How doing this story on the homeless changed me

by Ben Reilly Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:46 pm

My job takes me all over North Texas, to all sorts of different situations. Sometimes I get to cover things that mean a lot to me, and a story I wrote between yesterday morning and this afternoon was one of the most meaningful things I've done on the job.

I headed out into the freezing cold to find people who had slept outside.

I went down to East Lancaster in Fort Worth, near the homeless shelters, where there are beds on offer that some people didn't accept. I spoke to a lot of people, and this is where I have to confess that I'd never really had a conversation with a homeless person before.

I met a veteran of the Navy who looked at the shelters and said, "No thanks, don't want bedbugs, I've got blankets and training and I'm roughing it tonight."

I met a woman with two small children who had been homeless for three years and has just gotten back on her feet. She has nothing but contempt for the shelters; she thinks they're too concerned with looking good and not worried enough about doing good.

I met a man who was digging beer cans out of a trash can at a gas station. He looks young, but he's been on the streets for 15 years. He wouldn't go into a shelter without his dog, so he, the dog and his "street family" huddled under a bunch of blankets and braved the 25-degree weather together.

I met a woman who insisted she wasn't homeless. She slept on the street, though, and she believes God got her through the cold night. She seemed really happy, actually, sitting in the sun and waiting for the bus to come.

I met a 27-year-old man who got tossed out by his roommate after an argument. He works the shelter system, following their rules to a T. Sometimes those rules mean he's asked to throw away things left on the street that he knows belong to people; things those people need. A big pile of dirty clothing on the sidewalk might be how a person survives a freezing night.

I met a man who I really like and I'm pretty sure is really crazy. He is, in his words, a former all-Texas athlete in several sports, ex-military, ex-Freemason, mountain climber, former rock star and holder of several college degrees.

He's in a wheelchair and wears a neck brace because leukemia is tearing his body apart, and you can see that just by looking at him. He's about to reunite with his daughter, who ran away from home four years ago.

He and I and another woman stood on the sidewalk of East Lancaster and spoke for ages, and after a while, something shifted inside me. I felt like I was hanging out and talking with friends.

The people I spoke to are sharp, witty, opinionated, funny. They each have a unique story about why they don't live indoors now. They worry about one another. They're open. Most of them readily agreed to be interviewed on video.

Doing this story moved me and changed me. Here it is, my proudest work.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article221652425.html

by Ben Reilly Thu Nov 15, 2018 11:52 pm

Eddie says this reminds her of this song:

by eddie Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:08 am

I know this affected you deeply and I really think it’s a great topic to get your teeth into.

This is where it’s at: this isn’t about politics, it’s about people.
And you did a great service to this topic. Seriously. Marriage and shit aside, this is where it’s at....

People. Lives. Rawness.

by Syl Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:26 am

That's incredibly moving. Sad

Homlessness and living with nothing, is a world most of us never experience, and yet for these people it's a way of life.
We now have an elected Mayor in Manchester, he is young and modern, he gives a portion of his wage every month to help fund homeless shelters, and has vowed that from this month onwards every homeless person in Manchester will have acces to a bed in a warm dry environment every night
.
For people who dont want a bed, like the ones you interviewed, how can they be helped? You cant force people to get off the streets at nightime and it seems some actually prefer that way of life rather than the alternative.

Sadly homlessness is a growing problem....scandalous in so called wealthy countries.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:01 am

We could easily stop this...put out the Republicans.

My firm does pro bono for the Homeless Advocacy Program (HAP) of the Bar Association of San Francisco. We go to work for them before they get kicked out....rent, unemployment, discrimination, renovation...it doesn't matter. The city/county/state leaders could do the same thing if they would get off their asses.

But, WTF...your state just re-elected Ted Cruz.

by nicko Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:38 am

Democrats have the answer to everything then ?

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:10 am

The trouble with shelters is that they're a temporary solution for a few nights. I've said before that some homeless people do seem to prefer being on the streets for whatever reason - I guess it becomes a way of life. Perhaps they can't imagine having a more conventional way of life with a job and a home - things which bring their own problems and hassles.

by Eilzel Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:24 am

Original Quill wrote:We could easily stop this...put out the Republicans.

