Entertainment For Lively Minds
This is just plain wrong
Posted by Richie B on 10 March 2011 - 1:11am.
No matter which way you look at this, trying to ban "being homeless" is ridiculous. Ban it in Westminster in goes to Camden or Islington, ban it from there it goes to Barnet and Haringey. Essentially, you could be arrested for giving a tramp a sandwich.
Regular users of this forum may have noted that I usually steer clear of politics or controversy. But this is about humanity. I assume that Mr. Daniel Astaire, the spokesman for Westminster Council, is merely misguided, rather than a total numpty.
I tweeted this today and a couple of the Massive told all their friends. Please tell yours what an odious policy this is
This won't stop here you know. Tune in next week for part 2.
- More from Richie B.
- Login or register to post comments
-
I swore at the radio ...
... when the council spokesman described the homeless as living a 'street lifestyle'. Sometimes a punch in the face is the correct response.
I can't believe this.
I mean, I *can*. I just can't believe anyone would bring up a policy like this without it being some kind of horrible joke. Remember The Day Today, and the clamping of homeless people?
I've tried to embed this starting at the right time, but it's 11:08 if you're interested.
Anyway, this is about as disgusting as social policy can possibly get. Talk about the Nasty Party.
Clamping the homeless
Stop, you'll give them ideas. At least Kim Wilde opposes it.
"These soup runs encourage crime and disorder"
Said the Conservative councillor for Westminster. A local authority which, along with Kensington & Chelsea, City of London and Wandsworth are among the cheapest council tax bands in the country. And now they want to make it cheaper by starving out the less fortunate.
I'm glad that a certain percentage (not enough) of my council tax goes to helping less fortunate people.
Apoplectic rage. That's all I got.
The homeless and begging
were two of the things I said would be on the increase 5 months ago.
Somewhat predictably I was told there wasn't a problem in this country.
I also said we were becoming a third world nation, note the becoming, as not everyone is able to support themselves and those dependent on handouts are becoming increasingly disenfranchised by benefits cuts.
Um...
...I don't think this tells us anything about homelessness and begging being on the increase, does it? It just tells us that the Tory councillors in Westminster don't give a flying fuck about the homeless people they already have.
"After all, they don't vote, so fuck 'em," presumably being the calculation that the council are making here. "Oh, and while we're about it, let's half-heartedly pretend that we're being cruel to be kind." No you're not, you fuckers: you're being cruel because you can. Don't dress it up as tough-love compassion.
My point wasn't so much
that homelessness is on the increase (but mark my words, it is starting to happen) but that once you lose your home you effectively cease to exist, as you point out losing the ability to vote means losing the support of your friendly local politician.
There was a piece on the radio yesterday
about how even people in work are relying on food parcels as the cost of everything has squeezed their already meagre resources while gas, electricity, petrol etc go through the roof.
Erm...
Britain is not becoming a third world nation.
Not a third world country
but I'm glad I don't have to live on minimum wage. BTW, I was in the position of staying with friends a few years ago until I got back on my feet. I can't tell you how grateful I was not to have to worry about rent and stuff during an already difficult time. Totally agree about the "one pay check" thing. I would guess that most people don't have enough money saved to see them through if they lost their job suddenly and also that most (affluent) people have little idea how much they spend on non essentials.
Homelessness
I agree with the outbreak of rage over this, but I have a genuine question: How do people become homeless? With the safety net provided by the welfare state, I thought it would've been almost impossible to be without a roof over one's head in Britain in 2011.
It's occurring much more
among the middle orders. Having bought a false dream of ever increasing property values coupled with too-easy credit at unsustainably low rates and thus waking up with more debt than equity, many have found themselve, to paraphrase the americans, one payslip away from homeless. Or there. The safety net of the welfare state, rather like the BBC and great television or the empire, just isn't there any longer.
If I....
...and my wife both lost our jobs, and if we didn't have the option of going to live with our parents while we got back on our feet, I don't know what we'd do.
And there are plenty of people who don't have that option, and who are losing their jobs. If you factor in mental illness and/or addictions, the likelihood of which probably increase the closer to complete meltdown you get, then I can see how it could happen. We're certainly nowhere near being a third world country, but hitting bottom is an possibility for many, many people. It's the mark of a civilised society that the better-off look after the neediest. But civilisation costs money that apparently Westminster's Tories can't spare, because it's more important to have low taxes.
Bastards.
But...
If you and your wife lost your jobs and didn't have the option of going to live with your parents while you got back on your feet, would you not be able to apply for benefits? Obviously, you wouldn't be able to maintain your comfortable middle-class lifestyle, but you'd be able to keep a roof over your family's head, would you not?
Waiting lists for housing.
That's the rub. I couldn't apply for benefits until I had a place to live, and that can take time to organise.
