Westminster council to ban homelessness

[TheArmadillo]

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

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army running soup kitchens or even companies such as marks and spencer or pret a manger who give away food going out of date to the homeless (bad from an eco point of view let alone anything else).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

Is that actually what society is going to become?

I would be very cross if Westminster was preventing a soup kitchen from visiting places where people were having to sleep.

But I don't see why a soup kitchen should set up where it likes, so the vulnerable have to walk mikes to reach them (something not liked by previous poster either). Why doesn't this Trust just go to where the rough sleepers are?

(You can tell I'm a St Mungo's supporter, can't you!)

medi - thats exactly what they are doing.

The people do not sleep there., They go there for the soup run. They do not travel there on other days.

Oh yes I forgot the homeless also commute.

It's wrong to try and disperse homeless people this way. Soup kitchens etc provide a much needed opportunity for homeless people to come together and share vital information on help available, places to stay, dangerous places to avoid etc. Whilst organisation like Shelter etc try to help many, they don't reach everyone and therefore Homeless people try to help themselves.

"so if someone has a dog while they're living rough, that dog would have to go to rescue and is likely to be put down."

Engelbert please don't spread inaccurate information about dog rescue. Many rescues have no kill policies and we would NOT kill the dog. (Please let's use the correct expression too, not comforting euphemisms like "put down").

All dog pounds (like Battersea, Manchester and Birmingham ;Dogs Homes') are entitled in law to kill a dog which comes in as a stray after 7 days. A dog which is handed in to the pound by his owner may be killed immediately. In both cases many pounds do this. However rescuers like me go to the end of the earth and back to get these dogs out of pounds and into no kill rescues.

As for the topic in question, I wonder if the people who object to these proposals live in these surroundings and regularly experience aggressive begging, their children being unable to play in parks where used needles are discarded and some of the other problems which come with the homeless on the city streets. (Yes it's a selfish attitude, it's also a valid concern). I did and it was scary sometimes when I had my two little girls with me and we could literally see needles dropped in the street and playgrounds of our outwardly desirable city.

Research carried out by the council in the affluent uni city in which I lived also concluded that the majority of homeless weren't local to the area but had migrated to it because of the generosity of the sympathetic tourists and, moreover the liberal middle classes which make up the bulk of the city centre residents. Charities implored the public not to give cash to the homeless but to donate to Shelter and the local refuge and set up donation boxes for that purpose. The council then enforced a zero tolerance policy on begging. The city is safer for it and work to address the homelessness problem continues with, hopefully, funds being directed appropriately to help people off the streets. Westminster's draft policy appears to aim to achieve the same which imo is no bad thing.

St Mungo's (one of the charities which supports Westminster Council's actions) allows dogs in their hostels. That was one of the reasons I started supporting them.