Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
matty40s

Wellbeing in Worksop....CRT in trouble

Featured Posts

4 hours ago, NB Caelmiri said:

An entire two homeless people! Well, I take it back! You're not the heartless bastard you made yourself out to be!

 

Call me skeptical but I don't believe for a microsecond that 50% of homeless people are homeless because they don't get on with their parents.

perhaps you should read and understand the context.  The charity had clearly fielded these 2 young people because they considered them typical.

 

.....   equally clearly you only want to hear what suits your pre-conceived ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You don't risk dying of exposure just because you don't get on with your parents. Sometimes you just don't like them beating you up much. And sometimes you don't want to say that on TV because they might find you and do it again. Sleeping in shop doorways is rarely someone's first choice as a lifestyle. "not getting on" covers a multitude of abusive circumstances. Most families are OK. Some are horrible. 

I can't disagree with that, but how come homelessness is a big problem now and it wasn't 50 years ago?   Families are just as nice or nasty.   The councils were no better funded to offer shelter. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Murflynn said:

I can't disagree with that, but how come homelessness is a big problem now and it wasn't 50 years ago?   Families are just as nice or nasty.   The councils were no better funded to offer shelter. 

 

 

Eh! Either it was or wasn't a problem and was or wasn't dealt with effectively 50 years ago. That is irrelevant, if it is happening now it needs dealing with now. 

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

Eh! Either it was or wasn't a problem and was or wasn't dealt with effectively 50 years ago. That is irrelevant, if it is happening now it needs dealing with now. 

 

I remember as a child we had ‘tramps’. 

 

There was a tramp in Bedworth we knew as  Georgey Faulks in the 70’s. 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/11/2019 at 13:23, PaulD said:

If we didn't give wealthy pensioners like me bus passes, winter fuel allowances, and other bribes to vote conservative we might be able to solve the growing homelessness problem and become a first world country again.

You don't have to keep the winter fuel allowance and you are lucky to have buses to use your pass on 

Phil 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Phil Ambrose said:

You don't have to keep the winter fuel allowance and you are lucky to have buses to use your pass on 

Phil 

Well that’s exactly it. 

If the allowance is not wanted/needed give the money away. And don’t use the bus pass but pay instead. 

 

 

 

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/11/2019 at 07:35, magpie patrick said:

We need to be careful - do we know what that sluice was for? Was it for flood management? They exist for many reasons, if it wasn't part of a flood management strategy then the consequences of opening it would not have been considered. CRT open sluice, houses downstream flooded, CRT get their arse used... 

 

Flood management has a much wider scope these days, it used to be just a case of speed the water through and let it be someone else's problem - that's no longer true. 

It is at the end of an old mill pond & leat which runs parallel to the canal through part of the town.

To be responsible for the operation of such a structure I would have expected CRT to know the ramifications of NOT opening it just as much as opening it.

After all, such sluices were deliberately put in to avoid a mill pool and its feed from flooding the surrounding area.

The NEW bus station which had its doors damage is just to the right of the art deco building, as is the New library.

 

IMG_6888.jpeg

IMG_6890.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Goliath said:

I remember as a child we had ‘tramps’. 

 

There was a tramp in Bedworth we knew as  Georgey Faulks in the 70’s. 

 

 

 

 

I was about to say the same thing. I think perhaps that the homeless were more ostracised from society and so less visible. I remember there being many tramps living in woods outside of town. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

perhaps you should read and understand the context.  The charity had clearly fielded these 2 young people because they considered them typical.

 

.....   equally clearly you only want to hear what suits your pre-conceived ideas.

No. Your personal anecdote on some program you saw with a couple of kids that were homeless has to be taken with a pinch of salt. If you've got anything more factual then I'd be more than happy to read it.

 

But still doesn't get away from how you reduced homelessness to "folk who don't get along with each other at home". That is incredibly insulting to those who are homeless.

 

And "we should be asking why the taxpayer should be expected to pick up the tag for folk who don't get along with each other at home." clearly demonstrates how completely lacking in empathy you are. You must be a tory.

Edited by NB Caelmiri
  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few observations.

1/ Was there a flood mitigation plan in place for the area?

A plan that determined thresholds and actions by whom, and a formal command structure.

