Homelessness issues and funding discussion.

[Bletchleyite]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #9 originally in this thread.

Temporary accommodation has been provided...then a load of them smashed it up and got chucked out.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Temporary accommodation has been provided...then a load of them smashed it up and got chucked out.

Disgusting behaviour.

 

[bramling]

Disgusting behaviour.

I did read a news article about some being ejected from a hotel for causing damage and abusing staff. Perhaps I was naive in thinking this was the exception.

 

[jellybaby]

Temporary accommodation has been provided...then a load of them smashed it up and got chucked out.

Source?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Source?

Here's one example:

Rough sleepers are back on streets of Milton Keynes after their hotel stay ends in fiasco

A group of homeless people are sleeping on the streets of Central Milton Keynes after they were evicted for bad behaviour from a hotel paid for by the council.

www.miltonkeynes.co.uk

 

[Meerkat]

It’s not difficult to believe and very hard to do anything about.
the homeless are still wandering about here, and sitting in tight groups, drinking all day, and bellowing profanely at each other or down the phone.
The coppers probably don’t want to go near them as it will lead to a physical confrontation and arrest and you cant force them to behave without effectively arresting them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s not difficult to believe and very hard to do anything about.
the homeless are still wandering about here, and sitting in tight groups, drinking all day, and bellowing profanely at each other or down the phone.
The coppers probably don’t want to go near them as it will lead to a physical confrontation and arrest and you cant force them to behave without effectively arresting them.

I'm not sure what the solution here is, to be honest. I'm starting to think that if we can provide places for them in the long term and they fail to respect that then vagrancy should become a criminal offence, perhaps within defined areas like city centres.

 

[Meerkat]

I'm not sure what the solution here is, to be honest. I'm starting to think that if we can provide places for them in the long term and they fail to respect that then vagrancy should become a criminal offence, perhaps within defined areas like city centres.

I think that would have majority support, but that majority is quiet and cowed by the noisy bleeding hearts (a bad term but I can’t think of another to define the group).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that would have majority support, but that majority is quiet and cowed by the noisy bleeding hearts (a bad term but I can’t think of another to define the group).

I don't often come down on that side, but fundamentally I don't think wilful street living is something we should accept in our cities.

I care much less if someone decides to hole themselves up under a tree in the middle of the Highlands, but the effect in cities is very, very negative, so only those with genuinely no choice should be accepted as being on the streets, COVID or not.

 

[sheff1]

I'm starting to think that if we can provide places for them in the long term and they fail to respect that then vagrancy should become a criminal offence, perhaps within defined areas like city centres.

Vagrancy is a criminal offence in England & Wales. One, though, that most people charged with enforcing the law seem happy to ignore.

 

[bramling]

Vagrancy is a criminal offence in England & Wales. One, though, that most people charged with enforcing the law seem happy to ignore.

Unfortunately it’s very hard to enforce a law on someone that doesn’t have a home address. So once arrested and charged, realistically they’re going to be back out again and the revolving door goes round again, probably with a few police cells needing to be deep cleaned in the process. The police will have learned this through experience, unfortunately.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately it’s very hard to enforce a law on someone that doesn’t have a home address. So once arrested and charged, realistically they’re going to be back out again and the revolving door goes round again, probably with a few police cells needing to be deep cleaned in the process. The police will have learned this through experience, unfortunately.

An interesting question is how do we enforce it? There has to be a way but I can't think of it myself.

 

[bramling]

An interesting question is how do we enforce it? There has to be a way but I can't think of it myself.

I don’t think you could without providing compulsory-attendance hostel-type accommodation, with enforcement taken against people who don’t use it. How comfortable we’d all be with that, essentially forcing someone to live in a particular way, is a matter of conjecture.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t think you could without providing compulsory-attendance hostel-type accommodation, with enforcement taken against people who don’t use it. How comfortable we’d all be with that, essentially forcing someone to live in a particular way, is a matter of conjecture.

