Night on the streets was real eye-opener (From Oxford Mail)

One of the many issues which Labour-controlled Oxford City Council has continually failed to address, the Homeless on the Streets of the City of Dreaming Spires won't be found on websites, or tourist information guides. Nor would single males or single females without children under 18 even have a gnats-whisker of a chance of being included on Oxford City Council's Social Housing List - though single-parent women with children will not only get preferential treatment, but larger Council accommodation with each successive child. Nor will the planned additional housing at Barton be of any relief to the homeless - and despite the likes of Cllrs Price, Cook and Tanner always blaming either the Tory-led Coalition Government or Tory-led County Council, the reality is that during 13 mainly prosperous years under Blair and Brown (until the Recession hit the UK in 2008) Labour failed to make significant improvements for the Homeless in Oxford - including single males with low-paid jobs. Showcase fancy toilets for tourists (to continue the myth of Dreaming Spires?) and half-olympic sized swimming pools to keep Labour's vote in Blackbird Leys do not take the homeless off the streets, nor enable single males under 60 to gain social and affordable housing. When was the last time Labour MP Andrew Smith raised this issue in the House of Commons on behalf of the homeless and single males under-60 in Oxford?

Myron Blatz wrote:
One of the many issues which Labour-controlled Oxford City Council has continually failed to address, the Homeless on the Streets of the City of Dreaming Spires won't be found on websites, or tourist information guides. Nor would single males or single females without children under 18 even have a gnats-whisker of a chance of being included on Oxford City Council's Social Housing List - though single-parent women with children will not only get preferential treatment, but larger Council accommodation with each successive child. Nor will the planned additional housing at Barton be of any relief to the homeless - and despite the likes of Cllrs Price, Cook and Tanner always blaming either the Tory-led Coalition Government or Tory-led County Council, the reality is that during 13 mainly prosperous years under Blair and Brown (until the Recession hit the UK in 2008) Labour failed to make significant improvements for the Homeless in Oxford - including single males with low-paid jobs. Showcase fancy toilets for tourists (to continue the myth of Dreaming Spires?) and half-olympic sized swimming pools to keep Labour's vote in Blackbird Leys do not take the homeless off the streets, nor enable single males under 60 to gain social and affordable housing. When was the last time Labour MP Andrew Smith raised this issue in the House of Commons on behalf of the homeless and single males under-60 in Oxford?

When was the last time Andrew Smith raised anything in the House of Commons, other than a glass in the members bar, the man is a waste of space.

Myron, OCC wants to be eternally grateful that young men can not give birth to baybees as well as girls. Imagine the housing crisis then.

Well said Myron

In fairness CarfaxCabby, Labour-controlled City Council probably would also allow pregnant men to benefit from preferential treatment, on the grounds of equality - not to mention all those extra votes for local politicians and political parties! However, the Homeless, single males under 60 and even married couples without children would still get sidelined for the benefit of so-called single parent families. Nobody of any faith or ethnic background would wish to deny help and support for the genuine needs of families with children in these very harsh times - but the 'single parent option' seems to have increasingly become a sub-culture and alternative way of life for many, where their own responsibility for living and for having children appears to have been off-loaded onto local authorities and the Government - which really means that council and income tax payers have to foot the bill.

Myron, I agree with you, and as one of the 40 somethings that lost their house in a divorce, and now pay a horrific amount in rent privately, with no chance of a council flat, I am also well peed off with the culture of council tenants getting pregnant and being given a house for free, never having to work, except for the proverbial opening of the legs, and being given bigger and newer houses with the production of more baybees. It really makes me sick that I work over 60 hours a week to pay for those that live in houses that should be for those of us that pay our way.

Two points.
1) The statements about single parents and social housing are factually incorrect. All they are are urban myths propagated to support people's stereotypical understanding and prejudices. I'm happy,of course, to reassess my view in light of any evidence people may wish to present.

2) Many people in council houses do not actually cost us money, in fact, as most council accommodation build costs have more than been covered they actually save with their rents

Save us money that was meant to say

Fine words are easy!! Stop bemoaning the faults of others and act now. Create the big society.

