Yes, thank you Harringay SNT, but can you please tell us why you needed six police officers in attendence to 'clean' an area? And what was the total number of rough sleepers 'processed'? Can you tell us where the processed people are now and also where are their belongings. Can you provide the means for any of them to contact us directly and put their point of view as a counterpoint to yours? Otherwise all this is camouflage and persiflage.
You don’t believe anyone who was actually there or anyone who has previously worked on homelessness?
The rough sleepers were given notice the day before that they would be visited (so they could be absent when the authorities arrived if they chose to), those there worked with the authorities on what they wanted to dispose of or keep and the area which presumably wasn’t pleasant for *them* was cleaned.
Two of them were still there according to SNT so chose to receive help (and their right to privacy means we shouldn’t know where they are) and the others could easily return as there is no dispersal order, so if and probably when they do, you could go and chat to them yourself. Let us know what you find out, Graham.
Precisely Antoinette. I was homeless and sleeping on the streets around Victoria coach station for almost two weeks when I first arrived in London on 1977. The landlord who had taken a months rent in advance turned me away when I arrived at his door and the job I had secured lasted for one day when I turned up filthy and stinking. After the first 5 days I didn’t fear dying in my sleep, I feared waking up alive. It was dehumanising and knocked me so hard that it took years to get over the terror of it happening to me again. I only escaped it because a kind person told me about a squatter advisory service that gave me help. Most of the men who bedded down around me drank themselves insensible to get through the night. Anyone who thinks that it is a “lifestyle” choice must be thinking of someone living in a forest glade in a yurt, not on a London street.
I never said it was a lifestyle choice. That is your slanted phrasing. I do think it might be the best of a lot of bad options for some people. There is still a guy living in the telephone booth at the end of my road. That would seem to be his best option or else why would he do it. I don't know, maybe he has a limited imagination, but he is ultimately responsible for his own actions. I pass him every day. I don't want to get involved with him. I am responsible for my own actions and i don't think there would be any point of contact between me and someone who sleeps in a telephone box. My bad.
Living in a telephone box is not something done as a best option, it’s something done when there is no option. I think I understand your viewpoint now though. It’s not that sleeping rough is a choice, it’s that we shouldn’t feel the need to help those forced to do so. Is that correct?
" Living in a telephone box is not something done as a best option, it’s something done when there is no option. "
Nicely put Michael,
Graham you would like the Harringay SNT to provide the means for the homeless to contact you while simultaneously not wanting to be involved with any actual homeless people that you pass by.
You believe that homeless street sleepers might actually like sleeping that way while it not being a lifestyle choice.
You don't appear to think someone who sleeps rough such as in a telephone box needs help with their living situation, while simultaneously not being satisfied with efforts made by local services who do provide such help that you didn't consider necessary.
Is that a fair representation of your views so far? Apologies if not and I hope you'll correct anything I got wrong, because I have some follow up questions.