Shocking images reveal elderly couple living on the streets after being evicted from their home

First topic message reminder :



Dispute: The couple failed to pay their rent following changes to how pensions are paid

It's an image which should shame Britain in the 21st century.

Huddled together under seafront shelter, an 84-year-old man and his 75-year-old partner are now living rough on the streets of Bournemouth.

The couple, who are not being named, are attending a local soup kitchen to be fed.

It is understood that until recently they had been living in a privately-rented home.

But following changes to their pension, they failed to pay their rent and were evicted.

Pensions are now paid electronically into bank accounts but the couple are said to dislike using debit and credit cards and internet banking and have been unable to collect their money in their usual way.

As a result they are homeless while the matter is slowly resolved.


Struggle: The couple are attending a local soup kitchen in order to be fed


Charity workers have reacted with shock and anger at the situation.

Robin Richmond, a church volunteer, stumbled upon the couple’s plight while he was helping a church get set up to assist local homeless people.

Mr Richmond said: “They have helped people through voluntary organisations and it is a real pity that in their hour of need they have been left to live on the streets.

“At a time when people are so concerned about the misuse of benefits it appears that the system is radically failing a couple who, on the face of it, we should be honouring and not forgetting.”

Bournemouth Council says it has offered the couple emergency accommodation but this was refused.

Kelly Ansell, Bournemouth Borough Council’s strategic housing manager, said: “The couple’s situation was recently assessed and they were offered emergency accommodation but this was refused.

“We would urge them to make further contact with the council’s housing team.”

But campaigners say more must be done to help the pair.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/shocking-images-reveal-elderly-couple-3861255#ixzz37UIvbfW0


Gives a whole new slant to 'Care in the Community'!

I know this might seem like a weird idea, but is it possible that some people might actually want to live rough for a while? I know a chap who did that, and when he died it turned out he had loads of money.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:Yet it is clear that social services are involved - because the story talks about emergency accommodation being offered and various charitable organizations being up in arms.

So the point they got involved is moot - they are involved and the couple are still on the streets so the couple have been considered mentally competent otherwise they would have been put into care accommodation and passed onto the court of protection.

To be honest they are probably better off on the streets than being looked after by the court of protection.

However I say again - people are demanding they are helped - well what sort of help and how?  Its easy to say help them its more difficult to be detailed - so start being detailed folks and lets see how easy it is.

It's not clear if that accommodation was offered before the story was in the press or afterwards though.

As you say, now the council are involved and the couple have refused help, which is their right, so I really don't see why some people are so outraged.

Yes it is clear - it was offered before because the statement was given that it was refused. If it was offered after it went to press the press would not know if it was refused or accepted.

I tell you what though, they have a better class of homeless person in Bournemouth than we have round here. They look very clean and well turned out for people who have been sleeping rough for 2 months, she even has her nails painted. And those gold rings and bracelets would have soon been robbed   

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not clear if that accommodation was offered before the story was in the press or afterwards though.

As you say, now the council are involved and the couple have refused help, which is their right, so I really don't see why some people are so outraged.

Yes it is clear - it was offered before because the statement was given that it was refused.  If it was offered after it went to press the press would not know if it was refused or accepted.

It might have happened very quickly. Maybe the press didn't get involved straightaway.

Raggamuffin wrote:I know this might seem like a weird idea, but is it possible that some people might actually want to live rough for a while? I know a chap who did that, and when he died it turned out he had loads of money.

Its more than possible.

I mean the fuss is not coming from the couple it is coming from people looking at the couple - and making assumptions. Lots of people do not like seeing homelessness, or frailty or what they perceive as suffering. A significant amount of the cries of "help them" (applied to any situation where it is heard) actually mean "do something so I don't have to see this"

It would be interesting if a reporter couple be bothered to try and make contact with the couple and get their view of the subject - because at the moment the only side of the story we are being given is the observers.

An awful lot of assumptions being made and a big rush to judgement as usual. It is not a quick process to evict someone, the law has to be followed and help is offered to those faced with eviction. It appears they refused help. If they have capacity, they are perfectly entitled to do so. if they don't have capacity the decisions would be made for them. Just because they are old we cant take away their rights to make their own choices. It is appalling that they are on the street but I await the whole story.

