Personally, I trust the average homeless guy on the street less than a charity set up to help the homeless.
In my country, it's pretty hard to end up on the street unless you have a serious drug/alcohol addiction, mental health problem or both. I see the same homeless guys day in, day out, and regardless of how much money people chuck them, their situation doesn't change.
So I'd rather give cash to a charity that runs a shelter, provides food and gives counselling to help people out of homelessness, than chuck one guy a few pennies or a sandwich just because he was on the corner of a street I happened to be on.
Anyway, yeah people get a buzz out of doing nice things. Although kinda undermines any altruistic motive to brag about it on a website :P
What country is that? What, no kids on the street because of abuse, including sexual, at home? No women fleeing family violence with or without their kids? No people who lost their job and then their rented accommodation and there's not enough subsidised housing to go round?
"What, no kids on the street because of abuse, including sexual, at home?"
If by kids you mean under 18s, then the numbers on the street are very low. Street children are incredibly rare in the UK and most are promptly picked up by social services. You will still get teenagers running away, or kids in families living in temporary accommodation, but you're unlikely to see any begging on a street corner.
"No women fleeing family violence with or without their kids?"
Sure - they can usually flee to Women's Refuges, or the local council is legally obligated to find you alternative living arrangements (temp. shelter) and advise on finding new permanent shelter.
If there are children 'at risk', the local authority also has an obligation to carry out an investigation, and taking the necessary precautions to protect those children and prosecute any offending adults.
You're unlikely to find many homeless people who are homeless solely because of domestic abuse in the UK.
"No people who lost their job and then their rented accommodation and there's not enough subsidised housing to go round?"
If you lose your job, you receive job seekers allowance to live on until you find work. If at the time you're in rented accommodation the local council will often pay your rent for a limited time (or find you temp. accommodation if you're evicted) until they can find you permanent council housing - in most towns and cities in the UK there is sufficient council housing available, albeit not always in the ideal location or condition.
it's far from 'paradise', but as I said before, it's pretty hard to accidentally fall through the net and end up on the streets here. Tends to be a result of individual problems, rather than systemic problems.
Well that all sounds very utopian, but from what I hear it's not quite as perfect as all that.
Are there enough Women's Refuges? I ask this because in Australia there's a huge push to "raise awareness of family violence" but never any money for more refuges: more women leave violent relationships because of the "raised awareness" and the associated perception that the authorities actually CARE about it and find nowhere to go except in some states temporary subsidised motel accommodation.
I know your local councils have always done a lot more for the disadvantaged than here in Australia, where they're mainly concerned with collecting rates & garbage, dog laws and a bit of mainly window dressing type welfare.
Is the job seekers allowance enough to live on? Here it's so low there's no way people can afford private rental and assisted housing has been wound down by successive governments of both persuasions.
I've always envied the UK's council housing, having known people from both England and Scotland who'd lied in it.
If it's as good as you say, congratulations to all concerned. My impression was that Thatcher so ruined the welfare system in the UK that it had never recovered: I stand corrected.
No, it's not perfect. But in my experience, it's a fairly robust system, even with its flaws.
There are women's refuges in the UK, but I honestly can't say whether there are sufficient or insufficient numbers to meet demand. What I do know, is in recent years the funding for refuges has been cut back, so many refuges have closed.
JSA (job seeker's allowance) is enough to cover food, utility bills and light travel. I was on JSA a couple of years ago, whilst also receiving housing benefits to cover my rent and council tax temporarily until my situation improved. It was a struggle, but I found life easier on benefits than for the first few months after I started working.
Thatcher was a bit before my time, so I'm not entirely sure about the impact she had upon the welfare system. But the welfare system was at least good enough to enable my mother to raise me and my brother well (it helped in no small part that mum was sensible and creative with her money).
I don't know how the UK welfare system compares to Australia's - I expect you have a better idea. And I don't mean to paint the picture of the UK as some utopia; the benefit system has been under a lot of scrutiny in recent times, mainly from people suggesting it is too generous and too open to fraud. There are also people correlating the increasing use of charity food banks by people in the UK with the cuts to benefits by the government, suggesting the poorest have been made poorer, and perhaps affording food has been made more difficult.
All I know is, based on my first-hand experience, I can't imagine ever finding myself homeless in the UK without seriously messing up somehow.
Thanks for your thoughtful and informed (and literate!) replies to my questions: I appreciate it.
Regarding women's refuges, if funding has been cut back resulting in closures I'll bet that as a result there will be countless women and their children in the category of "hidden homeless" as there are in Australia: either staying in violent relationships, living in their cars, couch surfing, moving into unsatisfactory relationships as an alternative to their kids going into care because they have nowhere safe to live.