My firm does pro bono for the Homeless Advocacy Program (HAP) of the Bar Association of San Francisco. We go to work for them before they get kicked out....rent, unemployment, discrimination, renovation...it doesn't matter. The city/county/state leaders could do the same thing if they would get off their asses.

But, WTF...your state just re-elected Ted Cruz.

I think politicians on all sides in every country could do more about this problem, Quill. Are you saying their were no homeless people in Blue States when Obama was president?

^Great article, Ben, very touching. It's sad the only help people are offered is often grotty shelters, but a big answer is difficult to find, especially, as Syl points out, many seem to choose that way of life to a great extent.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:28 am

Eilzel wrote:
Original Quill wrote:We could easily stop this...put out the Republicans.

My firm does pro bono for the Homeless Advocacy Program (HAP) of the Bar Association of San Francisco. We go to work for them before they get kicked out....rent, unemployment, discrimination, renovation...it doesn't matter. The city/county/state leaders could do the same thing if they would get off their asses.

But, WTF...your state just re-elected Ted Cruz.

I think politicians on all sides in every country could do more about this problem, Quill. Are you saying their were no homeless people in Blue States when Obama was president?

^Great article, Ben, very touching. It's sad the only help people are offered is often grotty shelters, but a big answer is difficult to find, especially, as Syl points out, many seem to choose that way of life to a great extent.

The shelters might not be grotty, but they are temporary. I'd like to praise those who work in them - they're trying to help, and it's not their fault that it's such an ongoing problem these days.

by Eilzel Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:34 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:
Original Quill wrote:We could easily stop this...put out the Republicans.

My firm does pro bono for the Homeless Advocacy Program (HAP) of the Bar Association of San Francisco. We go to work for them before they get kicked out....rent, unemployment, discrimination, renovation...it doesn't matter. The city/county/state leaders could do the same thing if they would get off their asses.

But, WTF...your state just re-elected Ted Cruz.

I think politicians on all sides in every country could do more about this problem, Quill. Are you saying their were no homeless people in Blue States when Obama was president?

^Great article, Ben, very touching. It's sad the only help people are offered is often grotty shelters, but a big answer is difficult to find, especially, as Syl points out, many seem to choose that way of life to a great extent.

The shelters might not be grotty, but they are temporary. I'd like to praise those who work in them - they're trying to help, and it's not their fault that it's such an ongoing problem these days.

The people who work in them are doing a noble job, no doubt. That doesn't mean some of those who claim they can be dirty sometimes are wrong, though.

Regardless, shelters are only a temporary solution to a massive problem in many countries that really shouldn't exist in developed nations. Homeless people are a sign that something, somewhere, is not right.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 10:39 am

Eilzel wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The shelters might not be grotty, but they are temporary. I'd like to praise those who work in them - they're trying to help, and it's not their fault that it's such an ongoing problem these days.

The people who work in them are doing a noble job, no doubt. That doesn't mean some of those who claim they can be dirty sometimes are wrong, though.

Regardless, shelters are only a temporary solution to a massive problem in many countries that really shouldn't exist in developed nations. Homeless people are a sign that something, somewhere, is not right.

I'm sure some are a bit grotty, but then a lot of them rely on charity so it's not going to be luxury. I'd like to see more appreciation rather than criticism from homeless people and also people who aren't homeless.

I agree about the temporary nature of shelters, and perhaps it's worse to have a real bed for a while than to carry on living outside - one doesn't want to get used to a real bed if you know what I mean.

There is this issue though of some homeless people choosing that way of life. It might be because they're hooked on booze or drugs and in order to have a different life they know they'd have to give up those things and they don't want to. It might be that they had a conventional life once and didn't actually like it much, or
perhaps they like the freedom of not having a job and a home.

by Ben Reilly Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:37 pm

I would have to say that before doing this story, I wouldn't have imagined there were as many people who prefer to live outside - for whatever reason. I think the majority would like to have shelter of some kind, though.

