441

Suella Braverman says rough sleeping is ‘lifestyle choice’ (theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The home secretary, Suella Braverman, has described rough sleeping as a “lifestyle choice” while defending her decision to restrict the use of tents by homeless people on the streets of Britain.

According to Whitehall insiders, Braverman plans to crack down on tents that cause a nuisance in urban areas such as high streets – amid growing numbers of rough sleepers and what the government considers a rise in antisocial behaviour.

The home secretary has also proposed the introduction of a civil offence, which could lead to charities being fined if they provide homeless people with tents, the Financial Times reported.

Writing on X, formerly Twitter, Braverman defended her proposals, saying: “The British people are compassionate. We will always support those who are genuinely homeless. But we cannot allow our streets to be taken over by rows of tents occupied by people, many of them from abroad, living on the streets as a lifestyle choice.

“Unless we step in now to stop this, British cities will go the way of places in the US like San Francisco and Los Angeles, where weak policies have led to an explosion of crime, drug-taking, and squalor.

(page 2) 45 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Chozo@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Is "rough sleeping" a UK term, or is that as tone-deaf as it sounds to my American sensibilities?

[-] FarraigePlaisteach@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Sounds insensitive alright and I’m not American.

[-] DizzyG@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I'm Canadian and the phrase "sleeping rough" is definitely in use here. Many homeless people sleep in shelters or cars or someone else's place, if they have the option. "Sleeping rough" is useful for differentiating those who are sleeping in bus shelters, tents, etc. I most frequently hear it used by people advocating for the homeless.

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] ubermeisters@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Do you think maybe the problem isn't regional? Do you think maybe comparing it to the cities in the United States only highlights the fact that this is a societal issue not a regional issue? What the fuck is actually wrong with people.

[-] Nacktmull@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago

c/noahgettheboat

[-] Tattorack@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

"Let them eat cake."

[-] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

I feel like she has her head so far up her ass that she can taste her hair.

[-] stella@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

which could lead to charities being fined if they provide homeless people with tents

Oooweee, can't wait to see that get shot down for first amendment violations.

Oh wait...

[+] ChrisLicht@lemm.ee -6 points 1 year ago

I live in San Francisco. Here, we have a large homeless population that comprises a number of subcategories. One of the major subgroups could be reasonably described as recreationally or perhaps volitionally homeless; they prefer life on the streets and the possibility of moments of fleeting drugged joy, to a grinding, dull, depersonalized life in state-provided shelter. All of them, however, the result of neoliberal and reactionary political, economic, educational, and carceral policies that allowed people to become disconnected and disaffected to the point where they rocked up on SF’s streets for its mild environs, lax legal system, and plentiful meth and fenty.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It sounds like the feds are starting to step things up on the drug enforcement side. I'm curious to see what happens with that.

Also in the bay area and have walked past a number of situating that aren't normalized elsewhere (e.g. People bent over at the waist passed out, people passed out/blissed on the side of a major sidewalk (into embarcadero), etc.)

I like a balance approach to enforcement and ensuring shelter for everyone. A few things, here, aren't working.

All of that said, I'll go into SF any ol' day and have a good, safe time. I'll drive or I'll take Bart. There's a lot of undeserved SF hate. It isn't perfect, but it sure is good to be in.

[-] ChrisLicht@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

There is a feral quality to SF that is starting to remind me of NYC in the late-‘70s and ‘80s.

You can see the establishment of other ways of being that assume zero input or oversight from organized systems. For example, the red-light running is legion and increasing. I regularly pop out for a single errand on my bike and witness three different drivers blowing through solid red lights.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The SFPD decided they want paid, but not to do the usual. So here we are.m and that's why the feds and state police are getting to do the work.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023

441 points (97.4% liked)

World News

39371 readers

2350 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.