By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Braverman wants to criminalise homelessnes. on 22:38 - Nov 4 by Mercian
A few months ago a man who was wrongfully convicted of sexual crimes was released. He has not yet had his compensation and was as of 2 weeks ago living in a tent as he cannot afford rent. Cruella wants to send back to The Scrubs. I guess that will solve his accomadation problem. She is the worst of a very bad bunch which is a very low bar to clear.
I don't call her Cruella. We should simply call her by her real given name, which is Sue-Ellen.
Braverman wants to criminalise homelessnes. on 20:23 - Nov 4 by ChampionsofInnsbruck
To be honest I already thought it was criminalised, I thought it was illegal to have no fixed address and you’d lose right to emergency accommodation, benefits and so on by refusing to be put into the system, I may be wrong but I always thought that was the case.
Accidentally thumbed this up while intending to explain how totally misguided your knowledge is.
Its not illegal to be homeless and not have a fixed adress, just facking difficult.
Perhaps if you know nothing about the help available to vulnerable people, dont share that ignorance?
People without a home, emergency accommodation, or benefits should contact their local citizens advice or seek support via local council/local resource centres. https://england.shelter.org.uk/
3
Braverman wants to criminalise homelessnes. on 12:32 - Nov 5 with 1870 views
Braverman wants to criminalise homelessnes. on 08:26 - Nov 5 by Buhrer
Accidentally thumbed this up while intending to explain how totally misguided your knowledge is.
Its not illegal to be homeless and not have a fixed adress, just facking difficult.
Perhaps if you know nothing about the help available to vulnerable people, dont share that ignorance?
People without a home, emergency accommodation, or benefits should contact their local citizens advice or seek support via local council/local resource centres. https://england.shelter.org.uk/
And in London there are places like the Connection at St Martin in the Field (which I used to volunteer with back in the 1990s) which helps rough sleepers get emergency accommodation and long term help.
Incidentally, my experience with rough sleepers is that they often have addiction and/or psychological problems which aren't solved by criminalising them or "getting them off the streets".
As regards illegality, the Vagrancy Act continues to be used against rough sleepers even though it has been supposedly been repealed because that repeal will not be brought into force until provisions are put in its place. Braverman's proposals regarding tents appear to be the sort of provisions they have in mind but it is really playing to the gallery.
And whilst this may be a touch oversimplistic, I suppose there are three main classes of homeless people: rough sleepers, homeless people (such families with children) whom the local authority has a duty to house or rehouse, and homeless people for whom the local authority has no such duty. Many of the latter end up sharing with family or sofa surfing. And my understanding is that local authorities have difficulties these days even fulfilling their duties in relation to the second category.
[Post edited 5 Nov 2023 12:36]
2
Braverman wants to criminalise homelessnes. on 16:33 - Nov 5 with 1808 views
Braverman wants to criminalise homelessnes. on 12:32 - Nov 5 by DJR
And in London there are places like the Connection at St Martin in the Field (which I used to volunteer with back in the 1990s) which helps rough sleepers get emergency accommodation and long term help.
Incidentally, my experience with rough sleepers is that they often have addiction and/or psychological problems which aren't solved by criminalising them or "getting them off the streets".
As regards illegality, the Vagrancy Act continues to be used against rough sleepers even though it has been supposedly been repealed because that repeal will not be brought into force until provisions are put in its place. Braverman's proposals regarding tents appear to be the sort of provisions they have in mind but it is really playing to the gallery.
And whilst this may be a touch oversimplistic, I suppose there are three main classes of homeless people: rough sleepers, homeless people (such families with children) whom the local authority has a duty to house or rehouse, and homeless people for whom the local authority has no such duty. Many of the latter end up sharing with family or sofa surfing. And my understanding is that local authorities have difficulties these days even fulfilling their duties in relation to the second category.
[Post edited 5 Nov 2023 12:36]
I'm very interested in preventing homelessness. I generally try to see people ss individuals but like any system, there are only so many psthways and outcomes. I think thst despite recent legislative changes in the Homeless Reduction Act brought in, councils effectively see cases as either being owed a duty or at fault/not a priority and not. Then there's the cases where theres no duty but its sensible politics to find them accommodation due to vulnerability that something gets sorted by a participating agency, at least to kick the can along. Theres seperate funding streams for rough sleepers, many of who are complex people, often hurt or unwell, and so they are hard to reach, but who can blame someone for thst? Respect goes both ways.
BSE area rough sleepers or those having a tough time.
Braverman wants to criminalise homelessnes. on 17:47 - Nov 4 by Mullet
The soundbite about Armistice Day being sacred due to the planned protest from Sunak made my blood boil. The rate of homelessness amongst veterans is disproportionately high. They just don't care or take responsibility.
There isn't a cell horrible enough to put this government in. They deserve decades behind bars for what they've done to this country.
The other odd thing about the promotion in recent years of Armistice Day is that it only represents the end of the Great War, which was why Remembrance Sunday took its place to remember the dead of all wars.
When I was growing up, I am not aware of any fuss being made of Armistice Day, which makes recent attempts to give it a somehow sacred status very odd, and particularly makes objection to next week's planned protest a complete nonsense, assuming people are not going to start objecting to marches on days that the many other wars we have been involved in ended.
[Post edited 5 Nov 2023 17:00]
0
Braverman wants to criminalise homelessnes. on 19:20 - Nov 5 with 1721 views
Braverman wants to criminalise homelessnes. on 16:57 - Nov 5 by DJR
The other odd thing about the promotion in recent years of Armistice Day is that it only represents the end of the Great War, which was why Remembrance Sunday took its place to remember the dead of all wars.
When I was growing up, I am not aware of any fuss being made of Armistice Day, which makes recent attempts to give it a somehow sacred status very odd, and particularly makes objection to next week's planned protest a complete nonsense, assuming people are not going to start objecting to marches on days that the many other wars we have been involved in ended.
[Post edited 5 Nov 2023 17:00]
Dowden today had the cheek to say the Palestinian protest organisers didn’t have the moral high ground justifying a protest, unlike Black Lives Matter. Lol. I’m old enough to remember how his government treated BLM protestors. He must think we’re stupid.
It’s the height of disingenuousness to also twist the argument to imply people don’t care about antisemitism. The only conclusion I can draw is that he must be fine with the murder of thousands of innocent children.
Braverman wants to criminalise homelessnes. on 19:20 - Nov 5 by Swansea_Blue
Dowden today had the cheek to say the Palestinian protest organisers didn’t have the moral high ground justifying a protest, unlike Black Lives Matter. Lol. I’m old enough to remember how his government treated BLM protestors. He must think we’re stupid.
It’s the height of disingenuousness to also twist the argument to imply people don’t care about antisemitism. The only conclusion I can draw is that he must be fine with the murder of thousands of innocent children.
It must be difficult for someone with no morals to even recognise the moral high ground.
A party that thinks it’s acceptable to put Suella Braverman in such a senior cabinet position, that put into power the most incompetent PMs in Truss and Boris the country has ever had. Has to taken out of power.
As a nation we need make a statement that these are not the character we expect or deserve.
Vote them out; and ignore the off-shore tax haven media barons demonisation of the left
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
