Homeless people need.........

Former Member

........broadband would you believe

Story.

on that logic maybe labour will give everyone on dial up a home, damn im getting rid of my broadband today........

there's not much to debate i know, it just made me laugh........maybe it's not even that bad an idea, but it sounds like a bit of a gimmick to me, surprise surprise what homeless people really need are homes...... :rolleyes:

Former Member

Yes, they need homes but broadband access in hostels sounds like a good idea to me.

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

Yes, they need homes but broadband access in hostels sounds like a good idea to me.

what about funding more hostel places and more places that do simple but nice meals for homeless people, or better access to mental health and counselling provision

Former Member

What about it? Do you mean am I for it? or against?

Go on, have a guess. :rolleyes:

Teh_Gerbil

What about helping them get jobs, and being able to support themselves?

Oh, that'd be logical. It's a step in the right direction, admitably, but the homeless still get a raw deal. It's near impossible to improve their situation, once it is that bad.

Former Member

I wonder what the literacy rate amongst homeless people is.

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

What about it? Do you mean am I for it? or against?

Go on, have a guess. :rolleyes:

Erm.. I think he means that priorities seem to be a little screwy here :rolleyes:

Former Member

homeless people need houses

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

Erm.. I think he means that priorities seem to be a little screwy here :rolleyes:

In the abscence of sorting out the homeless problem (which will take a lot more than building houses), broadband access would be a good idea. Some of my clients live in hostels, I think net access would be appreciated.

Former Member

You may think it sounds silly, but reading the report fully it actually makes sense. If you are looking for a job and don't have a permanent address, an email address or mobile phone number could come in handy. If it helps the homeless get jobs, I'm for it.

Former Member

Most homeless people (or rough sleepers) aren't homeless because of lack of hosuing but because of other problems, such as drug, alcohol, mental issues, family breakdown.

Giving them a house doesn't solve any of these problems and many would be on the street pretty quickly again. Broadband access on its own doesn't do anything, but if you also try and treat their problems, broadband gives them greater access to jobs, information on health, housing and helps them to learn to fend for themselves.

Former Member

Good plan. Broadband is a quick, cost-effective way to access a wealth of information.

Former Member

In London alone there are something like 80,000 empty houses (though a lot of these are probably falling apart)

Former Member

Squat 'em!

Former Member

Toadborg wrote:

In London alone there are something like 80,000 empty houses (though a lot of these are probably falling apart)

Unfotunately we are seeing the results of 20 odd years of neo-liberalist economics. The problem is not shortage of housing but shortage of affordable housing, lack of mental health provision, lack of funding for alcohol and drug services and privatisation of the benefits service.

Former Member

As charities seem more effective than the government in helping the homeless I think there's a case for government funding of charities like the Salvation Army.

Don't really see a problem with this idea to give the homeless broadband although clearly other priorities should come first.

Teh_Gerbil

Disillusioned wrote:

As charities seem more effective than the government in helping the homeless I think there's a case for government funding of charities like the Salvation Army.

Don't really see a problem with this idea to give the homeless broadband although clearly other priorities should come first.

yeah, i think alot of stuff should be government funded - air ambulance, lifeboats, salvation army, etc. it is a disgrace they are not, imho.

Former Member

Teh_Gerbil wrote:

yeah, i think alot of stuff should be government funded - air ambulance, lifeboats, salvation army, etc. it is a disgrace they are not, imho.

Air ambulances represent poor value for money. They should not be government funded unless there is a good evidence base that they are truly required. They are also glamourous enough in and of themselves to generate enough revenue from charitable donations.

And the RNLI, if memory serves, is Britain's second richest charity.

Funding homeless charities I would support though.

Teh_Gerbil

Kentish wrote:

Air ambulances represent poor value for money. They should not be government funded unless there is a good evidence base that they are truly required. They are also glamourous enough in and of themselves to generate enough revenue from charitable donations.

And the RNLI, if memory serves, is Britain's second richest charity.

