Disclaimer
All Contents © Copyright Peter C. Hayward 2008-2009 unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.2010
All Contents © Copyright Peter C. Hayward 2008-2009 unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.2010
Gavin here- Day 2’s letter never arrived, so we’ll just have to fill in the blanks ourselves.
12:30am – Was woken up by what I assume was a security guard. I think he said that I couldn’t sleep there because it “wasn’t safe”. I’m fuzzy on the details because it takes my brain about a minute to kick in when I’m woken up abruptly. Truth be told, I spent the first twenty seconds looking around trying to work out where Gavin had gone.
I started to stagger down to the riverbank, but on the way noticed 4 cops standing around. I still wasn’t quite together, and I didn’t want a confrontation until I had properly woken up, so I turned around and tried to find a toilet.
Federation Square had a 24-hour toilet, and there are a couple of power points in there as well, which will come in handy when I need to recharge my phone. It’s currently still at 2 bars, so hopefully my prediction of once/twice a week was accurate.
I toileted and realised that 4 policemen just to stop people sleeping beside the river was excessive, so I wandered down to check it out.
There was an ambulance and a police car parked in the middle of the walkway, and four cops and two ambos standing around chatting. Another ambo was in the ambulance, I assume with someone, but I couldn’t see. I walked right past and none of them seemed to care or notice.
I continued, unhassled, down to the side of the river. To my surprise, there was no one there at all. I assumed it would be one of the premier sleeping spots, but there was park bench after park bench going unused.
Aside from the two others in the park on my first night, I’ve not seen a single other sleeping homeless person.
A couple opf years back, I was wondering Brisbane at night with a few friends. We were going through some gardens and found a huge open-air stage that I can’t remember the name of (Riverstage). It was covered in backpacks, and so, young and curious, we ran down to see what was being stored on this stage at night.
Turns out, they weren’t backpacks, they were sleeping people. We weren’t sure what to do, so we turned and ran back up the hill we came, in complete silence.
There must be somewhere like that here in Melbourne, because in the course of one day I must see 9 or 10 homeless people around, but I’ve got no idea where they go at night.
With the exception of Fed Square, I’ve slept in 3 different places on 3 different nights, and gone completely unhassled each time. Either I’ve been completely flukey or there’s an abundance of great sleeping spots in Melbourne.
12:54am- I sat down on one of the park benchs near the river. If it hit 1:30am and no cops came by, I figured I’d sleep here for the night.
12:56am- A policeman came by, shone his torch into some of the spots I thought I’d be able to sleep in unnoticed, ignored me, and started wading into the river, shining his torch around the bushes. Curious, I asked him if he had lost something.
In a surprisingly weedy voice for such a big guy, he told me that there was supposed to be be something around here, but he didn’t need help.
I watched as he poked around for a few minutes before he was joined by another policeman and they walked away chatting. No one else came by, and so at 1:30 I fell asleep.
9:40am- Woke up. This is the first night I’d not slept by a road, which I suppose explains why I woke up later than usual.
I spent about an hour watching the rowers, had some bread and spread for breakfast. I think I’ve been referring to it as “orange spread”, but it’s actually apricot. I checked the label today. I’m almost out of bread, but I’ve got $4.15 in funds, so I’ll pick some up today. Tempted not to ask around for money today; I’ve got enough for bread, and there’s not really much more I need at this point.
If I had access to razors, a shower and a washing machine, and didn’t enjoy the internet as much as I do, I think I could easily get a part-time job and live my life like this (during the summer, at least).
During my research, I discovered that there are people who do live voluntarily homeless. Some of them get jobs, some rely on begging, but they don’t bother with many possessions or a home. They live their lives on the streets. It’s not the life for me, but I can certainly see the appeal.
I should point out that I’m not currently trying to search for a house, or trying to raise kids, or suffering from a substance abuse problem or constantly looking out for an abusive ex or suffering from depression, or disabled, or mentally ill in any way. Actual homeless people don’t get to do this for 28 days, some people said I shouldn’t ever use the word “homeless” to describe what I’m doing because I’d be facing very few of the issues by the genuinely homeless.
Most people have a reason that they’re homeless, and it’s not because they had a spare month, or they thought it would be interesting. For most people this is a horrible existence, and any money donated helps make it a bit easier for them.
11:30- Got up from the riverside- that’s the problem choosing a nice place to sleep, you don’t really want to leave it when morning comes.
Wandered over to Fed Square, where the Vic Police show-band was playing. They were quite good, especially the main singer. Finished off my bread.
Chatted to the girl next to me. She’s down for the tennis. She asked about me, but I kept my answers vague. She eventually figured out I was living on the streets.
“But you’ve got a mobile!”
I told her, as I’ve been told, that most homeless people have mobile phones. Hope I’m not spreading disinformation. I’m pretty sure that’s true.
1:00pm- The Big Screen in Fed Square told me that [ACMI?] had a free exhibition on. I wandered over to have a look.
Since a large part of this is recording people’s reactions, let me tell you that the entire staff of ACMI (Gavin- I think that’s what it is) were incredibly lovely, from start to finish. Not one disparaging glance, not one word spoken. They were absolutely great.
In general, people just don’t care. I’m sitting on a bench on the side of the footpath writing this, and people will just glance at you and keep going. When you’re asking for money, they can ignore you, be irritated that they have to deal with you, or (rarely) be sympathetic, but again- for the most part they just don’t care. So being greeted by smiles at the ACMI was unexpected, ad a strange feeling. I realise it’s their job, but it was still nice and refreshing.
I’m a huge film buff, so I went right through the film history exhibition. I had a look at the video game exo thing they had on, but all the games were being used, so I left.
Most interesting facts I learned:
-”Oh Brother Where Art Thou?” was filmed during a season when all the leaves were green. It was the first movie to be shot on film, entirely digitised (which is when they changed all the leaves to brown and yellow) and then exported it to film again for distribution.
-Danii Minogue was famous before her sister was.
-Oscars look really dodgy.
If you ever go, make sure to check out the strobing animation thing. It was fantastic.
4:00- Decided to go to Melbourne Central to pick up some bread, and rather than walking the length of the city, I thought I’d take the free tram. We had a guy yelling out stops rather than the computer do it, and so while I missed my stop, the extra stuff he added in was most interesting. Got off at Telstra and caught one going the other way.
A fellow near to the city asked me for help with the trams, which I was somewhat able to give him. He’d been in Melbourne for two days longer than me, and this was the first tram I’d caught, but I managed to help him get on the right one.
5:30- Saw a guy with a “homeless” sign on the way into Melbourne Central. Gave him 60c. He had a dog and only 5c in the cup, which could mean he was having a terrible day, or could mean that he was using a technique I read about online, making sure you have at some money in the hat/cup, but not too much, or else people won’t give. As I was walking away I saw a cute girl stop and give him some money, then kneel down to talk to him.
At Coles I bought another loaf of bread. It turns out they do have the cheaper bread and I just missed it last time. But I got the lightly more expensive stuff, as I prefer multi-grain. I also bought an orange and a carrot, which I then ate.
6:00- Picked up a copy of MX, the free daily paper. “Up” was nominated for the Best Picture academy award, which is interesting but not surprising. A guy asked me if I had any spare change, and I gave him 50c. It may not sound like much, but I now only have $1 left.
6:30- On a whim, I went up to a donut shop that was closing and explained that I was homeless and couldn’t remember the last time I’d had a donut. The girl behind the counter looked extremely sympathetic, but explained that they couldn’t give out donuts due to store policy. I said that I understood, and went back to doing the sudoku in the paper.
A few minutes later, she snuck over with a bag full of donuts. “Don’t tll my boss, and you can have these,” she whispered.
I was floored and thanked her profusely. I wasn’t sure what to do, but I ended up taking one and giving the rest to the homeless guy outside the station.
7:00- Managed to scavenge some leftovers from KFC; several chips and most of a potato and gravy. If you’re ever in a public food court, and you have food left over, don’t clear your table.
