16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That part touches on it, and there are a wide range of reasons why some refuse such accommodations, ranging from experience of violence to deep mistrust to organizations and so on. Then add to this health issues of various sorts, which requires bespoke, and thus expensive support to really help them.

But not all of them refuse.

A couple of years ago we were asked where there was a good place to set up camp by a lone elderly guy on a bicycle.

In the end we gave him a bed for the night and it turned out that he was excellent company during the evening.

Over dinner, he turned out to be a professor of geology at the University of Otago who was doing the grand tour.

One night in the West Country and then on to the East coast where he was heading for Norway in a couple of days.

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

But not all of them refuse.

A couple of years ago we were asked where there was a good place to set up camp by a lone elderly guy on a bicycle.

In the end we gave him a bed for the night and it turned out that he was excellent company during the evening.

Over dinner, he turned out to be a professor of geology at the University of Otago who was doing the grand tour.

One night in the West Country and then on to the East coast where he was heading for Norway in a couple of days.

When I worked in Norway ,some 40 or 50 years ago we came across an old Norwegian on the state pension.

He told us he used it to travel around the world and that the pension "followed" him.

Travel was more expensive back then .....

So Norway was exporting its surplus to requirements if they felt the urge.

I remember in the Lofoten Islands they used to open the windows in winter (it would go down to -40) because the electricity was so cheap (so much hydro)

They also used to hang out their fresh fish outside the window because it needed firming up as it was "too fresh" for their taste.

Edited 15 hours ago15 hr by geordief

4 minutes ago, geordief said:

When I worked in Norway ,some 40 or 50 years ago we came across an old Norwegian on the state pension.

He told us he used it to travel around the world and that the pension "followed" him.

Travel was more expensive back then .....

So Norway was exporting its surplus to requirements if they felt the urge.

I remember in the Lofoten Islands they used to open the windows in winter (it would go down to -40) because the electricity was so cheap (so much hydro)

They also used to hang out their fresh fish outside the window because it needed firming up as it was "too fresh" for their taste.

.

It's so much more interesting to trade experiences than insults.

Thank you. +1

2 hours ago, studiot said:

But not all of them refuse.

A couple of years ago we were asked where there was a good place to set up camp by a lone elderly guy on a bicycle.

In the end we gave him a bed for the night and it turned out that he was excellent company during the evening.

Over dinner, he turned out to be a professor of geology at the University of Otago who was doing the grand tour.

One night in the West Country and then on to the East coast where he was heading for Norway in a couple of days.

Of course, I was referring to some of the challenges that social workers have brought when talking about reaching out to unhoused folks and the diversity of challenges they face. That being said, these initiatives are notoriously underfunded to begin with, and many, if not most help organizations focus on immediate harm prevention more than anything.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

I think religion tries to get people to help others, often in spite of themselves. It may be that certain proponents of the various religions recognized that society would be better off as a result and that this runs against the natural instincts of many.

I am not so sure being helpful to others generally runs against our instincts. It seems to me that unwillingness to help is because of a perception of privation to self from doing so. In my opinion, this stems in large part from the seemingly predominant ethos of "you can never have enough", which places the individual's "needs" over those of society. If true, how can that sort of cooperation be promoted over competition? (don't take that to mean that I place no value on competition, just that it needs to be appropriate)

18 hours ago, studiot said:

I would just like to add that some rough sleepers in the UK choose to avoid accommodation available to them.

Hm, this is also a tough issue…I have never myself been in one of those “Emergency Accomodation” units, but I have heard accounts from homeless people who say that conditions in many of those places are deplorable, to the point that they feel safer sleeping outside.

16 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

PS. Not sure where monks fit in such a critique these days. 😉

Depends what kind of “monk” you mean, specifically. In my particular case, our entire tradition is based on alms mendicancy, meaning we live exclusively on material donations freely given by others. We do not use, receive or own money in any form. So we stand outside this system.

But perhaps this might be interesting in the context of this thread: we keep up the tradition of going on “alms round”, meaning a few times a week we walk into town with our alms bowls in the hope of receiving some form of edibles for our (one and only) daily meal. In my experience here in the West, and purely statistically: out of every 100 people I encounter, 96 simply ignore me and walk past; 2 are curious and ask questions, but don’t give anything; 1 will be actively critical, on rare occasions even hostile; and 1 will actually donate food.

The same exercise done in a SE Asian country might yield a very different result. In my experience there are also differences between traditionally catholic and Protestant areas, even within the same country. So, culture does play a role in this question also.

PS. Here’s another interesting observation I’ve made - those who are evidently well to do (ie arrive in expensive cars, have fancy clothes, watches etc) almost never give anything. On the other hand, I’ve gotten alms from rough sleepers on occasion. Go figure.

8 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Glad to hear it. Let me remind you of my response to all three examples:

As condemnations go, this is pretty mild isn't it? And the ensuing quote only really says that your comments are a reflection of your socioeconomic background. I don't really understand why you seem so upset about it.

Though many apologies, of course, if I've been inadvertently insensitive.

7 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Only @exchemist and that's handbags at ten paces stuff as far as I can tell.

What exactly are you taking umbrage over? My perception of a possible hint of true blue Tory in something you said? Methinks thou dost protest too much!

It was not me that made unprovoked accusations of “slurs” and “dogwhistles”.

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

PS. Here’s another interesting observation I’ve made - those who are evidently well to do (ie arrive in expensive cars, have fancy clothes, watches etc) almost never give anything. On the other hand, I’ve gotten alms from rough sleepers on occasion. Go figure.

Quite. I spend part of most years with my wife in London. Although we enjoy our time together, it's always something of a relief to get back to Nigeria. The vast majority here live hand to mouth on low, often irregular incomes, yet in general, manage to be much more pleasant and good-natured. Perhaps it's the weather that gives them a sunny disposition.

4 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

PS. Here’s another interesting observation I’ve made - those who are evidently well to do (ie arrive in expensive cars, have fancy clothes, watches etc) almost never give anything. On the other hand, I’ve gotten alms from rough sleepers on occasion. Go figure.

Wealthy people rarely got where they are by being generous.

This thread reminds me of a book by Michael Katz:

The Undeserving Poor: America’s Enduring Confrontation with Poverty (1989)

Katz highlights how throughout American history, the poor have been regarded as undeserving: people who do not deserve sympathy because they brought their poverty on themselves, either through laziness and immorality, or because they are culturally or mentally deficient. This long-dominant view sees poverty as a personal failure, serving to justify America's mean-spirited treatment of the poor.

It applies pretty well world wide of course.

Edited 1 hour ago1 hr by sethoflagos