Homelessness on the island-What are they DOING about it?

[The Voice of Reason]

25 minutes ago, John Wright said:

 

  Of course a few people take advantage of the system. 

 

That is the essence of what I said . I think we can all agree on that

I did not make any generalizations. That’s in your mind. I said I know of single mothers who are happy not to work, watch daytime TV all day and rely on benefits. Could you explain to me how that is a generalization. I’m quite happy to use the term “feckless” with regard to those individuals.
 

Its not my suggestion that some single mothers would be worse off if they pursued the father. I was told that by a mother in that situation. She is the sort to have done some research into that to ensure she maximized her income and I have no reason to disbelieve her.

I am not sure why you  are bringing the issue of tax evaders into a thread about homelessness. Tenuous at best.

And please don’t ever accuse me of doing anything in a Thatcherite style. Without going into detail that woman had a very adverse effect on myself and my family in the past. She is/was beyond contempt.

Anyway as you acknowledge there are some that milk the system which was my point.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by The Voice of Reason
Last sentence second paragraph

[Moghrey Mie]

26 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I never mentioned or discussed “feckless” people. It’s not a term I would ever use. It was Dirty Buggane.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to make these type of generalisations.

As for your first paragraph. The single mothers that you demonise in a Thatcherite style. There is no truth in your suggestion that they’d be worse off if they pursued the father.

Paragraph 2. You live in fantasy land when  you claim to have a left leaning hat.  Of course a few people take advantage of the system. But the numbers and amounts are de minimis when compared to tax evaders, yet the staff and resources are concentrated on the benefits overpaid rather than the tax under collected.

3. I’ve dealt with people you try to divide into deserving and undeserving all my working life. In court and as chair of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ( for 25 years ). I’ve yet to work out if the two categories exist, and, if they do how to work out who would fall into each category. I’ve long ago decided to deal with each case on it’s very individual facts.

I referred to one specific case. I made no generalisations. I certainly made no assumptions.

Dividing people into the 'deserving poor' and the 'undeserving poor' dates back to 1834 Poor Law.

i hope we have moved on since then.

People who need housing are people.

[The Voice of Reason]

5 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Dividing people into the 'deserving poor' and the 'undeserving poor' dates back to 1834 Poor Law.

i hope we have moved on since then.

People who need housing are people.

I used the terms “ deserving” and “ undeserving” . Not deserving or undeserving poor”

In your eagerness to demonstrate your historical knowledge you have taken things completely out of context.

Yes people who need housing are people . Wouldn’t disagree with you there.

Edited March 26, 2023 by The Voice of Reason
Spelling

[John Wright]

44 minutes ago, thommo2010 said:

So at what point does the person need to take some responsibility and help themselves? 

Seriously thommo, we both know that for reasons of congenital or acquired lack of intellect, physical or mental ill health there are some who can’t. The people who, until a generation ago were locked up in Ballamona for life. We’ve stopped that, but still haven’t developed adequate alternatives.

[P.K.]

12 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Despite what John says there are such feckless people. I do know of single parents ( mothers) who are happy not to work, watch daytime TV all day and rely on benefits, who say that pursuing the father(s) for any financial contribution would leave them worse off.

I wish this was not the case. But it is. I could put my naturally left leaning hat on and say that this doesn’t happen and such people are being demonised. But it does and people take the piss.

However until the state finds a way to weed out the deserving from the undeserving I would rather keep the status quo even if it means some people do abuse the system but those that need it get the help they need.

@The Voice of Reason

"Lord, how this world is given to lying...."

Falstaff - Henry IV, Part 1, Act 5

Edited March 27, 2023 by P.K.

[Barlow]

12 hours ago, John Wright said:

3. I’ve dealt with people you try to divide into deserving and undeserving all my working life. In court and as chair of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ( for 25 years ). I’ve yet to work out if the two categories exist, and, if they do how to work out who would fall into each category. I’ve long ago decided to deal with each case on it’s very individual facts.

I think you get played like a fish.

Edited to add: On further thought, that is unfair of me, obviously. It's a complicated matter. Good to see it being discussed.

Edited March 27, 2023 by Barlow

[Banker]

Still a large demand for help from homeless & not to much from  government 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/almost-40-people-in-need-of-support-used-drop-in-centre-in-february/

[Zarley]

13 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Its not my suggestion that some single mothers would be worse off if they pursued the father. I was told that by a mother in that situation. She is the sort to have done some research into that to ensure she maximized her income and I have no reason to disbelieve her.

I think you'd probably find that what she actually meant was that she'd be no better off, not that she'd be worse off. I think this because any money she would be able to get from the father would be deducted from her benefits. 

Of course she would be worse off if the father didn't always pay up, or at some point stopped paying at all. Her benefits would still be reduced as if he were regularly paying until such time she was able to convince the benefits office he wasn't paying.

I've also known women in this position. When there are preschool children involved, and a father who cannot be relied upon to pay maintenance, it can be a very difficult position to be in. As for the women in this position not working, have you seen the cost of childcare lately?

 Single mothers are always the ones to be demonised. Why do they have to chase the fathers for money? Why aren't these men supporting the children they enjoyed making? They shouldn't have to be chased and forced to look after their own flesh and blood. 

Everyone always conveniently forgets about the "feckless" men behind the single mothers. It's easier to place 100% of the blame on the mothers. And it's always the children who suffer, not least when they see their mother being demonised due to the actions - or lack thereof - of their father. 

[John Wright]

14 minutes ago, Zarley said:

I think you'd probably find that what she actually meant was that she'd be no better off, not that she'd be worse off. I think this because any money she would be able to get from the father would be deducted from her benefits. 

Of course she would be worse off if the father didn't always pay up, or at some point stopped paying at all. Her benefits would still be reduced as if he were regularly paying until such time she was able to convince the benefits office he wasn't paying.

I've also known women in this position. When there are preschool children involved, and a father who cannot be relied upon to pay maintenance, it can be a very difficult position to be in. As for the women in this position not working, have you seen the cost of childcare lately?

 Single mothers are always the ones to be demonised. Why do they have to chase the fathers for money? Why aren't these men supporting the children they enjoyed making? They shouldn't have to be chased and forced to look after their own flesh and blood. 

Everyone always conveniently forgets about the "feckless" men behind the single mothers. It's easier to place 100% of the blame on the mothers. And it's always the children who suffer, not least when they see their mother being demonised due to the actions - or lack thereof - of their father. 

I agree. Maintenance should be ordered to be paid to Treasury and then treasury should pay benefit in full.

Of course lots of the men are on benefit as well, so it’s nominal.

I suppose the worse off could be the difference between irregular/unreliable  compulsory maintenance and reduced benefit because the ordered amount is taken into account, versus full benefit, no ordered benefit, and occasional cash payments from dad.

One thing is for sure, the bureaucracy around claiming benefit and child support isn’t aimed at making either easy.

[John Wright]

11 hours ago, Barlow said:

I think you get played like a fish.

They might try. 

[2112]

The NPM has a report of the meeting held last night campaigning for Homelessness legislation and a provision of a night shelter. Peter Karran ex LibVanLab leader is spearheading the call, but I was surprised that Minister Hooperman who is a LibVanLab member wasn’t there. John Wannabe MHK and Jason Moorehouse MHK were in attendance. I would have thought that Minister Thomas would have attended or at least released a statement, after all Housing is his speciality, but with all the shenanigans at the airport, I think he has more than enough on his plate. 
 

Perhaps some provision for homelessness and a shelter, could have been incorporated  into the new Westmorland/Demesne Road development? I don’t know how legislation would work here, as homelessness legislation in the UK throws the onus on local authorities to provide services. Yes, there are underlying/hidden homeless issues. Are we using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

[Moghrey Mie]

2 hours ago, 2112 said:

The NPM has a report of the meeting held last night campaigning for Homelessness legislation and a provision of a night shelter. Peter Karran ex LibVanLab leader is spearheading the call, but I was surprised that Minister Hooperman who is a LibVanLab member wasn’t there. John Wannabe MHK and Jason Moorehouse MHK were in attendance. I would have thought that Minister Thomas would have attended or at least released a statement, after all Housing is his speciality, but with all the shenanigans at the airport, I think he has more than enough on his plate. 
 

Perhaps some provision for homelessness and a shelter, could have been incorporated  into the new Westmorland/Demesne Road development? I don’t know how legislation would work here, as homelessness legislation in the UK throws the onus on local authorities to provide services. Yes, there are underlying/hidden homeless issues. Are we using a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

Yes The numbers must be small but still IOM government seems incapable of dealing with the problem of homelessness on the island. There is no legislation here to say that government or local authorities must provide help for homeless people.

As you say local authorities in UK have to provide information and advice to people who are in danger of becoming homeless.

[2112]

They could take the opportunity to be bold, and use for example, Ex Fairfield School, as both a Homeless Shelter, and maybe a bail hostel. I’m sure there could be other uses, which could make the building multi functional, and will solve a festering sore, until another festering sore appears. At present this building has had money previously lavished upon it, will no doubt go to wreck and ruin, before being demolished at great taxpayer expense. 

[2bees]

15 minutes ago, 2112 said:

 Ex Fairfield School, 

Has been raised to the ground

[2112]

Ballacloan on Demesne Road, whilst Fairfield is Peveril Street/Tynwald Street, opp Crossroads Care.