Soup Kitchens To End?

[Red Rotties]

On the news this morning they were talking about wanting to end soup kitchens for the homeless in London. Their reasonings were that it encourages people to stay on the streets.

 

Now I am sat here with the heating on full, and a fridge full of food. I cant believe that especially at this time of the year its a choice to stay on the streets. I am sure the majority of folk that have found themselves without homes would rather be somewhere warm than on the streets with the only guarentee of something hot coming from a soup kitchen.

 

I have led a sheltered life and maybe I am wrong, but in my heart I think that in this case the others are wrong and to take away the soup kitchens is morally wrong

 

Over to you.......

[collies r best]

On the news this morning they were talking about wanting to end soup kitchens for the homeless in London. Their reasonings were that it encourages people to stay on the streets.

 

Do they seriously believe this I've been homeless before for about 4 weeks and i lived in my car. Nowhere to wash , relax or put the kettle on, no heating and feeling the lowest of the low and i was 'lucky' in a way because i could at least lock my car and have some protection. How can they believe that soup kitchens encourage this??? They need a good hard kick where the sun don't shine

[Rachel Rumpelstiltskin]

What prat came up with that idea!!!

[Red Rotties]

Article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7155783.stm

[ReikiAnge]

I can't get my head around it at all.

 

There's an article on the BBC News site here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7155783.stm

 

The Big Issue founder seems to be supporting the idea from that, but I can't see his logic.

 

My initial thoughts are that Ken has summed it up quite well:

 

"I think this was just another: 'Can we move the poor on from Westminister?'"

 

I would have thought, aside from the actual food the homeless people are being given, the contact with another human being that actually gives a stuff about them, must be something very positive for them.

[murtle]

I can't get my head around it at all.

 

There's an article on the BBC News site here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7155783.stm

 

The Big Issue founder seems to be supporting the idea from that, but I can't see his logic.

 

My initial thoughts are that Ken has summed it up quite well:

I would have thought, aside from the actual food the homeless people are being given, the contact with another human being that actually gives a stuff about them, must be something very positive for them.

[/size]

 

From what I have read, he is saying that the majority of money is spent on a "quick fix" rather then solving the problems. He says if we *had* to feed our dogs on the streets there would be an outcry, yet we are happy to feed people on the streets rather then preventing/fixing the problem of rough sleepers. I can see his point.

 

I think this is Westminster moving them on, but I wish there was more done (able to be done) to help rough sleepers, not have to sleep rough.

 

[Nettie]

I'm sure its Westminster moving them on, can't possibly have homeless on the streets in Westminster, all the tourists visiting, the politicians having to work there - couldn't be done that they get with the real world and see what it is actually happening in our Capital city on the doorstep of Parliament. (Please note this is said with strong sarcasm). So the problem get pushed to next door boroughs like Kensington and Chelsea (not that they don't have homeless too), then they do the same, where do people go? The truth is that we are the 4th richest world economy but we still have homeless living on the street which is totally appalling. There are fabulous projects/charities like St Mungo's and Centrepoint but it really shouldn't be up to charities to tackle the problem.

[greyhound pal]

I can see why some prat thought of this. The reason being I have spent my working life working with people who are homeless and for a long time worked with rough sleepers.

 

To a larger extent, the homeless community is just that - a community. Its a way of life for some people. Its untrue the reports you hear of no benefits for people without an address as is it being untrue that people would never chose to live this way. Everyone (with the exception of illegal immigrants and a few others) can claim benefits and some people do choose to hostel-hop.

 

What the services were set up for is for crisis. For people who are urgently roofless and require assistance after some life crisis. Where the services go wrong is they create a dependancy and a comfort zone where it becomes a sense of 'belonging' and a 'community' where people feel safe. It, in a way, keeps people down there. I am a little uncomfortable with forcing my values on others but with life comes responsibility. You create an environment where people can chose to live a life where they can maintain a lifestyle where responsibility is optional, its wrong.

 

Did you know it is totally possible to live for free on the streets of Edinburgh and have some form of shelter 24/7? That means clothing, entertainment, food and bedspace without once having to pay or take on responsibility. The whole system has made me very bitter.

 

Where services should be focused is in resettlement of people and assisting people to live an independant life but removing the option of being able to 'bow out of it'. However this is not without its problems. The major one being services which are funded for support hours means that if you do sucessfully resettle someone into the community, you lose the funding...

 

Over the years (and I went into this thinking I could make a difference) what I've realised is that while the state/voluntary bodies continues to take responsibility, individuals won't.