What have any of you ever done to help??

What is your new years resolution??

Donate to the Sally Army at the very least!!!!

DoctorBob wrote:
Two points.
1) The statements about single parents and social housing are factually incorrect. All they are are urban myths propagated to support people's stereotypical understanding and prejudices. I'm happy,of course, to reassess my view in light of any evidence people may wish to present.

2) Many people in council houses do not actually cost us money, in fact, as most council accommodation build costs have more than been covered they actually save with their rents

Absolutely right. All young women who get pregnant and are unsupported by the creature that got them pregnant (and I think even you would agree we need to turn that lot into eunuchs p d q ) stay at home with their mother and their mother's current cohabitees, until the children are old enough to go to Oxford or Cambridge Universities.Absolut
ely right oh great and wonderful socialist and surely as well as "stereotypical" & "prejudiced" you should have included "bigoted" These are words you lot have to use because you haven't a prayer of winning any debate on logical grounds.
And people in council-or any other form of public- housing DO cost us money, because unrealised rent increases my Council Tax. You whine about Starbucks not paying a "fair" amount of tax. Well you can't have it both ways. If someone pays £100 a week rent for a house which you part own when it should be £170 then they are stealing from you.

And Sian, a 6 pack of Special Brew would have ensured a good night's sleep. Sadly it's not homelesness that's the problem but friendlesness and money makes no impact on that, though giving to the Salvation Army is always a good thing to do. They don't use chuggers.

Back on topic, I do not speak ill of the dead, however Mr. Belcher was a nuisance to Oxford. I caught him trying to steal a bicycle once, and to say he was known to the Police is an understatement. He was given chance after chance. I wonder what his daughter, who does a nobel job of fundraising for those less fortunate, thinks of her father.

It is an inconvienient truth that many homeless" in Oxford are nothing of the sort. They choose to be on the streets despite the numerous "projects" that exist. Also note the number who are not from Oxford but come here, the latest foreign Big Issues sellers are one example.

There needs to be tough love for these people - give them help but when they reject it, send them back to the city of their birth (or where they have family). Oxford taxpayers do not need, and cannot afford to support such people.

Seems 'DoctorBob' would appear to be the urbane myth.

Lord Palmerstone wrote:

DoctorBob wrote: Two points. 1) The statements about single parents and social housing are factually incorrect. All they are are urban myths propagated to support people's stereotypical understanding and prejudices. I'm happy,of course, to reassess my view in light of any evidence people may wish to present. 2) Many people in council houses do not actually cost us money, in fact, as most council accommodation build costs have more than been covered they actually save with their rents

Absolutely right. All young women who get pregnant and are unsupported by the creature that got them pregnant (and I think even you would agree we need to turn that lot into eunuchs p d q ) stay at home with their mother and their mother's current cohabitees, until the children are old enough to go to Oxford or Cambridge Universities.Absolut ely right oh great and wonderful socialist and surely as well as "stereotypical" & "prejudiced" you should have included "bigoted" These are words you lot have to use because you haven't a prayer of winning any debate on logical grounds. And people in council-or any other form of public- housing DO cost us money, because unrealised rent increases my Council Tax. You whine about Starbucks not paying a "fair" amount of tax. Well you can't have it both ways. If someone pays £100 a week rent for a house which you part own when it should be £170 then they are stealing from you.

Methinks you don't quite understand the concept of social housing.

EMBOX2 wrote:
Back on topic, I do not speak ill of the dead, however Mr. Belcher was a nuisance to Oxford. I caught him trying to steal a bicycle once, and to say he was known to the Police is an understatement. He was given chance after chance. I wonder what his daughter, who does a nobel job of fundraising for those less fortunate, thinks of her father.

It is an inconvienient truth that many homeless" in Oxford are nothing of the sort. They choose to be on the streets despite the numerous "projects" that exist. Also note the number who are not from Oxford but come here, the latest foreign Big Issues sellers are one example.

There needs to be tough love for these people - give them help but when they reject it, send them back to the city of their birth (or where they have family). Oxford taxpayers do not need, and cannot afford to support such people.

Oh dear. Ignorant on so many levels.

Myron Blatz wrote:
Seems 'DoctorBob' would appear to be the urbane myth.

Just as I suspected, no evidence forthcoming but insult is a common diversion tactic in such circumstances.

DoctorBob wrote:

Lord Palmerstone wrote:

DoctorBob wrote: Two points. 1) The statements about single parents and social housing are factually incorrect. All they are are urban myths propagated to support people's stereotypical understanding and prejudices. I'm happy,of course, to reassess my view in light of any evidence people may wish to present. 2) Many people in council houses do not actually cost us money, in fact, as most council accommodation build costs have more than been covered they actually save with their rents

Absolutely right. All young women who get pregnant and are unsupported by the creature that got them pregnant (and I think even you would agree we need to turn that lot into eunuchs p d q ) stay at home with their mother and their mother's current cohabitees, until the children are old enough to go to Oxford or Cambridge Universities.Absolut ely right oh great and wonderful socialist and surely as well as "stereotypical" & "prejudiced" you should have included "bigoted" These are words you lot have to use because you haven't a prayer of winning any debate on logical grounds. And people in council-or any other form of public- housing DO cost us money, because unrealised rent increases my Council Tax. You whine about Starbucks not paying a "fair" amount of tax. Well you can't have it both ways. If someone pays £100 a week rent for a house which you part own when it should be £170 then they are stealing from you.

Methinks you don't quite understand the concept of social housing.

Qute correct. Like the majority in this country I worked for decades to buy my house and as you quite rightly observe it is therefore anti-social, not to mention unaffordable . And of course it's quite right for people taking home the same as I do to live in public housing at 100 quid a week, thereby increasing my Council Tax. You are indeed the Sage of Oxfordshire. Are you sure you're just a Doctor? Someone as erudite as you must surely be a Perfesser

DoctorBob wrote:

EMBOX2 wrote:
Back on topic, I do not speak ill of the dead, however Mr. Belcher was a nuisance to Oxford. I caught him trying to steal a bicycle once, and to say he was known to the Police is an understatement. He was given chance after chance. I wonder what his daughter, who does a nobel job of fundraising for those less fortunate, thinks of her father.

It is an inconvienient truth that many homeless" in Oxford are nothing of the sort. They choose to be on the streets despite the numerous "projects" that exist. Also note the number who are not from Oxford but come here, the latest foreign Big Issues sellers are one example.

There needs to be tough love for these people - give them help but when they reject it, send them back to the city of their birth (or where they have family). Oxford taxpayers do not need, and cannot afford to support such people.

Oh dear. Ignorant on so many levels.

In what way?

EMBOX2 wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:

EMBOX2 wrote:
Back on topic, I do not speak ill of the dead, however Mr. Belcher was a nuisance to Oxford. I caught him trying to steal a bicycle once, and to say he was known to the Police is an understatement. He was given chance after chance. I wonder what his daughter, who does a nobel job of fundraising for those less fortunate, thinks of her father.

It is an inconvienient truth that many homeless" in Oxford are nothing of the sort. They choose to be on the streets despite the numerous "projects" that exist. Also note the number who are not from Oxford but come here, the latest foreign Big Issues sellers are one example.

There needs to be tough love for these people - give them help but when they reject it, send them back to the city of their birth (or where they have family). Oxford taxpayers do not need, and cannot afford to support such people.

Oh dear. Ignorant on so many levels.

In what way?

In every way after your first paragraph.

DoctorBob wrote:
Two points.
1) The statements about single parents and social housing are factually incorrect. All they are are urban myths propagated to support people's stereotypical understanding and prejudices. I'm happy,of course, to reassess my view in light of any evidence people may wish to present.

