howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#21
not the issue, if there was round the clock staff then the planning people would have passed it.
#22
There is more to empowering people than supervising them for 24 hours. I don't disagree Howard - it almost seems like putting temptation in the way of the youngsters - but we don't know the circumstances, are just guessing. They might be at that point when a bit more freedom is appropriate, and even empowering.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#23
Why the assumptions that because they are young and homeless they are anti-social druggies ?
Been nice knowing you :)
#24
Exactly.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#25
the problem is that drug dealers and the like prey on the vulnerable, that is why supervision is needed.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#26
teaching these youngsters how to live in the community surely should be worked towards these youngsters not having supervision and being able to lead there own lives(once ready)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
#27
Why assume vulnerability? People with mental health issues, for example, are usually classed as "vulnerable" and it irritates a mate of mine who is bi-polar. She isn't vulnerable in the slightest unless she is unwell, and she manages her mental health superbly. I can't imagine many people less deserving of the tag "vulnerable!!! But I agree that measures should be in place to reduce the risks for the youngsters. Maybe they are....?
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#28
Vulnerable to being labelled, perhaps?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#29
I think these questions arise when we see past decisions and promises.
a good example would be all those years ago when the asylum issue became a problem in the priory ward, those able to make decisions from the agencies point of view got it wrong.
what we saw was people who were fighting each other in there own countries being housed in the same building, supervised 9 to 5 as soon as the social worker went home they were at each other with baseball bats.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
#30
Incompetence rather than a bad idea. People have to be housed, the idea is to do it effectively and appropriately.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#31
Any hostel or home with a number of youngsters in it needs 25hr supervision because most youngsters that age will run riot given the chance. I know I would have done at that age parties every night given the chance.
Bern, vulnerability, to me refers to those who have learning problems or are not street wise not those who have mental problems of any kind it is wrong that the lady you know is classed that way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
#32
But Jan, that is how the term is used. Mainly by social services toffs who don't fully grasp that people have a life outside of social work parameters..........
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#33
It is still wrong whoever uses it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#34
my thoughts are,,,,,,
wherever possible with the correct guidance, help, encouragement etc we should where ever we can allow people to lead independent lives
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#35
the average teenager lives at home with parents so supervision is there.
we have all been teenagers and would have gone off the rails if left to our own devices at evenings and weekends.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#36
Actually on reading the details I think the planners might have got this one wrong. Based on the information in this letter from DDC Housing in support of the scheme, many of the 'facts' in this thread appear to be untrue.
http://www.secure.dover.gov.uk/planning_online/acollate_docs/93285_2.pdfI'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#37
Your posting made me smile Melissa "a warm bed at the end of the night" - that's exactly when they get to their warm bed, at the end of the night.
Howard's posting above is spot-on - teenagers living at home already have their 24 hour supervision, many kids who are homeless are those who don't want that supervision and so tend to be unruly.
Roger
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
#38
Thank you Peter for providing that link.From 2003 until 2009 I was the cabinet member for housing and Vice Chairman of Supporting people for that period of time .I dealt with many situations of young people needing accomodation .We moved away from offering bed and breakfast as the young people had nowhere to go during the day .It was also very costly THe government were also against this
In dover we have x offenders hostels ,Womans refuges and.supported accomodation for those with Mental Health problems and Learning difficulties/When I left my post we were trying to find accomodation for those with drug and alcholic related problems .
When at last you secure the funding its alway a chalenge NIMBY I think the officers letter clearly stated there would be CCTV With Bed and Breakfast no one wanted to live near them either .
Our Department at DDC faces many challenges
#39
There are some good projects and schemes for people needing that extra bit of support, as Sue indicates. It is an investment for the community, in terms of creating contributors to society and supporting the development of productive adults, to encourage these projects and not jump on them before they have even started. People can be very prejudiced. I once set up, from scratch, a complex of flats for people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. Charming people who simply needed a bit of extra support to maintain independence and Have A Life. Many times when I was on the building site I had people rush up to me and without asking any questions about the site yelled at me that they didn't want "all those drug addicts and vagrants" living there. Apart from the flagrant discourtesy, it was so far from the actual truth to be laughable. But those people were objecting to the council on those false grounds and making such a fuss that other people were becoming anxious and complaining. Sad.
#40
PS - the flats were built and the people moved in, and as far as I know are still enjoying their independent accomodation - after we had sorted out that "bit of trouble". I should add that we had done all the prelim work as well, reaching out to the locals, advertising the project, sharing information. People were only interested in confirming their own prejudices sadly. But we managed it!!