Viewing Thread:
"For my cash, a home"

Homeless people. The ones we pretend don't exist. The filthy, unkempt, odourous degenerates who hold out grubby hands in expectation, as though their plight in itself were justification for income. The ones we see lying on the floor in our path, and lead us to hold deep breaths before getting close enough to have to offend our senses with their putrid stench.

I could go on graphically detailing what it is about these beggars that offends the very core of my being, but that isn't really the thrust of this entry.

The point is that the UK government is about to unveil a £164m package to 'provide training and emotional support' to young homeless people. I'm sure you can see what's coming, but that's not going to stop me from writing it. Because put simply, the government is openly tossing bucket loads of money down the drain when it should instead be utilising the failures of others to add value to the economy.

Does everybody deserve a second chance? If someone is capable of screwing up their life so fundamentally that they fall off the socio-economical framework altogether, should they be awarded some of my money to help pick them back up again? Let's be clear here. If your life is going rapidly downhill, the system has safeguards built in to avoid things becoming excessively desperate. Council accommodation, dole, tax credits, freebies, you name it. In fact, some people make a very fine living out of the resources available in the welfare safety net, at the cost of those looking for a more honest living.

Yet still there are some who cannot cope. Should more time, effort and money be poured into assisting such stupidity? The best you can ever hope to achieve is to reduce the availabilty of affordable accommodation, and increase further the tax burden on the honest worker. At worst, you'll get these ignorant half-wits breeding like flies; a situation already prevalent in our failing social system. Me, I'll happily settle for the status quo, where I can ignore the lazy SOBs, and their curiously well fed dogs, as they lay under reams of deliberately mud-wiped duvets which hide their heroin needles and whisky bottles.

I do, however, provide an alternative solution. Round them up. All of them. Keep the lawyers away, and they'll never know you're abusing their human right to lie in squallor, demanding their right to coin from the pockets of innocent passers-by. Then, once you've gathered the 250,000 or so under-25 homeless wasters, set them to work. Get them building something inane that requires neither skill nor aptitude, but preferably regularly entails the endangerment of body parts in heavy machinery. It won't be especially productive, but that's not the point. Once they're all sporting a missing finger, or leg, and have been indoctrinated into the production line, stick them in sponsored rags, place a few products about, bring in the cameras, and let the reality TV roll.

You think I'm sick, but I tell you now that it would firmly toss Big Brother into the yesterday's news category. It would also prevent me from having to hear about the government wishing away the tax money I work so hard to deliver to them on superfluous and meaningless gestures such as this.

I wish Alexander from A clockwork Orange was here. He'd sort those bums out for us.

lol

biglime wrote:
> In the future try not to stereotype a person so easily,
> it's an easy thing to do but also wrong at the best of times.


biglime wrote:
> there's no convincing types like you

Yet we get methodone from tax payers for free.

Woah, stereotypes ahoy: "their curiously well fed dogs, as they lay under reams of deliberately mud-wiped duvets which hide their heroin needles and whisky bottles" ... "a bunch of criminal drug abusers". Seriously?

Everpain wrote:
> Further, why should I pay to shelter, feed and aid these people,
> without my consent?

We all have a social responsibility. It maybe fair enough to say you don't want to support the homeless because you believe they put themselves into poverty, but there are actually other reasons why there are homeless people. And if you were in their situation would you want people to help you and attempt to get you out of poverty? It's not like we have an Old Labour government any more that simply throws money at the homeless, we have a New Labour government that spends our taxes on attempting to pull people out of the poverty trap. So instead of a hand-out supplied by Old Labour, who were happy for people to live off the state, we have a hand-up, which gives money to the homeless on the grounds that they will get a job and have less dependence on the state.

Or maybe I've just been unlucky in the stores I've been into? Yeah.

Although you are right, I'm almost completely incompassionate, and really don't see why I should be anything else. I see people around me sympathising with every cause going, because that's what they believe is expected of them. Almost no truly free will left there in my opinion.

Blimey, your superiority complex is worse than I thought. From experience, there's no convincing types like you. Incompassionate and cruel to the end.

There were numerous
> people whinging that their local stores were closing down in
> favour of big Tesco stores. I still do not understand the
> sympathy afforded these small stores. They offer an inferior
> product portfolio at a higher price, have less flexible opening
> hours, and staff that eyeball you if you're not considered local
> enough.


Strange, I have had the exact opposite treatment from locals, even from the numerous times I have moved into or visited a new area. Maybe its your attitude/appearance to strangers?

I'm not sure I understand why I should sympathise with these people. Obviously you do, and that's fair enough. I don't. Assuming the statistic quoted below is correct, 78% of these 'unfortunates' are drug reliant. Now privileged I may be, but I couldn't even begin to afford a class A drug habit, nor do I have the connections to source a supply. How many of the remainder are the 'voluntary' homeless? How many more the high earning homeless that earn more begging than I do working, only they get it tax free? How many have a lifestyle of petty crime to support their needs?

Oh, I'm almost certain that a few of these vagabonds are decent people looking for a lucky break, but why should I sympathise with the plight of a bunch of criminal drug abusers because among their number, a few people want a chance to make good? Further, why should I pay to shelter, feed and aid these people, without my consent?

This reminds me of the argument that raged once on the BBC forums when Tesco announced its big profits. There were numerous people whinging that their local stores were closing down in favour of big Tesco stores. I still do not understand the sympathy afforded these small stores. They offer an inferior product portfolio at a higher price, have less flexible opening hours, and staff that eyeball you if you're not considered local enough.

This is a massive generalisation, that all homeless are lazy, heavy drug users who won't work, as opposed to can't work. You may not realise it in your comfortable, well adjusted lifestyle and home but a great deal of people are far worse off than you.

The opportunities that have been presented just did not appear for them, they may have had come from a disruptive family, feel they may not be entitled to help, or because they feel an invasion of privacy with the plethora of forms, interviews and inductions in order to receive the help to pick them out of a rut. In the future try not to stereotype a person so easily, it's an easy thing to do but also wrong at the best of times.

Garin wrote:
> Did you really think you'd get meaningful discussion starting
> with the premise that homeless people are stupid/lazy and need
> to be rounded up for a reality TV show?

You're right, I wasn't expecting meaningful debate at all, simply ranting.