London SE1 community website

Beggars Waterloo/Borough

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Current: 5 of 8
Wednesday 29 October 2008 8.46am
boroughpaul wrote:
i dont care whether somewone is "homeless" or just plain anti social. people who break the law by peeing in public or behaving in a way that causes offence should suffer the consequences whatever their circumstances. i am still not convinced that there is any excuse for the gatherings of beggars around parts of SE1. we pay tax to support social welfare and a hellova lot of it. whats the point if those who need it dont take it up?

I was determined to stay out of this thread but suspected it wouldn't last. Oh dear, oh dear. No doubt you'd prefer it if they were conveniently swept off the streets so that you didn't have to go through the effort of averting your poor sensitive eyes from them? They're called human beings boroughpaul, just like you and just like me except the vast majority (contrary to popular myth) of them have had the misfortune to come across bad times. Ever thought how you'd manage if you lost your job, fell behind on the mortgage, your partner leaves, your friends desert you and then your world falls in? Reckon you'd be bothered about peeing in the street? Reckon you'd be paying what money you get into your non-existant ISA to ensure you got back on the straight and narrow rather than numbing the pain with whatever subtances you can lay your hands on? Reckon it doesn't happen that easily? I can assure you it does. Maybe you're better than most people and you'd find your way through it but don't peddle your Daily Mail-esque assumptions about how easy (all) these people must have it when you clearly don't have the first idea.

As someone who has worked with charitable organisations dealing with homelessness and resettlement for the last six years I can assure you that it just ain't that black and white (what is?), and I think you'll also find that a miniscule proportion of your taxes funds schemes and welfare for the people at the very bottom of the pile.

If [hypothetically] half the banking bonuses over the last 3 years had been spent on welfare for the bottom rungs of society rather than fancy yachts and Ferrari's and fuelling an unsustainable economy then I'm sure your rather petty issue over peeing in public would have been solved along with many other societal "issues".
Wednesday 29 October 2008 9.00am
So is it the case that the people on the street are refusing to be housed? I don't know how the system works here.

westofbank wrote:
What I find even more unacceptable, are people, who move here and then try and turn it into the part of London they could not afford to live in by picking on a vulnerable group.

It's called "gentrifying" in the US. It was ever so. Slums become fashionable areas, then return to slums, then become fashionable again.
Wednesday 29 October 2008 9.03am
Gareth, we posted at the same time. I could understand your argument if it pertained to the present economic climate, but until this year Britain experienced tremendous growth and prosperity. How is there were homeless people then?
Wednesday 29 October 2008 9.06am
my point is basically that there are a lot of beggars and "homeless" in SE1 and just because they are in this particlar situation does not mean they have imunity under the law if they behave in a manner that offends...the law applies to all, equally does it not?
Wednesday 29 October 2008 9.18am
Laphroaig wrote:
Gareth, we posted at the same time. I could understand your argument if it pertained to the present economic climate, but until this year Britain experienced tremendous growth and prosperity. How is there were homeless people then?

Hi Laphroaig,

I'm not trying to correlate homelessness per se with the state of the economy (though clearly it has an impact). Whilst the expectation would be that a deteriorating economy would lead to more homelessness and vice versa with a growing economy it is not as simple as that.

On an individual level it can be the case that it is events such as losing ones job (which doesn't only happen in an economic downturn), partner or other such events that leads to a dramatic downward spiral which can end in street homelessness.

These types of events still happen for individuals in a period of economic growth for a variety of reasons.
Wednesday 29 October 2008 9.25am
boroughpaul wrote:
my point is basically that there are a lot of beggars and "homeless" in SE1 and just because they are in this particlar situation does not mean they have imunity under the law if they behave in a manner that offends...the law applies to all, equally does it not?

Of course. I suppose I would simply ask that you think about the lot of a street homeless person peeing in the street versus a city worker peeing in the street after a night out on the lash in an SE1 boozer and ask if the equivalence you suggest is really the bottom line.

I think the law as well as taking account of what has been done also asks why it has been done, and the homeless person may have more in the "mitigating circumstances" column. That is not to suggest that they all do of course...but I would simply caution against black and white statements.
Wednesday 29 October 2008 9.54am
Gareth, what are the resources available to someone who has lost his job? I understood that you have the dole here.
Wednesday 29 October 2008 11.46am
It is worth pointing out that 40% of bankers' bonuses were handed over to others in the form of taxes. And if they didn't spend on "extravagances" such as Porsches then there would be higher unemployment in the car industry.

I am no fan of greed in any industry, but what comes around goes around.
Wednesday 29 October 2008 12.35pm
London Roader wrote:
It is worth pointing out that 40% of bankers' bonuses were handed over to others in the form of taxes. And if they didn't spend on "extravagances" such as Porsches then there would be higher unemployment in the car industry.
I am no fan of greed in any industry, but what comes around goes around.

Whilst this digression is my fault, I have to add that this is only part of the picture isn't it? Bonuses are tax-deductible on the part of the companies paying them so you're quite right what goes around in terms of higher remuneration to employees with a portion going to the taxman comes back round in lowering corporation tax payable by the company.

Add to that the number of tax avoidance ploys for highly remunerated employees and I think you'll find the taxman sees very little.
Wednesday 29 October 2008 2.07pm
Gareth, did you miss my question?
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Current: 5 of 8

To post a message, please log in or register..
February at a glance
Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions