100 million quid to tackle rough sleeping

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • Looks like current levels of homelessness are starting to interfere with Tory party members who want to enjoy their shopping trips without seeing homelessness.


    I guess some tories go to town less and are more privelidged than others because £100 million over ten years is a token gesture to appease the discomfort and distaste of lesser Tories.


    'Provision of truly affordable housing and a (government) state that supports personal finances that realistically pay the rent' (amalgamation of comments from various homelessness charities at this date) would be the way forward.

  • There is no way that this £100 million is going to do much more than be a very temporary and ineffective sticking plaster on a major problem.


    Scrapping universal credit (or seriously improving it) and the de-humanising processes for claiming PIP/DLA would help far more.


    As would actually having some really affordable social (council) housing ...


    Plus sorting out the NHS generally and specifically the provision of help for mental illness.

  • Whilever landlords are allowed to charge ridiculous rents, which are ultimately paid by the housing benifit, there will be a vast shortfall in what money is available. Some of these rents are fuckin immoral,never mind high. Is there any wonder people are sleeping rough when greedy cunts are charging up to a grand a month for a single fuckin room? Every week more of this country's assets travel further up the tree and the elite gain more money they don't need and will never spend. What the fuck's wrong with the system? And yet still people are being told they can't live as they choose on land they own. What sort of govt would rather see x man sleep in a shop doorway than on his own property?...course that wouldn't send any wealth up the fuckin ladder now, would it....

  • Maybe a lot of folks on here won't know that back in the primitive 1970's there was a government guy in every area, that was the Rent Officer. He saw to it that landlords couldn't charge more than what the State thought was a reasonable rent for private properties, depending on their size and situation, etc.

    I know this for sure because I had one or two run-ins with landlords who tried to charge well over the odds for cramped little terraced-house flats, and had to attend meetings and tribunals because of this. The landlord would turn up with well-suited lawyers, but the rent officer ruled them down. If the rent was thought to be unreasonable, they had to reduce it to what the state regulations said was a reasonable rent.


    You hear people moan about a nanny state. I can say from personal experience that it was good to have nanny there occasionally to slap these rich bastards down.

  • With the lack of a fair rent officers (who were employed I assume by Local Authorities/local government.) Rents have soared. Now we find many private landlords will not rent to those who depend on housing benefit because Local Authorities have set limits on rent allowance.

    Further pushing low income/ housing benefit dependent residents into poor quality properties, reducing available rentable housing stock to those less well off.


    Over the last 20 years the number of private housing landlords has increased and become a integral income stream for them. Buy to let mortgages have played a huge part in this growth. Replacing normal employment and final salary pension pots for many private landlords.


    It’s not just the very rich, top of the ladder who are now private landlords. Every Tom Dick and Harry with a bit to invest sees the rental property market as a get rich quick scheme. Although the government are trying to reduce the number of less established private landlords by removing mortgage tax relief on buy to let properties. The damage is now done. Council housing stock sold off. Private landlords dominating the market and a huge shortage of affordable rented properties. More people are forced into less than adequate rented housing or homelessness.

  • Time for me to rant - this happened before during that c*** John Major's tenancy as pm, the slimy sods created a homelessness crisis with extortionate interest rates and lack of social housing and mental health support and then tried to claim a solution - thank god we had A. John Bird to launch The Big Issue to provide real help.


    And here we are again, another load of slimy tory sods that have held wages back for years and soaring unemployment due to financial pressures and lack of mental health and social housing resources, and now they want to be the heroes again. Bunch of c words.

  • Yes, I think Maggie was the first to cut out a variety of helpful-to-the-less-well-off official posts, and the local government Rent Officer, decreed by national government up to that point, was one of the first to go.


    Making it possible to buy your council property at a heavily subsidised rate, as Maggie did, was a stroke of greed appeal almost without parallel. For most who actually had a council tenancy, that was. For those who didn't, it made council tenancies increasingly harder to get in the years that followed. Over time, less council housing was built, and more were sold off, so the pool of availability of such housing dried up. This got worse under Major, as said above, and even worse under Blair and Brown's blue New Labour.

    (Less council housing built under Blair than under Maggie's reign; what sort of socialism was that?)

