Forgive me, STF and refugees of Se23.com, but...

[bigbadwolf]

... it has to be said/raised:

The team of Big Issue vendors that still harass the public into buying their magazine from outside of Forest Hill Sainsbury's, have been there for a seemingly unfeasable eternity.

It's unfeasable in that they've been there long enough, covering such a period of time during which they could've used their Sainsbury's pitch during the day, in which they made an undeniably livable crust, and spend whatever time they had to themselves looking for more stable employment, and move on from selling the Big Issue

The simple fact is that these 'vendors' have outlived any credible reason that can explain why they still remain dependent on the charity of the Big Issue to make a living. They're either manipulating or ignoring the guidelines that govern who's pitch is where. I've seen one or two of the three regulars stalking the more verdant pastures of Lordship Lane for rich pickings off of the chinless natives. It's also been reported on both here and Se23.com in the past that they've been spotted trading as far away a Croydon. This is an organised group of charlatans that are trading off of the well-intentioned brand of the Big Issue to make a lot more money than the daily sum collected by a someone who's genuinely dependent on the work they do for the Big Issue.

Do the Big Issue ever reply to suspicious members of the public? Because if my memory serves me correct, I can recall that a number of users active in the heated thread covering this subject on Se23.com a few years back uploaded substantiated evidence that proved the Big Issue didn't take complaints of suspected abuse or criminal activity very seriously.

[bigbadwolf]

<deleted by admin>

[bigbadwolf]

I suppose the member that complained about the post that was deleted can dish it out, but evidently can't take take a dose of her own medicine.

Honestly, what a coward.

[admin]

No BBW. I removed it without any prodding. Shame on you to blame the blameless!

Admin

[bigbadwolf]

No BBW. I removed it without any prodding.

Although my gut tells me otherwise, I'm willing to leave it at that. Though here's the supporting article that got lost in the deletion:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... phole.html

Allow me to reiterate that I hope that no-one's 'offended' by this piece of supporting evidence, to an argument that's (supposedly) been the cause for some discomfort/awkwardness among some readers.

[CaptainCarCrash]

Typical Torygraph miss representation.

The system is there to be played like a violin.

Why must we target the weak?
I think these people are a constant reminder that no matter which way you look at it or dress it down there is still a lot of work that needs to be done to help the victims of a ruthless society to contribute in a positive way.
I personally don't blame anyone who drops out of the bullshit lie of the lemming’s brigade.
What would be the best way to solve the problem, each of these people have a story to tell, some come from children’s homes and were victims of ruthless paedophile carers, others are victims of neglect, some are even victims of school bullies and some are victims of addiction and mental illness.
How do I know this you may well ask? I spent years working in the city and the west end, I have from time to time questioned them and to their credit they have told me their painful stories and I have given them some pocket change. I don’t begrudge them when I’m in the right frame of mind but it must be terrible to have lost your dimity.
We should not hate these people, it’s pretty sad that society allows this kind of thing to happen in Britain in 2011.
There are more important things that need to be addressed in this society that are far more important than the reason why a down and out is still down and out.

[ALIB]

i wrote to the Big Issue head office several years ago about the vendore(s) outside Sainsburys. FH

My wife and i witnessed on many occasions the woman being collected in the late afternoon by a car with a few male occupants. The males then escorted the woman vendor to the sainsbury's cigarette counter where they purchased alcohol and fags with the days takings.

I got no reply.

You can only do so much

[bigbadwolf]

Typical Torygraph miss representation. The system is there to be played like a violin.

No, Mike, the system is not there "to be played like a violin". It's there to act as a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times and subsequently need [temporary] assistance. It is not, contrary to what some may see it as, a well-intentioned piece of state apparatus that is ripe for looting, by UK citizens and foreigners alike.

