Every so often a story comes along which blows my mind. This is a case in point.
Giving out soup to the homeless in front of a cathedral. One would think that this is the very epitome of the sort of tolerance on which the UK prides itself. And in front of a place of God, too. That seems appropriate doesn’t it? After all, I recall a few words such as “Blessed are the poor in spirit” and “When you give a feast, invite the poor”.
But oh no. Along comes Westminster Council to sweep them all under the carpet:
Soup runs around Westminster Cathedral could be banned in an effort to discourage rough sleeping in the area….A by-law could be in force by October if the Conservative-run council’s plans are backed in a public consultation.
But there’s more. Labour Uncut states:
The proposed new bye-law will make it an offence punishable by a fine to “sleep or lie down”, “deposit materials used as bedding” and to “give out, or permit another to give out, food for free”.
That last bit really gets me. The council propose that it will be an offence to give out food for free. Holy Mackerel! What have we come to? The country of Christian tolerance now getting to the stage of outlawing giving out food for free. As always I try to restrain my language on this blog. I hesitate to say “FFS!” but that is the best expression I can think of, to sum up my horror at this.
I was particularly stunned by these weasel words of explanation from a spokesperson for the council:
About 150 people sleep rough in Westminster on any given night and 98% of those people “have no connection to the borough”, the council said.
and
…soup runs on the streets in Westminster actually encourage people to sleep rough in central London, with all the dangers that entails.
Roughly translated that means: “Not our problem, guv”.
I think I want to be sick.
Rather pulling the rug from under the feet of Westminster Council, David Coombe of Street Souls, which distributes soup in the area, said
TweetThe need is there. We are not seeing the same people all the time, which is a good sign, but there are a few. We set up tables and an orderly line is formed. We take brooms with us, we take bins with us and water to wash down if necessary. We leave the place better than we find it. The plans are incredibly draconian measures they are trying to enforce here. There’s nothing on God’s earth that will stop me doing this.
February 28, 2011 at 4:56 pm
So much for the BIG SOCIETY, eh?
February 28, 2011 at 7:57 pm
Absolutely.
We know that Westminster and other Tory LBs have been lobbying hard for the government to water down the obligations placed upon local authorities to assist the homeless. But this is breathtaking both in its crassness and its meanness.
We are rapidly heading back to the Victorian era. In fact, we’re heading back even further because in the Victorian era private philanthropy wouldn’t have been suppressed by byelaw in this way.
It is hard to find evidence to contradict the view that this government is dedicated to the de-civilisation of British society. They may not be directly responsible for these proposals, but they have created a climate in which a local authority feels that it can, in all seriousness, make such proposals public.
That the LibDems are complicit in this is totally dispiriting.
February 28, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Come off it. You cannot accuse the LibDems of being complicit with Westminster Council.
February 28, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Indeed
March 1, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Perhaps my comment wasn’t sufficiently precise.
I wasn’t accusing the LibDems of being complicit in the actions of Westminster LB. Of course they aren’t. What I meant was that they are complicit in creating an environment in which it is viewed as plausible/acceptable to bring forward this proposal.
The broader proposals for housing policy reform have next to no support outside of CLG and the Tory LBs that have been lobbying for the changes to social rented tenancies, rents and homelessness duties. There is a LibDem minister in the Department. Most people in the field believe the proposals are ill-conceived and counter-productive. It is interesting that a number of LibDem controlled local authorities have already explicitly ruled out using the powers that the Government is looking to create. I would have expected LibDems in Westminster to have contested them vigorously pre-Coalition.
March 1, 2011 at 9:13 pm
But the same proposals were brought forward in 2007 as well – so presumably Labour was also “complicit in creating an environment in which it is viewed as plausible/acceptable to bring forward this proposal. “
March 2, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Very happy to agree with that presumption. As a member of the LDs I’ve no particular sympathy with Labour’s approach on many things. It is to no one’s credit that such proposals emerge, whoever is in power. A key question is whether the proposals get any more traction this time around than they did whenever floated in the past (and of course the debate over whether one should help the indigent or if by doing so you only encourage them has been going on for centuries).
March 2, 2011 at 2:04 pm
If we take a definition of complicity:
“An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such, the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite possibly being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making the individual a de-facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander.”
-I am not sure how the LibDems can be accused of complicity here. We believe in local devolution, so that means that councils sometimes do things we don’t agree with – by definition. There is not a single LibDem councillor on Westminster City Council and LibDems have certainly spoken out about this.
March 2, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Here’s another definition – of “complicit”: “choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, especially with others;”
I don’t think the LibDems have chosen to be involved here at all.
Are you sure you didn’t mean to choose another word?
I repeat that it is part of LibDem beliefs that power should be devolved locally. In essence, that means that you have to be prepared for local councils to do things we don’t like and there is no more likely place for that to happen than in the case of Wesminster City Council.
March 2, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Dear Mr. Coombe and Family,
I am sickened beyond words that such sentiments should come from the House of God.
Can you please give me your address or bank account number, by email and I will send you a small donation by snail mail. Not that bright on computers !!
Every blessing on y ou and yours
Grace.
Please reply in such a way that I can be reassured this is not a scam.
March 2, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Details here:
http://www.coombetrust.org/