Melbourne council bans homeless from sleeping

Heartless b*stards council hassle the down and out less fortunate people in society.

They can also steal their property.

They also change the definition of camping to suit themselves.

Shame Melbourne council Shame.


www.news.com.au...

Melbourne council bans homeless from sleeping in the CBD

February 8, 201711:55am

Backlash expected over Melbourne camping laws


A MELBOURNE council meeting turned ugly last night as councillors voted to ban homeless people from sleeping in the city.

Protesters stormed the meeting and people stood outside the chambers with signs that said Melbourne was a city with a grey heart.

People who attended the meeting yelled the decision was insulting and “this is bulls***”.

Melbourne City councillors have endorsed a local law that bans camping in public places, but could face backlash from activists and charities. Councillors agreed to pass amendments to the definition of camping on Tuesday, giving more powers to police officers to move people on and remove rough sleepers.

edit on 8-2-2017 by acrux because: (no reason given)

a reply to: acrux

For our readers around the world, this is Melbourne, Capitol city of Victoria in Australia.

Melbourne Council has always had a stick up its collective back side.

Why don't they try something positive.

All I can see happening is these people getting a dry place to stay, a meal and released the next morning.

It is very un-Australian, It won't last.

The Legal Arguments will be a great read.

Shove the stick up them.

P

It's important to realize there are 'people whom happen to be homeless', and then BUMS. There's not really any hope for the bums. One could hardly know any better, that they have zero intent of self-betterment (instead littering, and vulturing be their ambitions). Not all bums are homeless, and not all homeless are bums, of course.

Ever wonder why some homeless people seem crazy? Yeah , that would be why.

I'd hope that passing a law like this would perhaps encourage more homeless shelters to be created and motivate the homeless to actually seek and use these shelters. Which at the end of the day would be better for them as well as the city.

If they let them sleep anywhere they wish the city would turn to crap.

Might seem harsh but I have no problem with it.

a reply to: pheonix358
Seems to be the councils are ok with the homeless, as long as they are not seen in their backyard.

First were the homeless cats and dogs, now the people. Very logical continuation...

Anyone commenting ever been homeless?

I have and this is reprehensible.

ETA; Kudos to any one against this act.

southpark homeless

originally posted by: acrux
Heartless b*stards council hassle the down and out less fortunate people in society.

They can also steal their property.

They also change the definition of camping to suit themselves.


www.news.com.au...

Melbourne council bans homeless from sleeping in the CBD

February 8, 201711:55am

Backlash expected over Melbourne camping laws


A MELBOURNE council meeting turned ugly last night as councillors voted to ban homeless people from sleeping in the city.

Protesters stormed the meeting and people stood outside the chambers with signs that said Melbourne was a city with a grey heart.

People who attended the meeting yelled the decision was insulting and “this is bulls***”.

Melbourne City councillors have endorsed a local law that bans camping in public places, but could face backlash from activists and charities. Councillors agreed to pass amendments to the definition of camping on Tuesday, giving more powers to police officers to move people on and remove rough sleepers.

Wow, sounds like something Trump would be accused of.

Amirite?

edit on 2 8 2017 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)

edit on 2 8 2017 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)

edit on 2 8 2017 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)

a reply to: burgerbuddy
Too true

a reply to: anotherside
So are you proposing we use homeless people for car tyres.

What next fuel for campfires?

originally posted by: jappee
Anyone commenting ever been homeless?

I have and this is reprehensible.

ETA; Kudos to any one against this act.

I have.

acts like this will not resolve the homeless situation, just push it into other areas. they'd rather the homeless die, than help.

sick world we live in

eta: maybe we should put the homeless in politics. I mean, they cant do a worse job than these self righteous smug arrogant cretins do, and hey, when they retire they are guaranteed what... $118-150k a year for the rest of their life.

a person on welfare is lucky to see 15k a year. but hey, be in politics, and suddenly your worth is ten fold.

pricks...

Simply, the world is ruled by winners. Winners make the rules.

If there are adequate provisions in place to provide somewhere safe for these folks then fair enough.
I suspect, however that these politicians have done nothing to provide shelter before enacting this Dickensian law.

The council are also looking at ways to stop people donating to the homeless! These elected councillors, funded from taxpayers, want to stop taxpayers being charitable. I'll bet if directly challenged on this, they will say of course they do not want to stop charity giving, they just want people to donate to 'approved and authorised' charities working with the homeless. Then, when people start making regular cash donations to said charities, the councillors can feel justified in cutting direct funding to homeless services. The charities themselves have probably already jumped on the bandwagon, discouraging direct donations to actual homeless people and redirecting donations to themselves!

originally posted by: teapot
The council are also looking at ways to stop people donating to the homeless! These elected councillors, funded from taxpayers, want to stop taxpayers being charitable. I'll bet if directly challenged on this, they will say of course they do not want to stop charity giving, they just want people to donate to 'approved and authorised' charities working with the homeless. Then, when people start making regular cash donations to said charities, the councillors can feel justified in cutting direct funding to homeless services. The charities themselves have probably already jumped on the bandwagon, discouraging direct donations to actual homeless people and redirecting donations to themselves!

When you give mone to a big charity a significant portion goes to pay the big salaries of the bosses and the government gets to take some back as income tax. That's why they like "official charity"

originally posted by: Navieko
I'd hope that passing a law like this would perhaps encourage more homeless shelters to be created and motivate the homeless to actually seek and use these shelters. Which at the end of the day would be better for them as well as the city.

If they let them sleep anywhere they wish the city would turn to crap.

Might seem harsh but I have no problem with it.

Homeless shelters are definately the answer. Especially if they help in finding jobs and homes for these people through programs and incentives.

Even if some can't or won't work at least they can get some rest . No sleep or food for a homeless man can make him go a lil batty ..so what appears as plain crazy to some is actually serious sleep and vitamin deprivation .

a reply to: SprocketUK

I wonder if Melbourne's Lord Mayor Robert Doyle and councillors Arron Wood and Nicholas Reece sit on the Boards of any of the official charities who not only pay fat salaries to CEO's but also to lobbyists.

a reply to: Sheye

I cannot agree that homeless shelters are the answer. Conduct a study amongst street sleepers and ask them why they don't use the shelters (if available). They will tell you many shelters are dangerous places where occupant's belongings are stolen, violence is rife and women are not safe from sexual predators.

Then, there are the 'rules'. These shelters have to have endless rules that basically treat people as children with curfews and rotas etc. In one of London's commuter towns at the turn of the century, the shelters were given a wide berth by street sleepers. The usual studies were conducted and when all evidence was collated, it was found the rule against alcohol was the main factor keeping potential service users/inmates away.

The local homeless services consortium decided to fund a 'wet house', ie a place occupants could bring/use alcohol without risking eviction and being labelled a failure. The results were astounding. Long term alcoholic street sleepers started to show an interest in their domestic arrangements, they no longer needed rotas to know when to empty the bins or wash the windows. The experiment proved, if you treat adults as adults, they respond better than if you treat them as children.

I think the answer is small group homes, where no more than 4 individuals share a property with some visiting support services when needed. Large institutional arrangements just mask the existence of homelessness and help perpetuate the cycle of deprivation it causes.