BBC On the Streets

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vtwp1/On_the_Streets/

Click above and you'll go to the BBC Iplayer page for a documentary called On the Streets, about London homeless people. It's extremely good - it just lets the people tell their stories and follows them in their day to day. It's so interesting seeing the kind of comradery some of them have developed, and all the individual personalities and ways of coping, from alcohol to quantum mechanics...

There are so many stories in this, it would take me an age to write it out, so just watch!

Soup runs: a poisoned broth?

In today's Evening Standard, the free newspaper in London, there's an article called "Do soup runs harm rough sleepers?"


[click here to read it]


It asks whether soup kitchens are actually creating more problems than they solve. The councillors of Westminster want to outlaw soup runs, because they say it attracts homeless people to the area.

[click here to read about Westminster council's homelessness strategy]


Apparently, Westminster Council proposed banning soup runs across the whole of London in 2007 but were unsuccessful.

That argument in itself is fairly disgusting; perhaps rather than pushing the problem into another borough, they could work out why the people are homeless in the first place (there are roughly 1600 rough sleepers in Westminster per annum). Other newspapers are choosing this angle, pointing out that Westminster is one of the richest council's in the country, behaving as a reverse Robin Hood.

But interestingly, the prestigious St Mungo's (which itself began as a soup run in 1969) and Thames Reach, both London homelessness charities, are also backing this new ban. They say 'food handouts serve to keep people on the streets longer'.

Thames Reach has an article from 2007 on its site, written by their Chief Executive Jeremy Swain called "The Problem with Soup Runs". (click here to read it)

Jeremy's basic argument is that services aimed at rough sleepers ought to be more comprehensive than a basic handout of food: that they out to be brought indoors, where advice on accomodation and work etc can be properly given. This is clearly an ideal to be aimed for.

But the banning of soup runs goes against a gut instinct of those of us with a Home Address. It is a visible sign of charity; a mealtime easing of hardship and of the conscience of those of us with a fridge full of food at a place we call 'home'. This quandary is much like the International Aid question: a lot of aid clearly contributes to corruption, with figures proving this, and continued lack of improvement in countries where huge sums are flooding in. But does that mean we can comfortably turn the other cheek?

For me, the answer is this: we can't turn the other cheek, but we can coordinate and clarify our actions and aims. Very few people, except severely mentally ill cases, actually want to sleep rough (especially through the winter). With that as a basic premise, one can assume that soup runs alleviate some immediate discomfort, but with that soup needs to come a menu for escape from the streets.

Where the streets are paved with gold...

Today the free newspaper in London, the Evening Standard, has a central article about some homeless men in Ealing, who spend their nights in bin stores in order to have some shelter from our freezing winter temperatures.

Here's the link:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23914819-london-2011-homeless-men-forced-to-sleep-in-bins.do

People "sleeping in bins" is undoubtedly shocking in 21st Century London (and a great eye-grabber for headline writers) but what is more interesting in this story is the focus on immigrant status.

The men profiled by this article are largely Indian. The charity profiled is aimed at helping Sikhs (though they are clear that they do not do so exclusively). The stories told to us are those of immigrants, with or without visas, who've come to London, England because they believed our streets were 'paved with gold', and they thought they could make enough money to survive here whilst also sending some back to their families.

For me, the interesting question is not personal to these men, as unfortunate as their current situation is. It's the fact that this narrative is an endlessly repeating one; that they might make their fortune here near Big Ben. I've spoken to several homeless men who thought that, only to be rudely awakened upon arrival. They often don't realise that yes, you can get ahead in a cosmopolitan, vibrant city like London, but not if you turn up with nothing. Sleeping with the rats is one pay-check away for these people, if they manage to get that in the first place.

The most important question of all is this: What is going on in the world that men leave their wives and children, their parents, their language, their climate... and travel, often in dangerous conditions, halfway around the world, because they believe life is so much better here?

We have a globalised world, and a globalised problem. The only truly ethical way to stop these men ending up homeless on our streets is to rectify the disparity between their hometown and ours. Our streets ARE paved with gold to them, compared with where they're coming from; the irony is that even once they've made it here, society still won't let them get hold of any.