The two pensioners were evicted from their privately-rented home in Charminster in April, and have been sleeping rough since then – relying on soup kitchens to eat – while an issue with their pension payments is resolved.

It is believed that after the pensions system changed, they were told they had to have their pensions paid electronically into a bank account. Because they were unable to carry on collecting their money in their usual way, they were unable to pay their rent.

“It shouldn’t really get to this point, it is quite outrageous,” she said.

She said sometimes elderly people were reluctant to speak to social services due to pride, stubbornness or a desire not to be a burden.

“I understand a lot of people have tried to engage with them, clearly they can’t sort this out on their own.”

“What the sad example of this couple shows is that, although things are being done, they are not being done quickly enough, and there is a need for further action.”,,,

http://m.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11337808.OAP_couple_living_on_the_streets/


Slipped through the net, because less funds are available and no one is there to give a fuck.

harvesmom wrote:I tell you what though, they have a better class of homeless person in Bournemouth than we have round here. They look very clean and well turned out for people who have been sleeping rough for 2 months, she even has her nails painted. And those gold rings and bracelets would have soon been robbed   

Oooh, I didn't notice the nail polish. Mind you, it's peeling off a bit now unless it's just the way the light is falling.

Nems wrote:An awful lot of assumptions being made and a big rush to judgement as usual. It is not a quick process to evict someone, the law has to be followed and help is offered to those faced with eviction. It appears they refused help. If they have capacity, they are perfectly entitled to do so. if they don't have capacity the decisions would be made for them. Just because they are old we cant take away their rights to make their own choices. It is appalling that they are on the street but I await the whole story.

As I said, they might not have been evicted in the legal sense, they might just have been given notice to leave, and they left.

Maybe they like the sea air.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I know this might seem like a weird idea, but is it possible that some people might actually want to live rough for a while? I know a chap who did that, and when he died it turned out he had loads of money.

Its more than possible.

I mean the fuss is not coming from the couple it is coming from people looking at the couple - and making assumptions.  Lots of people do not like seeing homelessness, or frailty or what they perceive as suffering.  A significant amount of the cries of "help them" (applied to any situation where it is heard) actually mean "do something so I don't have to see this"

It would be interesting if a reporter couple be bothered to try and make contact with the couple and get their view of the subject - because at the moment the only side of the story we are being given is the observers.

I think some people might get a sense of freedom or something - unencumbered by all these possessions we tend to collect over the years, and bills dropping onto the door mat.

The couple asked not to be named, so it sounds like a reporter did try to speak to them. Maybe they're fed up with people harassing them.   

  

Raggamuffin wrote:

harvesmom wrote:I tell you what though, they have a better class of homeless person in Bournemouth than we have round here. They look very clean and well turned out for people who have been sleeping rough for 2 months, she even has her nails painted. And those gold rings and bracelets would have soon been robbed   

Oooh, I didn't notice the nail polish. Mind you, it's peeling off a bit now unless it's just the way the light is falling.

I did notice the pristine white jacket
It says in the article "lots of agencies have tried to engage them"
so it does appear they are there out of choice.

Raggamuffin wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

No, that's why I say its half a story, I prefer to have the full facts before I start wailing about how awful the Landlord/council have treated them. I think there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Some people are blaming the banks too! Not on here - on other sites.

It's not the landlord's fault, it's not the council's fault, and it's not society's fault.

...yes it is.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some people are blaming the banks too! Not on here - on other sites.

It's not the landlord's fault, it's not the council's fault, and it's not society's fault.

...yes it is.

Why?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some people are blaming the banks too! Not on here - on other sites.

It's not the landlord's fault, it's not the council's fault, and it's not society's fault.

...yes it is.

You always blame everyone except the people who are to blame though.

scrat wrote:The two pensioners were evicted from their privately-rented home in Charminster in April, and have been sleeping rough since then – relying on soup kitchens to eat – while an issue with their pension payments is resolved.

