Official count of number of People sleeping on the streets

[al**bear]

So the OFFICIAL Government count of the number of People sleeping on the streets in Birmingham is 22, even though in the last three years 54 people have died on the streets in that City.

So we keep hearing that the number of homeless is now a lot lower than it used to be

The reason for the fall, could have been explained in a news report yesterday, about people sleeping on the streets in that City.

An Official tours the City at 11pm,

He only counts the people He see's actually curled up in their sleeping Bags/cardboard ASLEEP.

6, 8, 10 People talking in a doorway in their sleeping bags DON'T count, nor is anyone who wakes up, when the official approaches

Also all the others who won't got their 'Spot' until after the Public go home aren't counted either, nor are the  people sleeping in derelict properties.

Like a lot of the things this Government does, if they can't or won't solve the Problem,

They just change the statistics

[fallen-archie]

Is this about an attempted cover up by the city council to hide the reality of homeless people or are you suggesting perhaps that there is a conspiracy to turn a blind eye to the plight of the victims?

If I were found sleeping on the streets having fallen upon bad times, had a row with my family or I had no choice at the time, would that be the fault of a politician or would it not in part at least be my own. If you live your life blaming Blair, Cameron or Thatcher for every negative situation or challenge we face then it is unsurprising that there are so many issues. We have a welfare state, free health service, free schools what about personal responsibility?

[cee-dee]

I think it's unnecessarily hard to blame "the government" for this (and many other things) because there are the same people in jobs no matter which party forms the government.

Effectively, they're running the country. The government of the day only have a secondary role except for the high profile isues.

If "The Government" changed today, those same people would be the same ones going round checking on rough sleepers and would be using the same criteria.

[upthecreekyetagain]

What surprises me is the unexpectedly large proportion, (approx 10%), of the homeless who are ex-servicemen.  I do think the 'government' do bear a direct responsibility towards this group at least.

[cee-dee]

I don't suppose anyone has any statistics for the number of ex-servicemen rough sleeping after WW2?

Remember the words of Disraeli? "There are lies, damned lies and then there are statistics".

[upthecreekyetagain]

I'd guess there must have been many who were homeless but ironically because there were so many ex-servicemen rentering civilian life it was much easier to get employment and far less in the way of a preconception of the sort of work suitable for somebody from the military - After all everyone had relatives, friends and work colleagues who had served during the war.

There is definitely something wrong when the number of ex-servicemen make up an unproportionate number of the unemployed, homeless and imprisoned - something that has been recognised going by the number of charities and organisations set up to help them but apparently ignored by their ex-employers the MOD.

[fallen-archie]

Good point about ex servicemen, I suspect that for many the services may have been the first taste of structure and camaraderie many had experienced. If you had a troubled upbringing then found yourself in among others serving your country, feeling valued possibly for the first time, readjustment to civilian life may not be easy.I think that this is an instance where more help in the transition would be beneficial, employer choice could be a crucial factor.

[cee-dee]

The thing is, no-one has any way of knowing whether those blokes would have ended up on the street anyway, ex-service or not. Another "Blame the Government" without any serious investigation in to the full facts of the issue.

[fallen-archie]

You are right these people may well have ended up on the streets however life if the services offered the order and discipline they may not have had.  I do feel that we should not simply abandon them to a world we know they cannot hack without some kind of support to make the adjustment. Not blaming the government but I am concerned about those professionals who are left to pick up the pieces.

[cee-dee]

Hmmmmmm, you could spend a lot of time (and money) researching the "cause" of everything and still have no real answers because some people are literally beyond help.

I was reading about a court case where the defence was pleading all sorts of reasons why a bloke shouldn't go to jail. He was 26 and had 47 previous convictions!

Another case was a bloke in his forties who had 87 previous convictions. What do you do with them? Of course there are those who see "good" in every one of them and blame everything and everyone except the person concerned.

With ex-service personnel, what was their disciplinary record like? Alternatively are they people who actually thrive on institutionalised living and don't cope without it? There's no all-covering solution, that is, if there's a solution at all.

[upthecreekyetagain]

The key word you used is 'some'

Because 'some' people are beyond help you appear to be suggesting that it is useless to offer help to all people.

As for the ex-servicement then the majority are those who have done 20+ years in the army and in their 40s and 50s are entering civvy street with little or no practical help in this transition by the MOD who in many cases are the ones responsible for making them homeless.

[fallen-archie]

A little unreasonable to compare the plight of ex servicemen with serial recidivists, the latter being an entirely different problem. These servicemen have not offended, some, indeed an ever growing number suffer PTSD something directly linked to the circumstances of their employment. Why treat that differently to someone exposed to asbestos or lead. The State is obliged to help, it is in all our interests for that to happen. It is not subsidising or nannying this is care and we are a caring society.

[cee-dee]

It's not unreasonable because in the services where many men are thrown together it's a matter of survival (within the service) that men become strong, tough, macho if you like and when they leave, they can't get out of being that way.

