David Cameron's Assault on the Homeless

[Pensioner]

You are a dickhead Seth.

Pen, please note that personal attacks are against the rules.

Have you heard seth preach? He sounds like a catholic priest on steroids, Monty Python could not do a better job.

What does that have to do with violating the rules here? If you don't like preaching, you are perfectly capable of fucking off elsewhere, aren't you?

You make me laugh mate, full of bullshit but funny.

[charlou]

Dev, Pen, Seth .. just in case you forgot what the topic's about ...

I volunteered through 2 winters for a rough sleeper supper at Emmanuel House (for the nottinghamites!).

The supper night only ran through winter and the issues were often immediate, soaked bedding, sub zero temperatures, the council closing public loos.

I used to muse that if you asked anyone present with a significant physical disability to leave a few would leave, the deaf bloke, the one on crutches and a couple less regulars likewise impaired. Then if I asked again would those with a learning disability please go, more would leave, the 20 something who carries a colouring book and goes from one boyfriend to the next - all street sleepers, and a couple others maybe just as effected but less obvious without the crayons! Then if I asked that all those with severe MH problems go one of my faves would be offski, I first worked there while pregnant and used to reply (as you do) when he spoke to me, I don't think I ever stopped replying but I did learn he was talking to someone I couldn't see not me. After having Munch, the second winter he said something that pulled me up short - it seemed real, I asked what he'd said and he DEFINITELY asked after the baby! The one and only time he genuinely spoke to me, very brief, once I replied he talked nonsense again. The guy whoo kept missing his dinner washing his hands would have to go and the one that sat scared at the back. I think a fair portion of the others too, those with frequent suicide attempts, etc etc.

By this point there would only be a few left in the day centre. If I then asked can those who grew up an care, people who can't read and those fresh out the nick please leave - I think someone or even 2 or 3 would be left, although I wouldn't bet much on it.

Obviously that I worked hard winters will have flavoured those I saw, perhaps those that just prefer a free life winter in. Issues like addiction were rife, fucking rife, so was rejection of authority but issues like these spread faster and harder amongst the most vulnerable - the girl with the crayons used smack and there's nothing so unusual about that, not in that world.

I think people see the self damaging behaviour and conclude it holds the explanation needed, a hot meal won't change it so cut the hot meal and the person will change. That (to me) is intolerably ignorant of the variety and causes of people 'dropping out' - especially during wet, sub zero winter. Giving someone a meal is just that, it's a hot meal, a warm chair for an hour or two, a chance to see the outreach nurse, maybe get dry socks. To make that illegal - to outlaw it, is despotic.

Yep, I think anyone who has actually worked in this area (and many who don't) would share your view, floppit ..

The first sentence of the last paragraph is a good observation, too ... and seems to be true of those who have black and white views about social issues, in general. People are considered "good" or "bad", "deserving" or "underserving", If they're being considered at all ... Morality getting in the way of ethics ...

[MarkS]

Seth, i wonder do the homeless people you have interviewed get handouts from the government - or maybe private charitable organizations?

Some do. Most take meals and other donations from private charitable organizations. Back before they cleaned out the homeless camps along the creek and made it illegal to camp out, my editor and his sons borrowed my pickup truck to deliver a load of firewood to the camps during a cold snap with sub-zero temperatures. Many people donated directly to the homeless, preferring not to give money to organizations that divert a portion of the donations to administrative costs.

Also I have a hard time recognizing the UK from your descriptions of it! I think most people here would be puzzled by your description of it as socialist, especially when compared to some other European countries. I've never been to the States but it's our impression here that it's Americans who are uptight, mainly about sex - that superbowl Janet Jackson incident for example would have have raised nothing more than a loud guffaw here - but I digress.

Socialism always looks good to the proletarian dependent class, from the inside. But most of them have no understanding of how the entitlement programs they depend on actually get paid for.

Homeless people freeze to death in the winter.

Only rarely enough that it generally makes the news when they do so. The reality is that when the weather gets brutal enough to kill, outreach programs and shelters go into overdrive to shelter people till the cold abates. Keep in mind that here in the US, there is a significant voluntary aspect to exposure to cold weather. Those who don't care for the cold can migrate to warmer climes. The hard-core homeless in Colorado are largely here by choice.

Many have mental health problems, many are traumatized veterans who can't deal with civilian life, are alcoholic, drug addicted, females turn to prostitution, in short while there may be a few free spirits out there, most are dependent on outside help and would sink if it weren't there. Most of us here think government should (in conjunction with private charities) try to help.

If people want help, they can always ask for help. There are plenty of charitable organizations out there to help, and that should be how such things are done.

Sorry don't know how to quote in bits!

The impulse for charity (especially that which involves actually getting out and doing something) is of course admirable, but I think money just given to homeless people would end up being spent on alcohol, drugs or would just get stolen. As a side note I think administration has had a bad rap. Try getting along without it! (You may have guessed I work as an administrator...)