Some people left food around 6pm at the same place, but the guy cleaning up was much faster than I.
I’d just finished the chips when another homeless guy came sniffing around for food, so I left him to it.
7:15- Decided to try sleeping in the CBD tonight, instead of in a park, so see if I got moved along.
9:48- Drifted off to sleep outside an office block. I’m near a cab rank and across from a 24/7 convenience store, so I think I’ll be safe. Curious to see if anyone hassles me.
Money Gained: None
Money Given: $1.10
Food Eaten:
-Lots of bread with spread.
-An orange.
-A carrot.
-Chips, potato and gravy.
Strangest Thought:
“The Damage is irresistible, but the Fashion is to die for.” (Gavin- yeah, I’m not sure either).
Up next: Day 4
More Options ...
Categories
Tag Cloud
Blog RSS
Comments RSS
Void 
Life 
Earth 
Wind « Default
Water 
Fire Light
Previous 
Next 
Comment Meta:
Last 50 Posts
Back
“explained that I was homeless and couldn’t remember the last time I’d had a donut.”
By “explained” you of course mean “lied”.
Precisely, Greg. That poor girl risked her job for his lie.
And he was classy enough to make sure her workplace is completely identifiable.
I must have missed the part that said “and then I held a gun to the girl’s head and demanded that she give me a bag of donuts.”
Oh wait. It didn’t say that at all, did it?
Hear! Hear! And because of this little white lie (or semi-truth, white lie sound so racist when I see it written down), somebody that Peter is supposedly taking resources off has received a whole bag of donuts. Minus the one that Peter so greedily ate for himself. What a terrible human being he is!
NB: that last part was sarcasm.
ps: I should have stuck with white lie, it’s such an appropriate term for 21st century Australia!
Alicia: he is lying to people in order to take money and food from them. This is morally wrong. I did not claim he forced anyone to do anything, but he did lie and will continue to lie throughout this “experiment”. Perhaps nothing bad will come of this – it is quite likely nothing will. But regardless of the outcome, the act itself is still wrong.
Well Duh: I made no claim about taking resources from someone else. And it’s not a white lie, it’s just a lie.
I find it bizarre that Peter automatically equates homelessness with begging, but never mind – let’s assume that for the purposes of this little scheme that begging is an instrinsic part. An honest man would have researched the average amount begged per day in Melbourne, and set that aside from his own money for the duration.
Greg G: Others have mentioned the taking resources thing, sorry to put you in that camp. But you still have not addressed the fact that because of Peter’s lie, another man received food. Now, everybody lies every day to make it through (except possibly Greg G), and lies have different levels harm. I contend that this lie has done no harm (unless you or one of the other self righteous people that are against Peter goes ahead and names this Donut house). Therefore the lie has done more good than harm and is justifiable. Again I repeat lying can be a good thing, if I lie to my mum and tell her she looks nice that dress, is that bad?…
Your example is erring back towards the white lie. It’s not necessarily bad, no.
What Peter is doing is different. He’s lying to strangers, and more importantly lying without the need to do so. If I started breaking into other people’s homes and taking their spare change – but then gave all the spare change to charity – I would still be doing something wrong and the people I stole from would be entitled to be upset.
Please note that I do not consider what Peter is doing to be as bad as outright theft, but by exaggerating the situation somewhat I hope to make it clearer what my objection actually is.
I won’t identify the donut shop, but anyone who spends any amount of time in Melbourne Central will know for certain where it is from Peter’s description here. He should know better.
I’m sure Peter didn’t mean identify that shop. He is probably tired and, for nearly all definitions of the word, homeless. That’s probably not an excuse that you will accept but its the only on I can think of right now.
Your example as you have admitted is erring on the absurdly criminal. I don’t see anything wrong with lying to strangers. Shop assistants and marketing people do it all the time to take money from innocent by-passers. I think this kind of lie is closer to the middle ground.
As Peter’s lies are generating money (and donuts) for the truly needy. And he is not breaking into peoples houses. I still contend that what he is doing is morally justifiable.
Also, some Buddhist monks give up their possessions and walk the streets with a bowl eating what they are given and distributing the rest. I say Buddha would be proud of Peter.
The Buddha explicitly forbade lying. He would be horrified.
“If a man has transgressed one law, and speaks lies, and scoffs at another world, there is no evil he will not do.”
– from the Dhammapada
(Not that I necessarily agree with it, speaking as one who has scoffed at another world from time to time).
Ah, nice. Googling scriptures. Ok I, apologise for impugning Buddha.
However, Greg G, you have not addressed my previous contention that lying to strangers for personal good is publicly sanctioned in our society. It’s called marketing (and politics). I believe that what Peter is doing is no worse than the telemarketer that called me the other day and told me he wanted to “give me a free laptop with no strings attached”. At least Peter is giving back more than he takes.
ah, as soon as he mentioned lying about being homeless, I knew the comments were coming!
I can see what both sides are saying here, but at the end of the day, I don’t like lying either and would never ever condone it. If i lie, I’ve know I’ve sinned, and I can feel bad for weeks.
rdfreak: He says as he lies about his name…. unless that really is your name and then I apologise profusely Mr Freak.
well duh; I’m guessing that’s not your real name, and you are doing this cos it’s the internet; it’s the same for me.
The Protecting ones’s name from the big bad internet is different. I never said this is my name, therefore, I’m not lying.
I appreciate what you are saying though.
“but at the end of the day, I don’t like lying either and would never ever condone it. If i lie, I’ve know I’ve sinned, and I can feel bad for weeks”.
That is a pretty definitive statement. I’m Pro-lying in this particular argument. So I know why you change your name to protect your identity. I’m trying to say that the end justifies the means. If no intentional harm is caused.
rdfreak: I don’t think of lying as an absolute evil. There are certainly instances where it is warranted or even necessary. “Sin” is not something that keeps me up at night. However, this is an instance where lying is neither warranted nor necessary.
Peter has chosen arbitary measures to determine the supposed authenticity of his experience, an authenticity that is suspect from the start based as it is on his own stereotyped view of what it is to be homeless. If he had done more research and a whole lot more planning he wouldn’t need to beg or lie about his circumstances in order to be a more efficient beggar.
Well Duh: I certainly agree with you that Peter is acting at the moral level of a politician or a telemarketer.
Some have argued that this kind of thing might reinforce the feeling that some have about giving money to strangers – that they don’t really need it (as Peter does not) or that they are lying about being homeless (as Peter is). However, it could be argued in response that such folk would seldom change their mind anyway.
What bothers me more is the kind-hearted folk that Peter has encountered so far eventually finding out they’d been duped. It will be at least a little heartbreaking.
Please also remember that Peter had no intention of giving to charity until “self righteous” people such as myself prodded him.
Part of this experiment involved seeing how people reacted to the homeless. Peter appeared to expect the shop assistant to be polite, but not give him anything. He was surprised but pleased at her generosity and heart, so obviously he couldn’t throw that back in her face. I know that he could have simply not asked for it before, but then he isn’t seeing how people react to the homeless, is he? As someone who works with customers, she has to be polite, but he wondered if she’d treat him differently as he was homeless [and yes, he is homeless. He does not have a home therefore he is homeless! Some people do chose (perhaps not so directly) to be homeless - drug addicts, runaway teens etc, so his choice does not render the fact that is is currently without a home invalid.] and found that instead of seeming disgusted or wanting to avoid him as other had, she was sweet about it.
What came out of this? Someone truly nice was found and acknowledged, a homeless guy got a free bag of donuts. The girl clearly thought about the bag of donuts, and realised that the bag of donuts wasn’t going to ruin the shop she worked for and that she had the power to make someone else’s life better. I don’t really see how this is that different from asking for spare change. Monetarily it might be worth more, but it is coming from a company that is presumably worth more than the average person, and the donuts are presumably marked up, so it is only the cost of the ingredients and part of the employee’s salary. And finally if it is a store that bakes daily (as a lot of donut shops do I’m fairly sure), then presumably at the end of the day they are forced to throw out donuts or maybe the employees get to take a few home for free, so it’s not like every donut baked represents profit, profit that is needed to keep the company afloat. Peter was aware of this fact as we have a cousin who used to work in a donut store who had to take home bags of donuts at the end of the day (she used to give them out at family get togethers).
