NationStates Jolt Archive

So, in a bid to force homeless people to seek help, London is essentially moving on homeless people and then spraying the area they were sleeping in to make it unusable for sleeping.

Michael, 59, has been sleeping in the same office doorway in Fleet Street, in the City of London, for more than two years. He beds down on two pieces of cardboard, and is gone with his bedding and belongings before workers arrive in the morning. "It's safe and clean, and I usually get a good night's sleep", he says.

Last week, Michael was repeatedly woken at 2.30am by the police, accompanied by council street cleaners. "Two policemen asked my name and date of birth and did a check on me, then instructed me to pack up my things and move on," he says. "When I'd done that, the road sweeping operators poured lots of water where I'd been sleeping."

Two opposing points of view...

The Rev Simon Perry, of Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church, says he was "very disappointed" to learn that wetting down had resumed without any consultation and ahead of a meeting in October to discuss the way forward. "It's sub-human, waking people up to force them to accept your help," he insists. "You can't go up to someone who is smoking, pull a cigarette out of their mouth and tell them it's for their own good."

Howard Sinclair, chief executive of Broadway, says: "The whole point is to make it uncomfortable for people to sleep on the streets, to make them confront the fact that it is not doing them any good, and to engage with services."

Does it have results?

Sinclair says , as a result of Operation Poncho, 99 people were helped to get off the streets between April and August, compared with 46 during the same period a year ago. "Some have gone into temporary accommodation, some have returned to their home countries, others have been put into detoxification or rehabilitation programmes," he says.

Though others disagree...

Sarah Johnsen, co-author of the report, The Impact of Enforcement on Street Users in England, says hot washing on its own failed to tackle the problem. "All it did was disperse rough sleepers and this can distance vulnerable people from services," she says. The report concludes enforcement tools can motivate some rough sleepers but only if "carefully integrated with individually tailored and immediately accessible supportive interventions".

However, is there another reason?

Councils are under pressure to meet government targets to have zero people sleeping rough by 2012, and police forces are also under pressure to get rough sleepers off the streets. Superintendent Lorraine Cussen, who oversees the Metropolitan Police's involvement in Operation Poncho, says: "The whole focus of policing now is to respond to what communities want. Businesses and residents in the area are concerned that groups of rough sleepers who are drinking can become violent. The police's role is to facilitate the corporation to clean the street, and for officers to make contact with rough sleepers who need to access services."

I'm always suspicious of this scare tactics, which are often unsubstantiated and mostly a result of homeowners and business not wanting to see homelessness, the Not In My Back Yard people.

For Michael, this means many more disrupted nights' sleep. So will it force him into a hostel? "No," he says. "I just wait for them to leave and put my cardboard back on the floor and go back to sleep."

Is this tactic human?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/sep/24/homelessness.rough.sleepers)

Lots of things of questionable ethics are human. Humans are capable of nasty things.

After dealing with the homeless for so long, I'm a bit fed up. A lot don't seem to want help. Kicking them out of where they sleep is mean, but have you got any better ideas?

Is this tactic human?


Unless the British Empire has been slowly replacing it's upper Echelons with AIs or aliens from Alpha Centauri, it's definitely a human tactic. Is it humane? Depends if you take the short term or long term view, and how much work is being done for either.

And isn't this the Guardian?

Is this tactic human?
So far, humans have proven themselves to be much more violent, traitorous, and harmful to each other than Satan, succubi, vampires and demons, combined.


As such, no. It's not evil enough to be human.

Lots of things of questionable ethics are human. Humans are capable of nasty things.

After dealing with the homeless for so long, I'm a bit fed up. A lot don't seem to want help. Kicking them out of where they sleep is mean, but have you got any better ideas?

I don't want to go through the hassle of thinking of a better idea, I just want to complain.

Well, here's my idea, convert all churches into homeless centres, funded by Lottery money, many are performing this role anyway, and have the right care on hand. I don't mind picking people up and taking them to one such centre.

I haven't thought this through much though.

Unless the British Empire has been slowly replacing it's upper Echelons with AIs or aliens from Alpha Centauri, it's definitely a human tactic. Is it humane? Depends if you take the short term or long term view, and how much work is being done for either.

