Homeless Shelter Opposed

[WTF]

Happy New Year so let's kick off with a completely unseasonably uncharitable and contentious post:

 

A. circa 600 unemployed on the Island - in excess of 1000 jobs available - so get a job = buy food and pay rent!

B. Majority of homeless are not - its their choice.

C. State aid available - if not eleigible probably not a genuine 'homeless' anyway so shouldn't be on the Island - return from whence you came.

 

Biggoted, narrow minded and uncharitable it might be but take a straw poll among passengers on the Onchan omnibus and I'll bet a majority would agree with at least one of the above.

 

There is no excuse for being 'homeless' on this Island; temporarily perhaps, but not long term.

 

There are many excuses. Firstly, the Isle of Man imprisons more people per population than almost every country in the world and prison sentences lead to the loss of jobs and housing and do a hell of a lot more harm than they prevent. Secondly, the Isle of Man has an enormous alcohol and hard drugs problem which is compounded by the prison sentences which are handed to addicts instead of medical help. "Let's jail the smack users because that'll stop them!". Thirdly just because there are more jobs available than unemployed doesn't mean the unemployed are suitable for those jobs. The majority of those jobs are working for financial companies which have very specific requirements.

 

 

one can only assume that the imprisoned did something to deserve it? if so it would seem that their 'homeless' state is a result of their own behavior and not anyone elses fault. it is just a hidden potential consequence of law breaking. i do however know that you don't have to break the law to end up homeless, but those that do have them selves to blame.

[Plectrum Infusion]

one can only assume that the imprisoned did something to deserve it? if so it would seem that their 'homeless' state is a result of their own behavior and not anyone elses fault. it is just a hidden potential consequence of law breaking. i do however know that you don't have to break the law to end up homeless, but those that do have them selves to blame.

 

Do you really think that every person who's in prison "deserved" to be locked up?

 

Our penal system is so far past fucked it'd be funny if it wasn't deadly serious.

[WTF]

one can only assume that the imprisoned did something to deserve it? if so it would seem that their 'homeless' state is a result of their own behavior and not anyone elses fault. it is just a hidden potential consequence of law breaking. i do however know that you don't have to break the law to end up homeless, but those that do have them selves to blame.

 

Do you really think that every person who's in prison "deserved" to be locked up?

 

Our penal system is so far past fucked it'd be funny if it wasn't deadly serious.

 

 

thats how the system works, incarceration as punishment for certain wrong doings. the court's lash out so many suspended sentences cos the brig is full it's a joke. the system is not at fault, it is society taking the piss out of law. there are so many minor offences that sweet FA gets done about that the people who do them move on to bigger things as there appears to be a lack of conseqence for not being law abiding, so why bother. if every erk that did anything that the courts had the right to gaol them for went to gaol, there would be far less crime. the system locks up wankers, lets them out EARLY and them gives them benefits. now that is fucked up. what people do you think shouldn't be there? bearing in mind the law says they ought to be. what laws do you think it's ok not to obey and not be punished for??

[Plectrum Infusion]

what people do you think shouldn't be there? bearing in mind the law says they ought to be. what laws do you think it's ok not to obey and not be punished for??

 

The first ones to deal with are the drugs laws, which basically criminalise people for wanting to do what the rest of the population do legally with alcohol and tobacco.

 

Either ban the lot, or legalise the lot. Saying "this drug's OK but this drug gets you in prison" is a fundamentally contradictory message and it's no bloody wonder so many people choose to stick two fingers up at it.

 

It depends whether or not you think people should have the right to do what they want to their own bodies and minds as long as they don't hurt anyone else, as far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to stay in a grotty flat and shoot up heroin every day, leave them to it, as long as they pay for it and don't cause any harm to anyone else, what right do we have to stop them, and moreover, what does locking them up (at great expense) achieve?

[WTF]

what people do you think shouldn't be there? bearing in mind the law says they ought to be. what laws do you think it's ok not to obey and not be punished for??

 

The first ones to deal with are the drugs laws, which basically criminalise people for wanting to do what the rest of the population do legally with alcohol and tobacco.

