Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Westminster council to ban homelessness

32 replies

TheArmadillo · 02/03/2011 18:58

see proposed byelaw here

so basically meaning it would be illegal to sleep rough in a public place

also even more nonsenically it would be illegal to give out free food unless at a sporting event or as a marketing ploy Hmm

That would affect organisations such as the salvation army running soup kitchens or even companies such as marks and spencer or pret a manger who give away food going out of date to the homeless (bad from an eco point of view let alone anything else).

Both offences will be punishable by a fine.

Now I can almost see the idea behind the sleeping rough although I think its' fucking mental but banning the distribution of free food - I cannot see any logic behind that.

Needless to say its a tory run council Hmm

Is that actually what society is going to become?

OP posts:
whydobirdssuddenlyappear · 02/03/2011 19:05

Presumably they're hard at work building affordable accommodation and providing extra social workers to help all those currently sleeping rough in the borough then.
.

Prolesworth · 02/03/2011 19:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

thisisyesterday · 02/03/2011 19:08

it's utterly stupid. i was commenting on a similar thing on the bbc news site the other day where a man had gone to jail because he couldn't afford the fine given to him for sleeping rough.
can't remember where it was but i mean FFS, they're really surprised and find it newsworthy that a homeless person a) has nowhere to sleep and b) can't afford the fine for not having anywhere to sleep?

tbh the guy will have a better time in prison than on the streets because he'll be warm and housed and fed... so it's hardly a great punishment anyway

Hmm

bizarre in the extreme and i'm somewhat ashamed to live in a country where people think it's acceptable

QueenOfFlippingEverything · 02/03/2011 19:10

But of course. Why did nobody think of that before?

Make it illegal and then all those pesky people sleeping in doorways and getting pissed on for fun by drunken cityboys and generally spoiling the look of the place will just fuck off back to their eight bedroom mansions.

Duh.

whydobirdssuddenlyappear · 02/03/2011 19:10

thisisyesterday, we live in a country where many people prefer not to see homeless people as people at all.

EngelbertFustianMcSlinkydog · 02/03/2011 19:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ThreIsNoSpoon · 02/03/2011 19:12

"you are NOT allowed to sleep here on the streets!"

"um, OK, are you going to give me a house? "

"no! Go to a neighbouring borough and sleep there instead. If you are lucky they might give you some food as well."

"riiiiiiiiiiiiight.Thanks!"

Confused
veritythebrave · 02/03/2011 19:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ongakgak · 02/03/2011 19:14

But it is for the Olymipics! no one wants to see a skanky tramp on the ground as they make their way to see a gymnast do triple flippity flop.

meditrina · 02/03/2011 19:16

BBC link here. The initiative has the backing of St Mungo's and Thames Reach.

Original poster
TheArmadillo · 02/03/2011 19:17

also engelbert most of the rough sleepers I have been seem to be single men. Unless they have mental health problems they wouldn't be accepted for homelessness anyway as not considered vunerable. Probably quite a lot of them do have undiagnosed mental health problems - but as you've pointed out that leads to another set of issues with actually keeping the accomadation.

added to that some find fitting into society too difficult or just don't want to.

Bristol city council did a survey a year or two ago on how many rough sleepers there were in the city - they found 2 apparently Hmm not sure exactly what their criteria was there.

OP posts:
girlylala0807 · 02/03/2011 19:17

Did China not do similar kinds of things when they had the Olympics...?

MrsGuyOfGisbourne · 02/03/2011 19:18

What is puzzling is - what is the punishment? If its to be arrested and put in a police cell - great- a warm safe place to spend the night.
If a fine - where is it sent to, if the person has no address? Won't/Can't be paid anyway, so what does that mean prison? See above.
If they are taken in a police van to say, Camden - lucky Camden - can't see that being a long-term plan.
Ker-ay-zee.