Besides, the Big Issue is a charitable venture that isn't part of the taxpayer funded 'system'. And the very fact that it's being used as a loophole to gain access to the state purse by otherwise unentitled migrants rubs further salt into the wound. The "typical Torygraph misrepresentation" you speak of is actually just a court report, that also confirms the presence of foreign gangs that are targeting a unanimously acknowledged force for good: assisting the homeless.

If, however (like ALIB) you were familiar with what has been going on for nearly a decade in Forest Hill, you'd know that these vendors have been spotted on many, many occasions spending money on non-essential items such as: alcohol, cigarette etc, not to mention using guilt tactics like bringing a baby along; and asking for more money than is necessary to buy the Big Issue, you'd know that this isn't a vendetta against the homeless/genuinely deserving. No, it's an entirely reasonable question: why have these people gone unchecked for so long?

[CaptainCarCrash]

Typical Torygraph miss representation. The system is there to be played like a violin.

No, Mike, the system is not there "to be played like a violin". It's there to act as a safety net for those who have fallen on hard times and subsequently need [temporary] assistance. It is not, contrary to what some may see it as, a well-intentioned piece of state apparatus that is ripe for looting, by UK citizens and foreigners alike.

Besides, the Big Issue is a charitable venture that isn't part of the taxpayer funded 'system'. And the very fact that it's being used as a loophole to gain access to the state purse by otherwise unentitled migrants rubs further salt into the wound. The "typical Torygraph misrepresentation" you speak of is actually just a court report, that also confirms the presence of foreign gangs that are targeting a unanimously acknowledged force for good: assisting the homeless.

If, however (like ALIB) you were familiar with what has been going on for nearly a decade in Forest Hill, you'd know that these vendors have been spotted on many, many occasions spending money on non-essential items such as: alcohol, cigarette etc, not to mention using guilt tactics like bringing a baby along; and asking for more money than is necessary to buy the Big Issue, you'd know that this isn't a vendetta against the homeless/genuinely deserving. No, it's an entirely reasonable question: why have these people gone unchecked for so long?

I know the system is there as a safety net, I know these peoples lives revolve around drink and drugs. I would rather my tax be wasted on those people rather than the wars we're currently involved in. A lot, but not all of these people have serious problems and don't really fit in to what most would consider normal life and there is no easy answer. I'm not sure what the law says about them because of human rights? I don't think you can do anything about it tbh.

[Tim Lund]

Typical Torygraph miss representation.

The system is there to be played like a violin.

Why must we target the weak?

Now that his Wolfishness' unhelpful personal attacks are out of the way, it's easier to agree that he's making good points which deserve some response - perhaps this is part of "a more incisive critique of the liberal consensus" that I asked for on the thread that marked his welcome return to these parts.

To answer Mike's question - well, it's not the weak we're targeting here. On the evidence presented, it's more the manipulative who look weak who are being targetted. I'd prefer to ask why only target the manipulative who look weak and not the manipulative who look strong? To which the answer is evident from the fate of someone who tried in this other outstanding piece of recent Telegraph journalism.

[CaptainCarCrash]

Typical Torygraph miss representation.

The system is there to be played like a violin.

Why must we target the weak?

Now that his Wolfishness' unhelpful personal attacks are out of the way, it's easier to agree that he's making good points which deserve some response - perhaps this is part of "a more incisive critique of the liberal consensus" that I asked for on the thread that marked his welcome return to these parts.

To answer Mike's question - well, it's not the weak we're targeting here. On the evidence presented, it's more the manipulative who look weak who are being targetted. I'd prefer to ask why only target the manipulative who look weak and not the manipulative who look strong? To which the answer is evident from the fate of someone who tried in this other outstanding piece of recent Telegraph journalism.

Two wrongs don't make a right. As I said I don't know how this can be put right, I haven't researched how it works properly tbh as I haven't the time or inclination to do so. But what I will say is that it would be unwise to hold all homeless people who sell the big issue with the same contempt.

So are the Fozzy Hill street urchins living it up at the expense of others?