Elizabeth, simply choosing to live outdoors without money does not make someone homeless.
Here’s a government definition from the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Act (1994):
For the purposes of this Act, a person is homeless if, and only if, he or she has inadequate access to safe and secure housing.
Being legislation, it also defines the latter phrase:
For the purposes of this Act, a person is taken to have inadequate access to safe and secure housing if the only housing to which the person has access:
1. damages, or is likely to damage, the person’s health; or
2. threatens the person’s safety; or
3. marginalises the person through failing to provide access to:
1. adequate personal amenities; or
2. the economic and social supports that a home normally affords; or
4. places the person in circumstances which threaten or adversely affect the adequacy, safety, security and affordability of that housing
And here’s a relevant letter from the Council to Homeless People from December:
The Council to Homeless Persons takes issue with Lord Mayor Robert Doyle’s recent comment that “There will always be those who choose not to have a roof over their heads” (Melbourne Times – City council pledges to get people home, and homes 9.12.09).
In our experience, homelessness is never a willing choice; it is a complex and devastating situation that people from all walks of life can find themselves in, through circumstances beyond their control. Most commonly, these include family violence and breakdown, mental health issues, drug and alcohol issues or poverty.
When someone becomes homeless not only do they face the daily chore of trying to find safe and affordable accommodation – in a time of record low rental availability and exhorbitant housing prices – but also stigmatisation (when trying to find employment or continue their education), social exclusion, lack of personal safety, emotional trauma and damage to their health.
Victoria’s 23,299 homeless men, women, young people and children are among the most marginalised and vulnerable people in our society – a position none would deliberately choose.
We applaud Cr Doyle’s pledge to reduce rough sleeping in the CBD, and welcome any initiatives that provide the basic human right of access to housing, support and inclusion for people experiencing homelessness. However, we must never presume that homelessness is some kind of ‘lifestyle choice’ – it is a soul- destroying and terrifying experience that anyone who has ever experienced would never wish to revisit.
Ok, let’s deconstruct Peter’s lie:
Peter is currently homeless. He has moved out of his previous house, to find a new place in Melbourne. At the end of the month he will still be homeless.
The normal way to do this would be to couch surf, find a place before you move or stay in a hotel. Now couch surfing involves begging off people. And finding a place before you move somewhere is very difficult. And who can afford to live in a hotel or other pay-as-you-stay accommodation? All of these are forms of homelessness as is living on the streets.
Peter has elected to live on the streets. He has placed artificial conditions on his move but he is still homeless. He has a stereotypical view of the homeless (like many of us) and staying on the streets for a while will hopefully correct that.
While I previously compared Peter to a politician or telemarketer to prove a point, I think his integrity is more like that of a journalist or scientist. He is documenting his experience and his observations of humanity as he conducts this experiment.
One of the fundamental principles of science is that anything that is observed is altered in some way. By observing life as a homeless person Peter is altering situation in many ways. He has put a number of artificial controls on his situation, and, he is in centre of his experiment changing the environment.
He is begging. Some have said his begging is reprehensible but it allows him to observe peoples reactions and document the kinds of people that give and don’t give. The change he causes is that perhaps somebody will miss out. Perhaps the person who has been a subject of his experiment may find out that they have been duped. They may react with anger and decide never to give again or they may laugh it off and read his blog and learn a little more about the world. Either way Peter is not responsible for their reaction, his is just trying to observe.
Begging by the way is, I believe, one of the oldest forms of occupation – along with prostitution. Jesus used to help beggars and I don’t think he asked whether they were genuine or not (not that I believe in Jesus really but many people do and he gets cited alot). People have been know to live perfectly respectable lives by getting dirty and begging. Though I’m sure many out there would find my use of the word respectable here abhorrent. (Please don’t say I am now comparing Peter to a Prostitute, I have far too much respect for Prostitutes)
Peter is not lying as his circumstances and decision to conduct an experiment have led him to a homeless life. Some say he could pull out at any time. But many homeless people could pull out at any time. It would require moving back their parent’s house as it would for Peter. Many people have too much dignity do that. Or he could could couch surf, which many people have pointed out that this is just another form of homelessness.
It is true the decision to conduct the experiment came before the self righteous people gave him the idea of making it a fundraising event as well. Peter liked this idea because he is a very compassionate person and the experiment morphed. It is still a journalistic experiment and it certainly makes for interesting reading whether admire his motives or not.
I will repeat one more time. Peter is not lying to these people. He is homeless. This is due to a situation entirely of his own making. But it is true.
PS: I hope you respond Greg G, I am enjoying this debate and I respect your arguments.
Has anyone really been duped? In Melbourne, Peter is homeless.
He isn’t getting secret food parcels and a safe place to sleep at night so that he can get back to it in the morning. There will be times when he will be hungry, cold or scared. Yes, he has put himself into that position, but so too has the ‘justifiably’ homeless person who chose to smoke his first joint or even the portion of the 35 000 people who choose to go missing each year in Australia and live on the streets, despite having loving homes and families desperate to find them. Should they give a CV on their homeless state every time they request money or food?
Reasons for homelessness aren’t black and white: X is homeless because she is abused, Y is homeless because he has a substance abuse problem, Z is homeless because of a mental illness and A is homeless because he lost his job, so if you don’t fit into those categories you aren’t really homeless. Life isn’t neatly segmented like that and while people have freedom of thought and the right to make their own decisions there will be a myriad of reasons why some live on the streets.
Peter may have a less common reason to be homeless but he is living homeless none the less.
Oops while I was writing my essay some new essays came in.
Thank you Elizabeth for so eloquently putting the argument. I think my prattle pretty much just says what you said. but you said it better.
Greg G: For someone that has previously derided politicians you don’t mind quoting the bureaucratic nonsense. What the department of blah blah blah defines as a homeless person does not in anyway change the fact that many homeless people slip through the cracks of this system. In fact it is the cause. It does not take into account the fact that many people have far too much dignity to simply run to their parents for help and would rather beg borrow and steal to get by. And there are countless other people that slip through this definition and do not get the help they deserve.
Well said, Well Duh! You slipped in there while I was still typing, but managed to put many of my thoughts into words.
Greg: I notice that the definition you quoted begins by saying that homelessness is defined as so for the purposes of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program Act. As Peter is not looking for supported accommodation this definition is not particularly relevant.
There are so many definitions of homelessness floating around – but I think this one is good as it breaks down the definition into three different types/degrees of homelessness.
http://www.gtcentre.unsw.edu.au/Resources/hlr/homelessnessinAustralia.asp
Well Duh – I do think the point at where Peter’s situation and that of the actual homeless falls down is the fact that he could give up at any stage. The reason I quoted legislation is that it is a clear definition, but it is an area where there are many definitions. Here’s one from the Council to Homeless People –
A homeless person is without a conventional home and lacks most of the economic and social supports that a home normally affords. She/he is often cut off from the support of relatives and friends, she/he has few independent resources and often has no immediate means and in some cases little prospect of self support. She/he is in danger of falling below the poverty line, at least from time to time.
Again, Peter has support but chooses not to make use of it. To equate his situation with the true homeless is to fall into the trap of using the vocabulary of those who deride them: “they could move home any time”, “they chose to use drugs”, “why didn’t she ask for help when he started hitting her”. And so on.
I understand everyone here has compassion for the homeless, but don’t you see what happens when you make use of the arguments of the talk back radio set?
Elizabeth – the key word in those definitions (and it is a good site, thank you) is “without”. Peter has access to resources, he is not using them. He is not homeless: he is camping.
Well Duh – Thanks, I will keep responding for a little while until I feel like I’m starting to seem obsessive. I was disappointed with some of the arguments made by the influx of “Melbourne Maniacs” people – they often aren’t thinking things through either.
