But as a regular commuter through there I've seen a couple of examples of shit behaviour.
When cycling to work I've had a shopping trolley pushed in front of me deliberately at the last second followed by laughter when I nearly stacked it from swerving.
I've seen bottles thrown at people on scooters.
Not sure what the answer is. Maybe just switch it on at peak commuter hours?
Problem is people like OP is referring donât stay at shelters long as they generally require you donât drink/do drugs/keep your area clean. A good portion of the homeless population arenât just âdown on their luckâ theyâre long term homeless/unemployed due to undiagnosed mental illness and substance dependence. Thereâs also a subset of them who are frequently belligerent so youâd need staff able to work around people like this, pay them adequately for doing so and pay for security. Itâs usually not that simple an issue to address as anyone whoâs been around homeless areas can tell you.
Ah yes, itâs difficult so letâs not start to deal with the issue.
The homeless donât do this in every city, so it canât only be the issue of mental health, every city would be like that if that were true. Why are your people going further than other places? Maybe because they donât have access to the help they needâŚ.?
The problem is the homeless absolutely do need a place to stay and help, but people like you with this viewpoint arenât going to let them get the help they need.
Ok but you're still attacking a point they didn't make.
Someone said the answer was homeless shelters. The person you're attacking said "homeless shelters aren't enough, you need more". They did not say "build anti-homeless structures instead of shelters"
Shelters solve the problem for many but don't do anything to help the type of person causing trouble. That's all they're saying.
Shelters solve the problem for many but don't do anything to help the type of person causing trouble. That's all they're saying.
That isnât true at all. If thereâs shelters, the other issues would be dealt with by the police, like non-homeless. The fact that people are making a distinction at all is entirely the issue, and what Iâve pointed out. And thank you for proving my point by being one of those people.
Iâm attacking the fact that theyâre stigmatizing homeless like theyâre any different than non-homeless. That bias and prejudice is whatâs causing these issues. Treat homeless like they are human and they wonât act out anymore than nonhomeless. Shocking eh?
Given the comment chain, Iâm sure this isnât a productive use of my time but just to be clear that is not at all what my comment implies. In Perth, where the article is based for example, there are homeless shelters. My point remains that most if not all of them have rules (hint: especially the ones with Saint in their name or vaguely religious sounding), that some are not able to comply with due to the issues they face. Nor do I think âthe homeless do this In every cityâ, or all of them in any given city for that matter, hence my use of âsubsetâ, âa good portion ofâ and other specifying terms.
but people like you with this viewpoint arenât going to let them get the help they need.
Your misinterpretation of my comment aside I could probably wager Iâve spent more time with the homeless and around them than most. While they can always use more services and facilities, the group Im referring to (and that the article/OP references) the problem is largely one of rights i.e. involuntary psychiatric detention or outpatient rehab. The former doesnât happen until they present an immediate threat to others or themselves and once they get released, they disappear and learn to avoid areas (e.g. shelters) where theyâre likely to be sectioned by the police again. The belligerent/trouble making group Im referring to (and Iâll reiterate, used the term subset) have generally fallen through the cracks and have absconded from facilities. Or genuinely do not want to attend them due to not wanting ârulesâ, knowing theyâll be evicted or in the case of violence, knowing theyâre no longer welcome there. A more complex approach is required beyond just âbuilding sheltersâ as the comment I replied to stated.
No one at any point said that the homeless were the problem..what are you talking about?
[Edit] apparently this somehow got moved to a top level comment but it was a reply to someone accusing someone else of saying the unhoused were the problem, not the lack of services
A City of Perth spokesperson said the devices were installed in response to "ongoing reports" of antisocial and criminal behaviour in the area. They said the devices were not intended to target or deter people experiencing homelessnessâŚ
If you believe that âantisocial and criminal behaviourâ is actually distinct from âhomeless person existingâ in the eyes of some people, especially the PTA, then you might be in for a shock.
I think, not 100% sure, the comment you're replying to was supposed to be within the feisty and at times not respectful thread in this comment section. I think its a response to something the other user said, not what the article said.
22 Comments
Vex_Detrause@lemmy.ca · 18 pts · 167d
Maybe fix the homelessness with home-MORE-ness.
Govt: Nah! We need to push them out of sight with a loud sound, fences and "no homeless signs".
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone · 6 pts · 167d
Theres an ad campaign just waiting to be built around this play on words đ
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 167d
You have to think about property values! Won't anybody think of the poor investors!
Longmactoppedup@aussie.zone · 11 pts · 167d
It was quite dystopian.