It is believed that after the pensions system changed, they were told they had to have their pensions paid electronically into a bank account. Because they were unable to carry on collecting their money in their usual way, they were unable to pay their rent.

“It shouldn’t really get to this point, it is quite outrageous,” she said.

She said sometimes elderly people were reluctant to speak to social services due to pride, stubbornness or a desire not to be a burden.

“I understand a lot of people have tried to engage with them, clearly they can’t sort this out on their own.”

“What the sad example of this couple shows is that, although things are being done, they are not being done quickly enough, and there is a need for further action.”,,,

http://m.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11337808.OAP_couple_living_on_the_streets/


Slipped through the net, because less funds are available and no one is there to give a fuck.

Which is actually bollocks if you think about it.

Systems have long been in place to allow benefits or pensions to be paid to a basic post office account where people can indeed collect them in " the usual way" with the only difference being that they use a card instead of a book.

So lets say the couple get letters explaining about changes and through lack of understanding fail to set up a basic post office account.

Say they leave when their landlord tells them without explaining why they are not paying the rent and without involving the court system.

Lets say the pension system does not have alarms on it to notify someone when a pension cannot be paid because their is no account for it to go into (which is far fetched)

So you now have the couple homeless with no pensions.

OK so far. This scenario is possible.

At this point social services become aware - we know this because of the story of emergency accommodation being offered.

Now quite besides assessing the mental competency one of the first questions SS is going to ask is why they have no money - when they find out about the pension changes the first thing they are going to do (if they dont run to the court of protection) is explain to the couple about post office accounts and set one up - which means within a couple of weeks maximum the pension will be being paid and available for collection from the post office the same as it was before.

Yet 2 months on - call it a month if we want to leave the involvement of social services as happening very late - nothing has changed. This is not OK - and is a very very unlikely scenario which could only happen if the couple were accepting of it. If the couple point blank refused all help they would be pulled in as incompetent and put in a care home. That they are on the street indicates they are showing competency. If they are competent they could get their pension from the post office once helped get that set up by SS. This is not happening (at least we are told it is not)

The only conclusion I can come to is we do not have even half of the story here - and can therefor do nothing more than speculate.

Nems wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

...yes it is.

Why?

I echo that question.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Its more than possible.

I mean the fuss is not coming from the couple it is coming from people looking at the couple - and making assumptions.  Lots of people do not like seeing homelessness, or frailty or what they perceive as suffering.  A significant amount of the cries of "help them" (applied to any situation where it is heard) actually mean "do something so I don't have to see this"

It would be interesting if a reporter couple be bothered to try and make contact with the couple and get their view of the subject - because at the moment the only side of the story we are being given is the observers.

I think some people might get a sense of freedom or something - unencumbered by all these possessions we tend to collect over the years, and bills dropping onto the door mat.

The couple asked not to be named, so it sounds like a reporter did try to speak to them. Maybe they're fed up with people harassing them.   

You make it sound quite an appealing lifestyle Rags, I'm thinking I may give it a go myself   

Seriously it seems like they are there through choice and don't want to be hounded by the press or do-gooders.

harvesmom wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think some people might get a sense of freedom or something - unencumbered by all these possessions we tend to collect over the years, and bills dropping onto the door mat.

The couple asked not to be named, so it sounds like a reporter did try to speak to them. Maybe they're fed up with people harassing them.   

You make it sound quite an appealing lifestyle Rags, I'm thinking I may give it a go myself   

Seriously it seems like they are there through choice and don't want to be hounded by the press or do-gooders.

Which brings me back to my statement that a significant number of those calling for the couple to be helped are actually calling for the couple to be removed from where they have to look at them.

harvesmom wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think some people might get a sense of freedom or something - unencumbered by all these possessions we tend to collect over the years, and bills dropping onto the door mat.

The couple asked not to be named, so it sounds like a reporter did try to speak to them. Maybe they're fed up with people harassing them.   

You make it sound quite an appealing lifestyle Rags, I'm thinking I may give it a go myself   

Seriously it seems like they are there through choice and don't want to be hounded by the press or do-gooders.