However, I must admit that their frequent reference to the song “Common People” is apt.
“He is not homeless: he is camping.”
What you seem to have missed is that he has moved to Melbourne where he doesn’t have a home (and even if he were couch surfing there, he would still be homeless). Certainly he has a home in Queensland but is it a normal expectation that a man should sacrifice his independence to live under his parents’ roof for his entire life simply because it is there?
Greg: the definition is excellent for it’s purpose. The reason they emphasise without is because they do not want to be giving accommodation to people who do have any other options. The accommodation they provide they obviously want to go to the right people.
Your newest definition still fits Peter. He is currently without a conventional home. His new ‘home’ does lack the economic and social supports a normal home provides. He isn’t cut off form the support of relative and friends, but the definition does say ‘often’ and often people do chose (for whatever reason) to not to take advantage of this support. He does have few independent resources, his immediate means comes in the form of the charity of strangers. And I’d say he is in danger of falling below the poverty line from time to time.
Peters mother:
We are getting very close to me starting to talk about semantics and semiotics, and nobody wants that.
In short, simply “not having a home” does not make someone homeless in the same way that being a native-born American does not make someone a Native American. Some terms are more than the some of their parts.
I housesat for three months last year. I didn’t have a home. I wasn’t homeless.
The relevance of the Native-born Vs Native American example. I think homelessness is a far broader term. I too have housesat. I didn’t have a place to live at the time and I took the housesit to have shelter over my head. I may not have been living on the streets homeless. But I was still homeless in that I had the stress of not knowing where I was going to live when the housesit ended. I think homelessness is a far broader term than aboriginality.
Psh, she didn’t risk her job. Obviously you’re not meant to give away products for free because the big guy wants his store to make a product, but h&s laws require most businesses to throw away certain products at the end of each days trading (or in some cases, after x amount of minutes. Hungry Jacks throw out their burgers after 8 minutes). After that time, it’s illegal to sell/give away the product. But people do it anyway, especially baked goods places. My housemate’s girlfriend works for a huge coffee franchise and always brings us home boxes of cakes that the store legally can’t sell anymore, despite them still being in tip top shape. It’s just one of those things that you aren’t ‘meant’ to do, but everyone does anyway. If she’s anything like me, it’s infuriating watching that amount of good food go to waste because of an overprotective h&s law.
And greedy? He ate one donut, and gave the rest away. I’m not going to read/get into your debate on the definition of ‘homeless’ but he’s in Melbourne and living on the streets. He’s keeping some things for himself but giving a lot to others. If I was down to my last $4.15, you can damn well bet I wouldn’t be handing out my silver to anyone else. Gotta give him credit for something.
sorry I meant to say:
I fail to see the relevance of the Native-born Vs Native American example. I think homelessness is a far broader term. I too have housesat. I didn’t have a place to live at the time and I took the housesit to have shelter over my head. I may not have been living on the streets homeless. But I was still homeless in that I had the stress of not knowing where I was going to live when the housesit ended. I think homelessness has a far broader definition than aboriginality.
@Well Duh!
Even if we were to accept that “homeless” has a wide variety of definitions, you’d concede that there are at the very least two polar experiences of the word. There’s the housesitting (definition 1) and there’s being on the streets because you have nowhere to go and no one to turn to (definition 2). I take offence that Peter is equating this experience of his with the latter experience, when it clearly falls in the former. The people having the latter experience are those who need the help urgently and they aren’t getting that help at least partially because of the misconceptions people have about “homelessness” and what it means to be “homeless”.
I suspect people would be very unlikely to donate to what are labelled homeless causes if they read this:
Definitions are made, they are not set in stone. Peter equating his experience with the homeless and the needy simply by using some expansive meaning of the word “homeless” is offensive to me. Oh sure he’s said some obligatory stuff about how there are people worse off than he is, but his reasoning and posts just give mixed messages.
He says he cannot equate his experience to true homelessness, yet his experience – which is nothing like definition 2 – will somehow promote awareness of definition 2. It is actually like couchsurfing for a month and purporting to be raising awareness for homelessness (definition 2) while doing so.
Also RE: his deception
Sure politicians and telemarketers tell white lies, but you’re put on alert by the fact that they are politicians and telemarketers and are prone to lying to get what they want. Here people are helping him out because they believe he’s genuinely needy and they have no reason to believe he’d be lying (white lies or subtle deception or whatever). Their decision-making is affected by his omissions through silence. If they heard the entire situation or even that he had a $40 Coles giftcard they might still make the same decision – but at least it would be their decision based on the reality of situation, not deceit.\
To those saying that Peter wanted to document people’s reaction to the homeless I ask, why? Can’t these reactions be documented by those who are already homeless by talking to them? Surely these experiences would be more plentiful/genuine that what is happening here?
I’m going to hold back on commenting until the next post goes up. Just one more thing for today.
All of these “live like (x)” stunts, experiments and investigations stem from the 1960s book “Black like me”, by John Howard Griffin. Here’s a quote from that book -
I decided not to change my name or identity. I would merely change my pigmentation and allow people to draw their own conclusions. If asked who I was or what I was doing, I would answer truthfully.
Greg: that’s funny his name is John Howard!
connikins: sure we could ask the truly needy people what they think. And that might be a good project for you. But, Peter is articulate and amusing and can express something vaguely close to the experience right now. Let me know how the interviewing the homeless thing works out, right now I can’t wait for another post.
He is tricking pople and that’s terrible. I’m sure they will lose a lot of sleep over it and be extremely ticked off when they find out.
The excuses for dishonesty in these comments makes me ill. And the disregard for actual homeless people by using that term so blithely – you lot have absolutely no idea. No idea at all. The privilege here is burning.
It is fascinating reading the way that ‘genuinely homeless’ people are canonised by those so eager to point out that Peter is lying his way through the experience. Do you really believe that homeless people never lie? Never accept money without explaining that they do actually have money tucked away (possibly for their next drug hit)? Never spend the money you have given them on anything but nutritious food? Never deny having a loving family who are desperate to get news of them? In fact never do anything that would be considered immoral and against the ‘code of the homeless’ as laid down by the people posting on this blog?
When a homeless person is brought in to our service, usually by the police, it isn’t uncommon for them to have money on them, a mobile phone and/or an address for their family or friends to be contacted. (Families who cry with relief to know they are safe). You may have given money to some of these. Do you feel cheated because they chose to lie, either actively or by omission? Would you be more inclined to give if a person gave his entire story to you, if it were a story of a life you didn’t approve of, but at least he told the truth?
I’m not sure what housesitting experiences you have had, connikins, but I can’t imagine they have ever involved sleeping under a tree in a park being patrolled by police because of an unknown incident and having a security guard move you along because of the danger factor. Peter’s homelessness may be unneccessary, but he is facing the same risks that any other person sleeping rough is.
Beautifully put Mrs Peter.
Also, I like how the assumption of privilege is being thrown around by you anti-Peter fanatics. I myself have admitted in my posts that I suffer from Bi-polar disorder, which has seen me sent to the Psych ward on a number of occasions. Due to my gift/illness I have come very close to losing everything and I count myself lucky to have a home to live in. Though at the rate that rent keeps rising I never know for how long and I am also a carer for somebody with a chronic illness for which there is no cure. From what I can gather from her posts, Mrs P has been homeless in the past and currently works with the needy. We do not have “disregard for actual homeless people.” We care about all people. The idea that the homeless need to be put on a pedestal and treated like fragile china is patently ridiculous. The privilege is not burning, but the self-righteous wankers are coming out in force.
Breaking a promise to myself here.
Peters mother: I haven’t read all the other comment threads, but no-one in this one has come close to canonising homeless people in this one. A lot of homeless people lie, yes. Probably on a daily basis. That’s different from lying about being homeless.
The reaction of a lot of people to this has been severe, and I flinch a bit at the vitriol against Peter by some. However, I disagree with what he is doing and how he is doing itentirely.
