Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In Britain we have 900,000 empty homes, and around 800,000 homeless (although this is rising sharply with current and proposed cuts to housing benefit). So what do the government do to solve this problem? Outlaw squatting, now squatting is morally ambiguous at best, but empty houses while people sleep rough is wrong. Instead of bringing in rent controls after the buy to let bubble has priced a good proportion of people out of being able to afford to live in London, they instead talk of taking away housing benefit from under 35s. So you've been made redundant at 32? Better go move back with Mum and Dad. What if they aren't around any more? Then you're sleeping rough and probably not able to get back into society for quite some time. It's creating problems rather than sorting them.

sebster wrote:The way you solve homelessness is with affordable homes.

FTFY

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Working in legal in my company, I can tell you that most of this never goes to court. Instead, the insurance company of the library looks at potential court cost to prove their just actions (Around $30k) and offers a settlement of $15k. Sleazy lawyer takes half ($7.5k in his pocket for a few hours of work). The insurance company saves $15k that it would have had to spend to prove it was in the right.

The tax payer now has to pay more for that insurance. (in other words, the only screwed person is the tax payer... again!)

Exactly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corpsesarefun wrote:Shouldn't basic human rights apply to the homeless anyway?

The fact that this is even needed is kind of disgusting.

They have the same "basic human rights" that I have. Under the proposed law however, they would have substantially more, as they would now be considered a protected class in many ways. Indeed that means they have more rights than women, kids, well most everyone outside of employment and housing. Is there any other group of people specifically protected under criminal law? I'm not aware of any. Oh wait, politicians, but then again I did say people didn't I.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:It's funny, I thought Republicans would have been defending a law that emphasizes personal freedoms and reduces some of the nebulous power of government.

Pic related:

Its not designed to reduce the nebulous power of government. Its designed to create cash transfers from anyone with money, facilitated by attorneys after a rather large fee.

Palindrome wrote:

biccat wrote:

Palindrome wrote:What is almost as bad is that providing homeless people with more opportunity to see those rights protected has for some reason by labelled as an excuse for frivolous law suits rather than welcomed. Some people really need get a grip, seriously.

I don't think that a suit against a library under the given circumstances would be frivolous at all. In fact, such a suit seems wholly consistent with the intent of the 'law.'

IF that is true (and I very much doubt it) then the US legal system is not fit for purpose.

Or, and this is just off the top of my head, the law is stupid and people should realize this!

But whatever. It's the thought that counts. Practical consequences be damned.

This thread shows that they could create a bill that would solve all the worlds problems, but it would never get passed because people would find the dumbest and stupidest "Possible" consequence and criticize it for it.

Say all laws apply to every the same is about as naive a statement as it gets, my friend is very very wealthy and he gets away with all kinds of crap because people assume because he has a nice car and nice clothes he could not possibly be committing a crime, while Iv seen police follow Hobos for hours shouting names and harassing them for fun. I once saw a police officer arrest a homeless black man for Jaywalking, jaywalking.

dæl wrote:

sebster wrote:The way you solve homelessness is with affordable homes.

FTFY

That's an issue of affordable housing for people with housing difficulties due to an expensive rent market, which might sounds similar to but is actually wildly different to people who are homeless.

Dropping rents to levels that regular folk can afford does nothing to aid the vagrants the Rhode Island bill is targeting, who are in almost every case unemployed. What these people need is rent free housing, likely in supervised dorm situations, offered on a permanent basis, and then once they've got that stable living situation then employment, mental health care and other issues become solveable.

I agree that rental markets increasing past the point where average income earners is a problem, but its really a different problem to that of longterm homelessness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:They have the same "basic human rights" that I have. Under the proposed law however, they would have substantially more, as they would now be considered a protected class in many ways. Indeed that means they have more rights than women, kids, well most everyone outside of employment and housing. Is there any other group of people specifically protected under criminal law? I'm not aware of any. Oh wait, politicians, but then again I did say people didn't I.

Yeah, I mean, imagine granting special priviledges to a class of people who are in need? What is this, a humane, Christian society?

No its called discrimination.

Frazzled wrote:No its called discrimination.

Oh, good. Frazzled is against discrimination. Ok fraz, go grab a mop. We're getting rid of handicap parking spots today! Tomorrow the weather is good for getting rid of socialworkers, those kids deserve the freedom of abusive parents. After that lets go put bigger locks and more flammable insulation into Walmarts! Those janitors signed life contracts, they've gotten away one too many times.

Whats awesome is -although entertainingly ranty- how none of that is relevant to the topic.

Frazzled wrote:Whats awesome is -although entertainingly ranty- how none of that is relevant to the topic.

It's relevant to your conflicting ideologies which is directly relevant to the topic since you are arguing from those ideologies.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Whats awesome is -although entertainingly ranty- how none of that is relevant to the topic.

It's relevant to your conflicting ideologies which is directly relevant to the topic since you are arguing from those ideologies.

Mmmm...no.

Frazzled wrote:No its called discrimination.

Insisting everyone gets treated exactly the same, while steadfastly ignoring that people have wildly varying circumstances is a really odd way of looking at the world.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No its called discrimination.

Insisting everyone gets treated exactly the same, while steadfastly ignoring that people have wildly varying circumstances is a really odd way of looking at the world.

You're not good at this. Making one group a protected class while the majority are not protected is discrimination. They have the exact same rights as me, but under the law even more.

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No its called discrimination.

Insisting everyone gets treated exactly the same, while steadfastly ignoring that people have wildly varying circumstances is a really odd way of looking at the world.

You're not good at this. Making one group a protected class while the majority are not protected is discrimination. They have the exact same rights as me, but under the law even more.

Isn't this exactly what the Bill is aiming at? To ensure that a homeless person gets the exact same rights as you.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No its called discrimination.

Insisting everyone gets treated exactly the same, while steadfastly ignoring that people have wildly varying circumstances is a really odd way of looking at the world.

You're not good at this. Making one group a protected class while the majority are not protected is discrimination. They have the exact same rights as me, but under the law even more.

Isn't this exactly what the Bill is aiming at? To ensure that a homeless person gets the exact same rights as you.

No the bill gives them more rights than me. I can't sue and win if I get thrown out of a library in the example given.

Frazzled wrote:
No the bill gives them more rights than me. I can't sue and win if I get thrown out of a library in the example given.

No you couldn't, and neither could a black person. But if they were thrown out of a library because they were black then they could sue for discrimination.

If you want extra rights you could always become homeless, it's more socially acceptable than blacking up, less painful than getting a sex change and probably easier than changing sexuality.

How do you 'black up'? You make it sound like a power ranger or Dragonball Z level.

level 9000 political incorrectness

Hazardous Harry wrote:How do you 'black up'? You make it sound like a power ranger or Dragonball Z level.

Play a drow in DnD?

Frazzled wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:How do you 'black up'? You make it sound like a power ranger or Dragonball Z level.

Play a drow in DnD?

Fits right in with all those other fantasies about being discriminated against because you're white and male.