Well I do sometimes wonder if people feel trapped by the usual lifestyle.

Maybe they didn't choose to be homeless in the first place, but when the landlord asked them to leave, they decided to give it a go and be free for a while. If they don't have any responsibilities to family it's up to them.  

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:The two pensioners were evicted from their privately-rented home in Charminster in April, and have been sleeping rough since then – relying on soup kitchens to eat – while an issue with their pension payments is resolved.

It is believed that after the pensions system changed, they were told they had to have their pensions paid electronically into a bank account. Because they were unable to carry on collecting their money in their usual way, they were unable to pay their rent.

“It shouldn’t really get to this point, it is quite outrageous,” she said.

She said sometimes elderly people were reluctant to speak to social services due to pride, stubbornness or a desire not to be a burden.

“I understand a lot of people have tried to engage with them, clearly they can’t sort this out on their own.”

“What the sad example of this couple shows is that, although things are being done, they are not being done quickly enough, and there is a need for further action.”,,,

http://m.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/11337808.OAP_couple_living_on_the_streets/


Slipped through the net, because less funds are available and no one is there to give a fuck.

Which is actually bollocks if you think about it.

Systems have long been in place to allow benefits or pensions to be paid to a basic post office account where people can indeed collect them in " the usual way" with the only difference being that they use a card instead of a book.

So lets say the couple get letters explaining about changes and through lack of understanding fail to set up a basic post office account.

Say they leave when their landlord tells them without explaining why they are not paying the rent and without involving the court system.

Lets say the pension system does not have alarms on it to notify someone when a pension cannot be paid because their is no account for it to go into (which is far fetched)

So you now have the couple homeless with no pensions.

OK so far.  This scenario is possible.

At this point social services become aware - we know this because of the story of emergency accommodation being offered.

Now quite besides assessing the mental competency one of the first questions SS is going to ask is why they have no money - when they find out about the pension changes the first thing they are going to do (if they dont run to the court of protection) is explain to the couple about post office accounts and set one up - which means within a couple of weeks maximum the pension will be being paid and available for collection from the post office the same as it was before.

Yet 2 months on - call it a month if we want to leave the involvement of social services as happening very late - nothing has changed.  This is not OK - and is a very very unlikely scenario which could only happen if the couple were accepting of it.  If the couple point blank refused all help they would be pulled in as incompetent and put in a care home.  That they are on the street indicates they are showing competency.  If they are competent they could get their pension from the post office once helped get that set up by SS.  This is not happening (at least we are told it is not)

The only conclusion I can come to is we do not have even half of the story here - and can therefor do nothing more than speculate.

Quite correct, we do not have the full picture and we can only speculate as to why in 2014 we have two elderly pensioners homeless and sleeping rough in one of the richest conurbations in the world.

However, your suggestion that fail proof mechanisms are always in place to protect any of us, is the only bollocks presented here.

Austerity measures to fund millionaire tax cuts are now pushing these systems to breaking point, cause and effect.

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Which is actually bollocks if you think about it.

Systems have long been in place to allow benefits or pensions to be paid to a basic post office account where people can indeed collect them in " the usual way" with the only difference being that they use a card instead of a book.

So lets say the couple get letters explaining about changes and through lack of understanding fail to set up a basic post office account.

Say they leave when their landlord tells them without explaining why they are not paying the rent and without involving the court system.

Lets say the pension system does not have alarms on it to notify someone when a pension cannot be paid because their is no account for it to go into (which is far fetched)

So you now have the couple homeless with no pensions.

OK so far.  This scenario is possible.

At this point social services become aware - we know this because of the story of emergency accommodation being offered.

Now quite besides assessing the mental competency one of the first questions SS is going to ask is why they have no money - when they find out about the pension changes the first thing they are going to do (if they dont run to the court of protection) is explain to the couple about post office accounts and set one up - which means within a couple of weeks maximum the pension will be being paid and available for collection from the post office the same as it was before.