  • The eighties were bleak in terms of the changes that took place. I lived in council houses at the time that were just the job for my large family. I never understood why my then father-in-law, an aggressive, old Labour, church-going, union shop-stewarding veteran of the Aldermaston marches embraced Thatcher's evil home-ownership policies so readily. I must have been so naive to believe that people lived by their principles. We argued many times over that issue. He accused me of stupidity and of not providing properly for his daughter and grandchildren. I was adamant that I was not going to be the one to steal my lovely house from the council housing stock. I couldn't see how people like me were going to be able to find places to live if the council stock became so depleted after they had been sold off at bargain prices and any receipts from sales were not going to be allowed to be recycled into replacement housing. I knew that whoever moved into that house next would buy it and I was right. I moved away into an area where there was nothing like the housing stock that had been available in the new town I had left. My only option was to buy and I discovered a new kind of poverty. The only place I could afford was a two bedroom cottage that was nothing like as big as we had become used to. It was tough, but we at least we had a shelter over our heads.


    I found the whole episode shocking and we are reaping the fruit of the greed of that time. I do think Thatcher and the governments that followed brought about long-lasting changes in many people's attitudes and what seemed so obvious to me at the time is now happening to many people. I have just heard from my brother in the USA who is about to lose his house after being unable to find a job following redundancy a year ago.


    I can only agree with you, zendaze, that we have to realign our priorities. The policies that are putting people on the streets are wrong and the results are tragic. Of course, climate change, population displacement and environmental pollution will probably mean we won't have to worry very much about anything before too much longer. What a mess.

  • I agree with the above posts, but one of the issues that bothers me most is that homeless people have also become demonised of recent years. To put it into perspective I sometimes buy coffee/lunch for a local homeless lad who begs near where I sometimes lunch. I can afford to pop into a café and eat it only costs me a couple of quid (It is not a honest as I make it sound as I get to feel as if I have done something to help, although my minimal amount of help is next to useless in the grand scheme of things).


    Recently a colleague told me that this particulary guy "makes quite a good living" begging there. The guy is genuinely homeless and often very, very cold. So I asked my colleague how he defined a "good living" bearing in mind he himself has a good flat, massive TV, comfortable life etc and his defence was along the lines of "if they didn't have drug problems and could be bothered to get a job" etc that homeless people "would not be in that position. Sadly I suspect those views reflect the views of a large percent of the populace, but are none the less very selfish indeed.

  • I agree with the above posts, but one of the issues that bothers me most is that homeless people have also become demonised of recent years. To put it into perspective I sometimes buy coffee/lunch for a local homeless lad who begs near where I sometimes lunch. I can afford to pop into a café and eat it only costs me a couple of quid (It is not a honest as I make it sound as I get to feel as if I have done something to help, although my minimal amount of help is next to useless in the grand scheme of things).


    Recently a colleague told me that this particulary guy "makes quite a good living" begging there. The guy is genuinely homeless and often very, very cold. So I asked my colleague how he defined a "good living" bearing in mind he himself has a good flat, massive TV, comfortable life etc and his defence was along the lines of "if they didn't have drug problems and could be bothered to get a job" etc that homeless people "would not be in that position. Sadly I suspect those views reflect the views of a large percent of the populace, but are none the less very selfish indeed.

    Sadly I think anyone in need has been demonised in recent years - homeless people are all druggies with comfy council flats pretending to be homeless, people on benefits are all work shy lazy scroungers, disabled people aren't really disabled, carers aren't doing anything other than watching telly all day, anyone from overseas is only coming here for a council house/benefits/to blow us all up and so on. Yes, some people are arseholes, yes some people fleece the system but personally i would rather give a couple of quid to someone who doesn't need it than not give it to someone who does, if that makes sense. I haven't always got spare cash to give to rough sleepers but if I have got a couple of quid I give it to them. The ones I've spoken to over the years always seem nice, friendly, genuine, just people having a shit time. One guy I stopped to talk to was almost in tears because he'd been sat there for hours and no-one had even looked at him. He just kept saying "people walk past me like I'm nothing". He wasn't begging, he was just sat with nowhere to go. Costs nothing to say good morning or just put your hand up to someone. If I knew that the UK had a first class drug rehab programme, that everyone with mental health issues could access support at any time, that we had plenty of cheap housing (even if only a room or a bedsit) and that there was genuinely no need for anyone to sleep out then I wouldn't give anyone money, I'd give them contact numbers of where to go to get help. But we don't have all those things and until we do I will continue doing the little bit I can. I know from my own experience that sometimes someone taking two minutes out of their day to say or do something nice can be the one thing that keeps you going for another day. It makes me sad that people seem to be more ready to judge and condemn now without giving the other person a chance to speak x

  • I have had long conversations with people in Cambridge working for one of the homeless charities and with others who seem to have experience working with people who have nowhere to live. Without exception they have gone down the route of encouraging us not to give money to people who are requesting it on the streets; buy them something nourishing to eat instead. I can't manage to internalise this. They may be right, I don't know, but I find this attitude patronising. It costs so little to put a little money in someone's cup - and allow grown adults to make a decision as to how they will spend their money (the same as we all do) - and it costs even less to stop for a chat. I have met people and heard so many tragic stories. I know I have been lied to on occasion, but what right have I to expect any truth? Any minuscule act on my part cannot begin to compensate for the terrible experiences that some people have suffered.