 

Either ban the lot, or legalise the lot. Saying "this drug's OK but this drug gets you in prison" is a fundamentally contradictory message and it's no bloody wonder so many people choose to stick two fingers up at it.

 

It depends whether or not you think people should have the right to do what they want to their own bodies and minds as long as they don't hurt anyone else, as far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to stay in a grotty flat and shoot up heroin every day, leave them to it, as long as they pay for it and don't cause any harm to anyone else, what right do we have to stop them, and moreover, what does locking them up (at great expense) achieve?

 

 

it's not the actual drug taking that is the issue, it is the crime that these people commit to fund their habit, and the health hazard to those who are dodging used needles in parks and back lanes. if all it affected was the loser taking the drugs who'd give a toss? the fact is it affects many people more in a negative way., even if it's just our taxes getting wasted on the wasters and the do-gooders telling us it's not there fault.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

QUOTE(Plectrum Infusion @ Dec 29 2007, 08:05 PM)

QUOTE(WTF @ Dec 29 2007, 07:59 PM)

one can only assume that the imprisoned did something to deserve it? if so it would seem that their 'homeless' state is a result of their own behavior and not anyone elses fault. it is just a hidden potential consequence of law breaking. i do however know that you don't have to break the law to end up homeless, but those that do have them selves to blame.

 

 

Do you really think that every person who's in prison "deserved" to be locked up?

 

Our penal system is so far past fucked it'd be funny if it wasn't deadly serious.

 

 

thats how the system works, incarceration as punishment for certain wrong doings. the court's lash out so many suspended sentences cos the brig is full it's a joke. the system is not at fault, it is society taking the piss out of law. there are so many minor offences that sweet FA gets done about that the people who do them move on to bigger things as there appears to be a lack of conseqence for not being law abiding, so why bother. if every erk that did anything that the courts had the right to gaol them for went to gaol, there would be far less crime. the system locks up wankers, lets them out EARLY and them gives them benefits. now that is fucked up. what people do you think shouldn't be there? bearing in mind the law says they ought to be. what laws do you think it's ok not to obey and not be punished for??

 

So why does the law as it stands today in society have so much importance to you? Do you really think it makes all that difference if criminals are released early as opposed to serving their 'full sentence'? I don't see how, for example, banging-up a thief for 2 years rather than 5 years makes the slightest bit of difference other than to satisfy some crude form of revenge. What do you expect from the person who has been imprisoned for years when they do finish their term in prison and having to live on benefits? Can they easily get a job and if so what sort of job could they get? I doubt it would be a well paid and rewarding job which makes it quite understandable that would choose to remain on the dole.

 

I think you have too much unquestioned faith in the system as it is today. The system IS at fault. It's a system that would bang up people when there are clearly some serious societal problems which need remedying. These problems are not remedied by imprisoning people. People are not reformed in prison nor are they given reason for not committing such crimes in future. All I can see it does is dehumanise such persons so they have LESS reason to obey the law when they get out.

 

I disagree with your idea of the deterrent effect of imprisonment. People don't commit crimes not because they are afraid of the punishment, those that would consider committing crimes are deterred by the chances of getting caught.

 

In regard to what you ask about what laws to obey and what not to obey I would say it all depends on circumstance. I personally have not, as I doubt most have not, had any say on what laws I am governed by in society. So why should I obey them? I have little risk of disobeying most laws due to simple moral beliefs which are far more important and often universal. But there is nothing sacred about the law.

[grant]

QUOTE(Plectrum Infusion @ Dec 29 2007, 08:05 PM)

QUOTE(WTF @ Dec 29 2007, 07:59 PM)

one can only assume that the imprisoned did something to deserve it? if so it would seem that their 'homeless' state is a result of their own behavior and not anyone elses fault. it is just a hidden potential consequence of law breaking. i do however know that you don't have to break the law to end up homeless, but those that do have them selves to blame.

 

 

Do you really think that every person who's in prison "deserved" to be locked up?

 

Our penal system is so far past fucked it'd be funny if it wasn't deadly serious.

 

 

thats how the system works, incarceration as punishment for certain wrong doings. the court's lash out so many suspended sentences cos the brig is full it's a joke. the system is not at fault, it is society taking the piss out of law. there are so many minor offences that sweet FA gets done about that the people who do them move on to bigger things as there appears to be a lack of conseqence for not being law abiding, so why bother. if every erk that did anything that the courts had the right to gaol them for went to gaol, there would be far less crime. the system locks up wankers, lets them out EARLY and them gives them benefits. now that is fucked up. what people do you think shouldn't be there? bearing in mind the law says they ought to be. what laws do you think it's ok not to obey and not be punished for??

 

So why does the law as it stands today in society have so much importance to you? Do you really think it makes all that difference if criminals are released early as opposed to serving their 'full sentence'? I don't see how, for example, banging-up a thief for 2 years rather than 5 years makes the slightest bit of difference other than to satisfy some crude form of revenge. What do you expect from the person who has been imprisoned for years when they do finish their term in prison and having to live on benefits? Can they easily get a job and if so what sort of job could they get? I doubt it would be a well paid and rewarding job which makes it quite understandable that would choose to remain on the dole.

 

I think you have too much unquestioned faith in the system as it is today. The system IS at fault. It's a system that would bang up people when there are clearly some serious societal problems which need remedying. These problems are not remedied by imprisoning people. People are not reformed in prison nor are they given reason for not committing such crimes in future. All I can see it does is dehumanise such persons so they have LESS reason to obey the law when they get out.

 

I disagree with your idea of the deterrent effect of imprisonment. People don't commit crimes not because they are afraid of the punishment, those that would consider committing crimes are deterred by the chances of getting caught.

 

In regard to what you ask about what laws to obey and what not to obey I would say it all depends on circumstance. I personally have not, as I doubt most have not, had any say on what laws I am governed by in society. So why should I obey them? I have little risk of disobeying most laws due to simple moral beliefs which are far more important and often universal. But there is nothing sacred about the law.

 

So to get back on thread, you wouldn't mind a shelter for the homeless to be opened next door to you?

[WTF]

So why does the law as it stands today in society have so much importance to you? Do you really think it makes all that difference if criminals are released early as opposed to serving their 'full sentence'? I don't see how, for example, banging-up a thief for 2 years rather than 5 years makes the slightest bit of difference other than to satisfy some crude form of revenge. What do you expect from the person who has been imprisoned for years when they do finish their term in prison and having to live on benefits? Can they easily get a job and if so what sort of job could they get? I doubt it would be a well paid and rewarding job which makes it quite understandable that would choose to remain on the dole.

 

I think you have too much unquestioned faith in the system as it is today. The system IS at fault. It's a system that would bang up people when there are clearly some serious societal problems which need remedying. These problems are not remedied by imprisoning people. People are not reformed in prison nor are they given reason for not committing such crimes in future. All I can see it does is dehumanise such persons so they have LESS reason to obey the law when they get out.

 

I disagree with your idea of the deterrent effect of imprisonment. People don't commit crimes not because they are afraid of the punishment, those that would consider committing crimes are deterred by the chances of getting caught.

 

In regard to what you ask about what laws to obey and what not to obey I would say it all depends on circumstance. I personally have not, as I doubt most have not, had any say on what laws I am governed by in society. So why should I obey them? I have little risk of disobeying most laws due to simple moral beliefs which are far more important and often universal. But there is nothing sacred about the law.

 

 

1. imprissoning people is not so much about teaching them a lesson though that is part of it, it is about removing a problem from society. i'd rather that problem was gone for as long as the courts had determined. what would be the point of sentencing someone to ten years in prison only to let them out after a day putting the problem back into society?

 

2. ofcourse people don't commit crimes because they are afraid of the punishment! the punishment is effectively consequences of your actions. IF there are no consequences, why worry about getting caught?? what does it matter?

 

3. just because you have a moral compass in life does not mean the rest of the planet does. the laws are there to protect the society we live in. If your bank turned to you and said thanks for your life savings but we're keeping it and you cant have it back, you would be wanting the law imposed on the bank yes?? even though you hadn't had your say on it? laws aren't just about what you can smoke. without law,society as you know it would not exist. if it was ok to act on our instincts like every other animal ( you are an animal ) there would be far less population and we would live in a very violent society. look what a few beers does, it doesn't make you violent, it exposes your true nature, which is to be topdog. it is laws that should allow us to live against our nature in peace and safety.

 

 

as to the topic at hand, i wouldn't mind nextdoor being converted into a homeless shelter, it could be better than the neighbours i have and they're almost a mile away. you won't get planning for a bird table out here.

[laughing-manxie]

I would hate to live next to a homeless shelter, its bad enough that you can't chose your neighbours and anyone that owns their own home I am sure will feel the same way. I lived on Harris Terrace for a year or so when I was younger and Ted the tramp lived in one of the houses up the street, but spent much of his time out side the Villa Marina, he walked past most nights with some hangers on in toe with a take out from the chinesse in one hand and a can in the other talking very loudly. But saying that Ted was harmless or he was as far as I know, what I don't like are the ones that think the government should just hand out the cash. I understand that lots of people cant work, but I do not see why tax payers money should be handed out the the Lazy bunch among them.

 

I now have 2 wonderful young children and would not put them in harms way and that means letting drunks and druggies anywhere near them, these people get into such states that they SAY that they are not respondable for their own actions (what rubbish). These people would be so drunk or drugged up that they do know see the effect it has on other people and if they do they do not care, and certainly would not stop trying to get into the shelter just because of the state they were in.

 

Where do these people sleep at the moment, I heard a lot sleep up douglas head or is that just another urban myth.

 

I believe that these people should be made to work for a bed for the night, there must be something they can do. Maybe then it will give them the push they need to straighten their lives out and get on with it give them a purpose to live.

[thesultanofsheight]

I now have 2 wonderful young children and would not put them in harms way and that means letting drunks and druggies anywhere near them

 

You're clearly a member of the "new" Isle of Man. Sat with its head up its arse on some suburban identi kit estate ignoring the reality of the social problems we have here.

 

Maybe you could throw buns at them out of the car window as you drive in to work or maybe you could deny they exist?

[grant]

I now have 2 wonderful young children and would not put them in harms way and that means letting drunks and druggies anywhere near them

 

You're clearly a member of the "new" Isle of Man. Sat with its head up its arse on some suburban identi kit estate ignoring the reality of the social problems we have here.

 

Maybe you could throw buns at them out of the car window as you drive in to work or maybe you could deny they exist?

 

Better still, do a 2 ton Ted from Teddington, use a rock cake.

[laughing-manxie]

I now have 2 wonderful young children and would not put them in harms way and that means letting drunks and druggies anywhere near them

 

You're clearly a member of the "new" Isle of Man. Sat with its head up its arse on some suburban identi kit estate ignoring the reality of the social problems we have here.

 

Maybe you could throw buns at them out of the car window as you drive in to work or maybe you could deny they exist?

 

Better still, do a 2 ton Ted from Teddington, use a rock cake.

 

 

"new" isle of man - afraid not I'm an OLD Manxie at least one that can remember the days when you got birched for being a bad bugger - and not get away with it. And yes I do work and own my own house after years of working for it and I dont live of government hand outs. Ok so now you can have a go at me being a manxie that doesn't move with the times, but maybe you should be wanting to keep our Island free from all the things people etc that will ruin our peaceful living for the next generation. Society should help the needy and ill but should not put up with the sick that asseholes throw at it. I believe that everyone should live their life in peace and harmony and that you should not inflict your religion etc on anyone else.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So why does the law as it stands today in society have so much importance to you? Do you really think it makes all that difference if criminals are released early as opposed to serving their 'full sentence'? I don't see how, for example, banging-up a thief for 2 years rather than 5 years makes the slightest bit of difference other than to satisfy some crude form of revenge. What do you expect from the person who has been imprisoned for years when they do finish their term in prison and having to live on benefits? Can they easily get a job and if so what sort of job could they get? I doubt it would be a well paid and rewarding job which makes it quite understandable that would choose to remain on the dole.

 

I think you have too much unquestioned faith in the system as it is today. The system IS at fault. It's a system that would bang up people when there are clearly some serious societal problems which need remedying. These problems are not remedied by imprisoning people. People are not reformed in prison nor are they given reason for not committing such crimes in future. All I can see it does is dehumanise such persons so they have LESS reason to obey the law when they get out.

 

I disagree with your idea of the deterrent effect of imprisonment. People don't commit crimes not because they are afraid of the punishment, those that would consider committing crimes are deterred by the chances of getting caught.

 

In regard to what you ask about what laws to obey and what not to obey I would say it all depends on circumstance. I personally have not, as I doubt most have not, had any say on what laws I am governed by in society. So why should I obey them? I have little risk of disobeying most laws due to simple moral beliefs which are far more important and often universal. But there is nothing sacred about the law.

 

 

1. imprissoning people is not so much about teaching them a lesson though that is part of it, it is about removing a problem from society. i'd rather that problem was gone for as long as the courts had determined. what would be the point of sentencing someone to ten years in prison only to let them out after a day putting the problem back into society?

 

2. ofcourse people don't commit crimes because they are afraid of the punishment! the punishment is effectively consequences of your actions. IF there are no consequences, why worry about getting caught?? what does it matter?

 

3. just because you have a moral compass in life does not mean the rest of the planet does. the laws are there to protect the society we live in. If your bank turned to you and said thanks for your life savings but we're keeping it and you cant have it back, you would be wanting the law imposed on the bank yes?? even though you hadn't had your say on it? laws aren't just about what you can smoke. without law,society as you know it would not exist. if it was ok to act on our instincts like every other animal ( you are an animal ) there would be far less population and we would live in a very violent society. look what a few beers does, it doesn't make you violent, it exposes your true nature, which is to be topdog. it is laws that should allow us to live against our nature in peace and safety.

 

 

as to the topic at hand, i wouldn't mind nextdoor being converted into a homeless shelter, it could be better than the neighbours i have and they're almost a mile away. you won't get planning for a bird table out here.

 

 

Removing people from society does not remedy society's problems. So what I am saying is that the length of sentencing is not the factor that can alter the level of crime in society. If you let someone out early you are not putting the problem back into society. The problem never dissappears by imprisoning people. Although people are individuals and are responsible for their actions, people are also the product of society.

 

I think people do have a moral compass, across the planet. In societies there are moral norms, traditional codes of conduct that govern what is perceived to be right or wrong. This is different from the positive law, the man-made law which you believe is not at fault. It is society that is at fault is there is a lot of crime.

Society would not degenerate if there was no positive law. We are not driven solely by our instincts and there is no reason why there would be more violence. If you mean by a "topdog" attitude that beer makes people violent then this seems something that is more limited to heterosexual men who drink more than a few beers. Though I think our perspectives differ as I do not believe that human nature is driven by a power struggle to be "topdog".

 

I understand that lots of people cant work, but I do not see why tax payers money should be handed out the the Lazy bunch among them.

 

I now have 2 wonderful young children and would not put them in harms way and that means letting drunks and druggies anywhere near them, these people get into such states that they SAY that they are not respondable for their own actions (what rubbish). These people would be so drunk or drugged up that they do know see the effect it has on other people and if they do they do not care, and certainly would not stop trying to get into the shelter just because of the state they were in.

 

Where do these people sleep at the moment, I heard a lot sleep up douglas head or is that just another urban myth.

 

I believe that these people should be made to work for a bed for the night, there must be something they can do. Maybe then it will give them the push they need to straighten their lives out and get on with it give them a purpose to live.

 

What makes you think that homeless people are in their situation because of laziness? Also, why would they have any possible interest in children?

 

Why also do you think that these homeless people should care about the effect their drinking and drug taking has on other people? These people are on the fringes of society, some by choice (which is their right), and the very fact that they are so removed from the society is demonstrated by how you refer to them. I don't think they have any reason to concern themselves with the greater society. They should not be barred from entering a shelter if not sober.

 

And I certainly do not think that people should be made to work for a bed. A "roof over one's head" is a basic right not something that should be earned. What would you have them do? Nobody is going to find purpose in life by having a menial job, especially one offered as you say it would be as some cynical attempt to afford them some worth in the eyes of the rest of society.

[WTF]

rather than quoting again, 2 points.

 

1; i agree that putting people in prison does not remedy society's problems. but it does protect the law abiding members of society from the few people that don't want to play by the rules of the society. there will always be people with an attitude and/or actions against what is allowed by society. most people know they are doing wrong, and a few are not capable of distinction. i would suggest the reasons why people do wrong is very long and very varied and not one simple issue that can be fixed overnight. i can't see a cure for the problems as they are inbuilt in our nature.

 

2; as to the violent side of human nature and the 'topdog' bit. most animals 'fight' for their territory, food supply and mate(s). in our society we are forced/expected to live side by side. school bullying is no more than sorting out a pecking order among our young. in a natural world, the kids with this attitude would be the dominant ones, but society allows brains to control braun for the most part. almost every nature program dealing with pack animals refer at some point to an 'alpha male'. you often see fights among young males to determine a pecking order to see which is 'topdog'. everyone wants to be chief, but some are weeded out early and 'know their place' but far more people do want to be chief than there are spaces available. this happens at all levels of society in some way, even who gets promoted at work is a competition for standing or rank within that company or organisation, just not violently, more civilised. not all spur of the moment conflicts get decided verbally ( even some words are not allowed ) so good old i'm stronger than you , my dads bigger than you're dad comes into play and humanity reverts to nature. the biggest dog wont bite unless it perceives a threat or challenge or is killing for food. same for people, but we also kill for power which is essentially security of some fashion. hence wars over oil and territory of value. like it or not, people are animals, and we have the same instincts that education and society help us supress for the most part. but when alchohol deminishes our control, or even something just makes us snap while sober,nature will out if we have not enough self control or just think fuck it. and when that is in some pickup joint knee deep in percieved rivals what can you expect?? thats why these places have security and society has police.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

rather than quoting again, 2 points.

 

1; i agree that putting people in prison does not remedy society's problems. but it does protect the law abiding members of society from the few people that don't want to play by the rules of the society. there will always be people with an attitude and/or actions against what is allowed by society. most people know they are doing wrong, and a few are not capable of distinction. i would suggest the reasons why people do wrong is very long and very varied and not one simple issue that can be fixed overnight. i can't see a cure for the problems as they are inbuilt in our nature.

 

2; as to the violent side of human nature and the 'topdog' bit. most animals 'fight' for their territory, food supply and mate(s). in our society we are forced/expected to live side by side. school bullying is no more than sorting out a pecking order among our young. in a natural world, the kids with this attitude would be the dominant ones, but society allows brains to control braun for the most part. almost every nature program dealing with pack animals refer at some point to an 'alpha male'. you often see fights among young males to determine a pecking order to see which is 'topdog'. everyone wants to be chief, but some are weeded out early and 'know their place' but far more people do want to be chief than there are spaces available. this happens at all levels of society in some way, even who gets promoted at work is a competition for standing or rank within that company or organisation, just not violently, more civilised. not all spur of the moment conflicts get decided verbally ( even some words are not allowed ) so good old i'm stronger than you , my dads bigger than you're dad comes into play and humanity reverts to nature. the biggest dog wont bite unless it perceives a threat or challenge or is killing for food. same for people, but we also kill for power which is essentially security of some fashion. hence wars over oil and territory of value. like it or not, people are animals, and we have the same instincts that education and society help us supress for the most part. but when alchohol deminishes our control, or even something just makes us snap while sober,nature will out if we have not enough self control or just think fuck it. and when that is in some pickup joint knee deep in percieved rivals what can you expect?? thats why these places have security and society has police.

 

 

I don't think the problems are inbuilt in nature. Certainly the vast majority of problems are due to the economic system we live in. That's what I think anyway. Most crime is property crime. It is 'have nots' stealing from the 'haves'. That is not about nature but the economic system we live in. You might put the perpetrator in prison but if the problem is still there then someone else would commit the crime.

 

In reference to your second point, if you truly believe that our nature is such that it is certain that violent behaviour will occur when not suppressed by our education and societal awareness then why punish?

I tend to think it is a very simplistic model that explains some or all incidence of crime down a fight for the "alpha male" position, it is also seems rather sexist. Essentially, we are societal animals so society is our nature. Most crimes aren't about "topdog" assertions at all, and certainly in the workplace the main motive to be "top-dog" is related to the salary.