Yet 2 months on - call it a month if we want to leave the involvement of social services as happening very late - nothing has changed.  This is not OK - and is a very very unlikely scenario which could only happen if the couple were accepting of it.  If the couple point blank refused all help they would be pulled in as incompetent and put in a care home.  That they are on the street indicates they are showing competency.  If they are competent they could get their pension from the post office once helped get that set up by SS.  This is not happening (at least we are told it is not)

The only conclusion I can come to is we do not have even half of the story here - and can therefor do nothing more than speculate.

Quite correct, we do not have the full picture and we can only speculate as to why in 2014 we have two elderly pensioners homeless and sleeping rough in one of the richest conurbations in the world.

However, your suggestion that fail proof mechanisms are always in place to protect any of us, is the only bollocks presented here.

Austerity measures to fund millionaire tax cuts are now pushing these systems to breaking point, cause and effect.

Can you contemplate that their own choice may play a role in this?

What do you think should be done?

Is it to help them or get them where people dont have to look at them?

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:
Quite correct, we do not have the full picture and we can only speculate as to why in 2014 we have two elderly pensioners homeless and sleeping rough in one of the richest conurbations in the world.

However, your suggestion that fail proof mechanisms are always in place to protect any of us, is the only bollocks presented here.

Austerity measures to fund millionaire tax cuts are now pushing these systems to breaking point, cause and effect.

Can you contemplate that their own choice may play a role in this?

What do you think should be done?

Is it to help them or get them where people dont have to look at them?

Wanting to be homeless at 75 and 84 years old, does not speak as sound judgement to me.

I think a lot of old people feel alienated from modern life, we need to bring them back into the functions of society, they've the skills and experience a plenty.

End this constant pursuit of greed heralded in by the milk snatch and furthered by the current crop of fuckwits who are sailing us desperately close to anarchy.

If it's some kind of protest, find out what the protest is, address it and get them back into a home of their own ASAP.

I did wonder if it were some kind of protest to be honest, but as they have refused to give their names and story to the press I don't think it is.

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Can you contemplate that their own choice may play a role in this?

What do you think should be done?

Is it to help them or get them where people dont have to look at them?

Wanting to be homeless at 75 and 84 years old, does not speak as sound judgement to me.

I think a lot of old people feel alienated from modern life, we need to bring them back into the functions of society, they've the skills and experience a plenty.

End this constant pursuit of greed heralded in by the milk snatch and furthered by the current crop of fuckwits who are sailing us desperately close to anarchy.

If it's some kind of protest, find out what the protest is, address it and get them back into a home of their own ASAP.

Maybe they've had enough of "society" and "conforming". Maybe at their age they want to try something new that they never tried before. Maybe they just want to feel free for a while.

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Can you contemplate that their own choice may play a role in this?

What do you think should be done?

Is it to help them or get them where people dont have to look at them?

Wanting to be homeless at 75 and 84 years old, does not speak as sound judgement to me.

I think a lot of old people feel alienated from modern life, we need to bring them back into the functions of society, they've the skills and experience a plenty.

End this constant pursuit of greed heralded in by the milk snatch and furthered by the current crop of fuckwits who are sailing us desperately close to anarchy.

If it's some kind of protest, find out what the protest is, address it and get them back into a home of their own ASAP.

So you think if are choosing to be where they are they are not of sound mind - so presumably someone should take them and put them inside and "look after them"

You cannot comprehend why someone would want to be homeless - fair enough. Can you understand that people do often want things you cannot comprehend (I do not comprehend why anyone of any age would want to play golf - I have tried very hard up to and including the point of having ago myself - I still dont get it but accept that millions do want to do it)

If you can accept that someone people want to do things you cannot comprehend can you explain why the peoples age should come into it?

If a person can find satisfaction in being homeless at 20 why not at 50? Why not at 80?

What if this couple are not protesting? What if having found themselves asked to leave at the start of the summer they decided they would sleep rough for a couple of days like they did when they were younger - and that couple of days has lengthened simply because they are satisfied or god forbid enjoying it? I mean nobody goes off on one when an older person decides to get back on a motorbike because it reminds them of their youth (OK the families go off on one but nobody says the older person is a victim of society etc etc). Since April the weather has been fairly good - and this couple are of the generation that may have followed the harvest sleeping in fields when younger or who may have "run away to the big city" and slept rough looking to make their fortunes (yes people - your grandparents did things in their teens that they probably dont want you to know about) maybe they are reliving that and will happily accept help come September/October.

