Fuck you, England. Just fuck you.

A blogger is anyone with a web domain and the ability to produce words

So is a newspaper. Oh, except you have to be rich.

and they can write anything they like regardless of whether it is factual or not. A newspaper doesn't have such a luxury, especially good ones.

You clearly have a higher opinion of Murduck and his chums than I do.


When you wake up to the fact that you 'paper's Tory,
Just remember, there are two sides to every story.
 
Quite impossible to prove.

I do however think, generally speaking, that a newspaper has better sources than a blogger.

You do realise that the "blog" had a link to a copy of the proposed by-law? How good a source do you want?
 
Sure, there are people who are homeless through no particular fault of their own but there is a significant percentage here who have made a lifestyle choice

I really cannot believe that you believe that. You clearly have no idea of the trap that opens once you no longer have somewhere to live.

but there will always be people who have to need to garner good karma by helping them

Which would be banned under the bye-law.

Sure it's a pretty shocking read when you first look over the story, but when you drill down and start looking at the issue properly it really isn't as bad as it first seems.

Unless you happen to be homeless.
 
in a welfare state like the UK (or Germany) - Homelessness in the broad mayority of cases is a lifestyle-choice (as wierd as this may sound at first). These People have problems, can?t cope with life in our society on many levels.

You have a strange concept of "choice".
 
I really cannot believe that you believe that. You clearly have no idea of the trap that opens once you no longer have somewhere to live.

It isn't a belief, it is a fact. I lived in Brighton for many years and it is estimated that 30% of those sleeping rough there do so by choice, even though Brighton being so left leaning and Bohemian offers many of them a way out.

Which would be banned under the bye-law.

From an area of not much more than a couple of square miles. The homeless will simply be transplanted to adjacent areas, and those who assist will follow.

Unless you happen to be homeless.

So there is now homeless snobbery? Do you think the homeless of Westminster look down on those in Brent because they are homeless in a more affluent postcode?

"I don't have a home."

"Me neither. Where don't you have a home?"

"I don't have a home in Westminster."

"You lucky sod. I only don't have a home in Rickmansworth. I'm hoping soon not to have a home in Kensington but there's a doorway shortage there right now."

Don't get me wrong, I have huge sympathy for the homeless. I lost count of the number of times I've been asked for money outside Tesco Express or similar. Now I don't carry cash often, but I've been more than happy to say "Look, I'm not going to give you money to spend on booze or drugs, but I'm happy while I'm in there to get you a coffee and a sandwich." and then received a mouthful of abuse in return because I won't give them the means to get fucked up. Makes no odds to me because those who appreciate my offer more than make up for those who don't.

What I am trying to point out is that the articles are all full of the "OMG the poor homeless" when by and large it will make very little difference to them. They will move as required, as will those who provide them with soup kitchens or soon to be out of date sandwiches. It's typical extreme left-wing journalism attacking a right wing policy but in the final analysis it probably won't make a huge amount of difference to anyone involved.
 
Post your proof.

They have something called an "editorial staff" and an "editor-in-chief", so everything that's written by one person, is at least checked and approved (or rejceted) by a group of people of the same profession, before it is published. If they do their job well, the newspaper earns something called a "reputation".

In an internet blog, however, every brainless idiot can write any kind of bullshit or nonsense they like, without being controlled, corrected or revised. I could pose as a brain surgeon and write a blog about the skull-screw method. No one would control me and many would probably believe me.

As far as opinion-forming is concerned, the internet is the medium of morons, wise-asses, extremists, grousers, conspiracy believers and narzissuses. So better stick to those, who gained a reputation over decades, before the internet existed.

99.9 % of all blog scribblers lack that reputation and/or a journalistic background. It can be fun to read them but you should never ever take everything for granted, what they write.

Thinking about it, you should never take anything for granted everywhere, but the chances of reading the truth are bigger, when you resort to reknowned news meda.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, in a welfare state like the UK (or Germany) - Homelessness in the broad mayority of cases is a lifestyle-choice (as wierd as this may sound at first).
And if that's their lifestyle choice, and they live that lifestyle on public land, then I fail to see the problem.

You do realise that the "blog" had a link to a copy of the proposed by-law? How good a source do you want?
You do realise I was talking about wether or not a blog is more or less trustworthy than a newspaper.

Can we trust this blogger has the competence to read laws and interprit them? A newspaper will get in a lawyer, and if that's impossible, the story will be handled by a member of the editorial staff who know laws from their Lacoste shirts.

That's not to say a blog can't be trustworthy. It's just that as a rule, they are.
 
So is a newspaper. Oh, except you have to be rich.



You clearly have a higher opinion of Murduck and his chums than I do.


When you wake up to the fact that you 'paper's Tory,
Just remember, there are two sides to every story.

I linked you to the BBC and the Guardian, no Murdock in sight...
 
You have a strange concept of "choice".
Don?t know where you?re from, but speaking for my country (and a lot of european ones) I can tell you that nobody needs to live on the street or starve. There is an army of social workers and volunteers in town/state or church/wellfare-run projects with the aim of getting those people into homes payed by the taxpayer. There are also a lot of shelters for homeless where they can at least spend their nights and get some warm food. But instead of taking the help that social workers offer them there, they are back on the street. These people have problems that go far bejond being homeless. They need help, no arguing about that here. They need a way out. And (as a socitey) I belive we must help them. The question at hand is just how. A lot of them just don?t want that (or can?t).
Serving hot soup outside in the cold while there is a bed waiting somewhere inside with the offer of help ... I don?t see how that?s helping anyone but the conscience of people willing to help, but unable to get to the root of the problem.
A good friend of mine is a social worker - and I?ve knows several others for years , and their story all goes the same way. He went into that profession wanting to help. Before he was one of those guys who always gave a Euro/Mark to a beggar to "help" them - since he?s actually working to get his "clients" of the street and was faced with reality - he doesn?t give a cent to beggars. A lot of homeless people just don?t let them help them. They chose this way to live. They don?t want "in", they want to stay out. That?s the reality here on the streets (might very well be different where you live). They could get help, they could sleep warm and safe, they could get an appartment payed by the goverment ... but they don?t. They?ll except your Change if you can spare it, they?ll take some warm soup that you give them for free when it?s cold ... but (a lot of them) just won?t quit that lifestyle.

Now, we are in agreement that these people need help and need to get of the street (wich only works if they want it) for their own sake ... the institutions that will help them are there ... what would you suggest how (as a society) we can convince these people to take the god damn help? More hot soup at prime beggar-spots?
 
The trouble with this is that the new byelaw won't get rid of the problem, merely relocate it. Westminster Council saves a shit load of money (which, of course they have to due to the cut in funding from central government) so the homeless move into adjacent boroughs placing more pressure on equally cash strapped councils nearby.

Actually, this is Westminster Council, who don't have to save money because of the cuts.

They pull in more money in business rates than Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle combined. Now the thing with business rates is, the majority of the income gets pooled nationwide into the central pot (which makes all sorts of sense). The Tories are looking at dropping that pooling allowing councils to keep their own business rate income (and even set it) which is very bad news for everyone else, but a great example of how "we are all in it together".

The Tories like to blow their horns about how Westminster Council has one of the lowest Council Tax rates in the UK (if not the lowest). This is because they pull in so much business rates from having the HQs of Mega Corps in them, they can't help it. They have a hundred cash machines dispensing free money and despite that being free to them, they don't want to share any of it.
 
Top