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.
