Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don?t know when his dwelling was set on fire but on the 23rd he was down on the stretch between franklins and the estate agents and carpet shop . I had my jam stall out outside the shoe shop and gave him a jar of jam as a Christmas prezzie . He was very

Jolly and juvenile and cracking jokes that were hard to understand as he?d had abit to drink . He was down there a good few hours and by the end ,it was going dark and he was drunk and shouting a lot and racing up and down the path , most of the time backward and people and children had to leap out of the way . He then started shouting at the tables of people drinking and it got quite scary . He did eventually go but he was so drunk that if he did make it back up the hill then with all the candles in there I was very worried already that something like a fire could happen .!

It is housing that this guy needs not a social worker. Social Workers have no say in getting people housed/rehoused

generally. They can recommend over 55s to seek sheltered housing but residents must be accepted by the Housing Dept to be eligible to go onto the Housing Register= social workers can then give a report as to why they feel that person would require sheltered housing. Basically - everything is down to Housing.

Given his problems with alcohol use and what seems like some mental health challenges too, I would say he needs more than just housing. other posters have mentioned that he has been housed in the past and failed to stay housed, and that he is known to various support services now but refuses to take any help offered. He needs help from a range of services, but he has to be willing to take it too.

kibris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As long as people give this man things he will not

> be moving anywere and then when his mates turn up

> and start to camp you will say I CANT WAIT FOR HIM

> TO BE MOVED


You told us on November 6th that he would have ten mates with him "next week."

kibris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As long as people give this man things he will not

> be moving anywere and then when his mates turn up

> and start to camp you will say I CANT WAIT FOR HIM

> TO BE MOVED



Yeah, because his plight and destitution really causes you so much trouble. Bet you can't sleep at night, eh?

Does anyone know if Patrick is ok?


I passed the grove xmas night and I was sure I saw his wheelchair outside but it was late and dark so I could be wrong. Then I heard on Boxing Day his place was burnt out. If anyone has seen him please let us know as I?m really hoping he will be ok!

Peckhampam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No Joeleg. We are talking about someone without

> his knowledge or permission. I don't think you

> would like that.



I wasn't talking to you. I was addressing the insensitive and frankly inhumane attitude shown by someone else, whose commemts I quoted.


Maybe read what I actually posted before flying off the handle at me?


ETA - while I appreciate your feeling on the matter, vast swathes of the internet consist of what you describe, and from what I've seen on this thread awareness has been raised of someone who needs help and people even went down to donate stuff to him. I'd say, on balance, this is one of the more productive threads the EDF has generated.

JoeLeg, i get what you are saying, people have been able to help after reading this post. I also get what

Peckhampam is saying, I've assumed the people who have met him through this thread have told him about this discussion, can anyone who has spoke with him say whether or not he is aware of this discussion.

Peckhampam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am uncomfortable with an individual being

> discussed on this forum.


Raises an interesting question (to which I have no answer) - what's the difference between someone being discussed on the internet and discussed between neighbours, down the pub etc? Would there be a legal expectation of privacy which would be breached by discussion on a message board?


In this case, however, as TE44 wisely points out, Paddy has been happy to give his story to a citywide newspaper/internationally read website, so I don't think you really need to have qualms in this instance.

If he has been given shelter by an organisation, they would not be allowed to give out any information, as no one seems to have seen him and there is no news report I can find, I'm hoping he has been given shelter.

It is obscene this building has stood empty for so long and padraic had the threat of being evicted whilst in hospital. A couple of years ago a young man died freezing outside an empty bungalow after a court

order stopping him from re entering (squatting) this building was given. He died freezing outside. I have asked James (councillor) what the outcome of the public meeting was in regards to any action that can be taken, i realise the rent is still being paid and there may be laws that protect property owners but I am sure the council can take action against owners leaving buildings empty.

The powers of the council over empty buildings in private ownership is very limited, unless the building falls into disrepair. And even then, the owner simply has to make good the building to avoid a CPO. There are empty properties all over London and beyond. Councils have no powers over them.
I saw the guy in wheelchair when my friend gave me a lift home on the 26th at lunch. I saw his shelter burned . I felt so sad. I turned to look at my left and saw him near the bus stop.Why he refused helps from organizations? Why we preferred to leave outside and homeless?You can t help someone who does won't to be helped.

Yes. You can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. And all the time that well-meaning and kind hearted EDFs bring this man supplies and gifts and pots and pans and help him build a makeshift shelter with a hardboard door he isn't at the point of desperation that might possibly see him go to the Salvation Army (or one of the other several organisations for rough sleepers) for the night and possibly start to tackle his addictions. While he has meals, sleeping bags, wooden doors, cooking equipment and candles then he is being encouraged to subsist in inhumane conditions. Encouraged or enabled.


Are Streetlink still going and are they in touch with him?

yes totally agree with you tomskip. I do support 4 different charities every month from years now . I would like my money would really help people like him and not lazy young people who does want to work !!! I used to help people on the road but when they refused jobs and food I said f.... (sorry for my language) . They really don t need help !!! Here in London still easy to find job ( cleaner,kitchen porter,etc etc ) I did when first moved here . The guy in the wheelchair is in a totally different situation .but still I bet he can have a warm room/house to stay if he wants to ..Thank you anyway to all the good people who always try hard to help the less lucky .You are a star!!
This is the real challenge. Many rough sleepers have other problems that make staying in a home, maintaining a tenancy, difficult. One of the problems with assisted accomodation is that it tends to be filled with people with these additional problems. It is hard to treat an alcoholic for example, in a hostel filled with alcoholics. There are strict rules to being housed in these kinds of accomodation, but those in them often break those rules. They are not prisons, so a person can not be stopped from leaving the premises and drinking themselves into a stupor. So the question is one of what can effectively be done. My view is that we seem to place conditionality on being housed, at people who are never going to be completely free of the things we want them to change about themselves. This is where we go wrong in housing policy and where a country like Finland have got it right. House people first and keep them housed, whatever it takes. The rest should be treated long term as a seperate issue.

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
  • Latest Discussions

    • If you read my post I expect a compromise with the raising of the cap on agricultural property so that far less 'ordinary' farmers do not get caught  Clarkson is simply a high profile land owner who is not in the business as a conventional farmer.  Here's a nice article that seems to explain things well  https://www.sustainweb.org/blogs/nov24-farming-budget-inheritance-tax-apr/ It's too early to speculate on 2029.  I expect that most of us who were pleased that Labour got in were not expecting anything radical. Whilst floating the idea of hitting those looking to minimise inheritance tax, including gifting, like fuel duty they also chickened put. I'm surprised that anyone could start touting for the Tories after 14 years of financial mismanagement and general incompetence. Surly not.  A very low bar for Labour but they must be well aware that there doesn't need to be much of a swing form Reform to overturn Labour's artificially large majority.  But even with a generally rabid right wing press, now was the opportunity to be much braver.
    • And I worry this Labour government with all of it's own goals and the tax increases is playing into Farage's hands. With Trump winning in the US, his BFF Farage is likely to benefit from strained relations between the US administration and the UK one. As Alastair Campbell said on a recent episode of The Rest is Politics who would not have wanted to be a fly on the wall of the first call between Angela Rayner and JD Vance....those two really are oil and water. Scary, scary times right now and there seems to be a lack of leadership and political nous within the government at a time when we really need it - there aren't many in the cabinet who you think will play well on the global stage.
    • I look to the future and clearly see that the law of unintended consequences will apply with a vengeance and come 2029 Labour will voted out of office. As someone once said 'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...