Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Whilst I do have utmost sympathy for individuals who find themselves homeless, there is more than enough social and charitable support in this country to prevent you ending up in such a predicament and to help you should you fall through regardless. As such people that persist in remaining homeless should be have help enforced upon them. There is no reason why anyone should remain homeless in modern Britain.


Yet in this so called "modern Britain" there are children and old people dying of starvation, cold and neglect, explain that one.... I'm sure they have all in their own way tried to get help.

muffintop Wrote:

------------------------------------------------------->

> Yet in this so called "modern Britain" there are

> children and old people dying of starvation, cold

> and neglect, explain that one.... I'm sure they

> have all in their own way tried to get help.



Seeking help 'in-your-own-way' I'm afraid just doesn't cut it as an argument, its not acceptable to drive 'in-your-own-way', or do many other things 'in-your-own-way'; there are structures and norms that it is the individual responsibility to use them to as efficiently as possibly to advance themselves. Child and elderly person neglect aside I would have to ask why people fail to make use of the help that is available. If the appropriate channels are followed the help is there, social support is there. You will find that the charitable sector covers those few areas not covered by social services, often usurping the role that should be played by government.


On the point of homeless persons being moved 'from one area to another' and without sounding heartless: Logically would an average homeless person reach a point of critical mass when there are no further profitable areas to go to if they are moved on often and severely enough?

TillieTrotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I also remember the guy outside the Lloyds Bank in

> Herne Hill, his name was Steve and he was quite

> erudite.


I remember giving him as the definition of the phrase 'a lazy beggar'.

There he was sat beside the ATM of a not very busy bank, can't have too much foot traffic during the day outside of the rush hour, and even then people wouldn't necessarily use it that much.

He was unfavourably compared to the far more industrious beggars I used to see in Clapham High Street and Brixton Road.

Maybe he had a greater sense of entitlement, perhaps?

A point I'd like to make here is that quite a few of these people aren't homeless at all. They're just professional beggars. I was chatting to one of them the other night outside the Stab & Crime, I'm sure you've seen him on Friday and Saturday nights scrounging for money on Lordship Lane by the EDT, Black Cherry and the Bishop. He's a black guy with a bit of a beard in his late 40s early 50s. I usually give him a couple of quid now and then as he's always very polite and bearing a smile as wide as Goose Green Roundabout but it turns out he lives on the Dog Kennel Hill Estate. Obviously, he's out of work but has turned to begging to help make ends meet.

When I used to work in Central London, some of the begging pitches there were also owned by dealers. Hence, the person begging could rent the picth for a period of time from the dealer. Beg up as much money as they could (often a fair whack in Covent Garden) the dealer would then come along, sell the beggar a snowball, then kick their heads in and take the rest of the money. Practice was called "taxing" dunno if is still goes on.


There was one woman. I used to know that would often get three or four hundred pound drops from tourists. She looked like a 10 yr old boy (and sex worked as one too).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...