I don't find Ms Pomery's response to be anodyne in the slightest. And I find "the idea of 'authorities' moving them on in the coldest season of the year" speaks of very good common and compassionate sense.
Moving them from one cold place to another? Yes, that makes sense.
Where have they moved them to Graham ?
If the police or the authorities told me then I would know. Have they told you? Have they told anyone? No, they don't have to.
How on earth do you have the first idea of where they have been moved to?
That's rather my point. Nobody is telling us. But read what it says on the tin: they have been 'moved on' not 'relocated'.
That may be true of hostels but the night shelters are a bit different. Homeless people I’ve talked to often want to get into a shelter, which offers food, clean clothes, washing facilities and a camp bed but can’t get in without a referral. The Severe Weather Emergency Protocol trigger is probably precisely why they are being asked to come in now because extra beds in halls can be be provided. The Unite HQ opened a night shelter this week but usually they are in church halls staffed by volunteers. Concerned citizens can donate to their work here:
Another factor in why homeless people don’t come in is having pets. They won’t go to shelters without them and indeed why should they. Donate to Dogs on the Streets to help them. DOTS are extremely hands on and grass roots.
I’m a little surprised people are suggesting something sinister about this initiative. Do you honestly think councillors like Zena or Gina would support “aesthetic” clearing of our streets? I certainly don’t. The needs of homeless people are extremely complex and multi-agency support takes time and patience but it’s better, as John says, than someone freezing to death.
Is it not possible that homeless street-sleepers actually like living that way, and are canny about surviving in the cold? Is it not possible that they don't want to be constrained by efforts to limit their freedom by shuffling them into dormitories and hostels? I heard reports that heirarchies of people within these establishments prey on such vulnerable people. I suspect many councillors, whatever their colour or creed, are similarly constrained by something which has nothing at all to do with charitable intentions.
I’m not aware anyone was forced to go into shelters. As I’ve said elsewhere on this thread, some workers choose to sleep rough and work cash in hand (these “canny” ones of which you speak perhaps?) but I do find the idea that people like living under a bridge a little perplexing, but if they are as street wise as you are suggesting they will no doubt find another spot to camp out.
I don’t understand your last sentence Graham, I have to confess - unless it suggesting they do this for votes, which is a deeply cynical view and not something I think accusing our local councillors of is fair. If that’s not what you mean, I apologise for misinterpreting your rather opaque final statement.
Local councillors don't need to do anything for votes in an election, they need to do things for the far smaller cabal of people attending their selection.
Quite a lot of them patrolling that area yesterday as well. They are presumably in another 'phase' of attempting to evict them.