2) Many people in council houses do not actually cost us money, in fact, as most council accommodation build costs have more than been covered they actually save with their rents

Dr Bob, not wishing to slag off a family member, but my niece has 5 children, has never worked since the day she left school, and lives quite happily in her third council property (the properties seem to grow in tandam with her offspring) she has a group of 3 friends who are also fortunate enough to be in the same situation, now they may be unique in Oxford and be the only four in this situation, but somehow I think not.

DoctorBob wrote:

EMBOX2 wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:

EMBOX2 wrote:
Back on topic, I do not speak ill of the dead, however Mr. Belcher was a nuisance to Oxford. I caught him trying to steal a bicycle once, and to say he was known to the Police is an understatement. He was given chance after chance. I wonder what his daughter, who does a nobel job of fundraising for those less fortunate, thinks of her father.

It is an inconvienient truth that many homeless" in Oxford are nothing of the sort. They choose to be on the streets despite the numerous "projects" that exist. Also note the number who are not from Oxford but come here, the latest foreign Big Issues sellers are one example.

There needs to be tough love for these people - give them help but when they reject it, send them back to the city of their birth (or where they have family). Oxford taxpayers do not need, and cannot afford to support such people.

Oh dear. Ignorant on so many levels.

In what way?

In every way after your first paragraph.

If you can't even engage in a conversation to rebut my claims (all of which I can backup, since I am on first name terms with many of the "homeless" and support workers) then you ought not to even bother replying.

These homeless tourists are a massive problem in Oxford (and Brighton during the summer) and it is high time something was done. The phasing out of help to all but the genuinely homeless should help.

Many "homeless" in Oxford are none of the sort. They just don't want to partake in society. Go ask them yourself - most are quite amiable to a conversation.

Homeless are exactly that, irrelevant of who controls the council where they prefer to frequent.

Many "homeless" are that way as they prefer to be that way. Take away the hand outs, enforce anti begging rules and sleeping rough legislation and they will slowly become aware that their chosen life style is not so cavalier and fingers up to the rest of society as they think.

If they are shunned enough and the do-gooders retreat, so will many of the free loaders, leaving a small minority who are the genuine cases of concern.

If ever there was a contradiction of terms, it is Oxford itself. So so so educated, maybe, but equally neglective of what is happening on its own streets. Don't blame the council, blame the society that has voted for the council and what it stands for.

FACT Getting yourself pregnant gives you priority for housing. Once in a cheap home for life, often in very nice properties and situated next to those that are private owned.

FACT Have another baby...need a bigger house...get rehoused.

FACT Have another baby, more benefits and get rehoused.

FACT Then reaping so much money in benefits no motivation to improve self, situation let alone get a job.

FACT Might do a bit of training or studying...will get that free because on benefits, and still have nice cheap affordable home in Oxford.

FACT Check out the streets and pubs! Stop parents being able to spend all day getting plastered in front of their young children.

Perhaps those under 25 with babies should be placed in 'shared supported properties' where they are not put in a situation where they will simply gain materially, but might learn other skills including being independent and being able to provide for their children.

oafie wrote:
FACT Getting yourself pregnant gives you priority for housing. Once in a cheap home for life, often in very nice properties and situated next to those that are private owned.

FACT Have another baby...need a bigger house...get rehoused.

FACT Have another baby, more benefits and get rehoused.

FACT Then reaping so much money in benefits no motivation to improve self, situation let alone get a job.

FACT Might do a bit of training or studying...will get that free because on benefits, and still have nice cheap affordable home in Oxford.

FACT Check out the streets and pubs! Stop parents being able to spend all day getting plastered in front of their young children.

Perhaps those under 25 with babies should be placed in 'shared supported properties' where they are not put in a situation where they will simply gain materially, but might learn other skills including being independent and being able to provide for their children.

Posting FACT before your opinions doesn't make them facts. Evidence confirms facts and the reason you haven't produced any is because you haven't used evidence to inform your opinion.

oafie wrote:
FACT Getting yourself pregnant gives you priority for housing. Once in a cheap home for life, often in very nice properties and situated next to those that are private owned.

FACT Have another baby...need a bigger house...get rehoused.

FACT Have another baby, more benefits and get rehoused.

