Homeless to have tents banned

[dubsie]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/04/suella-braverman-says-rough-sleeping-is-lifestyle-choice

No one wants to see people sleeping in tents in cities but what are homeless people meant to do. Given the choice I think I'd choose a tent over a shop door way or a park bench...and I don't think many people choose being homeless ....not a lifestyle choice for most people.

I think this is more the fact that people like this minister can't stand the sight of homeless people, it reminds them that their decisions have consequences

Brilliant news.

We shouldn't use critical terms like "u turn" when a politician does their actual job which includes listening and changing policies that were spectacularly wrong.

I think this government likes floating potential policies just to find out how outraged the protests are pointing out how unfair and ridiculous they are. Its a crap way of doing things, but it's better than making up a terrible policy and then sticking with it because you don't want to be accused of u-turning.

I find Suella so filled with hate it beggars belief.

In some of the Nordic countries where there are no homeless/homelessness is not allowed, they put money and effort into fixing the root problems rather than fixing the asthetics for the well to do population.

Did we fund that abroad too? How about for all the older rough sleepers, who weren't children when SureStart was around?

Just leave the question as to why she hasn't been sacked.
Presumably Sunak is too weak.

No they haven't, numbers have gone from almost nil in 2018 to 46000 in 2022, so they done absolutely nothing, they have also done nothing about settling peoples asylum claims either, isn't it around 175000 awaiting a decision?

The Tories have also done nothing about people who over stay student and work visas either.

You do realise the Tories aren't in a coalition with Labour, they have a healthy majority and don't need Labour support to get through any number of bills 🙄indeed!

I don't recall it being a conservative who referred the Rwanda scheme to ECHR. I also assume most of the "charity" workers coaching the migrants in Calais aren't conservatives. The French police waving the boats off probably aren't conservative, and the French boats escorting the migrants to UK waters probably aren't conservative either.

Oh so now the "opposition benches in the commons" encompasses Lawyers, Judges and bizarrely, the French... & there was me thinking you meant Labour MPs etc

Lawyers operate within the law set down by Parliament and we have signed up to the ECHR, entirely within the gift of the Govt to leave the ECHR or perhaps they might be better off making decisions and policies based on the law, rather than a back of a fag packet?

Its not France's job to police UK borders, we left the EU (a Tory decision to have a referendum and Tory Govt who negotiated our withdrawal) we now have almost zero influence on France or the EU..... ever wondered why numbers went from zero to 46k over the last 4 years?

That still leaves 10s of '000s of visa overstayers... who do you want to blame for not deporting them?

We can't even deport fucking rapists and murderers; what chance do you think we have of putting nice Mrs Visa Overstayer who is lovely and always says "hello" on a plane home? 🙄

...and who is to blame for this sorry state of affairs?

It always comes back to this - the Tories have been in Government for 13.5 years and they have failed on any measure, nothing has improved and every public service has got worse.

Believe me if we had Labour in for so long and the country was just as it is now, i'd be calling them out too.

Again, I'd wager it's probably not conservatives stopping the deportations. It's not like many MPs have their pilot licences to physically get people on a plane, and even when on a plane there are "do gooders" trying to keep criminals here :-(
https://socialistworker.co.uk/news/protests-help-stop-deportations-to-jamaica/

https://cartwrightking.co.uk/articles/immigration/deportation-stopped-after-protest/

https://www.bigissue.com/news/activism/rwanda-deportation-flights-protest-asylum-seekers/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/13/uk-jamaica-deportation-flight-blocked-road-brook-house-gatwick-activists-acquitted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-66756841

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/13/glasgow-residents-surround-and-block-immigration-van-from-leaving-street

I'd wager it's probably not conservatives stopping the deportations.

Who else could it be? The backlog for processing asylum seekers is the biggest it’s ever been. The government could sort that out tomorrow but it would rather try to make political capital from it. They - and you - must think we’re all stupid.

Guess the government has nothing to do with the Courts backlog and full prisons either..

@usernamealreadytaken

Your defence of the Tories is to be admired but you admit they have now allowed mob rule to interfere with the application of the law.

Funny if was to get pissed on a flight and abused an airline employee, i could end up in jail but block a deportation and thats all ok.

Thought they were the party of law n order?

I must say I am impressed you have found a convicted rapist, they are few and far between with the current government because they know what a woman is.

How many of ones senior members can break the law, and one still claim to be the party of law and order?

I rather think the issue of the legality of mob rule is aside from the government - let's face it, when pretty much any of the other parties makes it in to government, mob rule will just be legalised, and encouraged. At least the conservatives pay lip service to law and order.

So by your standards, Islam is not the religion of peace, the police do not enforce law and order, doctors do not save lives, nurses do not care for patients, and the BBC aren't impartial.

At least the conservatives pay lip service to law and order.

They don’t though, do they? It’s a party full of sexual predators and liars. They couldn’t even manage to obey the laws they’d made themselves in 2020.

I live and work in an area with Surestart. Yes it is a great programme- BUT it is targeted at the families below social work involvement. There are still many broken people who are beyond its reach. Basic inverse care principle- those that are most in need don’t access it.

That’s not what the IFS researchers concluded.

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/health-impacts-sure-start

Such a gimmick. They are just trying to claw votes however they can. This is an awful idea in practice. Criminalising and making it easier to persecute already extremely vulnerable people. It's in no way helpful and won't deal with the problem whatsoever. Will just cost a load of money and time. Ridiculous

That would be a hugely useful and relevant study if there was shown to be a correlation between the age of those who are rough-sleeping who fall under the age group where access to SureStart would have been available, being fewer than those before or since. Otherwise, a statement that it has better health outcomes has no bearing on whether those having benefitted from its services were any less likely to become mentally unwell or suffer from addiction badly enough to become homeless. Any figures available?

My personal experience of SureStart was that when I desperately needed support, my children were too old for me to be able to access any services. The wider family services which were available tended to be used by those (like us) who probably didn’t need subsidised holiday activities, but were glad of the opportunities.

I know that report well (in fact I know Sure Start very well!). The health outcomes are in relation to hospital admissions. Nothing about long term mental health.
I do agree that Sure Start plays a part, but the referral criteria are fairly tight (lots of geographical areas not covered), and while the programmes for children are excellent, only a small number of families actually engage with the family support and parenting programme side. And as I and someone else said- those whose children are most at risk of adverse childhood experiences, are the least likely to engage.
Sure starts over arching aim is to close the educational attainment gap and it is relatively light touch on the social care side, and doesn’t even employ social workers.

Basically- yes it is an amazing targeted universal service but it isn’t necessarily picking up the families where children are likely to go on to be street homeless- as those families tend to not engage, or are already with social services/ kids removed.