  • I have had long conversations with people in Cambridge working for one of the homeless charities and with others who seem to have experience working with people who have nowhere to live. Without exception they have gone down the route of encouraging us not to give money to people who are requesting it on the streets; buy them something nourishing to eat instead. I can't manage to internalise this. They may be right, I don't know, but I find this attitude patronising. It costs so little to put a little money in someone's cup - and allow grown adults to make a decision as to how they will spend their money (the same as we all do) - and it costs even less to stop for a chat. I have met people and heard so many tragic stories. I know I have been lied to on occasion, but what right have I to expect any truth? Any minuscule act on my part cannot begin to compensate for the terrible experiences that some people have suffered.

    That's the way I feel, Marshlander, charities have a tendency to infantalise people and make decisions for them. On top of that, homeless people don't have anywhere to store or keep food so what are they to do if they've just eaten and then someone offers to buy them something, particularly in the winter when they need to be eating hot food, not sandwiches. Much is made of them being alcoholics or drug users - everyone I know has a well paid job, a nice home, a family, a good social life - and they all need a drink or a smoke at the end of the day. Yet a bloke in a doorway with his entire world in a carrier bag is supposed to get through the day on nutritious sandwiches? I agree with you, I don't like the attitude - as a society, we've basically refused to provide people with homes, healthcare or compassion, and now we want to decide what they can and can't eat as well? People are horrified at the prospect of giving a pound to someone who 'might' spend it inappropriately but will happily go home and put in another order to some online tax dodger who 'might' cream another couple of million quid into an off shore account this year. Makes no sense to me x

  • I have had long conversations with people in Cambridge working for one of the homeless charities and with others who seem to have experience working with people who have nowhere to live. Without exception they have gone down the route of encouraging us not to give money to people who are requesting it on the streets; buy them something nourishing to eat instead. I can't manage to internalise this. They may be right, I don't know, but I find this attitude patronising. It costs so little to put a little money in someone's cup - and allow grown adults to make a decision as to how they will spend their money (the same as we all do) - and it costs even less to stop for a chat. I have met people and heard so many tragic stories. I know I have been lied to on occasion, but what right have I to expect any truth? Any minuscule act on my part cannot begin to compensate for the terrible experiences that some people have suffered.

    I agree, but I do buy food for homeless peeps - on a really cold day a cup of hot chocolate brought to these guys means they don't have to leave their pitch, and they don't have to queue up in store, which has its own set of social problems. I get round it simply by saying "you look cold m8, get I gat you a hot drink", the answer has always been "yes please".

  • Where I live is a rough party zone for upper-chavs who want to get smashed on the cheap. You should see the pile of trash they live behind.


    There's a group of Polish homeless who turn up on Sunday morning and clean up all the cans and bottles to drink the left overs. Then they put the cans and the bottles in the rubbish bins! They do what the council should do.


    The homeless (at least the ones who choose to be) fulfil a useful social function.

  • I agree, but I do buy food for homeless peeps - on a really cold day a cup of hot chocolate brought to these guys means they don't have to leave their pitch, and they don't have to queue up in store, which has its own set of social problems. I get round it simply by saying "you look cold m8, get I gat you a hot drink", the answer has always been "yes please".