 

I have to say I'm coming over as very judgemental here but dont' mean to. I was always very frustrated at not being able to persuade people that the chaotic lifestyle wasn't a good choice. Trying to encourage people to adopt positive lifestyle choices was always very very difficult to do.

 

The reason being that they could either live on the streets within a 'community' where they knew everyone and staff in projects would help them, they didn't need to take responsibility, could claim benefits and beg to top up their 'lifestyle', had no pressures to get a job, little money worries about bills, no one expected anything from them other than the worst, they were unlikely to get well paid jobs given their lack of formal education, heroin habit, mental health issues whatever.

 

The alternative was to take on a council flat in a 'bad' area (given good council housing is rare thanks to the governments right to buy scheme) and live in a sparcely furnished house earning minumum wage, not being part of the community and hopes of stable relationships were unlikely. Lonliness and isolation being the major reason for homeless people being unable to resettle.

 

Its depressing and with the problem getting worse, something needs to give. I think bringing in food vouchers instead of the open soup kitchens may be a way forward. In saying that its a lot more complex than that...

 

I suppose what I'm trying to say is i understand the thought behind it but I'm more clueless due to my working life than anyone else...

Edited December 24, 2007 by greyhound pal

[JoC]

I really don't get the 'if we treated dogs this way there would be outrage' argument. Dogs are rounded up, locked in cages and then killed if there isn't a place for them.

[Happylittlegreensquirrel]

Thanks Greyhound Pal , for your very informative and well written post and have given me a whole new angle to think about

[greyhound pal]

Thanks. Been thinking about this a lot over the past few days. I will have more to add when I can transfer my thoughts into logic.

[Ian]

My initial thoughts are that Ken has summed it up quite well:

 

Ken Livingston talking sense, the world really has gone mad now

 

Whilst I think some "tramps" etc may indeed be happy that way I can't imagine that the majority would stay on the streets just because of a soup kitchen being available. Must be a horrendous lifestyle to lead by most peoples standards.

[greyhound pal]

Whilst I think some "tramps" etc may indeed be happy that way I can't imagine that the majority would stay on the streets just because of a soup kitchen being available. Must be a horrendous lifestyle to lead by most peoples standards.

 

Well for one - what exactly is a "tramp"? That'll be those 'jakey' types that lie around the streets will it? I despise those terms being used. To me they're a sign of ignorance from a stereotypical 'tabloid' outlook and one which winds me up.

 

Why is it a horrendous lifestyle? Because its not like yours? Who exactly is anyone to say that their lifestyle is the way a life should be lived? Who says that everyone should have 'morals' which make them feel superior to others by using offensive terminology?

 

Actually its not 'horrendous' lifestyle at all for some people for all the reasons I mentioned in my long post. 'Normality' would be a horrendous lifestyle. Mostly because its not something some people are ever likely to achieve but also because its not what some people want.

 

Theres also the matter of the hidden homeless. The people physically in the streets are only a tiny percentage of those who are actually homeless.

 

And its not about one simple soup kitchen - its the whole idea of provision of services. The soup kitchen itself is just a tiny part of the services available.

[owl]

I think most people would consider it a "horrendous" lifestyle, not because it isn't like theirs but because it is darned uncomfortable in winter, you can freeze to death, and there is the constant risk of violence from all kinds of people.

 

I have been reading this thread with interest, including the different perspective from greyhound pal.

 

There was a radio discussion on the subject about a month ago, which I only knew about because my sister works for Housing Justice and her colleague was speaking against the Westminster council decision.

 

I can only speak of the homelessness situation in London, where I lived for many years. It's 20 years since I left but as far as I can make out it is certainly no better now and probably worse. It's nothing like what you describe in Edinburgh because of the sheer size of the place and the number of street people. The main grumble from Westminster seems to be litter caused by soup runs, and house prices being affected. As the soup runs are in business areas after offices have closed, it does seem to be an excuse. There is not enough accommodation in London to house even the proportion of people who are willing to come indoors, and you can bet Westminster Council aren't going to provide any. Even if they did, the people who are now objecting to the soup runs would shout even louder about house prices being affected. Personally I would welcome anything which brought property prices down in Westminster as they are obscene.

 

Yes, of course some people choose to live on the street, but more people land there and get stuck. None of the street people I spoke to in London wanted to be there. Most had lost jobs, homes, marriages. Many of the younger ones were kicked out by their families. A surprising number of the older ones were ex-servicemen who had never found a niche in civilian life. A huge proportion had mental health issues. The people who need a helping hand are cautious of walking into a help centre, they are used to being turned away, they feel unwanted and alienated. The soup run is so often the first point of contact, where they can get talking to someone who can point them to other options if they wish to take them.