I think the first priority should actually be making sure these people have access to health care, food, protection from the elements (even if that's just a waterproof tent and a warm sleeping bag) and safety from violence.

A good number of these people would be in state mental hospitals if they weren't outside.

by 'Wolfie Fri Nov 16, 2018 12:51 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

The people who work in them are doing a noble job, no doubt. That doesn't mean some of those who claim they can be dirty sometimes are wrong, though.

Regardless, shelters are only a temporary solution to a massive problem in many countries that really shouldn't exist in developed nations. Homeless people are a sign that something, somewhere, is not right.

I'm sure some are a bit grotty, but then a lot of them rely on charity so it's not going to be luxury. I'd like to see more appreciation rather than criticism from homeless people and also people who aren't homeless.

I agree about the temporary nature of shelters, and perhaps it's worse to have a real bed for a while than to carry on living outside - one doesn't want to get used to a real bed if you know what I mean.

There is this issue though of some homeless people choosing that way of life. It might be because they're hooked on booze or drugs and in order to have a different life they know they'd have to give up those things and they don't want to. It might be that they had a conventional life once and didn't actually like it much, or
perhaps they like the freedom of not having a job and a home.

Right here is a major part of the problem...

Ragga' shows us the typical closeted conservative mindset attitude to problems of poverty, homelessness and mental health issues -- Always blame the victims for the situation that they find themselves in..

Mental health, addictions, unemployed ? Piffle !!! If only those ingrates would show some 'gratitude' towards what is provided for them (no matter what condition, nor how little..), then all of those other problematic issues will surely disappear !

These kinds of selfishly ignorant attitudes is one of the key reasons that we will never see the leading problems of mental illness, disability support, chronic poverty, 'structural' unemployment, and excessive and unnecessary homelessness ever being properly addressed in any of our countries...

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 3:00 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm sure some are a bit grotty, but then a lot of them rely on charity so it's not going to be luxury. I'd like to see more appreciation rather than criticism from homeless people and also people who aren't homeless.

I agree about the temporary nature of shelters, and perhaps it's worse to have a real bed for a while than to carry on living outside - one doesn't want to get used to a real bed if you know what I mean.

There is this issue though of some homeless people choosing that way of life. It might be because they're hooked on booze or drugs and in order to have a different life they know they'd have to give up those things and they don't want to. It might be that they had a conventional life once and didn't actually like it much, or
perhaps they like the freedom of not having a job and a home.

Right here is a major part of the problem...

Ragga' shows us the typical closeted conservative mindset attitude to problems of poverty, homelessness and mental health issues -- Always blame the victims for the situation that they find themselves in..

Mental health, addictions, unemployed ? Piffle !!! If only those ingrates would show some 'gratitude' towards what is provided for them (no matter what condition, nor how little..), then all of those other problematic issues will surely disappear !

These kinds of selfishly ignorant attitudes is one of the key reasons that we will never see the leading problems of mental illness, disability support, chronic poverty, 'structural' unemployment, and excessive and unnecessary homelessness ever being properly addressed in any of our countries...

I was explaining why some might prefer to live outside, so you can stop telling lies. I also said there should be gratitude for those to try to help. I presume you don't think anything of those people who volunteer their time and actually do something. What do you do for the homeless? Throw a few coins at them as you walk past them or do you steal what little they have? You're a selfish little oik.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 16, 2018 4:37 pm

nicko wrote:Democrats have the answer to everything then ?

At least Democrats have a willingness to admit and work on the problem. Republicans will simply treat the victims as lazy, lower human beings...and that's life. Like Trump, they define the problem away, and when they have to confront it, treating it as law-breaking, or mental illness...or something else they are not responsible for. Eeets no mae problem mon!

If you want to compare a similar problem, look at blacks in America. Given a short hand originally (slavery), they are abandoned to wallow in squalor and poverty, and then, when they find crime...demonizing them and disposing of them in prisons. Outta sight, outta mind!