I have wondered about creating modern-day workhouses. I raised this with a friend who likes controversial debates, and he pointed out that at least one homelessness charity is actually in favour of that on the basis of "being cruel to be kind", along similar lines to sectioning people with severe mental illness.

 

[david1212]

Nobody fully entitled to be in the UK should be homeless. We all pay plenty of tax if just 20% VAT on most non-food purchases, 5% on energy etc while in various ways national government and local councils squander part of it. While charities have a role in trying to help this group have a meaningful life and supply a few items beyond the basics they should not be providing accommodation and main meals.

Hotel accommodation is both expensive and unsuitable especially now as generally rooms are unsuitable for being in for 23 out of 24 hours day after day. The only solution is specific hostels, maybe two styles one like a hotel with all meals prepared and served, a laundry service etc and another that is self-catering. For both there has to be private space equipped for spending significant time in and communal areas with facilities like pool / snooker tables, gym equipment etc.

Compliance is an issue with no easy answer, not least how do you punish those who do not comply when they have nothing to take away or deny them of nor a fixed address? While of course many different reasons why these people have ended up in this situation plus there is their outlook on life and their future these places must have a positive atmosphere, not end up almost as if an open prison. For those that can not in time be integrated into society I too think they need to be treated in a similar way to those that have severe mental illness.

Right now if successive governments had acted responsibly there would be no issue beyond changes to ensure social distancing inside and limiting the time this group are away from the accommodation.

 

[GusB]

I don’t think you could without providing compulsory-attendance hostel-type accommodation, with enforcement taken against people who don’t use it. How comfortable we’d all be with that, essentially forcing someone to live in a particular way, is a matter of conjecture.

I'm not sure if forcing people into hostels is such a good idea. Thankfully I've never had to experience such a place, but I've known a few people that have (some sadly no longer with us) over the years, and they're often not the most pleasant of places to live. I met a former ex of mine while he was living in a hostel. He ended up homeless in his late teens because his mother was a drug addict with quite a few mental health issues and he simply had to escape what was quite a violent environment. The hostel had quite strict rules about having to be in by a certain time of night, having to let staff know in advance if you were to be out overnight etc. It was bad enough trying to see eachother with the shifts that we worked, but on the rare occasions when time off coincided, it could be difficult trying to arrange a night out. Break the curfew too many times, and you're out.

Staff are quite often overworked and have their time taken up dealing with more disruptive residents. Hostels can also be quite violent places, which isn't surprising when you've got a whole load of people with differing and sometimes multiple issues crammed in. If someone has already tried to escape violence and abuse, surely you can see their reluctance to stay in a hostel, no matter how temporary the situation may be.

I have wondered about creating modern-day workhouses. I raised this with a friend who likes controversial debates, and he pointed out that at least one homelessness charity is actually in favour of that on the basis of "being cruel to be kind", along similar lines to sectioning people with severe mental illness.

Goodness me! It's nice to see that Victorian values are alive and well as we begin the third decade of the 21st Century. I'm not sure that I even know where to begin with this, but it's a big "no" from me. It shouldn't be a crime to be homeless. People who are homeless find themselves in their own individual situations for different reasons, and let's not forget that we are talking about individual human beings here, not just a homogenous group. If others are uncomfortable because there are people homeless on the streets - good! You damn well should feel uncomfortable about the fact that in 2020 we still have people living on the streets.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution. People with different needs require tailored solutions, and that costs money. Getting a roof over one's head is just the one step; keeping that roof can be the most challenging thing, especially when we have a punitive benefits system that fails to recognise the chaotic nature of the lives that homeless people often lead.

As for trying to enforce social distancing (and keeping the thread vaguely on topic), how is the message getting out to people who might not have access to TV, radio etc.? How do you convince someone to keep their distance from others because they might, or cause someone else to, die from a virus when they have multiple health issues and the health service has already failed them?

I think that would have majority support, but that majority is quiet and cowed by the noisy bleeding hearts (a bad term but I can’t think of another to define the group).

If the bleeding heart was a badge, I'd wear it with pride. That majority should be cowed - and ashamed.