Funding homeless charities I would support though.

air ambulance - saving limbs or lives which an ambulance cannot should NOT EVER be a matter of money, imho.

RNLI might be the second richest - but it is still in trouble and having to cut some stations. One again I put lives ahead of cash - but my Father is a merchant seaman, so I daresay this clouds my good, capitalist judgement.

Former Member

To be honest RNLI should be funded regardless of whether it is wealthy or not. There are certain roles which are charities (guide dogs for the blind) and certain roles which should be that of the state (saving people's lives at sea). By all means allow it to top up its money by donation and still be crewed mainly by volunteers - but its main funding should be the Government.

Former Member

NQA wrote:

To be honest RNLI should be funded regardless of whether it is wealthy or not. There are certain roles which are charities (guide dogs for the blind) and certain roles which should be that of the state (saving people's lives at sea). By all means allow it to top up its money by donation and still be crewed mainly by volunteers - but its main funding should be the Government.

Agree completely.

Kentish wrote:

Air ambulances represent poor value for money. They should not be government funded unless there is a good evidence base that they are truly required. They are also glamourous enough in and of themselves to generate enough revenue from charitable donations.

Disagree entirely.

Air ambulances save lives. Of that there can be no doubt. Money does not really come into the equation and it should be funded entirely by the taxpayer.

Former Member

Air ambulances are overrated. I'd prefer the NHS to put the money into proper ambulances. They don't need landing grounds, they can drive if its night or poor weather, they cost less to run, the driver can double as a paramedic, they're safer and even if they do crash the chances of survival are much better.

Air ambulances have their place, but they're not as versatile or useful as the old fashioned wheels on ground type ambulance.

Former Member

No-one is suggesting air ambulances should replace conventional ones. Their role is limited. But there is a role for them. Namely whenever the emergency is in a difficult-to-access area. And there are plenty of those, from hilly/mountainous areas to woodland to completely-jammed motorways.

That a country that sees itself as civilised should consider ditching air ambulances or let them at the mercy of donations because they cost money to run is simply unbelievable- not to mention nauseating

Teh_Gerbil

NQA wrote:

...They don't need landing grounds....

Having seem where the air amublance has landed, i was astonished. Also, i'd like to see an amblulance get to half the place the air amublance can. The role of the rifle is limited - but you cannot deny its effectivness.
The Air Ambulance saves lives. that IS its role. Alot of people would be dead without it. I do not place a aprice on lives myself.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Disagree entirely.

Air ambulances save lives. Of that there can be no doubt. Money does not really come into the equation and it should be funded entirely by the taxpayer.

I actually told you that they represent poor value for money, not that they don't save lives. The other advantage of the Air Ambulance is that they carry a doctor as well as a paramedic, and that is good thing for serious trauma. They also have faster response times for the larger distances.

However - they don't fly at night or in strong winds, most of their patients get transferred to hospital in a road ambulance not by air, and they cost an awful amount of money to keep them running.

If I had a million pounds to give out, I'd rather spend it on something that affects more people and is more absolute. Herceptin, for example.

NHS resources are limited and it's about time some of you realised that.

Former Member

In that case tax the rich more to pay for it. Problem solved.

Former Member

What's wrong with those who appreciate the service paying for it through charity?

Former Member

Why don't we just go one step further and fund the entire NHS by charitable donations?

Former Member

Blagsta wrote:

Why don't we just go one step further and fund the entire NHS by charitable donations?

All I'm saying is that - bearing in mind NHS resources are limited (however much tax we manage to raise) - we should spend money where it is of best value.

Former Member

The NHS shouldn't be run with 'value for money' in mind. Certainly not when it comes to life-saving procedures. Air ambulances are never going to be cost-effective. But they save lives which would otherwise be lost. For that reason alone we must ensure we have an adequate fleet of them. If charity donations paid for their upkeep, fine. But it is very unlikely the fleet could be maintained on charity contributions alone, and before long some choppers would be decommissioned 'to save money'... and then it's all downwards from there.

Former Member

The NHS is entirely run on a value-for-money basis.