To not know who or what to believe any more!

[Leavingsosoon]

I had the radio on this morning, and there was a sad piece about the number of children in the county who would wake up homeless.

Then later I discovered that these stats were misleading, that the 'homeless' children were included in cases of overcrowding, so children sharing a room for instance.

I can't read the guardian any more, the BBC is biased from threads I've read here.

I don't know whether the kids company thing has made me feel as if I just can't trust any stats, any piece of information , any claims by charity. I've cancelled all my direct debits as I just feel like everyone is lying to me and I'm sick of it!

AIBU, and cynical/jaded?

Because if someone says a child is homeless, that is different to a child having an unsuitable home.

If the radio had said 'five hundred children will wake up in accommodation that is damp, filthy and unsafe and your help is needed to get them somewhere suitable' - that is not misleading 'five hundred children will wake up homeless' is.

But anyway, it wasn't just about that, although it was that which got me thinking.

carol, that's also what I was told.

Various members of our family have been in the local paper a dozen times or so over the years, (sponsored bike ride, prizewinning tomatoes, dance shows etc) and they've never managed to get the facts/spelling right, and twice have invented 'quotes'.

I also have a friend in the public eye, and newspaper 'reports' about them are almost always a complete pack of lies, and totally fabricated.

I take everything in the media with a large pinch of salt these days.

I second that rough sleeping children are very much a hidden statistic. The ones I have come across through work were sleeping in a tent in the woods or car, with a parent who was homeless. They were very much not in touch with the Council or social workers, and at the point that services are accessed they get temp accomodation- becoming homeless, rather than rough sleepers.

I'm not sure what you're saying OP.

If someone came and slept on my sofa because their house burnt down, I would consider them homeless. They don't have a suitable home. I have a suitable home that they are in.

Well quite, they don't have a suitable home. That would be very different to someone having their own home that's unfit for living in or is overcrowded, wouldn't it?

Because if someone says a child is homeless, that is different to a child having an unsuitable home.

No, surely, that is not different from a child having an 'unsuitable' home.

You are focussing on the definition of one word to the exclusion of the other.

What do you class as a 'home'? By the sound of it, to you, any building with a street address counts as a 'home', while a park bench does not.

But realistically, don't you think a child who is sleeping on a step, in an unheated building, is much, much closer to the situation of a child sleeping on a park bench, than either of them is to a child with a bed in a warm room?

I think it was deliberately misleading Jeanne.

Carol's post was pretty clear, I think, clearer than mine.

Overcrowding can be caused by people moving into a family member's living room. That is pretty common.

And my example is an example of an unsuitable home - one that has experienced a house fire.

Did you mean that comment to me?

Yes, can be, but it also can be one of the examples in carol's post.

Which comment Jeanne?

I get where you're coming from. But only because I recognise that I interpret things simplistically and literally. So my understanding would be-

Homeless= not having any home, be it temporary or unsuitable. Out on the streets.

Jeanne, no.
Carol, it is three rooms not bedrooms for overcrowding purposes.

Ah, sorry! Thanks for clarifying almond.

The think is you are imagining the situation as some sibblings sleeping side to side to each other in clean twin beds, but the reality can be a bit different, would you consider them homeless if you knew they are about to be evicted from a 2x3m room where the whole family lives while frying dog food for dinner? It happens, and while they may have a roof over their heads for a few days, that doesn't mean they are not homeless, as they would probably be sleeping in a car if they had one.

I guess that part of the issue is what is exactly the definition of home? A house, a roof or a safe place to sleep in?

The big difference between this and Kids' Company is that the definition of homelessness being discussed here is a national legal definition. Very many people (probably most) know what homelessness is because they have

a. been or known someone who was homeless.
b. been vulnerably housed or known someone who was and had to get housing advice.
c. worked in housing or known someone who does.
d. covered it in PSE.
e. seen it on TV or heard a talk about it.

I think most people are aware that Big Issue sellers often live in refuges, for example, not on the street.

I don't think I am, Tiger, really. I recognise that living in a home with the immediate threat of eviction is being homeless; if not now then imminently, and I recognise some properties are in such a poor state of repair as to have the families living in them be classified as homeless.

The grey areas for me are the ones such as described by carol - this is also what I was told - and it leaves me feeling confused, and dare I say, a bit silly, when I get upset over homeless families and find out that it's actually a nine and eleven year old boy and girl sharing a room which isn't ideal but still far from the situation that's described.

But anyway, it isn't just this. I am increasingly feeling that there are not any independent and unbiased sources, that any information I do get I can't trust and even if I did access trustworthy information I wouldn't know I could trust it if you see what I mean.

The article/report is using the legal definition of homeless, as you say you initially understood that to be 'rough sleepers', that is a misunderstanding of semantics.

Disregarding this particular point, all media has bias, if you don't see it then it generally means you are already coming from that mindset.

Everyone has an opinion to push, understand your own slant and read the 'other' side of the argument, look at how the stats have been delivered and come to your own conclusion.

At the risk of sounding argumentative (I'm not :) ) I fully understood that homelessness doesn't just mean rough sleepers, but the way the information was presented was still hilt misleading I feel.

In general - it is coming to my own conclusions I'm finding impossible.

There is no grey area. The stats are based on the number of children legally accepted as homeless by councils.

This will not involve cases where children are sharing rooms in the way you describe. It is extremely rare for a family to be accepted as homeless because of overcrowding - you're talking five or six people in a one bed flat and even then it's not a given by any means. Councils are extremely rigorous in who they accept as homeless and the worst try every trick in the book not to accept families for rehousing.

If the report was based on the number of overcrowded children the number would be far higher.

Well, that's not what I was told - but this is what I mean regarding lack of unbiased information :)

If the radio had said 'five hundred children will wake up in accommodation that is damp, filthy and unsafe and your help is needed to get them somewhere suitable' - that is not misleading 'five hundred children will wake up homeless' is.

But the number in damp, filthy etc accommodation would have been far higher than 100k? 100k are living in temporary accommodation because the council has said they are legally homeless.

Shelter will,obviously, make it as heart-rending as possible to give the impression of children at Christmas with no roof over their heads in order to raise more money.

Not sure where 100k came from but this was children in my county.

I think you're right carol