 

We humans have a tendency to drift into things and get stuck, as the line of least resistance. Bad relationships, unsuitable jobs, lifestyles we don't want. What keeps us there? Mainly unawareness of the choices open to us.

 

Greyhound pal has much more experience of this issue than I do, but what keeps coming back to me is the sadness of all the people I have spoken to who were living rough in London. None of them wanted to be there. Perhaps the people who did want to be there would not have wasted time talking to me, I don't know.

Edited December 29, 2007 by owl

[greyhound pal]

I don't think there really is that much difference between London and Edinburgh other than the size of the issue. I would imagine the stats would be much the same to scale. For example, it used to be that 50% of the people on the streets of Edinburgh were from outwith Scotland. I imagine due to the larger proportion of people coming to Scotland and the provision of Polish interpreters within Homeless services in Edinburgh that has increased dramatically since I worked there. I have to say Edinburghs provision is top class and they have produced some very innovative projects. However there is agreement that this has developed a dependancy and one of the drop-in places I worked has been closed because of this.

 

Although I'm still in the field, I don't work with rough sleepers any more. I had my eyes well and truly opened by some of the things that happened and I do think one day I may write a book about it all What I do know is that you have to throw all your beliefs of what is right and wrong out the window and recognise that the lifestyle is very chaotic and there is little 'sense' to it therefore your own judgements aren't always right. Its very complex. I'm not kidding myself for a second that I do it because I 'care' - I do it because people fascinate me.

 

I worked in a variety of services but the most relevant was the drop in centre which was all inclusive - dealing with the most challenging people who were excluded from other services. We had around 180 people come through the doors each day providing support as well as breakfasts and a range of other things like bus fares to outreach support. Yes people said they wanted out, they wanted to be settled somewhere but reality was different. I can't explain the 'community' aspect - its something you'd need to witness to fully understand although even now I'm not sure I do fully understand it - it seems surreal somehow. But most of all beyond 'normality'.

 

One of my most traumatic experiences was working with a guy for a period of around 4 years in various services. We finally got him housed in a 'bad' area of Edinburgh. Around a month later, he was found dead with a needle hanging out of his arm. I knew him when he first entered the services i.e. before he had a herion habit which made it all the harder for me to deal with. To cut a long story short, his parent were from another part of Scotland and were deeply religious. I had the task of going into his flat and clearing it out. It was in a tower block. When I got there, I found the furniture stacked in one room - he'd had the furniture delivery and not done anything with it. There were literally no personal effects there. No carpets, not even a lightbulb. To this day I am certain that it was suicide. And knowing him the way I did, i think that the isolation and lonliness as well as being stuck in such horrible surroundings was the main factor - he'd got out but to what? I dont' know whether anyone has seen some of the new scaled down hostels but they resemble luxury hotels. To go from that to what? A crappy council flat? I still have a thank you card from him he made me when I first started working with him and that reminds me of the awfulness of the situation. I'd also like to say this is isolated but I can go on forever giving examples of similar cases. This one affected me worse than the others simply because I wasn't detached from the situation as I should have been and had to do things like communicate with the family etc. It was so hard trying to explain to a woman with such beliefs and high moral standards of how her son died and that there was nothing I could return to her from her son's effects.

 

I have seen a lot of young (I mean 16/17 year olds) turn up. One of the main credits within homelessness is trying out different cities - frequently people would disappear for a few moths (you'd assume the worst and thought you hadn't heard about it) then they'd reappear months later having been here there and everywhere. London was something to 'try' because of the potential for earning (sorry!) via begging but Edinburgh was also a magnet for people because of the potential for tourists and the quality of the services.

 

But I do know what you mean (ducking in case Terri jumps on me for this) because Edinburgh used to have a 'tolerance zone' for women involved in the sex industry. I also worked for a period of time on the streets at night providing housing advice to working women. It was in a part of Leith where there were warehouses etc. Then of course came the luxury apartments. The tolerance zone was moved to another part of Leith where eventually luxury apartments were built to. That along side political changes as well as a rather nasty harrassment campaign against the women, the tolerance zone was done away with. What we have now is women who are no longer 'protected' from harm, a sharp increase with assaults against the women, the introduction of pimps (for the first time) in Edinburgh, girls under 16 and a variety of other issues including ASB in the surrounding area. The NIMBY's at work again...

 

I have another fab example involving a murder, a sex industry worker, a prison, hypodermic syringes and two bags of heroin but I'd breach confidentiality as well as probably end up in the NOTW so I'll keep that for me book!