiding paying the tax that is needed to subsidise those employees.

The system is very flawed, some of the new EU money laundering rules coming in go a small way to addressing some of it but we won't be using any of those measures due to brexit.

 

[Entropy]

Also, on a similar subject, I was speaking to someone about a cleaning job.

She said “I can’t take on any more cleaning jobs, it will affect my benefits”.

So apparently some people, who could work full time, choose to work part time, with a benefits lifestyle.

The rest of us that work (or worked) are expected to subside this in our tax.

How can this be right?

Someone actually choosing to be part time but claiming benefits?


Edited to say that I’m not knocking anyone who genuinely needs to claim. That’s what the system is for.
My gripe is against those who can work but choose not to.
Choosing benefits as a lifestyle choice as an option instead of working.

I used to know someone who gave up a full time job to purposely go on benefits because they "earned more if they had a kid or 4" As far as I am aware they are still working the benefit system in their favor despite their other half working full time on a fairly significant wage....

As for the homeless situation around the town. I do feel for these people, especially when the weather has been especially bad.

Most are genuine I feel and I really hope they get the help they need to get back on their feet, but others I've seen seem to be "professional homeless" sporting the latest smart phone with airpod head phones etc.....not even I can afford those!

 

[Gramaisc]

https://www.rics.org/eu/news-insigh...inable-building/empty-homes-the-true-picture/

 

[GeneralGreivous]

Bullshit, when you chimed in there was 1 negative post. You signed up to be offended.

Incorrect. But thank you for assuming that.

 

[WHarris]

Christ. I darent imagine what you lot would think of a universal basic income.

Someone point me towards the left wingers.

As someone who swings significantly to the right I have to say that this forum on the whole is in my view overwhelmingly left wing.

However as a group people here are respectful of each-others views, we all live in or have an interest in Stafford and its surrounding areas and I think its a shame if members feel the need to segregate themselves from views that are politically different than their own.

Anyway, welcome to the forum

 

[Goldilox]

Aren't all the homeless in the town centre intentionally homeless. I.e have access to shelter but for whatever reason turn it down.

"Intentionally homeless" is a pretty broad brush, & could mean you've been sacked from a job that came with accommodation, or you've fallen into rent arrears on a property but left without actually going through the legal eviction process (because, for example, you are aware the arrears are continuing to pile up), or you've left a family home after an argument.

I suspect, with less money available than there used to be, the council will be more likely to decide borderline cases are 'intentionally' rather than 'unintentionally' homeless.

 

[Gramaisc]

There's always been more internecine argument on the left, whilst the right just carry on with it, it's why we live in a society that is content for some to hoard resources that they don't need, or even use, whilst others are denied those resources.

 

[Tilly]

As someone who swings significantly to the right I have to say that this forum on the whole is in my view overwhelmingly left wing.

However as a group people here are respectful of each-others views, we all live in or have an interest in Stafford and its surrounding areas and I think its a shame if members feel the need to segregate themselves from views that are politically different than their own.

Anyway, welcome to the forum

Right is the new centre

Centre is the new lefty loon

Slightly left of centre - is a rabid Trotsky

Defined by the handful of people who own 90 % of the news organisations

The sheep will always follow the largest flock

Right, off the edge of the cliff

You are all very welcome to it

 

[tek-monkey]

Our loony left are seen as centrist in most countries.

 

[Entropy]

 

[WHarris]

From where i am stood, left is the new centre and everything has moved one step leftward.

Issues that right wingers used to be vocal about: Protecting traditional families, law and order, reducing government involvement in lives and business etc, are now rarely discussed as actual policy points.

However issues that would usually have been left wing: Workers rights and protection, LGBT issues, pro-immigration etc have all become talking points of the Conservative party. You may not agree that they hold them as genuine views and that is of-course your right, but ultimately if you take actual right wing people what party do they have to represent them? Equally what newspaper, or news show?

Maybe the problem is that its so hard to define someone as right or left when the governments of the last 20 years have basically just been different shades of centrism.

The vast majority of news organisations in the western world are left leaning, for small c conservatives its basically a few websites, a copy of the Specatator and the Torygraph.

I know we are all inclined to see ourselves as 'the resistance' and special from the crowd but when I look at government I see all the parties as more or less a blob of centre left who are more concerned with their own brand than the people they should represent.

 

[tek-monkey]

I know we are all inclined to see ourselves as 'the resistance' and special from the crowd but when I look at government I see all the parties as more or less a blob of centre left who are more concerned with their own brand than the people they should represent.

Interesting, as I see them as more or less a blob of centre right more concerned with protecting their personal wealth than the people they represent.

 

[Tilly]

" The vast majority of news organisations in the western world are left leaning, for small c conservatives its basically a few websites, a copy of the Specatator and the Torygraph. "

You are clearly either badly informed or choose to be ignorant

It's easier to say:

Daily Mirror - Labour
The Guardian - Liberal

Everything else - Corbynisamonsterrrrdevil!!