There certainly should have been such a plan, but if there had been it would almost certain that CART would not have been a  lead agency for any  such plan, rather  the Council or the EA should have been the lead agency and any instructions should have been from a defined command structure.

 

2/ CART are legally required to formally identify hazards, that their employees and the public could be exposed to. In this case they identified access to the sluice was unacceptably hazardous due to the condition of the building in which it was located.

Once identified the effect of this hazard MUST be eliminated, minimised or controlled.

CART, correctly notified the building owner, the responsible local authority, (who happened to be one in the same) and prohibited their staff, (who would not meet the normal criteria for emergency service workers) from operating the sluice until access had been reassessed,  to safe.

 

It is clear that there was a flooding emergency, but an emergency that was almost inevitable due to a flood plain location..

That the authorities, particularily the Council  were ill prepared,

The Council had not ensured access to their building was safe.

The CART response was still in accordance with their notified  safety plan to ban entry.

If the building was unstable for routine entry, then any entry in flood conditions would be even more hazardous.

The Council's response to the emergency and the building's state was deficient so resorted to blame laying in defence.

 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Murflynn said:

I can't disagree with that, but how come homelessness is a big problem now and it wasn't 50 years ago?   Families are just as nice or nasty.   The councils were no better funded to offer shelter. 

 

 

I am unconvinced that family fallout us the major cause of homelessness but what is well documented is the rise in recent years of the numbers continuing to live in the parental home well beyond previous practice. If seems highly likely that this will lead to serious tensions and, in some cases, a forced departure into a context where alternative housing is difficult, even impossible within available finance.

 

In the 1980s I was involved with a charity that was specifically formed to help young people, especially girls, 16 to 19, who were forcibly evicted by parents, typically where one was a step parent. I have not had any direct knowledge since then but I would be surprised if the underlying mechanisms were not still happening.

 

Clearly, homelessness occurs across the whole 16+ age range. Prior self sufficiency us no insurance against finding oneself in dire straits. I can only be thankful that, at least as yet, i have not found myself in such despair. 

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to my previous post.

Not only in Worksop, but throughout the world, there has been a trend towards campsites providing more and more permanent accommodation.

This is inspite of so many of the campsites being established on land that was available cheaply, only because of being low lying and prone to flooding, or was prone to other disadvantages.

This was acceptable for short term holiday camp pitches, as often these were scenic sites next to a river or stream, and campers could generally quickly flee rising waters

Even so there were tragedies with flash flooding of such sites especially in the mountains of Europe.

However with the costs of providing permanent housing rising out of reach of an ever increasing portion of populations, this flood prone land has increasingly provided dwelling space for more and more people inspite of it's inherent unsuitability. The mobile home fiasco where a house attached to the ground has to comply with ever increasing standards, but if wheels are attached to a box used for living in, it becomes instead a vehicle, even if not road worthy, and free from most dwelling standards. This is a worldwide failure to tackle the core issue of declining housing affordability.

The trailer park inhabitants worldwide are there because, it is their best option, not because it is a good option.  Because of this such inhabitants bear a disproportionate share of the deaths and injuries during any  disasters including , flooding, bushfires, tornadoes and hurricanes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DandV said:

The mobile home fiasco where a house attached to the ground has to comply with ever increasing standards, but if wheels are attached to a box used for living in, it becomes instead a vehicle, even if not road worthy, and free from most dwelling standards.

You are years out of date.

 

We own a "Mobile Home Park" and the legislation that both we and the homes have to comply with is increasing exponentially.

Everything from the provision of water, electricity, gas, toilet connection and waste disposal (I had a huge 'argument' with the council on the number of waste wheely bins they wanted us to have  because of the 'council collection conditions' - they didn't even realise that the council had stopped collecting commercial waste years ago) to the minimum distance between homes, provision of fire fighting equipment within so many metres of each home, street lighting etc etc etc.

The homes themselves have to be built to strict standards, and the residential ones have to be built to similar insulation requirements to 'bricks & mortar'.

We have to have local authority planning approval and site inspections before we can even put one home on site.

We must apply and be granted a Licence to operate and be regularly inspected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are years out of date.

 

We own a "Mobile Home Park" and the legislation that both we and the homes have to comply with is increasing exponentially.