But as a regular commuter through there I've seen a couple of examples of shit behaviour.
When cycling to work I've had a shopping trolley pushed in front of me deliberately at the last second followed by laughter when I nearly stacked it from swerving.
I've seen bottles thrown at people on scooters.
Not sure what the answer is. Maybe just switch it on at peak commuter hours?
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de · 22 pts · 167d
The answer is probably a homeless shelter.
CTDummy@piefed.social · 22 pts · 167d
Problem is people like OP is referring donât stay at shelters long as they generally require you donât drink/do drugs/keep your area clean. A good portion of the homeless population arenât just âdown on their luckâ theyâre long term homeless/unemployed due to undiagnosed mental illness and substance dependence. Thereâs also a subset of them who are frequently belligerent so youâd need staff able to work around people like this, pay them adequately for doing so and pay for security. Itâs usually not that simple an issue to address as anyone whoâs been around homeless areas can tell you.
thatsnomayo@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 165d
Don't look up statistics on people getting raped in your shithole country's homeless concentration camps
plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 167d
Ah yes, itâs difficult so letâs not start to deal with the issue.
The homeless donât do this in every city, so it canât only be the issue of mental health, every city would be like that if that were true. Why are your people going further than other places? Maybe because they donât have access to the help they needâŚ.?
The problem is the homeless absolutely do need a place to stay and help, but people like you with this viewpoint arenât going to let them get the help they need.
glimse@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 167d
That is not what they said
plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 167d
glimse@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 167d
Ok but you're still attacking a point they didn't make.
Someone said the answer was homeless shelters. The person you're attacking said "homeless shelters aren't enough, you need more". They did not say "build anti-homeless structures instead of shelters"
Shelters solve the problem for many but don't do anything to help the type of person causing trouble. That's all they're saying.
CTDummy@piefed.social · 1 pts · 166d
Just wanted to say these replies in my absence were appreciated, cheers.
plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 167d
That isnât true at all. If thereâs shelters, the other issues would be dealt with by the police, like non-homeless. The fact that people are making a distinction at all is entirely the issue, and what Iâve pointed out. And thank you for proving my point by being one of those people.
Iâm attacking the fact that theyâre stigmatizing homeless like theyâre any different than non-homeless. That bias and prejudice is whatâs causing these issues. Treat homeless like they are human and they wonât act out anymore than nonhomeless. Shocking eh?
CTDummy@piefed.social · 4 pts · 166d
Given the comment chain, Iâm sure this isnât a productive use of my time but just to be clear that is not at all what my comment implies. In Perth, where the article is based for example, there are homeless shelters. My point remains that most if not all of them have rules (hint: especially the ones with Saint in their name or vaguely religious sounding), that some are not able to comply with due to the issues they face. Nor do I think âthe homeless do this In every cityâ, or all of them in any given city for that matter, hence my use of âsubsetâ, âa good portion ofâ and other specifying terms.
Your misinterpretation of my comment aside I could probably wager Iâve spent more time with the homeless and around them than most. While they can always use more services and facilities, the group Im referring to (and that the article/OP references) the problem is largely one of rights i.e. involuntary psychiatric detention or outpatient rehab. The former doesnât happen until they present an immediate threat to others or themselves and once they get released, they disappear and learn to avoid areas (e.g. shelters) where theyâre likely to be sectioned by the police again. The belligerent/trouble making group Im referring to (and Iâll reiterate, used the term subset) have generally fallen through the cracks and have absconded from facilities. Or genuinely do not want to attend them due to not wanting ârulesâ, knowing theyâll be evicted or in the case of violence, knowing theyâre no longer welcome there. A more complex approach is required beyond just âbuilding sheltersâ as the comment I replied to stated.
glimse@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 167d
No one at any point said that the homeless were the problem..what are you talking about?
[Edit] apparently this somehow got moved to a top level comment but it was a reply to someone accusing someone else of saying the unhoused were the problem, not the lack of services
KaChilde@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 165d
If you believe that âantisocial and criminal behaviourâ is actually distinct from âhomeless person existingâ in the eyes of some people, especially the PTA, then you might be in for a shock.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 165d
I think, not 100% sure, the comment you're replying to was supposed to be within the feisty and at times not respectful thread in this comment section. I think its a response to something the other user said, not what the article said.
glimse@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 165d
That is correct, someone went off on another user for not saying something perfectly enough. My reply is showing as a top level comment now?
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone MOD · 2 pts · 165d
Something happened there. I noticed its odd placement the other day. But things had settled down, so i thought I'd just leave it.