You are skating very close to vilifying homeless people as a group in order to make Peter look good.
If what I have written is reading as vilifying homeless people, I apologise.
As Well Duh! has said, I have been in that position myself and in the course of my work in mental health have regular contact with homeless people needing help or assessment. Some of the comments about Peter lying while begging sound like the author’s believe that a ‘real’ homeless person would not lie or act in any socially immoral way to survive. My point is that of course some do. People who are homeless are still people with all the same faults that people with homes have.
I have said in previous posts that I would prefer Peter wasn’t doing this. I know the dangers out there. I am not wanting to make him look good for doing so and if he were to give up the idea tonight, I would be relieved. As he has chosen to carry on however, I will support him in any way I can.
I too only want to support Peter and for some stupid reason I want others to feel as I do. I have only known Peter for a little while but I count him as a friend. I do not believe he means to harm anyone. He is putting himself in danger – in much the same way that war correspondents put themselves in danger – to tell a story.
I do not want to vilify the needy to make him look good. I just want to send my good will to him and have trouble understanding why others don’t feel the same way.
Well Duh and Peter’s mother-
You need to accept that a good majority of people clearly DISAGREE with what Peter is doing. You obviously think it’s great – whatever. But there is no need to attack anyone or result to name-calling those who has a different opinion to yours and is voicing them. There’s no need to “want others to feel like I do” – just face the fact that it’s not going to happen. I will admit that there are some things that are good about what Peter is doing (IMO, though, there are other methods that would garner is same result. I question his motives for starting this whole thing to begin with) but there are also plenty of arguments against it. Maybe I have trouble understanding why you seem to ignore all the issues AGAINST this project that people have brought up?
This is a public forum and frankly, the whole point of this whole charade was “publicity” (for the project and for Peter’s own motives). People are therefore entitled to post on here and do NOT need other people like you trolling the comments and verbally abusing those with dare to think differently.
Well done Conniekins and Sarah, very succinctly put. Well Duh, please do not refer to Peter as a scientist, he is not conducting an experiment, he is putting himself in danger and dividing his friends (if these comments are any indication.) It is a poorly planned ‘project’ which is being done for dubious motives.
And for the record I do not find him amusing, he is articulate but one of the most arrogant people I know, this project a prime example of his arrogance.
Hi Sarah, I am sorry I attacked you on the forum. I was getting involved in the discussion and I perceived your comments to be attacks on Peter’s “mommy dearest.” I do not know her, but, I do not think that you can really blame a mother for the recklessness of her son.
I am not trawling this forum attacking people with different views. I am a member of the public too. I have just been getting very wrapped up in the discussion. I have been getting on my high horse quite alot, we have that in common. Greg G and I have very different views on the subject but I find his arguments quite rational and I have in fact complemented him for them.
You, however, seem to have an irrational hatred of the fact that Peter might gain something from this experience. I think I called myself Well Duh! in the first place because I agreed with you that Peter would benefit from the project. Peter is no saint. He is arrogant and can be a prick. But what he is doing is not evil in any way.
John Locke: I agree with you that Peter is dividing his friends and putting himself in danger. But, I do think that the methods that he is using are still quite scientific. He is documenting everything. He did come up with a detailed plan. Whether it is poor or not, time will tell. His motives can and have been questioned extensively. There are many good arguments for and against his actions. I think we can agree that peter can be arrogant and in an arrogant way believes what he is doing is right.
I am not his friend. I am a random observer.
“But there is no need to attack anyone or result to name-calling those who has a different opinion to yours and is voicing them.”
That is a bit rich coming from someone who attacks everything I say while referring to me as ‘mommy dearest’! I (and Well Duh) have shown you far more respect for your opinions than you have shown for opposing opinions. I’m not sure why having our own opinions is trolling, while you whipping up a frenzy against Peter (and who knows who is reading this forum and may feel the need to stop him, encouraged by your comments) is acceptable?
Once again, as you don’t seem to be able to read my posts, I am not for this project. I wish Peter was safely in accommodation and employment this month ..and next because he may be on the streets for real by then. He isn’t coming home at the end of the month for a good feed and a warm bed and if this blog is what you consider publicity seeking, I wonder what your opinion of all the millions of bloggers around the world is?
mommy dearest is a insult?? okay……
“mommy dearest is a insult?? okay……”
It is condescending.
Sarah: yes because it’s Mummy, not Mommy! We’re not in america, Lol (and I’m kidding by the way!
Wow… it seems that most people have a very strong opinion either way; not much middle of the road stuff happening here.
I know Peter personally and certainly have an opinion on this whole thing (middle of the road – don’t wholeheartedly support the concept, but understand Peters reasons), but I am not going to get into whether he should be doing it or not because the fact is he will keep going regardless of what people here say and stop when he thinks he needs to stop (or the time is up).
Regardless, I have enjoyed reading the posts and will check back for updates throughout the month.
I know he won’t see it, but have fun Peter and I hope you come out the other side in one piece having experienced something unique.
Wow, this is boring (aside from the debate in the comments). Wonder if Peter expected more excitement out of the deal?
I too am at a loss to understand why ‘Sarah’ can comment on this forum as if she is holier-than-thou…
If we look back, you can clearly see that she has been hostile, aggressive and pointlessly condescending to those with a differing opinion. ESPECIALLY Peter’s mum.
Don’t play innocent, Sarah. You know very well that “Mummy Dearest” was meant as an insult – a condescending swipe at a mother for defending her son from defamation of character.
I know Peter, I know his mum. Both are fine, up-standing citizens who truthfully mean no harm to others and are, in fact, some of the more generous/kind people I know.
Like I said, I don’t agree so much with this project – I’d rather he wasn’t doing it… but as a close friend of Peter, it would be morally reprehensible of me not to be doing anything but wishing him well on this dangerous adventure.
Drop the charade, Sarah. You’re being mean-spirited and you’ve been called on your behaviour. Deal with it.
Just wanted to write a short comment to address some points raised:
I am well aware homeless people may be lying to me about what they’re going to do with the money, but if I give money to someone who I think is homeless I’m going to think they’re homeless by force of circumstance not out of choice. They may have money saved up and they may have enough food but I figure they don’t have a choice about sleeping on the streets so they probably need whatever money they can get. Anyone who is voluntarily on the streets with families at home I take with the same mild disgust as I do with what Peter’s doing.
I am not purporting to be raising awareness for anything or being some sort of authority. I don’t understand this attitude of “oh if you’re not doing anything to help the homeless then you clearly have no moral standing to critique what Peter’s doing”. Peter is the one making the claims to moral high ground and the benefits of his actions, not me. I’m pointing out other more efficient ways that Peter could achieve the benefits of what he’s doing now. That he has chosen to do this relatively inefficient “project” over a dozen other alternatives that are indicative that he primarily wants something else out of it… the “experience” or “fame” or what have you.
Neither fame nor experience are particularly bad things, but I take issue when he professes his altruism, philanthropy and goodwill. If he said, “I’m doing this for shits and giggles because I want to” I’d still think it was a bad idea, but plenty of people do stupid things so I’d be able to write him off as another attention whore. I still think he’s an attention whore but he’s one drenched in privilege and remarkably good at self-delusion. It annoys me to no extent to think he may gain accolades from his peers.
He is facing some of the same risks, and I think where we differ from opinion is the extent to which his experience is comparable actual homelessness. I believe the fact that he can voluntarily pull out of this at any time, and that this will end in a month puts him in a completely different mindset than someone who actually homeless. Vulnerability is a subjective emotion as well as a physical state. That he proudly proclaims that he could do this all the time if he didn’t like the internet all the time just tells me how removed his experience is from actual homelessness, and how insulting it is for him to compare it thus.
^100% agree. I bought up these exact points in a previous post.
