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

Very probably , well they are hardly likely to be voting Tory are they !

I struggle to think of a word to accurately describe Braverman and he ideas

It usually comes down to substance abuse though (people sleeping in tents or on the streets begging).

We have our own equivalents - from your username you might be familiar with the spice-heads in Piccadilly Gardens?

That's awful and that should certainly be banned. Everyone being released from prison should be released into adequate housing. Obviously some people's lives are too chaotic to maintain that and they may subsequently spiral into rough sleeping but rough sleeping should never be the actual plan endorsed by the authorities. But such a ban is against the authorities, not against the rough-sleeping victim.

She's just a standard right wing blowhard. Angry about everything, zero compassion, but has fuck all to offer in the way of solutions or prevention to problems.

Give her her show on GB News and a Daily Mail column and be done with it.

It is really depressing that posts like @Newstaronthehorizon ’s are likely to be dismissed as ‘heartless’ by people who have a really rose tinted view of homelessness and the issues that lead to rough sleeping in the UK.

Sleeping in tents and doorways is the visible tip of an iceberg of really complex social problems - and there is an element of choice involved in it. There are people who prefer the ‘freedom’ of the streets than having to conform to the rules and expectations required to be housed anywhere. Or who are simply so dysfunctional that they cannot conform to any kind of reasonable expectations of behaviour.

Pretending otherwise does not help anyone.

Homes are only charged double (in some council tax areas) if the person filling in the form declares them to be empty. Why would you do that if it meant paying double?

That woman is a raging evil cunt.

My Dad split with his partner and the only housing he could afford was being a lodger.

He then became sick and was in hospital for several months, by which point the LL had packed up his stuff and text me to say it was left on the front porch.

By time of discharge he was homeless and the hospitals procedure was to wheel him in a wheelchair (he couldnt walk) to the front of a hospital and put him in a taxi to take him to the local council office to declare homelessness.

As a single male, we were told there was absolutely no obligation to house him.

If it wasnt for us fighting EVERY.SINGLE.STEP of the way, Dad would have been left on the street as he couldnt even walk into the council office.

The first housing we fought for was a hostel where the hospital transport literally carried him to a bed and left him there with a bag full of medicine with no instructions. The toilet was on another floor and there was literal shit in the corridors. It was mainly single women and babies in the hostel. Again, if we were not there, he would have died on that bed.

If he didnt have his children fighting for him every step of the way, he would be left on the street. They do NOT have to help you unless you can prove you are at risk from sleeping on the street, and even then, as per my Dad, i still call BS on that.

All it takes is one job loss, no savings, no supporting family and you are fucked. The benefit system is not set up to help you.

The government are working on that, by breaking up the NHS.

Just addressing the point about building houses - I don’t for a minute assume that the housing needed will all be social housing, but whether it’s social, private rent or purchase, it still needs to exist, ie be built. You cannot have over half a million people arrive very year (that’s the net figure, not gross) and assume they will just magic a home out of nowhere - it has to be built.

Many of the homeless are teens that the government have brought up and then literally dump on the wayside

the fact childcare home companies are making £300 m profit doesn’t seem to register as wrong

Various sources, such as this https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/migrationandthelabourmarketenglandandwales/census2021,

but this one handily brings the figures together.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-labour-market-an-overview/

In order to be a net contributor in the UK you need to earn over about £40k; there are already too many net-recipients in the UK, and bringing more and more every year is unsustainable.

My DS had a spell of sofa surfing, us( we had downsized council property, so didn't have a spare room), friends, and rough sleeping. Housing wouldn't help beyond giving him charity details to get a sleeping bag and tent! When his present elderly landlord passes away, he is likely to end up in the same position due to a lack of suitable rental without guarantors.
Young males, even if working, are the bottom of the housing priority. Separated NRP can end up not seeing their kids due to not having secured housing, particularly on low wages.

Same LA housed a girl because her family 'threw her out', she got a flat, her family threw a housewarming party. 🤔 ( I worked with her and was invited. She was open about manipulation of the system)

They can try to hide the problem of homelessness, but ultimately, until problems are dealt with its going to get worse.
Astronomical rents are forcing more people down that route.
it's a position that privileged political figures will not get until they are forced into it themselves.

Why is the answer to this taking a tent away?

We also didn’t have 200k+ people arriving every year needing housing and often financial support too. Resources are spread more thinly because they have to go further - don’t tell me, just tax the rich more?

Oh, I don't know, maybe they could look at the massive reduction in rough sleepers achieved by the last Labour governments?

Spoken like a true socialist - I want someone else to do it and pay for it.

Those of us who actually want to make a difference, do.

There are a few homeless people for whom homelessness has become an identity they embrace, if that's the same as 'lifestyle choice'. Research by Sheffield University established this. Not sure they all live in tents. This is a tiny tiny proportion of homeless people.

Why is your answer just letting them sleep in a tent?

Moving people to shelters and support services is definitely better than imaging the tent is solving anything at all.

They’re talking about this on the radio currently. 44% of the rough sleepers in London are from abroad - they either had homes and chose to come here, or they didn’t but came here expecting us to house them - how is either due to collapse in our society? Do we have a duty to house the world, just because they come here?

Far from being an armchair lefties who does nothing, I actively support 2 local homeless charities.

One runs a drop in centre that serves hot meaks and helps find support for addiction problems. The other helps people who are ready back into normal life.

44% of rough sleepers in the UK are from abroad - helping them to go home would reduce numbers dramatically. If they are legal immigrants or refugees then they have the same rights to work as anyone else, and can do so.

I didn't say that was my answer at all. I said simply removing a tent also is not the answer.

Those people should have been able to access support long before. Shelters are not everywhere and are not any more permanent a solution.

Do we really think taking a tent away will stop them rough sleeping? Really?

No. It’s not a permanent solution. But it is far better than pretending that letting tent villages grow up is useful.

I certainly don’t agree that rough sleepers should be fined or prosecuted or whatever braverman imagines will work.

But a zero tolerance to rough sleeping approach is not inherently an inhumane option. Just accepting sleeping in tents may be the least humane approach of all.

If someone is there to take the tent away, they are also able to take the person somewhere indoors. That might not be a long term answer, but it’s the thing that can happen immediately.

Of course, no one can make people engage with services. But being clear that sleeping in a tent in public space is not a housing option is reasonable.