Mark Field on the homeless

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

The modern day Tory party, ladies and gentlemen.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/02/mark-field-calls-homeless-c...

Strange how people who rough up women generally turn out to be wankers in other spheres as well, isn’t it?

jcm

2
 dh73 02 Jul 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

he is a toss-pot but the difficulty is that I suspect that a large part of the populace hold similar views.

failing to solve what is undeniably a real social problem only feeds into garbled nonsense like this and if it is not tackled sensibly will simply feed more extremist views.

a bit like the failure to properly get a grip on immigration in a fair and humane way lead to fertile ground for brexit scare stories to gain traction (IMHO)

 MonkeyPuzzle 02 Jul 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Look, he's happy to help the homeless, just not the frightful, icky ones, okay?

2
 krikoman 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Look, he's happy to help the homeless, just not the frightful, icky ones, okay?


Stately homeless, perhaps?

1
cb294 02 Jul 2019
In reply to dh73:

> a bit like the failure to properly get a grip on immigration in a fair and humane way lead to fertile ground for brexit scare stories to gain traction (IMHO)

Translate as: ... the unwillingness to use available tools to limit immigration into welfare systems... 

 birdie num num 02 Jul 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

There’s wankers everywhere 

7
 Greenbanks 02 Jul 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Field is an unpleasant individual. He has actively and continuously briefed against the homeless - after all, why shouldn't everyone own a piece of real estate in the most expensive quarter-mile in the land, as well as another gaff in the Balearics. The worst possible example of the 'me before you' approach to serving the country, a movement for which Thatcher was a prime catalyst.

We sink further, don't we? The Brussels Brexit Party back-turning just about summed up our descent into an also-ran nation. No class. No humility. No judgement. And no sense. The putrid stink of a rotting, wasted corpse of a country.

Well done, Dave. 

1
 abr1966 02 Jul 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

What a low life....serving which of his constituents!!!?

pasbury 02 Jul 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> There’s wankers everywhere 

Yes, you’re one for instance.

18
 marsbar 02 Jul 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Got to love his complaints about the drop in police numbers.  Wonder what happened there then?  

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

"Many of these problems are caused by people with mental health, alcohol and drug abuse issues who should not be there"

He's not wrong.

What a shame his party has been responsible for cutting public services (that should be looking after 'these people') to the bone.

What a cnut.

2
 birdie num num 02 Jul 2019
In reply to pasbury:

I know. I’m ashamed too.

Post edited at 22:45
1
 Trevers 03 Jul 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Sad thing is his words regarding homeless people and his actions towards that Greenpeace protester probably endear him to the party membership, who are a bunch of reactionary, regressive lunatics.

5
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

If you run a shelter with 60-70 people staying, do you not have a responsibility towards your neighbours to ensure that your ‘guests’ behave appropriately? 

12
 Greenbanks 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Of course - and I think the organisation has sought to do that. Moreover, it has remained diplomatically silent.

The whole thing rather smacks of NIMBYism though

Removed User 03 Jul 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> "Many of these problems are caused by people with mental health, alcohol and drug abuse issues who should not be there"

> He's not wrong.

> What a shame his party has been responsible for cutting public services (that should be looking after 'these people') to the bone.

> What a cnut.


It's the total disconnect between what he experiences and the course of action his party have taken that's astounding. I wonder if he just thought his constituent was an idiot who'd swallow any old crap or whether he actually meant it?

 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Greenbanks:

Presumably this is part of a whole other conversation that we are not party to. Wonder who ‘leaked’ it. 

I had an issue with a friend of mine who was homeless, we managed to get him some support through a charity but my dealings with them left me quite frustrated at their levels of professionalism. Well meaning people but clearly out of their depth. Wonder what this charity is like and whether similar frustrations are occurring. 

2
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Removed User:

Depends what he means by ‘should not be there’. What is the charity's remit? What type of people are they allowed to look after? etc...

Irrespective of party politics and why they are there, I’m fairly sure a ‘business’, even a not for profit one, can’t just take people in off the streets. 

3
 Timmd 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> If you run a shelter with 60-70 people staying, do you not have a responsibility towards your neighbours to ensure that your ‘guests’ behave appropriately? 

Are you suggesting that there's an element of 'being at fault' if some of the homeless people, due to mental health problems leading to them falling through the cracks in society - in part thanks to other services being cut back, don't always behave appropriately?

