Thanks for trashing this thread fellas, I thought it might lead to some "outside the square" thoughts but if the best you can do is pick your noses well...........
Good for you, Mr Burns, in reminding people that any thread is only as good as the contributions to it.
The results of your intervention below speak to this.
It's hard enough getting fully functioning people to eat sensibly, not drink too much etc. Even harder dealing with those who have already fallen through the cracks.
Sure it's hard. But let's not just write off a whole section of society who are where they are often as a result of uncontrollable circumstances.
Sorry to be blunt but these guys don't pay tax or vote and are a minority. Why will the government care?
And that, unfortunately, is how governments see it.
I agree with you that something should be done but how is a different question. Personally I think the money should be coming from welfare itself. I think there are enough people on welfare that don't necessarily need it. Cut this down and help people that need to be helped.
+1. Far too much wasted on vote buying that could be used to address real needs for welfare.
I'm not sure though that many of the disaffected that Burnsie started talking about will be very responsive to traditional church approach.
Agree. Though some of the churches, viz particularly the Salvos are terrific at running non-judgmental programs which are genuinely helpful. Some of the problem here is - as happens across society - they are subject to abuse.
btw, I also have my doubts about many - NOT ALL! - social workers.
Ah, lots of qualifications, minimal life experience.
There lies the crux of the matter: Once you have a generation weaned off work, dropped out of mainstream society and used to street life and associated addiction, you've lost the plot - including all future generations of that subgroup. The best suggestion I can come up with to reduce the number of kids dropping out, is a new approach to schooling. Reward performance; teach responsibility; set achievable and measurable targets.
Sounds sensible, doesn't it. But the curriculum is already crowded out by studies in political correctness, climate change etc etc.
"Tough love" and providing productive work (as opposed to "social studies", basket weaving or "street art") may offer some kids a successful way out of gutter life. But how do you give them the incentive, the role models, the targets to aspire to? We have started teaching kids their rights to abundance. Nobody will be able to rein that attitude back in by balancing each right with commensurate responsibility, duty, effort.
It does happen, but is woefully underfunded. We ran a mentoring program here for about five years before funding was withdrawn where we picked up those kids who couldn't or wouldn't stay at school. They could learn non-academic, work related skills with one on one help. Sure, a few dropped out but there was around 80% success rate.
Life's about choices, it is very seldom a person can't change his or her cicumstances in Australia.
More often than not this takes personal sacrifice, not everyone is prepared to do that.
Barring mental and physical illness, that's true.
Sometimes, though, a sequence of events just becomes too much for an individual and - without support at the crucial time - they simply cannot cope. We should not just discard these people.