In the next bit about socialism you seem to be saying that it feels good from the inside but really its bad. How can the UK be socialist with privatised utilities, devolved provinces, super rich tax dodgers, a state religion and a hereditary monarchy?

Obviously i know nothing about the homeless in the states, but here in the UK there's no escape from the cold and wet. People here are not generally homeless by choice.

People can and do ask for help. But many find it impossible to function in society without help with the most basic tasks. I agree with the poster who said that despite the Labour gov's many faults, their initiatives on homelessness were good. Now the homeless are increasing, just like last time the Fucking Tories were in. I remember the cardboard city near Waterloo Station in the early 90's.

[devogue]

Dev, Pen, Seth .. just in case you forgot what the topic's about ...

The Judean People's Front?

[Pappa]

I think people see the self damaging behaviour and conclude it holds the explanation needed, a hot meal won't change it so cut the hot meal and the person will change. That (to me) is intolerably ignorant of the variety and causes of people 'dropping out' - especially during wet, sub zero winter. Giving someone a meal is just that, it's a hot meal, a warm chair for an hour or two, a chance to see the outreach nurse, maybe get dry socks. To make that illegal - to outlaw it, is despotic.

Yep, I think anyone who has actually worked in this area (and many who don't) would share your view, floppit ..

The first sentence of the last paragraph is a good observation, too ... and seems to be true of those who have black and white views about social issues, in general. People are considered "good" or "bad", "deserving" or "underserving", If they're being considered at all ... Morality getting in the way of ethics ...

It's a bit tangential, but I'm immediately reminded of a common gripe of mine.

Why do we spend so little money on the people most in need of our support?

Here in the UK, social services are so underfunded that only the most at risk children are given any kind of supervision and support. There have been some high profile mistakes (like Baby P) of those who slipped through the net. Those mistakes may not be representative of the system as a whole, but they are indicative of a system where there are simply not enough resources to deal with anything other than the emergencies. Thousands of kids that could be helped out in a variety of ways are neglected. Many of these people may grow up to be expensive problems for us all (and that's excluding any ethical responsibilities we have towards people who need our help).

Likewise, homeless people get very limited support from the Government. The niche is filled mostly by charities that give hand-to-mouth support.

And all the time, we're pissing billions against the wall on stupid wars, and other waste.

[laklak]

Dev, Pen, Seth .. just in case you forgot what the topic's about ...

The Judean People's Front?

SPLITTER!

[.Morticia.]

I think people see the self damaging behaviour and conclude it holds the explanation needed, a hot meal won't change it so cut the hot meal and the person will change. That (to me) is intolerably ignorant of the variety and causes of people 'dropping out' - especially during wet, sub zero winter. Giving someone a meal is just that, it's a hot meal, a warm chair for an hour or two, a chance to see the outreach nurse, maybe get dry socks. To make that illegal - to outlaw it, is despotic.

Yep, I think anyone who has actually worked in this area (and many who don't) would share your view, floppit ..

The first sentence of the last paragraph is a good observation, too ... and seems to be true of those who have black and white views about social issues, in general. People are considered "good" or "bad", "deserving" or "underserving", If they're being considered at all ... Morality getting in the way of ethics ...

It's a bit tangential, but I'm immediately reminded of a common gripe of mine.

Why do we spend so little money on the people most in need of our support?

Here in the UK, social services are so underfunded that only the most at risk children are given any kind of supervision and support. There have been some high profile mistakes (like Baby P) of those who slipped through the net. Those mistakes may not be representative of the system as a whole, but they are indicative of a system where there are simply not enough resources to deal with anything other than the emergencies. Thousands of kids that could be helped out in a variety of ways are neglected. Many of these people may grow up to be expensive problems for us all (and that's excluding any ethical responsibilities we have towards people who need our help).

Likewise, homeless people get very limited support from the Government. The niche is filled mostly by charities that give hand-to-mouth support.

And all the time, we're pissing billions against the wall on stupid wars, and other waste.

because the people with the money, who took that money unethically through exploitation, don't want to pay their share

and because people are distracted by jingoism

because people have been taught that government is about balancing books

and because government isn't there to serve the people, it's there to facilitate Capital.

[Svartalf]

But the point was that if private charity and volunteer help isn't enough to serve the needs of the homeless, as objectors to Cameron's plan claim, what does that say about the charitable instincts of Brits?

It says that our government, which we see as the main agent for local social improvement and development ahead of charity (reflected in the higher taxes we pay), has decided to abandon the homeless.

Believe me, if David Cameron had stood for election with a manifest promise to pull the rug from under the most desperate people in society, if he had blatantly said that if a UK council decided to pass law whereby kindness to the homeless would be illegal he would stand by and allow that to happen, the fucker would be lucky to get 10% of the popular vote.