And isn't this the Guardian?

The link I gave will confirm that.

So far, humans have proven themselves to be much more violent, traitorous, and harmful to each other than Satan, succubi, vampires and demons, combined.


As such, no. It's not evil enough to be human.

Okay, got it, should have written 'humane' :)

I'm not heartless. I recognize that there are people who genuinely cannot help themselves, and they are stuck on the street. The man who got both of his arms and most of the lower half of his face blown off in 'Nam who sits on the corner of High and State, for instance. Or the woman in brown who alternates back and forth between smoking and screaming about how the voices won't stop looking her in the face. There has to be a way to help them that respects their rights.

But, the middle aged black guy who gets mad at me whenever I say I don't have cash (and I honestly don't. I only carry plastic), who, after I received a free hamburger up the street--with a sign advertising the free burgers quite visible to him--demand that I give him money because I have food? Yeah, screw 'em. Hose those twerps down if they're in sufficient control of their faculties and their bodies to behave like that towards me, I have very little pity.

They're homeless people. They've put up with more discomfort than a little water.

If anyone told you sleeping in the streets is comfortable, they lied. I don't know much about the homeless situation in the UK but a little rain or water didn't stop me from having to sleep on the street when I was homeless.

Most of the homeless I have met have either been substance abusers or mentally ill or both. They don't need police chasing them away with water, they need help. They don't want help from people who are acting like assholes either. It's hard enough on your dignity to admit that you don't have a place to shit or shower, someone understanding would go a lot further than someone who disrespects you to the point of waking you in the middle of the night and hosing down your sleeping spot.

Humane? No. Typical? You betcha. Nothing to do with helping homeless people and everything to do with kicking them out of the more visible spots. I wouldn't be surprised if someone freezes to death this winter because they couldn't find anywhere good to sleep that wasn't wetted down.

why are they waking up the homeless before spraying them down. this way not only do you force them to move you also make them a little more clean if you spray first.

I could rant about this, oh well, why not.

Back in the late 80s when I lived in london, there were fucking millions of homeless all over the place. It was like a plague. Now, for a geordie, that's a bit shocking, because we've always had the old emergency housing on the council - shitty though it is - and I wondered what made londoners so fucking stupid that they couldn't get their act together about it. (Because whatever you may feel about the rights and wrongs of the situation, it's worth giving the indigent booze and housing just to keep them off the streets). But, after a while I figured it out:

Basically, the policy of the central government has always been to favour the economic development of the central south east over the regions because the people who run the central government mostly live in the central south east, so promoting economic growth in Barnsley won't do them much good. The downside of this, however, is that there is generally bugger all job creation outside of that area. So this means that people who don't have stable family environments, hit economic disaster, get laid off &c. run away to london to seek their fortune and all that stuff. But that is undesirable to the people who run london, because even though there are many more jobs relatively speaking in london, there is still quite a lot of unemployment/incapacity benefiting going on, so you don't want all and sundry showing up on the doorstep.

So to make it less attractive there is sort of a policy of not really providing emergency housing in order to make the london play a little less attractive to those who might be thinking about it. I.e., don't go to london, because you'll end up on the streets giving blow jobs to MPs, if you are lucky, and if you are a boy &c.

Grimsby on the other hand can have all the emergency housing it needs (and then some), because nobody runs away to grimsby to seek their fortune. And this is why you don't see homeless people in Burnsley on the whole.

Also, if their is an anus to the western world, it has to be london. I'm not surprised they wet homeless people's beds down. That is so fucking in character.

Lots of things of questionable ethics are human. Humans are capable of nasty things.

After dealing with the homeless for so long, I'm a bit fed up. A lot don't seem to want help. Kicking them out of where they sleep is mean, but have you got any better ideas?

That's because you're in SC, where a special breed of homeless make their residence--the kids who don't want to have dinner at grandma's house and would rather "be free" on the streets and get fifteen facial piercings. I hate those fuckers too.

That's because you're in SC, where a special breed of homeless make their residence--the kids who don't want to have dinner at grandma's house and would rather "be free" on the streets and get fifteen facial piercings. I hate those fuckers too.