[maria7]

homelessness is a big issuue!!!!!!! so long live the big issue sellers....the difficulties the homeless face are huge.... I think we all need to have love and understanding... and be giving in our thoughts, actions , money and words .... and consider how it feels to feel vulnerable, scared, lost or addicted and hopeless.......compassion is needed. I have chatted to and followed up three big issue sellers and they have changed their lives.... and felt hope!! All be it in a very small way, one guy is still very at risk.... but the big issue magazine promotes a more caring society....that should be encouraged

[JRobinson]

yes, very true, homelessness is a big issue, and people who are genuinely in need of assistance should be given it.

However, if someone choses to make themselves homeless, by moving country, with no plans once they get here, in order to make use of the Big Issue as a means to an end, to obtain state benefits that they're just not entitled to, then that's just plain wrong, and in my opinion should be stopped.

From what I've read, these people were not homeless in their own country, but they wanted a better standard of living, and because of the way the system works, they decided to come here, obtain jobs and benefits illegally, and then stay here.

Our country already has enough of it's own free loading, benefit munching, work shy drop outs scrounging off the tax payer without taking in all of Eastern Europe's detritus as well.

Maybe there should be a 'one in - one out' policy on imigration - for every illegal imigrant claiming benefits here, we export one of our own British benefit claimers to somewhere that's in need of them like France, or Korea.

[CaptainCarCrash]

Immigration does seem to be a problem in terms of what is dictated to us by Europe because we have been told that we have to accept a specific number of migrants from the EU. I also think blaming a lot of the problems on people who are unemployed to be really quite dangerous. There is an element of the professional middle class who sadly think that everyone who is unemployed should be hung drawn and quartered. So what if you were to lose your job tomorrow and found yourself having to claim benefits just to survive? does that lump you into the same group? Its easy for the Daily Mail to report on a dolite living in a seven bedroom mansion with his five kids which only serves as a purpose to lump every unemployed person into that category. I personally think that if employers actually made the prospect of unskilled work beneficial to the people who have to work in those jobs then there would be no excuse for people to slum it on the dole.

The minimum wage is not good enough IMO.

[JRobinson]

I know that if I were to be made unemployed tomorrow, that I would do everything I could to get another job as quickly as possible, but also that because I've paid taxes and NI contributions my entire working life I'd expect to be able to claim those benefits that were allowed for me to claim.
Unfortunately, I'd probably be told that I have too much in savings or that my joint family income is too much or some such excuse like 'oh, don't worry, with your skills and qualifications you'll be back in work in a few weeks, it's not worth you claiming' which happened last time I was temporarily without work (luckily they were right but that's not the point).

There are people who work hard to earn enough money to make their lives comfortable, and pay taxes, and there are some people who don't work, and claim benefits, because it's easier.
If we were all in the second catagory, the country would be in deep do do.

'Minimum wage is not good enough' is not the issue, the issue is that the benefits available are too good.
people shouldn't 'want' to work jobs at minimum wage, they should be falling over themselves trying to get any job no matter how little pay, because the state benefits aren't enough.
yes, so they might have to hold down 2 jobs, work 12 hour days, 6 days a week, but at least they'd be contributing to society, paying tax, making an effort.

To decrease unemployement, the governemnt should cut benefits.

[leenewham]

There is an element of the professional middle class who sadly think that everyone who is unemployed should be hung drawn and quartered. So what if you were to lose your job tomorrow and found yourself having to claim benefits just to survive? does that lump you into the same group? Its easy for the Daily Mail to report on a dolite living in a seven bedroom mansion with his five kids which only serves as a purpose to lump every unemployed person into that category.

While I agree that the Daily Mail (and the Sun, Telegraph, Express etc) is guilty of scare mongering with articles like the one you mentioned which helps to foster hate out of ignorance. I believe it's unhelpful to try to do the same by lumping all middle class (whatever that means) in the same category, or label anyone who isn't poor or 'working class' (whatever that means) as greedy, uncaring or a ponce.