There are many things in the service that I'd put under the "petty, childish", almost "bullying" banner which the services put under the "discipline" banner and that leads to inbuilt frustration with the stupidity of it all and on release from service, all that frustration is still there leaving them unable to cope with civillian life and "discipline". I'd return you also to the question of whether those blokes would have been on the street even if they'd not been in the sevices.

At the end of it all, it's up to people to make of life what they will and some people are not cut out for service life just as some people aren't cut out for life as a civilian. We're all different, we're not the same. You can't wrap everyone in the same "fix-all" banner.

[fallen-archie]

Hang on a moment, there are other environments which are equally challenging starting with Public schools and Comprehensive schools, The Ambulance service an oasis for the caring type who become abused by drunks, perverts and time wasters. Life aint fair it favours success and penalises the majority while pushing many into dependance on the state. Imagine coming out of the services and being offered security work, a zero hours contract and the minimum hourly rate. From that you need to house yourself, feed and cloth you and any dependants pay the utilities and the council tax. It's all very harsh and yes some cope better than others because people are different. Today's workplace often sees a corporate strategy espousing Values, humility, caring. empowering because it works when employees feel valued and part of the business, Sadly there are those who are paid substantial sums and do the opposite, Staff are bullied, pressurised, disposable and simply a cost centre. To me these individuals are just as despicable as those who spend their life thieving. 

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

It's not unreasonable because in the services where many men are thrown together it's a matter of survival (within the service) that men become strong, tough, macho if you like and when they leave, they can't get out of being that way.

There are many things in the service that I'd put under the "petty, childish", almost "bullying" banner which the services put under the "discipline" banner and that leads to inbuilt frustration with the stupidity of it all and on release from service, all that frustration is still there leaving them unable to cope with civillian life and "discipline". I'd return you also to the question of whether those blokes would have been on the street even if they'd not been in the sevices.

At the end of it all, it's up to people to make of life what they will and some people are not cut out for service life just as some people aren't cut out for life as a civilian. We're all different, we're not the same. You can't wrap everyone in the same "fix-all" banner.

---

Precisely my argument.  It is the armed forces that have made many of their men and women less likely to be able to cope with civvy street - as such they also have a responsibility, which they are patently failing, to assist those in need of help to find work and housing.

[upthecreekyetagain]

And yes, there are many people unable to cope with the rigours of modern life - by your reasoning that makes undeserving of assistance from those that can.

Your argument takes us back to the thread where you wanted people with nothing to dig 900 foot deep wells with a shovel!

[*.*..lola..*.*]

What saddens me is the amount of homeless 'youngsters' on the streets these days as opposed to years ago when most towns had just one or maybe two 'old' tramps living rough.

It's shameful that for some of these kids, life on the streets is actually preferable and safer than living at home with their families.

I picked my son up from Torquay town centre late one night just before Christmas and I couldn't believe how many young kids I saw in sleeping bags in the shop fronts all along the harbour.

It's a viscious circle. They can't get a job (or benefits I think) without a permanent address and they can't get a permanent address without a regular income/benefits and references.

Also a lot of private landlords are unwilling to let their properties out to people on benefits.

I'm not blaming any particular government but I do think more should be done to protect these young kids, some of whom admittedly do end up on the streets because of addiction and behaviour problems as well as family breakdown and abuse but it's a hard cycle to break without help and support.

[fallen-archie]

Once upon a time pressure for workers was largely manual, that resulted in injury, loss of limb, sight or hearing, long hours primative conditions, Thank goodness that has changed but with that change has come a new and growing threat, now you are more likely to be pressured mentally, pushed by driven people ignorant to the damage they are doing, focussed on a goal determined to thrive and paid very well in the process. Many are just commodities at the mercy of the ambitious and desperate to keep up with what modern advertising says we should be. 

[cee-dee]

There's a couple of things I want to take issue with you there.

As to the MOD (or whoever) being "responsible" for ex-servicemen being "out on the street", that's not their responsibility at all because how is it that most ex-servicemen are not? It's individuals who go down their chosen path which has led them to where they are now. Some people are "beyond help", you could show them this, give them that and they'd still be just the same. How much "assistance" have they had already? You could take them under your wing and help them and in the end it would all be thrown back in your face.

Some of those living on the street actually prefer to be with the others of similar ilk and for those too, you could give them a home which would soon end up being like a place on the street.

Moving on to the 900 feet wells, show me the thread here where I mentioned digging such a well. As to having nothing, explain how an ancient people "with nothing" managed not only to hack a 1500 ton chunk of stone from the "living" rock, they shifted it too? If people "with nothing" could do that why can't "people with nothing" do something basic like gathering some stones to dam off a trickling spring and prevent animals from polluting the area where human drinking water is collected? (which is what the thread you alluded to was all about).

In ancient times, (like 3,000 years ago) a people supposedly "with nothing" managed to dig through the ground to reach an underground stream so why not today? No, I don't know how they did it, all we know is that today they're still there. Go seek?

[cee-dee]

http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/rough-sleeping.html