FACT Then reaping so much money in benefits no motivation to improve self, situation let alone get a job.

FACT Might do a bit of training or studying...will get that free because on benefits, and still have nice cheap affordable home in Oxford.

FACT Check out the streets and pubs! Stop parents being able to spend all day getting plastered in front of their young children.

Perhaps those under 25 with babies should be placed in 'shared supported properties' where they are not put in a situation where they will simply gain materially, but might learn other skills including being independent and being able to provide for their children.

Posting FACT before your opinions doesn't make them facts. Evidence confirms facts and the reason you haven't produced any is because you haven't used evidence to inform your opinion.

EMBOX2 wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:

EMBOX2 wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:

EMBOX2 wrote:
Back on topic, I do not speak ill of the dead, however Mr. Belcher was a nuisance to Oxford. I caught him trying to steal a bicycle once, and to say he was known to the Police is an understatement. He was given chance after chance. I wonder what his daughter, who does a nobel job of fundraising for those less fortunate, thinks of her father.

It is an inconvienient truth that many homeless" in Oxford are nothing of the sort. They choose to be on the streets despite the numerous "projects" that exist. Also note the number who are not from Oxford but come here, the latest foreign Big Issues sellers are one example.

There needs to be tough love for these people - give them help but when they reject it, send them back to the city of their birth (or where they have family). Oxford taxpayers do not need, and cannot afford to support such people.

Oh dear. Ignorant on so many levels.

In what way?

In every way after your first paragraph.

If you can't even engage in a conversation to rebut my claims (all of which I can backup, since I am on first name terms with many of the "homeless" and support workers) then you ought not to even bother replying.

These homeless tourists are a massive problem in Oxford (and Brighton during the summer) and it is high time something was done. The phasing out of help to all but the genuinely homeless should help.

Many "homeless" in Oxford are none of the sort. They just don't want to partake in society. Go ask them yourself - most are quite amiable to a conversation.

Just taking your comment about many homeless being no such thing is a perfect example of how nonsensical your post is. Homeless is a descriptive term for someone who has no permanent home to live in including sofa surfing. If someone fits this description then they are, de facto, homeless regardless of your personal view of their motivations or circumstances.

To examine your statement further we can see what nonsense it really is. You say many homeless aren't homeless. They either are or aren't by definition.

So you are on first name terms with some homeless people. Whoopy doo! Are you saying your evidential research is participant observation? Having spent a good chunk of my life working with the homeless I can assure you very few make it a lifestyle choice. I can also assure you that those names you think you are on a knowing basis with most probably are aliases or nicknames.

Many people on the streets are ex services, come from abusive or violent backgrounds, have mental health issues or are unfortunate enough to have lost everything in a society that champions ruthlessness.

carfax cabby ox1 wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:
Two points.
1) The statements about single parents and social housing are factually incorrect. All they are are urban myths propagated to support people's stereotypical understanding and prejudices. I'm happy,of course, to reassess my view in light of any evidence people may wish to present.

2) Many people in council houses do not actually cost us money, in fact, as most council accommodation build costs have more than been covered they actually save with their rents

Dr Bob, not wishing to slag off a family member, but my niece has 5 children, has never worked since the day she left school, and lives quite happily in her third council property (the properties seem to grow in tandam with her offspring) she has a group of 3 friends who are also fortunate enough to be in the same situation, now they may be unique in Oxford and be the only four in this situation, but somehow I think not.

You can' t beat a bit of hearsay as evidence especially when it's key point becomes "seems".
Any real evidence that can be verified?

"Having spent a good chunk of my life working with the homeless"
That's really sad Doc Bob. You're some kind of social worker. If you try real hard you could still get a proper job. Maybe be the "Corporate Parenting Manager" for our County Council like Ms. Fonseca, get wads of cash and an OBE. Just tell yourself you can do it. Remember the ant and the rubbertree plant.