Yeah, I hate those stupid shits who hang around the bus station. They're really smelly and really annoying and always asking me for change when just about all of them look able bodied, and talking about stupid shit while I wait for the bus.

Most of the homeless I have met have either been substance abusers or mentally ill or both. They don't need police chasing them away with water, they need help. They don't want help from people who are acting like assholes either. It's hard enough on your dignity to admit that you don't have a place to shit or shower, someone understanding would go a lot further than someone who disrespects you to the point of waking you in the middle of the night and hosing down your sleeping spot.

Bolded for emphasis. Being homeless is NOT fun (I am lucky enough to have never been homeless, but I know people who are and have been). The majority of homeless people are drug addicts, mentally ill, or physically unable to work--a sad number of them veterans. Acting as if homelessness is due to "laziness" is like acting as if starvation was a problem of insufficient nutritional information.

Homelessness in the U.S. has skyrocketed since Reagan privatized mental institutions. Many people who are unable to support themselves due to physical or mental disabilities sleep on the streets, instead of in facilities that can help them recover or regulate their lives. Chasing them off with a spray of water isn't going to solve the problem.

why are they waking up the homeless before spraying them down. this way not only do you force them to move you also make them a little more clean if you spray first.

I could have sworn I already had you on ignore, but from the steaming pile of bullshit before me I can see that I was wrong.

Homelessness in the U.S. has skyrocketed since Reagan privatized mental institutions. Many people who are unable to support themselves due to physical or mental disabilities sleep on the streets, instead of in facilities that can help them recover or regulate their lives. Chasing them off with a spray of water isn't going to solve the problem.


Indeed. When my parents were growing up, there wasn't such a big homeless problem.

That seems pretty cruel.

I wouldn't like to be woken up in the middle of the night and have water thrown where I am sleeping.

I doubt the homeless do, either.

Let the homeless be- you can't force people accept help. At least offer it, though.

Most of the homeless I have met have either been substance abusers or mentally ill or both. They don't need police chasing them away with water, they need help.

Bolded for emphasis. Being homeless is NOT fun (I am lucky enough to have never been homeless, but I know people who are and have been). The majority of homeless people are drug addicts, mentally ill, or physically unable to work--a sad number of them veterans. Acting as if homelessness is due to "laziness" is like acting as if starvation was a problem of insufficient nutritional information.

Lets not forget that at least some of the substance abusers began using either in an attempt to self medicate (either for the aforementioned mental illnesses or for pain) or just to deal with life on the street when they wound up there through sheer bad luck.

We need brave volunteers to break into those officers houses in the middle of the night, wake them up, and throw water on their beds.

Must provide own body armor.

We are not liable if the officers shoot you.

So, in a bid to force homeless people to seek help, London is essentially moving on homeless people and then spraying the area they were sleeping in to make it unusable for sleeping.



Two opposing points of view...



Does it have results?



Though others disagree...



However, is there another reason?



I'm always suspicious of this scare tactics, which are often unsubstantiated and mostly a result of homeowners and business not wanting to see homelessness, the Not In My Back Yard people.



Is this tactic human?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/sep/24/homelessness.rough.sleepers)

I've got to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_xDdpT4YwQ

*snip*

Thanks for this, it does often seem as though London is less interested in getting people off the street and more about moving them to some other street.

From the article...

Councils are under pressure to meet government targets to have zero people sleeping rough by 2012

It is one of those intractable problems so I love how they've set a target of zero people on the streets by 2012.

I've sat in meetings like this, where a target is set that bears no semblance to reality, and everyone seems to agree and you're just thinking wtf?

You can try to interject with reason only to be told that it's not the right attitude, of course we'll fail if we're not 100% committed.

Committed to a mental asylum perhaps.

I'd be happy if the state provided housing, food, clothing and libraries for all who needed them. I'd also be happy for the state to provide jobs - ones that can be done by people who want the money. We could scrap the dole and replace it with a proper wage. Therefore, no more people on the dole because everyone is working.
Okay the governemnt could provide the dole for a few weeks for those who are laid off or have some other reason for short term unemployment but otherwise - "If you don't work you don't eat" - No more "surfing scholarships".
I have a work ethic and it would please me if everyone was working.
That way, if someone comes up to you in the street and asks for money, you can say, "Work for it". Sometimes you feel that society would rather have beggars, druggies and homeless people than do something to get them off the streets.
So let's not have "Work for the dole", let's have "Work for all!"