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:28 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm sure some are a bit grotty, but then a lot of them rely on charity so it's not going to be luxury. I'd like to see more appreciation rather than criticism from homeless people and also people who aren't homeless.

I agree about the temporary nature of shelters, and perhaps it's worse to have a real bed for a while than to carry on living outside - one doesn't want to get used to a real bed if you know what I mean.

There is this issue though of some homeless people choosing that way of life. It might be because they're hooked on booze or drugs and in order to have a different life they know they'd have to give up those things and they don't want to. It might be that they had a conventional life once and didn't actually like it much, or
perhaps they like the freedom of not having a job and a home.

Right here is a major part of the problem...

Ragga' shows us the typical closeted conservative mindset attitude to problems of poverty, homelessness and mental health issues -- Always blame the victims for the situation that they find themselves in..

Mental health, addictions, unemployed ? Piffle !!! If only those ingrates would show some 'gratitude' towards what is provided for them (no matter what condition, nor how little..), then all of those other problematic issues will surely disappear !

These kinds of selfishly ignorant attitudes is one of the key reasons that we will never see the leading problems of mental illness, disability support, chronic poverty, 'structural' unemployment, and excessive and unnecessary homelessness ever being properly addressed in any of our countries...

Oh, for Christ's sake you bloody fool, you'd blame "closeted conservatives" for the seven plagues of Egypt and the Black Death if you found the slightest excuse to do so.

That was not what Raggs either said or meant, and you know it. Your post is yet another travesty based on your maniacal hatred for anyone in this forum who doesn't subscribe to your own frequently potty rants.

Some of the most concerned and generous people I know, so far as real and meaningful support for the homeless and disadvantaged in society is concerned, are your supposed "closeted conservatives"...and I know that from my own chosen charitable work on behalf of homeless, impoverished, unemployed and mentally and physically scarred ex-servicemen and women for the simple reason that I am in contact with them on a regular basis, including rattling a collecting tin under their noses once a year.

And as one of your so-called "closeted conservatives" I try my modest best to put my money where my mouth is...not only by actively working on behalf of my chosen cause but also donating as generously as I can to such worthy organisations as Shelter and the Salvation Army.

What do you actually do - or, indeed, contribute - apart from to boast endlessly about your self-proclaimed moral superiority and to fling your childish insults around like confetti?

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:39 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Right here is a major part of the problem...

Ragga' shows us the typical closeted conservative mindset attitude to problems of poverty, homelessness and mental health issues -- Always blame the victims for the situation that they find themselves in..

Mental health, addictions, unemployed ? Piffle !!! If only those ingrates would show some 'gratitude' towards what is provided for them (no matter what condition, nor how little..), then all of those other problematic issues will surely disappear !

These kinds of selfishly ignorant attitudes is one of the key reasons that we will never see the leading problems of mental illness, disability support, chronic poverty, 'structural' unemployment, and excessive and unnecessary homelessness ever being properly addressed in any of our countries...

Oh, for Christ's sake you bloody fool, you'd blame "closeted conservatives" for the seven plagues of Egypt and the Black Death if you found the slightest excuse to do so.

That was not what Raggs either said or meant, and you know it. Your post is yet another travesty based on your maniacal hatred for anyone in this forum who doesn't subscribe to your own frequently potty rants.

Some of the most concerned and generous people I know, so far as real and meaningful support for the homeless and disadvantaged in society is concerned, are your supposed "closeted conservatives"...and I know that from my own chosen charitable work on behalf of homeless, impoverished, unemployed and mentally and physically scarred ex-servicemen and women for the simple reason that I am in contact with them on a regular basis, including rattling a collecting tin under their noses once a year.

And as one of your so-called "closeted conservatives" I try my modest best to put my money where my mouth is...not only by actively working on behalf of my chosen cause but also donating as generously as I can to such worthy organisations as Shelter and the Salvation Army.

What do you actually do - or, indeed, contribute - apart from to boast endlessly about your self-proclaimed moral superiority and to fling your childish insults around like confetti?