Using the metaphor of a river being polluted, and somebody down stream from the source of pollution trying to stop it from continuing on downstream, the person down stream isn't responsible for the problem if they fail to stop it from continuing on. 

If they didn't run the shelter, the homeless people they help would be even more in the shit...

Post edited at 14:49
1
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Timmd:

Yes. 

If members of the public are being regularly assaulted by people who you have taken on a duty of care of. 

We don’t know the ins and outs of this but I  don’t expect that it’s black and white. 

Post edited at 14:49
6
 Timmd 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I think you're making it black and white by placing blame on the people trying to help any homeless people who aren't behaving as they should be,  the true responsibility lies 'further up stream' in my eyes.

In short, if you're blaming homeless shelters, I don't agree.

Post edited at 14:52
3
 Sir Chasm 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Yes. 

> If members of the public are being regularly assaulted by people who you have taken on a duty of care of. 

You think homeless shelters owe homeless people a duty of care whilst said homeless people are not in the shelter? Do you mean morally or legally?

 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Timmd:

I’ve not blamed anyone. 

3
 wbo 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock: Any suggestions on where to find a large carpet to brush them under?

1
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Morally and legally I think they also have a duty of care to the public who pass their premises. 

I recently passed a ‘hotel’ obviously being used as some kind of shelter. There were people standing outside drinking and abusing passers-by. I would expect any shelter to have rules and penalties in place for people exhibiting antisocial behaviour as the first step to their rehabilitation.

As I say. I doubt this is black and white. 

10
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to wbo:

In what way?

 Timmd 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> I’ve not blamed anyone. 

''Are you suggesting that there's an element of 'being at fault' if some of the homeless people, due to mental health problems leading to them falling through the cracks in society - in part thanks to other services being cut back, don't always behave appropriately?''

You answered Yes to the above question...

Post edited at 15:12
1
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Timmd:

Yes there is an element of fault. Being drunk or having mental problems doesn’t completely absolve you of responsibility for your actions. Furthermore if a business makes the decision to take on the responsibility  for looking after you then they need to have processes in place. Even charities. 

Post edited at 15:18
4
 Sir Chasm 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Morally and legally I think they also have a duty of care to the public who pass their premises. 

I think you need to re-read and decide who you think has a duty of care to whom.

> I recently passed a ‘hotel’ obviously being used as some kind of shelter. There were people standing outside drinking and abusing passers-by. I would expect any shelter to have rules and penalties in place for people exhibiting antisocial behaviour as the first step to their rehabilitation.

You don't know they were staying in the shelter and you don't know what rules your imaginary shelter might have.

3
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> I think you need to re-read and decide who you think has a duty of care to whom.

I don’t. You need to think about it a bit more carefully.

> You don't know they were staying in the shelter and you don't know what rules your imaginary shelter might have.

Indeed I don’t.

Fair enough, take people in, let them congregate outside your premises all day, drinking and abusing passers-by, impose no sanctions for bad behaviour. Excuse it all by saying they’re having a hard time. 

Don't be surprised when local people and their politician get involved. 

5
 Timmd 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Yes there is an element of fault. Being drunk or having mental problems doesn’t completely absolve you of responsibility for your actions.

It does to the degree that it impinges on one's self awareness and/or ability to control one's behaviour.  

Post edited at 15:28
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Timmd:

At which point the person who has agreed to take on your care needs to step in. 

As I say. There’s a big difference between well meaning people helping and a full professional service. 

This charity costs £1m a year to run. It doesn’t sound like a huge professional organisation to me. 

There will be two sides to this story. 

5
 Timmd 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

No you haven't, I've scrolled up the whole thread, and you've not phrased anything as you describe, about there being a big difference between well meaning people helping and a full professional service. It's a little confusing to be fair, you said you hadn't posted what you had, and then that you'd posted what you hadn't done. It's boggling.

Post edited at 15:41
2
 IM 03 Jul 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> "Many of these problems are caused by people with mental health, alcohol and drug abuse issues who should not be there"

> He's not wrong.

Those comments [and the one about police no's ] were from a female resident who e mailed him.

ps - I don't like him.

Post edited at 15:42
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Timmd:

14:36

 Dave Garnett 03 Jul 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Strange how people who rough up women generally turn out to be wankers

I think he used to get Liz Truss to give him a hand with that.