If that is the case I have only one complaint - and that is that as a younger person I would not be allowed to do what they are doing. If a younger homeless person tried using the bus shelters the way this couple are they would be moved on - and moved on without one whit of concern for them either.

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:
Wanting to be homeless at 75 and 84 years old, does not speak as sound judgement to me.

I think a lot of old people feel alienated from modern life, we need to bring them back into the functions of society, they've the skills and experience a plenty.

End this constant pursuit of greed heralded in by the milk snatch and furthered by the current crop of fuckwits who are sailing us desperately close to anarchy.

If it's some kind of protest, find out what the protest is, address it and get them back into a home of their own ASAP.

So you think if are choosing to be where they are they are not of sound mind - so presumably someone should take them and put them inside and "look after them"

You cannot comprehend why someone would want to be homeless - fair enough.  Can you understand that people do often want things you cannot comprehend (I do not comprehend why anyone of any age would want to play golf - I have tried very hard up to and including the point of having ago myself - I still dont get it but accept that millions do want to do it)

If you can accept that someone people want to do things you cannot comprehend can you explain why the peoples age should come into it?

If a person can find satisfaction in being homeless at 20 why not at 50?  Why not at 80?

What if this couple are not protesting?  What if having found themselves asked to leave at the start of the summer they decided they would sleep rough for a couple of days like they did when they were younger - and that couple of days has lengthened simply because they are satisfied or god forbid enjoying it?  I mean nobody goes off on one when an older person decides to get back on a motorbike because it reminds them of their youth (OK the families go off on one but nobody says the older person is a victim of society etc etc).  Since April the weather has been fairly good - and this couple are of the generation that may have followed the harvest sleeping in fields when younger or who may have "run away to the big city" and slept rough looking to make their fortunes (yes people - your grandparents did things in their teens that they probably dont want you to know about)  maybe they are reliving that and will happily accept help come September/October.

If that is the case I have only one complaint - and that is that as a younger person I would not be allowed to do what they are doing.  If a younger homeless person tried using the bus shelters the way this couple are they would be moved on - and moved on without one whit of concern for them either.

Perhaps we should just euthanise them on the spot,,,, with something strong enough to mask the smell of their decomposing bodies, which would become a terrible inconvenience at bus shelters and park benches, not to mention an unnecessary cost.

They should not be homeless and sleeping rough at 75 and 84 years old, there is no excuse for it, whatsoever!

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

So you think if are choosing to be where they are they are not of sound mind - so presumably someone should take them and put them inside and "look after them"

You cannot comprehend why someone would want to be homeless - fair enough.  Can you understand that people do often want things you cannot comprehend (I do not comprehend why anyone of any age would want to play golf - I have tried very hard up to and including the point of having ago myself - I still dont get it but accept that millions do want to do it)

If you can accept that someone people want to do things you cannot comprehend can you explain why the peoples age should come into it?

If a person can find satisfaction in being homeless at 20 why not at 50?  Why not at 80?

What if this couple are not protesting?  What if having found themselves asked to leave at the start of the summer they decided they would sleep rough for a couple of days like they did when they were younger - and that couple of days has lengthened simply because they are satisfied or god forbid enjoying it?  I mean nobody goes off on one when an older person decides to get back on a motorbike because it reminds them of their youth (OK the families go off on one but nobody says the older person is a victim of society etc etc).  Since April the weather has been fairly good - and this couple are of the generation that may have followed the harvest sleeping in fields when younger or who may have "run away to the big city" and slept rough looking to make their fortunes (yes people - your grandparents did things in their teens that they probably dont want you to know about)  maybe they are reliving that and will happily accept help come September/October.

If that is the case I have only one complaint - and that is that as a younger person I would not be allowed to do what they are doing.  If a younger homeless person tried using the bus shelters the way this couple are they would be moved on - and moved on without one whit of concern for them either.