Thank you Fred. rabbit

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Nov 16, 2018 5:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:Democrats have the answer to everything then ?

At least Democrats have a willingness to admit and work on the problem. Republicans will simply treat the victims as lazy, lower human beings...and that's life. Like Trump, they define the problem away, and when they have to confront it, treating it as law-breaking, or mental illness...or something else they are not responsible for. Eeets no mae problem mon!

If you want to compare a similar problem, look at blacks in America. Given a short hand originally (slavery), they are abandoned to wallow in squalor and poverty, and then, when they find crime...demonizing them and disposing of them in prisons. Outta sight, outta mind!

Oh come on, Quill, I applaud heartily your firm's pro bono work on behalf of the disadvantaged in society, but I simply cannot accept your suggestion that concern, benefaction and altruism are the exclusive territory of the Democrat Party and that philanthropy depends on political allegiance.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:02 pm

Some years ago a couple who ran a drop-in centre for homeless people in Cambridge were sent to prison for allowing drug dealing on the premises. There was no suggestion that they were involved or that they knew all about it, they were convicted because they did not do enough to prevent it. They were trying to help homeless people and that's how they were repaid. The level of volunteering at hostels dropped after that, which is not a surprise. It's also no wonder if homeless shelter are reluctant to let drug users use the premises.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/01/1

by Original Quill Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:20 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

At least Democrats have a willingness to admit and work on the problem. Republicans will simply treat the victims as lazy, lower human beings...and that's life. Like Trump, they define the problem away, and when they have to confront it, treating it as law-breaking, or mental illness...or something else they are not responsible for. Eeets no mae problem mon!

If you want to compare a similar problem, look at blacks in America. Given a short hand originally (slavery), they are abandoned to wallow in squalor and poverty, and then, when they find crime...demonizing them and disposing of them in prisons. Outta sight, outta mind!

Oh come on, Quill, I applaud heartily your firm's pro bono work on behalf of the disadvantaged in society, but I simply cannot accept your suggestion that concern, benefaction and altruism are the exclusive territory of the Democrat Party and that philanthropy depends on political allegiance.

Yet you have nothing substantive to say about reciprocal Republican efforts.

Truth be told, Republicans love philanthropic efforts. They think it relieves the government of responsibilities, and thus provokes less taxes for them. Unfortunately, philanthropic efforts are never more than a trickle, thus they fail. This brings the need back to the fore, and thus the government must step in.

There is your political allegiance. When it gets back to politics, you have Democrats yelling do something, do something! And Republicans are yelling: no new taxes, no new taxes! That's how it turns into a division along political lines.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Some years ago a couple who ran a drop-in centre for homeless people in Cambridge were sent to prison for allowing drug dealing on the premises. There was no suggestion that they were involved or that they knew all about it, they were convicted because they did not do enough to prevent it. They were trying to help homeless people and that's how they were repaid. The level of volunteering at hostels dropped after that, which is not a surprise. It's also no wonder if homeless shelter are reluctant to let drug users use the premises.

That would not happen here. We have a Constitution that demands due process of law. One provision of due process is mens re...the provision that "as an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose, and a criminal intent" is required:

Free Dictionery wrote:A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.

The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind.

Perhaps your drop-in center had an accompanying duty to observe and report criminal activity, and that's the failing of which they were closed. That duty would be specified as a side law, not the general law against drugs. But, specifically the drug dealing...I find that hard to believe. You guys invented innocent until proven guilty. I doubt you would turn your back on it here.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:48 pm

Ahah...buried down in your article is the explanation:

The Guardian wrote:The charity had operated a policy of confidentiality under which information about the homeless and vulnerable people who attended the centre would not generally be passed on to outside agencies, including the police.

Michael Mansfield QC, for the pair, argued that Judge Jonathan Haworth erred in not allowing the jurors to consider whether, in the light of that widely-accepted policy, Ms Wyner and Mr Brock acted reasonably in not telling the police what they knew about drug dealing.

