Wonder if Southwark Council would follow the same route as Westminster and forbid Street Souls , a hands on charity feeding the homeless twice a month..Westminster are saying that the people waiting to be fed are people who are not homeless...yeah I'm sure that twice a month I would wait in the cold to be fed soup and a sandwich had I not had the very human need for food and nowhere to sleep!
I would hope that Southwark wouldn't be as heartless.
The situation in Westminster is that not only would soup runs be banned, but the homeless would not be allowed to sleep rough, or put down bedding - it would be removed. Also sandwich shops would not be allowed to give away their unsold sandwiches, as Pret a Manger and others currently do. They would be required to throw them in the rubbish.
Perhaps some of the "homeless" live in hostels and dare I say any money they can save on food or beg or scam for that day just might make it into the till of the nearest shop selling booze. That's what I see happening on my street right here in Bermondsey. Sad yes, true, yes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't feed the homeless, but there are a lot of other sorts of scammers out there.
I know you are right about the scammers in life..you think tony blair!
Seriously Jerry I know that people do take advantage sometimes of charitys generosity, but if you think your situation is so desperate, no family, no home, having a cider or two helps you forget for a while..:-)
i thought that Westminster was not banning them as such but trying to move them from around Victoria / Westminster areas? couse we don't want tourists coming for "the wedding" to see homeless people on the streets of London so lets move them were they will be hidden away!
Aside from lacking in morality and human decency, what WCC are proposing is extremely dangerous. If this byelaw is approved the touch-paper is lit and expansionism is inevitable. Having started Street Souls as a family project a few years ago, it has now become a major part of my life, these folk on the street are just as important as you and I and frankly many consider me their friend and they mine. http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1125655721#!/event.php?eid=139128712821195
This link will take you to a party we are having in Westminster on March 20th, do try to come and have your say.
In this country before the Reformation, it was considered to be a requirement for all Christians to undertake the seven corporal works of mercy. These were deeds aimed at relieving bodily distress: everyone had a duty to
feed the hungry
give drink to the thirsty
welcome the stranger
clothe the naked
visit the sick
visit the prisoner
bury the dead
Then, after the Reformation and the establishment of the Church of England, many of the old values and moral expectations disappeared so it became necessary to regulate the relief of poverty here by law.
With some refinements, the Tudor poor laws remained in place till the Victorians came up with new legislation which enshrined the concept of the "deserving and the undeserving poor". This remained in place more or less till the establishment of the Welfare State.
The trouble is that the Victorian legislators' idea of the undeserving poor, who choose their own misfortune and should be excluded from "decent" society, still lingers, and keeps surfacing. I'm with Jan in thinking it's both nasty and stupid.