I have a work ethic and it would please me if everyone was working.
That way, if someone comes up to you in the street and asks for money, you can say, "Work for it". Sometimes you feel that society would rather have beggars, druggies and homeless people than do something to get them off the streets.

Whether it's welfare or workfare or whatever other program people think up next, some people aren't going to participate. Nothing's going to get everyone working except maybe work camps and/or debt slavery, and both of those are unworkable in most countries due to nagging concerns about civil rights. Heck, India has debt slavery (well, they've probably outlawed it, but it's still widespread in rural areas) and it has tons of beggars anyway.

Meanwhile, back in the status quo, you're currently perfectly free to say "Work for it" to anyone asking you for money. Beyond that, what do you think their status as a beggar allows you (or the state) to do to them?

Unless the British Empire has been slowly replacing it's upper Echelons with AIs or aliens from Alpha Centauri, it's definitely a human tactic. Is it humane? Depends if you take the short term or long term view, and how much work is being done for either.

And isn't this the Guardian?

They are giant lizards you know.

So these homeless people are trespassing at best? Just let them be, they aren't hurting anyone.

Whether it's welfare or workfare or whatever other program people think up next, some people aren't going to participate. Nothing's going to get everyone working except maybe work camps and/or debt slavery, and both of those are unworkable in most countries due to nagging concerns about civil rights. Heck, India has debt slavery (well, they've probably outlawed it, but it's still widespread in rural areas) and it has tons of beggars anyway.

Meanwhile, back in the status quo, you're currently perfectly free to say "Work for it" to anyone asking you for money. Beyond that, what do you think their status as a beggar allows you (or the state) to do to them?

All your wise thoughts are undeniable trans fatty, but when homeless people are losing their lives out on the streets, getting diseases etc then something should be done. We are living in the affluent west.
There should be guaranteed housing and food as a minimum! There should be support to get people off the substances and it should happen much earlier - intervention when the first danger signs appear at childhood. We could be a more caring society.
Sure, there will always be some winos and druggies but hopefully not so many and at least they would have 3 square meals and a place to sleep that isn't concrete pavement or a park bench.
And as for work - I believe that work gives one dignity. There should be no beggary in a fair society.

There are a lot of people who cannot work for mental or physical reasons. Some are physically disabled, while some are the unfortunates struck with mental illness by chance and perhaps genetics. Some have induced mental problems by making bad decisions and getting addicted to drugs. Often these groups overlap. None of them are really able to work in their current state. For the simply physically disabled, realistically there are many opportunities not available to them, even if they are completely mentally fit. They need help to find jobs that they can do. Most places aren't that eager to employ homeless though, so some assistance is needed. For those with mental problems, whether such issues were trauma induced, developed on their own or drug abuse induced, they need serious mental health care before they're really able to join the workforce.

Some may not want help, out of pride, or out of their own mental issues. What to do about this is anyone's guess.

There are other homeless, far fewer I would suspect, who are able to work. Most of the Santa Cruz brats that I detest so much fall into this category. If they are able to work, they should be looking for a job, not begging me for money.

Yeah! I was in California in November. It's such a beautiful state with so many things going for it - but the bums!!! In San Francisco they have a park called The Panhandle - and sure enough, it was fully of panhandlers. Maybe it's institutionalised in San Francisco. Maybe people come from all over America to be a bum in the Panhandle? Apparently, something like 25% of America's homeless are ex-vets?? I'm not sure where I heard that statistic in the States but if it's true, it's shocking!

It is one of those intractable problems so I love how they've set a target of zero people on the streets by 2012.

I've sat in meetings like this, where a target is set that bears no semblance to reality, and everyone seems to agree and you're just thinking wtf?

You can try to interject with reason only to be told that it's not the right attitude, of course we'll fail if we're not 100% committed.

Committed to a mental asylum perhaps.

See, it's my experience that people sometimes do end up homeless for economic reasons. It does happen. And once they are homeless, after a while, they turn to heavy drug use/alcoholism. Now, I'm not saying that people don't end up homeless because they had a drug problem in the first place either, but sometimes it is the result of homelessness, not the cause.