Everything from the provision of water, electricity, gas, toilet connection and waste disposal (I had a huge 'argument' with the council on the number of waste wheely bins they wanted us to have  because of the 'council collection conditions' - they didn't even realise that the council had stopped collecting commercial waste years ago) to the minimum distance between homes, provision of fire fighting equipment within so many metres of each home, street lighting etc etc etc.

The homes themselves have to be built to strict standards, and the residential ones have to be built to similar insulation requirements to 'bricks & mortar'.

We have to have local authority planning approval and site inspections before we can even put one home on site.

We must apply and be granted a Licence to operate and be regularly inspected.

 That is pleasing to hear that Britain at least setting and enforcing standards improving standards for mobile homes with new residential mobile units having to meet comparable insulation standards to new bricks and mortar housing.

We are perhaps behind you here in NZ, and so many of the trailer parks in the US and Australia are squalid.

Edited by DandV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DandV said:

 

The Council's response to the emergency and the building's state was deficient so resorted to blame laying in defence.

 

The appropriate council in this  case appears to be Nottinghamshire County Council as the  Lead Local Flood Authority .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MartynG said:

The appropriate council in this  case appears to be Nottinghamshire County Council as the  Lead Local Flood Authority .

 

Are you sure its not Derbyshire, our Prime Minister thinks so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Are you sure its not Derbyshire, our Prime Minister thinks so....

Probably Nottinghamshire in that case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NB Caelmiri said:

No. Your personal anecdote on some program you saw with a couple of kids that were homeless has to be taken with a pinch of salt. If you've got anything more factual then I'd be more than happy to read it.

 

But still doesn't get away from how you reduced homelessness to "folk who don't get along with each other at home". That is incredibly insulting to those who are homeless.

 

And "we should be asking why the taxpayer should be expected to pick up the tag for folk who don't get along with each other at home." clearly demonstrates how completely lacking in empathy you are. You must be a tory.

hey, don't shoot the messenger...................................   if a spokesman for a major homeless charity has got it wrong then go heckle them, not me.

 

your observation about my political leanings says more about you than it does about me.

 

.................  nuff said.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/11/2019 at 12:58, Chewbacka said:

Out of interest, how much more tax would you be happy to pay to provide decent housing to the thousands if not millions of deserving cases?  

 

How much tax are the big corporations and billionaires not paying because of tax loopholes?

 

And anyway, the question is meaningless without considering the cost to the public purse of homelessness, eg increased numbers of A&E visits, imprisonment of re-offenders, drug abuse ...

 

11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

the legislation that both we and the homes have to comply with is increasing exponentially.

 

Exponentially? Really? What's the exponent?

 

 

 

Edited by Machpoint005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Are you sure its not Derbyshire, our Prime Minister thinks so....

Without doubt Worksop is in Nottinghamshire.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the tax-payer

Addressing the immediate and long-term costs of homelessness, can be significant. Putting in place services which prevent homelessness in the first place, and which help people quickly if they find themselves needing support, can help stop these costs escalating.

Research indicates that:

  • the average cost of an A&E visit is £147; 4 out of 10 experiencing homelessness have used A&E in last six month 
  • £1,668 is the average cost per arrest; 7 out of 10 homeless ex-offenders are reconvicted within one year
  • £26, 000 is the estimated average cost of a homeless person each year to public purse
  • £1 billion is the estimated annual cost of homelessness

 

(homeless.org/uk)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Machpoint005 said:

On the tax-payer

Addressing the immediate and long-term costs of homelessness, can be significant. Putting in place services which prevent homelessness in the first place, and which help people quickly if they find themselves needing support, can help stop these costs escalating.

Research indicates that:

  • the average cost of an A&E visit is £147; 4 out of 10 experiencing homelessness have used A&E in last six month 
  • £1,668 is the average cost per arrest; 7 out of 10 homeless ex-offenders are reconvicted within one year
  • £26, 000 is the estimated average cost of a homeless person each year to public purse
  • £1 billion is the estimated annual cost of homelessness

 

(homeless.org/uk)

that's wonderful.   what are the "services which prevent homelessness in the first place" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

64

or perhaps a retired ponent.   

 

 

 

 

 

......................   coat     :boat:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.