The British people are inherently decent; what's happening at the moment is incredibly savage and outrageous, and goes way beyond reconstructive economics.

Well, those despicable vagrants and shiftless ne'er do wells who are a burden on society don't vote... so he has both the "moral" viewpoint to be harsh on them, and no real incentive to remember that he's human too... he's just another politician in the pay of his uberwealthy peers whose main concern is keeping as much of their ill gotten blood money as they can.

[Svartalf]

I swear I smell a Randian or two in here...

No law against stuffing your head with steaming pigshite from one ear to the other, is there?

[Seth]

I swear I smell a Randian or two in here...

No law against stuffing your head with steaming pigshite from one ear to the other, is there?

Not at all, after all, Marxists and Socialists do it every day.

[Seth]

because the people with the money, who took that money unethically through exploitation, don't want to pay their share

Which of course is Marxist Newspeak for making a profit and paying the vast majority of the taxes already, unlike the vast dependent-class proletarian mass, who pay essentially nothing in taxes and consume the vast majority of government benefits.

[.Morticia.]

because the people with the money, who took that money unethically through exploitation, don't want to pay their share

Which of course is Marxist Newspeak for making a profit and paying the vast majority of the taxes already, unlike the vast dependent-class proletarian mass, who pay essentially nothing in taxes and consume the vast majority of government benefits.

are you serious?

All the facts from the IRA state the opposite.

And dependent proletariate? That's an oxymoron.

personally, I prefer the terminology of anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin who describe people as consumers. They were a century ahead of their time.

And of course modern marxists don't use the term proletariate so much as they understand that it isn't inclusive.

Maybe you should stop obsessing about outdated 19th C political science and russia and get with the times.

[Seth]

because the people with the money, who took that money unethically through exploitation, don't want to pay their share

Which of course is Marxist Newspeak for making a profit and paying the vast majority of the taxes already, unlike the vast dependent-class proletarian mass, who pay essentially nothing in taxes and consume the vast majority of government benefits.

are you serious?

Quite serious.

All the facts from the IRA state the opposite.

All which facts?

And dependent proletariate? That's an oxymoron.

Hardly.

Definition of PROLETARIAT
1
: the laboring class; especially : the class of industrial workers who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labor to live

Dependent-class proletarians are the laboring class who take handouts from government. They are dependent upon the largess of the government to both protect their jobs and supplement their earnings with social welfare programs and other entitlements.

personally, I prefer the terminology of anarchists like Bakunin and Kropotkin who describe people as consumers. They were a century ahead of their time.

And of course modern marxists don't use the term proletariate so much as they understand that it isn't inclusive.

Maybe you should stop obsessing about outdated 19th C political science and russia and get with the times.

So how, exactly, has the Marxist dialectic changed since Marx wrote it? Please be specific.

[.Morticia.]

fer one thing no one talks about dialectics

because it's meaningless crap and everyone knows it



what counts is

fact based economic and social analysis

and compassion

[Seth]

fer one thing no one talks about dialectics

because it's meaningless crap and everyone knows it

Strange that you think Socrates spouted "meaningless crap."

Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason. This differs from a debate, in which both sides are committed to their viewpoint and only wish to win the debate by persuading or proving themselves right (or the other side wrong) – and thus a jury or judge is often needed to decide the matter. It also differs from rhetoric, which is oratory that appeals to logos, pathos, or ethos. Rhetoric is communication designed to persuade an audience to side with a particular argument or action. source: Wikipedia

I would agree with you insofar as "no Marxist talks about dialectics" however, because the vast majority of Marxists are too stupid and ignorant to even know what the word means, much less have the capacity to engage in dialog and reason. Most Marxists are proletarian dupes who are the victims of Marxist propaganda and, like Mao's chanting schoolchildren, have no more thought or reason involved in their support of Marxism than sloganeering and propagandistic rhetoric. The reason that even the Marxist elite class don't engage the Marxist dialectic is that whenever Marxism is subjected to dialog and reason, it vanishes in a flash of rational insight the moment that people come to understand how utterly idiotic and mindless it actually is. That's why Marxists use propaganda, not dialectic, to sway people to the cause using populist arguments and class warfare based rhetoric and propaganda; because the moment anyone stops and actually thinks about Marxism and it's inevitable results, they reject it in horror. This is why Marxist execute "counterrevolutionaries" and the ideologically impure in every Marxist state. Because the ideology can brook no dissent and cannot withstand independent thought or reason, so Marxists have to exterminate every intellectual or educated person who might be able to explain the flaws in Marx's plot, as Pol Pot and the Khymer Rouge did in Cambodia and as Mao and Stalin also did.

what counts is

fact based economic and social analysis

In which case Marxism fails at every turn, every time it's been attempted, usually catastrophically and with great suffering and privation.

and compassion

Marxists have no place discussing compassion, since Marxism is directly responsible for some 100 million brutal deaths in the last century alone.