And Brent -
Please elaborate on how exactly I have been “mean-spirited”. I am merely addressing particular issues that don’t sit right with me. Please, show me examples where I’ve been “hostile” and “aggressive” and “pointlessly condescending”, and maybe you could enlighten me on how my comments differ to the ones directed to me by Well Duh and Peter’s Mother. I am so very intrigued. Going through my comments, I merely vocalized my thoughts on Peter’s “selfless” (ahem) act and called him out for it. The whole time I have ONLY addressed the actions of Peter, I have NOT, in anyway, called anyone any names and have not attacked anyone’s characters NOR have I directed any insulting jibs at Peter’s mother. Yes, I have addressed things she raised because I DISAGREE with her points, but that is called a DISCUSSION – or is that by your definition, an “attack” on poor Peter’s mother? I have NEVER insulted anyone on this thread but if someone is calling me a ‘childish prat” and telling me to “get off my high horse” for raising points that differ to theirs, or for REFUSING to agree with them then I WILL call these people out for doing so.
Here’s some food for thought – maybe you should read through everything properly before making such statements, yes? In fact, the only childish name-calling in all the comments came from the Pro-Peter clan and was directed at me. You seem to have ignored that the fact. But of course you would, right, whatever to back up your own arguments? Pot calling kettle black, perhaps?
And no, “mommy dearest” was not meant to be an insult. Please enlighten me on how that could possibly be in that context. If anything that was just my sarcasm coming through. It was used in the context that donations could have been achieved in OTHER means, it does NOT have to come as a result of this play pretend month.
I’d comment further, but it’d be playing right into your obsessive little hands.
I think I can speak for most when I say your holier-than-thou tirades are becoming tiresome and boring.
Go and read your own posts back.
And if you seriously think you weren’t being condescending to Peter’s mum, then you’re more deluded than first thought.
Sorry Sarah, I ALSO meant to CAPITALISE RANDOM THOUGHTS in my sentence to PROVE my POINT.
I’m NOT yelling or BEING aggressive, just EMPHASISING KEY POINTS.
That is a bit rich coming from someone who attacks everything I say while referring to me as ‘mommy dearest’! I (and Well Duh) have shown you far more respect for your opinions than you have shown for opposing opinions.
LOL. Well Duh told me to “get off my high horse” and a “childish little prat” because what… I refused to agree with both of your points? That I DARED to continue to come back and argue with your comments? Tell me exactly how this is, in your words, “respect for your opinions”. Did I call you guys morons for blindly supporting Peter like you’re doing?? Or tell you that you’re acting like rabid dogs on the defense whenever an issue is raised that you don’t agree with?
Like I said, just because I don’t agree with your points and will respond doesn’t mean I am “attacking” you. If you want to defend your precious son, then do so by all means. What I don’t stand for is when people like Well Duh start pulling nasty personal comments out which have NOTHING to do with this “project”. Let me reiterate here: I have NOT made any personal attacks, if it YOU that have actually made personal attacks on ME. So your whole comment is invalid and you should quit playing the innocent here.
Sarah, I CONCUR…with Brent.
LOL Brent. HILARIOUS.
Are you honestly going to equate someone using CAPS LOCK over the internet to automatically mean that they’re “YELLING”??? Uh… what, you think I’m sitting here waving my arms in the air screaming at Peter’s mother over the internet? Because, god forbid, I DARED to use CAPS LOCK to get my points across??
FAIL.
Wow. Sorry. I actually HUGELY misjudged the intellect of the person I was arguing with here.
From Microsoft.com: “When you type, make sure your Caps Lock key is off or people might think that you’re screaming.” (Source: http://www.microsoft.com/protect/parents/cyberethics/practice.aspx)
I actually thought this was common sense. Clearly not.
SORRY SARAH.
Sarah, the reason some people may think “mommy dearest” to be an insult is because it was the title of a tell-all book and film about Joan Crawford. It may be a generational thing – I’m assuming you’re in your twenties? Google “no wire hangers”.
K. You’re using that to what, back up your point – are you serious? Yes, you’re right Brent, that Microsoft quote clearly means something very, very important and we should ALL follow this universal law lest we be doomed. Thanks so much for enlightening my poor, simple mind.
I’M REALLY GLAD I COULD BE OF ASSISTANCE, SARAH.
Greg:
Here’s the thing. These people are throwing their hands up being all: “How DARE she use mommy dearest against Peter’s poor, defenseless mother?? How INSULTING and AGGRESSIVE”. Yet they choose to be blind to the actual insulting comments that were made to me – in fact, I’ve brought up these examples and these people have chosen to ignore them and not address them at all. Selective reading, perhaps? The whole thing is laughable. I really wouldn’t care so much normally but the passion these people seem to have for this one “mommy dearest” comment I made is astounding, especially because they seem to think nothing of their own insulting comments to other people.
I shall present to you these two sentences:
“The bottom line is that at the end of this, Peter will go home to have a nice steak cooked by mommy dearest, he will buy some new clothes….”
or:
“I think you’re a childish little prat. But I do hope that one day you’ll get off your high horse long enough to see that.”
Brent, why are you yelling so loudly?
Wow. Why the pile-on of Sarah? That’s a frothing frenzy if I’ve ever seen one.
Criticism of Peter’s actions is entirely valid and should be expected in his line of work. The whole world isn’t going to like him. Peter’s Mum, friends, you should just accept this now.
Speaking as one childish prat to another I still think your arguments are childish. I did feel bad before and apologised for attacking you and I will still try not do it again. I will only insult you if I insult myself in the same sentence. I find self depreciation a good way to diffuse tension.
I have just been having a look at previous posts and I called myself Well Duh! because I agreed with you on some of your points. I said “fair points” when I though you made fair points. You started repeating yourself a lot and I pointed that out in my own sarcastic way.
But, when you pointed out the obvious and said “Peter’s mother-You obviously have a very biased opinion” and wrongly accused Peter’s mother of rigging the donations (for which you never apologised). It was then that I decided you were a “childish little prat” but only because I am a “judgmental misogynist prick”.
Despite all of that, I am still glad you are part of this discussion. You are so easily bated, and nothing enters your thick skull (I’m a loser). Its the most fun I’ve had in ages reading your latest tirades
Sarah“if it YOU that have actually made personal attacks on ME.”
Indeed?
Natalia (I wonder why I get the impression you are Sarah signing in under another name for a bit of support each time you post…) Valid criticism is quite acceptable. Peter has had a number of criticisms which I think have been well considered and some even include the same arguments we used to him ourselves but histrionic, condescending and sarcastic rantings designed to whip up a frenzy are not among those.
I hadn’t realised how young you are, Sarah (assuming someone’s guess is correct) For your edification “Mommie Dearest, best selling memoir, turned motion picture, depicts the abusive and traumatic adoptive upbringing of Christina Crawford at the hands of her mother”
Natalia, if you re-read my posts, you’ll see that I, and a lot of his other friends, had/have grave concerns about the appropriateness of this.
However, as he IS out on the streets of Melbourne right now, we’ve decided to put that aside for the moment, and support him because well – we care.
Sarah’s tired and obsessive tirades against Peter and his mum are just added entertainment, quite frankly.
^Uh… I didn’t accuse peter’s mother of “rigging” the donations. I merely pointed out that I suspect a large part of the donations came from Peter’s family and friends and therefore I think these donations could still have been obtained if he didn’t do this stunt. Where does “rigging” come into it? Is this your interpretation of what I’d written? You’re putting words into my mouth. And okay, I admit I read the donations part wrong – it said “Micheal’s mother just donated $100″ and I misread that as saying “PETER’S mother’. But that was an honest mistake and is just a very small part of my entire argument.
And yes, Peter’s mother DOES have a very biased opinion. That I think, is merely a fact. Anything wrong with that? She’s his mother. Of course she is going to support him and leap to his defense.
If I’m easily “bated” (as you spell it), then you must be too seeing as you’re still coming online adding fuel to fire. Frankly I have nothing against you or Mrs Peter or Brent or anyone who is going to support Peter and post comments discussing his project. This is the whole point of these forums and I certainly enjoy a discussion. But if you guys are going to be on the defensive and start trolling out vapid remarks because you can’t seem to handle losing an argument, then personally I think it devalues all of your points thus far.
