Beggars, homeless, street drinkers & drug users in Sheffield!

[woodmally]

But in return for the employer's cash, there is an obligation to fullfil a contract and if it isn't, the consideration (cash) is withdrawn. In a charitable act there is no legal contract but rather an expectancy or hope that the recipient uses the gift in a beneficial manner towards him/herself.

 

Instead what happens if you give money to beggars and they are the ones that spend it on spice you pay twice. Once to the beggar and the second time in taxes for the police ambulance services etc that have to treat the spice addict.

[the_bloke]

To give them self determination and agency...

Do you want to help them, or do you want to feel better about yourself?

You might not like the fact that they want to drink Special Brew, but presumably you expect your employer to pay you in cash and you decide when to eat and when to have a beer, why are these people different to you?

 

I don't need to give them cash to help them; as I've pointed out there are better methods than giving them cash, methods suggested by charities and the Police.

 

My employer pays me because I provide them something in return, it's in my contract. A beggar on the street gives me nothing in return, I have no obligation to give them anything so I'd rather what I do give them is actually going to keep them alive (clothes/food) than give them drugs or booze which helps no one.

 

Deciding not to give cash and help in other ways is nothing to do with feeling better about myself, it's common sense.

[ProperBrew]

I don't carry change on me anymore, not for a long time, so there's nothing I could give anyway in terms of cash. What really bugs me though is the ones who decide to sit outside of a cash point, or a shop door, asking for money. Just seems like a way to try and guilt people into giving, or make them feel bad.

 

Some homeless people are genuine, and need support, not always having drink, or drug problems, just either had a hard time, or they never settle down into a house, for whatever reason. Then there are some who cause problems, or are begging just to make money, I remember seeing one who had a cast on her leg one day, begging, then it's gone the next day, Jesus must have stepped in!

 

If I was to give something, it would be food, as I am more likley to be able to buy that, than give money, since as first mentioned, I don't carry change very often! And I can buy food on a card.

[redruby]

Instead what happens if you give money to beggars and they are the ones that spend it on spice you pay twice. Once to the beggar and the second time in taxes for the police ambulance services etc that have to treat the spice addict.

 

Yes. It’s utter joke trying to draw a comparison between a salary from an employer and money handed over to beggars.

To those who think it’s fine for beggars to spend money given to them on drugs, at least give some thought to the strain this places on the ambulance service alone. What if an ambulance didn’t get to you or your family in time because the service was overstretched attending to drug related incidents?

[Fudbeer]

Agree giving cash to beggars just makes everything worse, even giving them food probably means they spend more on alcohol and drugs that makes their situation worse.

 

There are many good charities desperate for money that can be used to improve their situation not make it worse.

 

Sadly many people particularly students believe they are helping them by giving money where as actually they are doing the opposite.

 

I have met some genuine people who are down on their luck and staying at the salvation army, with a little help they could easily get back on their feet and be working again.

[Cyclone]

I don't need to give them cash to help them; as I've pointed out there are better methods than giving them cash, methods suggested by charities and the Police.

 

My employer pays me because I provide them something in return, it's in my contract. A beggar on the street gives me nothing in return, I have no obligation to give them anything so I'd rather what I do give them is actually going to keep them alive (clothes/food) than give them drugs or booze which helps no one.

 

Deciding not to give cash and help in other ways is nothing to do with feeling better about myself, it's common sense.

 

Nobody claimed you were obliged to give them anything

 

Deciding to give anything is about feeling better about yourself, there's really no form of altruism that isn't self serving.

 

And you've effectively avoided the question, what makes you able to judge that giving them something other than cash is "better"... It's because you're making a judgement about how they might spend it and so you take away their agency, their self determination and spend it for them instead.

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2018 at 08:22 ----------

 

Because he earned his money ?

 

Presumably his contract specifies that he'll be paid in money, but pretend it didn't.

He earned, we'll agree on that. But why doesn't the state decide how to spend it, there are irresponsible people out there who spend frivolously and then struggle to eat or pay the bills, if the state 'spent' the money and salary was delivered by means of first a direct payment to mortgage or landlord, then a weekly delivery of food, bills paid automatically, and so on. Well, wouldn't that be better for everyone?

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2018 at 08:27 ----------

 

Interesting study here, it's quite short

 

http://alcoholresearchuk.org/alcohol-insights/an-exploration-of-the-role-of-alcohol-in-the-life-experiences-of-the-homeless-population-in-merseyside-uk/

 

And the alternative argument to not giving money.

Should you give them money? Absolutely.

 

They need it – and assuming you are not the person who will solve homelessness with a click of your fingers – it’s the least you can do. Sleeping bags, hot food and painkillers are also welcome. This idea that homeless people “can’t be trusted” with the money you give is a wicked get-out. They are not children. They are not morons. They are homeless and they are sad. Many need medical and psychiatric help. If all this was available – as that monstrous poster suggests – then there would not be a homelessness problem in the first place. Your money will be spent on food, newspapers, coffees and toiletries. The majority try to beg enough to get a hostel for the night (anywhere up to £20-odd a night.) Some – but by no means all – will spend it on alcohol or drugs.

 

It’s this that seems to bother some people. Drug use isn’t a sign of moral failure or craven attitudes. The people I met who took class A drugs had very little choice. Without a daily hit (which costs money) they will, within hours, become extremely ill: vomiting, diarrhoea and excruciating muscle spasms are just some of what they would endure, and having diarrhoea in the middle of Oxford Street isn’t an option for most people. And believe me, after a few cold days sitting out in the cold and damp doing my “research”, I barely made it through the front door in the evening before pouring a very large gin. I did that every night I got home. For people living on the street, booze can help dilute the shame and embarrassment of begging.