Part of the trouble is that western countries tend to have large internal economic imbalances, which cause internal migration, and that results in the type of attitude towards social housing that london has. Normally it's sort of okay, but when there is any kind of economic downturn, then those living on the margin, or without strong family support end up living of the streets.

And you can see how it works out. During economically difficult periods you see a lot of homeless suddenly in areas that are normally economic magnets, like New York or London. The same sort of thing doesn't happen in areas that don't traditionally have strong economies, like West Virginia or Gateshead.

If you think about it, that's exactly the opposite of what you'd expect. The reality is that if people really wanted to tackle homelessness, either certain places have to shoulder more social housing, or efforts have to be taken to normalize economic conditions. Take the UK, if Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield and the rest were revitalized, it would relieve enormous migration pressure on the south east.

(I should add that apart from the odd exceptions, I don't buy into the whole 'people are homeless because they want to be' routine.)

Cannot help but feel that this is related to the London Olympics and that they are getting people used to their more unpleasant policies well before it becomes newsworthy. The money spent doing this might be more effectively spent on helping people - this does nothing but move people around.

Eh there are are certainly rumours they used to just polish them off with pure heroin in Exeter, so this maybe better? I dunno. Homeless people do seem to be periodically "purged" from York.

I would have thought most drunk homeless people end up pissing themselves anyway. So why would this bother them?

Anyone who can sleep homeless in fucking London (with it's cold, rain and thugs looking for a bit of fun by beating the shit out of a homeless guy) isn't going to move on just because of a bit of water. They're going to wait half an hour until the cops are gone, and then bed down in the next doorway. Stupid policy.

that's pretty fucked up. you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink... and you shouldn't shove its head in the trough to make it drink either.

plus, what a waste of police time

Yeah! I was in California in November. It's such a beautiful state with so many things going for it - but the bums!!! In San Francisco they have a park called The Panhandle - and sure enough, it was fully of panhandlers. Maybe it's institutionalised in San Francisco. Maybe people come from all over America to be a bum in the Panhandle? Apparently, something like 25% of America's homeless are ex-vets?? I'm not sure where I heard that statistic in the States but if it's true, it's shocking!

San Francisco has the most homeless in America per capita, I believe. It's a combination of factors--the weather's almost always livable, unlike many midwest/east coast big cities where winter can kill. It's also a very "homeless friendly" city--there'd be riots if police tried this tactic in SF.

Last I read, 23% of homeless are veterans, yes. Wiki actually has a great list of statistics here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States#Statistics_and_demographics)

A policy that fails to take account of the fact that London's facilities for helping the street population are stretched way beyond capacity, and that help simply isn't available for everyone who needs it. In fact, du to recent policy changes amongst London shelters in Camden, the situation is actually getting worse, not better, with fewer shelter places available.

But hey, providing services is expensive, forcing people to "move on" (where?) is cheap. God's forbid we might actually try and, you know, take care of our own people...

It is true that London winds up with the fall out of the regions. It also has more resources at it's disposal to be able to cope with that, but given it's poor management of the issue you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

Bolded for emphasis. Being homeless is NOT fun (I am lucky enough to have never been homeless, but I know people who are and have been). The majority of homeless people are drug addicts, mentally ill, or physically unable to work--a sad number of them veterans. Acting as if homelessness is due to "laziness" is like acting as if starvation was a problem of insufficient nutritional information.

Homelessness in the U.S. has skyrocketed since Reagan privatized mental institutions. Many people who are unable to support themselves due to physical or mental disabilities sleep on the streets, instead of in facilities that can help them recover or regulate their lives. Chasing them off with a spray of water isn't going to solve the problem.

"De-institutionalization" was a policy applied in most countries at that time. It wasn't just Reagan with the 'small government' (which wasn't anyway) push going on there.

While I'm no fan of Reagan, I don't think deinstitutionalisation can be dismissed as government being tight with money. Removal of permanent places in mental hospitals, and provision of more care in the community happened steadily through the seventies eighties and nineties, and not just in the States. Institutions (permanent places in mental hospitals) have the critical fault of limiting the patient's options by limiting their awareness of the alternatives.

