Homeless fined £150.

Giggs and Neville are hoping to have a chain of hotels. Hope they buy them where there are lots of homeless, who can at least get off the streets for six months while the plans are being organised.

If a homeless person has an address he has a better chance of getting more permanent housing, and work, and benefits. Everyone needs somewhere to live.

In September it was at least fifty, not including this man.

"A senior magistrate who pulled £40 from his own shirt pocket to pay the court fine for a destitute asylum seeker has resigned his position, after being suspended by authorities for the good deed.

Professional organist Nigel Allcoat, a magistrate for 15 years, said he was despairing at the mounting fines and costs being accrued by an asylum seeker at Leicester magistrates court.

“As a magistrate, my job is to prevent more crime, but now the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) would have me sent to traitor’s gate,” he said. “But it is something I take very seriously.” "

There must be something very wrong with a system that has this many magistrates resigning.

The archbishop of Canterbury has offered to give a home to refugees.

Anyone know how many magistrates have resigned now because of this?

One magistrate said: "The government has not thought this through." So, no change there then - this applies to many policies in relation to education, health and social services. It drives me nuts - have an idea by all means, but do not turn it into policy without proper research, preparation and planning. It is happening all the time now - take Michael Gove for instance! - yes do, please take him!

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/20/giggs-and-neville-work-with-squatters-to-make-occupied-hotel-safe

They are working with the council to make sure it is safe for the squatters.

Much better than Manchester Metropolitan University, who have closed down the homeless camp.

At least they're doing a bit more than all those bishops wanting the government to take more refugees - not a single one has offered to give shelter to anyone at all...

I'm not sneering at them. Just being realistic. It would have been bad publicity for them to get into a row about turning the homeless out. And it really doesn't sound as if they are making any real contribution. Just putting up with them. Still, every little helps.

Homelessness has risen over the past five years. The latest figure I saw quoted was by 35% and if you walk through manchester, especially in the morning you'll see every doorway contains a rough sleeper. Ben Taylor is a Manchester lawyer who specialises in Housing Law. He's been representing a group of Homeless individuals who are rough sleepers in manchester for several months. His applications for legal aid for individuals suffering medically diagnosed mental health problems, addictions and homelessness have been refused so he works free of charge.
It's easy to sneer at wealthy footballers like Giggs and Neville but I am pleased with their small contribution to helping these desperate individuals.
I heard the Woman's Hour piece on homeless women, which set out clearly how much more difficult homelessness is for women. How that can be seen as a bias against men is simply beyond me.

Then I Will join you in the cynical stand, Jingl.There is nothing marvellous at all in the offer.

I can't honestly see what is so marvellous in a couple of super wealthy footballers letting some homeless people squat temporarily in a building that they are converting into what will later on be a luxury hotel. A hotel designed to make them even more super rich.

Oops! I am being cynical.

True jingle , let others do it is this country's mantra

I am pretty sure this is not directly to save money although it will have that effect. If people admit to their crimes a lot of time and money will be saved. Prior to this I cannot see there was any benefit in pleading guilty apart from getting it over and done with.

It is possible that if a homeless person is sent to prison they will get the help they need to improve their lot. I would expect that when they have served their sentence accommodation will be found for them.

Not the OP but about homelessness. Just heard on woman's hour someone saying that the Health Secretary should do more for the homeless especially women! Another bias against men. Things seem to have gone too far.

Yes. And providing a bit of heating would of course, actually cost the footballers something.

That should be 'fessing up

Jingle, a building without heating is warmer than a shop doorway or pavement

Will the £150 charge be levied if someone pleads not guilty, and then is in fact found to be not guilty? That wouldn't be fair. Or is it only on people who plead not guilty when they are actually guilty? Which you might say, serves them right for not 'messing up at the start. They will have wasted Court time.

I'm not cynical about it, but I'm wondering how it will work. How far on are the renovations? Will the homeless people be bedding down amongst all the building work? A bit odd too that they are having to pay for smoke alarms.

I suppose it must all be in the very early stages. Will the footballers provide beds and heating?

Such wonderful altruism; reading that article made me well up. Hard to imagine being without the one thing I've always taken for granted: a roof over my head.
I reckon Gary Neville and Ryan Giggs have earned their place in heaven.

What a thing for brilliant for Ryan and Gary to do and well done to everyone involved with the scheme to find homes for the people concerned.I'm sure mollie we won't get any cynical comments on sure a project like this.

I saw the Giggs-Neville news yesterday and was really surprised and pleased. A touch of humanity! I'm now waiting for someone to say something cynical about it...

Yes, good for Ryan Giggs and Gary Neville.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/18/former-manchester-united-star-occupiers-of-hotel-winter-ryan-giggs-gary-neville

This is excellent news. I imagine lots of homeless will be moving to Manchester over the winter.

"In each case the £150 relates to a mandatory criminal courts charge for anyone convicted of an offence on top of other levies such as fines, compensation orders, victim surcharges and costs."

That's an extra charge on top of whatever the fine will be. £150 for pleading guilty without the extra expense of a court case. A lot more if you plead not guilty and are found guilty, whether you are or not.

This is one of the laws that have been passed without actually going through parliamentary procedures, just on the nod, so to speak. I cannot remember how many have been passed like that but it's in the thousands.
It was done by the previous justice secretary. It will hopefully be one that Gove realises is unworkable, like the one about prison books which has been rescinded by him.

From durhamjen's link:

"In June, the Exeter Express & Echo reported on a case where a judge was required to impose a £900 charge on a homeless man who had admitted shoplifting.

"The newspaper reported that, as the defendant was led away, the judge asked the courtroom: "He cannot afford to feed himself, so what are the prospects of him paying £900?"

"The Ministry of Justice is an unprotected department and is expected to face cuts of up to 40% when parliament returns from summer recess."

As I understand it, these are not "fines" but "charges" for administration and hearing costs - no doubt introduced to try and plug the 40% gap resulting from the cuts.

The 'point' ( as if threads need a point!) is to see what other GNs feel about this issue.

Do people think it is right to charge people additionally to any fine, do you think it might make people make a wrong plea? It is a current newsworthy item and why not see what the feelings of GNs are?

It is no different to many other threads asking 'What do you think about....'

Not sure why you are asking. Don't like it, don't post. Simples!