From

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/17/should-give-homeless-people-money-gloucester-council-ad

 

Longer than the first link though.

[lesserthan1]

Hey cyclone, if you'd like to help someone get hammered all day I could do with a hand; I'm really sad and I'd rather not go to work. I'd much prefer to get leathered somewhere and you seem to have a few beans knocking about, fancy making a significant donation to my cause?

 

And also; most of the people I know who took 'class a drugs' didn't have a disease, they took them because, for the most part, they are awesome or at least they make them feel awesome for a short time. People who think this, or alcoholism, is something you can catch have either never had either drugs or booze, or have a mental problem where they believe a sky fairy is controlling them.

Edited October 17, 2018 by lesserthan1
Addendum.

[Jobojack]

It's because you're making a judgement about how they might spend it and so you take away their agency, their self determination and spend it for them instead.

 

It’s unusual for anybody to give things away without conditions or expectations. If you sign on, you have to look for work. If you get sick pay you have to provide a doctor’s note, we have to pay stamps for our pension or we’re old and poor enough to need help, or we have to turn up to work. Even why my Nan buys me a book token or a topshop voucher for Christmas she is placing an expectation I will spend my money on that clothes or books and not on fags and cider.

 

Regarding agency: first of all you seem to be assuming that agency is always a good thing. It’s not. Many people punch, kick, rape, fight, kill, rob steal, abuse harm, commit terror attacks, start wars out of their own agency. Agency is sometimes not that great. At it’s extremes we even send people to jail for using their agency destructively or in a way which harms others.

 

Now we as a society do tolerate those who use their own agency to harm themselves with drugs or alcohol much more. If they have the money and don’t harm others in the process it’s tolerated. But if they have to beg then they are entirely dependent on the agency of others. Which is where the other problem with your prioritisation of agency. What about the agency of me, the_bloke, redruby, fudbeer, whoever? What if we don’t want to collude in the violence they are inflicting on themselves? Why doesn’t our agency matter? Why Cyclone, it does sound like you are trying to take our agency away from us, you rotter you! You use your agency to give them money, we use our agency to buy them a sandwich and you cannot take our agency away!

 

The third thing is that they do still have agency. They are using their agency to beg to feed their habits. Tomorrow, they may use their agency to go down to the Archer project and ask for help with their addictions. It does happen. I know people who have done it.

 

But why doesn't the state decide how to spend it, there are irresponsible people out there who spend frivolously and then struggle to eat or pay the bills, if the state 'spent' the money and salary was delivered by means of first a direct payment to mortgage or landlord, then a weekly delivery of food, bills paid automatically, and so on. Well, wouldn't that be better for everyone?

 

What you’re ignoring is that turning up for work is not the only expectation of employers. You are expected to turn up to work clean, washed, appropriately dressed, fed, alert and healthy. Someone who chose to spend all their money on booze and spice rather than somewhere to live, sleep, wash, launder their clothes and feed themselves will not be employed for much longer. We are given money by our employers with the expectation that we are capable of using our own agency to make responsible decisions which won’t negatively impact us and them. If we’re found to make poor use of our own agency, that right is withdrawn and our employers use their agency to sack us! For many people, when they see see someone harming themselves with drugs or alcohol they make the decision that person is using their agency harmfully and use their own agency to choose not to support behaviour which harms them.

 

Agency doesn’t just come from one side in the transaction, if you’re going to argue agency is all important and must be preserved then the givers agency is just as important, particularly when the giver is in a better position to exercise good judgement..

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2018 at 11:00 ----------

 

And also; most of the people I know who took 'class a drugs' didn't have a disease, they took them because, for the most part, they are awesome or at least they make them feel awesome for a short time. People who think this, or alcoholism, is something you can catch have either never had either drugs or booze, or have a mental problem where they believe a sky fairy is controlling them.

 

You don’t have to ‘catch’ something for it to be a disease. You don’t catch Cancer or Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s or Multiple Sclerosis but they’re still diseases.

 

If you think people with serious addictions drink or take drugs because it makes them feel ‘awesome’ you are seriously deluded and obviously don’t have much experience of addiction. By the time they get to the point of addiction they are taking things just to get temporary relief from the absolute depths of emotional and physical anguish, it may make them feel a bit less awful temporarily, it certainly won’t make them feel good or even okay, let alone awesome.

 

I’ve overcome my own addictions and I have an awful lot of sympathy for people who still have them and I give regularly to the Archer Project & St Mungo’s who help people in these dreadful situations. But I won’t give money to facilitate them harming themselves. That doesn’t mean I can’t sympathise or understand the awful almost hopeless situation serious addiction is.

[Cyclone]

You seem to think that my opinion about whether giving money to beggars is good or bad is somehow an attempt to take away your ability to decide for yourself (your agency).

When in fact it's a rational argument to attempt to change your opinion such that you choose to use your agency differently.

Being influenced by a discussion isn't a loss of your agency.

 

Regarding your nan, perhaps you'd be happier if you she gave you cash rather than a book token. It would show that she recognised your ability to decide how to spend the money for yourself, rather than her limiting your choices.

 

So your employer (and the state, which was the argument I actually used) gives you free reign on how to spend your money. They don't instead pay you by providing housing and food. Why do you think that homeless people don't want to receive that same freedom?

 

Interesting that you recognise the hold that addiction will have over someone. On that basis if everyone stopped giving money, then that would almost certainly cause a direct rise in minor acquisitive crime, shopping lifting and mugging for example. Because the addiction can't simply be ignored due to a lack of money and an excess of sandwiches and coffee.

[woodmally]

It appears that someone has died as a result of spice. Apparently he was released from prison and couldnt return home due to problems at home (that was on Sheffield Tent City Page). There is more information on it on Sheffield Online.