Original poster
TheArmadillo · 02/03/2011 19:22

"About 150 people sleep rough in Westminster on any given night and 98% of those people "have no connection to the borough", the council said." (from that bbc link)

how many of those will have no connection to any borough though having e.g. been in the armed forces for many years or similar.

Interesting to see St Mungos and Thames Reach are backing it though. Wonder what the idea is behind that - it doesn't explain their reasons for it.

IF they ban it from one area won't that just move it on to another area?

OP posts:
Original poster
TheArmadillo · 02/03/2011 19:23

The punishment is a fine and as you say how are you going to get money from people who have none and how the hell are you going to enforce it considering they have no fixed address.

OP posts:
meditrina · 02/03/2011 19:26

They'll be able to have the organisers of the problematic open air soup kitchen moved on by the police.

The linked proposed bye-law doesn't affect soup kitchens run from premises, nor shops giving out their surplus stock from immediately by the store.

It does seem like a sledgehammer to crack a nut; and could be downright detrimental if the implementation would be widened. The Coombe Trust has been incredibly naive to try to force this issue.

EngelbertFustianMcSlinkydog · 02/03/2011 19:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

thisisyesterday · 02/03/2011 19:28

although

"A by-law could be in force by October if the Conservative-run council's plans are backed in a public consultation."

so it might not actually happen.

and i'm interested in the bit where Daniel Astaire says it's about people being fed "on the streets"... maybe this is a plan to move it all indoors?? or am I being too optimistic thinking that??

i'd like to know more about it all actually

mpsw · 02/03/2011 19:30

TheArmadillo: at risk of stating the obvious, but if you are dealing with Westminster rough sleepers who you know to be ex-Service, please get on to SSAFA asap as they can help: link.

Original poster
TheArmadillo · 02/03/2011 20:06

I live nowhere near westminster. Just working on the basis that a lot of homeless are ex servicemen

OP posts:
Original poster
TheArmadillo · 02/03/2011 20:08

the problem wiht moving it indoors means extra costs to provide premises/heating/lighting/insurance. Plus finding suitable premises etc

OP posts:
HHLimbo · 13/03/2011 02:27

"About 150 people sleep rough in Westminster on any given night and 98% of those people "have no connection to the borough", the council said." (from that bbc link)

Except that they sleep there. My connection to my neighbourhood is completely down to the fact I sleep here. Whatever are they talking about?

I think they mean fining the volunteers. Big society my arse!

Ryoko · 13/03/2011 18:32

It's all them rich people isn't it? first it's cut the HB to force the poor out of the centre now it's brush the homeless away.

it's like the idiots in Barnes moaning about the sink hole for the super sewer "oh we don't want it here it's ugly and will reduce the price of the property".

Same old Tories next up the reintroduction of work houses and gas chambers for those who are too weak or disabled to work, after all it costs a lot of money in bullets to shoot serfs when they go lame, bullets that can be better used on wildlife.

meditrina · 13/03/2011 19:01

Ryoko: could I remind you that charities like St Mungo's support these steps?

The proposed by-law will still allow indoor soup kitchens, and shops giving away excess food in the open immediately adjacent to their property.

What it won't allow (if passed at all) is for an organisation, such as this one which is not based in Westminster, to travel to a site in Westminster twice a week to provide food to people who come to that site those two evenings, but do not seem to live in the Borough otherwise.

The Coombe Trust has been very foolish in insisting on remaining in operation in this way.

Ryoko · 13/03/2011 19:43

I remember when there was a mobile soup kitchen under one of the bridges round Embankment, it went there because the homeless people lived there under the bridge as it was a roof over their heads.

Westminster kicked them all out because it didn't like them there.

I don't care if indoor places are still allowed the point of the mobile ones was to take the food to the people, instead of making them walk miles and if they are to be fined for sleeping rough in Westminster, then they will be walking miles to get to the places, many of the places will just move out of central London to take the facilities to the people eventually.

moving all those horrid looking poor people out of that rich tourist area just what the council want.