DoctorBob wrote:

carfax cabby ox1 wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:
Two points.
1) The statements about single parents and social housing are factually incorrect. All they are are urban myths propagated to support people's stereotypical understanding and prejudices. I'm happy,of course, to reassess my view in light of any evidence people may wish to present.

2) Many people in council houses do not actually cost us money, in fact, as most council accommodation build costs have more than been covered they actually save with their rents

Dr Bob, not wishing to slag off a family member, but my niece has 5 children, has never worked since the day she left school, and lives quite happily in her third council property (the properties seem to grow in tandam with her offspring) she has a group of 3 friends who are also fortunate enough to be in the same situation, now they may be unique in Oxford and be the only four in this situation, but somehow I think not.

You can' t beat a bit of hearsay as evidence especially when it's key point becomes "seems".
Any real evidence that can be verified?

Are you calling me a liar Dr Bob, because if you are I will provide evidence in court (my niece will stand up under oath) and we will take what ever you have in damages. What I wrote is the TRUTH. If you wish to take this further email me carfaxcabby@hotmail.
com I can verify what I say can you.

carfax cabby ox1 wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:

carfax cabby ox1 wrote:

DoctorBob wrote:
Two points.
1) The statements about single parents and social housing are factually incorrect. All they are are urban myths propagated to support people's stereotypical understanding and prejudices. I'm happy,of course, to reassess my view in light of any evidence people may wish to present.

2) Many people in council houses do not actually cost us money, in fact, as most council accommodation build costs have more than been covered they actually save with their rents

Dr Bob, not wishing to slag off a family member, but my niece has 5 children, has never worked since the day she left school, and lives quite happily in her third council property (the properties seem to grow in tandam with her offspring) she has a group of 3 friends who are also fortunate enough to be in the same situation, now they may be unique in Oxford and be the only four in this situation, but somehow I think not.

You can' t beat a bit of hearsay as evidence especially when it's key point becomes "seems".
Any real evidence that can be verified?

Are you calling me a liar Dr Bob, because if you are I will provide evidence in court (my niece will stand up under oath) and we will take what ever you have in damages. What I wrote is the TRUTH. If you wish to take this further email me carfaxcabby@hotmail.

com I can verify what I say can you.

What I am saying is that hearsay is not evidence especially when it's not even being presented as conclusive.

I'd be interested on what grounds you think you'd be seeing anybody in court?

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
"Having spent a good chunk of my life working with the homeless"
That's really sad Doc Bob. You're some kind of social worker. If you try real hard you could still get a proper job. Maybe be the "Corporate Parenting Manager" for our County Council like Ms. Fonseca, get wads of cash and an OBE. Just tell yourself you can do it. Remember the ant and the rubbertree plant.

I think you should get an OBE my lord just for managing to post without using the word Socialist.

Interesting you think working with the vulnerable is sad. What noble service did you provide for humanity in your working life?

DoctorBob wrote:

Lord Palmerstone wrote:
"Having spent a good chunk of my life working with the homeless"
That's really sad Doc Bob. You're some kind of social worker. If you try real hard you could still get a proper job. Maybe be the "Corporate Parenting Manager" for our County Council like Ms. Fonseca, get wads of cash and an OBE. Just tell yourself you can do it. Remember the ant and the rubbertree plant.

I think you should get an OBE my lord just for managing to post without using the word Socialist.

Interesting you think working with the vulnerable is sad. What noble service did you provide for humanity in your working life?

Porton Down. But you guessed that. No it's sad because you speak with a kind of authority that I took as coming from a more erudite base than social work. Working with the "vulnerable" is fine but it isn't remotely main stream of life, any more than collecting bits of coal that look like Winston Churchill's head.

Dr Bob how about libel for a start. I never hit the report this post button because I believe in free speech, but you are writing on a site that is viewed world wide and calling me a liar. I will repeat, girls get pregnant to get a council house, FACT, they then have more babies to increase the size of the council house and the benefits that they receive, they continue to have babies until their late 40s as by the time the kids are grown up they can claim their pension. Thus they never have to work in their life. You Dr Bob need to wake up. My email is in the post above. You are a liar SUE ME.