Ah
A Catch 22 situation. Just to stress, I'm not denying homelessness, I'm just genuinely ignorant of how someone becomes homeless in 21st century Britian. It shouldn't be able to happen.
Whilst waiting for the housing
you'd lose the house you had. The impact on the family is catastrophic.
Denying homelessness.
Didn't for a minute think you were. And no, it shouldn't.
Imagine that I'm in that horrible situation, and I'm suffering from deep depression, exacerbated by alcoholism, possibly as a result of my situation. I'm bad enough at getting my act together at the best of times, but sunk in a pit of despair and sinking a bottle of scotch every few hours? I'd be lost. I'd never be able to get it together to chase the housing department.
It's so, so sad. I have a particular thing about homelessness: it affects me peculiarly, given all the other awful things that happen around us, but there it is. I find the whole thing so upsetting, and can't imagine why anyone would want to stop the tiny amounts of lifesaving help that are offered to these poor desperate people.
Just curious MAM
Do you know how the welfare safety net here compares with the US?
I have no idea
I haven't lived there for a quarter of a century. I would guess not terribly well. I would also hazard a guess that any bandwidth of difference is narrowing almost daily.
If you think a comparison between Westminster Council and the US is at all relevant to this thread we could stroll around the internet looking for facts, figures and the like. Be aware that welfare is primarily not a national issue, rather devolved down to states (mine being CA; once better than most, now quite awful) and municipalities (mine being SF; once quite good, now beneath acceptable but with a large amount of community support).
My comments here are based on my personal experiences and observations. Here. Please let's not mistake me for a spokesperson, scapegoat or suggestion box for any nation.
street living/homelessness
Not only the people living on the streets are homeless. There are a lot more people who do not have a place to live and are sleeping in hostels, on friends couches etc.
A lot of it comes down to money. The safety net does not catch all, and even if it will eventually pay your rent (provided you can find a place that takes people without a job, and it does not cost more than the government thinks is the market rate) it will probably not do so in advance. So if you have been thrown out by your family (or whatever) you can find yourself living on the kindness of friends.
At the moment the media and government are colluding to give the impression that the safety net is a cushy life. Untypical cases of spongers and crooks are used to present the image that everyone on benefits is a workshy scrounger (and probably a Muslim). Everyone agrees "something must be done", without thinking that the government is using a few extreme cases to justify cutting benefits for "normal" people like them.
And just for the record, I havent received any benefits since between finishing at Uni and starting work 20 years ago, so I am not defending my own position. I am one of the "taxpaying entrepeneurs" who is paying for the current system.
Rough Sleepers
You're right about the homeless and rough sleepers. People who live on the street are only a minority of people who are defined as homeless. It is estimated that there are about 500 rough sleepers on any one night. The "homeless" overall make up a much higher figure - but there are different definitions. There is more at the website of the charity Crisis.
http://www.crisis.org.uk/policywatch/pages/about_homelessness.html
Resistance...
More here: http://www.housingjustice.org.uk/site/publications/hj/temp/Position%20pa...
and here: http://www.simoncommunity.org.uk/news.html
Thanks to Bob Baker at the Simon Community. If you live or work in Westminster, take a look.
Mild mannered me
Is actually pretty damn furious at this.
In the past, when approached by someone begging for money, I've bought them a hot drink/ food instead (if that's what they wanted). And I intend to keep doing so.
Absolutely.
I will keep doing it, as I often have. If anyone wants to arrest me, well, let's see how that works out for them.
I was rather put off doing that
after giving someone a sandwich which was promptly thrown back at me coupled with demand for money with menaces.
Never again.
So does that mean Pret and M&S aren't allowed to distribute their end of day stock now?
That happened to me once too.
The guy was clearly on something pretty mental, or in withdrawal, or seriously mentally ill. It made me a bit wary of doing it again, and I didn't for a while, but I have done since. Maybe I should leave it to the charities, but mostly it's worked out fine, and the people I've fed have been nice and pretty grateful. Obviously, part of it is that it makes me feel good - all warm and fuzzy and philanthropic - so it's not like it's completely altruistic. But mostly it's just that they look so bloody sad, and it really affects me in a way that most sentimental stuff doesn't.
Westminster Council - Another Name for Nasty
Cast your minds back to those happy days when Dame Shirley Porter ruled the roost. They attempted to gerrymand the whole council by shifting council tennants to other boroughs. She eventually got her commuppance due to the tenacity of the Auditor, but by god it took a long time. This legacy still appears to hang over the Tory group on the council. Shame on them.
I've remarked on another forum
That it seems the Tories spent the last 13 years thinking: "Well Thatcherism was a start; but how can we be really nasty in future?
I think you're right
and also believe some of their current plans, if presented to Mrs T during her reign, would have been met with her saying "That's a bit harsh, don't you think?"