Removed User 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Depends what he means by ‘should not be there’. What is the charity's remit? What type of people are they allowed to look after? etc...

> Irrespective of party politics and why they are there, I’m fairly sure a ‘business’, even a not for profit one, can’t just take people in off the streets. 


It's a charity for Christ's sake. It helps the homeless and vulnerable. People with nowhere else to turn.

 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Removed User:

Exactly how many charities have you set up, registered and run?

Have you even ever been on a committee for one? 

Post edited at 17:26
1
Pan Ron 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Good luck with this. Unfortunately you are injecting facts and nuance in to a conversation, which potentially blocks the way for some good old, ill-informed, knee-jerk, Tory-bashing. Not a popular line of argument on UKC.

11
Removed User 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Yes. 

> If members of the public are being regularly assaulted

But they're not. At least there's nothing in the report about assault. Only people talking loudly and maybe using sweary words and sleeping in the street.

I imagine it's Nimbyism with a vague desire that the homeless and vulnerable are just "dealt with". At no cost to the taxpayer obviously.

1
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Indeed. I’m used to it now. Can usually tell when I’ve got it right by the number of dislikes. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. 

8
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Removed User:

It may well be. We don’t know do we? Verbal assault is still assault and creating an environment of fear for the people who have to walk their children past and don’t forget all those poor defenceless women that everyone was so worried about on the other thread. 

3
 MonkeyPuzzle 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

It's almost like these people with complex problems aren't able to just switch them on and off because they're near homeowners. Maybe the charity can open their vault stuffed full of cash and pay to personally chaperone each of the service users when they're anywhere they might cause a scene.

Post edited at 18:21
1
Removed User 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Well at least you admit you were talking pish.

1
Removed User 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Good luck with this. Unfortunately you are injecting facts

Actually he's been making them up.

2
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Removed User:

Really? Where have I done that? I’m not sure you’re reading anything I’ve written properly. Are you so entrenched in dogma? 

3
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I don’t think anyone has suggested they do or can have they?

For the third time this is obviously not black and white. There is obviously some regular disturbance that the charity is failing to control to the satisfaction of the neighbours. 

If you people want to make this dispute political with some imagined landed gentry persecuting the poor and needy in some kind of Charles Dickens novel carry on. 

I’d prefer to stick to the facts that we have been presented with. 

1
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> Actually he's been making them up.

Well, no, they’re all facts. Just because they don’t suit your dogma doesn’t make them fiction. I’m yet to see any proper argument from you other than disputing my facts. Have you got any facts of your own yet?

5
 MonkeyPuzzle 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I'm just interested as to what your realistic alternative situation is here. Some homeless people are pretty scary, usually with pretty good reason. What should the charity do?

 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

From what I can see the hostel holds 60-70 people. I don’t know what their staffing levels are or what their supervision ratio is, or even if the residents are supervised at all. 

So without that information it’s impossible to comment. 

At the extreme view I suppose their residents could be spilling out into the street and congregating in the immediate area. So if that was the case the first thing I’d probably do is get them to either disperse somewhere or stay inside. 

Theres loads of options.

But we don’t know those facts do we. 

Post edited at 19:14
6
 MonkeyPuzzle 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Here’s The Passage’s Good Neighbour Policy: http://passage.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-Passage-Good-neighbour...

Sounds like they’re undertaking reasonable steps to mitigate any impact on the surrounding community.

Some people would just rather the homeless were shooed off somewhere else and it would appear that Field is at least happy to pretend to be one of those people to his constituents rather than explain the pressing need for services like The Passage (in lieu of a compassionate state), the complex issues faced by many homeless people and explain how not having a service such as that would be worse. “Undesirables”? Come on. Jess Phillips would have written back telling them to volunteer.

1
mick taylor 03 Jul 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Was going to post that link - beat me to it.  Lots of facts and info about the charity on the charity commission website;  five million income, large staff team etc.

I work for a charity, volunteer at others (was chairperson of Wigan cab for a few years) and have daily dealings with destitute people.  The Passage will have an awkward time dealing with incidents like this.  Clients with multiple, complex problems will behave in certain ways and the charity cannot be held responsible.  Also, this type of work will attract other people - their friends, drug dealers etc and they will also cause ‘problems’.  But Field needs to be upfront, admit these people are also his constituents and not come out with the negative sound bite bollocks that he has done, that does nothing to help.  But he won’t, coz he’s a dick.