We’re not losing any arguments… in fact, most of us agreed with, at least, in some way, shape or form until you couldn’t think of anything new or constructive to say, so you started your condescending and repetitive rants.
YOURS SINCERELY.
BreNT
connikins, I don’t think that Peter is getting any accolades from his peers. Most people I know who he would regard as important to him (some of who have posted their feelings here) like me, wish he wasn’t doing this. He has admitted he is doing it for the experience and indeed the donation idea was a later addition. Peter isn’t saintly and he is well aware of that. Attention whore? Sure, he has never denied that either. Regarding risks, my concern is the possible physical damage he may sustain. If he is assaulted, he may be left brain damaged, physically incapacitated or dead. Telling his potential assaulters that he isn’t really homeless because he isn’t suffering all the psychological effects isn’t going to make them back off. He may not be in a position to pull out before any damage is done.
Sarah ^100% agree. I bought up these exact points in a previous post.
Connikins makes her points calmly and in a considered fashion without sarcasm or excess emotion.
“Sarah’s tired and obsessive tirades against Peter and his mum are just added entertainment, quite frankly.”
Thanks Brent
Sarah: In what way are we losing the argument? We mostly agree with everything you say. Peter’s sucking valuable resources. Peter’s self-promoting. Peter’s putting himself in danger for selfish reasons. And there ARE better ways of drawing attention to homeless issues. We just don’t HATE him for it.
Peter’s mother-
Wow, sensitive, much? Frankly I have no idea of this “Mommie Dearest” memoir or whatever, do you just assume that everyone automatically knows every trivial information that you do? And for your information, no, I am not Natalia – it may surprise you but there are plenty of other readers and lurkers on these boards who also disagree with your precious son’s actions. And not all of them are going to comment, especially when any comment made against his Holiness is going to result in attacks by you lot. How old are YOU, by the way? I would have thought the playground days would have been well and truly behind you. Maybe not.
Brent-
Oic, because peter is out on the streets by his own choosing, no one can speak ill of him dare they be belittled by your gang? Like I said, why can’t you just accept that not everyone is going to have the same opinion as you. And frankly I find your continued drivel just as entertaining on this otherwise dull Monday night. You guys are clearly grappling at straws and going over the same thing again and again.
Oh Peter’s mum, I should clarify. I don’t mean they’re entertaining in that I’m enjoying her trashing you… they’re entertaining in how hysterical they are!
Again, Sarah, you’re being quite hysterical.
I find it absolutely astonishing that you’re the one lecturing us about being respectful of people having a different opinion… absolutely astonishing.
And again, you’re being horribly rude and condescending continuing with the “Mommy Dearest” and “precious son” comments.
You really need to stop playing the innocent victim, it’s just not credible.
Well Duh –
If we all agree on the same sort of issues, why so defensive? I don’t HATE Peter for it. Frankly I don’t know him and I wouldn’t waste that much effort into hating someone I don’t know. I only question his motives and since this forum is available, I am going to post my thoughts on the matter so that other people who may have stumbled on here can read them and come to their own conclusions. I find it irritating certain others are applauding Peter for doing something that I personally find selfish and attention-seeking. I stand by this point.
I know that Brent.
Sarah, a simple ‘I’m sorry peters mum, I didn’t realise what I was saying was offensive’ would have sufficed. Because you were using the term, I thought that was one piece of trivial information you did know. My bad.
by the way, I am 48. Far too old to have a valid opinion, I’m sure.
Okay, Peter’s mother, I honestly was no way aware of this “Mommie Dearest” connotation so you can BELIEVE ME, it was astounding how much you guys were prattling on about it. I used the term in a sarcastic fashion, not in an insulting manner. So I did not appreciate you all jumping to some conclusion that I was apparently “aggressive” to you by using those words in a passing sentence.
Brent –
please get a life. You bought up the whole thing in the first place, do you honestly expect me to sit back and just twiddle my thumbs while you and your pals accuse me of making some “mommy dearest” insult that I have no idea about?? And please, you’re going around in circles. Do yourself a favour and just stop before you embarrass yourself further.
Technically didn’t you bring the whole thing upon yourself by using the term in a sarcastic manner anyway?
Again you’re pretending like you didn’t mean for it to be insulting. Again – load of crap.
Google is your friend.
Brent-
And then maybe it was Peter who started this whole thing, because if it wasn’t for his little project, there would not be this forum and the term would never have been used and therefore none of this would have happened, right? So it’s PETER’S fault “technically”, let’s blame him!
FAIL.
Glad you realise you fail, Sarah.
Glad to hear your last-ditch effort at a lame retort, Brent.
Congratulations you have taken this forum discussing Peters ‘project’ and
made it a petty arena for a circular argument.
Well done
FYI Sarah, I’m the only one who stooped to insulting you of your remarks. I don’t know the mommy dearest stuff either. I just found it childish and pratty. I’m sorry to Peter’s mother because you can use it against her. I also apologised a long time ago. Something you should try it some time.
Well duh, stop baiting the girl Sarah, stop biting.
John,
Mmm yea good point. I admit I have a hard time walking away from these sorts of things. But no use continuing this argument, especially when you’re dealing with a couple of vapid morons. But then, what can you really expect, seeing as they all appear to be friends with Peter in the first place and part of his little support cheerleader group.
Good day fellows, have fun arguing amongst yourselves and playing WoW.
Well Duh!
PS Conikins: how do you do those cool quote things that you do?
She claims the moral high ground, but in the end, results to the same ‘nasty’ comments she pretends that she is above… but which continues to add to what John calls the ‘circular argument’.
Smarmy bitch.
For the record, I’ve never played WoW in my life.
Sorry that “Well Duh!” was directed at you John.
Yay! she’s gone. Now we can talk about her behind her back.
Hey Brent, I was typing while you wrote that. I was kidding. But yeah, she was pretty funny.
Well I don’t claim the moral high ground. I don’t mind a bit of a scrag fight… I call it as I see it.
She is one, and hopefully good riddance.
We should address Conikins concerns now. She made some very valid points and they got lost in all the shouting.
“I am not purporting to be raising awareness for anything or being some sort of authority. I don’t understand this attitude of “oh if you’re not doing anything to help the homeless then you clearly have no moral standing to critique what Peter’s doing””
You were however saying that it would be far better to go out and get homeless people’s stories. I was just suggesting that Peter is never going to do that and if you think that would be a better way to do things maybe you could trying doing it. It is far easier to critique somebody for their methods than to do it yourself. To do what you suggest and publish books on real homeless stories has been done numerous times. There is usually quite a lot of exploitation in doing this as you are profiting from others misfortune. Peter is profiting from his own misfortune as well as others. So he is not innocent of exploitation (I no that Sarah would try to use that argument so I’m getting in first). But he is doing it in an interesting if not unique way.
That sound’s like I was saying Peter’s way was unique. I meant it was “not unique” I’m sure it’s been done before. Just not by Peter.
I’m glad that he’s around mostly sensible people and it’s pigheaded stubbornness or whatever that’s made him think this was in any way a good idea. I truly don’t wish him harm, but it seems as if he won’t reconsider this until he gets assaulted or worse. :/
I am not suggesting Peter publishes a book on homeless stories (whether this is exploitation or not is questionable IMO and it could definitely be done in a non-exploitative way and the royalties could be set up to benefit homeless charities), merely that if he’s so interested in their daily experiences why not just ask instead of doing this project which, for the reasons I’ve argued above, is cannot be compared to real experiences.
He can talk to homeless people in a non-exploitative way through volunteering (as SO MANY people have suggested). Guess what, I do volunteer and I’ve talked with homeless people, victims of domestic violence, people with mental illnesses and other vulnerable sectors of the community. However, I still think whether I volunteer or not is a moot point which is why I haven’t brought it up till now. Rationally, I see volunteering as more beneficial than this project because it’s not an either/or situation. He can volunteer AND fundraise AND raise awareness.