What was not recognized here in Australia was that supporting the mentally ill in the community costs MORE not less than permanently accommodating them in mental hospitals. The cost is spread around law enforcement, general hospitals, welfare and charity agencies, and the many health services available under Medicare here. Supported accommodation is expensive, as is individual treatment by private psychiatrists ... that's a cost hike right there, without even considering the "collateral" costs of the mentally ill conflicting with the law or getting inappropriate treatment.

As I see it, there is still a role for mental institutions. The problem of people becoming dependent on permanent care is a very real one (rather like welfare dependency) -- it's a waste of human potential in many cases, but in others it is simply the best way for a very damaged person to live with a minimum of suffering. Particularly when you consider that many of those people find an alternative institution -- a jail -- to accomodate them.

And there is a role for community mental health care too. Mental health treatment is far less stigmatized today ... you don't even need to have a seriously debilitating condition, getting psychological or psychiatric treatment is acceptable if there's any chance it will help in your life. That's a very positive trend, though I suppose it could have developed in tandem with rather than as a result of deinstitutionalisation.

And finally, there is a case for 'harm reduction' too. We are not going to build new asylums and lock all the mentally ill out of sight, and in a lot of cases people are not going to accept the community housing or the free treatment either. They're going to be homeless if only because it gives them a sense of choosing their own destiny ... and as long as they aren't carousing late at night or vandalizing someone's property, they should be protected not persecuted when they find a dry spot to sleep.

Cannot help but feel that this is related to the London Olympics and that they are getting people used to their more unpleasant policies well before it becomes newsworthy. The money spent doing this might be more effectively spent on helping people - this does nothing but move people around.

I think you're right!

]Councils are under pressure to meet government targets to have zero people sleeping rough by 2012

2012 ... not just a co-incidence. And every other city which hosted the Olympics did the same thing.

That seems pretty cruel.

I wouldn't like to be woken up in the middle of the night and have water thrown where I am sleeping.

I doubt the homeless do, either.

Let the homeless be- you can't force people accept help. At least offer it, though.

Well this method improves the number of people seeking help. There has been an increase. If this method works it may be better for them in the long run. The early statistics seem to state that it does work

This method on the surface appears cruel. But IF is works (and it appears to) I am in favour of it.

Well this method improves the number of people seeking help. There has been an increase. If this method works it may be better for them in the long run. The early statistics seem to state that it does work

This method on the surface appears cruel. But IF is works (and it appears to) I am in favour of it.

"Seeking help" is quite different from being forced to accept help. In fact, I doubt it can even be fairly called "help" if it's forced on someone; that really undermines the presumption that treatment or accommodation is for their own good.

And just how many people do you think should be woken up, and their dry spot spoiled so they can't go back ... to cause an increase from 46 to 99 people (in five months) "seeking help" ?

And does it matter if they follow through on that? It would be foolish in the extreme to assume that simply because they applied, they received any assistance ... or that it had a long-term good result (like renting a house of their own.)

This method IS cruel. You can't justify a bad act by good consequences ... at least, not without considering quantities of good and bad done.

Instead of spending money on that, why not just put it in to more homeless shelters?

Instead of spending money on that, why not just put it in to more homeless shelters?

It's simple. The government employs just so many police, prosecutors etc. Then a decision like this sets the priorities of what they will do with their working hours. They could investigate or prevent crime ... or they could "help" some bums.

More money for shelters and street services is of course a good idea. But taking that money out of the police budget or the city sanitation budget would be political suicide!

It's simple. The government employs just so many police, prosecutors etc. Then a decision like this sets the priorities of what they will do with their working hours. They could investigate or prevent crime ... or they could "help" some bums.

More money for shelters and street services is of course a good idea. But taking that money out of the police budget or the city sanitation budget would be political suicide!

True that.

Yeah! I was in California in November. It's such a beautiful state with so many things going for it - but the bums!!! In San Francisco they have a park called The Panhandle - and sure enough, it was fully of panhandlers. Maybe it's institutionalised in San Francisco. Maybe people come from all over America to be a bum in the Panhandle? Apparently, something like 25% of America's homeless are ex-vets?? I'm not sure where I heard that statistic in the States but if it's true, it's shocking!