 

[bramling]

I'm not sure if forcing people into hostels is such a good idea. Thankfully I've never had to experience such a place, but I've known a few people that have (some sadly no longer with us) over the years, and they're often not the most pleasant of places to live. I met a former ex of mine while he was living in a hostel. He ended up homeless in his late teens because his mother was a drug addict with quite a few mental health issues and he simply had to escape what was quite a violent environment. The hostel had quite strict rules about having to be in by a certain time of night, having to let staff know in advance if you were to be out overnight etc. It was bad enough trying to see eachother with the shifts that we worked, but on the rare occasions when time off coincided, it could be difficult trying to arrange a night out. Break the curfew too many times, and you're out.

Staff are quite often overworked and have their time taken up dealing with more disruptive residents. Hostels can also be quite violent places, which isn't surprising when you've got a whole load of people with differing and sometimes multiple issues crammed in. If someone has already tried to escape violence and abuse, surely you can see their reluctance to stay in a hostel, no matter how temporary the situation may be.


Goodness me! It's nice to see that Victorian values are alive and well as we begin the third decade of the 21st Century. I'm not sure that I even know where to begin with this, but it's a big "no" from me. It shouldn't be a crime to be homeless. People who are homeless find themselves in their own individual situations for different reasons, and let's not forget that we are talking about individual human beings here, not just a homogenous group. If others are uncomfortable because there are people homeless on the streets - good! You damn well should feel uncomfortable about the fact that in 2020 we still have people living on the streets.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution. People with different needs require tailored solutions, and that costs money. Getting a roof over one's head is just the one step; keeping that roof can be the most challenging thing, especially when we have a punitive benefits system that fails to recognise the chaotic nature of the lives that homeless people often lead.

As for trying to enforce social distancing (and keeping the thread vaguely on topic), how is the message getting out to people who might not have access to TV, radio etc.? How do you convince someone to keep their distance from others because they might, or cause someone else to, die from a virus when they have multiple health issues and the health service has already failed them?


If the bleeding heart was a badge, I'd wear it with pride. That majority should be cowed - and ashamed.

I can see both sides of this one.

I’m generally uncomfortable with the idea of curtailing freedoms, but equally I feel the rest of the population should be able to go about their business in towns and cities without being pestered.

I can’t stress enough how much of a parasite this has been in London during the lockdown - I’m not exaggerating when I say I don’t think I’ve been on a single train in the last month when there *hasn’t* been a beggar going up and down, and on occasions walking a few hundred yards from a station to one of my places of work it’s been typical to be pestered 10 or more times in the space of a couple of minutes. My patience has reduced to precisely zero.

In all honesty I would be all for making it mandatory to use provided facilities, if we could provide something that offers a genuine helping-hand in the right direction. In other words a development of the Big Issue concept. If we had reasonable hostel-type facilities with productive work then it should be possible to then make some attempt at enforcing a ban on sleeping rough.

Of course this does work on the assumption that the beggars we see are genuinely homeless.

 

[Starmill]

Loads of nonsense generalisation going on here.

The issues faced by homeless people are usually myriad. If you've never been homeless, and don't know anyone who has risked homelessness, it's easy to dismiss people or resort to the idea of enforcing the Vagrancy Act (which ought to be repealed - there's a growing campaign to do so as a symbolic commitment).

If you're homeless and experiencing other issues, either as a cause or symptom of homelessness, you deserve some genuine assistance to deal with the root cause of homelessness.

What has happened in these cases is that people who have been ignored for years by the rest of us, and by the government, have been bunged into hotel accommodation because of the virus. We know that's why, they know that's why. Nothing else has been done to provide the proper assistance necessary, and the hotels wouldn't have happened were it not for the virus. They're homeless people. Not idiots. Being surprised that dumping them into a hotel with little support for their mental and physical health, drug addiction / relationship with drink or ways to access critical state services such as Housing Benefit and Universal Credit, free training or qualifications, assistance with debt, bills or contact with family, employer schemes or job opportunities etc etc does not generate positive results is short-sighted. It's also unhelpful to generalise; some people will get a lot out of the emergency accommodation that is being paid for.