Perhaps we should just euthanise them on the spot,,,, with something strong enough to mask the smell of their decomposing bodies, which would become a terrible inconvenience at bus shelters and park benches, not to mention an unnecessary cost.

They should not be homeless and sleeping rough at 75 and 84 years old, there is no excuse for it, whatsoever!

Again what if they want to be?

Do you find it more humane to take a person who wants to be outside and force them to live inside than you do to euthanize them?

I am against euthanasia, I am in favour of helping where help is needed and/or wanted - I am not in favour of forcing people to do what I think they should be doing if they do not want to.

This couple have been offered accommodation and refused it.

There are other agencies involved doing what they can.

What exactly do you think should be done here?

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:
Perhaps we should just euthanise them on the spot,,,, with something strong enough to mask the smell of their decomposing bodies, which would become a terrible inconvenience at bus shelters and park benches, not to mention an unnecessary cost.

They should not be homeless and sleeping rough at 75 and 84 years old, there is no excuse for it, whatsoever!

Again what if they want to be?

Do you find it more humane to take a person who wants to be outside and force them to live inside than you do to euthanize them?

I am against euthanasia, I am in favour of helping where help is needed and/or wanted - I am not in favour of forcing people to do what I think they should be doing if they do not want to.

This couple have been offered accommodation and refused it.  

There are other agencies involved doing what they can.

What exactly do you think should be done here?

Again, is wanting to be homeless and sleeping rough at 75 and 84 years old a sound judgement to make?

The only thing you seem to be against is a state that cares for its elderly people, have they been offered accommodation?, did they refuse it?, are other agencies involved?,,,did any of the above safeguard the 31000 old people killed by the cold,,,let's repeat that, ,did any of the assurances you've just given safeguard the 31000 old people killed by the cold as a direct result of austerity measures?

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Again what if they want to be?

Do you find it more humane to take a person who wants to be outside and force them to live inside than you do to euthanize them?

I am against euthanasia, I am in favour of helping where help is needed and/or wanted - I am not in favour of forcing people to do what I think they should be doing if they do not want to.

This couple have been offered accommodation and refused it.  

There are other agencies involved doing what they can.

What exactly do you think should be done here?

Again, is wanting to be homeless and sleeping rough at 75 and 84 years old a sound judgement to make?

The only thing you seem to be against is a state that cares for its elderly people, have they been offered accommodation?, did they refuse it?, are other agencies involved?,,,did any of the above safeguard the 31000 old people killed by the cold,,,let's repeat that,  ,did any of the assurances you've just given safeguard the 31000 old people killed by the cold as a direct result of austerity measures?

Uh is there some age after which people are not allowed to make unsound judgements?

Are we discussing the soundness of the choice or whether the choice is allowed?

I am not at all against the state caring for elderly people - I am against anyone forcing anyone to do something they dont want to.

Yes they have been offered accommodation - it says in the story.
Yes they did refuse it - it says in the story
Yes there are other agencies involved - it says in the story

So again - working from above for what has been done what exactly would you do to help this couple?

I have a feeling that when it gets colder this couple will ask for housing.   

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:
Again, is wanting to be homeless and sleeping rough at 75 and 84 years old a sound judgement to make?

The only thing you seem to be against is a state that cares for its elderly people, have they been offered accommodation?, did they refuse it?, are other agencies involved?,,,did any of the above safeguard the 31000 old people killed by the cold,,,let's repeat that,  ,did any of the assurances you've just given safeguard the 31000 old people killed by the cold as a direct result of austerity measures?

Uh is there some age after which people are not allowed to make unsound judgements?

Are we discussing the soundness of the choice or whether the choice is allowed?

I am not at all against the state caring for elderly people - I am against anyone forcing anyone to do something they dont want to.

Yes they have been offered accommodation - it says in the story.
Yes they did refuse it - it says in the story
Yes there are other agencies involved - it says in the story

So again - working from above for what has been done what exactly would you do to help this couple?

Yes, I don't see why people should be treated like idiots just because they reach a certain age.

It could be a completely made up story by a group of Labour supporters.