So the issue was not dealing drugs, but helping to cover it up. Section 8, of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. That’s a kind of aiding and abetting charge...the side law we were speaking of.

The case is on appeal on this very point:

Alexander Masters, Chairman, Cambridge Two wrote:"Section 8 is dangerous law which creates tension between the police and charity workers. Until Section 8 is rewritten, it will be impossible for charities working with the homeless or with drug users ever to feel safe."

Keep me posted, if you can.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Some years ago a couple who ran a drop-in centre for homeless people in Cambridge were sent to prison for allowing drug dealing on the premises. There was no suggestion that they were involved or that they knew all about it, they were convicted because they did not do enough to prevent it. They were trying to help homeless people and that's how they were repaid. The level of volunteering at hostels dropped after that, which is not a surprise. It's also no wonder if homeless shelter are reluctant to let drug users use the premises.

That would not happen here. We have a Constitution that demands due process of law. One provision of due process is mens re...the provision that "as an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose, and a criminal intent" is required:

Free Dictionery wrote:A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.

The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind.

Perhaps your drop-in center had an accompanying duty to observe and report criminal activity, and that's the failing of which they were closed. That duty would be specified as a side law, not the general law against drugs. But, specifically the drug dealing...I find that hard to believe. You guys invented innocent until proven guilty. I doubt you would turn your back on it here.

They were convicted under Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which says that knowingly allowing drugs on the premises is a crime. It's hard to say what they knew about the drugs. They were aware that it was a problem and they had ejected drug dealers and users several times, but the drug dealers are hardly going to deal right in front of them, so it's hard to see how they allowed drug dealing. It seems they were convicted for not spying on the clients of the drop-in centre enough. In any case, they got longer sentences than the actual drug dealers.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:Ahah...buried down in your article is the explanation:

The Guardian wrote:The charity had operated a policy of confidentiality under which information about the homeless and vulnerable people who attended the centre would not generally be passed on to outside agencies, including the police.
Michael Mansfield QC, for the pair, argued that Judge Jonathan Haworth erred in not allowing the jurors to consider whether, in the light of that widely-accepted policy, Ms Wyner and Mr Brock acted reasonably in not telling the police what they knew about drug dealing.

So the issue was not dealing drugs, but helping to cover it up. That’s a kind of aiding and abetting charge.

The case is on appeal on this very point. Keep me posted, if you can.

Yes, they were reluctant to pass information about the users of the centre to the police.

That's an old article. They did appeal and lost but the appeal judge said that the sentence was too long and released them.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.inference.org.uk/wintercomfort2/sentence/page4.htm

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:58 pm

Anyway, some of the homeless people who went to the centre for help took advantage of that help and got drugs there, with no thought for the people who were responsible for the place. I wonder if they felt at all bad when the couple were convicted.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:01 pm

The case is still on appeal...to a higher court, I think.

This would not happen in our courts system, owing to our written Constitution. In our parlance, it would constitute a "chill" on a socially favorable activity.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:05 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, some of the homeless people who went to the centre for help took advantage of that help and got drugs there, with no thought for the people who were responsible for the place. I wonder if they felt at all bad when the couple were convicted.

They are drug addicts. The stuff is addictive, don't you know? Get them help; don't shut the shelter down, fer god's sake. That's classic Tory/Republican thinking...crime and punishment.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:The case is still on appeal...to a higher court, I think.

This would not happen in our courts system, owing to our written Constitution. In our parlance, it would constitute a "chill" on a socially favorable activity.

Oh right, thanks. It happened nearly 20 years ago so it's been going on a long time. I think the chap in particular was quite traumatised by what happened.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:13 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, some of the homeless people who went to the centre for help took advantage of that help and got drugs there, with no thought for the people who were responsible for the place. I wonder if they felt at all bad when the couple were convicted.

They are drug addicts. The stuff is addictive, don't you know? Get them help; don't shut the shelter down, fer god's sake. That's classic Tory/Republican thinking...crime and punishment.