If I ever found myself with any of those problems, such as an overwhelming debt spiral or a serious issue with drink, that became so bad that I ended up sleeping rough, I would probably feel some antipathy to middle class poncery sending me to a nice hotel just because there's a pandemic, while not bothering to help me in any practical way with the other matters. Hotels are a stopgap - emergency accommodation. The feeling of living in a hotel isn't enjoyable for a period of more than a couple of weeks even for someone with plenty cash to go about.

A significant amount of time and effort - and crucially government money - is needed to solve the actual problems. A few hotels procured in bulk is merely the start.

 

[Cowley]

I'm not sure if forcing people into hostels is such a good idea. Thankfully I've never had to experience such a place, but I've known a few people that have (some sadly no longer with us) over the years, and they're often not the most pleasant of places to live. I met a former ex of mine while he was living in a hostel. He ended up homeless in his late teens because his mother was a drug addict with quite a few mental health issues and he simply had to escape what was quite a violent environment. The hostel had quite strict rules about having to be in by a certain time of night, having to let staff know in advance if you were to be out overnight etc. It was bad enough trying to see eachother with the shifts that we worked, but on the rare occasions when time off coincided, it could be difficult trying to arrange a night out. Break the curfew too many times, and you're out.

Staff are quite often overworked and have their time taken up dealing with more disruptive residents. Hostels can also be quite violent places, which isn't surprising when you've got a whole load of people with differing and sometimes multiple issues crammed in. If someone has already tried to escape violence and abuse, surely you can see their reluctance to stay in a hostel, no matter how temporary the situation may be.


Goodness me! It's nice to see that Victorian values are alive and well as we begin the third decade of the 21st Century. I'm not sure that I even know where to begin with this, but it's a big "no" from me. It shouldn't be a crime to be homeless. People who are homeless find themselves in their own individual situations for different reasons, and let's not forget that we are talking about individual human beings here, not just a homogenous group. If others are uncomfortable because there are people homeless on the streets - good! You damn well should feel uncomfortable about the fact that in 2020 we still have people living on the streets.

There is no one-size-fits-all solution. People with different needs require tailored solutions, and that costs money. Getting a roof over one's head is just the one step; keeping that roof can be the most challenging thing, especially when we have a punitive benefits system that fails to recognise the chaotic nature of the lives that homeless people often lead.

As for trying to enforce social distancing (and keeping the thread vaguely on topic), how is the message getting out to people who might not have access to TV, radio etc.? How do you convince someone to keep their distance from others because they might, or cause someone else to, die from a virus when they have multiple health issues and the health service has already failed them?


If the bleeding heart was a badge, I'd wear it with pride. That majority should be cowed - and ashamed.

Superb post.
We are judged as a society in the way that we treat our most vulnerable, and it’s as simple as that.
What you see is not necessarily what you get when it comes to people.

 

[Starmill]

Another thing to note - the emergency accommodation is in some places Travelodge. While the majority of Travelodge rooms are perfectly safe and clean and acceptable bare-bones stays, I've had one or two in my time that were really appalling. I even had mould at the St Mary's Street one in Edinburgh.

Even assuming that the council-procured Travelodges are all new or refurbished properties, would you want to live in a Travelodge room for more than two weeks or so???

 

[Bletchleyite]

It shouldn't be a crime to be homeless.

No, but being wilfully homeless in the sense of sleeping on city streets is not something I think that should be legal. I don't overly care if someone wants to lead a nomadic life, wild camping in the mountains or whatever, but people sleeping on city streets causes no end of social issues as well as being one.

The "workhouse" idea wouldn't be the same as Victorian slave labour, it would be a supervised combined supervised accommodation+food+work offering which would include counselling, medical treatment (including drug withdrawal) and training to allow movement into "real" society over a few years. If we accept that we can "section" people with mental health issues for their own protection, I'm not sure why this is any different - people who have been on the streets for years are usually suffering many mental issues, and just giving them a free flat won't solve that (as evidenced by the above article on them being kicked out of hotels). If it would I'd be all in favour, there aren't that many of them to make the cost prohibitive overall.