Is the Mirror only read by working class and the Sun by 'Middle class'? What about the Mail? Or are we just as guilty of stereotyping large groups of society under one negative label because of prejudice?

Discuss…

[CaptainCarCrash]

There is an element of the professional middle class who sadly think that everyone who is unemployed should be hung drawn and quartered. So what if you were to lose your job tomorrow and found yourself having to claim benefits just to survive? does that lump you into the same group? Its easy for the Daily Mail to report on a dolite living in a seven bedroom mansion with his five kids which only serves as a purpose to lump every unemployed person into that category.

While I agree that the Daily Mail (and the Sun, Telegraph, Express etc) is guilty of scare mongering with articles like the one you mentioned which helps to foster hate out of ignorance. I believe it's unhelpful to try to do the same by lumping all middle class (whatever that means) in the same category, or label anyone who isn't poor or 'working class' (whatever that means) as greedy, uncaring or a ponce.

Is the Mirror only read by working class and the Sun by 'Middle class'? What about the Mail? Or are we just as guilty of stereotyping large groups of society under one negative label because of prejudice?

Discuss…

When I say professional middle class I mean the middle class establishment such as the ones depicted in this article from this Grauniad article http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... CMP=twt_gu

There is a lot of prejudice that is partly down to the way people are programmed from an early age.

[CaptainCarCrash]

No matter what you think of the Grauniad or Polly,that is a very strong article and has saved me the hassle of posting another ill thought out, grammatically challenged, semi incoherent post.

I particularly like the point she made about the chavs party.

[CaptainCarCrash]

I know that if I were to be made unemployed tomorrow, that I would do everything I could to get another job as quickly as possible, but also that because I've paid taxes and NI contributions my entire working life I'd expect to be able to claim those benefits that were allowed for me to claim.
Unfortunately, I'd probably be told that I have too much in savings or that my joint family income is too much or some such excuse like 'oh, don't worry, with your skills and qualifications you'll be back in work in a few weeks, it's not worth you claiming' which happened last time I was temporarily without work (luckily they were right but that's not the point).

There are people who work hard to earn enough money to make their lives comfortable, and pay taxes, and there are some people who don't work, and claim benefits, because it's easier.
If we were all in the second catagory, the country would be in deep do do.

'Minimum wage is not good enough' is not the issue, the issue is that the benefits available are too good.
people shouldn't 'want' to work jobs at minimum wage, they should be falling over themselves trying to get any job no matter how little pay, because the state benefits aren't enough.
yes, so they might have to hold down 2 jobs, work 12 hour days, 6 days a week, but at least they'd be contributing to society, paying tax, making an effort.

To decrease unemployement, the governemnt should cut benefits.

So two jobs paying minimum wage would allow people to earn enough money to survive? I don't know about that tbh. Some jobs that pay minimum wage are 12 hour shifts, what does a full time job of minimum wage equate to? 13k a year? is that enough to survive in a time where we are seeing serious problems with inflation that further diminish the standard of living that most have to endure in an attempt to protect the rich by keeping inflation high and interest rates low? It all seems to hark back to the we're all in this together brigade. It's obvious to me that you are in a very good position to have enough savings to be told that you can't claim because you already have enough money to live. Long term unemployment is a major issue, do you really think people who live this way have a great lifestyle? They almost certainly don't. I'm sort of glad we don't have workhouses any more though I can see why so many in this country would like to see them recommissioned in one guise or another.

We can afford it, I'd rather my tax go on these people than to buy bombs to invade countries under the false pretence of liberalism, they should go after the tax dodgers and shysters who exploit the poor.

[leenewham]

What's the 'Polly'?

Where does the word 'Grauniad' come from? Why can't people just use it's real name?

Why is it ok to generalize a so called 'higher class' but not the other way around?

Demonising any 'class' is wrong (I don't believe in class).
Generalizing any class is ignorant.
Making them a scapegoat for what's wrong with the world dangerous. It sounds a bit Poll Pot to me.

Back to you Mike (I'm enjoying this).