The centre wasn't shut down. However addicted someone was, they could at least have done their dealing and drug using somewhere else rather than take advantage of those who were trying to help them.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:31 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

They are drug addicts. The stuff is addictive, don't you know? Get them help; don't shut the shelter down, fer god's sake. That's classic Tory/Republican thinking...crime and punishment.

The centre wasn't shut down. However addicted someone was, they could at least have done their dealing and drug using somewhere else rather than take advantage of those who were trying to help them.

They are getting lighter on drug using nowadays. Several states have removed laws on marijuana. One, prison is too expensive. Two, as an additive issue, counseling is a better option.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:34 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:The case is still on appeal...to a higher court, I think.

This would not happen in our courts system, owing to our written Constitution. In our parlance, it would constitute a "chill" on a socially favorable activity.

Oh right, thanks. It happened nearly 20 years ago so it's been going on a long time. I think the chap in particular was quite traumatised by what happened.

Twenty years ago??? That explains a lot. This is old, old thinking. Not even relevant.

What are you doing posting old time news? Lol...got anything on Benito Mussolini?

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh right, thanks. It happened nearly 20 years ago so it's been going on a long time. I think the chap in particular was quite traumatised by what happened.

Twenty years ago??? That explains a lot. This is old, old thinking. Not even relevant.

What are you doing posting old time news? Lol...got anything on Benito Mussolini?

The law has not changed since then so of couse it's relevant and it's not "old" thinking at all. You read the article so you should know when it was published.

by Raggamuffin Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:49 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The centre wasn't shut down. However addicted someone was, they could at least have done their dealing and drug using somewhere else rather than take advantage of those who were trying to help them.

They are getting lighter on drug using nowadays. Several states have removed laws on marijuana. One, prison is too expensive. Two, as an additive issue, counseling is a better option.

We're not talking about a bit of weed here, this was about heroin.

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Nov 16, 2018 7:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Oh come on, Quill, I applaud heartily your firm's pro bono work on behalf of the disadvantaged in society, but I simply cannot accept your suggestion that concern, benefaction and altruism are the exclusive territory of the Democrat Party and that philanthropy depends on political allegiance.

Yet you have nothing substantive to say about reciprocal Republican efforts.

Truth be told, Republicans love philanthropic efforts. They think it relieves the government of responsibilities, and thus provokes less taxes for them. Unfortunately, philanthropic efforts are never more than a trickle, thus they fail. This brings the need back to the fore, and thus the government must step in.

There is your political allegiance. When it gets back to politics, you have Democrats yelling do something, do something! And Republicans are yelling: no new taxes, no new taxes! That's how it turns into a division along political lines.

That, of course, might not unreasonably be explained by the fact that I am not an American; I don't live in America and I am neither entitled to follow nor to vote for either the Republican or Democrat parties.

I'm not even sure whether most of my US internet contacts are Republican or Democrat, and in truth I am not particularly interested because I don't believe in putting people into "good" and "bad" boxes solely on the grounds of how they vote.

All I can do is to equate your political structure to our own, which might best be described as Republican=Conservative and Unionist; Democrat=Labour and Co-operative.

And if I were to say that Labour represents philanthropism while Conservatism represents disregard and contempt for the unprivileged, that statement would be, to say the very least, risible and factually ridiculous.

by Ben Reilly Sat Nov 17, 2018 4:42 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:Democrats have the answer to everything then ?

At least Democrats have a willingness to admit and work on the problem. Republicans will simply treat the victims as lazy, lower human beings...and that's life. Like Trump, they define the problem away, and when they have to confront it, treating it as law-breaking, or mental illness...or something else they are not responsible for. Eeets no mae problem mon!

If you want to compare a similar problem, look at blacks in America. Given a short hand originally (slavery), they are abandoned to wallow in squalor and poverty, and then, when they find crime...demonizing them and disposing of them in prisons. Outta sight, outta mind!

Oh come on, Quill, I applaud heartily your firm's pro bono work on behalf of the disadvantaged in society, but I simply cannot accept your suggestion that concern, benefaction and altruism are the exclusive territory of the Democrat Party and that philanthropy depends on political allegiance.