I am also in favour of offering free tickets home for those who aren't from that city who want them. If I was stuck on the streets in a foreign country (or even a different city) and I had friends/family at home but couldn't get there, I would more than welcome someone paying me to go there. Why not? People really do take this one totally the wrong way and I really have an issue with the "outrage bus" being wheeled out over it as if it was some form of deportation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Superb post.
We are judged as a society in the way that we treat our most vulnerable, and it’s as simple as that.
What you see is not necessarily what you get when it comes to people.

It wasn't a superb post, though, it criticised proposed solutions without proposing any realistic ones himself. Or would he prefer people just stayed on the streets? That's a valid opinion but I vehemently disagree with it - tents and mini-shanty-villages in our cities do not benefit anybody and cause much, much harm.

So, given that a significant subset of homeless people will damage and otherwise commit crime in the provided accommodation and therefore cannot sustain it[1], what is your solution?

[1] I'd be happy to give free studio or small one-bed flats to those who don't, perhaps on a 5-10 year rent free basis if it would work, but for many it won't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Another thing to note - the emergency accommodation is in some places Travelodge. While the majority of Travelodge rooms are perfectly safe and clean and acceptable bare-bones stays, I've had one or two in my time that were really appalling. I even had mould at the St Mary's Street one in Edinburgh.

Even assuming that the council-procured Travelodges are all new or refurbished properties, would you want to live in a Travelodge room for more than two weeks or so???

Travelodges are indeed rubbish (I'm more a Premier Inn man, just as when flying I'd rather team orange than team blue), but yes, I absolutely would rather live in one than in a tent (or worse a cardboard box) on the streets of a city, and would be absolutely flummoxed by the suggestion that anyone would wish to do otherwise.

(I agree on the specific one you mention, it's notably bad. I think the issue with them is generally that they get built and are fine for a bit, but aren't maintained or cleaned properly, so they end up in a poor state rather than, like some other hotels e.g. where old Marriotts and the likes have been sold into the "Quality Hotel" (ha!) brand, just being a bit worn and tired but still functional and clean)

 

[yorkie]

Unfortunately the reality is that, for a (highly visible) minority of homeless people, it is actually a lifestyle choice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unfortunately the reality is that, for a (highly visible) minority of homeless people, it is actually a lifestyle choice.

And that is the problem. I just don't see that that can or should be accepted.

 

[ainsworth74]

It wasn't a superb post, though, it criticised proposed solutions without proposing any realistic ones himself. Or would he prefer people just stayed on the streets? That's a valid opinion but I vehemently disagree with it - tents and mini-shanty-villages in our cities do not benefit anybody and cause much, much harm.

So, given that a significant subset of homeless people will damage and otherwise commit crime in the provided accommodation and therefore cannot sustain it[1], what is your solution?

Starmill nailed the answer:

If you're homeless and experiencing other issues, either as a cause or symptom of homelessness, you deserve some genuine assistance to deal with the root cause of homelessness.

What has happened in these cases is that people who have been ignored for years by the rest of us, and by the government, have been bunged into hotel accommodation because of the virus. We know that's why, they know that's why. Nothing else has been done to provide the proper assistance necessary, and the hotels wouldn't have happened were it not for the virus. They're homeless people. Not idiots. Being surprised that dumping them into a hotel with little support for their mental and physical health, drug addiction / relationship with drink or ways to access critical state services such as Housing Benefit and Universal Credit, free training or qualifications, assistance with debt, bills or contact with family, employer schemes or job opportunities etc etc does not generate positive results is short-sighted. It's also unhelpful to generalise; some people will get a lot out of the emergency accommodation that is being paid for.