1
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Thanks. Excactly as I said. They’re not “a charity for Christ sake!” and I haven’t been making facts up, they have a policy. 

If they and their residents have been sticking to their policy there can be no issues can there? 

4
Removed User 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Thanks. Excactly as I said. They’re not “a charity for Christ sake!” and I haven’t been making facts up, they have a policy. 

Passsage 2000 A company limited by guarantee (No 3885593) Operating as The Passage Charity registration number 1079764

From their website. Why not read up on them before launching into slander and innuendo.

1
 Ian W 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> From what I can see the hostel holds 60-70 people. I don’t know what their staffing levels are or what their supervision ratio is, or even if the residents are supervised at all. 

It has a capacity of 40. Not 60-70. It has specialist staff on site.

> So without that information it’s impossible to comment. 

Don't mention it.

> But we don’t know those facts do we. 

Because "we" could'nt be arsed to find out.

1
 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> Passsage 2000 A company limited by guarantee (No 3885593) Operating as The Passage Charity registration number 1079764

> From their website. Why not read up on them before launching into slander and innuendo.

Sorry. I thought your implication from your statement “They’re a charity for Christ sake” meant that you thought they have some kind of dispensation from any responsibilities. We know they’re a charity!  

What exactly did you mean by that statement? 

 DancingOnRock 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Ian W:

I got 60-70 from a quick google. Does the 60-70 include the staff maybe? I don’t know, the figures aren’t even a factor of 2 out. 

We also know that those 40 people attract other hangers on who will be lurking about and the centre have a stated rule that people must not congregate in groups. 

And another poster confirms that it’s a nightmare to keep on top of. 

So, now we have a better picture of the two sides of the story.

Of course all the posters on this thread  would be quite happy with drug dealers, mentally unstable people, the homeless and alcoholics hanging around outside their house at all hours. So that’s all good, perhaps they should write to the passage and suggest they relocate. 

As I said upthread, I’ve also had direct experience of a homeless person and it’s not simple. The thought of trying to manage 40+ of them in central London in a single shelter really doesn’t sound like a great situation.

6
mick taylor 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I don’t think any posters would be ‘happy’ living next door to the situation you describe, but I reckon all posters on this thread would conduct themselves with more professional dignity then Field if they had the same power/trust/responsibility that such a position of MP holds.  Strange that in the past he has come out with quite positive things about the charity. I also think that few, if any posters on the other thread about him would tackle a woman in the way he did -  ‘she could have had acid/weapon/Ken Dodd tickling stick, I’d have done the same as him’ is tosh.  I think he is loosing the plot.  Serious.

1
 MonkeyPuzzle 04 Jul 2019
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Of course all the posters on this thread  would be quite happy with drug dealers, mentally unstable people, the homeless and alcoholics hanging around outside their house at all hours. So that’s all good, perhaps they should write to the passage and suggest they relocate. 

I lived three years on the the street in the first episode of the three-part documentary about drugs in Bristol that was on BBC3 recently. “Crack alley” I believe it was called. Happy they were there? No. But most were friendly enough and you say hello in the mornings and thank f*ck that you didn’t end up there yourself. There’s a gigantic dollop of empathy missing from the communications we’re discussing.

1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> There’s a gigantic dollop of empathy missing from the...

... "I'm all right, Jack" brigade.

1
 jethro kiernan 04 Jul 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

I think there is a strong streak of denial in all of this, with the lack of council housing and people stretched financially with no significant safety  net in place there are a large number of people who are only a couple of unlucky life events away from the streets potentially. 

Not every one in these shelters has a back story of trouble, drugs and mental health issues, an increasing number are going to have a backstory that involved families, mortgages, jobs and a regular life etc.

we all believe to a lesser or greater extent that we achieve our good fortune by hard work only and that we are masters of our fortune, and that those that who end up homeless didn’t work hard enough at life.

This is never bourne out by any studies, silver spoons help, most people in lower income middle class families are vulnerable to financial misfortune more so in times of wage stagnation and increasing housing cost, unfortunately we seem to be doubling down on the hard work myth and the “others” being responsible for housing shortages, lack of jobs, doctors waiting lists etc. 

this mass cognitive dissonance is now being played on by populist politicians with results (for them)

1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...