    Yes, completely, I think that's the difference between doing someone a favour and assuming a superiority over them (which is the way I see the messages of 'don't give them cash, only buy them food'). I've offered to buy people food when I've not had cash on me and I'm going to buy something for myself - like you say, Firestarter, it's practical and there's often more than one way to help someone out :) I think my main issue is with charities - not all are bad but large salaries to charity bosses are a no no in my book and having dealt with a few on behalf of my son I've found some have a lack of ethics and honesty as well. Plus I don't like being told what to do! Lol :)

  • Yes, completely, I think that's the difference between doing someone a favour and assuming a superiority over them (which is the way I see the messages of 'don't give them cash, only buy them food'). I've offered to buy people food when I've not had cash on me and I'm going to buy something for myself - like you say, Firestarter, it's practical and there's often more than one way to help someone out :) I think my main issue is with charities - not all are bad but large salaries to charity bosses are a no no in my book and having dealt with a few on behalf of my son I've found some have a lack of ethics and honesty as well. Plus I don't like being told what to do! Lol :)

    Re your point on charities I did some work for a local charity some years back as I genuinely wanted to help out. The charity on question was utterly corrupt, sadly it soured my view of charities as a result

  • £100 million will have about as much effect as pissing in an ocean :flirt:

    All it will do is create a shitload more jobs for the already homed & doing quite nicely thank you very much.

    I wish the council's would leave the God damn toilets open til past 6pm. Not all of us want to pee behind a bush. Some of us have standards. Put the bloody 100 million towards that! Showers wouldn't go amiss either.

    Maybe a free vending machine with hot coffee? On one of those token card things. No cash involved.

    All this bloody side stepping around it. Drives me nuts.

    They don't want to eradicate homelessness! They just want to eradicate the homeless :mad:

    Glad I've got my little caravan now. Least I can make a cuppa.

  • Got it in one! 100 million is fuck all, they'll probably spend most of it building a conference centre so they can hold a fuckin all expenses paid conference to decide how to spend it! Like you say, start with giving us back the public toilets they've shut down, never mind building new ones! Public showers would be very useful too, nearest ones I know of are in Whitby, or motorway svcs... No good if you aren't driving! Robbing bastards will as usual find a way to channel the budget into their own greedy fuckin big pockets!

  • Got it in one! 100 million is fuck all, they'll probably spend most of it building a conference centre so they can hold a fuckin all expenses paid conference to decide how to spend it! Like you say, start with giving us back the public toilets they've shut down, never mind building new ones! Public showers would be very useful too, nearest ones I know of are in Whitby, or motorway svcs... No good if you aren't driving! Robbing bastards will as usual find a way to channel the budget into their own greedy fuckin big pockets!

    It's 40p to have so much as a wee at Whitby in the council toilets.

    I don't have non of it, I march into Wetherspoons & take no bloody notice.

    It's a brave man who's gonna get in my way.

  • I bought a radar key off ebay that fits the disabled toilets in most places. More room & usually cleaner, much better for my big ass to manoeuvre. Key wasn't expensive & has paid for itself many times over. Main advantage is you can access the bogs anytime of the day. Keep it to yourself tho, don't tell anybody.......

  • I bought a radar key off ebay that fits the disabled toilets in most places. More room & usually cleaner, much better for my big ass to manoeuvre. Key wasn't expensive & has paid for itself many times over. Main advantage is you can access the bogs anytime of the day. Keep it to yourself tho, don't tell anybody.......

    I'll keep it under my hat ;)

  • I bought a radar key off ebay that fits the disabled toilets in most places. More room & usually cleaner, much better for my big ass to manoeuvre. Key wasn't expensive & has paid for itself many times over. Main advantage is you can access the bogs anytime of the day. Keep it to yourself tho, don't tell anybody.......

    main disadvantage is that soon ever Tom Dick and junkie Mick will be using the disabled bogs. Then, When a genuine carer and a less able-bodied/disabled person needs to use the facilities. There’s shit smeared all over the walls, piss on the seat and floor. They are free to use for disabled people for a reason. If they could access Waitrose bogs after hours or pub bogs, they would love to do so. For many they are paying minimum wage (£7.83) to a carer. They don’t get far for 40p


    Next time your desperate, spare a thought for those it was provided for. :wag:

  • I class myself as a bit more regimental than that matey, can't ever recall treating fscilities in that manner. I actually held a blue badge for a number of years & was awarded full DLA too. Not that it matters, but I gave both up voluntarily when I felt I no longer qualified for it. So now I walk from "ordinary " parking spaces when I feel able, & survive without the extra benifit. I do however, for personal reasons sometimes struggle in the pitifully small standard toilet cubicles. When i feel able to straddle the bog in order to open & close the fucking door, then I do. When my condition makes that difficult, I use the disabled cubicle, which I feel entitled to do. If I wasn't diabetic, no doubt i could wait till I was back home/at my van, but sadly that's not always the case especially at night when the only people who seem entitled to take a piss are the disabled.

    Believe me when I say that I do think about it, everytime I am caught short. Hope that lets me off the hook.♿