Providing accommodation is small part of the puzzle. Even before the lock down I'm aware of plenty of people who were in and out of accommodation because they couldn't hold down a tenancy because of all the self-destructive behaviours that they were afflicted by. Addiction, debt, lack of skills, lack of education, etc etc. You want to tackle homelessness it isn't enough to just chuck them in a hotel and then wash your hands of them when it goes wrong. It takes money and time and effort to turn things around. It takes individual plans and procedures tailored to the individual. And even then it might not work the first time, or the second time, or the third time.

Plus, you want to deal with homelessness? It might also be a good idea to start dealing with the causes of homelessness before people even reach the streets (or hostels and B&Bs). Lot's of homeless people have mental health issues for example. For instance it might help if we started ensuring that access to mental health treatment was considerably easier or if those with mental health issues found it easier to access the benefits that they're entitled to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Providing accommodation is small part of the puzzle. Even before the lock down I'm aware of plenty of people who were in and out of accommodation because they couldn't hold down a tenancy because of all the self-destructive behaviours that they were afflicted by. Addiction, debt, lack of skills, lack of education, etc etc. You want to tackle homelessness it isn't enough to just chuck them in a hotel and then wash your hands of them when it goes wrong. It takes money and time and effort to turn things around. It takes individual plans and procedures tailored to the individual. And even then it might not work the first time, or the second time, or the third time.

Plus, you want to deal with homelessness? It might also be a good idea to start dealing with the causes of homelessness before people even reach the streets (or hostels and B&Bs). Lot's of homeless people have mental health issues for example. For instance it might help if we started ensuring that access to mental health treatment was considerably easier or if those with mental health issues found it easier to access the benefits that they're entitled to.

I certainly agree with that. The "workhouse" idea would include all that kind of support. Think of something similar to a meals-included student residence (which exist in a sort of similar way to support students in their first steps of living away from home), though for safety reasons it may be better that it is small studios rather than bedrooms with shared kitchens.

And yes, I agree prevention would be better than cure. Actually paying benefits promptly would be a start, and realising that withholding them is not a sensible sanction.

 

[farleigh]

I think Bletchleyite raises questions that some might not be comfortable with but that is better than ignoring the issue.

It is a complex debate but an interesting one. if we as a society really care then do we care enough to remove somebody's 'civil liberties' in their best interests (as we see it)? The state certainly has the power to do this in certain circumstances when a person is perceived to be a danger to themselves or others. But is homelessness a serious danger to the individual?

 

[bramling]

I think Bletchleyite raises questions that some might not be comfortable with but that is better than ignoring the issue.

It is a complex debate but an interesting one. if we as a society really care then do we care enough to remove somebody's 'civil liberties' in their best interests (as we see it)? The state certainly has the power to do this in certain circumstances when a person is perceived to be a danger to themselves or others. But is homelessness a serious danger to the individual?

If one considers factors such as life expectancy, impact on health and vulnerability then it could certainly be possible to make a case to say that it is a danger, as well as a nuisance to others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Bletchleyite raises questions that some might not be comfortable with but that is better than ignoring the issue.

It is a complex debate but an interesting one. if we as a society really care then do we care enough to remove somebody's 'civil liberties' in their best interests (as we see it)?

Well, to some extent that's happening at the moment (bringing the thread back on topic a bit more)... it's not an easy one, but it (as this proves) is not as simple as giving each homeless person a free flat, as if it was I'd be happy that my taxes were used to do that.

There are also people who are not homeless begging[1] on the streets, and I'll not mince my words about that one - that needs to be an arrestable offence with either a hefty fine or a short prison sentence. It is not OK at all in any form, it is basically fraud. It's the reason (alongside the money going on alcohol and drugs) that I never donate directly to homeless people, if I wish to donate for homelessness as I sometimes do, it goes to homelessness charities, ideally small, local ones with a low cost base for maximum benefit.

[1] I do see room for licensed street collections, and have no great problem with those, though as an aside I do strongly resent "chugging" (i.e. the signing up of people for direct debit donations through "guilt tripping" on the streets) and would be more than happy to see that not being a licensable activity and thus banned outright; I would only allow street collectors to take one-off donations and distribute leaflets so people can consider longer-term commitments in their own time.