In Australia there are periodic melodramatic "exposures" by tabloid TV, radio shock jocks and/or self-righteous politicians of all persuasions about welfare "bludgers" rorting the system, but in my experience that's far less common than the bureaucratic process making it unnecessarily difficult or impossible for claimants to get what they're entitled to. And of course, any money rorted in the welfare system pales into insignificance when compared to the tax rorts of the filthy rich and the perks of poliicians.
You must be in a European country, I take it? They make a point keep people from becoming economically idle (not that its perfect). IMO, people can't exactly get back on their feet without obvious food/shelter stuff. I think these people need to feel hope and purpose. Fact is, richer people fall into the same problems, but they have resources (monetary/social) to slack off if life gets too be too much. They also have easier connections into self-sustaining opportunities. Most truly homeless people don't have such advantages. Thinking about this? Homelessness shouldn't even exist in a first world country, nowadays.
Now, vagabonds? That's a different story. I'm okay with that. No one has to follow the same life paths. Maybe the guy was a vagabond? I don't know. Maybe he was intending to score drugs? Fine, whatever, not that I think addiction is a good option. Like, as long as my little gift gave someone a happy reprieve, kewl. :-)
Yeah, people can still brag about their random acts of kindness. Anonymity makes no difference.
I'm in the UK, so yeah, Europe. Our welfare system is a pretty secure safety net, in general. It's rare to slip through and end up destitute without a little (or a lot) of self-destructive behaviour.
Homelessness isn't something you can ever get rid of entirely - there will always be people who fall out of 'the system', or choose to leave it.
I'm the opposite of you, in so much as I think charities often provide a brilliant function in society. The best ones let you know exactly where your money is going.
Aha, the UK! No wonder you are the opposite of me. I'm not you, but I think the UK is open to this idea of public welfare. A major number of people agree that it takes community effort to take care of people because the life quality + economic benefits go up. There are monetary costs. They get shared through taxation. That is a huge dirty word in the US even if that action evidently can create a very stable, healthier community. We still don't have universal healthcare. In the UK? I figure it is a lot easier to get help. Here? It is truly sink or swim.
I confess to not knowing the intricacies of the system in the US - but I thought some kind of provisions were available for the poor; food stamps, welfare payments, social housing etc.?
And isn't Obamacare - or whatever it's actually called - supposed to support those that can't afford health insurance?
I gave money + food to a homeless guy. Is that normal?
← View full post
Personally, I trust the average homeless guy on the street less than a charity set up to help the homeless.
In my country, it's pretty hard to end up on the street unless you have a serious drug/alcohol addiction, mental health problem or both. I see the same homeless guys day in, day out, and regardless of how much money people chuck them, their situation doesn't change.
So I'd rather give cash to a charity that runs a shelter, provides food and gives counselling to help people out of homelessness, than chuck one guy a few pennies or a sandwich just because he was on the corner of a street I happened to be on.
Anyway, yeah people get a buzz out of doing nice things. Although kinda undermines any altruistic motive to brag about it on a website :P
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
What country is that? What, no kids on the street because of abuse, including sexual, at home? No women fleeing family violence with or without their kids? No people who lost their job and then their rented accommodation and there's not enough subsidised housing to go round?
Where is this paradise?
--
disthing
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
"What, no kids on the street because of abuse, including sexual, at home?"
If by kids you mean under 18s, then the numbers on the street are very low. Street children are incredibly rare in the UK and most are promptly picked up by social services. You will still get teenagers running away, or kids in families living in temporary accommodation, but you're unlikely to see any begging on a street corner.
"No women fleeing family violence with or without their kids?"
Sure - they can usually flee to Women's Refuges, or the local council is legally obligated to find you alternative living arrangements (temp. shelter) and advise on finding new permanent shelter.
If there are children 'at risk', the local authority also has an obligation to carry out an investigation, and taking the necessary precautions to protect those children and prosecute any offending adults.
You're unlikely to find many homeless people who are homeless solely because of domestic abuse in the UK.
"No people who lost their job and then their rented accommodation and there's not enough subsidised housing to go round?"
If you lose your job, you receive job seekers allowance to live on until you find work. If at the time you're in rented accommodation the local council will often pay your rent for a limited time (or find you temp. accommodation if you're evicted) until they can find you permanent council housing - in most towns and cities in the UK there is sufficient council housing available, albeit not always in the ideal location or condition.
it's far from 'paradise', but as I said before, it's pretty hard to accidentally fall through the net and end up on the streets here. Tends to be a result of individual problems, rather than systemic problems.
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well that all sounds very utopian, but from what I hear it's not quite as perfect as all that.
Are there enough Women's Refuges? I ask this because in Australia there's a huge push to "raise awareness of family violence" but never any money for more refuges: more women leave violent relationships because of the "raised awareness" and the associated perception that the authorities actually CARE about it and find nowhere to go except in some states temporary subsidised motel accommodation.
