Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
a must read
What charity in their right mind WOULDN'T support the criminalisation of their core activities ?
They're in favour of the consultation, while calling for wider provision for the homeless and a "universal Right to Shelter":
"Street handouts do little to help people make the step away from rough sleeping. Instead they frequently prevent people facing up to the reality of the harmful life-style they have adopted."
The same Thames Reach who are desperately trying to cling onto their Supporting People funding from Westminster council.
I sympathise with their desperation, but aligning yourself with this policy is pretty unforgiveable. POLITICS.
as Richard 'Britain's greatest columnist' Littlejohn
Anytime I've read anything by him he sounds like you've gone round to your friend's house after school, only to discover his dad is a massive racist boor sounding off over his newspaper.
He's only getting "fucked over" by £800 a month if his take-home pay is the same as he'd be getting on JSA.
One trick is to tell them stories that don't go anywhere...
how do they work?
probably does encourage homeless people to go to Westminster, but that's true of any city centre in the country. Homeless people stay in city centres because services for them are provided there. That's pretty obviously, surely? Westminster here appears to be viewing itself as an individual and not part of a wider urban area.
BUT, this is nothing new on behalf of that council. In the 80s they used to ship homeless people out of central London on buses and trains. At the start of this decade they used to wash down doorways with water on winter nights so it would freeze and people wouldn't sleep in them. They're just representative of the moneyed, vile and unfeeling end of the Conservative party.
In my part of the country, the need for places was far greater than those available, with 40% cuts, God knows how they'll cope. We used to turn down plenty of referrals as there simply weren't the places. Rural areas like North Dorset already have very limited provision, especially in services targeted at teens. I'd imagine a lot of young people will be going to prison if they can't get the support hostels provide.
Also, the idea that volunteers should make up the shortfall in funding for paid workers is a joke. It's hard, emotionally, physically challenging work with a required skill set. Not sure I'd have done it for no pay.
there's people blaming the imigrants for taking our homless shelter places :)
Almost made me as angry as Mary Dejevsky's "I've got the internet at home and I can buy books from the charity shop so not bothered about libraries closing" opinion piece.
Johann Hari may be a bit pompous and guilt-tripping sometimes but he often makes good points and he's far preferable to the unbearable likes of Dejevsky, or Howard Jacobson or Julie Burchill etc
that a Tory MP was on the radio talking about how libraries closing down didn't matter, because things were so cheap and easy to get on the Kindle
It's obviously rather convenient that Westminster's decision to force homeless people out of the borough precedes a rather big televised wedding in the Spring and a big sporting event next summer.
It's obviously utterly absurd and offensive to declare that soup runs keep people homeless. What's tragic is that I had genuinely thought that we'd moved past the idea that people are choosing to be homeless, that it's a "lifestyle choice."
What i really don't get is that, even if you're as conservative as they come, these cuts make no sense whatsoever if you're interested in saving money and having a safe and crime-free society. You don't want to give a penny of public money to that nasty junkie on the street corner? Fine. We'll spend 10 times as much on him through the criminal justice system and the NHS.
We're seeing the effects already. Southwark has now withdrawn all of it's funding for abstinence based projects in the borough. So if you want to stop using drugs, that's you're bad fucking luck. I could go on.
Anyway, the main point that people have missed is that food is only one of the benefits of soup runs. They're also an opportunity for really vulnerable people to link in with outreach services, with substance misuse & mental health teams.
Bits of that article are great, but there's so much clunky bollocks in there that just makes me wish I'd been at school with him to make sure he was properly bullied.
And his voice. Good lord his voice. Pure truth spouts from his mouth yet he can't help but sound like a whiny little bitch
but there's just something about him that means I KNEW he'd speak like that.
this is the first step to Cameron achieving his target of abolishing poverty. Quite a clever way of achieving the target when you think about it.
Don't you think?
But as with our economy, half measures obviously won't do.
1. I notice you can no longer say Labour did anything positive at all unless you caveat it with "They were a disaster and did bad things, oh but this was alright"
2. I'm glad we've finally resolved that banks alone caused the financial crisis. It wasn't the politicians Faustian pact to get more tax revenue. Or the public's insatiable appetite for cheap credit with ignorance of the consequences. No, just evil bankers sat in their Gherkin of Mordor, planning to crash the world economy for shits and giggles just to fuck with the poor.
Aside from that, good article. In a bad way obviously
LLB is a good un who can see Hari usually has a harrowingly important point to make but has to dress it up in the Light-of-the-Opera-House-Reflected-In-Her-Eyes style the Indie insist upon.
I didn't mean a side in an argument about the article itself. More about whose fault the crash was.
It was down to the all 'culture' that had built up rather than one specific group of people. A point I tend to agree with.
Hari's writing, as good as it can be, should always be taken with a piece of salt. No point agreeing entirely with one side if you see flaws in some of their arguments. But at the same time that doesn't automatically make you a boo-boy either.
but it seemed to dissappear.....but to sum up
a) i slept rough
b) i squatted in places that had not prospect of having anyone living in them for 12 months....improved all the properties
c) my freind richard used to match potential squatters with each other to ensure no nastyness happened, used to encourage to squat responsibly
d) we used to try to encourage rough sleepers to squat
e) many rough sleepers did so because they did not like the 'shelters'
f) shelters might have improved, but for a teenager to go to some of these (enclosed in a dorm with other homeless, some alchoholics, some abusive, some violent, some with nothing to lose, all poor and therefore some intent on robbing whatever you had if they could.
g) homeless families would be split up to go to different shelters
e.g. dad to one, teenage son to another, mum and younger kids to another
h) families might EVENTUALLY be reunited in a b&b at LARGE cost to council and taxpayer
i) I and many others gave food to homeless people
j) to try to stop people giving food to homeless people is ANTI HUMAN and ANTI HUMAN VALUES it is therefore EVIL in 'human' terms
k) I hope that the people proposing this are met with similar anti humaness in all their dealings with other humans for the rest of their lives......I will have a word with the goddess of karma and see if she can fix it for me
l) this is probably just an attempt by westminster council to get all the homeless problems to be moved to a labour council so that the division between labour and tory run councils increases further
m) since this is mooted to be in anticipatiuon of all the people that are made homeless by Cameron and the Banks, then it stands to reason that when so many families and people get chucked out of their homes there will be many empty propoerties so the homeless could live in these properties......this is the correct solution to the problem.....the homeless should live in the empty properties......by lawful or unlawful means (the law is conspicuous by lagging badly behind what is necessary, so sometimes rather than hating the law, the people should ignore it when it is conspicuously behind the times of current needs (this is not without prescedent for any legally minded people,,,,,,the law is not always enforeced when it is admitedly 'archaeic' )
N) another thing about shelters......they dont ALWAYS take anyone, either due to capacity or qualification.
when a large 'skip run' had been done (by a bunch of us or others) at a supermarket, the food might be dished out to local squatters and some might be given to homeless people if suitable
This was in the second half of the 1980's
so i appreciate that things have changed since then.
to private companies?
(I wonder if any tesco express's and metros will be having 'poltergeist' events in the future)