In the immortal words of Jarvis Cocker:
She came from Greece she had a thirst for knowledge,
she studied sculpture at Saint Martin’s College,
that’s where I,
caught her eye.
She told me that her Dad was loaded,
I said “In that case I’ll have a rum and coca-cola.”
She said “Fine.”
and in thirty seconds time she said,
“I want to live like common people,
I want to do whatever common people do,
I want to sleep with common people,
I want to sleep with common people,
like you.”
Well what else could I do -
I said “I’ll see what I can do.”
I took her to a supermarket,
I don’t know why but I had to start it somewhere,
so it started there.
I said pretend you’ve got no money,
she just laughed and said,
“Oh you’re so funny.”
I said “yeah?
Well I can’t see anyone else smiling in here.
Are you sure you want to live like common people,
you want to see whatever common people see,
you want to sleep with common people,
you want to sleep with common people,
like me.”
But she didn’t understand,
she just smiled and held my hand.
Rent a flat above a shop,
cut your hair and get a job.
Smoke some fags and play some pool,
pretend you never went to school.
But still you’ll never get it right,
cos when you’re laid in bed at night,
watching roaches climb the wall,
if you call your Dad he could stop it all.
You’ll never live like common people,
you’ll never do what common people do,
you’ll never fail like common people,
you’ll never watch your life slide out of view,
and dance and drink and screw,
because there’s nothing else to do.
Sing along with the common people,
sing along and it might just get you through,
laugh along with the common people,
laugh along even though they’re laughing at you,
and the stupid things that you do.
Because you think that poor is cool.
I want to live with common people,
I want to live with common people…
Hi connikins, you’re right I misrepresented your words. Please accept my apology, you’ve definitely got me on this one. Peter’s doing it this way because he is Peter he’s nuts.
Cat: I love that song. I always thought that it was nice that a girl of such an obviously privileged background, tried to experience something outside her comfort zone. She was always bound to fail, but it was nice that she tried.
Also, in the song, Jarvis does not hammer the little rich bitch for her stupid experiment, he just says “Ok” and tries to help her out. (and get into her pants
)
Hi Cat, once again can I mention that people living rough (seeing that homeless is so debatable) sometimes also have an out that they choose not to use for whatever reason. Peter isn’t the only one.
Connikins, he could do all that, but that isn’t how Peter thinks. Looking at some of his past recent projects, he could have researched how meat rots online or read a book about it as well but chose to see it for himself. That is Peter.
Just close the spaces, Well Duh.
I might have messed up the page Gavin – I didn’t notice until after I have posted that I had made a typo on the previous entry in the html code. If this comes out as normal text, it should be fine.
If not, I’m sorry
Phew!
‘blockquote’
My instructions disappeared too, but you should be able to get the gist
Oh shit! I fucked the block quote thing. Pardon my french.
I still think he’s an attention whore but he’s one drenched in privilege and remarkably good at self-delusion. It annoys me to no extent to think he may gain accolades from his peers.
That was a quote by connikins. I’m still fucking the block quote thing up.
I’m having trouble with it too jodhi.
lol, at least you didn’t nearly stuff the page.
Hopefully that will show up, if it does, just remove the fullstops.
Peter’s family are very much working class, but I agree that even the working class are privileged…actually anyone living in Australia and not being abused or hurt is more fortunate than most of the world.
It didn’t show up.
Oh well, keep practicing.
Just seeing if it still works for me. Is there a preview on here?
Thanks for putting me straight Mrs P. I’m sorry for impugning you by lumping you with the middle class
Things might be playing up due to the number of comments these entries are getting, but I have no data to back that up.
Peter has privilege. He is white, male, able-bodied, neurotypical, cisgendered and financially comfortable. It doesn’t get more privileged than that (Unless you’re totally rich).
To say that he’s not privileged and that he is blind to the problems of his little experiment due to that privilege is sheer obtuseness.
Sorry I still can’t get the hang of this block quote thing
my computer literacy is seriously shit.
Make that “isn’t blind”. F***.
ugh, I didnt read all of these comments, there are way too many. All I will say is this: If I remember correctly, even Peter himself admitted before this all began that his experience would not be the same as a genuinely homeless person, so I dont understand why people are trying to say that it is (I do understand his mother defending him – I would do the same for my sons, but my point remains). To be honest, I think its very ignorant to compare what Peter is doing to ANY kind of genuine homelessness, including runaways. Note here that I am not attacking Peter in any way – as I mentioned, he said himself that it would not be the same. At least he was/is aware of this.
Do not immediately assume I am “not on peter’s side” in order to try and make my point irrelevant. If Peter is trying to raise awareness and educate on homelessness, then by claiming his circumstances are EXACTLY THE SAME as a ‘genuine’ homeless person you are actually detracting from his goal. You are perpetuating the stereotype that most homeless people can get out of that situation but choose not to, and therefore Peter is genuinely homeless.
There is no ‘exactly the same’ as a genuine homeless person because everyone is different, from different circumstances with a different story to tell. Peter is doing it easier than some and tougher than others.
Wow. I’m probably too late to comment here but I’ll record my feelings anyway.
Peter came off as a little insensitive in this post but I think he’s just being himself – A young man who’s mostly ignorant about the subject but who’s learning and open to learning. That’s important. He’s moving in a positive direction. Also, he’s not putting on any fakery for the benefit of the haters he must know he has. Hopefully, the posts in comments section are educating those who don’t know much about life on the streets. Some of the above statements really devalue and mock the experiences of those unfortunate enough to be in that position. I’m sure it’s unintentional and done out of honest ignorance of the facts. There are lots of statistics available on the web – just use your favourite search engine.
The following statements trivialise what it really means to be homeless. There were many but comparing Peter’s situation to a genuine case shows either insensitivity or real ignorance of the facts. To have no back-up, support and no options. To be on the run from an abusive situation. Living in poverty/severe economic reasons. Mental health/drug abuse issues. A lot of these people are in a hopeless situation and have vulnerabilities beyond the scope that most of us could imagine. If Peter’s jaunt only serves to highlight and educate this plight to the privileged, it’s been worth it.
Well Duh!
But many homeless people could pull out at any timeIt would require moving back their parent’s house as it would for Peter. Many people have too much dignity do that. Or he could could couch surf, which many people have pointed out that this is just another form of homelessness.
Elizabeth
Your newest definition still fits Peter. He is currently without a conventional home. His new ‘home’ does lack the economic and social supports a normal home provides. He isn’t cut off form the support of relative and friends, but the definition does say ‘often’ and often people do chose (for whatever reason) to not to take advantage of this support. He does have few independent resources, his immediate means comes in the form of the charity of strangers. And I’d say he is in danger of falling below the poverty line from time to time.
Peter has the luxury of being able to return home should anything go wrong. Many people don’t. Imagine yourself in this position. These are the facts:
Greg G
A homeless person is without a conventional home and lacks most of the economic and social supports that a home normally affords. She/he is often cut off from the support of relatives and friends, she/he has few independent resources and often has no immediate means and in some cases little prospect of self support. She/he is in danger of falling below the poverty line, at least from time to time.
Again, Peter has support but chooses not to make use of it. To equate his situation with the true homeless is to fall into the trap of using the vocabulary of those who deride them: “they could move home any time”, “they chose to use drugs”, “why didn’t she ask for help when he started hitting her”. And so on.
While a teenager that turns up at a shelter may have a family that are worried about him/her, in many of these cases, if you dig deeper you will find a valid reason why they ran away. While it’s true that some teens run away ‘just of the hell of it’, it’s unfair and misguided to assume that most do. Those who have been abused, particularly sexual abuse, will not admit the fact freely to strangers. It is very wrong to be dismissive of someone’s reasons when you don’t have access to the full story.
Regarding the donuts, many places say they don’t give daily leftovers to beggars because they don’t want to attract them to their premises. Some of these you will find drop off their leftovers to homeless shelters or have someone come and collect them at the end of each day.