I know your local councils have always done a lot more for the disadvantaged than here in Australia, where they're mainly concerned with collecting rates & garbage, dog laws and a bit of mainly window dressing type welfare.
Is the job seekers allowance enough to live on? Here it's so low there's no way people can afford private rental and assisted housing has been wound down by successive governments of both persuasions.
I've always envied the UK's council housing, having known people from both England and Scotland who'd lied in it.
If it's as good as you say, congratulations to all concerned. My impression was that Thatcher so ruined the welfare system in the UK that it had never recovered: I stand corrected.
--
disthing
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
No, it's not perfect. But in my experience, it's a fairly robust system, even with its flaws.
There are women's refuges in the UK, but I honestly can't say whether there are sufficient or insufficient numbers to meet demand. What I do know, is in recent years the funding for refuges has been cut back, so many refuges have closed.
JSA (job seeker's allowance) is enough to cover food, utility bills and light travel. I was on JSA a couple of years ago, whilst also receiving housing benefits to cover my rent and council tax temporarily until my situation improved. It was a struggle, but I found life easier on benefits than for the first few months after I started working.
Thatcher was a bit before my time, so I'm not entirely sure about the impact she had upon the welfare system. But the welfare system was at least good enough to enable my mother to raise me and my brother well (it helped in no small part that mum was sensible and creative with her money).
I don't know how the UK welfare system compares to Australia's - I expect you have a better idea. And I don't mean to paint the picture of the UK as some utopia; the benefit system has been under a lot of scrutiny in recent times, mainly from people suggesting it is too generous and too open to fraud. There are also people correlating the increasing use of charity food banks by people in the UK with the cuts to benefits by the government, suggesting the poorest have been made poorer, and perhaps affording food has been made more difficult.
All I know is, based on my first-hand experience, I can't imagine ever finding myself homeless in the UK without seriously messing up somehow.
--
Ellenna
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thanks for your thoughtful and informed (and literate!) replies to my questions: I appreciate it.
Regarding women's refuges, if funding has been cut back resulting in closures I'll bet that as a result there will be countless women and their children in the category of "hidden homeless" as there are in Australia: either staying in violent relationships, living in their cars, couch surfing, moving into unsatisfactory relationships as an alternative to their kids going into care because they have nowhere safe to live.
In Australia there are periodic melodramatic "exposures" by tabloid TV, radio shock jocks and/or self-righteous politicians of all persuasions about welfare "bludgers" rorting the system, but in my experience that's far less common than the bureaucratic process making it unnecessarily difficult or impossible for claimants to get what they're entitled to. And of course, any money rorted in the welfare system pales into insignificance when compared to the tax rorts of the filthy rich and the perks of poliicians.
Good points. Brag? I'm anonymous. Just curious.
You must be in a European country, I take it? They make a point keep people from becoming economically idle (not that its perfect). IMO, people can't exactly get back on their feet without obvious food/shelter stuff. I think these people need to feel hope and purpose. Fact is, richer people fall into the same problems, but they have resources (monetary/social) to slack off if life gets too be too much. They also have easier connections into self-sustaining opportunities. Most truly homeless people don't have such advantages. Thinking about this? Homelessness shouldn't even exist in a first world country, nowadays.
Now, vagabonds? That's a different story. I'm okay with that. No one has to follow the same life paths. Maybe the guy was a vagabond? I don't know. Maybe he was intending to score drugs? Fine, whatever, not that I think addiction is a good option. Like, as long as my little gift gave someone a happy reprieve, kewl. :-)
--
disthing
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
Yeah, people can still brag about their random acts of kindness. Anonymity makes no difference.
I'm in the UK, so yeah, Europe. Our welfare system is a pretty secure safety net, in general. It's rare to slip through and end up destitute without a little (or a lot) of self-destructive behaviour.
Homelessness isn't something you can ever get rid of entirely - there will always be people who fall out of 'the system', or choose to leave it.
I'm the opposite of you, in so much as I think charities often provide a brilliant function in society. The best ones let you know exactly where your money is going.
--
Anonymous Post Author
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Aha, the UK! No wonder you are the opposite of me. I'm not you, but I think the UK is open to this idea of public welfare. A major number of people agree that it takes community effort to take care of people because the life quality + economic benefits go up. There are monetary costs. They get shared through taxation. That is a huge dirty word in the US even if that action evidently can create a very stable, healthier community. We still don't have universal healthcare. In the UK? I figure it is a lot easier to get help. Here? It is truly sink or swim.
--
disthing
8 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Here? It is truly sink or swim."
I confess to not knowing the intricacies of the system in the US - but I thought some kind of provisions were available for the poor; food stamps, welfare payments, social housing etc.?
And isn't Obamacare - or whatever it's actually called - supposed to support those that can't afford health insurance?
Excuse my ignorance if I'm totally wrong :/