The "panhandle" refers to the narrow portion of Golden Gate Park that sticks out beyond the rest. It is not its own park, merely part of a larger one.

Is this tactic human?
Very human I'm afraid. But not humane at all. You don't see homeless folks breaking into these shiteating bastards' houses and spraying their mattresses with hoses, do you? Perhaps they should. Perhaps they should.

Basically, the policy of the central government has always been to favour the economic development of the central south east over the regions because the people who run the central government mostly live in the central south east, so promoting economic growth in Barnsley won't do them much good.

Nonsense. Think how much money you'd have to spend and get international business to send their top people to Barnsley. London has always been the biggest and best city in the UK and it's simply a snowball affect.

The downside of this, however, is that there is generally bugger all job creation outside of that area. So this means that people who don't have stable family environments, hit economic disaster, get laid off &c. run away to london to seek their fortune and all that stuff. But that is undesirable to the people who run london, because even though there are many more jobs relatively speaking in london, there is still quite a lot of unemployment/incapacity benefiting going on, so you don't want all and sundry showing up on the doorstep.

So to make it less attractive there is sort of a policy of not really providing emergency housing in order to make the london play a little less attractive to those who might be thinking about it. I.e., don't go to london, because you'll end up on the streets giving blow jobs to MPs, if you are lucky, and if you are a boy &c.

Yeah, I reckon it'd be a great use of Westminster council's budget to start competing with Roman Abramovich for real estate that doesn't come much dearer. There'll be bankers sleeping rough to get access to that kind of shelter.

Grimsby on the other hand can have all the emergency housing it needs (and then some), because nobody runs away to grimsby to seek their fortune. And this is why you don't see homeless people in Burnsley on the whole.

Whereas everybody knows that Bath is the economic powerhouse of the, er, Bath region and therefore homeless people there are in perfect harmony with your logic. Phew.

Where I live there are many options for the homeless. A lot of religious organizations offer shelter, food, and rehabilitation services.

oh thats just wrong i say offer them hel and if they refuse who gives a flying fuck, unless of course there doing somthing to disturb the peace or illegal but other than that i say let lying hobos lie

I could rant about this, oh well, why not.

Back in the late 80s when I lived in london, there were fucking millions of homeless all over the place. It was like a plague. Now, for a geordie, that's a bit shocking, because we've always had the old emergency housing on the council - shitty though it is - and I wondered what made londoners so fucking stupid that they couldn't get their act together about it. (Because whatever you may feel about the rights and wrongs of the situation, it's worth giving the indigent booze and housing just to keep them off the streets). But, after a while I figured it out:

Basically, the policy of the central government has always been to favour the economic development of the central south east over the regions because the people who run the central government mostly live in the central south east, so promoting economic growth in Barnsley won't do them much good. The downside of this, however, is that there is generally bugger all job creation outside of that area. So this means that people who don't have stable family environments, hit economic disaster, get laid off &c. run away to london to seek their fortune and all that stuff. But that is undesirable to the people who run london, because even though there are many more jobs relatively speaking in london, there is still quite a lot of unemployment/incapacity benefiting going on, so you don't want all and sundry showing up on the doorstep.

So to make it less attractive there is sort of a policy of not really providing emergency housing in order to make the london play a little less attractive to those who might be thinking about it. I.e., don't go to london, because you'll end up on the streets giving blow jobs to MPs, if you are lucky, and if you are a boy &c.

Grimsby on the other hand can have all the emergency housing it needs (and then some), because nobody runs away to grimsby to seek their fortune. And this is why you don't see homeless people in Burnsley on the whole.

Also, if their is an anus to the western world, it has to be london. I'm not surprised they wet homeless people's beds down. That is so fucking in character.

:hail:

I used to live in Benwell though...:p

You are right though in many ways...that London and surrounds get all the goodies and the regions fuck all.

You remember the HATS yes? All that end to financing social housing stuff? well all that money is still there...billions in fact.

Its not a question of providing the support needed for the homeless but a unwillingness to really deal with it. With reason. What else spurns people one to be productive? Fear. The pols need the population to work like mad...this is one of the 'incentives'.