How doing this story on the homeless changed me Screen_shot_2015-07-14_at_9.18.01_am

How doing this story on the homeless changed me Colorado-republicans

How doing this story on the homeless changed me TH1D5JZ

How doing this story on the homeless changed me Ah-pf0tp-kumkzbt8o60xq

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:21 pm

Handing out sandwiches and drinks won't solve the problem. First, you have to know which homeless people actually want to live differently.

For those who do, there needs to be a systematic programme whereby they get somewhere to live which isn't temporary, help in getting a job, and help in getting off booze and drugs (if they're drinking too much and taking drugs that is). It's not that easy because it requires a lot of effort from them, and they have to really want to change.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 17, 2018 5:49 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Handing out sandwiches and drinks won't solve the problem. First, you have to know which homeless people actually want to live differently.

It's not all individuals finding situations. Sometimes it's situations finding people. Then, they must make do with the best the situation has to offer. They become 'educated' in living a life of poverty. Some turn to substances; some even turn to crime.

That's why we focus on the youth, and the education they get. Look at Ben's list: education is after wars, plus more wars (terrorism) for Republicans; it's near the top (second) for Democrats. Like I say, Democrats want to fix things; Republicans want to keep their money, or spend it on ego things, weapons and armies, and such. We'd all like to live like Donald Trump, but we don't all have a rich daddy who gives us $200-million.

Raggamuffin wrote:For those who do, there needs to be a systematic programme whereby they get somewhere to live which isn't temporary, help in getting a job, and help in getting off booze and drugs (if they're drinking too much and taking drugs that is). It's not that easy because it requires a lot of effort from them, and they have to really want to change.

Now you are creating positive situations that you would bring to people. That's what Democrats do.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:07 pm

The point is that there's no point trying to help people who actually want to live on the streets, for whatever reason. That would be a waste of time.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:08 pm

Original Quill wrote:

Now you are creating positive situations that you would bring to people. That's what Democrats do.

It's of no concern to me what democrats do, it's just common sense.

by Fred Moletrousers Sat Nov 17, 2018 6:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Handing out sandwiches and drinks won't solve the problem. First, you have to know which homeless people actually want to live differently.

It's not all individuals finding situations. Sometimes it's situations finding people. Then, they must make do with the best the situation has to offer. They become 'educated' in living a life of poverty. Some turn to substances; some even turn to crime.

That's why we focus on the youth, and the education they get. Look at Ben's list: education is after wars, plus more wars (terrorism) for Republicans; it's near the top (second) for Democrats. Like I say, Democrats want to fix things; Republicans want to keep their money, or spend it on ego things, weapons and armies, and such. We'd all like to live like Donald Trump, but we don't all have a rich daddy who gives us $200-million.

Raggamuffin wrote:For those who do, there needs to be a systematic programme whereby they get somewhere to live which isn't temporary, help in getting a job, and help in getting off booze and drugs (if they're drinking too much and taking drugs that is). It's not that easy because it requires a lot of effort from them, and they have to really want to change.

Now you are creating positive situations that you would bring to people. That's what Democrats do.

A small point perhaps, but Ben's interesting list does not include "wars"; it places the "military and national defense " (sic) in second place.

And actually, it is the principal duty of a country - any country - to defend and protect its citizens.

Priorities such as education, social security, healthcare, crime, the environment and gun policy would become meaningless were a country and its military unable to defend its citizens from attack, invasion and enslavement.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:20 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Now you are creating positive situations that you would bring to people. That's what Democrats do.

It's of no concern to me what democrats do, it's just common sense.

I shouldn't expect you would have any concerns regarding America. The point, for clarity of communication, is that you are finally doing what Democrats do...trying to fix bad situations.

For a Republican or Tory, a bad situation is of no concern, or if it is...it's because someone belongs in jail. For them, the answer is not to fix the situation, but to put the guy (whomever he is) in jail.

by Sponsored content